The War with Mexico, Volume 2 (of 2) (part 2 of 4)

The War with Mexico, Volume 2 (of 2) (part 2 of 4)

The United States, happily, stood far above this level, but not so far that probably mere good luck did not save us from grave trouble; and it was easy to foresee many dangers--all the worse because they naturally made capital timid--when the hostilities began. The total receipts of the treasury for the fiscal year ending with June 30, 1845, were nearly thirty millions and the ordinary expenditures $22,935,828. It was estimated that during the next year the receipts would fall about three millions, and Walker--allowing the munificent amounts of something more than two and a half millions for the army and something less than five for the navy--expected to reduce the total disbursements a little, anticipating for the period ending with June, 1847, a further saving of more than four millions. The receipts for July-September, 1845, proved to be more than two millions below those of the corresponding months of 1844, and the customs income for the fiscal year 1845-46 was $815,445 less than for the preceding twelve-month. In a word, shrinking revenues and curtailed outlays were the prospect.[33.6]

In this condition of things, not only had the unpredictable costs and embarrassments of war to be faced, but those of war in a distant land. Money was to be sent out of the country, never to return, and the bills for supplies to be increased by the burdens of marine transportation, insurance and losses; while risks from privateers and European complication could be seen. Before such an outlook business men shrank from large enterprises. People with money felt disposed to keep it.[33.7]

Where, then, were funds to come from? The currency had been inflated by the paper issues of many banks. Stocks were selling far below the prices of twelve months before. Even the business men who did not endorse the tariff of 1842 had adjusted their affairs to it, and now everybody understood that a new scale of duties, based upon free-trade ideas, lay on the treasury anvil. Calls for the government funds held and used by state depositories and for the specie of all the banks were feared. The banks cannot support a loan, and even in peace our capitalists have never done so, remarked the financial editor of the New York Herald, probably the best newspaper authority.[33.7]

The government must look abroad, concluded the editor, and in Europe no light could be seen. By 1842 our state debts, mostly held there, had amounted to nearly $200,000,000. Mississippi, Michigan, Arkansas and Florida sank in the mire of repudiation. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana became delinquent. The bonds of South Carolina fell below par. Missouri passed a stay law. Sidney Smith, when he met a Pennsylvanian at dinner, felt like dividing the man's raiment among the British guests, most of whom, if not all, had probably suffered by the "dishonor" of the state. Indeed, the bondholders were disposed to throw off half of the interest rate, if our national treasury would assume the debts; but a proposition to do this failed in Congress.[33.8]

As early as 1841 even our six per cent national bonds would not sell in Europe, though money commanded less than half as large a return there. "Who will lend on American securities?" asked the London Spectator the very month we began war upon Mexico. Our credit then grew worse instead of better. The war bill precipitated a panic in Wall Street, and soon business in the west and south was described as prostrate. Bad as such a financial outlook was in itself, too, it involved a consequent ill. Evidently the administration would have to pinch; and, as Madame de Sévigné once remarked, "There is nothing so expensive as want of money."[33.8]

The Democrats, however, were committed against the protective tariff of 1842, now in force, and Polk as a party man felt that something must be done about it. Walker no doubt shared this opinion; and, having gained immense prestige in the south by his brilliant advocacy of the annexation of Texas, he very likely hoped that by now carrying into effect the fiscal ideas prevalent in that section, he might supplant Calhoun. Probably, too, he sincerely believed in these ideas. To him the existing scale of duties appeared to be the cause of the shrinking revenues; and he stated boldly that war, which had been recognized for some time as a possibility, "would create an increased necessity for reducing our present high duties in order to obtain sufficient revenue to meet increased expenditures."[33.9]

[NEW FISCAL LAWS]

Soon after hostilities began, therefore, a tariff bill came before Congress. It was bitterly and stubbornly fought. In the Senate its defeat appeared sure; but Crittenden and Clayton, believing it could only prove a discreditable failure, had a Whig support it in order to gain party advantage at the expense of the nation, and by this unworthy trick and the casting vote of the presiding officer it passed. In company with it went a warehouse bill and the restoration of the sub-treasury system, which divorced the government from the banks, and required the treasury to accept and pay out only specie. About the first of August, 1846, this entire system became law. "Our administration seems enamoured of ruin, and woos calamity for itself," exclaimed the Whig North American; our credit is threatened by the sub-treasury plan; our industries are deprived of protection; "while an expensive war is eating out our vitals, our revenue is to be diminished"; and a direct tax will have to be laid.[33.9]

The new tariff became effective on the first of December, 1846. As of course importers waited for it, a lean period preceded that event, and the heavy receipts that followed it, providing Walker with an apt retort, did not prevent the total for the year ending with June, 1847, from coming short of his estimate by more than four millions. Without waiting to acquire this unwelcome fact, however, the government found itself compelled in June, 1846, to revise at a sharp angle upward its predictions of the expenditures. Over and above their calculations of the previous December the war and navy departments now called for $23,952,904, which Polk informed Congress was "the largest amount which any state of the service" would require up to July 1, 1847. The secretary of the treasury had expected to find on July 1, 1847, a surplus (virtually that estimated for the previous year minus half a million) of at least $4,332,441, and had confidently hoped for a substantial gain in revenue; but he admitted that it was now requisite, since a working capital of four millions for the treasury and the mints had to be kept on hand, to provide $12,586,406 of additional income.[33.10]

The proper method of handling our war finances was, in the first place, to increase the existing taxes--not only to obtain funds promptly, but as a firm support for the nation's credit and a basis for those temporary loans which are a wise expedient at the beginning of a war; and Walker expected the proposed tariff to answer this purpose. But the question how to raise these twelve and a half millions remained. Excise and direct taxes, the administration believed, would not be prompt enough, and would not seem to the public warranted by the circumstances. It was therefore recommended to Congress that both treasury notes and a loan should be resorted to; and on July 22, 1846, without much debate, the issue of ten millions in such obligations, to be sold at not less than par, was authorized.[33.11]

Treasury notes could not really serve the government's purpose well, for they were soon to be paid, the expense of handling them fell upon the treasury, and, as they were receivable for duties, they were sure to pour into the customhouses instead of real money whenever they should be cheaper than specie. The treasury, bound by law to pay out only the latter, would then have to buy coin at the market price--presumably, as Gallatin said, with depreciated notes. These would then fall still more, and so the process appeared certain to continue.

[BONDS ISSUED]

But notes were the most convenient and readiest, if not the only way of quickly anticipating revenue; they were particularly suited to the nature of the government's expenditures; they provided an easy method of transmitting the large sums that would be needed in the south on the war account; and financial critics at New York approved of them. Not all were of that opinion, however. About the middle of September the appearance of notes for half a million was announced by one journal under the heading, "Extensive Paper Money Manufactory"; but the government persisted, and by the ninth of December, 1846, nearly four millions of them were out. This with the balance--more than nine millions--handed over by the previous fiscal year, made up for the lean customs receipts of this period.[33.12]

Meanwhile attention was given to the more substantial resource of a loan. At the end of September the secretary of the treasury disappeared mysteriously from his accustomed haunts, and to Polk's acute distress of mind wandered for more than two weeks in the perilous jungle of Wall Street. His experiences there were in fact rather hard. The capitalists looked with favor on the project of a loan and had plenty of money, but--believing the government would require a large amount, and therefore that a loan made now would be likely to depreciate, as well as actuated by their characteristic spirit of thrift--they stood out for six per cent. The New York and Boston banks, it was thought at the White House, were in league against the administration. Besides, the public had little information about the way money was being spent, and felt apprehensive of extravagance and a huge debt. Many believed the war had cost half a million each day. Not a few distrusted Walker. He had engineered Mississippi into bankruptcy, and had become insolvent personally. In the Senate his reputation had been that of a needy adventurer, intensely ambitious, clever in debate and intrigue, but not of solid ability, and especially not a financier. At present nobody denied his real talents or his extreme devotion to work, but he was charged with inaccuracy and with sophistical reasoning.[33.13]

Apparently five and two fifths per cent was all he felt ready to offer, and special reasons could be given for halting there, since it was feared that issuing a six per cent loan at par would injure the United States sixes, now held at 106, and also the credit of the government. But finally, with the approval of the President and the Cabinet, he advertised, October 30, for bids on a five million loan for ten years at six per cent. November 12 the tenders were opened. For a small fraction of the amount a slight premium was offered, and for the rest par. No doubt the rate, in comparison with European standards, had to be regarded as high, but on the other hand this was our first specie loan, and was said to be the only war loan ever taken without a discount.[33.13]

Plainly, however, more needed to be done. It was already extraordinarily difficult to pay the comparatively small expenses of the war, wrote the British minister at this time. Congress had not fully provided for even the minimum needs recognized by the sanguine, if not sophistical, Walker; and early in December, 1846, his annual report intimated that on July 1, 1848, with a due allowance for the working capital of the treasury, there would be a deficit of twenty-three millions. Apparently a loan was requisite, and he advised making the term twenty years. Then, with no little anxiety, the administration waited. At the end of December Bancroft wrote privately, "If we can raise the ways and means," we can surmount the other difficulties. On the eleventh of January, 1847, a bill virtually embodying Walker's recommendations was thrown into the House, and a long, acrimonious debate ensued. The treasury "languishes," announced the organ of the government; needed volunteers could not be called out; but the legislators had irrepressible things to say. At length, however, on January 28 the bill providing $23,000,000 became a law. Though it primarily contemplated treasury notes, it permitted the Executive liberty of action; and a large amount of six per cent bonds were sold.[33.14]

But Polk was by no means out of trouble now. Walker's estimate made no mention of great outstanding purchases, for which the contractors had not yet sent in their accounts. Not only the customs duties but the sales of public lands were coming far short of his expectations. No allowance appeared to be made for the effect of bounty land scrip that was likely to reduce them still more. The Vera Cruz expedition and a possible march to the enemy's capital were in view. Indeed, the real war had only begun. Besides, the temper of Congress had already threatened trouble and made it. Not only to ensure additional revenue in general, but in particular--it would seem--to strengthen the credit of the government by showing how the interest on its obligations would be taken care of, the Secretary brought up again the suggestion of his annual report, that a duty of twenty-five per cent should be placed on tea and coffee, which--although the free list had been restricted in the tariff of 1846--had been left untaxed. In fact it had been intimated by him at New York, even if not actually promised, that such a step would be taken; and a few days before Christmas, 1846, he notified the committee on ways and means that probably without this assistance a satisfactory loan could not be made. Yet Congress rejected the proposition by a great majority.[33.15]

A plan of Benton's also--to grade the public lands on the basis of their attractiveness, and reduce prices accordingly--which would have increased the income of the government, failed to pass, though endorsed by Polk, Walker and the general land commissioner. Pessimists were happy. With Polk, the war, the weather, the sub-treasuries "and perhaps the Devil" to struggle against, wrote a correspondent of Martin Van Buren, soon not an ingot would be "left standing," and there was "no calculating, no prophesying" what would become of the nation.[33.15]

[A TARIFF FOR MEXICAN PORTS]

Apparently to offset the failure of the tea and coffee tax, Walker's active brain produced another scheme, designed not only to bring in revenue and reassure the capitalists, but also to please the shipping men of the United States and neutral countries. This was to open the Mexican ports controlled by us, and permit merchandise to enter there under a moderate scale of duties. During March, 1847, assisted by Senator Benton and the attorney general, Polk satisfied himself that under his powers as commander-in-chief he could impose and collect the duties as military contributions, for by the right of conquest he could either exclude commerce or admit it on his own terms, and contributions were legitimate under the laws of war. Said Vattel, "A nation [at war] on every opportunity lays its hands on the enemy's goods, appropriates them to itself, and thereby, besides weakening the adversary, strengthens itself, and at least in part, procures an indemnification, an equivalent, either for the very cause of the war, or for the expences and losses resulting from it"; and a low scale of duties was an extremely mild application of this principle.[33.16]

Moreover, it was quite as legitimate under our Constitution also, though not expressly mentioned, as to blockade or bombard Vera Cruz, respecting which the organic law was equally silent. Indeed, to have left the ports wide open or allowed the high Mexican tariff to remain in force would, in addition to being harmful to us, have required as great an exercise of authority. Finally, Scott and some of our naval commanders, moved by the evident proprieties of the situation, fixed duties and used the proceeds at their discretion, and it was manifestly better to arrange the business in a uniform, well-considered manner.[33.16]

It might have been expected that substantially either our own or the Mexican tariff would be applied, but neither would have answered. Mexican imports were very different from ours; specific, not ad valorem, duties had been customary there; and competent appraisers could not be found. On the other hand the unreasonable Mexican duties, besides preventing commerce to a large extent, encouraged fraud and smuggling. In March, 1847, therefore, a special tariff was prepared by Walker, lowering the Mexican duties on imports more than one half, and substituting for all port dues and charges a uniform tax of one dollar per ton; and on March 31 Polk ordered the system to be put in force. Mexico retorted that goods paying the American duties--especially goods prohibited by her laws--would be confiscated, and this attitude caused some uneasiness in France; but it seemed fairly evident that the United States would protect neutrals accepting our policy, and not only the foreign merchants in Mexico but the neutral governments felt highly pleased with our course.[33.17]

The authorities at Washington, however, did not rejoice as much. The real difficulty lay, not in landing merchandise at the ports, but in placing it before Mexican customers, and comparatively few of the latter could be reached. Persevering efforts were made to solve the problem on both coasts. Sometimes, for reasons not fully understood, the Mexican government issued licenses for the passage of goods to the interior, and for a consideration local authorities in the northeast did the same; but even these documents were not always valid against officials and military men whose "patriotism" had not been "sweetened." European merchants could see this difficulty. Up to October 20, 1847, only one small cargo from that direction entered the harbor of Vera Cruz, and Walker admitted privately that a very small part of the few imports was disposed of for consumption beyond the coast. In a word, this vaunted plan gave no substantial help on the problem of supporting the war.[33.18]

[GOOD FORTUNE HELPS US]

But by this time the good luck which has been supposed to keep an eye on the United States of America had intervened. In 1846 came the great Irish famine. British provision laws were suspended. Faced with starvation people cared little what they paid, if they could obtain food. Our agricultural products, which had fallen heavily in market value since October 1, 1845, rose with astonishing buoyancy. Western grain that had scarcely been worth transporting--frequently not worth it--became precious. A ship could earn thirty per cent of her cost in one round trip, yet hardly enough vessels could be found. So abrupt was the turn that a financial editor who had predicted on December 17, 1846, a speedy return to the distress of 1837, declared on January 30, 1847, "We are on the high road to an unprecedented prosperity." The abolition of the British corn laws ensured our farmers not only temporary relief but a permanent market. Cotton, too, and even cotton goods were in active demand abroad; and a famine in Germany gave us additional support.[33.19]

Every vessel from the other side brought more of the specie that had been expected to disappear from circulation here. Between the first of January and the middle of July, 1847, approximately twenty-four millions came in, besides about five millions in the pockets of immigrants. Everybody who did anything or had anything shared in the general increase of wealth. Hoarding went out of fashion. All were spenders. In particular, a craze for dress demanded great quantities of European fabrics. The warehousing plan also stimulated importation. For the quarter ending with September, 1847, the customs duties amounted to more than eleven millions--almost half the total of the preceding year--and for the week ending with October 1 they were nearly double those of the corresponding week in 1846. In a word, gold rained upon us; the languishing treasury revived; and the credit of the government revived with it. Later, in the autumn of 1847, to be sure, the financial downpour abated, but it had already done its work. The ship of state rode now beyond the bar.[33.19]

Yet Polk still had to cope with difficulties. Early in December, 1847, when Congress assembled, he found it necessary to present large estimates and to admit that a deficit of nearly sixteen millions was to be expected by July 1, 1848; and there seemed to be little hope that Congress would provide additional revenue. Borrowing was inevitable, and Walker's report of December 8 proposed a loan of $18,500,000. Nothing was done, however. The banks of New York and Boston endeavored to force upon the government a fiscal policy more acceptable to them, and a strong element in Congress, of which more will be heard in the next chapter, not only entertained a similar desire, but seemed willing to impair the credit of the administration. At length, on the nineteenth of January, 1848, a bill was introduced, and after a further delay another long debate opened. "How is the loan bill getting on, Sir?" inquired a newspaper correspondent of a Representative of the People after it had been on the tapis for about a month. "Oh, they are spouting away, spouting away, Sir," was the careless reply. But on the last day of March a six per cent loan of $16,000,000 was authorized on substantially the same basis as the previous loans. The treaty of peace had been signed on February 2, and the new bonds brought a premium rising in some instances to $4.05 on a hundred.[33.20]

[THE MEXICANS TAXED]

In the same report (December, 1847) Walker announced, though evidently a little chastened in spirit, that relief would soon come from Mexico. What he chiefly counted upon at this time, however, was not customs duties. As early as the nineteenth of September, 1846, Polk, justly offended by the enemy's disdainful treatment of our olive branch, decided that instead of endeavoring longer to conciliate the Mexicans by paying liberally for supplies, we should bring them to terms by levying contributions or taking needed articles without compensation, and this course was promptly recommended to General Taylor; but he replied, as we have seen, that such a policy was impracticable. Shortly after the capture of Vera Cruz General Scott received instructions of the same tenor, and he made a similar reply. Early in the autumn of 1847, however, as Mexico had again rejected the olive branch, this change of system was pressed upon Scott with fresh urgency, and before long explicit orders to make all the revenues and resources of Mexico available, as far as they could be, followed.[33.21]

Scott, however, knowing the laws of war and the wishes of his government, began operations without waiting for these later instructions. Almost immediately after entering the capital he laid upon it an assessment of $150,000, and set on foot an examination into the general question of drawing revenues from the country, which eventually showed that nearly twenty-three millions a year could theoretically be collected, should we take possession of the whole territory. November 25, he directed that no rent should be paid for houses and quarters except so far as contracts existed. About three weeks later, notice was given that in the districts held by the Americans all the taxes and dues previously paid to the Mexican government would be required of the authorities for the support of our army; and at the end of December an assessment equal to four times the direct taxes paid in 1843 was laid upon the states. Scott's action was of course taken by Wool, now commanding in the northeast, as a pattern.[33.22]

But again Walker's hopes were disappointed. The most important of the monopolies, tobacco, had to be given up because the American product could not be excluded, and for administrative reasons the other monopolies also were surrendered. Owing to the dangers of waste, corruption, extortion and resentment, the business of collecting taxes had to be entrusted to the state authorities, and they possessed wonderful dexterity in the arts of evasion. State assessments were actually made on México and Vera Cruz only. The owners of occupied buildings were in many cases friends, and could not well be deprived of their rents. Contracts or agreements that stood in the way had to be respected. Gold and silver were clandestinely exported. Smuggling across the northern border could not be stopped. Brigands exacted their toll. The time required for investigation and planning, and in certain instances for correspondence with our government, militated against prompt action. We strongly desired to settle with Mexico and evacuate the country, and hence--especially after the peace negotiations began--it would not have been wise to run the risk of exasperating the nation for the sake of a few dollars. In short the net proceeds, including $106,928 turned in by naval officers, were only $3,935,676.[33.23]

Some of this money went directly to supply needs of the army and navy, but by far the greater part of those needs had to be met in other ways. During the first nine months of 1847, it was figured that the United States exported more than $12,000,000 in specie to Mexico. Many drafts on the principal American cities were sold there, and those on the quartermasters at New Orleans, Philadelphia, Washington and New York amounted to nearly $8,000,000 before December, 1847. Payments were also made in the United States on the certificates of officers acting in the field; and about the first of August, 1847, Belmont, the New York agent of the Rothschilds, arranged with our administration to place funds in the hands of any paymaster or quartermaster named by Scott. In general the large financial operations made necessary by the transfers of money were skilfully, honestly and safely conducted. Some $24,000,000 were distributed by the pay department through its thirty-five officers, for instance, and nothing was lost by accident, robbery, theft or capture.[33.24]

[THE COST OF THE WAR]

The total money cost of the war on the American side has been given at very low and at very high amounts, and none of the estimates inspires much confidence. The excess expenditures of the army and navy appear to have been $63,605,621; of which $49,000,000 were raised by selling bonds and treasury notes, and were substantially added to the national debt. But these figures by no means answer the question. To the apparent cost we must add twelve millions paid later to Mexico, the American claims of which we relieved her, the war expenses of the treasury department, bounty lands, pensions, valid claims for damages, and other liabilities of many kinds gradually discharged after peace returned; and from the total must be subtracted the bonds and treasury notes then available for issue and the actual worth of ships, ordnance and other materials required for the war and left over. Evidently it is not feasible to reach a satisfactory conclusion, but as a very bold guess one may suggest a hundred millions.[33.25]

Even were that a close estimate, however, it would mean little. On the one hand lives, physical and mental sufferings, personal losses of every description, much national obloquy and a thousand minor factors would need to be considered, and on the other our gain in territory, in recognized power, in military and naval efficiency, in national self-consciousness and in particulars not so obvious. One thing, however, is clear. The war cost far less money than its opponents had expected. Webster solemnly predicted in December, 1846, that should it end the following spring, our debt would be a hundred millions, but on the first of July, 1848, the debt was less than sixty-six millions.[33.26]

XXXIV

THE WAR IN AMERICAN POLITICS

1846-1848

In Mexico the war had far more intimate relations with politics than it had in our own country. Here invading troops did not scatter our civil authorities, Presidents did not rise and fall, cabinets did not organize and melt away, revolutions and revolts did not hover continually at the door. Every part of the country contributed to the result. Supplies were voted, and troops assembled according to law. We have therefore studied Mexican politics in connection with events as these occurred, and reserved American politics to be surveyed more comprehensively; but this does not imply any lack of significance in the second topic.[34.1]

At first the war seemed extremely popular. The rush to volunteer showed that. A tone of opposition prevailed in New England, but it was quiet--hardly perceptible. May 21, 50,000 people gathered in front of the city hall at New York and called for vigorous measures. Hostilities appeared to be regarded by all as a just punishment for the long series of Mexican insults, barbarities and outrages. The country called; patriotism responded, and other considerations helped. Democratic politicians believed their party would gain prestige and strength. A great and common purpose would bind it firmly together. Many offices and appointments would follow, and almost everybody would gain some profit in a business way. Taylor's "victories" on the Rio Grande intensified the enthusiasm. "Upon the duties which the present crisis invoked," exclaimed the Philadelphia North American, "our country has but one heart," and an invasion of the enemy's territory "will meet the approbation of the entire American public." Accordingly the first session of the Twenty-ninth Congress pushed its work far into the summer of 1846--even after Senator Fairfield wrote, "All nature [is] hissing"--and embodied the government's policy in laws.[34.2]

[THE WAR SOON UNPOPULAR]

But this mood changed surprisingly. When Congress adjourned, it was in bad humor, and the country sympathized with it. News of the occupation of California produced little enthusiasm, for it had been expected. The fighting at Monterey excited interest, but it was followed at once by a long armistice, and it had no permanent effect on the downward course of public sentiment. Instead of glorying in the war, the Democrats now defended it feebly, and a great many regarded it as a grave political blunder. The fall Congressional elections went strongly against them. Every reverse could be explained, of course--in Pennsylvania a heavy storm, in New York the opposition of "every most pestilential and reckless form of law-hating faction," apathy here, lack of organization there--but the National Intelligencer, chief organ of the Whigs, brushed explanations aside, and coldly remarked, "We presume that our President and his Cabinet are by this time convinced that they have forfeited the public confidence--the confidence, that is, of their own party; that of the other they never possessed"; and by mid-winter the political outlook for the war seemed extremely dark.[34.3]

The reasons for this change were complex and interesting. The people--Democrats and Whigs alike--knew they did not want Polk for chief executive. To the millions demanding, "Who is James K. Polk?" the answer had been given, "He is President of the United States"; but this excellent retort silenced instead of satisfying. Disagreeable ideas prevailed regarding the methods of his nomination and his election. Many viewed him as an Accident, an Unpleasant Surprise, a Surreptitious Incumbent; and his unpopularity not only was a disadvantage in itself, but colored the interpretation placed upon everything he did or said.[34.4]

Besides this initial difficulty, he was not considered a large enough man for the place, and the Cabinet seemed too much of a piece with him in that respect. The public did not hear Polk's confidential declaration, "I intend to be myself President of the United States." They were not aware that he risked a great deal to avoid having Calhoun and Flagg, a New York man of unusual ability, in his official family. But they felt like the Washington correspondent of the Boston Atlas, who said, They are "little fellows," and "were they all thrown in a bag together, it would make little difference which came out first"; and they suspected that Polk aimed to eliminate all possible competitors. Many, indeed, believed it should be so. "Who would not regret," asked Senator Mangum, "to see the choice of this great and free people thrown into shadow by over-topping talent?" The President was inaugurated on a cold, rainy, cheerless day, and sentiment, among those who counted, resembled the weather.[34.4]

