Note 8 — XXVI CONTRERAS, CHURUBUSCO August, 1847

Pillow, as was decided by a court of inquiry (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 332–45) on the testimony of such men as Lee (p. 78), Smith (p. 102), Riley (p. 147) and Shields (p. 268), did not devise the plan on which this victory was gained; and when Lee brought word to Scott of Smith’s plan he washed his hands of it (335Trist, draft of address; Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 333); but he had the audacity to claim that Smith merely executed the precise plans and views laid down by Pillow for his guidance (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1018). Pillow could claim the credit only on the ground that he was the senior officer on the field, and that Smith’s operations were a logical consequence of the events; but Scott was the senior of Pillow, and all that occurred was—as Smith pointed out (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 104)—the logical consequence of Scott’s order to gain possession of the San Angel road. The consensus of opinion was expressed by Twiggs: “General Smith deserves the whole credit” (Stevens, Stevens, i, 196). Moreover the famous letter signed “Leonidas”—prepared at Pillow’s quarters doubtless with his connivance (Hitchcock in Mo. Republican, Oct. 2, 1857; Republican Banner, Feb. 23, 1858), conveyed by his agency (Davis, Autobiog., 285) to the New Orleans Delta, which published it Sept. 10 (chap. xxix, note 31), and fathered (when exposed) by an untruthful subordinate of his—“puffed” Pillow in the most extravagant manner for this “unparallelled victory,” and represented Scott not only as leaving everything to Pillow but as blundering sadly. E.g. it said, “The army had been marching through marshes and almost impassable roads, nearly half around the city, to find some points upon the enemy’s works that could be successfully assailed,” the provisions had been nearly exhausted, and the mountains prevented going farther; Pillow’s “plan of battle [at Contreras], and the disposition of his forces were most judicious,” and he “achieved this signal and brilliant victory.” (For the letter signed “Leonidas” see Sen. 65; 30, 1 (pp. 385–9, and the testimony of Pillow, Burns, Freaner, Trist); 335Pillow to Trist, Aug. 31, private; St. Louis Evening News, Oct. 2, 1857; chap. xxix, pp. 435–7.) Pillow’s design in having such a statement prepared and placed before the people in advance of the official reports was probably to influence public opinion in the United States so as to make him an available candidate for the Presidency or enable Polk to put him in Scott’s place. As Pillow was known to have great influence with the President, and was an active, affable, plausible man, he naturally had a following; but the sentiment of the able and honest officers towards him was one of contempt. “The ass Pillow,” “that consummate fool,” said the future General D. H. Hill (diary) of Pillow as he showed himself on Aug. 19. A sensible Pennsylvanian wrote in his diary, Aug. 10, that Pillow was without question “the poorest and most unpopular” of the generals (Oswandel, Notes, 249). Col. W. B. Campbell characterized him as light, impetuous, of little military judgment and no skill (139to D. Campbell, Mar. 20, 28; Apr. 18, 25); and a correspondent of the future Gen. W. T. Sherman described him as “a mass of vanity, conceit, ignorance, ambition and want of truth” (316Judd, Feb. 26, 1848). The doings of the Pillow court of inquiry (Sen. 65; 30, 1) were carefully digested and analyzed by the author; but as the subject concerns only incidentally the history of the war, space cannot be taken to present this analysis.