[Page 1original unpaginated]
Genl H. J. Hunt
St Louis March 26/86
My dear General
I had Yours of 21st mailed at Columbia on
22nd reached
me on 24th and today I have yours of 24th written from Washington. You
are, indeed, beset with trouble. Lawyers have a ruleat any rate they
Know a rulewhich declares unasked advice to be a great indiscretion
and I am running flatly against this rule when I ask whether it might not
be better that your Son, when he sets off for the North, should go by sea? Of
the difficulty of getting on board, and of the greater Coolness and dampness of Sea
air, I am ignorant. I only Consider(?) the Comparative freedom from roughnesses
such as are incident to land travel. Very probably I am talking nonsense.
Difficulty of
I confess I do not like the plan of travelling by day only. The stoppingtheÙ ob-
at night on the way
taining of comfortable quartersÙ
the great delay, and as it seems to me, the
increased fatigueall require to be taken into account. It now seems to
me that I did not at all appreciate the degree of exhaustion of your Son(a).
[(a) is written in the left margin of the page at 90° to the main text and reads:]
(a) I mean that I had no idea that his disease had made such progress before he left home
After considering all that you say expecting the advantage to him of be-
ing at Your house, I remain fearful of a premature return. I have often
known very bad results from it. Since the 15 March we have had all
varieties of weather here. Until the 20th it was unusually mild. On the
22nd it was cold and snowyIt is growing milder nowbut until the
15 April, tho we maybe incommoded for several days by heat ,
we are constantly liable to a return of harsh weatherand this lia-
bility does not really cease until a month later, tho some of the
most oppressive weather I have ever felt has come in Aprilnot
so absolutely torrid of course as in July and August, but distressing
by its unseasonablenesssomething like the first days of October
1884which, if you chance to remember them, were peculiarly hot
and disabling. The worst of what the objections to
his remaining in
South Carolina seems to be the poor food obtainable there. This is
set off
Really unpardonable and will constitute a serious drawback
to the
Ù
milder air of that region. I have always a great disinclination
when unwell, to leave homebut I have set down much of that feeling
to the account of indolenceIf your son can carry out the first advice
of his doctor--"to come home with the strawberries- and not come home to
renew acquaintance with the lingering frosts, it would seem to me
betterBut no one can, under such circumstances be confident that
[Page 2]
any line of conduct will prove judiciousthat is, that it will escape
untoward accompaniments. They may not be consequencesthey
may be inevitablebut we are always prone to think that some
other course of action might have been better. Now, it would
for your son
look as if it was unwiseÙ to have left home at all. But who can
be sure that the feeling(?), if he had remained at home, would not have
been that a step promising much benefit, had been neglected?
--It is vain to regret that we were not able to foresee the future.
--I imagine you will return to Columbia before your son leaves it,
and, in the nature of things you can only do what seems best and
safest, by the light of the hour.
I expect to hear from you again soon.
--I Cannot Conceal my regret that the view you take of 1st, 2nd & 3rd July 63
is so different from that of Swinton & Warren. You will consider me
strongly brassed(?) against Howard. So I amand I am also strongly favorable
to Hancock. I need not enter into any discussion with Youindeed I am
wholly unfit for anything of the kind. You were on the ground, and moreover
have had access to all the sources of second hand knowledgehistorical informa
oral
tion thatto say whether derived from the Ù reports of those who were there with
You, or the official reports of the Commanders on either side.
There are growing objections to the grant of pensions and any
thing like pensions to Officers. One would have supposed that Mrs Hancock
had eminent claims for a larger pension than was given to the widow of Genl
Thomas or Admiral Farragut: ??? one member remarked that it was the
last of that amount likely to pass Congress. I hope that similar
narrowness will not obstruct the passage of Your bill. My main objection
to the general pension laws is the frightful temptation they give to
the practice of fraud. Men who are not entitled to pensions under the law
This objection does not ? to those who are by special acts placed on the rolls
are placed on the rolls by false swearing.Ù I have read the report of the de-
bate on your bill, on 19th inst. I can only repeat my good wishes.
When you hear from your brother, remember that I am one of those
Much interested in his welfare. I sympathise with him most heartily.
Yours always Thos T Gantt