The policy of the administration confirmed these impressions. Polk had no great ideas, no inspiring imagination, no kindling enthusiasm, no moving eloquence, no contagious humor, no winning personality. He was not exactly a "burning bush" of patriotism, hallowing the ground about him, and forcing men to put off their grimy, everyday shoes of selfish designs. To sway the nation or even the Democrats in any grand way lay beyond him. He was a partisan, to be sure, but without a party. His trumpet note--has shed "American blood upon the American soil"--came from a newspaper. Almost his only resource, therefore, was patronage, and the business of trading offices for support is essentially a mean one. It makes intrigue a profession, creates many enemies while it creates few friends and renders confidence well-nigh impossible. Without calling the President "mendacious," one can understand how J. K. Paulding came to say, that he possessed no honesty of purpose, no frankness of heart. Tossing out a plump lie now and then would have given less offence than continual secretiveness and evasion caused. Polk described the cunning Pillow as "one of the shrewdest men you ever knew." That gave Polk's measure, and political necessities developed his natural disposition. "This little mole," Blair called him. Blair was prejudiced; but for a different bête noire he would have chosen a different name.[34.5]

[POLK DISLIKED]

New York state affairs had an especially bad effect on Polk's reputation and influence. Knowing that he had played the part of Jacob, the Supplanter, to Van Buren's Esau at the Baltimore convention, and not expecting to be forgiven, Polk probably felt thoroughly distrustful of the Locofocos from the beginning. Silas Wright's declining positively to run for the Vice Presidency on his ticket doubtless gave offence. His bad faith in refusing to accept Flagg, apparently to save himself from being overshadowed, after virtually agreeing to do it, seemed inexcusable. His taking Marcy into the Cabinet at the behest of an active but rather unscrupulous remnant of the "irregular" Conservatives heightened the dissatisfaction of the substantial elements. The defeat of the New York Democrats in the fall elections of 1846, which was charged by the regulars to treachery on the part of the Conservatives, created still further trouble. Making factional appointments, and especially choosing for a high post at New York City a "poor, stupid dutchman by the name of Bouck," as an extremist called him, seemed to the faithful nothing less than party treason. In thus alienating the ablest and best Democrats of the state, who were trusted and admired by the party as a whole, and supporting a faction that had no national standing, the President made a great mistake. He "has proved himself to be a poor devil," said one of Van Buren's correspondents; even Tyler's name was less execrated than "Jim Polk's," wrote one of Judge McLean's; and for thus weakening the Democrats in the Empire State, he was naturally blamed in all quarters.[34.6]

A variety of minor yet serious complaints helped fill up the measure. Polk was equally anxious and unable to harmonize the party, and as he tried to satisfy clamorous malcontents, it came to be said that he was always ready to hang an old friend for the sake of gaining two new ones. Ranking low in ability to judge of character, enjoying but a limited acquaintance, and placing an unreasonable value upon experience in Congress, he too often appointed unfit men when he meant well, or put the right men into the wrong places. Naturally office-seekers dogged his footsteps, and numberless disappointed aspirants bore grudges deadlier than stilettos. His wriggling out of emphatic declarations in favor of our broad Oregon claims excited profound wrath in the west, and made a bad impression in other sections. Senator Hannegan proclaimed that if the President accepted the line of forty-nine degrees, he would be consigned to "a damnation so deep that the hand of resurrection" would never be able to "drag him forth"; and he did accept it.[34.7]

The veto of a river and harbor bill that offered captivating opportunities for looting the treasury brought upon him the woes of Tyler. The government, said the aggrieved, "is fast degenerating into a mere quadrennial elective despotism"; Polk "wants the purse of the nation for his own schemes of presidential ambition." Finally, the apparent hampering of Taylor and Scott, and the playing off of the one against the other seemed to a multitude of citizens unworthy of a President, unpatriotic and mean; and then partisans accused him of letting Whig generals have all the glory, lest a Democratic warrior should gain the Presidential nomination in 1848. Truly, "deep and dismal was the ditch," as B. F. Butler said, into which Polk fell.[34.7]

Moreover a whole sheaf of arrows, not directly aimed at him, struck his administration. The annexation of Texas rankled still in many bosoms, and the extremists were implacable. Lowell did not shrink from recommending secession:

"Ef I'd my way I would ruther We should go to work an' part,-- They take one way, we take t'other,-- Guess it wouldn't break my heart."

John Quincy Adams contemplated the same extreme remedy, and Giddings went so far as to write, "Ohio is now a party to no subsisting Union." Those opposed to the measure felt hostile to the President who had favored and consummated it; the great number whose theory had been that it would not lead to war felt obliged to argue now that Polk had brought about a conflict unnecessarily; and everything in our relations with Mexico was viewed through a fog of prejudices and animosities rising from that gory political battlefield. Not a few appointments to high military positions had seemed to rest on political expediency, and the battles near the Rio Grande had been followed by a long period of inactivity, charged by many to the government. Volunteers not accepted for the war had remarks to make, and troops returning from the front often used expressions hardly coherent enough to be termed remarks. The six-months men called out by Gaines belonged in the latter class; and although Marcy did nothing respecting them save to obey the plain requirement of the law, citizens of Louisiana applied language to him that might have kindled sympathy for Judas Iscariot.[34.8]

The government's fiscal system, though of course accepted by many, excited sharp resentment. Overwhelming the country all at once with such a combination of new laws--a warehouse act, a sub-treasury bill and a "free-trade" tariff--was denounced as an unspeakable outrage, and each of those measures amounted in the opinion of many to a crime. Gideon Welles thought the idea of reducing our tariff during the war an "insane project"; and the measure as framed, a compromise between theory and expediency, satisfied hardly any one. Real free-traders complained because their principles had been sacrificed, and the New Englanders because those principles had not been sacrificed enough. The iron and coal state raged and wept by turns: she had been betrayed, and "her groans were music" to the arrogant low-tariff section cherished by the government. Only corruption and intimidation could have carried such a monstrosity through Congress; and, worse yet, "Sir Robert Walker" had been truckling to England. "British all over," scribbled the American Sentinel on the warehousing system; and the tariff was trailed to a British lair packed with British statesmen, British capitalists, British manufacturers and British merchants. To please them our wheels of production were to stop, our banks close, and the industrious North fall in despair at the feet of an implacable South. "'To your tents, O Israel!'" cried the National Intelligencer.[34.9]

[DENUNCIATIONS OF THE WAR]

In countless eyes the war itself soon lost its glamour. Imagining that our advance to the Rio Grande had been the cause of it, many felt bound to denounce it as unauthorized, unconstitutional, unjust, aggressive; and not a few, in dense ignorance of the history, character and views of the Mexicans, thought, like Professor Kent of Harvard University, that it was "demoniacal" to make war upon those poor innocents, as if they had not been shooting one another pretty continuously and also aching to shoot us. Not reflecting that nations begin to think of indemnities as soon, at least, as they begin to fight, and that legitimate advantages might accrue from occupying Mexican territory, people viewed suspiciously the operations of Taylor, Wool, Kearny, Stockton and Stevenson, threw up their hands, and exclaimed, "Conquest!" as if the ground they stood upon and half the world besides had not been gained by the sword. "Cormorants of territory!" hissed a Thersites. "Sages and Heroes of the Revolution, lo, the consummation of your labors!" wailed a Cassandra; Mexico is to be absorbed, and "the original, moving, burning stimulus" of the crime is the wish to manufacture glory for Polk, and gratify him with a second term. To be sure, the nation had officially endorsed the war; but multitudes were eager to have the nation disgraced, if they could only disgrace Polk.[34.10]

Toward the future as well as the past frowned the critics of the administration. Territory seemed likely to be acquired, and it was feared that slavery would plant its black hoof upon the soil. In Massachusetts a group of young men, who doubtless believed in freedom unselfishly, believed also that it was the coming idea, and might carry them ahead of such conservative leaders as Webster and Winthrop. Sumner was one of these; and he, without offering proof that slavery stood behind the war, pushed through the legislature some bloodcurdling resolutions against the "gigantic crime"; while Lowell, not stopping to ascertain whether negro servitude could thrive on the Pacific, sounded an appeal to sectional feelings:

"They jest want this Californy So's to lug new slave-states in To abuse ye, an' to scorn ye, And to plunder ye like sin."[34.11]

From the increased political power of the South, northern agriculture, commerce and manufactures would suffer. New, sparsely settled states would have the same authority in the Senate as Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. The augmenting of Western strength would prove an injury to older sections. New Orleans would gain ground financially and commercially at the expense of New York. Annexing new territory would lessen the value of lands already in the Union. The war would increase the power of the Executive, and bring home an army of "heroes" to monopolize the offices. It was most likely to be interminable and costly, for in the autumn of 1846 Mexico showed no signs of begging for peace and Taylor no signs of accomplishing anything decisive. Privateers might ruin our commerce, and the blockade might lead to European interference. The nation, debased by dwelling upon scenes of devastation and violence, and by the absorption of aliens low in the scale of humanity, would become barbarous, cruel, rapacious, bloodthirsty. Taxes, debt, waste of public funds, corrupt elections, a great standing army, despotism, fanaticism, civil war, disunion, the reprobation of mankind and the retribution of heaven would follow.[34.11]

[POLICY OF THE WHIGS]

Under these circumstances the gyrations and contortions of Whig politics, viewed as a whole, were curious to observe. At first the party joined in shouting and voting for stern hostilities. "Doubt, division, reproach will be unknown," announced the North American. But the Whigs presently saw, as the New York Tribune pointed out, that a full share of the burden would be theirs, while most of the glory and profit would fall to the other side. Moreover, these criticisms of Polk and the war, even when not suggested by the Whigs, seemed like yellow fields of ripening party advantage. Very soon, therefore, they withdrew to a respectable, intrenched position: they would support the war, but on its conclusion Polk and the Democrats would be called to a strict account. "I have no doubt we shall make much Capital out of it," wrote a Whig Congressman. Presently, however, it looked as if the conclusion of the war might lie beyond the next Presidential election, and most of the party sallied forth impatiently, sickle in hand.[34.12]

Castigating Polk was the most obvious opportunity for the harvesters, and they used it with due zeal. Some of the jibes were good-natured. Playing on the powers legally his, the National Intelligencer happily exclaimed, "Here, there, everywhere at once, civil, military, judicial and executive, dove of peace, thunderbolt of war, and a perfect serpent of diplomacy, who was ever so various or so amazing?" Bracketing the President of the United States with a famous dwarf of the day as "Tom Thumb's cousin, Jim Thumb," was another merry as well as able fling. To remark, however, when he sent in a Message, that he came "puffing and blowing into Congress," went a trifle too far, perhaps; and other pleasantries exposed themselves distinctly to that criticism. The Boston Atlas described the war Message as "perfectly characteristic of its author;--weak, wheedling and sneaking," while some thought it better to sail on the other tack, and picture "His High Mightiness," the arrogant, domineering tyrant of the White House, as planting "his foot upon the charter of our liberties."[34.13]

Despatching Taylor to the Rio Grande was called "a well-nigh fatal blunder," even though suggested by the "demon," who was commonly thought rather shrewd. Letting Santa Anna go back to Mexico seemed to different Whigs like treason, treachery, folly and idiocy. Polk "takes his ease on some sixty-eight dollars per day," while the soldiers he has driven to the field subsist on fare that "his very slaves would loathe," the Whig Almanac luckily discovered. Bribery, duplicity, falsehood, imbecility, cowardice and infamy were a few of the other good things found in the President's conduct; and the chief Whig organ undertook to lay him finally at rest on the greensward in this elegant fashion: "Why, the very savage of the courtyard in other times--that most brutal of mankind, the bully of the bailiwick, who chewed up an ear or nose, or scooped out with thumb a prostrate adversary's eye--was generous in comparison."[34.13]

In attempting more serious criticism the Whigs met with embarrassments. The majority of them, whose argument had been that immediate annexation of Texas would necessarily mean war, could not with inward peace declare that Polk had brought on the war by sending Taylor to the Rio Grande; and the great number whose contention had been that Mexico still owned Texas could not well deny that annexing her province by an Act of Congress, which amounted on their theory to a constitutional declaration of war, had created a state of things which made it entirely proper for Polk to send Taylor there. "Swindlers of 1844, with your 'peaceable annexation,' do not skulk! Here is the fruit of your doings! Look it in the face!" exclaimed the New York Tribune when the war bill passed, but it soon appeared more tactful to ignore this aspect of the matter.[34.14]

[EMBARRASSMENTS OF THE WHIGS]

Other embarrassments remained, however. It was very well for northern Whigs to indulge in what Carlyle might have called a "running shriek" against "a pro-slavery war," but they were cautioned to let no echoes of it cross the Potomac. When a Senator greeted the war Message by saying he would later read the documents that accompanied it, and for the present would merely observe that Polk's course was "utterly unjustifiable," Ritchie paraphrased Master Dogberry at him: "By virtue of mine office I do suspect thee to be a thief." While some papers denounced the government for not settling with Mexico by negotiation, others admitted that Mexico had refused to treat. When Delano announced for the sake of buncombe that he was "ready to go shoulder to shoulder with all those who supported the honor of the country," Thurman replied that it seemed a strange method of supporting one's country, to declare like Delano, after war had begun, when it existed both in law and in fact, that it was "illegal, unrighteous, and damnable." Abraham Lincoln, wishing to distinguish himself before the home folks, did this feat in the House by revealing, in a manner suited to his years, that since Mexico had exercised jurisdiction on the northern bank of the Rio Grande, the first American blood must have been shed on Mexican, not American, soil; but unhappily the fact remained that Connecticut had for some time exercised effective jurisdiction over northeastern Pennsylvania, yet did not own the territory.[34.15]

Those who raved against Polk and his "tribe" for driving the war bill through Congress had to face Winthrop and a galaxy of other Whigs, who admitted that war did already exist. Congressmen denouncing the Executive for sending Taylor to the Rio Grande were unable to deny that notice of his march from Corpus Christi had been given on the floor of the House (March 23) long before the outbreak of hostilities, and nothing had been done about it; that on May 12 Whigs of the Senate, led by Crittenden, had recognized that American territory extended to the Rio Grande; and that after the army could safely have withdrawn from that vicinity no serious attempt had been made to bring about its recall. Partisans of the unoffending Mexicans were startled to hear the impeccable Boston Atlas confess in a moment of candor: "The conduct of that government towards us has been such as might have justified the extreme resort to war"; and those eager to berate Polk for unconstitutional aggressiveness had to digest a similar lapse on the part of the National Intelligencer, which conceded that Congress had thrown round him a mantle of indemnity by a vote "implying confidence in the rectitude of the President in beginning this war."[34.16]

While Polk was roundly taken to task for appointing so many Democratic generals, Whig journals boasted that most of the leading officers belonged to their party. The military operations afforded numerous opportunities for invectives against the administration, but ere long a number of the invectives came home to stay. Taylor, it appeared, had recommended the advance to the Rio Grande; he protested against embarrassing the prosecution of the war by discussing its genesis; and the smallness of his army at the critical time, his waiting so long after the occupation of Matamoros, the terms given at Monterey, his peril at Buena Vista, Kearny's off-hand annexation of New Mexico, Scott's discharging volunteers after the battle of Cerro Gordo, and his famous Jalapa proclamation, all brought up against the administration, proved in every case chargeable to the Whig commanders.[34.16]

[WHIG ORATORS]

Orators caused as much pain as generals, perhaps. "Black Tom" Corwin's brilliant advice that American soldiers in Mexico should be welcomed to hospitable graves, though it gained high rank in the nightmare school of literature, overshot the mark. It scandalized the nation. It staggered patriotism. It shocked humanity. Most of all it infuriated the troops, battling for their country in a foreign land. The speech arrived at Buena Vista soon after the struggle with Santa Anna. A rude effigy of Corwin was made up of the vilest materials, dressed in a Mexican uniform and burned; and over the ashes these lines were posted up:

"Old Tom Corwin is dead and here he lies; Nobody's sorry and nobody cries; Where he's gone and how he fares, Nobody knows and nobody cares."

The soldiers had friends at home, and of course made their sentiments known. The speech sounded the knell of its author's great political hopes; and there is reason to believe that its reception frightened into dumbness a number of his colleagues, who had arranged to follow his lead.[34.17]

But other styles of oratorical attack were still feasible. Just before Congress met in December, 1846, the Whigs hung out at the Chinese Museum, Philadelphia, their Great Blue Light. In other words a powerful orator, a powerful lawyer, a powerful statesman--Daniel Webster by name--after studying on the problem for half a year, undertook, if one may quote an admirer, to "knock the sand" from under the government. Hour after hour he talked on, till he mortgaged fourteen columns of the United States Gazette, and the reporters fled; but he came far short of making out a case. Other efforts of his proved no more successful. Before the Whig convention at Springfield he argued in a tedious, prosy, court-room style. This is "a war of pretexts"--three of them, he asserted: first, that Mexico invaded American territory; secondly, that she would not receive Slidell; and thirdly, that she would not pay our claims. Did Webster fail to see that a casus belli recognized almost unanimously by our Executive and Congress was for this country at least more than a "pretext"? Did he fail to see that his other "pretexts" had not been offered by Polk as grounds for passing the war bill? And how could he say the pretexts were "all unfounded"? Did he suppose that Mexico had paid our claims? Did he suppose that she had welcomed Slidell? Of course not; but he was the attorney of New England Whiggism, trying to make a good case out of a poor one.[34.18]

His really effective contributions to the polemics consisted, not of arguments, but of impressive hints: "I am greatly deceived, Mr. President, if we shall not ere long see facts coming to the light, and circumstances found coinciding and concurring, which will fix on the government" its alleged guilt; and a President bringing on war in the manner charged against Polk, would commit "an impeachable offence," as if Polk might have been impeached after Congress had assumed the responsibility for his acts. But unhappily Father Ritchie offered another citation, "Well, well, we know; or there be, and if there might; or if we list to speak."[34.18]

And not only did Webster disappoint, but he mortified Whig friends. Texas had been an independent state as early as 1840, he said; our annexing it gave Mexico no just ground of complaint; she was "entirely unreasonable and senseless" in rejecting our offer to treat; if she preferred war to peace we could but fight; and now the war must be vigorously prosecuted. He squarely refused to call the invasion of her territory unjust. He seemed to approve of his son's going to the field in the "unholy" cause of his country. He admitted that Whig policy in Massachusetts was in some respects "quite narrow." "I am tired--and disgusted--as much as you possibly can be, with the fanaticism and narrowness of some of our People," he wrote; and no doubt it made him still more tired to hear Lowell's captivating but wayward muse advise young fellows, on grounds of personal advantage, to keep out of the army, and suggest that, should they get seduced by some "strutting" sergeant into taking up arms for the country, insubordination and even desertion would become them.

"Thrash away, you'll hev to rattle On them kittle-drums o' yourn,-- 'Taint a knowin' kind o' cattle That is ketched with mouldy corn."[34.19]

While such were the troubles of waking hours, the bedchamber, too, of many Whigs had its troubled moments. Ghosts walked. John Jay, a sincere opponent of our second war against England, came back, holding out a scroll that bore these words of his, "As the war has been constitutionally declared, the people are evidently bound to support it." Came back the Rev. David Osgood, D.D., of Medford, Massachusetts, with his sermon of June 27, 1812: "My mind has been in a constant agony, not so much at the inevitable loss of our temporal prosperity and happiness, and the complicated miseries of war, as at its guilt, its outrage against heaven, against all truth, honesty, justice, goodness, against all the principles of social happiness." Came back another Federalist, the Rev. Elijah Parish, D.D., with a sermon recommending treason as a pious duty: "New England, if invaded, would be obliged to defend herself. Do you not then owe it to your children, and owe it to your God, to make peace for yourselves?" Unlike Jay, these men appeared to be unhappy; and then certain patriots of the Hartford Convention filed by with averted eyes, each dragging after him a blasted reputation.[34.20]

In one thing, however, the opponents of the war succeeded. Going far beyond the limits of reasonable criticism and helpful suggestions, and indulging in language calculated to dishearten and hamper the administration, they encouraged the enemy. It is merely Polk's war, announced the Boston Atlas, quoted in the Monitor Republicano. Mexico would have disgraced herself by receiving Slidell, declared the same journal. Her spirit, proclaimed the National Intelligencer, was fitted to "command the admiration of all men capable of appreciating the virtue of courage and fortitude under the most disastrous circumstances." Severance, a member of Congress, openly applauded her resistance. We cannot beat her without ruining our finances, maintained Waddy Thompson. The destruction of her national independence was "the true issue," one sheet falsely assured her, as if to whet her sword. It was entirely uncertain, proclaimed Calhoun in February, 1847, whether our army could reach Mexico City or dictate a peace if it should. She cannot be conquered, it was often said.[34.21]

Magazines of epithets and arguments, that became gunpowder the moment they crossed the Rio Grande, poured from the Whig presses. Leading papers invoked foreign intervention. The official journal of the Mexican government offered the thanks of the nation to Webster for threatening our President with impeachment. "If there is in the United States a heart worthy of American liberty, its impulse is to join the Mexicans," exclaimed a Boston journal; "It would be a sad and woeful joy, but a joy nevertheless, to hear that the hordes under Scott and Taylor were, every man of them, swept into the next world." No wonder that Polk dropped a hint about aiding and abetting the enemy. It was proper. In 1813-14 the National Intelligencer had stigmatized those who denounced the country's war after its own present fashion as "traitors in thought and purpose."[34.21]

[THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS]

Early in December, 1846, amidst feelings of depression, dissatisfaction with the government and opposition to the war, the second session of the Twenty-ninth Congress opened. The Democrats of that body found themselves in a general state of dissension. At the beginning of the year Marcy had written privately, "Our noble party [is] on the brink of ruin," and there it still hung.[34.22]

Van Buren's implacable followers nursed a grudge against Polk for the intrigues that had led to his nomination; and the partisans of Cass nursed one against them for their votes at the Baltimore convention. New York Barnburners and Old Hunkers glared at one another. Calhoun's friends were sour because of his exclusion from the Cabinet. The old free-traders cursed Walker in their hearts for stealing their tariff hobby. The westerners had no thought of forgiving the South for dropping Oregon, and the South refused to be scared by those "Big Braggarts" of the west, who seemed to want all the funds in the treasury for their internal improvements. Many wore crape and hatchets, one might say, for the river and harbor bill. Everybody wished to blame somebody for the recent election returns. Some were quite ready to break openly with the administration. The partisans of Buchanan and those of Dallas marched with daggers drawn. "All around is dissension and distrust. Gloom overspreads the party," wrote G. W. Thompson of Wheeling.[34.22]

The best of leadership was needed, and it could not be found. If a person did not understand the situation, he wondered; if he did, he wondered more. Nobody credited Polk with possessing the rod of Moses. Many disliked the man too much to respect the official. He could inspire neither love nor fear. While at one end of the avenue sat a party without a President, at the other sat a President without a party. With a large Democratic margin in each chamber, he admitted that he was practically in the minority; and at first sight this appeared the more surprising because Polk, knowing Congress and not knowing the country, labored with his eye on the former. But the explanation could easily be found. The people were not believed to be standing behind him. Within a month he was to be rebuffed three times in the House on important matters during as many days. One of his favorite measures was to go down amid shouts of laughter without a single friendly vote. The Cabinet enjoyed no greater respect. Walker seemed to be regarded as its leading spirit, but men distrusted his character as much as they admired his talents and energy. Moreover, in spite of Polk's determination to shut Presidential aspirants from his council, both Walker and Buchanan probably felt less interest in the war than in personal schemes.[34.23]

These circumstances left the party to find such leadership as it could in Congress, and the leadership it found was a triangular fight--Benton, Cass and Calhoun. Benton had remarkable powers and seldom failed to be a Democrat, a Senator and a patriot, but he was egotistical, moody, overbearing, passionate; he despised Cass, he more than hated Calhoun, and he treated his fellow-Democrats in general as minions. Cass, a courtier and somewhat a scholar, lacked parliamentary experience, drew more timidity than courage from his Presidential hopes, and possessed no political convictions to reinforce his talents. Calhoun's high character, rare intellectual strength and frank, affable manners made him personally the most influential man at the capital; but his judgment was erratic, and he aimed to stand aloof, with a following of about four Senators, as a balance-of-power faction. He was intensely narrow, too. For him there seemed to be only one region in the world; only one state in the south, and only one public man there. Cass was loyal to the administration, Benton helpful but domineering, and Calhoun unfriendly. Not a very firm tripod, this, to support a government engaged in war. With almost all the Democrats, politics--that is to say, offices--held the stage, and country occupied the background. Dissatisfaction with Polk's appointments increased the confusion. Indeed, a "passion" for getting jobs invaded the sacred halls of legislation, and the President found not less than twenty men voting against his measures to avenge personal disappointments.[34.24]

[THE WHIGS IN CONGRESS]

Whig harmony and efficiency were happily not impaired by these allurements of the fleshpots, for the Executive did not belong to their party; but their numberless inconsistencies proved most embarrassing, and the necessity of satisfying public sentiment, and throwing the responsibility upon the administration, by voting supplies for hostilities they denounced, weakened them. No absurdities, however, were too glaring, no contradictions too thorny for what they termed their "patriotic sublimity" to ignore or surmount. They denounced the war enough to incriminate themselves when they supported it, and they supported it enough to stultify themselves when they condemned it. Combining the views of several groups, one discovered a line of policy truly remarkable: the attack upon Mexico was unconstitutional and wicked, but it should be carried on; so let us halt, send an embassy, and proffer again the negotiations that Mexico has repeatedly and recently spurned.[34.25]

The success of the government's military and fiscal policies in comparison with what had been predicted, and the freedom of our commerce from Mexican and European molestation were troublesome facts; but hopes of disaster could still be entertained, and prophecies of woe still be chanted. Constructive statesmanship, they held, was not their affair. The country's difficulties occasioned them but slight concern. On that score their detachment was charming.

