General Scott Part 2

General Scott's orders were to march on the forts, as information had been received that Riall had divided his forces, sending a thousand of them across the river. He, however, determined to move forward and give battle. Dispatching Adjutant-General Jones to General Brown with information that the enemy was in his front, he moved on, and was astonished to see drawn up in line of battle on Lundy's Lane a larger force than he had fought at Chippewa; but he determined to give battle and rely upon re-enforcements being rapidly sent to him. Lieutenant Richard Dougla.s.s was now dispatched to inform General Brown of the situation. On the night of the 23d Lieutenant-General Sir Gordon Drummond had arrived at the mouth of the river with re-enforcements.

This was not known to General Brown. Riall had marched down the road which Scott was to have taken on the 26th, coming by Queenstown, and had not sent any troops across the Niagara. His re-enforcements were coming up rapidly. The battle opened late in the afternoon. The British line, eighteen hundred strong, posted on a ridge in Lundy's Lane running at right angles with the river, was in front of Scott.

The left of this line was on a road parallel to the river, with a s.p.a.ce grown up with small timber, extending some two hundred yards. He ordered Major Jesup and Colonel Brady to take advantage of this and turn the enemy's left from the concealed position which the brushwood afforded. The other infantry forces had been placed in line with detachments of cavalry on both sides and held as reserves. The British, outflanking Scott on the left, made a movement to attack in flank and fear. This was repelled by Major McNeil with heavy loss.

Jesup had succeeded in his movement, while Brady, Leavenworth, and Towson were engaged in the front. Jesup had captured General Riall and a number of other officers far in his front, and then resumed his line. At nine o'clock the British right was driven back from its a.s.sault on Scott's flank, and his left was turned and cut off. The center posted on the ridge held its place, supported by nine pieces of artillery. Another battalion of British troops was on its way as a re-enforcement, and but a short distance away, when General Brown arrived on the field, in advance of the reserve. He thus describes in his report what occurred from the time of his arrival:

"Apprehending that these corps were much exhausted, and knowing that they had suffered severely, I determined to interpose a new line with the advancing troops, and thus disengage General Scott and hold his brigade in reserve. Orders were accordingly given to General Ripley.

The enemy's artillery at this moment occupied a hill which gave him great advantage and was the key to the whole position. It was supported by a line of infantry. To secure the victory it was necessary to carry this with artillery and seize the height.

"The duty was a.s.signed to Colonel Miller. He advanced steadily and gallantly to his object, and carried the height and the cannon.

General Ripley brought up the Twenty-third (which had faltered) to his support, and the enemy disappeared from before them. The enemy, rallying his forces, and, as is believed, having received re-enforcements, now attempted to drive us from our position and regain his artillery. Our line was unshaken and the enemy repulsed.

Two other attempts having the same object had the same issue. General Scott was again engaged in repelling the former of these, and the last I saw of him on the field of battle he was near the head of his column and giving to its march a direction that would have placed him on the enemy's right.... Having been for some time wounded and being a good deal exhausted by loss of blood, it became my wish to devolve the command on General Scott and retire from the field; but on inquiry I had the misfortune to learn that he was disabled by wounds. I therefore kept my post, and had the satisfaction to see the enemy's last effort repulsed."

General Brown said to General Miller, when he saw that to win the battle the artillery on the ridge must be captured, "Sir, can you take that battery?" He replied, "I will try, sir," and at once moved forward, conducted by Scott, who was familiar with the ground, and with his gallant command drove the enemy from its stronghold and captured the guns.

General Scott, though severely wounded, was not disabled at the time mentioned in General Brown's report. Having two horses killed under him, he was at this time on foot, but was finally prostrated by his two wounds--one in the side, the other in the shoulder. The American loss was one hundred and seventy-one killed, five hundred and seventy-two wounded, and one hundred and seventeen prisoners; that of the British was eighty-four killed, five hundred and fifty-nine wounded, and two hundred and thirty-five prisoners.

Generals Brown and Scott both being disabled, General Ripley was sent to bring off the wounded and dead. The captured artillery, owing to want of horses and harness, was left on the field. The army now fell back to Chippewa and fortified the place.

It being learned that General Drummond was advancing on Chippewa with a large force, the place was evacuated and the army retreated to the ferry near Black Rock. A division was ordered to remain at Fort Erie and repair the fort, and Brigadier-General Gaines was, by General Brown's orders, placed in command of the army.

Very soon the British General Drummond appeared in front of Fort Erie and commenced a regular investment. Cannonading was begun on August 13th and continued at intervals, and on the 15th a heavy British column a.s.saulted Towson's battery, which was stationed at the northwest angle of the fort. The a.s.sault was repelled by Captain Towson with the aid of Major Wood, commanding the Twenty-fifth Regiment. The western angle was then attacked, with a like result. The British eventually succeeded in obtaining possession of the exterior bastion of the old fort. Just at this time a number of cartridges in a building near by exploded, killing many of the British and expelling them from the fort. The losses in these affairs were: British--killed, fifty-seven; wounded, three hundred and nine; missing, five hundred and thirty-nine. American--killed, seventeen; wounded, fifty-six; missing, eleven.

