Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

now do well without the aid of Tennessee, be. be.. A word tothcuiic is enough. The enclosed is taken from tlie Columbian, a paper o) much circulation in this state, Ncw-York. Certified and (signed) J. VI. Glassed, aid dc camp.” NOTES. —[on the foregoing,] Jl'ar office gentry , c Tc. —lf the writer meant to class general Stott among them, he was total ly mistaken. The acting secretary of war, be tween the summer of 1816, and December, 1817, was the t hies clerk of the department a vet)’ worthy and highly respectable pri x<ute gentlemen, but previously unknown as a public character, and, therefore, in the opinion of general Scott, (as was frequently expressed by him at the lime) an unlit person to preside over the army, or to represent it, before the congress of the country. It is due to this gentleman to add, that whilst in the department, he conducted him self with great modesty and propriety, General Scott had nothing to < xpcct or to ask from tiie department, except what the law and his rank entitled him to. In this district hr in the organ, (S'c. — I his is utterly false. Clencral Scott has never, since tne war, taken part either in general or local politics, lie held no correspondence vith the executive departments of the govermncit, except on pro fessional matters, and none with the president; and can almost say with certainty, that lie never once had a conversation with a resident of Ncw- York, on the poiitit sol the state, except with one or two friends of the army, the particular admirers of Mr. Clinton. • They have filaced s/iies u/ion Brown here , e7 c. iS’c.— Generals Brown and Scott were, and arc, on terms ol friendship and intimacy, lie has read this correspondency, (in January, 1818,) and frankly acknowledged that general Jackson lad sent him a copy of the anonymous letter, to put him on his guard against general Scott.— The latter jestingly remarked to general Brown, that if a spy had been placed on him, the presi dent was the person; for at the time the anony mous letter was written, the,Wo were making a tour around the northwest frontier together, and on terms of much mutual respect and good will. General Scott has reason to believe, moreover, that general Brown is well pleased witn Mr. Monroe, as president, and the latter with general Brown, us the commander of the army. This is to the honor of both, for general Brown is known lobe a decided Clintonian. The eastern federalists, ate. —Here wc discov er the hand of a master. Never was gudgeon seized with more avidity! “A word to the wise is enough.” The bail was swallowed, and gen eral Jackson has put his character for window beyond ail controversy. “De Witt Clinton, our next president,” has since been, it is said, his standing toast. But let us recal to mind, some of the political events of that day. Mr. Clinton had just been elected governor, and an election was then going on in Pennsylvania, from which, he was supposed to entertain hopes of the most favorable results Had his friends succeeded in electing general 1 leister, republican Tennessee and general Jackson would have constituted a handsome addition to the nucleus of opposition. It is impossible, therefore, not to perceive tiiat a Clintonian must have been the anonymous wri ter. General Scott repeats, that he has been but a passive observer of those events —not that he had not all the rights of any other citizen, in re gard to such questions, but because respect for himself (under his relation witii tne president, as commander and comm uncled’) induced him to wave those rights. The following article was enclosed in the foregoing |rV: W General Jackson’s doctrines of obedience.—Queries So the editors of , and other learned casuists.— 1. Suppose the government of the United States give orders to a general officer, or delicately signify their wishes and intentions, to remove from a certain com- Inland, one of the general’s proteges and favorites?— These orders, or intentions of government, arc not pleasing to either the chief, or his subordinate. They, therefore employ t .eir joint faculties of manoeuvering to frustiate the object ot government, By artifices, eva sions, and pretended misapprehensions of meaning, they have so far prevailed as to bold a command in defiance of government itself, for for nearly a year. Does not this case prove, that government, when re stricted, according to the dictatorial system of general Jackson, may not only be tricked and insulted, but abso lutely nullified? W hat redress would an interested court martial afford? 