Gen. orders 349, Nov. 12, 1847, said (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 455): “It requires not a little charity to believe that the principal heroes of the scandalous letters alluded to did not write them, or specially procure them to be written, and the intelligent can be at no loss in conjecturing the authors—chiefs, partizans, and pet familiars. To the honor of the service, the disease—pruriency of fame, not earned—cannot have seized upon half a dozen officers (present,) all of whom, it is believed, belong to the same two coteries.” The next two sentences were still stronger: “False credit,” “despicable self-puffings and malignant exclusions of others,” “the conceited and the envious,” “indignation” of the honorable officers. Though in the right, Scott allowed himself to go too far in his use of language, as he did at other times. Commenting on the order, Braxton Bragg, though not one of Scott’s friends, said in substance: Half the reputations in the war have been made by false reports and newspaper misrepresentations [this was to a large extent true], and it has gone so far that Scott has at last issued a strong order ([210]to Hammond, Dec. 20, 1847). Another correspondent of Gov. Hammond of South Carolina said he was glad that Scott had undertaken to expose “such quackery, charlatanry, imposture and lying braggadocio” ([210]Alvord, Apr. 21, 1848). This appears to have been the general sentiment of the officers (numerous citations could be given).
On the publication of gen. orders 349 Worth asked Scott whether the charge of scandalous conduct referred to him. Scott replied that it referred to the authors and abettors of the Leonidas letter, and that he could not be more explicit. Worth declared the reply unsatisfactory, and handed to Scott a sort of appeal to the President that referred insultingly to the former ([68]Scott, charges, Nov. 27). Scott therefore charged him with “behaving with contempt and disrespect towards his commanding officer.” He was arrested for insulting Scott in a letter to Marcy (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 471). The charges against Duncan were writing a (published) letter in violation of the army regulation no. 650, and making in it a false statement about the adoption of the Chalco route in order to magnify himself and Worth ([68]charges, Nov. 27). “Arrest” signified confinement to the city of Mexico. The New York Tribune said truthfully with reference to the troubles between Scott and the generals: “The duties of a Commanding General in the heart of an enemy country, with an army flushed with victory yet inactive, and under the influences incident to so perilous a position, are very delicate, and can only be met by firmness and the maintenance of rigorous discipline” (Nat. Intelligencer, Dec. 28, 1847).
[32.] (Conviction) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1218 (Scott); infra. (Censures) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1229, 1248 (Marcy); Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 131 (Marcy). (Relieved) [256]Marcy to Butler, Jan. 13, 1848. (Rank) [60]Butler to Marcy, Mar. 2. (Deposed) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1044. Lee, Lee, 46. (Army) [152]Claiborne, mems.; Oswandel, Notes, 481, 483; [221]Hill, diary; [252]Mackall, Feb. 21; Picayune, Mar. 23; [13]Doyle, no. 27, 1848; Lee, Lee, 44; [210]Alvord to Hammond, Feb. 24; Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 321. (Departure) Lowell Journal, Sept. 14, 1852; Picayune, Mar. 23; Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 328. (Looked) [327]Sutherland to father, Feb. 15, 1848.
Jan. 9, 1847, a [137]correspondent of Calhoun wrote, “Unless some powerful influence is soon brought to bear we [in Charleston, S. C.] fear we shall stand forth discredited and degraded in the sight of all the world.” It is hard to see how the country, without Scott, could have avoided this.
Scott’s chief complaints were a failure to supply seasonably the desired means for waging the campaign, interference with the rights of the commanding general (e.g. in Harney’s case), the plan to place a civilian (Benton) over him, the apparent intention to let Trist interfere in military affairs, and the refusal to provide a chief of staff satisfactory to him (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 319). See also chapter xxvii, p. 129. All the charges except those against Pillow were withdrawn. The latter should have been placed before a court-martial, and so Polk and the Cabinet decided (Polk, Diary, Jan. 3, 1848). But—probably because he feared that his friend would be convicted—Polk concluded to have first a court of inquiry in order to ascertain what the evidence was, and perhaps dispose of the matter (ibid., Jan. 8). The court was selected by Polk—doubtless with a view to Pillow’s acquittal (ibid., Jan. 15). The fact that Pillow was entirely satisfied with it ([180]to wife, Feb. 27) is almost enough to prove this. The British chargé reported that it seemed to favor Pillow ([13]Doyle, no. 39, 1848). Two of the members were brevetted later, though one of them (Scott publicly stated) had no other connection with the war, and the connection of the other had been slight (Scott in N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857).
