Newspaper Page Text
.... 1 •
mm
, ; \
q /r>; v , "'swr -■ van
• . , * • j j •
m . * •> ■ . ^
8ggj ~B&iBiBMiBaBBiiig^agiBBiiis^^im»jigiar i. imi ... imwiteg
M M
•iff
Wvf • fl
• ••■■ : * sSwcS -• 1
—— ■
^ ' u ■ \
PUBLISHED )
tifT & BOl'GIITON.,..Proprietors. >
* rC E OrPOSITE TIIE AMERICAN HOTEL. * )
folium &.
• i-..
^Ubanji, Salter (Haunts, (Georgia, Saturday Jttorning, Sune 3, 184S.
^ vVVMWim.
fCBUSHED EVERY SATURDAY HORSING.
TERMS: •
Two Doixars per annum, if paid in advance, or
Thee Dollars at the end of the year.
Ii-vertisemests not exceeding twelve lines, will
be inserttni at one dollar for tlie first insertion, and
(i)t cent* for each continuance. Advertisements not
havins the number of insertions specified, will be
published until frrlml.
Sales of UtmI and Negroes by Executors, Admin
istrators and (iuanlians, are required by law to be
/dieri«n « P u ^‘ c gazetoso sixty days previous to
^Tlie sales of Per?onal Property must be advertised
In lik*’ manner forty days.
Notice to Debtors and Creditors of an estate must
k published forty days.
Notice that application will be made to the Court
of Ordinary for leave to sell Land and Negroes, must
l* publidled weekly for four months.
Monthly advertisements, one dollar per square for
t&ms, i. i
CONDITION'S: W
$2,00 A-YEAR, IF PAID IN ADVANCE,
$3 AT THE END OF THE TEAR.
r " V. .n-.'i'.d.U.
Number S*
each
jy All 1/etters on business must be post paid.
Mr. farcy’s Letter to Gen. Scott. *
War Department. )
Washington, April 21, 1848. )
Sir: It would not be respectful to you to
pass unnoticed your extraordinary letter of the
•Jlth February, nor just to myself to permit it
to remain unanswered on the files of this de-
prime
*‘I handed to you a written request that one
of three of our accomplished captains, therein
named, might be appointed assistant adjutant
general, with the rank of major, for duty with
me in the field, and there teas a vacancy at the
time, for one. My request has never been
attended to, and thus I have had no officer of
the Adjutant General’s Department with me in
the campaign. Can another instance be cited
of denying to a general-in-chief, in the field at
the head of a large army—or eV*en a small one
—the selection of his chief of the staff—thatis
the chief in the department of orders and cor
respondence V* , ;
Were the case precisely as you have stated
it to be you have given too much prominence,
as a matter of .complaint, to the President’s re
fusal to be controlled, in his exercise of the ap-
pointing power, by your wishes. Had there
been a vacancy such as y’ou mention for “one
of the accomplished captains” you named, no
one knows better than you do that your request
could not have been acceded to without de
parting from the uniform role of selection for
staff appointments, without violating the right
of several officers to regular promotion, and
offering an indignity to all those who held the
position of assistant adjutants general, with the
rank of captain. The rule of regular promo
tion in the staff is as inflexible, and has been as
uniformly observed, as that in the line. It
must appear surprising that you who were so
deeply “shocked and distressed” at the sug
gestion of appointing, by authority of Con
gress, a “citizen lieutenant general” or vesting
To attempt to dispel the delusions which you
pern to have long pertinaciously cherished, and w
to correct the errors into which you have fallen,! the President with power to devolve the coim
devolves upon ine a duty which I must not de-! mand of the army on a major general without
dine; but, in performing it, I mean to be as I regard to priority in the date of his commision,
cautious, as you profess to have been, to abstain
from any “wanton discQurtesy,” and I hope to
k* alike successful. Your prudent respect for
the **3tli article of war” has induced you to
bold me ostensibly responsible for many things
which you are aware are not fairly chargeable
to me. ’Hie device you have adopted to assail
r.ie President, by aiming your blows at the Sec
retary of War, does more credit to ingenuity as
:.u accuser, than to your character as a soldier.