2. Suppose that through the same general, positive orders w ere given, by got eminent, for another officer to supercede his protege and favorite in the command of his usurped place. Suppose these positive orders, as they w ere not susceptible of quibble or subterfuge, be pocketed, laid aside, delayed, and not executed, for more months than it would be necessary to employ days or hours; would this case prove the utility of govern ment relying for the execution of its orders solely on the integrity of a commander? Perhaps it may be al ledged, that such cases are purely imaginary; let facts which lia\ e occured in less t ban a y ear be examined, and it will ihen be known whether they vary in any respect, from the cases as above stated. A QUERIST. “Certified and signed, J. M. Classed, aid-dc-camp.” LETTER 11. GENERAL SCOTT TO UKX Lit At. JACKSON. Head Quurters, I st and 3tl nulitiiry departments, AVw-Tori’, October 4, 1817. Sin —1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the Sth ultimo, together w.di the two pa pers therein enclosed. I am not the author of the miserable and unmeaning article copied from “The Columbian,” and (not being a reader of that gazette) should probably mur have heard of it, but for the copy you have sent tne. And whilst on the subject of w riting and publishing, it may save time t'* say, at once, that with the exception of the, substance of two articles which appeared ; n “ I’he En quirer” last fall, and a journal kept whilst a prisoner in Ike hands efthe enemy, I have not r uen, nor caused r to write a single tun- fi-i vy grzeitc vv io.te. ii , commencement of the late war. xv . .’’ ■ I 1 “, 1 C*? I at least his supposed sanction, cannot give a valid com mand to an ensign. 1 have thus, sir, frankly answered the queries address ed to me, and which were suggested to you by the let ter of your anonymous correspondent} but on a question so important as that which you have raised v\ ith the war department, or in other words with the president of the United States, and, in which, I find myself incidentally ! involved, I must take leave to illustrate my meaning a little; in doing w hich, I shall employ almost the precise language which was used on the occasions above alluded to Take any three officers—Let Abe the common su perior, I! the intermediate commander, and C the com mon junior. A w ishes to make an order, which shall effect C. The good of the service, etiquette and coun try, require, no doubt, that the order should pass thro’ B; or, if expedition and the dispersed situation of the parties make it necessary to send the order direct to C, (of which necessity Ais the judge,) the good ofthe ser vice, etiquette and country require, with as little doubt, that A notify 1$ thereof, as soon as practicable. Such ■ notice, of itself, lias always been held sufficient, under the circumstances last stated. But we will suppose that A sends the order direct to G, and neglects to notify B thereof; and such appears to be the precise case alluded to in the order before cited, lias Bno redress against this irregularity? Me may unquestionably remonstrate with A., in a respectful manner, and if remonstrance fails, and there be a higher military authority than A, B j may appeal to it for redress. Now in the case under ! consideration, there existed no such higher authority— I the war department, or in other words, the president, i being the common superior (A,) and the general of di | vision, the intermediate commander (U.) A private and I respectful remonstrance, therefore, appears to have been the only mode of redress which circumstances ad mitted of. An appeal totlit mmy o. the public, before or after such remonstrance, seems to have been a great er irregularity than the measure complained cf; to re probate that measure publicly, as the division orderdoes, was to mount still higher in the scale of indecorum, but when the order goes so far as to prohibit to all officers in the division, an obedience to the commands of the president of the United States, unless received through division head quarters, it appears to that nothing but mutiny anil defiance, can be understood or intended. There is another view of this subject, which must have escaped you, us 1 am persuaded there is not a man in America less disposed to shift responsibility from himself to a weaker party t han yourself. Suppose the war department, by order of the president, sends in structions direct to the commanding officer, perhaps a captain, at Natchitoches (a post within your division) to attack the body of Spanish royalists nearest to that fron tier; if the captain obeys, you arrest him; but if, in com pliance with your prohibition, he sets the commands of the president at naught, tie would find himself in a di rect conflict with the highest military authority under the constitution,and thus would have to maintain against that “fearful odds,” the dangerous position laid down in your order. Surely