Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1848-05-12
WHOLE NO. 1911.


the command of our armies in Mexico, for the
purpose of being sacrificed and, that, TO ac-
complish this end, d" neglects, disappointmenis,
injuries, and rebukes" severe inflicted ON
you, and the necessary means of prosecuting
the war with success withheld; or, in other
words, the government, after preferring yon
to another of the gallant generals within the
range of its choice. had labored 10 Illustrate its
own plans, TO bring defeat upon IFS own arr
mics, and involve itself in ruin and disgrace,
for an object so unimportant in its bearing up
on public affairs. A charge so entirely prepos-
ferrous, so utterly repugnant 10 all the proba-
bhltles Of human conduct, calls for no refuta-
ton.
For other purposes than to combat this
tondly-cherished chimera, it is proper that
should notice some of your specific allegations.
1t is true that, after you were designated for
the chief command of our armies, the Presi-
dent was DESTROYS that your departure should
not be unnecessarily delayed but you were
not restricted, as you alege, TO " only four
days p" to make the necessary preparations at
Washington. You were not ordered away
until you had reported that these preparations
were so far completed that your presence here
was no longer required. Then, instead of 60
ing directly to Mexico, YOU We're permitted. al
your own request, 10 take circuous route
through New York, and there TO remain few
days. You staid at New York nearly an en-
tire week; and, not until the 10Th Of Deem
Der, Uwenty-six days after iAccT1ing Washing
ton,) did you reach New Orleans, where YOU
would have arrived in seven days if YOU had
been required to take the direct route. This
solicited indulgence, by which your arrival
at New Orleans was delayed nearly three
weeks, is incompatible with your allegation
that You were allowed only four days at
Washington, where twenty might have been
most advantageously emploved' This com
plant has relation to facts within your own
knowledge; error, therefore, is hardly recon-
Cilable with any solciude to be accurate AS
this is your opening charge against the War
Department, and may be regarded as indica-
tive of those which follow, ! shall make the
refutation Of it still more complete, for the
purpose of showing with what reck iessness
you have performed the functions of an accu-
ser, and how little reliance, in the present
state of your feelings, can be placed on your
memory. You are the witness by whom your
your departure from Washington, you left
with me a paper, IA your otcn hand writing,
dated November %. 1916, with the following
heading:
! "Notes suggesting topics 10 he embraced
in the Secretary's instructions to General s.,
drawn up Gin haste) at the request OF the for
mer.''
From that paper I extract the following pa
ragraph:
Il Uhe Secretary of War am pleased to
learn from you General ScotD that you have
in very few days already, through the gen
eral staff Of the army here, laid a sufficient ba-
sis for the purposes with which YOU are char
ged, and that Yoat noaU think 1t best to proceed
at once to the southwest. in order TO organize
the largest number OF troops that can be OBJ
| tanned IN time for that most important eXpedi-
ton 1.-The expedition against Vera CRUZ
Here is your own most explicit admission that
you represented to the Secretary of War, be-
lore leaving Washington, that arrangements
were so far completed, that goa thought 1t best
| to proceed at once to the army in Mexico; and
yet you make it your opening charge against
the department, that you were forced away to
Mexico before you had time for necessary
preparations.
| Ipresent the next charge in your own Ian
guagc:
81 handed TO You written request that one
OF three of our accomplished captains. therein
named, might be appointed assistant adiutant
general, with the rank of major, for duty with
me in the field, and there ras a vacancy, al
the time, for one My request has never
| been attended t., and thus have had no off
Ger of the Adutant Generals Department with
me in the campaign. Can another instance be
cited of denying a general-i chief, in the
field at the head of n large army-or even a
small one-the selection of his chief of his
! statf-that is, the chief in the department Of
orders and correspondence"
| Were the case precisely as You have stated
| il 10 be, you have given too much prominence,
as a matter of complaint, to the Presidents
refusal to be controlled, in the exercise of the
appointing power, by your wishes. Had there
! been a vacancy such as you mention for lone
| of the accomplished captains You named, no
one knows better than you do that your re-
quest could not have been acCeded to without
| departing from the uniform rule of selection
| for staff appointments, without violating the
| right of several officers to regular promotion,
and offering an indignty to all those who held
| the position of assistant adiutants general,
with the rank of captain. The rule of regular
promotion in the staff is as infeXible, and has
| been as uniformly observed, rs that in the line.
| 1t must appear surprising that you, Who were
so deeply "shocked and distressed" al the sug-
gestion of appointing, Ey authority Of Con-
gress, " citizen lieutenant general" or vest
| ing the President with power to deyolve the
command of the army on a ma ior general
without regard to priority in the date OF his
commission, should, in your first request, AZ
! ter being assigned to command, ask the Pre-
! sident to disregard the rights of at least four
officers as merltorous as "the three accom-
/ plshed captains named by you. The Press
dents views on this subject undoubtedly diff
! feT from yours. His regard for the rights of
officers is not graduated by their rank Those
OF captains and major generals have equal va
! Inc IN his estimation, and an equal claim TO
| his respect and protection. | cannot admit
that II IS just ground Of censure and rebuke
! against the head Of the War Department -
! that the President did not see fit, in order to
crafty your feelings of favoritism. to disre-
gard the claims ard violate the rights of all
the assistant adjutants general of the rank OF
captain then in commission.
! But, so far as it is made ground of com
plant and reproof, this is not the worst as.
pect Of the case. You are entirely mistake
in the assertion that there was then vacancy
in the rdjutant generals staff, with the rank OF
major, 10 which either of the captains recon-
mended by you could have been properly aap-
pointed. There was no such vacancy. 10
show the correctness of this statement. ana 10
demonstrate your error, appeal to the army
Register and the records OF the AdJnfant zen
erals Office Your mistake as TO an obvious
fact living within Ibe range of matters with
which vou are presumed to be familiar, has
exc;ted less surprise than the declaration. that