The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1862-11-18
Gen, SCOTS Reply to Mr.. Buchanan
The Relations of the President with
Secretary Floyd Discussed.

To tie Editors Of the National B,telbgeacet
Iregret TO find myselfin controversy
with the venerable Ex-President BUcn-
AEAF.
Recently October % you published
my official report TO President Lincoln,
dated March 30, 1861, giving a summary
of my then recent connection with our
principal Southern forts, which, | am
sorry to perceive, has given offence to the
Ex-P President That result purely Incl
dental, did not enter into my purpose in
drawing up the paper; but, on reflection,
l suppose that, under the circumstances
offence was unavoidable.
Let il be remembered that the new
President had a right to demand of me-
the immediate Commander of the army
how it had happened that the incipient
rebels had been allowed TO seize several
of those forts, and from the condition of
others were likely TO gain possession of
them also. Primarily the blame rested
exclusively on me. Hence, to vindicate
my sworn allegiance to the Union and
professional conduct the report was sub
mitted TO President Lincoln at an early
day, Gin his Administration and recent
ly TO the world.
To that short paper Elk President Blu
chanan publishes reply of double the
length in the Intelligencer of the 1st
inst. My rejoinder, from necessity, il
not taste, will be short, for | hold the
pen in rheumatic hand, and am without
aid de-camp or amanuensis, and without
printed document and my own official
papers.
Unable, in my present condition, 10
make an analysis of the Ex- Presidents
long reply, avail myself OF substitute
furnished by an accidental visitor, who
has kindly marked the few points which
he thinks may require some slight notice
At my hands.
/. To account for not having garrison.
ed sufficiently the Southern forts named
against anticipated treason and rebellion
according to my many recommendations
beginning Oct. 20, 1860, repeated tn,
next day, and again more earnestly Dec
13, 10, % and 30, tie Ex-President says
"There were no available troops within
reach" .t.- Z
Now, although it is true that, with Of
without the Ex-Presidents appreciation
the Secretary of War had nearly denudeC
our whole eastern seaboard Of troops il
order TO augment our forces in Texas anC
Utah, l nevertheless pointed out, at sew
eral of the above dates the GOO recruits
(about) which we had in the harbor O
| New York and at Carlisle Barracks
Pennsylvania, nearly all organized int
temporary companies, and tolerably drill
ed and disciplined-quite equal TO tn
purpose in question-besides the fiv
companies of regulars near at hand, max
ing about 1000 men. These disposabI
troops would have given (say) 200 mel
to the twin forts Jackson and st. Phillip
below New Orleans, an equal number L
Fort Morgan, below Mobile, a reinforce
ment of 100 men TO Fort Pickens, Flori
da, Pensacola harbor, and a garrison o
100 men to Fort Jefferson, Tortugas Is
land, and the same TO Fort Pulaski, below
Savannah, which, like Forts Pulaski, Nor
gan and McRae, had not at the time
sOldier-leaving about 200 men for tn
twin forts Moultrie and Sumter, Charles
ton harbor, where there were two veal
companies, making less than ninety men
Fortress Monroe had already garriso
of some eight companies, one or two Q
which might, in the earlier period o
danger, have been spared till volunteer
1uld have been obtained, notwithstand
ing printed handbills were everywher
posted to Eastern Virginia, by an eccen
trio character, inviting recruits TO tax
that most important work.
Now, have nowhere said that eithe
of those forts even with the reinforce
ment indicated, would have had a tOa
garrison. Certainly not. My PROPOSE
ton was TO put each in condition, as
expressly said, TO guard against a SUI
prise or coup de main, Gan olf-hand attacI
one without full preparation)
That these movements of small d,
tachments might easily have been mac
ia November and December, 1860, an