General Scott

by Marcus J. Wright

In the winter of 1842-'43 there appeared in a newspaper published at Baltimore a letter of Mr. Thomas W. Gilmer, a member of Congress from Virginia, urging the annexation of Texas. He argued among other things that the British Government had designs on Texas; that it proposed a political and military domination of the country, with a view to the abolition of slavery. At this time Texas and Mexico were at war. It was at once charged by the opponents of the scheme of annexation that Mr. Gilmer, who was known as the close political friend of Mr. John C. Calhoun, was simply acting as the mouthpiece of the latter. It will be remembered by those who are conversant with the proceedings of Congress that Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate in 1836, had offered some resolutions looking to the annexation of Texas. Mr. Webster, who was known as opposed to the measure, was the only member of President Harrison's Cabinet who remained with President Tyler. He resigned his portfolio as Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Mr. Hugh S. Legaré, of South Carolina, who, dying very soon after his appointment, was succeeded by Mr. Abel P. Upshur, of Virginia. Both of the latter named were known friends of the annexation scheme. There appeared not long after the publication of the Gilmer letter, in the Richmond Enquirer, a letter from General Andrew Jackson to Mr. Brown, in reply to a letter of Mr. Brown, in which he indorsed a copy of Mr. Gilmer's letter and asking General Jackson's views on the subject. General Jackson's reply was a thorough and hearty approval of the proposed immediate annexation of Texas. General Jackson's letter was dated from the Hermitage, his residence near Nashville, Tenn., March 12, 1843. The letter of General Jackson produced a profound effect throughout the country. Although out of office, old, and in the retirement of private life, he exercised more influence than any man living in the United States.

Mr. Calhoun succeeded Mr. Upshur as Secretary of State, and he was known as a friend of annexation. Mr. Van Buren, replying to a letter from Mr. William T. Hammett, a representative in Congress from Mississippi, announced his opposition to the immediate annexation of Texas, because it would produce a war with Mexico. He expressed himself in favor of the measure when it could be done peaceably and honorably. Mr. Clay announced his opposition to the measure. In December, 1843, the British Premier, Lord Aberdeen, in a dispatch to Sir Richard Packenham, British Minister at Washington, denied that Great Britain had any design on Texas, but announced (which was superfluous, and not germane to the charge which he felt called upon to deny) that "Great Britain desires and is constantly exerting herself to procure the general abolition of slavery throughout the world." This provoked a correspondence between Mr. Calhoun and the British Minister. In his annual message to Congress at the commencement of the session of 1843-'44 the President expressed himself very strongly in regard to war being waged by Mexico against Texas. The proposed treaty for annexation was rejected by the Senate June 8, 1844, by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen. Mr. Benton presented a plan for the peaceful acquisition of Texas, but the Senate refused to adopt it.

President Tyler in his last message again referred to the war between Mexico and Texas, and said: "I repeat now what I then said, that after eight years of feeble and ineffectual efforts to recover Texas, it was time that the war should have ceased."

When the convention of the Whig party met at Harrisburg, Pa., December 4, 1839, to nominate a candidate for the presidency, General Scott's name was presented. He had addressed a number of letters to members of the convention urging that, if there appeared any prospect of success, Mr. Clay should be selected, and if not, that the choice should fall on General William Henry Harrison. The total number of votes in the convention was two hundred and fifty-four. Of these, General Scott received the votes of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Michigan—in all, sixty-two. The States which had voted for General Scott gave their votes eventually to General Harrison, who received the nomination. General Scott said of General Harrison, "But the nomination and success of General Harrison," if his life had been spared some four years longer, would have been no detriment to the country. With excellent intentions and objects, and the good sense to appoint able counselors, the country would not have been retarded in its prosperity nor disgraced by corruption in high places. No one can, of course, be held responsible for sudden deaths among men. A single month in office ended President Harrison's life, when the plaint of Burke occurred to all, "What shadows we are, what shadows we pursue!" In June, 1841, Major-General Macomb having died, General Scott was called to take up his residence in Washington as general in chief of the army. Among his first orders was one which put a stop to arbitrary and illegal punishments in the army.

