[26.] Remarks of Gov. J. D. Porter of Tenn. to the author (vanity, ignorance of war). Ill. State Hist. Soc. Trans., 1906, p. 178 (unfit to serve as corporal). [180]Pillow to wife, Dec. 8, 1846 (re Taylor). Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 252 (Trist’s opinion). [307]B. S. Roberts, diary, Nov. 26, 1847 (“ass by nature”). [335]Trist, notes for letter to Ho. of Repres. (“Lie”; lack of probity; Scott’s confidence, etc.). [252]Mackall, Sept. 18, 1847 (no vainer peacock or greater ass; gave no aid in the final battles). [292]Pillow to wife, Dec. 12, 1847 (eye to Presidency). [335]Paper prepared by Trist (re Polk’s brother). [277]Pillow to Maj.— (beautifully illustrates “wriggling”). Scott, Mems., ii, 416. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 338 (vanity). [297]Pillow to Polk, May 30, 1844 (“fatal blow”). M’Sherry Puchero, 179 (not considered a general). Chap. xxiii, [note 29] (generalship). (Recommendations) [180]Pillow to wife, Dec. 8, 1846. (Confidence) [335]Trist, notes, supra. Pillow’s letters generally.
For uncomplimentary opinions regarding Pillow see chap. xxvi, [note 8]. It should be remembered, however, that later he became a political issue in Tennessee, and many things said of him then were colored by partisanship; also that the prejudice of many regulars in reference to the volunteers may have counted.
[27.] (After Monterey) [364]W. to S., Oct. 2, 1846. (Ambition) Scott, Mems., ii, 416. (Restive) Lawton, Artill. Officer, 276. (Affection) Grant, Mems., i, 151; [335]Trist, notes for letter to Ho., supra (Pillow: Scott’s fatherly affection for Worth will always get the better of any resentment); Lawton, ibid. (Rejected) [364]W. to —, Mar. 3, 1848. (Friend) [183]Drum, recolls.; [224]Hitchcock, diary, Apr. 14, 1846. (Ounce) [364]Worth to daughter, June 10, 1846.
[28.] (Told) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1226 (Scott). (Brother officer) [183]Drum, recolls. (his name was Lieut. Col. Black of Pa.). (Root) [183]Drum, recolls.; Davis, Autobiog., 286. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 14, 1847. (Favorably) Picayune, Jan. 17, 1848 (the plan ripening fast); [149]Eells to Chase, Feb. 24, 1848 (W. may be the Dem. nominee); [185]Pillow to Duncan, June 4, 1849 (W. had a good chance of nomination); [182]Bowdon to W., Mar. 18, 1848, strictly confid. (Clashes, conciliate) Infra. (Antagonism) [169]Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848; Grant, Mems., i, 172.
For remarks on Worth’s character see chap. xii, [note 8] and chap. xxiv, [note 16]. At Vera Cruz Worth ridiculed Scott’s methods in comparison with his own at Monterey (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528), and his journalistic champion, the editor of the New York Sun, took the same line (Aug. 16). He was determined to have an assault, in which he would naturally have played a conspicuous part (Mag. of Am. Hist., xiv, 569). He was enraged because Scott properly had Twiggs lead the advance from that city (ibid., 562; see also chap. xxiii, [note 5]). Apparently in order to become prominent in the coming battle, he seems to have left Vera Cruz without a suitable supply of provisions—contrary to orders (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528). Probably because Scott, for reasons of policy, praised Twiggs’s conduct at Cerro Gordo in his report, Worth pronounced the report “a lie from beginning to end” ([364]to S., Dec. 27, 1847). He was impatient and offensive because Scott would not permit him to advance upon Puebla as soon as he wished to go (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528; [364]W. to daughter, Apr. 30, 1847). Next, his wrath was excited there because, in accordance with the verdict of a court martial, Scott censured—in the mildest possible manner—his improper conduct (p. 361; Delta, Jan. 6, 1848). Wholly without authority he announced that his division was to lead the movement from Puebla against Mexico ([236]Judah, diary, May 6), though it was Twiggs’s turn to lead. He accused Scott of trying to belittle his achievements at Churubusco ([364]to S., Dec. 27, 1847). He blamed Scott for the losses resulting from his own imprudence at Molino del Rey and for not permitting him to attack Chapultepec that day; and he protested because Scott, doubtless by accident, did not credit him with the technical distinction of actually passing the San Cosme garita on Sept. 13 (p. 416; Sedgwick, Corres., i, 169). Unmoved by Worth’s conduct, Scott seems to have given him all the prominence to which he was entitled. It was understood that he assigned him to command on Sept. 8 with a special view to conciliating him (Grant, Mems., i, 151); and it is clear that he intended to have him capture the city of Mexico (p. 412). It is probable that Scott had shown some egotism and irascibility in the course of the strenuous campaign, but no doubt almost every high officer had done the same, for all had tempers and believed in themselves; and it is extremely doubtful whether any one had shown more kindness and magnanimity than he—particularly toward Pillow and Worth. Even after all the trouble, Scott wrote (Mems., ii, 416) that Pillow’s nature was free from malignity, whereas Pillow’s letters prove the contrary strikingly.
