Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-02-29
Ear Tie ErcMircr.
W.snlSarnS Eel % 1913.

have seen several articles OF yours concern
inc The letter of General Taylor TO Major Gone
raj Gaines, published in the New YoIk Express
abou, a year ago; and. for the mos, part, those
articles have taken a correct view Of the facts.
Having been honored Tor the past three years
with The friendship OF General Gaines, | have
had opportunities OF being informed with regard
10 that letter; and, so far as speak on The subject,
| speak knowingly. You were right in your
statement, that Tie Editors of that paper were not
authorized by General Gaines to publish that
letter; but that Inc whole Of it was intended by
its author to lie made public, | have never had a
doubt. The manuscript itself, 10 those who know
the style of General Taylor's writing, would be
satisfactory on The last point. General Gaines,
however, handed The letter 10 DR.. Bacon 10 eXa-
mine, and make out an editorial upon the know.
ledge which il conveyed, that should sustain or
defend General Taylor against any charges that
might be made. Generate aines was aslonishcd
on seeing The letter printed nearly verbatim in a
lew days after; and, forcseeing the consequences,
he took The first train OF cars for Philadelphia and
this city. He went 10 The President, and had an
interview with him and the Secretary OF War,
both OF whom stated 10 him The improIriety OF The
publication OF the letter. He stated 10 them, SUBJ
slan,:aily, AZ ! have said, that although The letter
nas not aarkcd in Tie usual ,ray, 'c0nfdcntial," he
did no, lcel al liberty 10 have it published, and
gave no authority to the Editor of The paper 10 do
50. Being here al Tie time, | knew the whole cir
cumslances Of The case.
On The mex! day The letter OF the Secretary OF
War was written 10 General TAYLOR concerning
The letter. The Secretary simply explained to
General Taylor The Improperly OF writing such
a letter, while occupying the station he did in an
cnemy's country, foreshedowing, in part, the
movements ina, were 10 be made, and Civ
.- .nf%..,,t.-. 49,. ~.,l.. - Ia ,rn, go,
nicated al The time, and called his atien-
| lion 10 he order Of 1925, concerning the wiring
Of letters by officers ID the army. and required il
10 be put in toice. There was nothing OF The
"woli" in this leler; nothing 10 call forth such an
ironical and really insolenl reply. II was couch
ed in respectful Terms, and in such Terms as The
head Of re Department had a right 10 use 10.
wards a subordinate. | opine lha, had a Jack
son been at ne head OF The Department, or Pre-
sidcnt OF The uai,cd States, Gen. Taylor would
have received a very different letter under these
circumstances. But The fact IS. Gen. Taylor has
been treated with great indulgence. He was
sent from Corpus Christi under peculiar civcum-
stances. be was attacked By The enemy very
Unexpectedly by this Government or By Taylor
himself. Mexico al that time was very little
known 10 US, so far as the geography, roads, To-
cation OF places and peculiar formation OF the
country were concerned. The Department here
found itself in a position TO consult The discre-
ton anil knowledge and experience Of The CON-
mandins General. Therefore, when orders were
issued, they were generally lei in their full exc.
Gu ion TO he discretion Of Gen. TAYLOR. He was
on The spot where operations were 10 be per.
formed, and il was moi precisely known here
whether it was most exPedient and practicable
for him 10 proceed TO Monterey and first capture
that place, or 10 some important town in another
dJronftnn l-N~ tho rnt,I IN Tho 49,, IF
Monterey, ard even in the subsequent move
ments, General Taylor's discretion was consulted
and even advice asked. There were a variety of
matters connected with our first campaign in
Mexico which could not be understood except
from those VITO were in The country, II was
judged, for instance, from the maps OF The coun-
" that there were military roads from Tamp:co
10 San Luis and from Sallilio 10 San Luis, but
from actual examination it was found not 10 be
the case.
Is i. therefore, 10 be supposed, lha! because
Gen. Taylor was necessarily consulted as 10 The
practicabili;y OF operations which ought 10 be
performed, that he should have assumed The die
lation OF the Department, or The importance
which did mol really belong to hint Had h. a
RICH, 10 conceive himself different from any 9th.
er commanding officer in the army7 Why then
should he feel aggrieved, or his friends feel az.
erleVeu, al MS receiving, Wnat ought 10 have been
a severe censure for a professional indiscre;ion, 10
sayithe leas,2 But ii is all Tor effect and President
making. Gen. Taylor himself took no pains in
his reply TO The Secretary OF War to show that
he did mol write that letter for publication, but
turned q, once upon the noiires OF The Secretary
and President, in addressing him on The subject,
ard compared Them 10 the wolf, and himself 10
The lamb, in The fable. With all the assiduily
and acrimony Of The friends OF General TAYLOR,
can they put lleir finger upon a hing the Presi-
dent has done 10 ipjnre General Taylor or throw
him in the least in The shaded
To show thai he has moi been moderated by
The President. l will eao'e from his message Of
1876: "The victories OF Palo ALTO and Resaca
de la Palma and OF Monterey, won against great
ly superior numbers, and against mos, decided
advantages in other respects, on The part OF The
enemy, were brilliantin their execution, and en-.