this consequence could not have been foreseen by you, w hen you penned that order, j I must pray you to believe, sir, that I have expressed my opinion on this great question, without the least hos tility to yourself, personally, and without any view of making my court in another quarter, as is insinuated by’ your anonymous correspondent, i have nothing to fear or hope, from either party. It is not likely that the executive will be offended, at the opinion, that it has committed an irregularity in the transmission of one of its orders; and, as to yourself, although I cheerfully ad mit that you arc ir.y superior, I deny that you arc my commanding officer, within the- meaning of the 6tli article of the rules and articles of war Even if I belonged to your division, l should not hesitate to repeat to you all that l have said, at any time, on your sub ject, if a proper occasion offered; and what is more, I should expect your approbation, as in my humble judgment, refutation is impossible. As you do not adopt the imputations contained in the anonymous letter, a copy of which you enclosed me, 1 shall not degrade myself by any further notice of it. 1 have just shewn the article from “The < Columbian” to some military gentlemen of this place, from whom I learn, that it was probably intended to be implied to a case w hich has recently occurred at West Ifoint. The writer is supposed to proceed upon a report (which is nevertheless believed to be erroneous) tint brigadier general Swift had orders from the war department, more than twelve months since, to remove captain Partridge from the military academy, and that h” sup pressed tins orders, &c. The author is believed to be a young man of the army, and was, at the time of publi cation, in this city; but not under mv command, and with whom, 1 never had the smallest intimacy. 1 for bear to mention his name, because it is only known by’ conjecture. 1 have the honor to be, &c. W. Scott. To major general sin drew Jackson, He. He. He LETTER Ilf. GENARAL JACKSON TO GENERAL SCOTT. Ueatl Quarters, Division of the South, JVaahville, December 3, 1317. Sir—lhave been absent from ibis place a considera ble time, rendering the last friendly office I could to a particular friend, whose ey cs I closed on the 20th ultimo. Owing to this, your letter of the 4th ot October was not received until the first instant. Upon the receipt of the anonymous communication made me from New-York, I hastened to lay it before you; that course was suggested to me, by the respect 1 felt for you as a man and a soldier, and that you might have it in your power to answer how far you hail been guilty of so base and inexcusable conduct. Inde pendent of the services you had rendered your country, the circumstance ot y our wearing the badge and insig nia of a soldier, led me to the conclusion, that i was ad dressing a gentleman. With these feelings you were written to; and had an idea been for a moment entertain ed, that you could have descended from the high and dignified character of a major general of the United States, and used language so opprobious and insolent as you have done, rest assured, I should have v iewed y ou as rather two contemptible to have held any converse with you on the subject. If you have lived in the world thus long in the entire ignorance of die obligations and duties which honor imposes, you arc indeed past the time of learning; and surely he must be ignorant of them, w ho seems so little under their influence. Pray, sir, does your recollection serve, in what school of philosophy w ere you taught; that to a letter inquir ing into the nature of a supposed injury, and clothed in + J.et it here be remembered, that this illustrative statement was strictly in reply: General Jackson hud said, “if my order lias been the subject of your animad versions, it is believed that y ou will at once admit it, and the extent to vv hich you may have gone.” General Scott, however, omitted one remark made by him, on all the occasions alluded to: Speaking of the order, lie said, “nevertheless, as this indiscretion on the part of general Jackson, no doubt, proceeded from that vehemence and impetuosity of character to w hich w e owe one of the most splendid victories, not only of the country , but of the age, he (general Scott) hoped, that the one act migh tbe tolerated on account of the other.” This was omitted for opposite but obvious reasons, botji by liiin self and 1 lie anonymous writer. General Scott can con fidently appeal to, perhaps, more than a thousand per sons, in Europe and \merica, in proof of the pride and enthusiasm Mih w Inch he has uniformly spoken of the defence of Ne \-Orleans; and, he agrees to be held infa mous, if two respectable witnesses wil l aver, that he was ever heard, p* or iothe 22d December, 1317, to speak ■f general Jackson in other terms that those of admira tion, . * language decorous and unexceptionable, an answer should be given, couched in pompous insolence and bul lying expressions? 