\ premediated contrivance to avoid res]»onsi-
liility does not indicate an intention not to do
wrung.
The general aspect of your letter discloses
jn evid out designed to create a belief that von
were drawn forth from 3*our quiet position, in a
bureau of this department, and assigned to the
command of our armies in Mexico, for the pur
pose of being sacrificed; and, that to accom
plish this end, “neglects, disappointments, in
juries, and rebukes” “were inflicted” on you,
amt the necessary means of prosecuting the war
with success withheld ; or, in other words, the
government, after preferring 3 t ou to any’ other
of the gallant generals within the range of its
choice, had labored to frustrate its own plans,
to bring defeat upon its own armies, and in
volve itself in ruin and disgrace, for an object
to unimportant in its bearing upon public affairs.
A charge so entirely preposterous, so utterly
repugnant to all the probabilities of human con
duct calls for no refutation.
For other purposes than to combat this fondly-
cherished ehiincra, it is proper that I should
notice some of your specific allegations.
It is true, that after you were designated for
the chief command of our snides, the President
was desirous that your departure should not be
unnecessarily delayed; but you wete not re
stricted, as you allege, to “only four days” to
make the necessary preparations at Washing
ton. \ ou were not ordered away until you
had reported that these preparations were so far
completed that your presence here was no lon
ger required. Then instead of going directly
to Mexico, you were permitted, at your own
request, to take a circuitous route through New
Wk and there to remain a few days. Y ou
toid at New York nearly an entire week; and,
01,1 until the 19th of December, (twenty-six
days alter leaving Washington,) did you reach
^ ew Orleans, where you would have arrived in
* ven days if you had been required to take
the direct route. This solicited indulgence, by’
"hich your arrival at New Orleans was delay*
cd nearly three weeks, is incompatible with
jonr allegation that you were allowed “Only
four days at Washington, where twenty might
been more advantageously employed.”
complaint has relation to fleets within your
knowledge; error, therefore, is hardly re-
concilahle with any 'solicitude to be accurate,
"(j* this is your opening charge against the Wai
‘y'partinent, and may be regarded as indica-
! lve °* those which follow, I shall make the re-
u'ation of it still more complete, for the pur
pose* of showing with what recklessness you
performed the functions of an accurser,
. little reliance, in the present state of
Y°ur fw-Jings, can be placed on your memory.
°u are tho witness by whom your allegation
13 to be disproved. On the day of your depart-
Ure Washington, you left with me a pa-
m your own hand-writing, dated November
* >1815, with the following heading:
-Notes suggesting topics to be embraced in
e Secretary’s instructions to General S.,
jawa U p (j n fiasjej at d, e request of the for*
* r °m that paper I extract the following par-
*gmph :
. I (the Secretary of War) am pleased to
• earn fr°m you (General Scott) that you have
* Ver }' few days already, through the general
j. °l" the army here, laid a sufficient basis for
‘ e Purposes with which you are charged, and
to> u n °w think it best to proceed at once
southwest, in order to organize the lar-
? * number of the troops that can be obtained
jji tune for that most important expedition”—
^expedition against Vera Cruz.)
tere is your own most explicit admission
, 1 you represented to the Secretary War, be-
^ e leaving Wasliington, that arrangements
^ ^ so far completed, that you though. it best
at once rije army in Mexico; and
jj} on make it your opening charge against
department, that you were forced away to
before you lid time for necessary pro-.
*jbons." , ,
^present the next charge in your own lan-
M - ;
should, in your first request, after being assign-
cd to command, ask the President to disregard
the rights of at least four officers as meritori
ous as “the three accomplished captains” nam
ed by you. The President s views on this sub
ject undoubtedly differ from yours. His re
gard for the rights of officers is not graduated
by’ their rank. Those of captains and major
generals have equal value in his estimation, and
an equal claim to his respect and protection.