"I heard a lion in the lobby roar; Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door And keep him out, or shall we let him in And see if we can get him out again?"

In fact they found it most agreeable to hear savage growls and roars, and proclaim that all responsibility belonged to the Democrats. To heighten the turmoil Taylor and Scott were in politics, where they should not have been, and they had active and hopeful friends in Congress. Many of the Whigs, indeed, felt quite ready to put up "Old Zack" for President and "Old Whitey" for Vice President, if only they could injure Polk and whip the Democrats thereby; and their opponents, understanding the game, fended off with no more scruple.[34.25]

The speeches, which ran on almost interminably, were often able, sometimes eloquent, almost always prejudiced, and quite always deficient in information. Indeed, a multitude of essential or important data were wholly unknown. The same facts, the same errors, the same arguments, the same epithets, the same laudable sentiments and the same ignoble aims presented themselves over and over again. Assertions and denials, proofs and refutations, accusations and answers, flings and retorts pursued and were pursued. There was what the Public Ledger called "an everlasting begging of the question"--taking premises for granted and reaching conclusions that any one could accept, if he pleased. "How glad I shall be when I escape from the region of speeches--and get into the region of [undisguised] pigs and calves," Senator Fairfield had exclaimed a few months earlier; and no doubt many felt in the same way now.[34.26]

Naturally the genesis of the conflict proved to be a favorite object of contemplation, and almost every complaint against the administration that wit could invent or stupidity fall into was brought forward. The fact that the action of the same Congress at its first session had turned the leaf upon that subject made no difference. The fact that Polk's newspaper organ challenged in his name "the most rigorous investigation--not at any future time, but now"--into the Executive's "whole conduct of our Mexican relations" did not signify. No such investigation was attempted, but invective continued. The opposition merely cocked its eye suspiciously at everything, and found everything iniquitous.

"He must have optics sharp, I ween, Who sees what is not to be seen,"

but the feat was now accomplished.[34.27]

[OPPOSITION SCHEMES]

For example, Congress had scarcely assembled when attacks began on the establishment of civil governments in California and New Mexico. With such unusual strength of vision it could readily be seen that Polk had been indulging in some villainy there. For a week or so excitement raged. But after a while several things appeared. Our only aim had been to mitigate the harshness of military rule, about which the kindly Whigs had felt much exercised. The action complained of had been taken under a military sanction, and was proper legally as well as by common sense, for the Executive, as commander-in-chief, possessed the fullest military authority in regions occupied by our arms. Harrison, a Whig, had proceeded after a similar fashion in Canada during the War of 1812; and our Supreme Court had even endorsed the view of a Whig lawyer, Daniel Webster by name, that British occupation of Castine, Maine, during the same war gave England rights of sovereignty there for the time being. So far as Kearny, a Whig officer, had gone wrong, the fault had been his own; and, finally, the unholy word "conquest," which had made the Whigs most unhappy when applied by Polk to the occupation of New Mexico, was found to have been applied to the British occupation of Castine by our own Supreme Court.[34.28]

Behind idealistic declamation lay schemes that were distinctly practical. It was thought, for example, that if the war could be made odious, and the government's measures be hindered in Congress, Polk would have to placate the Whigs by restoring the protective tariff. This came out beautifully in the treatment of the proposal to lay a duty on tea and coffee, which even the National Intelligencer endorsed. A Democrat, "Long John" Wentworth of Illinois, fully as noted for corporeal as for spiritual grandeur, and wrathful over Polk's course in the Oregon and river and harbor affairs, moved the rejection of the plan, and the Whigs fell into line.[34.29]

It was a noble scene. Regard for the poor man filled the mouths of the orators. Though his cottons, his sugar and his salt had been cheerfully made to pay, this duty would be "inhuman," a "tax on poverty," a tax "against the fireside and against woman," a tax "against the wages of weary labor" to support the "extravagance" of the "Tiberius" in the White House. But almost in the same breath came the hint, "If the administration needs money, let it re-enact the [protective] tariff of 1842." "The first condition [of Whig support] is," explained the Boston Atlas, "repeal the British Bill. Repeal the bantling of the House of Lords. Repeal the offspring of British paternity and precedent." "Should they be in want of money," proclaimed Webster, "I would say to them--restore what you have destroyed." A fairly definite understanding to this effect seems to have existed among the Whigs; malcontents on the other side gave them help; and the proposed duty was rejected in the House by a vote of 115 to 48. Partly for the same reason troops were not promptly voted. If the government does not need money, it does not need men, said the opposition. Thus the "patriotic sublimity" of the Whigs again commanded admiration, and some of the Democrats now had a share in it. [34.29]

Another illustration of sublimity was the "Wilmot Proviso," that "firebell in the night," as Alexander H. Stephens called it, which no doubt some Congressmen accepted at its face value, and a multitude of honest citizens regarded as a New Commandment revealed on a new Sinai. The introduction of this measure, which prohibited slavery in territory acquired from Mexico, was both unnecessary and unwise. It blocked needed war legislation, added to the prevailing discord, and weakened the government in the face of the enemy.[34.30]

But reasons of state outweighed all such trifling considerations. The northern Whigs, to hurt their opponents and gain recruits, had for some time been taunting the northern Democrats with subserviency to the slave power, and it seemed to the latter that a declaration of independence would help their electioneering. Van Buren men, especially in the state of New York, desired to annoy Polk in return for his beating their favorite, and taking an Old Hunker instead of a Barnburner into the Cabinet. Wilmot, the only Pennsylvania Democrat that had voted for the new tariff, did not feel precisely happy about his action, and was anxious to repel the charge of truckling. His great state and New England considered the "Southern" tariff an abomination, and longed to retaliate. Many felt that Walker and Tyler had used sharp practice in the annexation of Texas for the advantage of their section. The West believed the South had actually broken a bargain by getting its help in that matter and then dropping the Oregon issue. A general sense that southern politicians had been overbearing prevailed above the line. The fear that southern domination would blight interests dear to the North exerted its usual strength; and as a final merit, the Proviso helped to make the war odious by suggesting that it aimed to extend slavery.[34.30]

So without regard to the logic of the situation, the welfare of the country or the needs of our armies it was urged; and then Calhoun made a profit in his turn by bringing in a series of pro-slavery dogmas to rally the southerners under his banner. The northern Whigs, for reasons just mentioned, and particularly to save themselves at home, took up the Proviso, and it fared well; but after a time the party discovered that favoring it might cost them several states in the next Presidential contest, and so the New Commandment was quietly filed away.[34.30]

[BERRIEN'S PLAN]

To replace it, however, calm the "Proviso men," and avert a party split by preventing the emergence of a slavery issue, the "patriotic sublimity" of the Whigs evolved another idea. This was the proposition of Senator Berrien that no territory should be taken from Mexico, and that while it would be "desirable" to have the Texas boundary settled and our claims paid, we should always be ready to make terms that would leave Mexican honor "inviolate." Here was truly a remarkable proposition. By voting three millions to facilitate a settlement with Mexico, in full view of Polk's grounds for proposing that measure, Congress had already committed itself to the principle of acquiring territory.[34.31]

But other objections to Berrien's plan far outweighed the point of consistency. If the United States was to decide what would satisfy Mexican honor, the plan could only have proved futile--even insulting; and if Mexico herself, it was ludicrous. Nothing would have satisfied Mexico's ideas of honor except the evacuation of her territory and the surrender of Texas. When convinced by the passage of this resolution that she had nothing to lose in the end, she would have felt still less anxiety to sacrifice her daily golden egg--the money that our armies paid out--by ending the war. Implying that she had done nothing worthy of stripes, Berrien turned the war Message and the war bill into falsehoods, and accused the United States of a horrible crime--the crime of warring upon an innocent neighbor merely to do havoc. He reduced the minima of our solemn demands to mere desiderata. He represented our expenditures, our dead and our victories as elements of a senseless farce, and left us no respectable excuse for having troops in Mexico, except that we sent them down to scatter silver dollars and study the fandango. He proposed to make this nation unique in history as combining the villain, the ruffian, the simpleton and the comedian. He attempted to revive the unendurable status quo ante, leave the United States without indemnity for the past or security for the future, stimulate Mexican vanity and self-confidence, and weaken the prestige of our arms in Europe. In order to preserve Whig solidarity he aimed to deprive us, not merely of California, but of self-respect.[34.31]

All this Berrien proposed. Yet Webster, dreaming still of the Presidency, endorsed the plan. He was put up as a candidate by the Massachusetts Whigs on that basis; and his party, hoping to win spoils in the approaching national election by this device, quite generally accepted it. Said a correspondent of the National Intelligencer, vouched for by the editor as a Whig statesman, "No Mexican territory. Let this be the issue. Let this be the motto inscribed on the Whig banner, and victory is certain."[34.31]

All these manoeuvres of the Whigs, aided by the Democratic underworking, resulted, of course, in the protraction of a war which they posed as hating. The first seven weeks of the session were almost thrown away. The opposition hung back from granting needed troops for reasons already suggested, and also lest the administration should turn the appointments to party account. Democratic dissensions and probably a wish to annoy Whig generals had a similar effect. Grudges on account of the tariff and the river and harbor veto played their part against war legislation. Men stooped so low as to argue that Polk, the President of the United States, could not be trusted with $3,000,000, when customhouse officials had larger sums in their keeping. And then his "imbecile" administration was charged with permitting the war to drag, "when by a few vigorous blows it could have been ended long since." Its course exhibited "unsurpassed inefficiency," declared the Boston Atlas, as well as "one unrelieved picture of wrongdoing, corruption, weakness and blunders." Indeed, the government, "rolling this war, as a sweet morsel, under its tongue," was detected in wilfully doing "everything in its power to prevent" the energetic operations upon which, as any one could see, its financial, political and personal credit vitally depended.[34.32]

[CLAY'S LEADERSHIP]

In November, 1847, Henry Clay, the plumed leader of the national Whig party, celebrated also as the man who elected Polk, after taking even a longer time than others to consult the omens, gave out a speech and a set of resolutions. These were intended as a chart for the party to be guided by under the pilotage of that distinguished though unlucky navigator. The author forgot having said in 1813, "an honorable peace is attainable only by an efficient war," but he remembered to condole with suffering Ireland. He forgot that a country engaged in hostilities of uncertain duration and cost cannot wisely bind itself to specific terms of peace, but reiterated the favorite Whig taunt that it was a blind war, without known aim. Historically too, he wandered a little, for he charged the President with ordering Taylor to plant cannon opposite Matamoros "at the very time" when Slidell was "bending his way" to Mexico; but Polk was unpopular, and few thought it necessary to speak the truth about him. We oppose the annexation of Mexico, Clay proclaimed, which, on the other hand was perhaps too true to be interesting; and we demand only a proper boundary for Texas, which bore him a long distance toward Berrien.[34.33]

But here was the master stroke: We desire to acquire no foreign territory "for the purpose" of extending slavery to it. This had the threefold merit of completely "dodging" the great question of principle, giving the northern Whigs a graven image to worship, and conceding to their southern brethren a full privilege to do anything possible in the acquired territory, after it should be ours. But unfortunately for his party the Navigator admitted that Congress had made the conflict a national war, that a long series of "glorious" victories had been won, and that since Congress had formulated no declaration regarding the objects in view, Polk--frequently accused by Whigs of carrying on the war for diabolical purposes both abhorrent and fatal to the Constitution--had been free to use his judgment. In Mexico Clay's speech was widely circulated, and a competent observer thought it might delay peace one or two years. Such was the highest Whig leadership in what Webster called a "dark and troubled night."[34.33]

One idea in the minds of not a few who endorsed the "no territory" plan was that its adoption would render the prosecution of the war aimless, and so check it abruptly. Others favored gaining the same end by stopping supplies. Ex-Senator Rives, a leader of prominence, advised Crittenden to concert measures for this purpose with Democratic "patriots"; and in fact an understanding on the point seems to have been reached. "Be prompt, when you are wrong, to back straight out," urged the New York Tribune, demanding the recall of our troops. Other Whigs, after doing all they could to make the war aimless, argued, We are fighting for nothing, why persist? "Let us call home our armies," insisted Corwin. "Stop the war. Withdraw our forces," cried Sumner; and Corwin believed, early in February, 1847, that only two more votes would commit the Senate for this plan of complete national stultification, and for bringing back in a keenly aggravated state all our Mexican difficulties. Practically nobody dreamed of offering to Mexico the reparation that such an idea of dropping the war implied. The proposition was therefore hollow and insincere; little more than politics weakly flavored with sentimentality.[34.34]

The month after Clay's chart appeared, the first session of the Thirtieth Congress assembled. About half the Representatives were new men, a majority belonged to the Whig party, and all had been chosen during the gloomy autumn of the previous year. By the Navigator and by other party leaders their work had been mapped out for them. The objects of the war were to be defined as at most a settlement of the Texas boundary at the Rio Grande, or a little farther north, and payment of the old American claims; supplies were to be qualified and limited accordingly, or entirely cut off; and in this manner hostilities would be ended.[34.35]

But politics, not principle, still dominated most of the Whigs. They viewed everything with reference to the impending election of a President; and public sentiment regarding the war had now changed. The battle of Buena Vista had aroused extraordinary enthusiasm; Scott's victories, refuting the charges of inefficiency and silencing the prophets of calamity, had been decisive as well as brilliant; the expenses of the war were far less burdensome than its opponents had prophesied; Mexico had proved stubborn and unreasonable; the sort of opposition that had been practised was seen to be aiding the enemy, and hence fell somewhat into disfavor; and the people, believing peace and a reward for their sacrifices within reach, had made up their minds to carry the business through. Besides, many of the Whigs themselves were too proud to "back out," and many at the north--high-tariff men--wished the war to continue. By a rather small vote and a very narrow margin--85 to 81--it was duly branded as unnecessary and unconstitutional, and Webster, now an out-an-out opposition candidate for the Presidency, approved of this little black "blister-plaster"; but in view of national sentiment "patriotic sublimity" of a practical sort now looked expensive, and a motion contemplating the withdrawal of our troops perished in the House under a vote of 41 to 137.[34.35]

[THE OPPOSITION FAILS]

It was perfectly feasible, however, to snarl, nag, procrastinate and work for personal aims; and few opportunities passed unheeded. "Tiger hunts"--ambitious members attacking rivals--used up much time. Cliques locked horns over pressing military needs. Webster seemed to forget everything except his ambition. Benton raged over the fate of the Lieutenant General bill and the censure of Frémont for disobeying Kearny. Calhoun, having allowed his hair to grow, resembled a porcupine less than before, but felt no less anxious to prove himself the sole hope of the South. Polk, instead of gaining popularity from the success of his administration, was looked upon as intoxicated by its fumes, and a section of his party advised throwing him openly to the sharks. Congressional resolutions were aimed at him. All the dying embers of controversy were solicitously fanned. The causes of the war, the conduct of the war, the instructions to Slidell, the return of Santa Anna, the occupation of New Mexico, the tariff in Mexican ports and the treatment of Taylor and Scott furnished themes for stale speeches. To chill the growing popularity of the war, direct taxes were suggested; and the chairman of the ways and means committee piled up the prospective costs far above the estimates of the government. After some two months of it Marcy gave up hope. But the Whigs knew they must do nothing serious against the war, and before long it happily ended.[34.36]

The results of all this personal, designing or factious opposition to the government and the war proved most unfortunate. The administration could never be sure what action Congress would take, nor when; and therefore its course was necessarily timid, weak and hesitating. Time and strength had to be consumed in foreseeing and in meeting captious objections, and in battling against public prejudices that hampered both military and financial efficiency. "We shall have three months of turmoil--our errors exposed, our good deeds perverted," wrote Marcy to a friend at the beginning of December, 1846; and such an expectation did not conduce to satisfactory work. Bold, rapid strokes could not be ventured; caution and cheese-paring had to be the rule. In the field all this bore fruit in vexation, delay, expense and loss of life. "In the name of God," exclaimed a man at the front, "will the politicians of our country never cease gambling for the Presidency upon the blood of their countrymen?"[34.37]

And the uproar had another consequence. When the treaty was ratified the government organ referred to the conflict with Mexico as "one of the most brilliant wars that ever adorned the annals of any nation"; and the chief Whig journal placed these words without criticism in its own editorial column. The trial was over, and the fiercely contesting lawyers walked off, arm in arm, to dine. The inefficient and shameless war was now brilliant and most creditable. Indeed, the Whigs chose for standard-bearer a man who represented professionally the military spirit they had raised pious hands against, who belonged to the slaveholding order so plainly viewed askance by the New Commandment, who had recommended the advance to the Rio Grande, who had aimed the cannon at Matamoros, who had advised appropriating Mexican territory by force of arms, and who owed in fact all his prominence to playing a leading rôle in the "illegal, unrighteous, and damnable" war. Nobody thought of impeaching Polk, or of bringing home to him the guilt that was to have sunk him to the bottom of the bottomless pit.[34.38]

[RESULTS OF THE OPPOSITION}

Yet all the Whig journalism and oratory stood in the record. Hosea Biglow became an immortal.[34.39] New Englanders gained the ear of reading people. Keen young radicals of the northeast, where the muse of history chiefly dwelt, dominated to a great extent the public thought. Polk retired from power and from life, and nobody cared to defend, or even to hear defended, a creature so unpopular and so generally denounced. Declamation that well-informed men of the day had rated at its true value came to be taken seriously. One side of the case faded from sight, the other was engraved on bronze. And so the patriotic habit of eagerly throwing stones at the Mexican War and its backers became traditional.[34.40]

This has been a mistake. No doubt, as we have seen, errors and misdeeds enough must be charged to the administration. All the actors were vessels of clay, like the rest of us. But in reality the least creditable phase of our proceedings was the conduct of the opposition.

XXXV

THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE WAR

1846-1848

At the time our difficulties with Mexico approached their climax, the popularity and prestige of the United States abroad were not the highest possible. England, our gentle mother, showed a particular want of regard for us.[35.1] Herself recently weaned from slavery, she viewed with a convert's intolerance our adhering to that institution. Having just cured her most outrageous electoral abuses, she enjoyed hearing the London Times describe our government as "a polity corrupted in all its channels with the foulest venality." Ever scrupulous and self-denying when a question of gaining territory was concerned, she felt shocked by American "rapacity"; and the Times, while infinitely proud that England's banner waved in every quarter of the globe, ridiculed American "imperial pretensions" as echoed and re-echoed "in a nasal jargon, compounded at once of bad grammar and worse principle."[35.3]

[THE UNITED STATES CRITICIZED ABROAD}

The disposition of certain states to repudiate bonds held in Great Britain, and their tardiness in paying interest, excited all the righteous indignation of the creditor. The descriptions of this country put forth by honored guests like Dickens and Mrs. Trollope, who made themselves merry and popular at our expense, furnished excuses for countless jibes; and in September, 1845, the Times discovered "great danger" that the nightmare of an old English writer would come true in the United States: "No arts, no letters, no society, and, what is worst of all, continual feare and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."[35.3]

If one aspect of our civilization appeared more laughable than all the rest, it was the military side. The title of General, observed the Times, was "legitimately common to the greater part of the respectable male population," and Britannia outdid this excellent jest by telling of "majors who serve out beer, and colonels who rub down the heels of one's horse." Literary men were angered by our failure to amend the copyright law as they desired; and our pronounced republicanism, trumpeted by Polk in his annual Message of 1845, irritated almost everybody. The plain intimation of the same Message that European monarchies were not expected to interfere in America seemed even worse; and the President was represented as meaning that we intended to get Mexico into a dark alley alone, and rob her. The annexation of Texas, which England had exerted all her diplomatic strength to prevent, could not be forgiven, and the Oregon difficulty threatened war.[35.3]

Even Englishmen who believed in the rights of the people, said the Times, turned from us with "indignant scorn;" and in another of its many outbursts, which would have been terrible had they not been ludicrous, that paper warned us that, as we followed the example, we invited the punishment of self-willed Corcyra. "The most impudent, bullying, boasting nation of mankind," was Britannia's genial description of us; and she loved to parade "our national scorn of America and her statesmanship." In short, McLane, the American minister at London, reported privately--with some exaggeration, one desires to believe--that a deep-seated dislike, "amounting almost to hate, of our people, of our country and of our Institutions," prevailed universally in England.[35.3]

On the continent these opinions were more or less distinctly reflected. In France the heart of the people beat warmly for us and against their neighbors across the Channel; but the court and the government, regarding a close alliance with Great Britain as of cardinal importance, and the newspapers which, like the Journal des Débats, represented them with more or less fidelity, exerted a strong influence the other way. At the end of 1845 Polk deepened this, for his Message referred in cutting terms to the interference of that country on the side of Great Britain[35.2] in our business of absorbing Texas.[35.3]

The French government occupied a weak position in reference to that affair, for Guizot, the chief minister, believing that Henry Clay would be elected President and shelve it, had thought he could safely gratify England. Thiers, ardent and eloquent, now attacked his course in Parliament, insisting that an ally had been sacrificed to an enemy. Guizot, pale, scholarly and calculating, said in reply, Thiers has appealed to your instincts, I will appeal to your judgment; and pressed his theory of an American balance of power. But good-will for the United States and hatred for England were too strong for him. "What empty vocalization!" exclaimed Le National; "What unhappy exertions! What reverberating accents, like echoes in the desert! It was poor. It was cold. It was null." Yet no doubt the sting of Polk's rebuke lingered, though Guizot intimated in bitterly sweet language that it should not be resented, since he knew no better; and many Frenchmen who condemned their government's policy, condemned the United States for publicly recalling it.[35.3]

Mexico, however, stood in a much worse position abroad than we. For many years, it is true, she had been representing herself as Andromeda, shivering at the American crocodile or what-not that was approaching to devour her; and at the end of July, 1845, in announcing to foreign governments that hostilities were shortly to begin, she repeated that while she had done everything honorable to preserve peace, the United States had exhibited "no rule of conduct toward Mexico except a disloyal and perfidious policy, and no purpose except to seize successively every part of her territory that it could obtain."[35.4]

By such reiterated protestations considerable sympathy was aroused at London and Paris. Englishmen holding Mexican bonds naturally had tender feelings on the subject. British capitalists involved in Mexican silver mines and other investments, and British merchants and manufacturers, who enjoyed the lion's pre-eminence in Mexican commerce, felt deeply interested. British finances required silver bullion, and British statesmen dreaded a further extension of our boundary toward the southwest. But the politics of Mexico excited such contempt, her financial conduct such disgust, her restrictions upon foreign trade such irritation, and her treatment of foreign powers such resentment that she could not be viewed with cordiality, confidence or even respect.[35.4]

[MEXICO UNPOPULAR IN EUROPE]

Disraeli spoke of every government of Mexico as "born in a revolution and expiring in a riot." The chargé d'affaires of Spain told Santa Anna that, on account of the instability of chiefs and systems, it was impossible to have a settled policy toward his country. In twenty years British imports did not increase, and the number of British houses engaged in Mexican business diminished. The treaty made with France after the war of 1838 was not carried out by Mexico; and at the beginning of 1846, owing to a long-standing quarrel, which France would have settled on reasonable terms, that country was represented by the Spanish minister. Mexico has "wilfully incurred the odium of foreign Nations," declared the British Foreign Office; and the Mexican correspondent of the Times was permitted to say in its columns that an American absorption of Mexico would be greatly for the advantage of humanity. The London Athenæum expressed the same opinion. Even Le Journal des Débats, besides complaining that every nation in Europe had been treated outrageously by Mexico, admitted that she had "sunk to the lowest point of weakness and folly." The country "is destitute of intelligence, of energy, of principle," said that paper; "it is a government of barbarians, but of barbarians enervated by the corrupting vices of civilization."[35.4]

To conciliate public opinion abroad, our state department on May 14, 1846, one day after Congress authorized war, issued a circular to the American ministers and consuls.[35.5] "It is our interest, as it has ever been our inclination," said Buchanan, "that Mexico should be an independent and powerful Republic, and that our relations with her should be of the most friendly character"; but "the avaricious and unprincipled men who have placed themselves at the head of her Government" have prevented her from acting the part of a stable and orderly nation. "For some years, in our intercourse with her, we have incurred much of the expense, and suffered many of the inconveniences of war whilst nominally at peace. This state of things had, at last, become intolerable. We go to war with Mexico solely for the purpose of conquering an honorable and permanent peace. Whilst we intend to prosecute the war with vigor, both by land and by sea, we shall bear the olive branch in one hand, and the sword in the other; and whenever she will accept the former, we shall sheathe the latter." This despatch and the President's recent Message[35.6] were to guide our foreign representatives in conversation about the war.[35.7]

By the Spanish-Americans the outbreak of hostilities was received with surprising calmness. Mexico endeavored to make them feel that a conflict of races had begun, and that she was leading the van in a common cause; but whether dissatisfied with her course in the past--especially with reference to preferential trade relations--thankful to the United States for the shelter of the "Monroe Doctrine," or simply indifferent to outside concerns, they held aloof. Guatemala alone displayed a strong sympathy. The official gazette of New Granada printed Polk's war Message in full without a word of criticism.[35.9]