1 hud hoped t Bat what-was chargeil upon you by my anonymous correspondent was un founded; 1 had hoped so, from a belief that general Scott was a soldier and a gentlemen; but when 1 see 1 those statements doubly confirmed by his ow n words, it becomes a matter of inquiry , how far a man of honora- I blc feelings can reconcile them to himself, or longer set ! up a claim to that character. Are you ignorant, sir, i that had my order, at winch your refined judgment is 1 so extremely touched, been made the subject, of inqui ry, you might, from y our standing, not your character, been constituted one of my judges? Mow very proper then was it, thus situated, and without a knowledge of i any of the attendant circumstances, for you to have pre judged the whole matter. This at different times, and in the circle of your friends, you could do, and yet had I been arraigned, and you detailed as one ofiny judges, with the designs of an assassin lurking under a fair ex terior, you would have approached the holy sanctuary of justice. Is conduct like this congenial with that high sense of dignity which should be seated in a soldier’s bosom? Is it due from a brother officer to assail in the dark the reputation of another, and stab him at the mo ment when lie cannot expect it? I might insult an hon i orable man by questions such as these, but shall not ex pect that they will harrow up one who must be dead to all those feelings which are the true characteristic of a gentleman. In terms polite as I was capable of noting, I asked you if my informant had stated truly—if you were the author of the publication and remarks charged against you, anil to what extent: a reference to your letter, without any comment of mine, will inform how far you have pursued a similar course; how little of the gentleman, and how much of the hectoring bully you have manifest ed. If nothing else would, the epaulets which grace your shoulders, should have dictated to you a different course, and have admonished you, that how ever small may have been your respect for another—respect for yourself should have taught you the necessity of reply ing, at least mildly , to the inquiries ! suggested; and more especially should you have done tins, when your own convictions must have fixed yon as guilty of the abominable crime of detraction, of slandering, and be hind his hark, a brother officer. But not content with answering to what was proposed, your over weening vanity has led you to make an offering of your advice.* Believe me, sir, it is not in my power to render you my thanks: I think too highly of myself to suppose I stand at all in need of your admonitions, anil too lightly of you to appreciate them as useful. For good advice lam al ways thankful; but never fail to spurn it, when l know’ it to flow from an incompetent or corrupt source; the breast where base and guilty passions dwell is not the place to look for virtue, or any thing t But leads to vir tue. My notions, sir, are not those now taught in mod ern schools, and in fashionable high life; they were im bibed in ancient days, and hitherto have, anil yet bear liie to the conclusion, that he who can w antonly outrage the feelings of another, — who, w ithout cause, can ex tend injury where none is done, is capable of any crime, however detestible in its nature, and will not fail to com mit it; whenever it may be imposed by necessity. not stoop, sir, to a justification of my orclcrJA or to notice the weakness and yourself’, awfolluive no disposition to convinc ing you, is not you have imagined my may please, 1 bold answeivaijMPpro duce the reasons me to 1 took; and to the and spiel T the war departmcn^WTio are in of gentlAniVn, 1 hold for any grie\oW|Lthey \aV la bor my account; with which Vny to number yourself. For what I hai^^kd, 1 offer no apology; you have deserved it all, and more were it necessary to say more. I will barely remark in conclusion, that if you feel yourself aggrieved at wliat is here said, any communication from you will reach me safely at tins place. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedi ent servant. Andrew Ja; k o . Brevet maj. gen. IV. Scott, U. States’ army, .V. York. The foregoing extraordinary letter was laid aside until almost forgotten. When certain of his feelings, general Scott sat down to reply to it. He thought of New-Orlcans and some other af fairs, in which the parties had been respectively engaged, and it appeared to him that a brace of pistols could add nothing to the character of ei ther. He conceived that at the age he had then attained, some little reputation for temper and moderation began to be an object worthy of his consideration, however they might be disregard ed by his opponent. In fact, it did not once se riously occur to him, that the courage of either could be put in question; and, therefore, he found himself perfectly at liberty to consult his sense of justice and propriety, rather than his passions. Yet he understands, that, on this point, general Jackson shrugs his shoulders and looks myste riously, whilst he suffers his minions to flatter him, that he has obtained a triumph. Misera ble vanity! Most pueiile and unworthy conceit! A triumph over the fears of general Scott! The latter docs not doubt the courage of general Jack son, yet he might enumerate several affairs, in any one of which, he was, probably, exposed, to greater personal danger than general Jackson has encountered in his whoie military career.— And here let him not “be called a fool for boast ing;” for he may say with one of the greatest of men, “mine enemy lias forced me to it.” But is it a boast, in an American, to assert his indif ference to personal danger? General Scott has commanded some thousands of his countrymen at different times, and does not remember three individuals among them, who were deficient in that universal attribute. But the foregoing letter has been reprsented as a challenge , and the reply to it a non-accep tance — on the ground of religious scruples. The double falsehood will not escape the reader, al though it be true, that general Scott, in a play ful humor, chose to treat the letter as a challenge. And as to the other point, however repugnant to his principles, it may be, “to do a contrived mur der,” cither under forms, or in violation of them; or by his own voluntary seeking—general Scott, whenever he shall think it necessary, will be as free to defend his reputation against calumny, as he would be to slay a robber who should attempt his life on the highway. He knows of no code of morals which would disarm him him in either i case, nor does the promise in the following letter; I for as that was made without consideration, so may it be withdrawn, without explanation or a pology. i “When, where? General Scott is unconscious of the fact. LETTER IV. SEVERAL SCOTT TO GENERAL JACKSON. Head Quarters, 1 and 3d military department?, ,\'tftv-York, January 2, 1818. Sir—Your letter of the 3d ultimo, was handed me about the 23d, and lias not bean read, I might say thought of, since. ‘l‘licsc circumstances will show that it is my wish to reply to you dispassionately. I regret that I cannot accept the challenge von offer me. Perhaps I may be restrained from wishing to lev el a pistol at the breast of a fellow being, in private combat, by a sense of religion; but lest this motive should excite the ridicule of gentlemen of liberal habits of flunking and acting, I beg leave to add, that t decline the honor of your imitation from patriotic scruples . — My ambition is not that of Erostratus. I should think it would be easy for you to console yourself under tins refusal, by the application of a few epithets, as a coward, &c to the object of your resentment, and 1 here pro mise to leave you until the next war, to persuade your self of their truth. Yo ir famous order bears date the 22d April, LIT. At intervals of three or four months thereafter—ilia, is, when it had been officially published to the troops of your division, and printed in almost every paper In the union—as if to challenge discussion—l found myself in company where it was the subject of conversation.— Not being under your command, 1 was as free to give my opinion on that public act as any one else; for I pre sume, you will not assert, that where an officer is not expressly restrained by the military code, life-has not all the rights of any other citizen. For this fair expres sion of opinion, on a principle as universal as the pro fession of arms—and which opinion I, afterwards, at tour instance, state to yon, in all iis detail, you are pleased to charge me with having slandered you behind y our back!! —an accusation, which 1 consider the more amusing, as I never had the honor of being in your presence in alt my life! 1 can assure y ou, sir, that nothing bin my great res pect for your superiorage and services, prevem sme from indulging, also,in a little bitter pleasantry on thispoint. It seems that you are under the further impression that if you liad been brought to trial for publishing tiiat order —(an idea that 1 never heard any other suggest,) and /appointed one of your judges, that, assassin-like, 1 should have approached the hob sanctuary of justice, &c. — such is, 1 think your language. Now, like you, (without believing one word it,) it would be as easy