I cannot admit that it is a just ground of censure
and rebuke against the “head of the War De
partment” that the President did not see fit, in
in order to gratify your feelings of favoritism,
must have been held,) without great detriment
to the public service. Had you been deprived
of several officers of high rank at that critical
period by the ofder of the President, it would
have afforded a better pretence of complaint
than any one in your extended catalogue.—
Had the court been composed of officers taken
from General Taylor’s command, it would have
still further weakened his condition, already
weak in consequence of the very Large force
you had withdrawn from him. Subsequent
events have proved that it was most fortunate
the President did not comply with your request
for had he done so, some of the officers highest
in rank, and most conspicuous at Buena Vista,
might, at that crictical conjuncture, have been
separated from their commands, and engaged
on a court at a distance from that glorious
scene of action. It is not fanciful to suppose
that their absence might have changed the for
tune of that eventful day; and that, instead of
rejoicing, as we now do, in a triumphant victo
ry—among the most brilliant in the whole
course of the war—we might have had to la
ment a most disastrous defeat, and the almost
total loss of tlie whole force you had left to
sustain that frontiers No man has more reason
than yourself to rejoice that no order emanated
from Washington, though requested by you,
which would have further impaired the efficien
cy of Gen. Taylors command in the crisis that
then awaited him.
My letter of the 23d of February’, conveying
the President’s views in regard to your order
depriving Colonel Harney of his appropriate
command, is severely arrainged by you as
offensive, both in manner and matter.
The facts in relation to this case of alleged
grievance are now before the public, and a brief
allusion to them will place the transaction in its
true light. Under your orders Colonel Harney
had brought seven companies of his regiment—
the 2d dragoons—from Monterey to the Brazos,
to be under your immediate command; and two
others—being all of the regiment in Mexico—
were expected to follow within a few days. In
the midst of his high hopes and ardent desire
for active service, you took from him the com
mand of his own regiment, devolved it on one
ofhis junior officers, and ordered him back to
General Taylor’s line to look for what was not
inappropriately’ denominated “ an immaginary
to disregard tlie claims and violate tlie rights of j command.” Outraged in his feeling ami injur-
all the assistant adjutants general of the rank ed in his rights he respectfully remonstrated;
of captain then in commission. his appeal to your sense of justice was unavail-
But, so far as it is made a ground of com-1 ing. Neither to this gallant officer nor to the
plaint and reproof, this is not the worst aspect President did you assign any’ sufficient or even
of the case. You are entirely mistaken in tlie j plausible reason for this extraordinary’ proceed
assertion that there was then a vacancy in tlie ' ~ 11 T * I? • * 1
adjutant general’s staff, with the rank of major
that it was my duty to modify and graduate my
style, so as to meet, according to your fastidious
views, the various degrees of greenness and
ripeness of the generals to w’hom I am required
to carry the orders of the President; and for
any such defect in my official communications
I have no apology to offer.
In your same letter, wherein you complain of
being censured for your course in regard to
Colonel Harney, you say, “ I am now rebuked
for the unavoidable, nay wise, if it had not been
unavoidable—release, on parole, of the prison
ers taken at Cerro Gordo, even before one word
of commendation from government had reached
this army on account of its gallant conduct in
the capture of those prisoners. Accident alone
—not any oversight or neglect on my part—
has given you the apparent advantage of tlie
aggravation which you have artfully thrown
into this charge. My letter commending your
self and tlie gallant army for the glorious
achievement at Cerro Gordo, was written and
sent to you on the 9th of May—eleven days
before that which you jye pleased to consider
containing a rebuke.
But I meet the main charge with a positive
denial. You never were rebuked for discharg
ing the prisoners taken at Cerro Gordo. This
issue can lie tried by the record. All that was
ever said on tlie subject is contained in tlie fol-
lowing extract from my letter of the 31st May:
“ Your course hitherto in relation to prisoners
of war, both men and officers, in discharging
them on parole, has been liberal and kind; but
whether it ought to be still longer continued, or
in some respects changed, has been under the
consideration of the President, and he has direct
ed me to communicate to you his views on the
subject. lie is not unaware of tlie great em
barrassment their detention, or the sending of
them to tho United States would occasion; but
so far as relates to tlie officers, he thinks they
should be detained until duly exchanged. In
that ease, it will probably be found expedient
to send them, or most of them to the United
States, as you shall deem most expedient.'