[29.] (Intimate) [185]Duncan papers, passim. (Widow) [185]P. to D., Sept. 3, 1848. (Urged) [185]P. to Polk, June 21, 1849. (Made) Scott, Mems., ii, 416; Cullum, Biog. Register, i, 447. (Trouble) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 305. (Gather) [329]Taliaferro to —, Apr. 26, 1848; Scott, Mems., ii, 417.
Pillow boasted of his power, and on that basis threatened men whom he wished to control (Taliaferro, supra; Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 117). How strong this influence was is illustrated by the fact that Col. Campbell of Tennessee, who had stated repeatedly that Pillow had no military ability (pp. 353, 377), recommended him for appointment as a major general ([139]to Polk, Feb. 19, 1847). It is interesting to note, in comparison with the character of the cabal against Scott, that he was supported by such men as Trist, E. A. Hitchcock, Robert E. Lee and Robert Anderson.
[30.] (Reports) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1015–20; Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 389–91, 629–34; Lawton, Artill. Officer, 319–20. (Same) Lawton, Art. Off., 319–20; Weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848; [169]Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848. (Terms) Remarks in note 29.28; [169]Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848; [364]W. to ——, Mar. 3, 1848 (“an ass will be an ass”). (Trickily) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 391; Davis, Autobiog., 285; note 31. (Another) Semmes, Service, 358–9. (In U. S.) Picayune, Oct. 8. (Tampico) Semmes, Service, 360. (Mexico) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 117. (Improper) Ib., p. 454 (Marcy). (Necessary) [169]Mills, supra; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1087, 1225–6 (Scott).
[31.] (Gen. orders 349) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 455. (Stigmatize) [210]Alvord to Hammond, Apr. 21, 1848; [210]Bragg to Hammond, Dec. 20, 1847. (Assumed) Picayune, Oct. 8; Dec. 18. (Defiant) Stevens, Stevens, i, 223. (Not written) Infra. (Seized) Semmes, Service, 361–4; Spirit of the Age, Mar. 9; Apr. 13, 1848. (Charges) Polk, Diary, Dec. 30, 1847; Jan. 1; Apr. 18, 1848; infra. (Appeals) Infra. (Arrest) [256]Marcy to Butler, Jan. 13, 1848.
See [note 28]. For the Leonidas letter see p. 376. This letter Pillow seems clearly to have smuggled into a packet sent by Freaner, the correspondent of the New Orleans Delta, to his paper, after Freaner had rejected its twin (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 14) on the ground that it was incorrect, and the editor, inferring that it was endorsed by Freaner, printed it (ibid., 250; Delta, Apr. 7, 1848). When Scott finally opened his eyes (after August 20) to the rascality of Pillow ([335]Trist, notes, supra), Pillow realized he had gone too far. He refused to ask for a court of inquiry when challenged to do so ([335]Hitchcock to Pillow, Nov. 24, 1847, and note by H.), told Quitman that he could not face an investigation ([335]Trist, statement), and wrote to his wife that he was going to resign and live quietly ([292]Oct. 27, 1847). Then, it would appear, he induced Burns ([335]ed. of Delta to Trist, May 16, 1848), a paymaster in his division, to assume the authorship of the Leonidas letter (the worst count against him), and became confident, even defiant, with reference to Scott ([180]to wife, Nov. 25). The friend to whom Duncan wrote, in sending his letter to the press, modified it freely, and inserted in it a passage regarding the Chalco route (p. 372) taken from a letter written by a man named Chason. So he explained to Duncan ([185]—— to Duncan, Jan. 1, 1848).