Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 2.djvu/455

Rh

general (e.g. in Harney's case), the plan to place a civilian (Benton) over him, the apparent intention to let Trist interfere in military affairs, and the refusal to provide a chief of staff satisfactory to him (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 319). See also chapter xxvii, p. 129. All the charges except those against Pillow were withdrawn. The latter should have been placed before a court-martial, and so Polk and the Cabinet decided (Polk, Diary, Jan. 3, 1848). But — probably because he feared that his friend would be convicted — Polk concluded to have first a court of inquiry in order to ascertain what the evidence was, and perhaps dispose of the matter (ibid., Jan. 8). The court was selected by Polk — doubtless with a view to Pillow's acquittal (ibid., Jan. 15). The fact that Pillow was entirely satisfied with it (180to wife, Feb. 27) is almost enough to prove this. The British chargé reported that it seemed to favor Pillow (13Doyle, no. 39, 1848). Two of the members were brevetted later, though one of them (Scott publicly stated) had no other connection with the war, and the connection of the other had been slight (Scott in N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857).

The principal charges against Pillow were, first, that Pillow's claim to have won the battle of Contreras was unfounded, on which the verdict went against him (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 317, 333); and, secondly, that he was directly or indirectly the author of the Leonidas letter. In order to maintain that he wrote it (which he had strongly denied on three occasions (ibid., 56-7, 131), Burns had to admit that he had spoken falsely in it (ibid., 33, 388-9), and he swore that he believed he wrote certain interlineations (ibid., 32) which it was found had been written by the editor of the Delta (ibid., 250); but he stuck to it that he had dared to steal into Pillow's private office, and remain there long enough to copy the substance and to a large extent the phraseology of a long document (ibid., 32). And therefore, although statements substantially equivalent to those of the Leonidas letter were brought home to Pillow (ibid., 389-391), Pillow had to be acquitted. John Sedgwick, later General Sedgwick, wrote: I think the court must acquit Pillow, "but the sentiment of the army will never acquit him" (Corres., i, 182). Naturally a lawyer like Pillow had a great advantage at the trial over Scott, upon whom it was incumbent to conduct the prosecution. His handling of the case was extremely clever. The same court was instructed to inquire into the so-called "council" of Puebla (p. 391), and thus Scott was virtually put on trial, yet, contrary to the articles of war, had no opportunity to question witnesses (Mo. Republican, Nov. 5, 1857). Pillow was before another court of inquiry (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 338-73), and the evidence convicted him, morally at least, of attempting to appropriate, in violation of the articles of war, a captured Mexican howitzer. Pillow's appeal to the government grew out of Scott's approving the findings of this court, and his arrest resulted from the disrespect shown in connection with the appeal.

June 4, 1847, Scott wrote to Marcy: 'Considering the many cruel disappointments and mortifications I have been made to feel since I left Washington, or the total want of support and sympathy on the part of the War Department which I have so long experienced, I beg to be recalled from this army the moment that it may be safe for any person to embark at Vera Cruz, which I suppose will be early in November" (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 131). This application was denied and (since the circumstances on which it was based appeared to change) became obsolete. A correspondent