policy I recommended to General Mitchell. I wish my ideas of what is a conciliatory policy to be understood by the court.

General BUELL. That is my object in asking the question.

The WITNESS. To question implies exactly what I did exactly what I did not mean.

On the expression of the wish by Judge Lane to correct his answer and make himself more fully understood General Shoepf withdraws his objection.

General BUELL. The policy which you now think wisest I understood to be one which discriminated in a marked degree between persons who are loyal and those who are disloyal in their sentiments, and this I understand you to put in contrast or opposition to the conciliatory policy. Please be precise and state exactly what you mean by a conciliatory policy.

This is the understanding that General Mitchell and myself came to: That it would be a sound and good policy to be as kind to the people generally, both secessionists and Union men, as was consistent with his duty as a United States officer, and that there should be no discrimination made between Unionists and disunionists. That was the policy which I wished General Mitchell to adopt. The conciliatory policy was that all should be treated alike. the policy that I would now recommend would be that he should discriminate in favor of the Union Men, and that his contributions should have been levied entirely upon the disunionists. By this course the Union men would have felt themselves protected by the Government of the United States, while the secessionists would have felt the burden of the war falling entirely upon themselves.

Question. Was it a feature of this conciliatory policy that disloyal men should he allowed to talk and act disloyally?

No; I intended that the conciliation should be on the part of General Mitchell; that the kindness should proceed from him as a United States officer, not expecting or intending that he would submit either to rebellious or seditious language, acts, or conduct from the disunionists.

Question. By a more rigorous policy do you mean that it would be wise for an army marching into a district of country to proceed at once to levy contributions, to take possession of their property, and treat them with severity and harshness personally merely on account of their opinions?

I should think that the commander of an army marching into a country should be governed by circumstances. If the country into which he marches was entirely rebellions, I should say that coercive means should be used to force that country into submission to the constitution and the laws of the United States. If there was an element of Unionism, and one that I thought I could foster and encourage by pursuing a course of kindness and conciliation, I should certainly adopt that course. But wherever I marched an army into any portion of the rebellious States I should feel authorized to sustain that army, as far as I could, upon the sustenance that could be procured from the rebellions part of the community. I would go further, and say that no community in a state of rebellion to the Government of the United States has any right to claim the protection of that Government against which it was in rebellion. At the same time I would bring them into subjection in as civilized and Christianized a manner as I was capable of.

Question. Do i understand that you would take their property with out compensation?

I should be governed entirely by what I considered military necessity required, and at the same time I should be opposed to any wanton destruction of property or any illegal or unconstitutional use of it. These are my present views, and not the views that I entertained at the time General Mitchell and yourself entered Tennessee with the Federal army. My views were then very different.

Question. In the whole district of North Alabama how many persons could General Mitchell have selected who, on account of their adhe-