The mother-country, Spain, would naturally have been expected to take a deep interest in the contest; but Mexico had been a rebellious daughter, had treated the Spanish subjects within her borders with cruel unfriendliness, and had recently shown a fierce aversion to the scheme of subjecting her to a Spanish prince. For commercial reasons that power desired an early termination of the hostilities, and signified as much to our government;[35.8] but at the same time she pledged herself to "the strictest neutrality," and she refrained from even offering mediation. Her minister at Mexico, Bermúdez de Castro, assisted the authorities there with advice, but before the war ended he turned over the legation to a chargé, and went home. A band of Carlist officers talked of going to the scene of action in May, 1847; but if their plan was carried out, they successfully avoided publicity. About the same time El Heraldo of Madrid asked whether Europe would permit the United States to absorb, little by little, all of America; but this was academic, and the journal admitted that Mexico was then practically beyond relief.[35.9]

Baron von Canitz, the Prussian minister of foreign relations, when officially notified of the war, said it must be far from easy to live on amicable terms with a country like Mexico, "where anarchy reigns and where the Supreme power was constantly contested by a succession of military chieftains, who were compelled to maintain their usurped authority by the same unworthy means by which they had obtained it." Aided by Alexander von Humboldt, who had lived in Mexico, King Frederick William followed the operations of the war attentively; but, happy enough that we were not his own neighbors, he felt no concern about a possible enlargement of our territory at the expense of Mexico. Indeed, he looked upon our success as in the interest of civilization, and at a distinguished public meeting one of the ministers referred to our future power on the shores of the Pacific with hope and approbation. For the rest, as the Zollverein had little direct commercial business with the region blockaded, Prussia busied herself with her own affairs.[35.10]

[SENTIMENT IN ENGLAND]

At London the announcement of hostilities was both unexpected and unwelcome. Ostensibly they grew out of the annexation of Texas, and for that reason were a disagreeable reminder. They took place in spite of earnest efforts to prevent Mexico from challenging the United States, and hence recalled another diplomatic failure. They seemed almost certain to injure British interests, and increase the territory and prestige of the United States. There was a notion, voiced in Parliament by Disraeli, that success might be followed by an attack upon Canada or the British West Indies. It seemed highly probable that had England postponed for a few days the offer which finally settled the Oregon dispute, better terms might have been extorted from the United States. Her policy had been to have our difficulties with Mexico kept alive until after an adjustment of that affair, and now it was thought possible that we might bring Mexico to terms at once, and use in some other unpleasant way our military preparations. The war, so much regretted by her, was seen to be largely, if not mainly or wholly, due to this policy and that of the British newspapers, which had urged Mexico to despise our military power, and to rely upon the difficulty of invading her territory successfully; and finally an uncomfortable fear prevailed that in some way the peace of the world might be imperilled.[35.11]

Hence disappointment and irritation were felt at the British Foreign Office. Aberdeen warned our minister that dangers of collision would be involved in a blockade and in any project of acquiring territory; and he said frankly that he could not be expected to contemplate with any pleasure the disastrous injuries the war might very probably inflict upon the Mexican government and people. Only one cause of satisfaction could be seen by the British Cabinet. An apprehension had been felt that France might be induced--through her friendship for the United States or the idea that American control of Mexico would be for her diplomatic and commercial advantage--to join us; and the French king, confirming an anticipatory declaration already made by Guizot, took position at once for strict neutrality.[35.11]

In the press and the commercial circles of London sympathy with Mexico was general, said our minister; and the news that Americans were fighting aroused no sentiment in our favor. Of course little could be expected of "that Napoleon of the backwoods," as Britannia called our President. The defeat of Taylor on the Rio Grande was hoped for and counted upon; and even after his overthrow of Arista the Times, which had already predicted that our operations, in the case of hostilities, would be "utterly uninteresting and inglorious"--even "disgusting"--concluded that we should probably fail. "Bluster does not win battles, though it may begin brawls," the editor moralized. All Europe must consider the war "an insulting and illegal aggression," said the Chronicle; and the Post attributed our course to "the angry passions of the untamed democracy of the States," which Polk was ready to gratify at any cost.[35.11]

The press of France, on the other hand, was in general friendly. Let the Americans have Mexico, and a prodigious development of the country will follow, urged Le National; would not that be preferable to seeing the English get it? To support the United States is to strengthen an ally against Great Britain, it added. Le Correspondant said, "The Anglo-Saxon race will flow unchecked over the fair provinces where the people, descendants of the conquering Spaniards, have allowed themselves to slumber in corruption"; and it argued that such a change would benefit the Roman Catholic church in Mexico by purifying and energizing it. Even Le Journal des Débats admitted that our invasion "would be something which humanity would have to applaud, in spite of the just reprobation attached to a spirit of conquest." In view of such public sentiment W. R. King, our minister at Paris, had reason to predict, that no trouble was to be apprehended from the government, since the country would restrain it.[35.12] Even Guizot, when bitterest at heart, found it necessary to profess high respect for that "great nation," the United States.[35.13]

[ENGLAND DISPOSED TO INTERVENE]

June 6, 1846--that is to say, without loss of time--Aberdeen, the British minister of foreign affairs, intimated to McLane in a private conversation, unofficially, and upon his personal responsibility, that should Polk desire it, "he would be happy, in a more formal way, to propose a mediation."[35.14] This proposal, received by McLane in his private capacity only, was duly made known to our government, but it elicited no reply. Our silence did not please Palmerston, who succeeded Aberdeen about the beginning of July; and that young "fop with grey hair," as Le Journal des Débats described him, resolved to propose mediation in such terms as to require an answer.[35.17]

Soon after the middle of August, therefore, he instructed Pakenham to ascertain whether a formal offer of mediation would be acceptable, and if so to make it in "the form which might be agreed upon" by Pakenham and Buchanan.[35.15] The only result, however, was a memorandum received from our government on September 11, which said that it duly appreciated the friendly spirit of the British Cabinet, that it desired to make peace upon just and honorable terms and had therefore made an overture to Mexico on July 27, and that it thought the formal mediation of a foreign power unnecessary and inexpedient, but would regard with favor any influence used to induce Mexico to accept this overture.[35.16] Later Pakenham improved every opportunity to remind Buchanan of the British government's "anxious desire ... to be useful in bringing about a reconciliation between the two Republicks," but he found himself unable to accomplish anything in this direction.[35.17]

The real question, however, was whether Great Britain would forcibly interpose. Such a policy she forbade Mexico to count on, saying that she could not be expected to assume the chief burden of a war which had resulted from the failure of that country to act upon her advice;[35.18] but this did not bind her own hands, and no doubt the government felt a pressure, if not a leaning, in the direction of interference. Both certain interests and certain passions demanded such a course. The Times and other newspapers pointed that way,[35.19] and in the House of Commons Disraeli and Bentinck spoke on that side. "A pretence only is wanting," wrote McLane. This, however, was not precisely correct. Aberdeen told Murphy, the Mexican minister, that it would be Quixotic to take up arms on the simple ground that Mexico had been wronged; and in view of England's own course, it would also have been ridiculous. "Scinde is ours," exclaimed Britannia at about this time, thus announcing one more step in the conquest of India, "and we pay the penalty of the treachery by which it was acquired in the curse of possession." What Great Britain wanted was a substantial advantage in prospect.[35.20]

For a time it looked as if California might provide this. Peel himself was rather dazzled by the idea of gaining San Francisco, and Aberdeen viewed with "the utmost repugnance," wrote Murphy, the likelihood that we should acquire the province. During the last three months of 1845 the subject was thoroughly discussed by Murphy and Aberdeen, and the latter's mind appeared to be "tormented" for a solution of the problem. The method of interposition followed in the war between Buenos Aires and Montevideo appealed to him, but he felt that France could not easily be drawn into it. The Mackintosh plan of British colonization received careful attention as possibly the means of creating a British interest in California; but Aberdeen thought it would be unbecoming, and would give the United States a just ground of offence, to put the plan in operation at so late a day, evidently for the purpose of blocking us (á propósito para las circunstancias), and he feared it would not be effective after all against American immigration. The Mexican decree of April, 1837, which mortgaged a certain quantity of lands (for instance, in California) to the bondholders appeared to promise better, and on that basis a scheme was actually drawn up at London in October, 1845, for submission to the government of Mexico. But at this juncture Herrera was overthrown, the British Cabinet felt profoundly disgusted, and Murphy's position became uncertain.[35.21]

After Aberdeen retired from the Foreign Office in 1846, the suggestion of Paredes that Great Britain take military possession of California seems to have tempted Palmerston; but, aside from other objections, he shrewdly suspected that Mexico had by this time lost control of the territory. In December, 1847, Dr. Mora, who succeeded Murphy, proposed on his own responsibility a sale of California to England, arguing that by our endeavor to purchase it the United States had confessed we had no claim there; but Palmerston, though evidently tempted again, merely decided that any authorized communication on the subject should receive the attention justly due to its importance, and soon the treaty of peace put an end to the matter. No "substantial advantage" had seemed to come within reach.[35.21]

Nor had even a satisfactory pretext for intervention been found. McLane had urged our government to give none, and in particular to avoid all infringement upon the rights of neutrals.[35.22] The policy of our blockade was extremely liberal. British mail packets were exempt from its restrictions, and they were permitted to embark specie and land quicksilver at Vera Cruz and Tampico. During the blockade of Mazatlán British subjects were treated with such consideration that our courtesy was formally acknowledged, and it was admitted that Scott "invariably" guarded their interests in the sphere of his operations. Our opening the ports to all nations, establishing a low tariff, and endeavoring to protect commercial relations with the interior were boons that foreign powers had no reason to expect, and British traders appreciated our attitude.[35.23] By December, 1847, the merchants of London were distinctly opposed to intervention; and when the Duc de Broglie demanded in astonishment why England had viewed our military operations with such indifference, he was told that Mexico in the hands of the United States would be of far more value in regard to commerce and investments than ever before. At the same time persons of less narrow views hoped to see that country regenerated through us.[35.24]

[BRITISH INTERVENTION NOT FEASIBLE]

On the other hand embarrassments of the most serious character stood in the way of interposition. As the Globe said, the project of annexing Texas had afforded better grounds, yet England had looked aghast before the prospect of losses and risks involved in a collision with this country. So had she done in the case of Oregon; and the advantages of remaining at peace with the United States were still obvious. There were other considerations also. She wanted time to readjust her business under the régime of free trade, and Le National thought she desired to develop her India cotton fields before severing her relations with us. The political situation in Ireland and the Irish famine were grave embarrassments, and the generous aid given by the United States to the starving population of that island excited gratitude. British mercantile finances proved to be unsound, and a bad panic occurred; and manufacturing interests awoke to the fact that many rivals threatened them. The profound unrest which precipitated Europe into the revolutionary convulsions of 1848 could already be felt;[35.25] and finally the relations of England to France occasioned a grave sense of uncertainty.[35.26]

With the support of that power, said Murphy, Aberdeen would have been willing to fight.[35.27] Her military assistance did not particularly matter, but he was afraid that popular unfriendliness toward the government--already shown by a violent opposition in the press and the parliament--and the scarcely slumbering hatred of England might drive the country into active support of the United States, and bring on a general conflagration.[35.28] Such was the situation when Peel, whom Louis Philippe leaned heavily upon, stood at the head of the British government; and after he resigned at the end of June, 1846, it became far more difficult. For the new administration Louis entertained no such regard. The marriage of the Duc de Montpensier, his son, to a Spanish princess destroyed the entente cordiale. Harsh language was exchanged. Guizot and Palmerston endeavored to overthrow each other, and the British ambassador at Paris had a personal difficulty with Guizot.[35.29]

As for France herself, the premier's loud advocacy of an American balance of power compelled him logically to prevent the United States, if he could, from acquiring new territory. Influential writers--Gabriel Ferry, for example--insisted that French interests, principles and prestige in Mexico demanded protection. L'Epoque, which many regarded as Guizot's personal organ, took that ground firmly in a long and studied article, and called for joint intervention. Le Journal des Débats, our persistent enemy, suggested the same view. But the diplomatic journal, La Portefeuille, was resolute for neutrality, and the other leading papers reiterated the familiar objections against playing the British game; and hence, while it appeared reasonable to expect that Guizot would aid England more or less in a diplomatic way to limit the extension of our boundaries, no other sort of French intervention seemed at all probable.[35.30]

[EFFECTS OF AMERICAN SUCCESS]

The success of our armies clinched the argument. From the first, McLane urged that a vigorous campaign should be waged. That, he said, would be the best way to prevent interference, and he predicted that victories would overcome sympathy with Mexico. Had Taylor been defeated on the Rio Grande, as Londoners expected, those ill-disposed toward us in Europe, wrote our minister at Paris, "might have been emboldened to unfriendly or offensive demonstrations"; but as it was, reported McLane, the conduct of the American army and the magnanimity of the American general served to "inspire a respect for our country and our cause which was not felt before, and which nothing less could have produced." The failure of Ulúa to detain Scott until the yellow fever should force him to decamp had no slight effect; and the victories at Vera Cruz and Cerro Gordo, reported Bancroft, who succeeded McLane at the court of St. James, totally changed the complexion of sentiment in Europe regarding the United States. After the battles of Contreras and Churubusco the same minister said to a friend, "You should be here to see how our successes have opened the eyes of the Old World to our great destinies." In England racial sympathy, too, could not wholly be suppressed. Scott received very handsome compliments from the commander of the British fleet at Vera Cruz and from a son of Sir Robert Peel, who was aboard one of the vessels; and Robert Anderson remarked in his diary: When our arms do something glorious, "jealousy, for the moment, is conquered by pride." Indeed Lord Palmerston himself spoke most warmly to Bancroft of our victories as illustrating the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon.[35.31]

King believed they "secured a perhaps doubtful neutrality." "Let Mexico show the determination and the power to resist," remarked Le Journal des Débats significantly, and a way to aid her will doubtless be found, but "Europe cannot intervene effectively in behalf of a people who throw themselves away." It is impossible to help those who will not help themselves, admitted the London Times; and Palmerston--disgusted, no doubt, like every one else, with Mexico's failure to achieve anything except fresh revolutions--admitted to Bankhead that it would be very imprudent to break with the United States for the sake of a country which did nothing effectual to defend itself.[35.31]

Some things, however, it was possible to do against us. At the beginning of the conflict our minister observed in London a systematic endeavor to break down American credit, and so embarrass our military operations. Viscount Ranelagh proposed to bring over enough British officers for some four or five thousand men, and it was not their fault nor his that Murphy said the Mexicans would not serve under foreigners. A captain employed by the highly favored company of English mail packets landed Paredes, an avowed enemy of the United States, at Vera Cruz. Mexico is "the very country for the guerilla," hinted Britannia; it "has ready-made guerillas by the ten thousand or the hundred thousand; it has hills and hollows where ten men might stop the march of 50,000." And the same journal went still farther. In the case of an invasion, it proclaimed, "the soldier is a soldier no more; he is a burglar, a robber, a murderer"; and should foreign troops invade England, "No quarter!" ought rightfully to be the cry.[35.32]

But the special delight of unfriendly journals was to misrepresent our military operations.[35.33] Apparently Taylor's battles on the Rio Grande surprised the editorial mind so much that few comments were ready, but after a while the Times remarked, "No hostile army has been really beaten"; and it described our success at Monterey as merely occupying "a town of log-huts." That paper long professed to regard the war as "a border squabble," "ridiculous and contemptible," "justified by hypocrisy," "carried on with impotence," and sure to end "in some compromise more humiliating to the United States than to Mexico." "The Americans who have to conduct this most wearisome of wars," it assured its gratified readers, "are least of all nations competent to the task. They have no army, and have constitutional objections to raising one. They have no money, and are resolutely determined to find none. They have no General, and have just agreed [by rejecting the plan of a lieutenant general] never to have one."[35.34]

[VIEWS OF OUR MILITARY OPERATIONS]

"The military tactics of the Americans," remarked the Examiner at the same stage, "have displayed an equal want of talent and of purpose"; while its fair colleague, Britannia, exclaimed: The hostilities against Mexico are "at once wretched and ridiculous.... So much for the boasting of Jonathan!" With unwinking and unsuspecting humor the Times commented thus on the fight at Buena Vista: "Beyond the fact that the Americans undoubtedly beat off, though from a strong position, a force nearly quadrupling their own, they seem to have no great grounds for triumph." In fact they were now "worse off than ever"; they had actually lost prestige; and all the Mexicans needed to do was "to sit still and be sulky."[35.34]

Scott fared no better than Taylor. His bombarding Vera Cruz was characterized as "revolting," as an "infamy," as "one of the most atrocious and barbarous acts committed in modern times by the forces of a civilized nation," as "degrading to mankind." Somehow the Times was repentant enough to publish a reply, which said: "The first broadside of Lord Exmouth's guns at Algiers destroyed a greater number of unoffending, unarmed people, than the bombardment of Vera Cruz," and pointed out that Scott was under some obligation to treat with humanity his own troops, whom delay would have exposed to the yellow fever. Compassionate John Bull! exclaimed the American Review; "Is it true that the English bombarded Copenhagen? Is Hindostan more than a fiction? Had Clive and Hastings any substantial bodily existence? Is not Ireland a mythe" and of course it might have added that an assault would have caused immensely more loss of life at Vera Cruz than did the bombardment.[35.35]

According to the Times our contemplated advance against Mexico City was "the mere dream of an ignorant populace"; while the more prudent Morning Chronicle termed it "about as visionary as that of Napoleon upon Moscow." "There is but one thing we know of," added the Chronicle, "that is more difficult than for the United States army to get to Mexico, and that would be to get back again to Vera Cruz." When the Americans triumphed at Cerro Gordo over both nature and man, the Chronicle itself had to admit that our courage was "unquestionable," but it consoled itself by placing the American and Mexican armies on the same level as partaking "pretty considerably of the nature of mobs." The victories of Contreras and Churubusco were viewed by the Times as calculated "to raise the confidence" of our enemy, and the editor announced that Scott, after these disastrous triumphs, was "much more likely to capitulate" than to capture Mexico. Naturally Britannia pronounced our invasion of the country "a great mistake," and asked in deep concern, How are the Americans going to get out of it?[35.36]

The occupation of the capital was regarded as only one misfortune more. "The Americans have played out their last card," roared the Thunderer, "and are still as far as ever from the game." Worse yet, it foresaw, we were now going to crown our outrages. The churches would be robbed, and "when churches are ransacked will houses be spared? When saints are despoiled will citizens be spared?" The war never can end, added the same paper, for "the invaders of Mexico ... are not the men to build the temple of peace"; and retribution is inevitable, since the passion for conquest, which has already "extinguished" the political morality of the United States, will eventually impair their political institutions, and the annexed provinces will be an American Ireland.[35.36]

The treaty of peace caused no serious trouble. As early as January, 1846, Le Journal des Débats said the Americans would soon have California, and thus prepared its readers for the main feature of our terms. The United States will obtain California, for Mexico cannot pay an indemnity, echoed Le National. In reply to Aberdeen's hint on the opening of hostilities, that it would be imprudent for this country to appropriate any Mexican territory, McLane remarked that "it was at present not easy to foresee all the consequences of a war which Mexico had so wantonly provoked, and in which the United States had so much injustice and so many wrongs to redress"; and no British statesman could have failed to understand what this meant.[35.37]

When Polk's Message of December, 1846, clearly showed that we expected to retain California, the British newspapers set up an incoherent, savage growl; but the triumphs at Vera Cruz and Cerro Gordo made it plain that we had earned--or were likely to earn--the rights of a conqueror, and must be taken seriously. Bancroft soon wrote that England was "preparing to hear of our negotiating for half, or two thirds, or even the whole of Mexico"; and Palmerston himself said we might as well take it all. "You are the Lords of Mexico," exclaimed Lord Ashburton to our minister. After the occupation of the capital even Le Journal des Débats admitted that the only possible indemnity would be a province or two, and Britannia remarked, "From this time the whole country must be considered as part of the territory of the United States." "It is becoming a fashion, rather, to expect the absorption of all Mexico," reported Bancroft.[35.37]

[OUR PEACE TERMS ACCEPTABLE TO EUROPE]

When the treaty arrived in Europe, the convulsions of widespread revolution had begun there, people on the continent were too busy to think much about our gains, and the British did not wish to think of them; but the general sentiment of those who considered the matter appears to have been surprise at our moderation. Humboldt, though a citizen of Mexico, conceded that our terms were proper; and the critical Journal des Débats remarked, "Assuredly this is sparing a foe who lies in the dust." Such a characterization of our behavior was for us a legitimate source of pride; and, as the respect universally paid to valor and success accompanied it all over Europe, we had ample reason to feel gratified.[35.37]

XXXVI

CONCLUSION

1825-1848

The conflict with Mexico came to pass as logically as a thunderstorm. At the beginning of her independent existence our people felt earnestly and enthusiastically anxious to maintain cordial relations with our sister republic, and many crossed the line of absurd sentimentality in that cause. Friction was inevitable, however. The Americans were direct, positive, brusque, angular and pushing; and they could not understand their neighbors on the south. The Mexicans were equally unable to fathom our good-will, sincerity, patriotism, resoluteness and courage; and certain features of their character and national condition made it far from easy to get on with them.[36.1]

Though generally amiable and often brilliant or charming, they lacked common sense, principle, steadiness and knowledge of the world. They were passionate, suspicious, over-subtle, self-confident and fond of gamblers' risks. They regarded firmness on our part as arrogance, and kindness as debility. Their policy was defined by the Mexico correspondent of the London Times as a compound of Spanish intrigue and Indian cunning, dominated--it might have been added--by provincial vanity and sensitiveness. They scarcely possessed the character of a nation. The whole period from 1822 to 1848 has been classified by their National Museum as a period of anarchy. Their international duties were not recognized. Unscrupulous factions and usurpers used foreign relations as the shuttlecocks of selfish schemes. Pride, said their own statesman, J. F. Ramírez, forbade them to treat on the necessary basis of mutual consideration and concession, and insisted upon either complete victory or the consolation of having yielded to irresistible force, while procrastination put off the settlement of issues until the proper time for adjusting them had passed.[36.2]

[WHY MEXICO WAS DEFEATED]

Then between us and this difficult people arose the extraordinarily complicated question of Texas. It was characteristic of Mexico to deny the justice of the Texan revolt on the ground that settlers in her territory were bound to accept the political will of the country; but it was futile. "Nobody will be argued into slavery," said Burke; and this was peculiarly true when the proffered slavery did not in truth represent the will of the country, and was more capricious, cruel and injurious than the régime against which the Mexicans themselves had rebelled. Our recognition of Texas not only was founded on just reasons, but was concurred in by the leading powers of Europe. The annexation of that republic meant the wise and unforced incorporation of a free people, independent both by right and in fact, after Mexico had practically abandoned all expectation of its becoming once more a part of that nation, and entertained little hope save to gratify a stubborn pride at the expense of Texas and the rest of the world.[36.3]

Her treatment of Texans and Americans violated the laws of justice and humanity, and--since there was no tribunal to punish it--laid upon the United States, both as her nearest neighbor and as an injured community, the duty of retribution. In almost every way possible, indeed, she forced us to take a stand. She would neither reason nor hearken to reason, would not understand, would not negotiate. Compensation for the loss of territory, in excess of its value to her, she knew she could have. Peace and harmony with this country she knew might be hers. But prejudice, vanity, passion and wretched politics inclined her toward war; her overrated military advantages, her expectations of European aid, the unpreparedness of the United States, and in particular the supposed inferiority of Taylor and his army encouraged her; and she deliberately launched the attack so long threatened.

As was just and natural, Mexico primarily owed her failure in the war to the characteristics that led her into it. From a strictly military point of view her case was not precisely hopeless. Intrinsically the rank and file of her armies, though not by nature warlike, had courage enough, and possessed an extraordinary degree of that willingness to endure fatigue and hardship, which Napoleon deemed still more important. They were more frugal and obedient than our men; and while the lack of moral and physical strength, discipline and confidence in one another and their officers made them shrink from the American bayonet and the fixed American eye behind it, they bore infantry and artillery fire as well as we did, if not better. Many engineers proved themselves excellent; many artillery officers were brave and efficient; and hence there was no reason why the infantry and cavalry might not have been well handled.