The principal charges against Pillow were, first, that Pillow’s claim to have won the battle of Contreras was unfounded, on which the verdict went against him (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 317, 333); and, secondly, that he was directly or indirectly the author of the Leonidas letter. In order to maintain that he wrote it (which he had strongly denied on three occasions (ibid., 56–7, 131), Burns had to admit that he had spoken falsely in it (ibid., 33, 388–9), and he swore that he believed he wrote certain interlineations (ibid., 32) which it was found had been written by the editor of the Delta (ibid., 250); but he stuck to it that he had dared to steal into Pillow’s private office, and remain there long enough to copy the substance and to a large extent the phraseology of a long document (ibid., 32). And therefore, although statements substantially equivalent to those of the Leonidas letter were brought home to Pillow (ibid., 389–391), Pillow had to be acquitted. John Sedgwick, later General Sedgwick, wrote: I think the court must acquit Pillow, “but the sentiment of the army will never acquit him” (Corres., i, 182). Naturally a lawyer like Pillow had a great advantage at the trial over Scott, upon whom it was incumbent to conduct the prosecution. His handling of the case was extremely clever. The same court was instructed to inquire into the so-called “council” of Puebla (p. 391), and thus Scott was virtually put on trial, yet, contrary to the articles of war, had no opportunity to question witnesses (Mo. Republican, Nov. 5, 1857). Pillow was before another court of inquiry (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 338–73), and the evidence convicted him, morally at least, of attempting to appropriate, in violation of the articles of war, a captured Mexican howitzer. Pillow’s appeal to the government grew out of Scott’s approving the findings of this court, and his arrest resulted from the disrespect shown in connection with the appeal.
June 4, 1847, Scott wrote to Marcy: “Considering the many cruel disappointments and mortifications I have been made to feel since I left Washington, or the total want of support and sympathy on the part of the War Department which I have so long experienced, I beg to be recalled from this army the moment that it may be safe for any person to embark at Vera Cruz, which I suppose will be early in November” (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 131). This application was denied and (since the circumstances on which it was based appeared to change) became obsolete. A correspondent of Governor Hammond of South Carolina said it was “absurd, unjust, ridiculous, and impolitic, in this crisis of events here, to remove the victorious general, whose prestige with the Mexicans is great, very great, both for war and peace” ([210]Alvord, Feb. 24, 1848). He attributed the recall to “Mr. Quackery Pillow.” The recall was dated January 13 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1044). Scott turned over the command to Butler on February 18 ([65]gen. orders 59). March 14 the British chargé reported that signs of relaxed discipline were visible ([13]Doyle, no. 27). As early as August 7, 1847, Polk had contemplated substituting Butler for Scott (Diary). Nov. 25 Pillow wrote that this was to be done ([180]to wife). Early in January, 1848, some members of the Cabinet favored giving Taylor the place, but Polk would not (Diary, Jan. 4).
May 6, 1848, the adjutant general stated that the army under Butler consisted of 26,785 (aggregate present), of whom 174 officers and 4611 men were sick, and that it occupied the following places: Mexico, Toluca, Cuernavaca, Pachuca, Río Frio, Puebla, Perote, Jalapa, national bridge, Orizaba, Córdoba and Vera Cruz. Some of the returns, however, on which the statement was based were several months old ([62]to Cass). By May 1 Scott, Pillow, Pierce, Cadwalader, Quitman, Shields and Cushing had left the country. May 23 S. W. Kearny was appointed governor of Mexico City ([65]orders 103).
XXX. THE NAVAL OPERATIONS
[.1.] Sen. 187, 263; 29, 1. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 774–5 (Bancroft). Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 377–8. (War bill) Vol. i, p. 181. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 973. (Expense) Ho. 188; 29, 1; Sen. 139; 29, 2. In Jan., 1846, there were also 3 receiving ships and 11 small unarmed vessels and storeships. In ordinary and building there were 2 (5) ships-of-the-line, 5 (3) frigates and razees, 6 (2) sloops-of-war, 2 (0) brigs and 3 (1) steamers, carrying 576 (614) guns. (The figures in parentheses represent vessels building.) The time of the crews of the Savannah and Warren expired before July 1 and Sloat was authorized to send them east. Three schooners—the Bonita, the Reefer and the Petrel—built at New York for Mexico but not paid for, were purchased (Niles, June 13, 1846, p. 226; see chap. xiii, [note 31]). In Oct., 1847, there were also one ordnance transport and six storeships.