General Brown resumed command on September 2d, and determined to attempt to relieve the siege by a sortie on the enemy's works. The investment had now lasted fifty days, and the British during that time had erected two batteries and were engaged on a third. The force was divided into three brigades, two of which were encamped out of range of the American cannon. At half past 2 P.M. on the 17th the American troops marched out and the action began. In less than half an hour the Americans had captured two of the batteries and two blockhouses. Very soon a third battery was abandoned, the cannon spiked and dismounted. General Drummond retired on the night of the 21st, and took post in his intrenchments behind the Chippewa. The British losses in this investment were, in killed, wounded, and prisoners, nearly a thousand, while the American loss was five hundred and eleven. Early in November the American army took up winter quarters in Buffalo, and this brought to a close the war on the Niagara.

The following statement of the losses on either side in this memorable campaign is interesting:

--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------- | British loss. | American loss.

--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------- Battle of Chippewa, July 5, 1814 | 507 | 328 Battle of Niagara, July 25, 1814 | 878 | 860 Battle of Fort Erie, August 15, 1814 | 905 | 84 Sortie from Fort Erie, Sept. 17, 1814 | 800 | 511 +---------------+--------------- Total | 3,090 | 1,783 --------------------------------------+---------------+---------------

General Jacob Brown, the commander of this army, became General in Chief of the United States army March 10, 1821. He died September 24, 1828. General Brown was born in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, May 9, 1775. He was secretary to Alexander Hamilton, where he acquired military information and experience, and in 1809 was made a colonel of militia. In 1810 he was promoted brigadier general, and two years afterward was a.s.signed to the command of the frontier from Oswego to Lake St. Francis. In July, 1813, he was appointed a brigadier general in the United States army and placed in command of the Army of Niagara with the rank of major general. His subsequent career is briefly mentioned in this work. He received the thanks of Congress, November 3, 1814, and a gold medal, now in possession of his son, General N.W.

Brown, of Washington City.

General Eleazer W. Ripley became a brevet major general, and resigned in May, 1820. He was a member of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress (the Twenty-fourth) from Louisiana, and died March 2, 1839. Hugh Brady became a brigadier general by brevet.

William McRee resigned as colonel in March, 1819; was afterward surveyor general of Missouri, and died in 1832. Thomas S. Jesup became quartermaster general of the army with rank of brevet major general.

Henry Leavenworth died a brigadier general by brevet, July 21, 1834.

John McNeil resigned as brigadier general by brevet; was afterward surveyor of customs at Boston. Jacob Hindman died a colonel, February 17, 1827. Roger Jones was adjutant general of the army, and brigadier general by brevet.

General Scott's wounds were so severe and painful that it was a long time before he was fit for duty. In September, 1814, Philadelphia and Baltimore were so threatened by the enemy that General Scott took nominal command for the defense of those cities. Everywhere on his route he received the highest evidences of the love and esteem of the people. At Princeton, N.J., he had a distinguished reception, and had conferred on him by the college the degree of Master of Arts. From Princeton he proceeded to Baltimore, and on October 16, 1814, a.s.sumed command of the Tenth Military District, with headquarters at Washington.

The treaty of peace was signed December 24, 1814, and ratified by the Senate, February 17, 1815. He was tendered the appointment of Secretary of War, but declined on the ground that he was too young.

When his recommendations for colonel and brigadier general were presented to the President he expressed in both instances the fear that he was too young. It was in allusion to this that he gave this reason. He was then requested to act as Secretary until the arrival of William H. Crawford, at that period Minister to France, and who had been appointed Secretary of War. He declined this also, in deference to Generals Jacob Brown and Andrew Jackson. He was engaged for some time in reducing the army to a peace establishment, which being completed he was ordered to Europe for professional purposes. He was also intrusted with certain important and delicate diplomatic functions relating to the designs of Great Britain on the island of Cuba, and the revolutionary struggles between certain Spanish provinces in America.

CHAPTER III.

Is received and entertained by prominent civilians and military men in Europe--Marries Miss Mayo--Offspring--Thanks of Congress--Thanks of the Virginia Legislature voted, and also a sword--Controversy with General Andrew Jackson and correspondence--Prepares general regulations for the army and militia--Controversy with General Gaines and the War Department about rank--In command of the Eastern Division--War with the Sac and Fox Indians--Black Hawk--Cholera breaks out among the troops.

