[CHAP. XXVIII.

that is, that the people were in favor of the Union, but not in favor of a Union that could be coerced?

I do not know how it would have been in the vote of February if that had been the leading question, nor do I know for certainty how it was in the State of Virginia; but I think there has always been a better state of feeling for the Union in Tennessee than in Virginia. I do not of course include Western Virginia.

Question. How is it possible to pursue a conciliatory policy, such as you speak of, toward a population who volunteered to the number of 50,000, say, in opposition to its Government, representing thereby the entire population of the State?

I would not pursue a conciliatory policy toward the 55,000 then in arms. I should subdue them if I could; but for the quiet people at home who have not volunteered or joined the army in any form, who are remaining peaceable and quiet in the face of the armies of the United States, I would extend to them kindness. That would be my judgment of the course to pursue toward all men and women under all circumstances where I wished to win their affections.

Question. Why do you make a distinction between the man who carries the arms and the man who furnishes the arms and the sustenance for him?

It is very rarely to be found in the history of any wars that I have read of that was has been made upon peaceable citizens, men and women, who have no arms in their hands, but the business is to fight the men that have arms; this, it seems to me, makes the distinction itself. In the presence of the armies of the United States in the rebel territory I see no chance for furnishing arms or anything else to the men in rebellion and in the field. I should certainly make a wide distinction between those two classes of persons. I would go even further, and say if I could I would induce these men to lay down their arms and come back to the Union. I would do it, but I see no hope for that course.

Question. Does this distinction that you speak of obtain in rebellion?

I think it ought to, when the object is to restore the greatest portion of the country to its loyalty. I know of no instance to the contrary where a distinction has not existed; at least I remember none such now.

Question. In what way do you think the Government of the United States lost the affection of this people now in rebellion?

I think, sir, it has been produced very largely by the discussion of partisan politicians and partisan newspapers in both sections of the country, in which falsehoods and misrepresentations have been stated as truth.

Question. Do you not know, Mr. Huston, that the deadly animosity of that entire population is almost without a parallel in the history of wars?

With a large majority of the people of the South there is that hostility; but I think if the armies of the United were t be successful it could be overcome by judicious treatment.

Question. You rely, then, upon the strong arm of the Government really and not upon the conciliatory policy which has been spoken of?

I should rely mainly upon that; without that there is nothing to be done. Conciliation I should adopt with a view of overcoming the prejudices and winning the affections of the people after the other work is done and while it is being done.

Question. Until, then, our armies are successful, permanently so, is not all the effort of a conciliatory character taken as an evidence of weakness by the people of the South and laughed at accordingly?

General BUELL. I object to the question, inasmuch as it applies to the present time, when the disposition of the people toward the General Government may have changed and their opinion of its power changed from what it was when I inaugurated my policy. It may answer the