But the military point of view was by no means the only one to be considered. The want of public virtue had filled the army with miserable officers, the legislative halls with dishonest, scheming, clashing politicians, and the whole nation with quarreling factions and wrathful, disheartened people, secretly thankful to find their oppressors, whom they could not punish themselves, punished by the Americans. The hungry and beaten conscript went into battle sure that if wounded he would starve, if killed he would be devoured by the birds, and should neither accident occur he would simply drudge on as before; and the industrious, useful citizen understood, that if he should help the leaders of the nation by paying contributions, he would then have to fatten them by paying again. "We are saved by hope," wrote the great Apostle, and the nation saw no hope. Primarily Mexico was defeated because she did not fight; and she did not fight because she had nothing to fight for. The military class, who had long pretended to be the nation, was given a chance to prove its claim, and the poor wretches who could be forced into the ranks had to support it; but the people in general, holding aloof to a great extent, said in effect, "Thou who hast consumed all the revenues without giving anything in return, thou for whom we have sacrificed so much, thou who hast used our own blood to make thyself master instead of servant--may the woe thou hast so long inflicted on us fall now on thee!"[36.4]

Santa Anna, the logical hero of such a nation, was also its logical scourge--a statesman unable to guide, a general unfitted to command, a leader qualified only to win revolutions, lose battles, and alternate between dictatorship and exile. Some observers--even American officers--impressed by the imposing front that he reared time after time, felt that he was a great man. Unquestionably he gathered troops and resources as no other Mexican of the time could have done. No doubt his lunge into the north and his defence of the capital were remarkable; and one could not complain of him, as did Tacitus of a Roman commander, that he was unable to harangue his army. He certainly did many things.[36.5]

But he did few things well. His achievements were the temporary triumphs of autocratic will-power. He suffered always from an essential want of capacity. He did not understand the Americans, and fancied that one defeat would cow us. He did not even understand his fellow-citizens, and could not realize that his long course of misconduct, and finally his negotiations with Mackenzie, had cut the root of confidence. A proclamation that sounded eloquent, he felt must be convincing. The impossibility of controlling the factional politics of such a country and also managing a war without the support of the nation--of riding two such horses at the same time--lay beyond his comprehension. Often his policy was like that of the man who ruins his constitution with drugs in order to cure a local ailment. Even his apparently noble decisions grew out of selfishness and rang hollow.

To his mind a collection of men was an army. Personal aims and feelings, instead of sound policy and the demands of discipline, controlled mostly his relations with officers. Because a revolutionary band could be held together by the hope of plunder, he imagined that a campaign could be waged on that basis. Because he thought it would be natural for the enemy to attack him in a certain way, he concluded positively that no other attack would be made. Strategy he did not attempt. And when it came to the direction of a battle, owing to ignorance and intellectual disqualifications, he lacked the quickness of perception and rapidity of combination that were essential to success. For the same reasons his total strength was never focused at the vital time and place, and a defeat became a rout.[36.6]

This is what a final glance at the Mexicans reveals; and now, to conclude the whole investigation, we should take a summary view of our own side.

[THE AMERICAN CONGRESS]

While the Congress of the United States did not approach that of Mexico in badness, there was too much resemblance. One should always remember that among the people who really make up the world and keep it going perfection is, and is likely to be, somewhat rare; but for an elect body our Congress fell below all reasonable expectations. The comedy of its political manoeuvres was only surpassed by the tragedy of them. Amos Kendall said, after the hostilities began, "There can be no peace with that people [the Mexicans] but through victory or with dishonor," and any person of judgment could see this; yet prejudices, passions and interests prevented many from honestly supporting a national war, and turned not a few into virtual enemies of their country. Markoe wrote from Vera Cruz with reference to Clay, Webster, Gallatin and others of their school, "These great men have by their speeches done more to prevent peace than though they had each of them severally arrayed 10,000 Mexicans against Scott"; and when one recalls the expense and bloodshed that would almost certainly have been spared this country and Mexico had our government felt at liberty to spend with decent liberality in meeting Scott's requisitions promptly, patience itself takes fire.[36.7]

To think of giving him so small an army that the Mexicans felt positively ashamed to yield! And then to reflect how politics went into the army itself, endangering the lives of men and the fortunes of the country through unfit appointments. "How we have been gulled and led about," exclaimed a soldier, "by a set of political demagogues, who, regardless of the fearful responsibility, have forced themselves into positions they possess no qualifications to fill, with a hope thereby to promote their future political aggrandizement!" We recall, even though we do not endorse, the Frenchman who observed, "The more I see of the representatives of the people, the more I love my dogs"; and we also recall the opinion of a British king: "Politics are a trade for a rascal, not for a gentleman."[36.8]

The President showed himself a small man, but the saying of La Rochefoucauld comes to mind: "We may appear great in an employment beneath our merit, but we often appear little in ones too great for us." The situation in which Polk, essentially a local politician from Tennessee, found himself--called upon to re-make the fiscal system of the country, to dispose of long-standing and now critical issues with Great Britain and Mexico, to cope with a factious and unscrupulous opposition in Congress, and to face a war in a foreign land, almost unknown to us, with a handful of regulars commanded by Whigs--was extremely difficult; but he steered his course firmly to the end, set an example of honest, faithful administration, established a fiscal system under which the country enjoyed a period of great prosperity, effected with England an adjustment that in essence had been refused, enjoyed a series of uniform triumphs in the field, and obtained from our enemy the peace and the territory he desired.[36.9]

Indeed, he achieved a still more surprising triumph, for he disproved the favorite American axiom: "Nothing succeeds like success." His lack of commanding qualities, his inability to win admiration and sympathy, and his resorting to small methods because he lacked the power to wield great ones, made him seem legitimate prey. He became the dog with a bad name, for which any stick or stone was good enough. Other men in public life could misrepresent the facts--as many were doing all the time--and still be honored; but if Polk "put the best foot forward," if he allowed men to draw inferences from their wishes, if--wittingly or not--he colored things, if--even by accident--he made an incorrect statement, he was promptly denounced as a villain.

And when he had supported his tremendous burden loyally, if not with éclat; when denunciations had failed, threats crumbled, taunts miscarried, hostile predictions fallen to the ground; when our people had not risen up against the war, our treasury had not collapsed, our armies had not withered away; when our sword had been wielded with honor, our territory and commercial field been extended far to the west, our international status been elevated--after all these triumphs the bitter tongue of a partisan spit out on the floor of our national House the famous nickname, "Polk the Mendacious," the President left office under a leaden cloud of disparagement and contempt, and later authors delighted to dip their pens in the gall of his enemies. Truly, however little we feel inclined to go into raptures over Polk, we can admire his traducers even less.

[GENERAL TAYLOR]

Next, in view of the civil as well as military fame gained from the war by Taylor, one thinks of him. In reviewing his operations we must beware of judging him by mere professional standards, for he was more, as well as less, than a technical soldier. The most essential qualities for a general, says the Baron de Jomini, are physical and moral courage; and in these respects the head of our army of occupation was flawless. Indeed almost all the moral qualifications of an eminent commander were his. He was a born fighter and born leader. He could think best in danger and excitement. He could inspire confidence and win devotion. The fact that one so plain could be a paladin made even the ordinary feel capable of heroism. Like all undisciplined men of great force he possessed large reserves of strength, and when an emergency stimulated these, he displayed a power that compelled those on the ground to imitate and those at a distance to admire him.[36.10]

On the other hand, most of the intellectual qualifications of the commander were largely wanting. To be sure he possessed a great deal of practical shrewdness, and he used moral force with a broad sort of calculation that enabled him to produce effects which a mere educated soldier could scarcely have obtained. But he did not understand the aims or the art of war, lacked initiative, failed in prevision, neglected preparation, ignored details, took little care to gather information, misunderstood the intentions of the enemy, and underestimated their strength. He preferred swinging an axe at a door to conducting the battle sagaciously from a distance. He would chat with soldiers about home, and then sacrifice their lives.

His "victories" made him famous, but the true test of generalship, observes Henderson, is "the number of mistakes"; and every stage of Taylor's progress was marked with grave errors. Besides, "however brilliant an action may be," remarks La Rochefoucauld, "it ought not to pass for great when it is not the result of a great design"; and not only were none of Taylor's exploits deliberately planned, but he never understood the risks he was braving. Some ironical but loving god seemed to attend him. The life he carelessly, improvidently ventured was guarded; and insubordination, both toward the President and toward the general-in-chief, made him the successor of the first and the superior of the second. "Old Zack is the most lucky man alive," said Colonel Campbell.[36.11]

[GENERAL SCOTT]

Scott, however, was of course the pre-eminent commander. In war he felt at home. He "is a Soldier and a General from the ground up," wrote Consul Parrott after watching his operations. With the possible exception of Molino del Rey, the petulant indiscretion that he sometimes exhibited in civil affairs did not affect his conduct in the field. To appreciate him, "to know him at all," said Trist, one had to see him in the military sphere. Karl von Grone, who observed him at work, wrote: "He is quiet, reserved, reflective. When, after mature consideration of the circumstances, he has formed his decision, he goes with strong, sure steps to his goal. He can manage with scanty resources, is adroit in deceiving the enemy, and where feints are not possible, deals a heavy, straight blow. When main force must break the way, he demands much from his troops; but, as he possesses their full confidence, and is recognized as a fighter of dauntless courage, he can do this."[36.12]

"He sees everything, and calculates the cost of every measure," said Robert E. Lee. He could be "quick as guncotton when neccessary," wrote Parrott, yet deliberate and cautious under the utmost pressure. His initiative and self-reliance never failed; yet, as even the prejudiced Semmes admitted, he made full use of all the talents, as well as all the valor, of his army. Though his plans were laid with extreme care in view of all the information that could be obtained, he never permitted them to shackle him, and promptly adapted himself, whether in campaign or in battle, to a change of circumstances. Both great things and little things were given his attention, but with due reference to their comparative importance. He knew the rules of his art, and also knew when to disregard them. He could both rouse troops to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, and surpass the calculations of the expert. Says Hamley, it is "impracticable" to "conceive how sustained operations can be conducted in the face of an enemy without a secure starting-point." Scott accomplished this.[36.12]

Characteristics of a more personal kind supported his professional ability. The General, Trist assured his wife, was "the soul of honour and probity, and full of the most sterling qualities of heart and head; affectionate, generous, forgiving and a lover of justice." Though few made allowances for his imperfections, he was always ready to do this for others; and his magnanimity would have been remarkable, even had he not been a natural fighting man. Such traits enabled him to get on excellently with reasonable officers, while his ability, prudence, vigilance, good cheer, steadiness, courage, sympathy, and trust in his army, and his anxiety to avoid wasting the labor and lives of the men, gave him the entire confidence of the privates. A soldier who loved peace instead of war, a general who valued the lives of his troops more than glory, a conqueror who became in the hour of triumph a friend, and a citizen who placed his country above self-interest, he was the ideal commander of a republican army.[36.13]

To speak broadly and leaving genius out of the account, he possessed all the military qualities of Taylor, and all Taylor lacked. Taylor could fight splendidly, Scott could also avail himself of the advantages that knowledge and skill were able to supply. The soldiers of the one believed their leader was going to win, those of the other could give reasons for their faith. The army of occupation was ready to follow its commander with eyes shut, the army of conquest with eyes open. Both were kind at heart, but Scott's humanity was made systematically effective. Both faced perils with unwavering courage, but Scott did all he could to understand what lay before him. Both complained of the government, but Scott had reason to do so. Both disregarded instructions; but while Taylor aimed to gratify himself, Scott's aim was to benefit his country.[36.14]

The advantages were not all on one side, however. Taylor had excellent control of his temper and the everyday, personal shrewdness that Scott needed. His unsophistication bore the winning appearance of ingenuousness, while Scott's reflective and studious ways gave him the reputation of a schemer. Each needed to be supplemented, but only Taylor had a Bliss. Scott's men felt they were serving under a strong leader, Taylor's that they were serving with one; while to Great Demos, always undiscriminating, the one represented head, the other heart; the one science, the other heroism.[36.14]

Both were remarkable. Taylor was a distinguished plebeian, Scott a distinguished patrician; the first a superb captain, the second a superb general; and each a great man.

[THE AMERICAN ARMY]

The soldiers, of course, did not equal their chief commanders in point of interest, but certain facts concerning them deserve attention. The total number of regulars in the war service down to July 5, 1848, was about 31,000. Of these, to use round numbers, 1600 were discharged because their term expired, 2550 for disability, and 500 for other causes; 2850 deserted; 530 were killed and 2100 wounded in battle; 400 died of their wounds; and there were 4900 ordinary or accidental deaths. Of the volunteers 59,000 actually served; 7200 were discharged for disability, and 2000 for other reasons before the expiration of their term; 3900 deserted; 1350 were wounded; 600 were killed or died of their wounds; and there were 6400 ordinary or accidental deaths. So it appears that out of some 90,000 officers and men serving, 6750 deserted, 12,250 had to be discharged before their term expired, 11,300 met with ordinary or accidental deaths, and only 1550 were accounted for by the enemy. The difference between the number mustered in and the number available at the front, and also between the number who lost their lives by fighting and the number who dropped out from other causes, was most instructive. The Americans captured seem to have numbered less than 1100. Of the volunteers, a very disproportionate percentage went from the southwest; the northwest did well, and the northeast lagged.[36.15]

From these figures it appears that approximately three out of one hundred regulars were killed or died in consequence of wounds and eight were discharged for disability, whereas the numbers for the volunteers were one and twelve; and in fact the showing of the regulars was still better, since the "new" regulars, officered with inferior men chosen largely for political reasons, did not equal the record of the old establishment. In many other respects also the volunteers ranked low. Not only was there a greater percentage of sickness among them, but the invalids required attendants. The volunteers wasted clothing, provisions and ammunition both heedlessly and through ignorance of administrative business; and their arms were not properly cared for.[36.16]

They had no intention of submitting to the discipline and routine labor of campaigning, and even at the close of the war could not be called real troops. The volunteers, wrote one of them, "will not be treated as regular soldiers."

"Sergeant, buck him and gag him, our officers cry, For each trifling offence which they happen to spy, Till with bucking and gagging of Dick, Pat and Bill, Faith, the Mexican's ranks they have helped to fill,"

so another, an exceptionally good man, testified. "Soldiers will take their merry frolics," an officer admitted. The camp slogan of a sturdy North Carolina company was: "Soldier, will you work?" "Sell my shirt first." "Soldier, will you fight?" "Twell I die." But even their fighting did not prove entirely satisfactory. Individually they were braver than the regulars; but the soldier's business is to fight when the time comes, and the volunteers to a considerable extent wanted to fight when they pleased. They might do splendidly and they might not, their general knew. In a word, they were unreliable; and they even imperilled their own cause by exasperating the people. Marcy confessed that he felt disappointed. Yet there were offsets. Their patriotism and enthusiasm stimulated their officers and the regulars; and at their best--silent, grim, patient, with a look of kingship in their faces--they glorified hardships, perils, wounds, disease and death.[36.16]

A common idea of the regulars was expressed in the House by Tilden of Ohio, who described them as "a set of puppets ... shut up without exercise and in barracks, from year's end to year's end"; and the "sausage democracy" looked with contempt upon West Pointers as both puppets and aristocrats. The regulars, however, were preferable not only in camp and on the march, but on the field. In addition to being steady themselves, they helped immensely to steady the volunteers; and the regular officers furnished volunteer generals with knowledge, skill and sometimes resolution. As for their own commands, West Pointers might curse their men, but they took splendid care of them; and it was far better that men should fear their officers than that officers, like many in the volunteer army, should fear their men. General Scott said that without the science of the Military Academy his army, multiplied by four, could not have set foot in the capital; and Patterson, like him not a graduate of the school, concurred in this opinion.[36.17]

Our horse was to a large extent little more than mounted infantry; and our real cavalry, besides riding like the French and therefore badly, showed no mastery in sword practice. On the other hand our field artillery was excellent in personnel and material; and the engineers, though not fully trained according to the most exacting standards, earned abundant praise. More than once they made the very strength of the Mexican position help our men while they were preparing to attack; and the report of General Smith upon certain officers--"Nothing seemed to them too bold to be undertaken, or too difficult to be executed"--might have been applied to the corps as a body.[36.18]

In organization our armies were inferior to the best European models; but, said Gabriel Ferry in the Revue des Deux Mondes, the soldiers made up for this defect by displaying an energy adequate for every need. The infantry were criticised by foreign observers for a lack of correctness and snap in their movements. "What is called the American army," wrote the minister of Spain, to imply that we had no real troops. But they husbanded their strength in this way; it was therefore ready for emergencies; and they had the initiative, ingenuity, independence and self-reliance that have been cultivated of late years abroad in place of conventional precision.[36.19]

Despite all technical defects, the faults of the volunteers and the admixture of mere immigrants among the regulars, we had soldiers to remember with pride. So many of the officers were superior men that almost all caught the inspiration more or less, and the privates felt ready to obey and follow them. The troops as a body acquired a sense of invincibility. "We may be killed, but we can't be whipped," was a favorite watch-word; and they fully meant it, said Karl von Grone. Dangers and hardships were bravely faced, as a rule, and often were faced with gayety. "Oh, this is a glorious life of mine," exclaimed Lieutenant Hamilton; "a life in a land of fruits and flowers, of dark-eyed maidens and sunny skies, of snow-capped mountains and of flowering valleys; a life of adventure, of calm and storm, of bivouac and battle."[36.20]

No doubt the political and social conditions of Mexico helped our troops greatly, but in addition to routing every time an enemy who was by no means intrinsically contemptible, outnumbered us and knew the ground, they had to war against deserts, war against mountains, war against fearful storms, war against a strange climate, war against a devouring pestilence; and in spite of every difficulty Scott, after capturing more than a thousand officers and more than six hundred cannon, occupied the capital of Mexico with less than six thousand men. The troops themselves, instead of boasting, pronounced it a "miracle"; but the critical and unfriendly Journal des Débats declared: "The new conquerors have equalled by their exploits the great Cortez himself, if they have not eclipsed him."[36.20]

Yet after all it was "a war of conquest," we have long been told. Popularly "conquest" is in truth an odious word, for it has commonly been associated with odious deeds: aggression and cruel tyranny; but "circumstances alter cases," and when the facts are unobjectionable, so is the term. Legally, the idea has prevailed that conquest is robbery; but this idea seems to have grown from the old conception that the government owned the country, and such is not our opinion to-day.[36.21]

Forcible acquisitions may indeed be commendable. In that way Rome civilized Europe, England gave peace, order and comparative happiness to India, and our own country came into being; and none of us would undo these results. The welfare of humanity is the true principle. Life has the right of way over death; enlightenment and energy over ignorance and torpor. Possession means use; power and opportunities mean service. The primary law is that all shall move forward and coöperate in achieving the general destiny. Like individuals, every nation must run its course to the best of its ability, and if it grossly flags, pay the penalty. In the absence of any other tribunal, war must enforce this penalty. "Whosoever hath [in use], to him shall be given, ... but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath." Such is eternal right; not the justice of the law schools, but the justice of the Supreme Power.[36.21]

Of all conquerors we were perhaps the most excusable, the most reasonable, the most beneficent. The Mexicans had come far short of their duty to the world. Being what they were, they had forfeited a large share of their national rights. Even Humboldt said that Mexico "ought not to expect to withhold, from the uses of civilization and improvement," such neglected territories as New Mexico and California. A philosopher like Josiah Royce, a moralist like Francis Lieber and an unsympathetic historian like Dr. von Holst agree substantially that our duty called upon us to occupy the Golden Gate. Not merely an administration or a party, but the nation believed that our destiny called us there, and felt ready to assume the high responsibility of taking possession.[36.22]

Besides, while ours could perhaps be called a war of conquest, it was not a war for conquest--the really vital point. We found it necessary to require territory, for otherwise our claims and indemnity could not be paid. The conflict was forced upon us; yet we refused to take advantage of our opportunity. "It is almost impossible," says Bryce, "for a feeble State, full of natural wealth which her people do not use, not to crumble under the impact of a stronger and more enterprising race." But we gave back much that we took, and paid for the rest more than it was worth to Mexico. "All deserve praise, who ... have been more just than their actual power made it necessary to be," said Thucydides; and we were not only just but liberal. Finally, we gave proof, in the prosperity and usefulness of our new territories, that our responsibility was amply met.[36.22]

So the account was fairly adjusted and more. But something still remains to say. A closer acquaintance with us and with real national life taught Mexico some of her mistakes, confirmed the political relations of her states, and helped greatly to liberalize her ideas and institutions. "The sad part of it is that our chastisement is merited," preached Ramírez. "He that reflects how useful are the lessons of suffering and misfortune," declared the minister of relations, "will admit that no one could show more clearly the deformity of our errors than the foreign invader [has done], and that there could have been no more efficacious means of elevating our reason above the bastard interests of political passion."[36.23]

[THE WAR LEAVES MEXICO FRIENDLY]

Still warmer sentiments prevailed. One of the chief obstacles in the way of making a treaty was the desire of not a few Mexicans to have the United States annex their country; and after that plan failed, the American general-in-chief was actually invited to become dictator for a term of years, backed by American troops. With reference to Trist, our commissioner, Couto and Cuevas remarked on presenting the treaty to Congress, "Of him there remain in Mexico none but grateful and honoring recollections"; and when bidding Clifford good-by, the President expressed--in no perfunctory way--a sincere desire for the most "sisterly" relations between the two countries, as essential to the welfare of Mexico. Indeed, that nation had not felt so cordial toward the United States for many years as it did immediately after the war.[36.23]

In Europe, too, fairer views and feelings regarding us began to be entertained. "If nothing occur to tarnish what has been so well begun," wrote our minister at the court of St. James in June, 1846, "the moral influence produced here and in Europe generally will be worth all the expenses of the war." "It was a hard lesson for England to learn, but she has learned it," reported Bancroft, who succeeded him; "that America means to go on her own way, and that Europe ... must give up the thought of swaying her destiny." Our triumphs over Mexico, remarked C. J. Ingersoll in the House, "have been admirable lessons ... to the world, that the [wise] policy of all nations is peace with these United States." Only on respect and appreciation can peace and mutual helpfulness be founded, and both our victories and the manner in which they were used promoted harmony between us and the powers of Europe.[36.23]

Humanity and moderation--such humanity and moderation as are practicable amid hostilities--gilded our arms. "The elevated and kindly character of Taylor and Scott," said the Mexican historian, Roa Bárcena, "lessened as far as was possible the evils of war." The Americans always treated us during the conflict with "the most noble courtesy," wrote Ceballos. "We shall certainly consider it as an unprecedented event if this enormous booty [the wealth of the Mexican churches] escapes from pillage," proclaimed the London Times; and it did escape. We have beaten the enemy, felt Robert E. Lee, the knightly soldier, "in a manner no man might be ashamed of." Even Theodore Parker, though opposed to the war, made this public acknowledgment: "It has been conducted with as much gentleness as a war of invasion can be." And a brave officer of rare intelligence uttered on the floor of our Senate these words: "We have cause to be proud of the record this war will leave behind it--a monument more lasting than brass. We, the actors of to-day, must soon crumble to dust; the institutions we now maintain, and hope will be perpetual, may pass away; the Republic may sink in the ocean of time, and the tide of human affairs roll unbroken over its grave; but the events of this war will live in the history of our country and our race, affording in all ages to come, proof of the high state of civilization amongst the people who conducted it."[36.24]

NOTES

XXI. BEHIND THE SCENES AT MEXICO

21.1. This is a good illustration of Santa Anna's political ability.

21.2. Farías appears to have had no share in this quarrel with Salas (México á través, iv, 593).

21.3. The course of Mexican politics. Federalista Puro, No. 3, supplmt.; No. 6, supplmt. London Times, Feb. 9, 1847. Apuntes, 71-3, 76, 124-6. =13=Bankhead, Nos. 120, 136, 140, 146, 153, 157, 160, 169, 180, 1846. =52=Consul Campbell, Nov. 10, 1846. =52=Consul Black, Aug. 22, 27; Sept. 17, 22, 26, 1846. Comunícación Circular de ... Peña y Peña. García, Revol. de Ayutla, 18, 20, 27. Ultimas Comunicaciones habidas entre ... Salas y ... Rejón. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 538. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 195, 199. =13=Thornton to Addington, June 29, 1847. =13=Gutiérrez de Estrada to Palmerston, Mar. 1, 1847. Méx. en 1847, 12-4. Ramírez, México, 12, 142-4, 149, 152-4, 156, 165, 172, 176. =83=Rejón to Berdusco, Dec. 23. Eco, Nov. 4, 7, 11, 14, 1846. Escudero, Mems., 8, 13, 14. Dublán, Legisl., v, 171, 238-9. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec, 1846. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 332, res.; 343, res.; 345, res.; 346; 368. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 100-1, 118, 120, 124, 126-8. =83=Gov. Querétaro to Farías, Oct. 20. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 144. Rivera, Los Gobernantes, ii, 310. Lara, Resumen, 65, note. Mora, Papeles Ineditos, 64-5. =162=Conner, Dec. 31, 1846. =164=Id. Jan. 5, 1847. Bustamante, Campaña, 7. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1125 (S. Anna). Baz, Juárez, 43. México á través, iv, 576-7, 589, 591-2, 600-1, 698. Republicano, Sept. 28; Oct. 20, 28; Nov. 17; Dec. 24, 1846; Jan. 1, 22-3; Feb. 3, 1847. Monitor Repub., Sept. 25-6, 30; Oct. 19-23, 26; Dec. 25, 1846. Diario, Sept. 23, 25, 29; Oct. 9, 12, 14, 16, 31; Nov. 24; Dec. 18-9, 22, 28, 29, 1846. And from =76= the following Procl. gov. S. L. P., Oct. 22, 1846. J. Alvarez, Oct. 22. Comte. gen. Mex., Oct. 16. Canalizo to comte. gen. Mex., Oct. 18. Comte. gen. Oaxaca, Oct. 24. Salas, procl., Oct. 25. Guerra, circulars, Oct. 14, 19, 22; Dec. 23. Relaciones to gov. Fed. Dist., Dec. 23. Relaciones circular, Oct. 19. Comte. gen. Chiapas, Nov. 3. Also others of minor importance. Otero was associated with Pedraza in the leadership of the Moderados.