General Scott received great attention from prominent military men in Europe. He was also treated with much respect by men of letters and science. On his return home, in 1816, he was a.s.signed to the command of the seaboard, and established his headquarters in the city of New York. On March 11, 1817, he was married to Miss Maria D. Mayo, of Richmond, Va., daughter of Colonel John Mayo. She was a lady of many accomplishments and a belle in Virginia society. The issue of this marriage who lived to maturity were Virginia, who died unmarried; Cornelia who was married to Colonel Henry L. Scott, General Scott's adjutant general for many years, and who, dying, left one son, Winfield Scott, now a resident of Richmond, Va.; Camilla, who married Gould Hoyt, of New York, and died leaving children; Ella, who married Carroll McTavish, and has several daughters. She is now (1893) a resident of Baltimore. Mrs. Scott died June 10, 1862. Two sons and two daughters died before reaching maturity. Mrs. Scott's remains were buried by the side of her ill.u.s.trious husband at West Point.

In November, 1813, Congress pa.s.sed a joint resolution complimenting General Scott for his skill and gallantry in the battles of Chippewa and Niagara and for his uniform good conduct throughout the war, and directed the striking and presentation to him of a gold medal. This was presented to him in a speech of great feeling and high compliment at the Executive Mansion in the presence of the members of the Cabinet and many other distinguished persons. On July 4, 1831, General Scott watched the last moments and closed the eyes of President Monroe in New York city. In February, 1816, the Legislature of Virginia pa.s.sed a resolution unanimously returning thanks to General Scott for his services to his country, and also voted him a sword. This was followed by like action by the Legislature of New York. In 1815 he was elected an honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati.

In April, 1817, General Andrew Jackson issued from Nashville, Tenn., an order reciting that "the commanding general considers it due to the principles of subordination which might and must exist in an army to prohibit the obedience of any order emanating from the Department of War to officers of the division who have reported and been a.s.signed to duty, unless coming through him as the proper organ of communication."

At a dinner party in New York soon after the publication of this order Governor Clinton desired to know General Scott's opinion of it. He expressed views in opposition to General Jackson, and added that its tendency was mutinous. An anonymous writer published the details of this conversation in a New York paper called the Columbian, and a copy of it reached General Jackson, who wrote General Scott as follows:

"HEADQUARTERS DIVISION OF THE SOUTH,

"NASHVILLE, _September 17, 1817_.

"SIR: With that candor due the character you have sustained as a soldier and a man of honor, and with the fairness of the latter, I address you. Inclosed is a copy of an anonymous letter postmarked New York, August 14, 1817, together with a publication taken from the Columbian, which accompanied the letter. I have not permitted myself for a moment to believe that the conduct ascribed to you is correct. Candor, however, induces me to lay them before you, that you may have it in your power to say how far they be incorrectly stated. If my order has been the subject of your animadversions, it is believed you will at once admit it, and the extent to which you may have gone.

"I am, sir, respectfully,

"Your most obedient servant,

"ANDREW JACKSON.

"_General_ W. SCOTT, _U.S. Army_."

General Scott replied to this letter denying the authorship of the article, and said: " ... I gave it as my opinion that that paper was, as it respected the future, mutinous in its character and tendency, and as it respected the past, a reprimand of the commander in chief, the President of the United States; for although the latter be not expressly named, it is a principle well understood that the War Department, without at least his supposed sanction, can not give a valid command to an ensign.... Even if I belonged to your division I should not hesitate to repeat to you all that I have said at any time on this subject if a proper occasion offered; and what is more, I should expect your approbation, as in my humble judgment refutation is impossible."

General Jackson replied to this in a very angry manner, and intimating that General Scott might, if he chose, call him to the field. Scott replied, and declined to write the challenge, "as his ambition was not that of Erostratus," intimating that he ruined his only chance of acquiring distinction by killing a defender of his country.

For years afterward Scott heard reports that General Jackson had made threats of personal chastis.e.m.e.nt whenever they should meet. In 1823, soon after General Jackson took his seat in the United States Senate, Scott made frequent visits there, and was ent.i.tled to the floor.

Wearied at last with this state of things, he addressed General Jackson as follows:

"WASHINGTON, _December 11, 1823_.

"SIR: One portion of the American community has long attributed to you the most distinguished magnanimity, and the other portion the greatest desperation in your resentments.

"Am I to conclude that both are in error? I allude to circ.u.mstances which have transpired between us and which need not here be repeated, and to the fact that I have now been six days in your immediate vicinity without having attracted your notice. As this is the first time in my life that I have been within a hundred miles of you, and as it is barely possible that you may be ignorant of my presence, I beg leave to state that I shall not leave the district before the morning of the 14th inst.

"I have the honor to be, sir,

"Your most obedient servant,

"WINFIELD SCOTT.

"_The Hon._ GENERAL A. JACKSON, _Senator, etc._"

The following answer was promptly returned:

"MRS. O'NEIL'S, _December 11, 1823_.

"SIR: Your letter of to-day has been received. Whether the world is correct or in error as regards my 'magnanimity' is for the world to decide. I am satisfied of one fact: that when you shall know me better you will not be disposed to harbor the opinion that anything like desperation in resentment attaches to me.