Daily American telegraph., 1852-07-22
From the Richmond Republican
Abuse OF General Scott.

The same line of assault which the Democrats
pursued with so little success against Generals
Harrison and Taylor, they have adopted towards
General Scott. Not content with denying to him
oil qualification for the Presidency as states
man, some OF their rabid organs endeayor to
strip even the military laurels from his veteran
brow, and to brand him as a coward. The
Pennsylvania, the leading organ of the Penn
sylvania Democracy, thus speaks of Winfield
Scott:
"We charged General Scott with cowardce in
refusing the challenge of General Jackson from
feigned religious motives, and afterward chal-
lenging De Witt Clinton, knowing that he was
prevented by his oath of office from accepting
that challenge. We charged General Scott with
cowardice, because he challenged brother SOL
dier at time when he was prostrated by sick
ness. We charged him with cowardice, because,
in duel with an honorable man, he escaped
danger by lodging the ball of his adversary.
These facts are from the records of history, and
they are but small part of the disgrace which
attaches to the name of Winfield Scott The Ledger
is at liberty to adduce the history of the Mexican
war in vindication of his character but it forgets
as it acknowledges its ignorance Of Scotts trans
action with Jackson, that he was compelled by
Presidential orders to take part in the campaign.
He refused to 60 to Florida, although the Ledger,
with historical egotism, cites his action there as
taken, General Scott never performed warlike
service in Florida. If he did, it was after the
worst of the struggle was over. 1fhe did, it was,
as with Mexico after brave men had hewn path
to victory in which he safely trod to glory. In
Mexico, he reaped triumphs which Taylor plant
ed and to say that Scott is deserving of the
credit of that war, is to rob the dead of their
just fame and to deprive the living heroes of
those battles of their honestly-achieved reputa-
tons"
1t would be an insult to common sense to enter
upon grave refutation of the charge of coward
ice which this insane journal brings against Gen.
Scott. If Gen. Scott has proved himselfa brave
man, then no man ever did or ever can. There
is no test by which courage can be demonstrated,
if that which Gen. Scott has repeatedly and tri-
umphantly passed be insufficient. There is no
use in courage to the soldier, if Winfield Scott be
q coward for he has uniformly acted like a
brave man, and has always been victorious. 1t
is true that he declined Jackson's challenge, but
not on the ground of religious scruples, as the
Pennsylvania asserts, but on the ground of the
duty which he owed to his country then in war
with q foreign power. Hence there was no in
consistency in his afterwards challenging De Witt
Clinton. We do not mean to vindicate his send
ing that challenge, but there was nothing in it
which conficted with his note to Jackson. And
even if duelling be the only test of courage why,
the Pennsylvania tells US that he has fought
duel, though even that doesn't satisfy him, and
he AYERS that Gen. Scott lodged the ball of his
adversary! Then whoever can believe such
yarn as this of the hero of Lundy's Lane must
be prepared to believe anything.
The Pennsylvania is blind in its madness.
Such charges must recoil upon those who make
them. They will shock the pride, the patriotism,
the love of justice, the of gratitude of the
whole country. The fame of Gen. Scott is q
portion of the national glory, and the nation will
repel oil attacks upon it assaults upon its own
honor and reputation.