21.4. So far as possible, revenue was anticipated, even at a great loss. E.g., if a merchant expected a cargo to arrive at Vera Cruz, he sent a broker (agiotista) to the minister of the treasury, and by paying a sum in advance he obtained drafts on the Vera Cruz customhouse that were receivable at par for the duties. Of course the merchant, the broker and the minister made profits, and the treasury lost (N. Y. Herald, Jan. 18, 1845). Another way in which the minister could make money was to accept at face value as part of a loan or payment government paper that had cost the one who tendered it only a trifle, and take a share of the net proceeds. "Agiotista" became an odious term. It was given out that Santa Anna would accept no pay, but the treasury books showed that he drew his salary for even the time while he was at Havana (=335=Worrall to Trist, Nov. 28, 1847). They apparently showed also that in 1846 millions were distributed among generals, brokers and others. The British minister said that Iturbe was the ninth finance minister whom he had seen devoting "his peculiar attention to the augmentation, of his private means while in office" (=13=Bankhead, no. 104, 1846). Another great evil was that, in spite of express prohibitions, state officials drew upon the proceeds of the tobacco monopoly. The following table illustrates the state of the treasury (1846):

Oct. 12 Oct. 16 Dec. 26 Dec. 29 On hand $8510 $3410 -- $1148 Rec'd -- 3500 $7162 3700 Paid 1402 3628 5713 4367

A poll tax was thought of by Rejón, but evidently the government dared not propose it (=73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 332, res., 346, 1846).

21.5. Mexican financial history (see also the first part of chap. xxxiii). Comunicación Circular de ... Peña y Peña. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Mar., 1845; Dec., 1846. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 368, 716. Ilustrador Católico, no. 239. Hacienda, series of Memorias. Hacienda, Manifiesto de la Admin. y Progresos. London Times, July 6, 1846. Breve Resumen. Casasus, Hist. de la Deuda contraida, etc., passim. Paredes, address to Cong., June 6, 1846 (Diario). Alamán, Liquidación. Esposición del Cong. Gen. =11=Martin, Apr. 30, 1827; July 4; Aug. 25, 1828. =11=Series of Mémoires on the Spanish Colonies. Sierra, Evolution, i, 178, 218. Zamacois, Méx., xii, 254. =52=Consul Jones, Aug. 1, 1839. =56=W. S. Parrott, Oct. 4, 11, 1845. =58=Howland & Aspinwall, Mar. 1, 1847. Republicano, Feb. 2, 1847. =13=Ashburnham, nos. 39, 51, 1837; 3, 97, 1838. =13=Pakenham, nos. 28, 1833; 6, 1836; 44, 62, 1839. =13=Bankhead, nos. 81, 1844; 6, 38, 70, 106, 1845; 21, 104, 127, 146, 169, 1846. =52=Poinsett, Jan. 4; Aug. 5, 1825; July 16, 1828. =52=Butler, July 16, 1832. Revista Econ., Dec. 14, 1843; Feb. 5, 1844. Tornel, Reseña, 9, 171. Macgregor, Progress, i, 674-83. Thompson, Recolls., 12, 27-8, 87. =52=D. Green, Oct. 28; Nov. 12, 29, 1844. N. Y. Herald, Jan. 18, 1845. Siglo XIX, June 14, 1844; Dec. 2, 1845. Patriota Mexicano, Dec. 9, 1845. Reforma, Jan. 23, 1846. London Times, Mar. 29; May 15; Sept. 9; Nov. 11; Dec. 6, 1845; Mar. 2, 1846. Revue Indep., Apr. 25, 1845. =52=Consul Black, Aug. 23, 1845. =52=Consul Dimond, no. 338, May 7, 1846. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 346, 1846. =52=Consul McCall, no. 65, Sept. 26, 1845. Balbontín, Estado, 66. Wash. Union, Feb. 2, 1848 (Poinsett). N. Y. Globe, June 3, 1846. Diario, Sept. 18, 1846. Monitor Repub., Nov. 27, 1846; Jan. 9, 1847. Ward, Mexico, i., 331-7. =76=To S. Anna, Nov. 25. Vicario Capitular, Contestación. Priestley, José de Gálvez, Chap. x.

21.6. The present financial problem. Dublán, Legislación, v., 172, 211-6, 235-7, 240. =77=Relaciones circular, Nov. 27, 1846. =13=Bankhead, no. 6, 1845; nos. 21, 127, 153, 167, 169, 1846. =52=Consul Black, Dec. 29, 1846. Apuntes, 76, 124-6. Ramírez, México, 171. =335=Worrall to Trist, Nov. 28, 1847. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 716. Ilustrador Católico, i., 281. Méx. en 1847, 14-19, 24. Don Simplicio, Feb. 13, 1847. =86=Relaciones, Oct. 26, 1846. Zempoalteca, Nov. 27, 1846. Escudero, Mems., 8, =92=Gov. Fed. Dist., procl., Jan. 16. =82=Gov. Durango to legisl., Nov. 8, 1846. Columna de la Libertad, Jan. 8, 1847. Sierra, Evolution, i, 178, 217-8. =52=McLane, no. 5, 1845. =56=W. S. Parrott, Oct. 4, 11, 1845. =11=Mémoire, 1828. D. Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28; Nov. 12 in Jameson, Calh. Corresp., 976-80, 991. Siglo XIX, Jan. 14, 1844. London Times, Sept. 9; Dec. 6, 1845; Oct. 8, 1846; Jan. 8, 1847. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec., 1846 (Lafragua). =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 316, res., 346, 371, res., 445. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 128. =75=Relaciones, circulars to govs., Oct. 9; Dec. 17, 1846; circs. nos. 233, 238, 255, 1846. =75a=Hacienda, circulars, Oct. 10; Nov. 9; Dec. 5, 31, 1846. =86=V. Cruz state treas. to gov., Jan. 11; Feb. 4, 1847. Constitutionnel, Dec. 18, 1846. Wash. Union, Jan. 18, 29; May 11, 1847. Monitor, Oct. 12. =166=Pommarès to Conner, Oct. 7, 1846. Republicano, Oct. 22; Nov. 5, 13, 24; Dec. 8, 1846; Jan. 23, 1847. Monitor Repub., Sept. 25, 30; Oct. 18; Nov. 19, 30; Dec. 19, 1846. Diario, Sept. 23, 25, 29; Oct. 2, 3; Nov. 21, 23; Dec. 4, 13, 15, 21, 29, 30, 1846; Jan. 1, 7-9, 1847. México á través, iv, 589, 600, 628-9. =76=S. Anna, Nov. 7, 9, 19; Dec. 3, 4, 7, 30, 1846; Jan. 1, 2, 4, 7, 1847. =76=J. Alvarez, Sept. 30, 1846. =76=Circ. to comtes. gen., Sept. 28, 1846.

21.7. The law was a compromise (Apuntes, 124). Rejón, as he frankly told the Spanish minister (note 21.6), was for nationalizing--i.e., confiscating--the property of the Church. Santa Anna preferred to let the clergy keep the title to their wealth, and require a loan from them now and then--a process termed "milking" (Jameson, Calhoun Corresp., 992). The essential basis on which the law passed was the practical necessity of raising money for the war; but many who recognized this necessity and even the desirability of reducing the wealth and power of the Church could not bring themselves to act.

21.8. The law, if fully enforced, would no doubt have done much injury, however great its benefits. E.g., a great amount of land had been hypothecated to the Church with no expectation on either side that the loan which it secured would ever be paid; but the government, in order to obtain cash, intended that the loan should be paid or the land sold. Many individuals would thus have been ruined and the agricultural interests partially crippled, while on account of the small amount of money in circulation, only very low prices would have been realized for the land (=13=Bankhead, no. 7, 1847). Moreover, land with a Church curse upon it was sure to sell slowly, and many believed that titles obtained in this way would not hold good very long. As the clergy would give no information about their property, some exempted property was seized, and these mistakes caused trouble (México á través, iv, 631). Many objected to the law because they presumed that the proceeds of sales would reach private pockets. The principal arguments against it were summed up by the =88=ayuntamiento of Córdoba as follows: "It attacks property, invades the rights of the states, contravenes the sovereignty of the Church and is anti-religious, for there can be no religion without worship, no worship without priests and no priests without Church property." On the other hand the Puro =92=ayuntamiento of the capital described the law as "A law to save our independence and religion, in which nothing is done except that one class of society is to loan its property to society as a whole," adding, "How unfortunate would be our faith, if the religion of the Savior could be supported only with money ... charity and poverty were the example of his mission." The metropolitan chapter of Mexico took the ground that property once consecrated to God was sacred, and that to take it would be an act of sacrilege sure to bring upon the country the wrath and punishment of heaven (=92=Representación). The bishop of Puebla said to his flock: "Far from us is the idea of disturbing public order, but we must notify our very dear lambs that the pasturage offered thorn is poisonous; and if for so doing we incur the wrath of men, we will strengthen our weakness with the words of the chief of the Apostles at the council of the Jews: 'We must obey God rather than men'" (=82=Manifiesto). This was a clear and official incitement to insurrection.

21.9. The law of Jan. 11 and the struggle over it. Apuntes, 124-32. =13=Bankhead, nos. 180, 1846; 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 1847. Gaxiola, Invasión, 118. =52=J. Parrott, Feb. 6. =56=Beach, report, June 4. London Times, Sept. 9; Oct. 7, 1846; Mar. 11; May 12, 1847. Oil portrait of Farías, city hall, Mex. =52=Consul Black, Feb. 24. Revue Indep., Apr. 25, 1845. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 822, 825-6. Católico, iii, 553. Conducta Admin, de Berdusco. Ilustrador Católico, no. 239. =88=Córdoba ayunt., Feb. 4. =92=Mex. ayunt. to chapter, Jan. 14. =92=Ayunt., procl., Jan. 14. =92=Representación of metrop. chapter to Cong. =92=Segunda Protesta; Tercera Protesta del Ven. C bildo Metrop. =92=Exposición que el Sr. Vicario Capit. =92=Expos. del Cabildo Metrop. =92=Procl. of gov. Fed. Dist., Jan. 16. =95=Querét. cong., Jan. 12. =95=Puebla ayunt. to gov., Jan. 16. =95=Sánchez to Puebla ayunt., Feb. 16. =82=Bish. Puebla, manif., Jan. 27. =82=Gov. Puebla, procl., Jan. 27; Mar. 5, 15. Lamentos de los Mex. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 332, res., 346, 445. Dublan, Legislación, v., 246, 255, 261-2. Registro Oficial de Durango, Jan. 26. =80=Guanajuato cong., Jan. 29. Locomotor, Jan. 18. Mora, Papeles, 74-6. Negrete, Invasión iv, app., 412-4. Ramírez, México, 172, 184, 188, 190, 193, 198. Diario, Dec. 21, 1846; Jan. 7-9, 11-16, 18, 19, 26, 30; Feb. 4, 1847. Republicano, Dec. 9, 12, 1846; Jan. 8, 11, 23-4, 27, 29; Feb. 6, 11, 12; May 14, 1847. México á través, iv, 601-8, 628, 630-1, 638. And the following from =76=. Comte. gen. Querét., Jan. 19, 20, 22. Id., procl., Jan. 20. Comte gen. Puebla, Jan. 12, 28; Feb. 17. Guerra, order, Jan. 24. Min. eccles. affairs to metropol. chapter, Jan. 14. Comte. gen. Mex., Jan. 15. Comte. gen. Jalisco, Feb. 2. J. Alvarez, Feb. 2. Comte. gen. Oaxaca, Feb. 11, 15. Comte. gen. Guanaj., Jan. 29; Feb. 15, res. To comte. gen. Puebla, Feb. 24. Decrees, Jan. 15, 27; Feb. 4, 7, 10. To S. Anna, Jan. 30. S. Anna, Jan. 7, 13, 22, 26, 29; Feb. 9.

21.10. Beach's mission and escape. =56=Special Missions, p. 257. =56=Beach report, June 4, 1847. Polk, Diary, Apr. 14, 1847. =108=Mrs. Storms to Bancroft, July 23, 1846, and Marcy's endorsement. Griffis, Perry, 224. =52=Consul Black, Jan. 28, 1847. N. Y. Sun, Apr. 15; Aug. 16, 24, 1847. =166=Dimond to Conner, Jan. --, 1847. _Scribner's Monthly_, xvii, 300. Appleton, Amer. Biog. (article on M. Y. B.). Kenly, Md. Vol., 269. =76=To comte. gen. V. Cruz, Jan. 14. =76=Landero, Jan. 14. =76=S. Anna, Jan. 22.

21.11. Apuntes, 126. =13=Bankhead, no. 14, 1847. =56=Beach, report, June 4, 1847. Ramírez, México, 193-4, 198-9. México á través, iv, 608, 631. =199=Anon. MS. of go-between.

21.12. The monarchists, who were closely associated with the Church, shared in the insurrection (Apuntes, 119), and no doubt many of the Moderados took part in it (London Times, May 10, 1847), though Pedraza denied positively that he drew up the plan (Apuntes, 131).

21.13. The insurrection. =56=Beach, report, June 4, 1847. Apuntes, 126, 128-37. =13=Bankhead, no. 17, 1847. Consideraciones, 37. Méx. en 1847, 14, 19. León, Hist. Gen., 475. =52=J. Parrott, Feb. 6. Bustamante, Campaña sin, etc., 5, 8, 10, 11, 13. =52=Black, Mar. 6. London Times, May 10, 12. Salas, pamphlet, Mar. 3. =13=Peña y Barragán, procl., Mar. 8. Séptimo Disengaño. Boletín de la Democracia, Mar. 2, 7, 13. Farías, Address. Ramírez, México, 190, 193, 198-9, 201, 204, 209. México á través, iv, 631-5. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 841-9. Arco Iris, Nov. 24, 1847. Escudero, Mems., 14, 19, 20. =82=Zacatecas cong., Mar. 5. =82=Jalísco legisl., Mar. 12. =77=Relaciones, circular, Mar. 13. =80=Méx. state legisl., Mar. 18. Balbontín, Invasión, 104. =80=Lt. gov. Méx. state procl., Mar. 23. =199=Anon. MS. =76=Farías, procl. =83=Gov. Querét. to Peña y Barragán, Mar. 2, 20. Rivera, Los Gobernantes, ii., 318. N. Y. Sun, Apr. 15; Aug. 24. Díario, Feb. 20, 21. Monitor Repub., Dec. 27, 1846; Feb. 13; Mar. 23. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1125 (S. Anna). Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 539. And from =76= the following, besides others of minor importance. Comte. gen. Querét., Jan. 20. Canalizo to Anaya, Feb. 26. J. Alvarez, Mar. 10. L. Carrión, Mar. 10. Gov. Puebla, Feb. 17; reply, Feb. 24. Plan of Puebla insurgents, Feb. 27. Govt. bulletins, Mar. 2, 5. Morales, Mar. 1. Aguascalientes legisl., Mar. 4. Gov. Zacat. to Relac., Mar. 5. Gov. Querét. to Relac., Mar. 9. Provis. gov. Jalisco to Relac., Mar. 3. Comte. gen. Jalisco to garrison, Mar. 7. Gov. Puebla to Relac., Mar. 5. Lt. Col. Indep. battal. to mistress, Mar. 15. Comte. gen. Oaxaca, Feb. 17. Gov. Méx. state to Relac., Mar. 19. Id., procl., Mar. 18. Decrees, Mar. 1, 8, 12, 15.

On this subject Beach reported in substance as follows: When the government resolved to raise money on the Church property, I urged the clericals to an organized resistance. They consented, and at the moment of General Scott's debarkation at Vera Cruz they made a most important diversion in his favor by raising the standard of civil war at the capital, at Puebla and in a degree at Michoacán. This occupied 5000 men and all the arms, munitions of war and means of the government in the city of Mexico for twenty-three days; effectually preventing them from aiding Vera Cruz, or strengthening Puebla or the strongholds nearer the coast. On the tenth day of this rebellion or pronunciamiento, I was informed that $40,000 would be required of the clergy to carry it on another week, and that it would be paid if the importance of the crisis justified the outlay. As General Scott had but just landed his artillery at Vera Cruz, and might be detained there for some time. I deemed that almost any outlay would be justified. The rebellion was therefore kept up, until the sudden appearance of General Santa Anna closed the affair. [One must remember, in passing judgment on the conduct of the clergy, how much they had suffered at the hands of Santa Anna and how much reason they had to fear him.]

Beach had arranged to visit Mexico on private business, and he persuaded Buchanan that he could, through Almonte and others, bring about peace. Hence he was appointed "confidential agent to the Republic of Mexico" to accomplish what he could; and, on learning the state of things at Mexico, he saw that Scott's operations could be materially assisted by inaugurating and continuing the clerical insurrection. His report may be found in the state department archives at Washington.

21.14. Santa Anna left San Luis Potosí March 15 with more than 5000 men and ten guns.

21.15. Rejón wrote to Santa Anna, March 7, 1847, urging him to stand firmly by his manifesto of August 16, 1846,--i.e. by the Puros, and detailing a series of Moderado intrigues intended (he said) to annoy and humiliate Santa Anna until he should inaugurate a revolution, with a view to then having him shot.

21.16. Beach was watched for several days before he left the city. He escaped by paying for his lodgings for some time to come, leaving a trunk there, taking a carriage late at night without baggage, and choosing an unusual route (N. Y. Sun, Aug. 16, 1847). A reward of $1000 was offered for him dead or alive (ibid., Aug. 24). Notices were put up denouncing as a traitor anyone possessing a copy of the New York Sun. He was accused of having tried to bring about a clerical revolution and also to induce the states of Guanajuato, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí and Jalisco to secede and declare for the United States. See also N. Y. Sun, May 27, 1847; Polk, Diary, May 11, 1847; Kenly, Md. Vol., 269. We shall hear again of Beach's operations.

21.17. Santa Anna received news of the insurrection near Cedral.

21.18. Santa Anna may very possibly have hoped now to combine the military class, the conservatives and the clericals into a solid phalanx behind him, and he may have commended the movement against Church property for the very purpose of making the clergy feel the need of his assistance. See Tributo á la Verdad, 76.

21.19. His overthrow was not really due to the law of January 11, but resulted from his radical ideas and unpractical methods, the odium of his former administration, his consequent inability to secure the coöperation of influential men, and the general state of unrest and dissension.

21.20. Outcome of the insurrection. Apuntes, 111, 115-8, 133, 136-8. =13=Bankhead, nos. 33, 34, 1847. Méx. en 1847, 14-18. =69=S. Anna, order, Mar. 14. Anglo-Saxon, Mar. 13. =56=Beach, report, June 4, 1847. Bustamante, Campaña, 30. London Times, May 10. Britannia, May 15. México á través, iv, 577, 635-40. Ramírez, México, 184, 198-9, 205, 207, 209-12, 215-8. =82=Gov. Puebla, boletín No. 4 (S. Anna to Farías, Mar. 6; Gil to Ruano, Mar. 6). =77=Relaciones, circulars, Mar. 22; Apr. 1. Tributo á la Verdad, 76. =75=Rejón to S. Anna, Mar. 7. =84=Palacios to Gov. S. L. P., Mar. 17. Republicano, Mar. 24. =75a=Hacienda, circular, Mar. 29. Puga y Acal, Docs., 62-3. Escudero, Mems., 19. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 146-7. Dublán, Legisl., v, 262-5. Locomotor, Jan. 18. Baz, Juárez, 47. Diario, Mar. 29, 1847 (Baz). The twenty-millions law had very little effect, if any. Le Constitutionnel, June 17, 1847 (The clergy have kept none of the promises by the aid of which they obtained the repeal of the confiscation of their property).

XXII. VERA CRUZ

22.1. "New volunteers," those called out in November. For the ten transports see chap. xviii, note 18.28. Jan. 18 Conner wrote to Scott that Santa Anna had moved, about January 1, against Taylor, but that from all accounts presumably Taylor had probably retired to Monterey (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 893). It was therefore natural for Scott to feel satisfied that Santa Anna, learning of the expedition against Vera Cruz, would retrace his steps and reach that place in season. At Scott's instance a spy, selected by Consul Campbell with the aid of Consul Dimond (who visited Cuba for the purpose), was to have set out from Havana in January for Mexico City and San Luis Potosí (=166=Dimond to Conner, Jan. 15); but the author found no further trace of him.

22.2. Some transports reached Antón Lizardo Feb. 27 and notified Conner that Scott was coming (=162=Conner, Feb. 27). Certain troops, leaving Tampico March 1, arrived at that rendezvous in advance of Scott (=139=W. B. Campbell to wife, Mar. 6). By sunset on March 5 about seventy sail had appeared there.

22.3. To Antón Lizardo. Macgregor, Progress, i, 677. =47=Conner, Dec. 1 1846; Feb. 17; Mar. 7, 10, 1847. =159=Collins narrative. =298=Porter, diary. =66=Remarks in margin of chart of V. Cruz harbor. Le Clercq, Voyage, 401, 418. Robertson, Remins., 214-6. Campos, Recuerdos, 31. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 238. Grant, Mems., i, 125. Hartman, Journal, 6. Taylor, Broad Pennant, 123. Picayune, Mar. 26. Delta, Oct. 16. Meade, Letters, i, 187. =65=Scott, gen. orders 28, 33, 34, 37. =313=Saunders to Conner, Mar. 5. Oswandel, Notes, 63. Semmes, Service, 106, 109, 111. Kenly, Md. Volunteer, 266. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 65-6, 68. =146=Caswell, diary. =322=Smith, diary. Kitchen, Record, 21-2. =270=Moore, diary. =327=Sutherland, letter. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 257, 261. =254=McClellan to sister, Feb. 23. Moore, Scott's Campaign, 1-4. Parker, Recolls., 49, 82. Washington Union, Apr. 6. Monitor Repub., Mar. 16. =164=Scott to Conner, Feb. 22, 26. =162=Conner to wife, Aug. 10, 1846; Feb. 26, 27, 1847. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 879, 892 (Conner); 896 (Hetzel); 893, 896, 899 (Scott); 568 (Jesup). Nebel and Kendall, 17. Diccionario Univ. (Antón Lizardo). Niles, Mar. 13, 1847, p. 21. =332=Tennery, diary. Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 65. =254=McClellan, diary. =165=Conner to Scott, Jan. 18; to Breese and to Aulick, Feb. 28. Hammersly, Naval Encyclop., 94. =139=W. B. Campbell to wife, Mar. 6. Smith, To Mexico, 108-10. =76=Garay, Mar. 5. =76=Cos, Feb. 19, 21. =76=Soto, Mar. 7. =76=Watchman at Ulúa, Mar. 5.

22.4. For additional information regarding San Juan de Ulúa the reader may consult chapters xviii and xxx.

21.5. New York letters received in Cuba and made known at Mexico gave notice that Scott planned to capture Vera Cruz before attacking Ulúa (=76=Relaciones, Jan. 26); some Mexicans believed he would enter the Antigua River (which emptied a short distance to the north) with boats, and strike at once into the interior; some thought he would land at Tuxpán, and march south along the coast; and some ridiculed the idea of an attack upon Vera Cruz on the ground that, since the Americans could not possibly reach the capital by that route, it would be useless to capture the city (Monitor Repub., Mar. 28). Many argued that in any case Ulúa would protect Vera Cruz.

22.6. Besides fine old Spanish guns, there were new and heavy English pieces (Nacional, July 12, 1846) and twenty recently cast in the United States (Davis, Autobiog., 131). A battery of sixteen bronze long 24-pdrs., made in England in 1840, was pronounced by American artillery officers "far superior" to anything of the sort they had seen elsewhere (=213= Hatch to father, Apr. 2). It was in the city. As to the amount of ordnance in the city and castle accounts differed. Scott made it 400 pieces; Hitchcock, upwards of 350; Balbontín, 113 mounted, 46 unmounted at Ulúa, 83 and 57 respectively at Vera Cruz; G. T. M. Davis, 390 effective pieces. The statement of the Mexican government, December, 1846 (based of course on earlier reports), was as follows: Vera Cruz, mounted, bronze, eleven 24's, twenty 16's, six 12's, four 8's, four 4's, four mountain 4's, five 12-inch mortars, seven 8-inch howitzers, and of iron, mounted, three 42-lb. mortars, three 24-lb. cannon, five 12's, nine 8's, six 13-inch mortars, two 9-inch mortars; Ulúa, bronze, mounted, thirty-six 24's, four 16's, four 8's, two 14-inch mortars, and of iron, mounted, ten 84-lb. mortars, ten 68-lb. mortars, sixteen 42-lb. mortars, fifty-one 24-lb. cannon, two 16's,--a total of 224 besides a considerable number of unmounted pieces in both places, some of which were doubtless mounted later (Memoria de ... Guerra). Still other guns were sent from the interior. Possibly some unserviceable ordnance may have been included in the highest American figures. Balbontín gives the number of firearms as 7369--half of the total number belonging to the government. Ripley (War with Mex., ii, 19) and Wilcox (Mex. War, 251) state that there was no ditch, but the weight of evidence seems to be against them. Perhaps the drifting sand filled the ditch before the Americans took the city.

22.7. It was not easy to believe that the factions at Mexico would not agree to turn their arms against the Americans on learning they had landed. March 9 the state of Vera Cruz issued a strong appeal to them and to the nation. Neutrals and valuable neutral property were taken aboard foreign war-vessels (=12=Matson to Giffard, Mar. 5). The American blockade had greatly impaired the resources of the state and city. A forced loan was imposed by the former, but no large receipts could be expected.