If I understand the force of terms, there is
nothing in this language which by fair inter
pretation, can be made to express or imply a
rebuke. I cannot conceive that any mind, other
than one of a diseased sensitiveness, over anx
ious to discover causes for complaint and accu
sation, could imagine that anything like a re
buke was contained in this extract: yet on this
unsubstantial basis alone rests the charge, over
and over again presented, that you were rebuk
ed by the War Department for discharging the
prisoners captured at Cerro Gordo. If, in a
to which either of the captains recommended
by you could have been properly appointed.
There was no such vacancy. To show the
correctness of this statement, and to demon
strate your error, I appeal to the Army Regis
ter and tlie records of the Adjutant General’s
Office. Your mistake as to an obvious fact
lying within tlie range of matters with which
ing. The whole army, I believe, and the whole j case where it was so easy to be right, and so
countsy, when the transaction became known, 1 difficult to get wrong, you could fall into such
entertained but one opinion on the subject—and
that was that you had inflicted an injury and
an outrage upon a brave and meritorious officer.
Such an act—almost the first on your assuming
command—boded disastrous consequences to
the public service, anil devolved upon the Presi
dent the duty of interposing to protect the in
jured officer. This interposition you have made
you are presumed to be familiar, has excited j a grave matter of accusation against the head of
less surprise than the declaration, that by the tlie War Department, and have characterized it
non-compliance with your request, you have J as a censure and a rebuke. It may imply both,
had no office of the Adjutant General’s Depart- j and still being merited, may leave you with a
inent with me [you] in tlie campaign.” Every pretence for complaint. The President after
officer in that Department—at least eight—was, I alluding to his duty to sustain the rights, of the
as you well knew, subject to your command, officers under your command, as well as your
When, you arrived in Mexico, there were with own rights, informed you that he did notdiscov-
the army at least five assistant adjutants gener- er in the case, as you had presented it, sufficient
al, aff at your service. That you chose to em- j cause for such an order; that in his opinion,
ploy none of them at your headquarters, and Colonel Hacney bad a just cause to complain;
detached from other appropriate duties an offi- and lie hoped the matter had been re-eonsider-
cer to act as an assistant adjutant general, may 1 ed by you, and the colonel restored to his ap-
well be regarded as a slight to the whole of that j propriate command. Your own subsequent
staff then with you in Mexico, and a cause of
complaint; but certainly not a complaint to
emanate from you against the War Department.
Willing as I am to presume, though unable to
conceive, that circumstances justified you in
course to this case demonstrates the unreasona
bleness of your complaint; and vindicates the
correctness of the President’s proceedings.
You had really rebuked and censured your own
conduct; for even before you had received the
passing over all the assistant adjutants general; President’s views, you had, as he hoped you
then with the army, and in selecting an officer j would, reconsidered the matter, beeome con-
of the line tb perform the duties of adjutant j vinced of your error, reversed your own order,
general at your headquarter^, I was much sur- j and restored Colonel Harney to his own com
prised to learn from you that, when Geii. | mand ; thus giving the strongest evidence in fa-
Worth sent to you one of these “accomplished i favor of the propriety and correctness of all the
captains,” the first on your list, under the be- j President had done in the case; I give you
lief that you desired his services as an acting too much credit for steadiness of purpose, to
assistant adjutant general, you declined to em- j suspect that you retraced your steps from mere
ploy him in that capacity; and I am still more caprice, or for any other cause tliari a cdnvic-
surprised to perceive that you have made it aj tion that you had fallen into error; After tlie
distant ground of charge in your arraignment, matter had this terminated} it appears unac
of tlie War department, that you were not per- j countable to me that you, who above all others
mitted to have him as fin assistant adjutant should wish it to pass into oblivion, have again
general at your headquarters. Had you sc-1 called attention to it by making it an item in
lected him instead of atoother, as you might 1 your arraiiignmment of the War Department,
have done, you would have been bereft of all | You struggle in vain to vindicate your course
mended the ‘accomplished captains’—and to ■ ior officers of as many regiments
which only, they were properly eligible—there' firm, xminslructcd and inefficient, in favor of
was a vacancy in it of the rank of captain.— j three juniors, and with the subsequent anproba-
For tliis position you recommended an officer, tion of Major General Brown, and the head of
■ the War Department” This precedent, does
not, in my judgment, change the aspect of the
present case. Colonel Harney was not “ infirm,
For tliis position you
in Gen. Wool’s staff, then on the Chihuahua
expedition. This officer was subsequently ap
pointed assistant adjutant general with tlie rank
of captain, as you desired, and has ever since
been at tlie headquarters of that general.—
Thus it will bo perceived that your request, so
far as it was proper and reasonable, was actu
ally complied with.
