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 chastisement 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 entitled 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 circumstances 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.

“Your letter is ambiguous, but, concluding from occurrences heretofore that it was written with friendly views, I take the liberty of saying to you that whenever you shall feel disposed to meet me on friendly terms, that disposition will not be met by any other than a corresponding feeling on my part.

“I have the honor to be, sir,