for me, (manually,) to retort all this abuse, as i; was for you to originate it: but I must inform you, sir, that how ever much I may desire to emulate certain portions of your history, I am not at all inclined to follow the per nicious example that your letter furnishes. You complain of harshness on my part. My letter to which youi’s is a reply, is doubltless, somewhat bo.d in its character, but, believing that In an affair with you, it was only necessary to have right on one’s side, in or der to obtain approbation, i had no other care in its composition, that to avoid every thing,personally offen sive, as far as the truth, and a fair discussion of the sub ject would permit; and T still rest persuaded, that the fact corresponds with my intention. It is true, that I spoke of you, and treated you, as a MAN, without the petty qualifications of common usage; because, in ad dressing you, they were then considered as so many diminutives; but I am now to apprehend that universal success and applause have somewhat spoiled you; and that 1 shall ultimately’ be obliged to fall into the common place habit, observed in respect to common place pco ple, and consider you as nothing more than a gentleman. Permit me to request —t think J have a right to de mand —a sight, of the anginal anonymous letter which has given rise to this discussion. If 1 mistake not your correspondent is a greater personage than you, perhaps, imagine—nay so high, tiiat he has once es ayed to set himself above the highest in our political sphere. 4he letter shall be returned as soon as the hmi l is compared with that of a certain agent of the personage alluded to. I cannot close this le ter without expressing a belief, that on the return of your wonted magnanimity, 1 shall be requested to burii the one which bus elic.cd t, by way of apology for the injury it does me. Accordingly, it has been seen, as yet, by but one individual (of my staff) and shall be held in reserve, until a certain time, has elapsed—attending that just expectation. In the mean time, f shall have the honor to remain, sir, very respectfully,your most obedient servant, W. Scott. To .Major General Andrew Jackson. No reply has ever been given to the foregoing, and of course general Scott has never seen the original anonymous letter. His suspicions and the whole correspondence were fully communi cated, in January, 1818, to a particular'friend of governor Clinton, who was perfectly at liberty to give notice thereof to that personage. Whe ther he did so or not, general Scott is not inform ed. A copy of the correspondence itself would have been sent to Mr. Clinton, but for the pro hibitory regulation above cited, and which came out before general Jackson had had time to re ply to the letter, if he had been so disposed.— General Scott until his opponent had set him the example (a precedent not disapproved by the war department) supposed that the first sentence of the regulation, “ail publications,” Bec. inter dicted manuscript copies as well as others. Un til then a distinction of this sort appeared to hint absurd: for how eaiy would it be for any of the numerous persons to whom general Jackson has delivered copies, or rather parts of the correspon dence, to print them. The moment they passed out of his hands they ceased to be under his con trol. After all, it is possible, that the suspicions a bove expressed are unjust, as it respects one in dividual; although there is not room to doubt, that the anonymous letter was written to serve the views of Mr. Clinton, and that those views have been effected, at least so far as they respect general Jackson. Should general Scott ever dis cover or find cause to believe, that Mr. Clinton neither wrote nor dictated the anonymous letter, there is no apology which one gentleman may prescribe to another, that shall not be promptly and cheerfully rendered. And here, general Scott must, in candor, state, that sometime during the summer or fall of 1818, when a threat of general Jackson’s (that he meant to visit New-York for the purpose of “calling out” general Scott—published in a Georgia pa per, on information derived, as was said, from an officer direct from Florida) was mentioned in the hearing of Mr. Clinton, the latter replied— “ General Jackson would have enough to do, if he undertook to fight every body who thinks with general Scott, on the subject of the famous order, —intimating thereby, that lie (Mr. Clin ton) was still one of those persons. General Scott’s informant who had previously heard of the suspicion entertained in respect to the anon ymous letter, was certainly impressed, in that ini .dental conversation, with the idea, that Mr. Clintoi had no agency in dictating the letter. — General Scott would he very well content to yield