22.8. The accepted (not official) Mexican figures were 1030 for Ulúa and 3360 for Vera Cruz, but the authorities did not consider it obligatory to publish the correct number. =13=March 11 the British consul, Giffard, reported the garrisons as about 1500 and 4000 respectively, and later (according to Mexican accounts that were probably rather flattering) more than 1000 threw themselves into the city. Santa Anna stated in April that Morales had 5000 in the town (=76=S. Anna, Apr. 29), but he was unfriendly to that officer. Scott's figures were 5000 besides those who perished or escaped during the siege; but before the surrender he heard the city alone had that number (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 221). British naval officers stated there were about 6000 in city and castle (Meade, Letters, i, 188), and Col. Campbell was told there were 5-6000 (=139=to wife, Mar. 6). The Mexicans complained of a lack of gunners, but their own figures were 680. No doubt the troops were poorly cared for, but such was the custom. Robles counted for not a little. In the autumn of 1846 Landero, personally liked but considered wanting in ability and regarded as a tool of Santa Anna, was made comte. gen. because Morales was strenuously denounced by Santa Anna as politically unsafe (=76=S. Anna, Oct. 14); but on the approach of the crisis the people forced a change, and the confidence inspired by Morales enabled him (Landero admitted in his =76=report, Apr. 3, 1847) to accomplish more than the latter could have done. Particular resentment was felt against Santa Anna for taking away in August, 1846, the best regiment (the Eleventh Infantry). For the names of corps at Vera Cruz and Ulúa see Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 158.

22.9. The situation at Vera Cruz and Ulúa. =13=Consul Giffard, Nov. 1; Dec. 1, 1846; Feb. 28; Mar. 11, 1847. =52=Consul Dimond, no. 336, May 2, 1846. Engineer School, U. S. Army, Occasional Papers, no. 16. =218=Henshaw narrative. =280=Nunelee, diary. =159=Collins, diary. =6=Bravo to Tola, Apr. 18, 1846. =224=Hitchcock, diary, Mar. 13. =13=Pakenham, no. 25, 1842. National, July 12, 1846. Constitutionnel, May 8, 1847. W. S. Parrott, Feb. 6, 1847. =80=México state legislature to people. Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec., 1846, p. 22. (Cisterns, etc.) Lyon, Journal, ii, 221. Orbigny, Voyage, 407-8. Robertson, Visit, i, 232, 239. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 12-15. Robertson, Remins., 225-6, 235, 237. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 541-50, 552, 569. Naredo, Orizaba, i, 107-8. Scott. Mems., ii, 422. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 248. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 288-9. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 239. Balbontín, Estado, 49-55. Tributo á la Verdad, 17-26, 29, 88. Apuntes, 152-5. S. Anna, Apelación, 33. Delta, Oct. 16, 1847. =350=Weber, recolls. =12=Matson to Giffard, Mar. 5, 1847; to Fischer, Mar. 8; to commodore, Mar. 10, 25. Oswandel, Notes, 102. Semmes, Service, 102, 104-6. =139=W. B. Campbell to D. C, Mar. 20. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 56, 865. Otero, Comunicación, 11. Diario, Apr. 8. Republicano, Dec. 8, 1846. =86=Relaciones to gov., Jan. 27, 1847; reply, Feb. 1. =86=State treas. to gov., Jan. 15. =86=Morales to gov., Feb. 8. =90=Soto, proclam., Mar. 2. =90=Id. to state congress, Dec. 1, 1846. =100=V. Cruz ayunt. to prefect, June 4, 1846. =100=Bravo to ayunt., June 9, 1846. =100=Ayunt. to jefe of dept, Oct. 26, 1846. =100=Soto, proclam., Feb. 6, 1847. =88=Id., proclam., Feb. 15, 1847. Regenerador Repub. Puebla, Mar. 13; Apr. 7, 1847. =82=Noticias de V. Cruz. Kenly, Md. Volunteer, 267. México á través, iv, 600. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 67, 105-7. El Estado de Veracruz a Todos. Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec, 1846. =146=Caswell, diary. =270=Moore, diary. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 441, 445, Feb. 28; Mar. 2, 1847. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 67. Valois, Mexique, 40-43. =271=Morales to commander of Ulúa, Oct. 20, 1846. Moore, Scott's Campaign, 12. Conner, Castle of S. Juan de Ulloa, 13. Parker, Recolls., 79. (Learned) Monitor Repub., Nov. 13, 30, 1846; Mar. 28, 1847. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 413-4. =166=Campbell to Conner, Jan. 9, 1847. =166=Pommarès to Conner, Oct. 15, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 911, 1169 (Scott). Meade, Letters, i, 188. Diccionario Univ. (Ulúa). =47=Conner, Oct. 4, 1846. =165=Id. to Scott, Jan. 18; Feb. 5, 1847. =100=Soto to jefe, V. Cr. dept., Sept. 17, 1846. =100=Jefe to V. Cr. ayunt., Dec. 21, 1846. Bishop, Journal, 29. Niles, May 9, 1846, p. 160. So. Quart. Rev., July, 1851. =86=V. Cruz congress, manifiesto, Mar. 9. And from =76= the following. A large amount of correspondence between the dept. and successive commanders at Vera Cruz, particularly in March, April, Sept. and Oct., 1846, Jan. and Feb., 1847, relating to the fortifications, garrison, supplies and dangers of the city and Ulúa. S. Anna, Oct. 12, 14, 20, 1846; Jan. 14, 18; Apr. 29, 1847. Morales, Jan. 20, 1847. Tampico letter to Garay, Jan. 25. Soto, Feb. 7, 15; Mar. 7, etc. Morales, Feb. 9, 15; Mar. 4, 5, etc. Boletín de la Democracia, Mar. 2, 1847 (N. Y. letter, Jan. 8). To S. Anna, Oct. 17, 1846; Jan. 30, 1847. To Morales, Mar. 6, 7. Morales, proclam., Mar. 5. Landero, report, Apr. 3. Jalapa letter, Mar. 16. Canalizo to Hacienda, Jan. 11. Landero, Jan. 25, 1847. J. Alvarez, Oct. 21, 1846. Memo., Feb. 9, 1847. Tampico letter, Dec. 30, 1846. Morales to Marín, Mar. 11.

22.10. What Scott called his "little cabinet" consisted of Col. Totten (chief engineer), Lieut. Col. Hitchcock (acting inspector general), Capt. Robert E. Lee (engineer) and H. L. Scott (acting as military secretary). Col. James Bankhead was chief artillery officer, Capt. Huger was acting chief of ordnance, and Maj. Turnbull was the chief topographical engineer (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 239-40). Col. Harney commanded the regular cavalry, and Capt. Edson commanded three companies of marines loaned by Conner, and temporarily attached to the Third Artillery. At this time the engineers, artillery and cavalry were kept by Scott under his immediate orders. While at Lobos Islands he laid down the rule (=65=gen. orders 33) that every project of siege or bombardment should first be discussed between the senior engineer and artillery officers and then reported to him for approval or amendment. Hence the detailed plan for the operations at Vera Cruz came formally from Totten, and he has been credited with originating it.

22.11. Simms wrote to Gov. Hammond of South Carolina that Scott's operations at Vera Cruz lacked brilliancy.

22.12. Conner had reckoned upon the starvation method; but (1) the amount of supplies in the town and castle was not certainly known and, as we shall find, was too large for this method; (2) fishing was a resource of unmeasured value (even from the mole great quantities of fish were caught: Delta, Oct. 16, 1847); (3) it was possible that on some night the American line might be temporarily broken, and thousands of cattle be run into the city; (4) as British observers agreed, the Mexicans were capable of bearing privations for a long while; (5) Scott rested under an imperative obligation to remove his army from the coast in time to save it from the vómito; and (6) he had to count on reducing Ulúa after capturing the city.

22.13. =13=Giffard, Mar. 11. Scott, Mems., ii, 422-5. Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 3-6. Davis, Autobiog., 140-1. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 223, 239. Balbontín, Estado, 53, 55. =65=Scott, gen. orders 33. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 11, 25. Steele, Amer. Campaigns, i, 120. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 16, 1847 (Scott should have left 5000 to reduce V. Cruz). So. Quart. Rev., July, 1851. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 47-9. Oswandel, Notes, 101. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 892 (Conner). McCall, Letters, 483. Moore, Scott's Camp., 12.

22.14. This seems like a foolhardy performance; but other boats had gone as near without being fired upon, and the Petrita was supposed to be out of range (Mag. Am. Hist., xiv, 567). The engineers intended of course to get as near as they could with safety, and it is possible that Scott wished to set an example of fearlessness. McCall, who was on board, wrote that this occurred on Mar. 6; other accounts place it on the seventh.

22.15. Just as the fleet was leaving Antón Lizardo, 800 Louisiana volunteers arrived. These, with a shipload who came some hours later, gave Scott upwards of 11,000 men. His =62=return of Mar. 25 included 13,470.

22.16. With some light guns, which would probably have been lost, a thousand Americans might have been accounted for. It has been suggested that until the boats moved toward the shore the Mexicans did not know where the blow would fall; but their own explanation was that they had no suitable troops to spare for the purpose (Tributo á la Verdad, 28). Morales had, however, what he called an Extra-muros section, i.e., militia. A lack of intelligence, enterprise or nerve was doubtless the real cause of his remissness. The one shot mentioned in the text probably came from a gun found later among the dunes (=69=Backus to Brady, Sept. 22, 1848). A company of sappers and miners and an iron boat loaded with entrenching tools and sand-bags accompanied Worth's brigade. Less than half the surf-boats ordered by Scott had arrived.

22.17. The landing. Bullock, Six Months (1825), i, 10. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 216-8, 220, 222 (Scott); 239-40 (gen. orders 80). Ho. 1; 30, 2. pp. 1177-9. Apuntes, 153. Engineer School, U. S. Army, Occasional Papers, no. 16. =218=Henshaw narrative. =280=Nunelee, diary. =216=Heiman, First Regt. of Tenn. =159=Collins, diary. =298=Porter, diary. =69=Backus to Brady, Sept. 22, 1848. Robertson, Remins., 216-9. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 540, 551. Scott, Mems., ii, 413-4, 418-9, 421. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 292-303. Davis, Autobiog., 125. Tributo á la Verdad, 28, etc. McCall, Letters, 475. Taylor, Broad Pennant, 125. Picayune, Mar. 25. Meade, Letters, 187-8. =65=Scott, gen. orders 28, 33, 34, 42, 45. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 11. Oswandel, Notes, 67-70, 83. Semmes, Service, 111, 125-7. Ramírez, México, 234. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 74, 79, 167. =270=Moore, diary. Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit., v, 37; xxiv, 422-8. Moore, Scott's Campaign, 5. Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1, 1847, p. 418. Conner, Home Squadron, 18-20, 60-70. Smith, To Mexico, 113-4. Nebel and Kendall, 17. Parker, Recolls., 49, 83, 85-6. =162=Conner to wife, Jan. 11; Mar. 10, United Service, July, 1895, p. 37; Dec., 1896, pp. 492-517. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 108. Jones, Tattnall, 58. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 847, 1169 (Scott); 892 (Conner). Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 71-2. =254=McClellan, diary. =165=Conner, Mar. 11; order, Mar. 7; to Forrest, Mar. 7. =316=Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Mag. of Amer. Hist., xiv (Scammon). So. Quart. Rev., July, 1851. =139=W. B. Campbell to wife, Mar. 13. =76=Morales, Mar. 9, 10. =76=Landero, report, Apr. 3.

22.18. The consuls were in close touch with one another and with the Mexicans, and hence the charge that Scott gave no warning of a bombardment falls to the ground. He could not be expected to state positively and precisely what he intended to do. By Mar. 13 Morales reached the conclusion that he would not assault (=82=M. to gov. Puebla, Mar. 13), and by Mar. 20 that a bombardment was to be expected (=76=M. to Guerra y Marina, Mar. 20). Intercourse with neutral vessels was allowed to remain open until the morning of Mar. 23 (=12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 25), mainly as a way of escape for neutrals (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 230) (closed then--except under a flag of truce--because affording moral aid and comfort ibid., p. 228); and Matson, the British naval commander, warned the British residents with his utmost energy that they would not be safe during "an assault or a Bombardment" (=12=M. to commodore, Apr. 2). He was notified in advance that intercourse with neutral vessels would shortly be cut off, and so informed Giffard officially on March 18 for the benefit of British residents (=12=M. to commodore, March 25). Scott's warning note to the Spanish consul (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 219) referred to the city, not to Ulúa, for the consuls resided in the city; yet Matson and Giffard had the face to assert that on the authority of Conner they understood that only Ulúa would be bombarded. Matson admitted that he did this for effect on Perry (=12=to commodore, Apr. 2); and he did not question Scott's right to act as he did (=12=to Perry, Mar. 27). Again, Scott's summons stated that batteries adequate to reduce the city were in readiness, and this was further notice of a bombardment. Everything compatible with the military necessities of the United States was thus done for neutrals and non-combatants. Moreover Morales replied that Scott might attack in the way he thought most advantageous (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 227). The truth is that the people were full of fighting spirit, did not know what real war meant, and felt not a little confidence. Giffard certainly (=12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 25) and (as Perry reported, =47=Oct. 22) the other consuls probably took under their protection large quantities of property belonging to Mexicans. By means of kites the Mexicans distributed addresses to the "honest" Americans, defying their prowess but inviting them to accept lands, as friends and brethren, in the country of perpetual spring.

22.19. The Americans admitted the skill of the Mexican gunners. Twenty-eight balls were put through a wall five feet high and 150 feet long, more than a mile distant. Americans were supposed to be lying behind the wall (Kenly, Md. Volunteer, 267).

22.20. Scott still supposed Ulúa would have to be reduced after the capture of Vera Cruz, and felt greatly troubled by the non-arrival of the larger part of the heavy ordnance, etc., that had been duly called for (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 222). He was annoyed also by his lack of enough cavalry for thorough reconnoitring, and by the passing and repassing of small boats between the city and the north shore. Owing to the treacherous weather none of the American vessels could lie close enough to the coast to stop this intercourse entirely. A sortie against the batteries was to be anticipated, but access to them was made so easy and secure that such an attack could have been repulsed. The squadron endeavored to divert the attention of the enemy while the mortars were being placed.

22.21. Scott's preliminary operations. =13=Giffard, Feb. 28, 1847. Engineer School, U. S. A., Occas. Papers, no. 16. =218=Henshaw narrative. Charleston Mercury, Apr. 6, 1847. =280=Nunelee, diary. Trans. Ills. State Hist. Soc., 1906, p. 179. =159=Collins, diary. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 216-25, 244-9 (reports of Scott and his officers). Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1177 (Conner). =298=Porter, diary. =61=Bankhead to Scott, Mar. 26. =60=Pickett to ----, Mar. 10. Robertson, Remins., 220-27. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 552. Scott, Mems., ii, 426. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 240-5. Grant, Mems., i, 127. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 304-6; ii, 18-9. Davis, Autobiog., 126. Tributo á la Verdad, 29. McCall, Letters, 477. Hartman, Journal, 7-8. Picayune, Mar. 26, 30, 31; Apr. 2, 4. Meade, Letters, i, 191. =350=Weber, recolls. =65=Scott, gen. orders, nos. 33, 53. McCabe, Lee, 17. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 11. Oswandel, Notes, 71-85. Semmes, Service, 129. =139=W. B. Campbell to D. C., Mar. 20. =210=Simms to Hammond, May 1. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 73, 78, 81, 84, 89. =124=Blocklenger, letter. =270=Moore, diary. Steele, Amer. Campaigns, i, 106. Nebel and Kendall, 18-9. =164=Scott to Conner, Mar. 16. Griffis, Perry, 216. Conner, Home Squadron, 68. Monitor Repub., Mar. 16. =164=Scott to Conner, Mar. 17, 18, 19, 20. Spirit of the Times, Apr. 17. =166=Dimond to Conner, Jan. 15. =166=Campbell to Conner, Jan. 9. United Service, July, 1895, p. 37. Jones, Tattnall, 57. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1169 (Scott). =254=McClellan, diary. =165=Conner to Scott, Mar. 19. Bishop, Journal, 29. So. Quart. Rev., July, 1851. =76=Morales, Mar. 10, 16. =76=Cano, Mar. 26. Mag. of Amer. Hist., xiv, 567.

22.22. The mosquito fleet consisted of the steamers Spitfire and Vixen under Commanders J. Tattnall and J. R. Sands, and the gunboats Bonita, Reefer, Petrel, Falcon and Tampico under Lieuts. Commanding F. G. Benham, J. S. Sterett, T. D. Shaw, J. J. Glasson and W. P. Griffin (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1182). Each had a 32-pounder or 8-inch Paixhan. Additional information may be found in chap. xxx.

22.23. The parapet of the naval battery (known as No. 5) was of sandbags. Each of the guns weighed 6300 pounds, and was mounted on a ship-carriage, so that transportation on land was extremely laborious. They were taken ashore March 23, and some 1500 men were employed in dragging them nearly two and a half miles through the sand. Scott did not value the shell guns highly. They were 8-inch Paixhans. Captains Aulick and Mayo commanded the battery alternately. According to Robert Anderson the orders for the battery were issued by Conner (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 101) who had repeatedly offered it before Scott gave up the hope of receiving adequate army ordnance in time (Conner, Home Squad., 47, note 3). Early on the morning of March 23 Perry (who had withdrawn the mosquito fleet the previous evening) had Tattnall launch a sharp though brief attack, presumably to divert attention from the naval battery, then under construction. An officer who gained fame later as Commodore Porter was Tattnall's pilot. The opening of Battery No. 4 (24-pounders, etc.) was delayed by a norther, and one of the howitzers was not ready as soon as the other pieces. Only about half of the siege-train and ordnance stores called for in November arrived before Vera Cruz surrendered (see chap. xviii, note 18.11).

22.24. Summons and bombardment. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 222-44 (reports of Scott and his officers; summons and reply; etc.); 230 (Scott to consuls, Mar. 25). Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1175-83 (naval reports). =13=Morales, circular, Apr. 4. =13=Giffard, nos. 7, 8, Mar. 22, 29. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 25, 28; Apr. 2; to Perry, Mar. 27. =47=Perry, Mar. 26; Oct. 22. Henshaw narrative. Nunelee, diary. =216=Heiman, First Regt. Trans. Ill. State Hist. Soc., 1906, pp. 179-80. Collins, diary. =224=Hitchcock to Lizzie, Mar. 27. =60=Perry to Mason, Mar. 25. =60=Scott to Perry and reply, Mar. 25. =61=Bankhead to Scott, Mar. 26. =60=Pickett to ----, Mar. 10. Robertson, Remins., 227-32, 278. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 555. Scott, Mems., ii, 426-7. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 244-7. Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 24. Davis, Autobiog., 127. A Soldier's Honor, 24. Apuntes, 155-8. Tributo á la Verdad, 30-1, 109. McCall, Letters, 480. Nebel and Kendall, 19-21. Hartman, Journal, 9-10. Picayune, Apr. 4. Meade, Letters, i, 192. F. Lee, Lee, 36-7. McClay, Navy, ii, 180-1, 183. Oswandel, Notes, 90-5. Semmes, Service, 130-42. =139=W. B. Campbell to D. C., Mar. 28. Diario, Mar. 29; Apr. 10. Regenerador Repub., Apr. 7. Kenly, Md. Volunteer, 267. Lawton, Artillery Off., 91-7, 101, 104. Caswell, diary. =322=Smith, diary. Moore, diary. =358=Williams to father, Mar. 25, 28. Judah, diary. Moore, Scott's Campaign, 15. Arnold, Jackson, 84. Conner, Home Squadron, 47, note 3. Wash. Union, Sept. 11. N. Y. Sun, Apr. 16. =162=Conner to wife, Mar. 31. Soley, Porter, 67-9. Jones, Tattnall, 57. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 913, 1220 (Scott). =180=Scott to Stribling, Mar. 25. Ramsey, Other Side, 190, note. Bishop, Journal. So. Quart. Rev., July, 1851. Weekly Courier and N. Y. Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848 (letter probably by Hitchcock). Griffis, Perry, 221-3. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 519-40 =76=G. Gómez, Mar. 25. =76=Soto, Mar. 28. =76=Morales, Mar. 24. =76=Vega Mar. 25.

22.25. March 24 the consuls requested Scott to grant a truce and allow the women and children to leave town (=12=Matson to commodore, Apr. 2). With perfect propriety he declined to do so (Scott, Mems., ii, 427), unless Morales should ask for a truce with a view to surrender (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 226), pointing out that due warnings had been given (note 22.18). He could not afford to suspend his operations or let the number of mouths be diminished; and doubtless he was counting on the moral effect of the presence of women and children. Time pressed; there were well-founded reports that a Mexican army was approaching; and cases of yellow fever had occurred (Scott, Mems., ii, 427, and see Davis, Autobiog., 141). Scott's action looks hard, but it was humane to force an immediate surrender. Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, 178) fully admits that the American policy was just. This move of the consuls tended to shake the confidence of the Mexicans, and led to dissensions among the officers.

March 25 Harney was sent against a force posted at a bridge near Medellín, about ten miles from Vera Cruz (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 250-2). Including reinforcements, his detachment consisted of about 500 men with artillery. The independent reports of the two principal Mexican officers give their number as 140-50 with scarcely any ammunition. Harney thought there were 2000 of them, and claimed great credit for carrying the day. His orders were to reconnoitre only. There were other insignificant affairs (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 249-55; Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 915; Reavis, Harney, 186).

22.26. On the Mexican side. =13=Giffard, Mar. 11, 29. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 25; Apr. 2. Papeles Varios, no. 10. Henshaw narrative. Nunelee, diary. Collins, diary. Robertson, Remins., 222. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 552-3, etc. Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 32-3. Davis, Autobiog., 138. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 220-38 (reports, etc.). Tributo á la Verdad, 29, 30, 109 (Ult. Boletín). Apuntes, 157-60. Picayune, Apr. 9. (Fish) Delta, Oct. 16. =312=Morales, Apr. 3. Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844. Semmes, Service, 149. =82=Noticias de Veracruz. =86=Relaciones to gov., Jan. 27. =86=Treasurer to gov., Jan. 15. =86=Many letters regarding inability to pay the tax. =100=Morales to ayunt., Mar. 12, 17, 20; reply, Mar. 14. =95=Ibarra, proclam., Mar. 23. Regenerador Repub., Apr. 7. =82=Gov. to legislature of Puebla, Mar. 9. =82=Ibarra, proclam., Mar. 17. =82=Morales to gov. Puebla, Mar. 13. =86=Id. to Soto, Mar. 8. Lawton, Artillery Off., 106-7. Caswell, diary. Moore, diary. =375=Morales to Soto, Mar. 14. Monitor Repub., Apr. 4. Spirit of the Times, Apr. 17. =80=Legislature of Méx. state, address. =165=Conner to Scott, Mar. 19. Bishop, Journal. And from =76= the following. Comte. gen. Puebla, proclam., Mar. 16. Arrieta, Mar. 15. Cano, Mar. 26. S. Anna, Apr. 29. Memo., Feb. 9. F. Vázquez, Mar. 26. Soto, Jan. 23, 26; Mar. 7, 9, 19, 24, 25 (two). G. Gómez, Mar. 18, 19, 20 (two). Vega, Mar. 24, 25 (two). Canalizo, Apr. 1. Morales, Mar. 5, 10, 16, 20, 24. Landero, Jan. 30, Apr. 3. Hacienda, Mar. 15. To G. Gómez, Mar. 16. To Soto, Mar. 28. And many documents of minor importance.

22.27. Morales, probably in view of Santa Anna's enmity, would not surrender though he believed he ought to do so (=76=Landero, Apr. 3), but he turned the command over to Landero when capitulation was seen to be inevitable, and left the city in a boat during the night of March 25-6. He induced Gen. José Durán, who commanded at Ulúa, to regard himself as under Landero's orders, it was stated by Santa Anna (=76=Apr. 29), and so brought about the surrender of the castle. This apparently singular move was doubtless made to save Vera Cruz from being bombarded by Ulúa. (Recognizing this danger to the city, Scott intimated, when summoning the town, that no batteries would be established in it against Ulúa, unless Ulúa should open fire upon it.) There was considerable dissatisfaction among the Americans because the prisoners were set free, for their parole was justly deemed of slight value; but it would have been costly, and perhaps not easy, to hold them at Vera Cruz or send them to the United States, and they did good service by spreading tales of American prowess. Mar. 26 the consuls went to Scott's camp under a white flag, but he would not see them (=12=Matson to commodore, Apr. 2). On the morning of March 27 two boat-loads of neutrals under the French flag attempted to reach the neutral vessels at Sacrificios, but Perry would not allow them to proceed (=12=Matson to commodore, Apr. 2). (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 178, admits that Perry's course was proper.) At about the same time the consuls and the second alcalde threatened that unless the military chiefs would promptly bring hostilities to an end, they would lead the non-combatants toward the American lines at the risk of being fired upon. This was said to have had great effect in town, but the chiefs had already decided to give up. Owing to bad weather the navy was not represented at all the deliberations. Some of the American military men felt that the share of the navy did not entitle its representative to sign the capitulation. It was stated by Sedgwick that, aside from the investment, only about 600 Americans took part in the operations.