. The next specification in the catalogue of
charges preferred against me, is that a court
martial was not instituted by the President for
the trial of General Marshall. and Captain
Montgomery on vour charges against them.
The offences imputed to them were certainly
not of an aggravated character. The one, as
was alleged, had been incautious in relation to
a despatch under circumstances that might ad
mit ofits coming to tlie knowledge of the ene
my, and the other had not carried a despatch
with as much expedition as you thought he
might have done. -As one was a general offi
cer, a court to tiy him must have been com
posed of officers of high rank. Before the or-
der of assembling it conld have reached Mexico,
it was foreseen that vour command would be
at Vera Cruz, and probably engaged in an active
siege of that city. Officers could not, there
fore, have been then sent from your column to
Monterey or the fiio Grande, (where the court
uitiiistructed, and inefficient;” you did not as
sign, and in deference to the known opinion of
tlie army and country, you did not venture to
assign that reason for deposing him. I do not
understand the force of your logical deduction,
that because you, on a former occasion; had de
prived officers under you of their commands for
good and sufficient reasons, with subsequent
approval you may now, and at any time; do the
same thing without any reason whatever; and
if the President interposes to correct the proce
dure, you have a just cause to complain of an
indignity, and a right to arraign the War De
partment
As your animadversion upon the tone of my
letter is probably not a blow aimed at a much
more conspicuous object, to be reached through
me, I ought perhaps, to pass it without notice.
On revision of that letter I cannot perceive that
it is not entirely respectful in manner and lan
guage. The views of the President are therein
confidently expressed, because they were confi
dently entertained. It seemed to be admitted
by you, that “ if dictated to the greenest general
of the recent appointments,’’ the letter would
not have been exceptionable. I was not aware
an obvious mistake, what may not be expected
from you in other matters where your perverted
feelings have a freer and wider range f
Before considering your complaints for not
having been supplied with • sufficient means of
transportation for the ‘expedition against Vera
Cruz, I will notice youjj “ four memorials” to
the War Department, in which you demons
trated, as you state, that “ Vera Cruz was the
true basis of operation, and that tlie enemy’s
capital could not probably be reached from the
Rio Grande.”
I cannot discover the pertinency of yoiir al
lusion to these four memorials, exefept it bo to
put forth a claim to the merit of originating the
expedition against Vera Cruz, and Of being the
first to discover the most practicable route to
the city of Mexico was from that point on the
gulf; but your known abhorrence lbr a “pru
riency of lame not earned” ought to shield you
from the Suspicion of such infirmity.
