[ 1 ] 



12 



question to assert their supposed rights at the hazard of their commissions^ 

 and if need be their lives, cannot fiiil to be of the most dangerous character, 

 " prejudicial to good order and military discipline," if not threatening their 

 entire destruction ; and to this allusion, the undersigned would with all so- 

 lemnity desire to call the serious attention of Congress, as a point of suffi- 

 cient importance in itself to show the necessity for legislation upon this 

 subject. 



It is not our design to enter into a minute criticism of the details of the 

 letter of the 17th of November, believing it to have been sufficient to have 

 shown, as we think we have shown, that its main feature and leading prin- 

 ciple, is a false one, wholly alien to the genius of all free governments ; 

 that it is a despotic principle with which the reason and intelligence of 

 man has been in conflict for ages ; but nevertheles we cannot help advert- 

 ing to a remarkable contradiction on the face of the letter, which shows 

 how completely the General-in-chief was blinded by his preconceptions and 

 determ.ination.'r''. He sets forth that "paragraphs 11, 14, 15 and 16, in the 

 General Regulations for the army, (1841,) are all more or less repugnant 

 to the law of the land, and therefore to that extent null and void ;" and 

 he undertakes to show this, by claiming for officers holding staif and brevet 

 rank by virtue of their commissions, positive rights under the Gist and 62(1 

 Pvules and Articles of War. ' These rights, as he supposes, they are re- 

 stricted in the exercise of, by those paragraphs of the Regulations for the 

 army. And yet towards the close of his letter, he says, that "in respect 

 to staff oflicers in the presence of seniors, assignment by the common se- 

 nior is necessary, because to him it belongs to say whether such ofhcers 

 may, without prejudice to staff duties and the rights of others, be assigned 

 to the command of troops." In other words, the President of the United 

 States cannot in General Scott's view, restrict staff officers in the exercise 

 of the rights they hold under the law, but a subordinate covimander on a 

 distant station, separated from all immediate appeal to the commander-in- 

 chief, may restrict those officers in the exercise of those same rights, and 

 may determine when they shall or shall not be assigned to the command 

 of troops. 



We cannot close this communication, without remarking, that we fully 

 appreciate and believe, we understand the real intention and importance of 

 brevet rank, and that the noble emulation it may give rise. to in the army, 

 when properly regulated, is of incalculable value. But when not properly 

 regulated, when rights and privileges are unlawfully added to the honors of 

 that rank, making an unholy conjunction, the rank itself will be sought for 

 under the influence of lowered, not to say degraded impulses. Those have 

 little knowledge of human nature, who do not perceive, that just so far as 

 an unworthy object can be sought for under the cloak of a noble one, the 

 means employed in its pursuit, will by a necessary contagion, become 

 adapted to the inferior object and take their character from it ; and it is 

 from this cause, as we believe, that some few have resorted to means and 

 shifts to obtain the advantages of brevet rank, which men of unperverted 

 feeling would not deign to use. By these remarks, we trust you will per- 

 ceive that we do not aim to destroy brevet rank, but to purify it, by elevating 

 it to an honor possessing only lawful privileges, and divesting it of those 

 extrinsic advantages that have gathered around it by an unlawful war upon 

 the proper rights and privileges of the line of the army. We believe this 

 object would be fully attained by a declaratory act of Congress, affirming 



