It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the duties of the War Department without any reference to the President and without using his name.

My order to you had only reference to orders “assumed to be issued by the direction of the President.”  It would appear from Mr. Stanton’s letter that you have received no such orders from him.  However, in your note to the President of the 30th ultimo,[42] in which you acknowledge the receipt of the written order of the 29th,[43] you say that you have been informed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any order limiting his authority to issue orders to the Army, according to the practice of the Department, and state that “while this authority to the War Department is not countermanded it will be satisfactory evidence to me that any orders issued from the War Department by direction of the President are authorized by the Executive.”

The President issues an order to you to obey no order from the War Department purporting to be made “by the direction of the President” until you have referred it to him for his approval.  You reply that you have received the President’s order and will not obey it, but will obey an order purporting to be given by his direction if it comes from the War Department.  You will not obey the direct order of the President, but will obey his indirect order.  If, as you say, there has been a practice in the War Department to issue orders in the name of the President without his direction, does not the precise order you have requested and have received change the practice as to the General of the Army?  Could not the President countermand any such order issued to you from the War Department?  If you should receive an order from that Department, issued in the name of the President, to do a special act, and an order directly from the President himself not to do the act, is there a doubt which you are to obey?  You answer the question when you say to the President, in your letter of the 3d instant,[44] the Secretary of War is “my superior and your subordinate,” and yet you refuse obedience to the superior out of a deference to the subordinate.

Without further comment upon the insubordinate attitude which you have assumed, I am at a loss to know how you can relieve yourself from obedience to the orders of the President, who is made by the Constitution the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and is therefore the official superior as well of the General of the Army as of the Secretary of War.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 35:  See pp. 618-620.]

[Footnote 36:  See pp. 615-618.]

[Footnote 37:  See pp. 613-615.]

[Footnote 38:  See pp. 613-615.]

[Footnote 39:  See pp. 618-620.]

[Footnote 40:  See p. 613.]

[Footnote 41:  See p. 615.]

[Footnote 42:  See pp. 612-613.]

[Footnote 43:  See p. 615.]