I am sure you are not ignorant of the fact—
but if you arc, it is nevertheless true—that the
expedition against Vera Cruz had been ibr some
time under consideration; that great pains had
been taken to get information as tb the defen
ces Of that, city, the strength of the castld, and
the difficulties which would attend tlie debarka^
tion of the troops; that mabs had been procur
ed and carefully examined; that persons who
had resided there, and officers of the army and
navy, had been consulted On the subject, and
the enterprise actually resolved on before the
date of your first memoir, and before you iverd
thought of td conduct it
As early as the 9th of July, 1846, ivithin twd
months after the declaration df war, and before
the main body df troops raised for its prosecui
tion had reached the scene of operations, coni
siderate attention had been given to that subject;
On that day, a letter from this department td
General 'l’aylor thus alluded to a mdvement
from Vera Cruz into the interior bf the enemy’s
country:
“ If, frbhi all the infdrmatiod which ybu may
communicate to the department, as well as that
derived from other sources, it should appear
that the difficulties and obstacles to the com
ducting bf a campaign from the Rio Grande,
the present base of your operations, fbr anjr
considerable distance, into the interior df Mexi
co, will be very great, the department will edn-
sider whether tlie main invasion should not ulti
mately take place from some point on the coast,
say Tampico, or some other point in the vicinity
of Vera Critt. This suggestion is made with a
view to call vour attention to it, and to obtain
from you such information as you may be able
to impart. Should it be determined that the
main army should invade Mexico at some other
point than the Rio Grande,—say the vicinity of
Vera Cruz—a large and sufficient number of
transport vessels could be placed at tlie mouth
of the Rio Grande, by tlie time the healthy sea
son sets in—say early in November. The
main army, with all its munitions, could be
transported, leaving a sufficient force behind to
hold and occupy the Rio Grande, and all the
towns and provinces which you may have con
quered before that time. In the event of such
being the plan of operations, your opinion is
desired with increased force, if any* will be
required to carry it ot$ with success. We
learn that the army could be disembarked a
few miles distant from Vera Cruz, and readily
invest the town in its rear, without coining with*
in the range of the guns of the fortress of San
Juan d’Ulloa^ The town could be readily taken
by land and sea, aqd all communication cutoff,
must soon ialL From fera Cruz .to tho city
of Mexico there fs a fine road, upon which the
dilig4ncies or stage coaches run daily. The
distance from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico
is notf more than one-third of that from the Rio
Grande to the city of Mexico.”
The subject was again brought into view oh
the 13th of October in the lame y v ear, and more
particularly on the 22d of October, in letters
addressed to General Taylor. At tho last date,
the plan had been so far matured that several
officers of the staff and line were indicated for
that service. This was nearly a month before
it was determined to employ you with the army
in any part of Mexico.
It was never contemplated here to strike at
the city of Mexico from the line occupied by
General Taylor, through any other except that
from Vera Cruz. If the war was to be pushed
to that extent, it required no elaborate demon
stration—no profound military talents—nothing
more than common sagacity, and very slight
reflection on the subject to seo the propriety
and the necessity of making Vera Cruz tlie
base of military operations.
An alleged deficiency of means to transport
the troops in the expedition to Vera Cruz seems
to be most prominently presented, and most
confidently relied on to sustain your charge
against the War Department for neglecting tliis
brunch of its duties.
I issued, it seems to be admitted, the proper
order, so far as the means of transportation
were to be drawn from tlie north; but the alle
gation is that it was issued too late, and was
never executed. It was issued at least four
days before you arrived at New Orleans on
your way to the army; If promptly executed
it was a reasonable calculation that tlie “ten
vessels,” alluded to in your letter, would have
jyrived in season to receive the troops as soon
as you could collect them from their remote
and scattered positions in the interior of Mexico,
bring them to tlie seaeoast, and prepare for
their embarcation. Whether an order for ships
to be sent out in ballast, issued tho 16th of
December, was or was not in season for the
service they were designed for, depends upon
the time tlie expedition could be got ready to
sail. To determine this, a regard must be paid
to what you required to be done preparatory to
the expedition, rather than to what you may
have said on that subject
A reference to two or three of your requisi
tions will show that no rational hope could be
entertained than the expedition would set forth
before the middle or the last of February’. You
required as one item of the outfit, one hundred
and forty surf-boats—all to be constructed after
you left Washington. Though the department
urged a less number, you insisted on all. You
estimated the expenses of each at $200; and
thought, by putting tho principal ship-yards on
the Atlantic coast in requistion, they might be
constructed by tlie 1st of January. To show
what reliance was to be placed on your calcu
lation, I refer to the fact that due regard to
economy was had in procuring these boats, each
cost on an average $950—nearly five-fold your
estimate. Conceding that you erred much less
as to the time within which they’ could have
been ready by the 1st of January—and sooner
you did not expect they could be made—by no
reasonable calculation could they have reached
the coast of Mexico by the 1st of February.
