9 [ 1 ] 



tlie letter of General Taylor was " promptly laid before the Secretary of 

 War, for the consideration of the highest in authority ; but that by desire 

 of the Secretary of War, (he not having leisure at this time fully to exam- 

 ine the question himself, ) the General-in-chief gives the following as his 

 own general answers to the queries proposed by General Taylor ; and tlu ii 

 follows the answers of the General-in-chief, (see Appendix A.) 



We cannot avoid expressing our regret that the questions submitted bv 

 (reneral Taylor, did not reach the " highest in authority," for we are pei- 

 suaded that the unprejudiced and uncommitted mind of that high functionarv, 

 would have found ample reason to re-afKrm the decisions of his predeces- 

 sors in office, and which have been, as we believe, invariably adverse to 

 the opinions of Major General Scott. We know that the o})inions of tiie 

 late President Adams were of this character, and that a comprehensive and 

 remarkably 'luci^l report upon this subject was made by General Porter, 

 whilst Secretary of War, under the administration of Mr. Adams, adverse 

 to the views of General Scott, which report was printed by order of the Se- 

 Jiate or House of Representatives, and may be found among the printed 

 documents of Congress about the year 1828. We further know that Pre- 

 sident Jackson in a forinal order published to the army in the year 18*2!>, 

 decided the question of brevet rank, also adverse to the views of General 

 Scott ; the principles of which decision continecl for a time to govern tl:<= 

 army, but they have been gradually, step by step, undermined and must 

 now be regarded as abrogated, if the principles expfessed in the letter of the 

 17th of November, 1845, are to be considered valid. We repeat that w(^ 

 deeply regret that the peculiar position of Major General Scott, with re- 

 spect to the brevet question, did not restrain him from acceding to the " de- 

 sire of the Secretary of War," and prevail with him to withhold from the 

 army the expression of his individual opinion, sustained as it is, by the 

 weight of his authority and high character, upon this much controverted 

 subject, in which he had been thi'ough a great part of his life an interested 

 controversialist, which makes it impossible to suppose that his opinions can 

 be unbiased, without regarding hiui as possessing a nature elevated above 

 that of humanity. W'e believe that in common with the rest of the 

 armv, he might well hav'e been willing to trust the decision of the question 

 to the constitutional Commander-in-chief of the army, and tliat it would 

 have sustained his character for magnanimity, had he carefully and stu- 

 diously abstained from forestalling and anticipating the decision of the Ex- 

 ecutive. 



It is not our wish, however, to occupy your time by general reflect ior:,s 

 upon matters, which, however pertinent in themselves, may be regarded as 

 collateral and aside from what we hope to exhibit as a clear argumentative 

 view of the brevet question, and will therefore proceed at once to the merits 

 of the question itself. 



In all the questions of controversy, where men ai-e divi(k'd in 0])inion, 

 there nuist be some point where men separate from a common ground of 

 argument ; and on a close examination this will always appear to be among 

 conscientious men, either the misunderstanding of sojne fact or the misap- 

 ])rehension or misapplication of some priiiciph'. We expect to show with 

 the utmost clearness, that the real ground of what we regard as the erro- 

 neous views of Major General Scott, so far as those views assume the ap- 

 [)earance of argument founik'd on law, is the assumption of a wrong princi- 

 ple, one of the most erroneous and dangerous that has ever been discu^seii 