An effort was made in the House of Representatives of the next Congress in 1844 to reduce his pay, but being resisted by Charles J. Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, and ex-President John Quincy Adams, it was voted down by a large majority. Mr. Adams, in the course of his remarks in opposition to the resolution, said that he "felt bound to declare that he did think it a very ill reward for the great and eminent services of General Scott during a period of thirty odd years, in which there were some as gallant exploits as our history could show, and in which he had not spared to shed his blood, as well as for more recent services of great importance in time of peace—services of great difficulty and great delicacy—now to turn him adrift at his advanced age.... That he could not for a moment harbor in his heart the thought that General Scott, if he had received from the Government thousands of dollars more than he had, would have received one dollar which he did not richly deserve at the hands of his country."

On February 9, 1843, he wrote from Washington to T.P. Atkinson, of Danville, Va., in reply to a letter from that gentleman, asking his opinions on the question of slavery. Mr. Atkinson was the son of an old friend of General Scott, and the letter was written to him as a probable candidate for the presidency. He took the position in this letter that Congress had no power under the Constitution to interfere with or legislate on the question of slavery within the States. He argued that it was the duty of Congress, however, to receive, refer, and report upon petitions which might be presented to it on the question of slavery, as on all other questions. He did not blame masters for not liberating their slaves, as he thought it would benefit neither the masters nor the slaves. He, however, held it to be the duty of slave owners to employ all means not incompatible with the safety of both master and slave to meliorate slavery even to extermination. He held that, with the consent of owners or payment of just compensation, Congress might legislate in the District of Columbia, although it would be dangerous to contiguous States.

He also, in March, 1845, in reply to a letter from J.C. Beckwith, corresponding secretary of a peace convention, wrote that he always maintained the moral right to wage a just and necessary war.

In March, 1845, as stated, Congress passed a joint resolution for the annexation of the republic of Texas, and in July of that year Brigadier-General Zachary Taylor, then commanding the first department of the United States army in the Southwest, was ordered to Texas. He embarked at New Orleans with fifteen hundred troops, and in August established his camp at Corpus Christi. Re-enforcements were dispatched to him rapidly, and in November his command amounted to about four thousand men.

On March 8, 1846, General Taylor, under orders from Washington, moved his army toward the Rio Grande, and on the 28th of that month encamped on that river opposite the Mexican city of Matamoros. He here erected a fort called Fort Brown, which commanded the city of Matamoros. The Mexican troops near Matamoros were at the same time busily engaged in fortifying the city. General Pedro de Ampudia, who commanded the Mexican forces at Matamoros, on April 12, 1846, addressed General Taylor a note requiring that within twenty-four hours he should retire from his position at Fort Brown and march beyond the Neuces, stating that the governments of Mexico and the United States were engaged in negotiations regarding the annexation of Texas, and that a failure or refusal of General Taylor to comply with this demand would be regarded by his Government as a declaration of war on the part of the United States. General Taylor replied in substance that he was there with his army under orders of his Government, that he declined to retire beyond the Neuces, and that he stood ready to repel any attack which might be made upon him. Soon after this correspondence General Mariano Arista was placed in the command formerly held by General Ampudia, and in May, with an army of six thousand men, he crossed the Rio Grande and attacked General Taylor at Palo Alto, and was signally defeated. General Arista retreated on the next day to Resaca de la Palma, where he was again defeated and his army routed, and he retired across the Rio Grande. General Taylor was now promoted to the rank of major general, and on May 18th took possession of Matamoros without opposition.

On September 9th he arrived at Monterey with about six thousand seven hundred men, chiefly volunteers. General Ampudia held the command here with ten thousand regular Mexican troops. General Taylor assaulted his position on September 19th, and after five days of almost continual fighting General Ampudia surrendered. General Taylor then transferred his headquarters to Monterey, but guarded the city of Saltillo with a strong force. He was about making an advance on San Luis Potosi, when a large portion of his force was ordered to join General Scott at Vera Cruz.