The expedition could not go forth without them;
In your letter to me dated the 28th of February,
oft’ Lobos, you state that but a small part of the
transports engaged at New Orleans, under your
Orders of the 28th December, &c., had arrived,
and “ not one of the ten ordered by your (my)
memorandum of the 14th of that month, and
the whole were due on the Brazos on the 15th of
January.” Having thus shown, by your own
oplhion, that under my ordter “ the ten vessels”
ought to have been at the Brazos at least fifteen
days before the expedition could have been ready
to sail, I have vindicated myself from your
charge of having neglected my duty by not
issuing that order at ah earlier date. If issued
earlier, it would have involved a largely in
creased expenditure for demurrage, and resulted
no public benefit
But tlie graver part of the charge is, that none
Of these “ ten vessels” ever arrived. “ Relying,
(you say in the letter nnder consideration) upon
them (the ten vessels) confidently’, the embar
cation was delayed in whole or in part at tlie
Brazos and Tampico, from the 15th January to
the 9th March, leaving it was feared not half the
time needed for tlie reduction of VeraCruz and
its castle before the return bf the yellow fever.’
To whomsoever the calamitous cohsequences of
the non-arrival of these “ teh vessels/’ and your
“ cruel disappointment” in relation to them prfi
imputable, he has certainly involved himself in k
serious responsibility. I hope to remove the
whole of it from “the head of the War Depart
ment,” and entertain sdme apprehensions that
it will fall in part on the commanding general of
the expedition.
Tho executioh of the whole of the most diffi
cult branch of duties appertaining to a military
expedition—providing for transportation—is by
distribution of the business of the War Depart-
ment, allotted to the Quartermaster General.
As an expedition against Vera Cruz had been
resolve’d on som.e time before you were assigned
to take command of it, General Jesup had gone
to New Orleans to be in the best position to
make the necessary preparations for such an
enterprise. From his great knowledge and
long experience in military affairs, not only in
his appropriate department, but as a command
er in the field, the government thought it fortu
nate 4hat you could have the advice and assis
tance of so able a counsellor.
Your suggestion that it might be unnecssary
to send ships in ballast from the north for tran
sports was not neglected nor unheeded by me.
Whether it would be necessary or not, depend
ed, according to your statement to me, upon
the means of transportation which could be pro
cured at New Orleans, &c. My first step was
to write to the Quartermaster General, then at
that place, for information on that subject In
my letter to him of the 11th December I said:
'tit is expected that most of the vessels in tho
service of the quartermaster’s department can be
used as transports for the expedition. It will be
necessary that tho department here should know
what portion of tho transportation cart be fur
nished by the ordinary means width the. quar
termaster’s department has now Under its con
trol for the purposes of its expedition. I Have
to request that information on tl\is poipt Should
be furnished without' delay. 1
“ Another point on which the department de
sires information is, what amount of means of
transportation for such an expedition can bo
furnished at New Orleans, Mobile* and in that
quarter.
The expense of procuring transports from
the Atlantic cities will be exorbitant Freight
is very high, and most Of the good vessels arer
engaged for the ordinary purposes of com--
merce.” < , >
It is important to bear in mind that you saw
this letter on your first arrival at New Orfcahs,-
In writing to me from that place, December 2I^_
you observe: “ I have seen y’our letter tho-"
hands ot Lieutenant-Colonel Hunt) toth? quar
termaster General, dated tho 11th.” You could
not mistake its object, because it was clearly
expressed. I asked distinctly what means of
transportation for the expedition qan be furnish
ed at New Orleans, &c., and referred to the*,
expense and difficulty of procuring transporta
from the Atlantic cities. You could not, there- 45
fore, but know that my course as to sending
ships m ballast from tlie north would be regula
ted by the Quartermaster General’s reply. ’
While waiting for this information, and in order
to* prevent delay', and be sure not to deserve tho
imputation you now cast upon me, 1 issued tho
order of the 15th December, to which you refer*
knowing that it could be modified and conform
ed to the exigencies of the service, according
to the answer which I could receive from Gen*
eral Jesup. His reply is dated the 27th of De
cember, and in it he says:
Transportation can be provided here for alt
the troops that may be drawn from the army un
der the. command of General Taylor, and for all
tlie ordnance, ordnance stores, and other sup
plies, which may he drawn either from tliis de
pot (tlie Brazos) or from New Orleans. The
public transports-—I mean those oWned by tho
United States—that can be spared for tlie con
templated operations, it is estimated, will Carry
three thousand men with all their supplies,
Vessels can be chartered on reasonable terms fof
any additional transportation that may be re*
quired.” This letter was submitted to and read
by you, as appears from your endorsement
thereon.
