well-meaning men to see peace restored to the country. Neither of the late contending sides wishes to see inaugurated a predatory warfare. You are aware of the fact that many thousand Confederate soldiers whose homes are remote from the place or surrender are now in the country. I submit the following facts: First, these men are without money that can, in the present state of affairs, be employed as currency; second, all Confederate commissaries east of the Mississippi River have been surrendered, together with their supplies; third, the people in this section have been devastated by armies, and the heaviest levies for supplied have been impose by each army in turn; fourth, a sordid and mean selfishnness will pervade the feelings and actions of a great many, and the third fact mentioned will be used as an apology. Now, I submit if it not probable that men, who have fought for four years in a hopeless cause, when surrounded by such circumstances and denied by the Federal authorities the privilege of returning to their homes and transportation to enable them reach them, will not league themselves together and determine by force to sustain themselves. Now, as corollaries to the foregoing I append: First. If a real peace, one which will enable peaceful avocations to be resume and large armies to be disbanded, is the actual desire of the U. S. authorities, is it not a trivial matter, compared with the public good to ensue, to give these men transportation to their homes? By this means you prevent them from herding and organizing. Soon the United States proposes to muster out large forces. Among them are many restless, lawless characters who will strike hands with Confederate outlaw, and in large, roving bands of highwaymen desolate what remains of Southern prosperity and employ to a considerable extent the energies of the U. S. War Department. Around a nucleus large organizations may be gathered. To prevent an inauguration from necessity of guerrilla warfare every facility be afforded Confederate soldiers to return to their homes. Second. I do not consider it good policy to require paroled prisoners to take the oath in order to receive transportation for the following reasons; First. The oath at present is taken from necessity and a morbit desire under all the circumstances to return to their homes. As such it appears to have the semblance of an oath given under duress. Second. The parole itself is an oath, and the furlough provides that the bearer is permitted to return to his home subject to proper respect of constituted authority in that locality. Third. Numbers of these men will refuse to take the oath at present, though denied transportation or any other privilege.

For four weary years, through unparalleled sufferings, they have followed the fortunes of the Confederate flag. With many of them their career as soldiers has been one of pride. As yet the Confederate States have not been announced defunct. If they take the oath now they will be branded by their comrades as deserters and wear that badge of shame down to an ignominious grave. They already stand impeached by the United States as traitors. Is any strategy to be employed to necessitate linkig with that disrepute the crime of desertion? Do you suppose that good citizenship can be founded and built up upon a character wretched [wrecked?] by such bitter humilation? I have no doubt but that when the events of a few weeks transpire all good men will feel it a high duty to resume allegiance to the United States. For the present I think good policy dictates that paroled men be allowed to return to their homes upon furloughs and that, in view of the fact of a general surrender of all forces east of the Mississippi, they be furnished with transportation. I trust, general, that you know