After referring to some other matters in tho
letter, y ou conclude your endorsement as fob
lows: “ I recommend that Brevet Major-Gen
eral Jesup’ssuggestions be adopted.” This fact
shows that the letter received your particular
attention. When this letter (which you knew
was forwarded to .tlie department,) was here re
ceived-—showing that your apprehended diffi
culty in obtaining sufficient transportation, at
the south was un/bunded, and that it could bo
provided in that quarter in great abundance , on
favorable terms—my order of the 15th Decem
ber, so far, and only so far as it related to send
ing out vessels in ballast, was countermanded;
It is strange, indeed, that after you were made
acquainted with tlie object of my inquiries and
Gen; Jesup’s letter in reply to them, you should
have looked for transport vessels in ballast from
the Atlantic cities, and still more strange
that their mm-nmVal should be tlie proof you
rely On to convict me bf having neglected ;my
duty in tliis instance. Ifl in truth, you-delayed
the cxjiedition nearly two months for theso
transports, I am blameless. The responsibility is
in another quarter. It cannot bo said that tliis
statement as to the sufficiency’ of transports to
be obtained at the south had an implied refer
ence to what I had ordered from the Atlaiitio
cities, for my order was then unkhown to my
self and the Quartermaster General. You first
received a copy of it several days after thb data/
of General Jesup’s letter to me, and your en
dorsement. [See your letter to toe - of the 12th
January.] Resisted as yOiF \Jrere by “ head
winds,” enveloped in “ frightul northers,” ttnd
oppressed with complicated and perjilexing dm
ties iii arranging and preparing the expedition
against Vera Cruz, some temporary bewilder- .
ment may be excused; but, to charge the War
Department with your own misapprehensions
and mistakes, is inexcusable;
My reply to y’our accusations force tne to
expose some of your mistatemements of fact,—
You allege that the expedition, for the want of
the“ ten vessels,” was delayed from tho 15th of
January to the 9th of March. You certainly
mean to be understood lhat on the 16th Janlitt*
ly your troops were nearly ready to embark,
and were delayed for want of these transports.
But this was not so; and I am indebted to you
for most abundnat proof to establish yotir inac
curacy. The great body of your troops fbr tho
expedition was drawn from General Taylor’s
command at Monterey and in the Interior of
.Mexico; and no part of them had reached either
the Brazos or Tampico^-the points of embrea-
cation—On the 15th January » In your, letter
of the 12th of that monthto General Brooke, at
New Orleans, you said: “ I have now to state
that it is probable, tlie troops 1 have called for
from General Taylor’s immediate command to
embark here (the Brazos) and at Tampico, will
not reach these points till late’in the present .
month, (January,) say about the 25th.” In a
letter to ine of the 26th January, you remark
that General Butler responded to your call for
the troops with the utmost proippitude, an ((that
General Worth made an admirable movement.
“The head of his division arrived with him
at the mouth of the Rio Grande the day before
yesterday'” (24th January.) When the re
mainder came up, is not stated; yet one of
your “naked historical facts” places the whole
command at the points of embarcation waiting
for the “ten vessels” at least nine days before
the actual arrival of any part of them.’ But
if they had been there, why should they, hav^
been detained for these vessels ! In thp samp
letter-written but two days after the arrival
of the head of the first division and probably
before the other troops had com? up-—you say
that “ the Quartermaster General, (Brevet Ma
jor General Josup. at New Orleans,) I find, has
taken all proper measures with judgment; and
prompitudg $0 ptovyty everything depending q&
M