22.28. Next to Matson's figures our best evidence regarding the casualties is the statement of Giffard, that hundreds of women and children, harbored at the consulates, escaped from harm though the buildings suffered (=13=Mar. 29). Many other buildings were no doubt equally solid and equally distant from the principal scene of destruction. Vera Cruz was a great importing city, where large stocks of goods needed to be securely housed. Mercantile establishments had strong vaults, in which families now took refuge. Many found safety on the long mole. Scott asserted that most of the people were sheltered in the basements. Consequently one can hardly believe that more than 500 persons out of a civilian population probably not exceeding 3000 were injured. Lieut. Mackall believed that perhaps thirty or forty soldiers were killed or wounded (=252=Apr. 30). Kendall, editor of the New Orleans Picayune, who was on the ground, represented 150 as a mean estimate of the total number that perished (Picayune, Apr. 9). Landero reported 750 killed and 200 wounded (=76=Apr. 3), evidently an absurd statement, for a greater number must have been hurt than killed. Other Mexican estimates rose as high as 600 civilians killed, which would imply on a reasonable calculation that almost every civilian was hit. One of the best Mexican authorities (Apuntes, 165) states that 600 or more soldiers were wounded, and 400 of these lost their lives. This is far too large a percentage of fatalities. How accurate this authority is may be judged also from the fact that the Americans are said to have thrown 6700 projectiles into the town, whereas (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 244) the number was actually about 2500 (possibly besides those from the naval battery, which may have thrown 800). It is worth while to add that Scott was persistently represented (partly to exalt the Mexicans and partly to injure the Americans) as having destroyed a great number of non-combatants, but Morales wrote on March 24 that most of the killed and wounded had been soldiers.

Next let us inquire as to the provisions. Giffard stated (=13=Mar. 29) that when the Mexicans surrendered, the city had food enough for three days and the castle for ten; but probably he had reference only to the provisions belonging to the authorities, and perhaps, as he had objected strongly to the destruction of property and tried to stop the bombardment by sending word to Scott that hunger would force the Mexicans to yield in a few days, he felt compelled to support that representation. March 10 Conner thought the enemy had subsistence enough for about four or five weeks (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1179). =76=April 29, after having talked with officers from Vera Cruz, Santa Anna assured the minister of war that Morales could have held out until he (Santa Anna) could have arrived with regular forces. Gov. Soto, who went down to the coast, where he was in communication with the city by means of boats and doubtless knew whether stocks of foodstuffs (belonging perhaps to neutrals) existed there, placed drafts for $30,000, payable at Vera Cruz, in the hands of Morales on March 24 (=76=Soto, March 25). This money must have been intended solely or principally for provisions, for on the fourteenth Morales had written to Soto that nothing else was needed. On the same day $2000 from Oaxaca were delivered. These sums would have purchased enough food to last beyond April 15. About March 17 a French barque ran in during a norther, which shows that supplies from the outside could be hoped for. The property loss due to the bombardment was estimated at five to six million dollars (Monitor Repub., Apr. 4). The southwest quarter of the town was demolished. It was ordered that not only Morales, but Landero and Durán should be tried. Besides disliking Morales, Santa Anna felt resentment against Vera Cruz for receiving him so coldly in August, 1846.

22.29. The surrender; losses (note 22.28). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 224-6 (Scott); 228 (consuls); 229-38 (Scott, etc.); 239 (gen. orders 80). Apuntes, 159-66. McCall, Letters, 483-4. Picayune, Apr. 9. =252=Mackall to father, Mar. 30. =312=Morales, Apr. 3. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 25; Apr. 2; to Perry, Mar. 27; reply, Mar. 27. Semmes, Service, 141. Diario, Mar. 27; Apr. 4, 8. Regenerador Repub., Apr. 7. Lawton, Artillery Off., 98, 100, 106. Hiney, diary. =358=Williams to father, Mar. 28. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 160. =375=Morales to Soto, Mar. 14. Monitor Repub., Apr. 4, 5. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 16. =166=Kirby to Conner, Mar. 27. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1186. Mag. of Amer. Hist., xiv, 570. Bishop, Journal. =13=Giffard, nos. 7, 8, Mar. 22, 29. Henshaw narrative. Collins, diary. =95=Puebla ayunt., address, Apr. 7 (V. Cruz yielded because of "the lamentations of innocent families expecting every instant to die"). Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 177-9. Tributo á la Verdad, 109 (Ult. Bol.). Nebel and Kendall, 21. Robertson, Remins., 232. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 558-69. Scott, Mems., ii, 427-9. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 243-8. =76=Landero, Apr. 3. =76=Id. to Canalizo, Mar. 31. =76=Canalizo, Apr. 1. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 4, 29. =76=To S. Anna, May 4. =76=Terms of capitulation. The date Of the capitulation was Mar. 27.

Had Vera Cruz held out until April 15, perhaps 5000 regulars would have been in Scott's rear (chap. xxiii, note 23.12). With this backing, 3-4000 irregulars could probably have been embodied. By means of signals and boat communication operations in concert with the garrison of Vera Cruz could have been arranged for, and the prospect would have encouraged the city to hold out to the uttermost. Very likely Scott's line could have been broken, and provisions introduced. He could not, then, before the advent of the yellow fever, have reduced Ulúa and Vera Cruz, and have made the preparations necessary for advancing into a hostile region in the face of a numerous enemy. When the fever became active, Santa Anna's upper country troops could have retired quickly, leaving the Americans to be annoyed by the coast forces. Other diseases quite as fatal as the vómito prevailed in that district (Thompson, Recolls., 4). Lieut. Hatch (to father, Apr. 2) wrote that all attributed the surrender to the effect of Scott's artillery upon the civilians, and the circumstances prove as much.

22.30. The northers, though in themselves a scourge, drove the mosquitoes away, and so prevented the yellow fever. They subsided about the middle of April, and then the fever was due.

22.31. Hardships and consolations. (Losses) Ho. 24; 31, 1; Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 253-5; Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1185 (naval). Henshaw narrative. Charleston Mercury, Apr. 6. Nunelee, diary. Collins, diary. American Eagle, V. Cruz, Apr. 8. =60=Pickett to ----, Mar. 10. Vigne, Travels, i, 8. Robertson, Remins., 223, 226-7. Campos, Recuerdos, 31. Scott. Mems., ii, 430. Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 8, 15. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 221 (gen. orders 54); 224-6 (Scott, Mar. 23). Picayune, Apr. 4. =350=Weber, recolls. Maury, Recolls., 34. =12=Matson to commodore, Mar. 11, 25. Oswandel, Notes, 71-4, 79-81. Semmes, Service, 107-8. Lawton, Artillery Off., 79, 88, 96. Gilliam, Travels, 40. =361=Woods, recolls. Caswell, diary. =327=Sutherland to father, July 15. Moore, diary. =136=Butterfield, recolls. Spirit of the Times, Apr. 17. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 115. Tennery, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 879 (Conner). Bruell, Sea Memories, 57. Lancaster Co. Hist. Soc. Mag., Mar. 6, 1908 (Nauman). Our army loss was nine killed and fifty-one wounded (Ho. 24; 31, 1).

22.32. Occupation of city and "castle." American Eagle, V. Cruz, Apr. 6. Nunelee, diary. Collins, diary. Polk, Diary, May 15. Robertson, Remins., 232. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 567-8. Naredo, Orizaba, 108. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 247. Davis, Autobiog., 129-30. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 229, 235 (Scott); 237-8. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1185 (Perry). Apuntes, 166-7. Picayune, Apr. 9, 10, 14. Lawton, Artillery Off., 110, =252=Mackall to father, Mar. 30. =12=Matson to commodore, Apr. 2. Oswandel, Notes, 98. Semmes, Service, 145-6. Regenerador Repub., Apr. 7. Lawton, Artillery Off., 102-3. =222=Hiney, diary. =146=Caswell, diary. =322=Smith, diary. =270=Moore, diary. Id., Scott's Campaign, 23. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 907 (Marcy); 911 (Scott). Tennery, diary. Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 79-80. Bishop, Journal. Littell, no. 157, p. 326 (Hine). =139=W. B. Campbell to wife, Mar. 31. Britannia, May 15 (V. Cruz letter, Apr. 1). =76=Landero, gen. orders, Mar. 29-30. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 29. Nebel and Kendall, 21.

Some of the National Guards broke up and took flight in order to avoid surrendering. As fast as the arms were stacked American sentries mounted guard over them. When the Mexican soldiers found the victors offering to divide rations with them, their sentiments became friendly, and most of those belonging at Vera Cruz went back to town that day.

XXIII. CERRO GORDO

23.1. According to a memo. furnished by the adjutant general to the ordnance bureau, Mar. 24, Scott's forces were as follows. I. REGULARS. 1 Dragoons, Co. F. 2 Dragoons, Cos. A, B, C, F, I, K. *Mounted Riflemen (on foot). 1 Art., Co. K. 2 Art., Co. A. 3 Art., Co. H. (These three companies had field batteries.) Artillery serving as infantry: *1 Art., Cos. B, F, G, H, I; 2 Art., Cos. B, C, D, F, G, H, I, K; 3 Art., Cos. A, B, D, G, K; *4 Art., Cos. A, D, E, F, G, H. 1 Inf., Cos. C, E, F, G, H, K. *2 Inf., Cos. A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, K. *3 Inf., Cos. C, D, F, G, H, I, K. 4 Inf., Cos. A, B, C, D, E, I. 5 Inf., Cos. E, F, G, H, I, K. 6 Inf., Cos. A, C, D, E, F, H. *7 Inf., Cos. C, D, E, F, I, K. 8 Inf., Cos. A, B, D, E, H, I, K. (Italics indicate the division of Bvt. Maj. Gen. Worth; asterisks that of Brig. Gen. Twiggs.) II. VOLUNTEERS. (Maj. Gen. Patterson.) Tenn. Mounted regt. Infantry: Baltimore and Wash. battal.; Ga. regt.; Ala. regt.; two Tenn. regts.; two Ill. regts.; Ky. co.; La. co.; La. regt.; two Pa. regts.; N. Y. regt.; S. C. regt. This list includes troops not mentioned by Scott (Mems., ii, 460-5). As Worth was now serving with his brevet rank his command was called a division. The same change was made in Twiggs's case. A letter of Mar. 13 from Marcy, due to a suggestion from Polk of the day before, urged Scott to make the protection of the troops against yellow fever his prime consideration (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 904; Polk, Diary, Mar. 12, 20). At the same time it gave a slanting assent to the movement against the capital by discussing the question of roads. This was Scott's first authorization to proceed (So. Quart. Rev., Apr., 1852), and the Cabinet had not decided to have him do so, though he had assumed that Benton's plan, endorsed by himself, was the basis of his expedition (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 913). The hesitation of the government is illustrated by the fact that Marcy first wrote merely, "If you should occupy an interior position," which he changed to, "If you should move into the interior" (Marcy papers).

23.2. This proclamation has been censured on the ground that it exasperated the Mexicans by mentioning their domestic dissensions and bad government. If so, the blame rested primarily on the American government, which had ordered Taylor to circulate a proclamation embodying such ideas (p. 1 of chap. xxxi). The word "unnatural" has been thought unfortunate as suggesting (since ordinary war seemed to Mexico perfectly normal, and Scott could not be supposed to be reflecting upon himself and his government) that the Mexicans were acting in an inhuman and indecent way; but the author does not recall seeing any such point made by them.

23.3. Many wagons were lost in wrecked vessels. It had been supposed that about two thirds of the animals would be obtained locally, but it was found by April 5 that not one tenth of them could be reckoned upon.

23.4. Harney proceeded to La Antigua on April 2 with two squadrons of dragoons, a section of artillery and two infantry companies, drove lancers from the village, captured about thirty-five horses and obtained Mexican promises of assistance from the people (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 915-6). He returned the next day. The Alvarado expedition set out on March 30. It was a joint affair designed not only (like Harney's) to obtain draft animals and beef cattle and open up permanent markets for these desiderata, but to impress and "neutralize" the people of that section, acquire a harbor for Perry's small vessels, provide a regular supply of water for the squadron, and perhaps capture the Mexican vessels lying there. Perry himself commanded the naval contingent, and Quitman commanded the land force, which consisted of three volunteer regiments (Ga., Ala. and S. Car.), a squadron of dragoons and a section of artillery (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 917-8). The march of about fifty miles (about 44 by the present railroad) was at times difficult and always hot. Late on April 1 Perry and Quitman reached Alvarado, a fishing town of 1200-1500 persons; and the land forces arrived the next day. They found it occupied by an American midshipman and five sailors. Lieut. Hunter, commanding a one-gun propeller, the Scourge, sent down to assist in blockading the town, had violated his orders (probably to show what the naval men were capable of doing, if given a chance to act) by opening fire, upon which the town (though it endeavored later to rescind its action) had offered to surrender. Learning that public property had been taken up the Alvarado River, here a wide, clear, deep stream, he pursued it and, to take advantage of the panic resulting from the fall of Vera Cruz, captured the industrious town of Tlacotálpam. Quitman accepted this turn of events genially, but Perry was furious, and to the disgust of many naval officers and the general public Hunter was tried and cashiered.

To Scott the results of Hunter's error were serious (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 547). The intention had been to grant capitulations to the towns on terms that would have provided the Americans with a large number of the needed animals (Wash. Union, Sept. 11) or to obtain the same result in some other way; but Hunter's action, though only one day in advance, gave time for the removal of the livestock. Quitman did, however, arrange with the authorities of Tlacotálpam for at least 500 horses, and opened negotiations for more and for beef cattle. How fruitful these arrangements proved cannot be stated. April 8 about 300 of the Fifth Infantry sailed from Vera Cruz for the same district (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 928), and about April 14 they brought back some wild mustangs.

On retiring from Alvarado the Mexicans burned the few small vessels that constituted the national navy, and spiked or buried the ordnance of the forts. The buried guns were, however, discovered. In all they numbered about sixty, but a large part were valueless carronades. For Quitman's troops the expedition was unfortunate. A number died and almost all were prostrated. He was back at Vera Cruz April 6. The affair amused the American public hugely. One evidence of this is afforded by the following lines (N. Y. Sun, May 7, 1847):

"On came each gay and gallant ship, On came the troops like mad, oh! But not a soul was there to whip, Unless they fought a shadow;

"Five sailors sat within a fort, In leading of a lad, oh! And thus was spoiled the pretty sport Of taking Alvarado."

23.5. Scott's preparations for advancing (including the Alvarado expedition). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 903 (Marcy); 908, 912-3, 920, 928, 937, 1221, 1271 (Scott); 915 (Harney); 917 (Quitman); 918 (Mason); 939 (gen. orders). =60=Scott to Marcy, Apr. 5. Courrier Français, Apr. 17. =61=Harney, report, Apr. 4. Negrete, Invasion, iii, app., 435. Scott, Mems., ii, 431. Robertson, Remins., 238. Velasco, Geografía, iii, 203. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 230 (Scott); 547 (Jesup). Davis, Autobiog., 140. Delta, May 19. Diccionario Universal (Alvarado). =164=Scott to Conner, Mar. 20. =60= Mason to J. L. Smith, Apr. 9. Semmes, Service, 148, 211. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 445, Mar. 2, 1847. Nebel and Kendall, 23. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1190. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 121. =270=Moore, diary. Id., Scott's Camp., 44-9, 52. Griffis, Perry, 239. Parker, Recolls., 103-4. =12=Captain of Alarm to commodore, Apr. 13. Bennett, Steam Navy, 94, 97. Maclay, Navy, ii, 185. =358=Williams to father, Apr. 5. =62=Adj. gen. to ordnance dept., Mar. 24. =65=Scott, gen. orders 87, 91, 105. =65=Id., proclam., Apr. 11. =13=Giffard, no. 12, Apr. 13. Polk, Diary, Mar. 12-14. =13=Pakenham, no. 7, Jan. 28. Metropol. Mag., Jan., 1908, p. 441. Soley, Porter, 71. Wash. Union, Sept. 11. N. Y. Sun, May 7, 21. Niles, May 1, pp. 131, 141; 22, p. 189. Southwest. Hist. Qtrly., xviii, 216. Steele, Am. Campaigns, i, 120. =76=Marin, Jan. 2; Apr. 26. =76=López, Jan. 15. =60=Plan of Alvarado. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1200 (Mackenzie).

Worth, although he had been given the most prominent place in the operations against Vera Cruz, demanded the leading position in the advance, and felt deeply offended when Scott, mindful of the rights of the Second Division, replied that he would not, even to please his best friend, do an injustice (Mag. Am. Hist., xiv, 573-4). There was a route to the interior via Orizaba, but it was not available for artillery. In reply to Marcy's despatch of March 13, which suggested that the advance be made from Tuxpán, Scott pointed out the impracticability of that plan (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 909).

23.6. In January Gen. R. D. de La Vega was made chief of the Division of the East and provided with an army--mostly of paper. The same month Alonzo Wenghieri offered to furnish 50,000 muskets, 25,000 tercerolas (carbines of a certain kind) and 50,000 swords at reasonable prices, but it is not certain that his offer, though endorsed by the war department, was accepted (=76=to Hacienda, Jan. 14). By March 12, four 16-pounders from Vera Cruz arrived at the national bridge. March 18 orders proper for the situation were despatched to La Vega, but they sound as if issued mainly for form's sake. In February the government attempted to take control of 25,000 National Guards for the purposes of the war (=76=circular Feb. 3); but it soon rescinded that unpalatable assumption of authority, and confined itself to asking state governors for them (=76=circular, Apr. 8).

23.7. March 24 the northern brigades were at Querétaro on their way south (=76=acuerdo,[1] Mar. 24). Rangel's brigade and some artillery left the capital March 28. March 30, 1400 National Guards, who had been turned over to the national government by the governor of the state (=82=Guerra to gov., Apr. 1), left Puebla to join 700 of the same class already at Jalapa, and some 12-pounders were despatched from the former city. These forces were primarily designed to aid in the defence of Vera Cruz by attacking Scott's rear. There was great need of money, especially as the attitude of the clergy was now so dubious that even drafts accepted by them were distrusted (Diario, June 8).

[1] "Acuerdo," frequently to be mentioned hereafter in the Mexican citations, meant the decision of an executive conference, and was applied also to the memorandum embodying the decision. The conferences referred to will usually be those in which the President or at least the Cabinet was concerned.]

23.8. One method of rousing the public was to excite religious fanaticism. A pamphlet, Clamor de las Ovejas, declared that some of the Vera Cruz churches were to be sold to Protestants, others to Mohammedans, others to pigs, others to worshippers of Venus.

23.9. Mexican preparations before Santa Anna arrived on the ground. Courrier Français, Apr. 3, 10, 17. =52=Consul Black, Apr. 25. Davis, Autobiog., 142. =13=Bankhead, no. 34, 1847. Apuntes, 120-2, 168. Revue Indep., Apr. 25, 1845. Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec., 1846. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 574. Diario, Mar. 29; June 8. Monitor Repub., Mar. 31. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 888. Balbontín, Invasión, 105. =94=Canalizo, proclams., Apr. 2, 4. =94=Soto, proclams., Jan. 22; Feb. 5. Regenerador Repub., Mar. 31. =84=Guerra, decree, Feb. 13. =84=Relaciones, circular, Feb. 16. Republicano, Mar. 31. Ramsey, Other Side, 221, note. And from =76= the following (out of a great number). To Rincón, Oct. 10, 11, 1846. To La Vega, Jan. 25; Mar. 18, 20, 27, 1847. Acuerdos, Mar. 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31; Apr. 1. To Gaona, Apr. 1. To Canalizo, Mar. 28, 31; Apr. 1. Gaona, Mar. 18; Apr. 1. Soto, Mar. 7, 22, 26; Apr. 3. G. Gómez, Mar. 18, 19, 25, 26. La Vega, Mar. 22, 24. Canalizo, Mar. 30; Apr. 1, 3. To Soto, Apr. 1. Soto to V. Cruz cong., Dec. 1, 1846. Morales, Oct. 15, 1846; Feb. 2, 6, 1847. Canalizo to his troops, Mar. 29. Guerra, circulars, Feb. 3, 13; Mar. 31; Apr. 8. To comte. gen. Mex., Mar. 25. Canalizo, proclam., Mar. 29. To gov. Puebla, Apr. 1. Gov. Puebla, Mar. 28. A little later Santa Anna had the spiked cannon drawn to Cerro Gordo by cattle.

23.10. The northern wall of the cañon is much more nearly vertical than the southern. The author went down one side and up the other by rough mule paths.

23.11. Accounts differ as to the number of men and guns on each tongue but agree that B was much more strongly guarded than A and C. It had supporting works. After the battle R. E. Lee wrote that the highway was commanded by thirty-five Mexican guns (F. Lee, Gen. Lee, 38). Allowing four for El Telégrafo, five for the battery at the camp, and seven for D, we should have nineteen left for the tongues. In all, according to the chief Mexican artillery officer, there were forty-one pieces, so that Santa Anna was able to send additional guns to his left. There seems to have been a 12-pounder at A, but most of the guns were light. The four 16-pounders were at D, and commanded the highway.

23.12. After the battle Santa Anna reduced his numbers to about 6000 infantry (only about half of them permanent) and 1500 or 2000 cavalry (=76=May 7; Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 112); but on March 20 (=76=to La Vega) he had placed the troops from La Angostura at 6000 (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 194, says 5650) to which must be added at least 2000 from the capital (ibid.), 2000 (besides a brigade that arrived just before the battle) from Puebla (note 23.7), and contingents from Jalapa, Coatepec and other places. Mexican accounts run from Santa Anna's figures up to 15,000 (Republicano, June 1, correspondent). Canalizo, April 3, proclaimed that more than 12,000 were coming, and the troops to whom he referred did not include all who were present. =13=Bankhead placed the number from Mexico at 2500. Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, 195) specifies 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 Line regiments, 1, 2, 3, 4 Ligero regiments, 5 and 9 cavalry, and 12 smaller corps of foot and horse. Canalizo's demand that all citizens rally to the colors does not seem to have been very effective; but many who had given their parole at Vera Cruz were forced to take up arms (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 189). It appears safe to estimate that Santa Anna had at least 10,000, probably 11,000, and quite possibly 12,000 men besides the Puebla brigade under Arteaga, which arrived after the fight had begun. The brigade from Mexico arrived April 11, and the three brigades from the north April 12. After the battle Santa Anna and others attempted to represent the troops as of wretched quality. But certainly he had picked the corps brought from the north, and there is no reason to suppose that the other troops were below the average. Santa Anna pretended that he lacked ammunition, but great quantities were found in the camp after the battle (Oswandel, Notes, 139). The distribution of it was very likely defective, however. It was asserted also that some of the cannon cartridges contained no powder. They should have been inspected. Twenty-nine Irishmen served in the hospital force (=76=acuerdo, Mar. 30). The army was fairly well supplied with money. April 10 38,000 pesos went from the capital, and the bishop of Puebla sent 10,000.

23.13. Santa Anna had water brought from El Encero by a ditch, but it only began to run just as the battle opened.

23.14. Mexican preparations, Apr. 4-16. Delta, May 1. Picayune, May 2. =312=Anaya to S. Anna, Apr. 9. =312=Guerra to gov. Puebla, Apr. 9. =312=Pablo to S. Anna, Apr. 8. =312=Guerra to S. Anna, Apr. 9. =312=Baranda to S. Anna, Apr. 8. Courrier Français, Apr. 17. Repub., Apr. 22; June 1, 9. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 261. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 49. Grant, Mems., i, 134. Apuntes, 121, 169-75. Tributo á la Verdad, 41. S. Anna, Apelación, 33-7. Suárez y Navarro, Causas, 68. Steele, Amer. Campaigns, i, 121. Diario, Mar. 29; Apr. 3, 9, 30; June 10. Gamboa, Impug., 29-32. Ramírez, México, 214, 229. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 157, 189. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 574. Dublán, Legislación, v, 264-5. Monitor Repub., Apr. 24, 27, 28; May 3; Oct. 24. =13=Bankhead, no. 34, Apr. 1. Oswandel, Notes, 139. =82=Pavón, Apr. 29. Sedgwick, Corres., i, 86. =76=Gaona, Apr. 8. =76=To Canalizo, Apr. 2. =76=To S. Anna, Apr. 9. =76=Canalizo, Mar. 29; Apr. 3, 24. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29; May 7. =76=Uraga, May 1. =76=Memorias by heads of war dept., Nov., 1847. =76=Decrees, Apr. 8, 10. =76=A great number of less important papers.

No doubt, as Willisen ("Higher Theory of War") and others have said, combining strategical defensive with tactical defensive is as a rule to be condemned; but here the circumstances were peculiar. The Americans were pursued by the yellow fever, and only a decisive victory could save them from ruin. Hence Santa Anna's policy cannot be censured unceremoniously. Ripley (War with Mexico) gives the name El Telégrafo to La Atalaya, an error that of course leads to much confusion. Robles had a series of objections to the Cerro Gordo position. It could be turned; the rough and woody country made it possible for the enemy to get near; cavalry could not be used; the line was too long; a threatened point could not be easily reinforced; water was lacking; retreat, especially with artillery, would be difficult (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 197-8).

23.15. One of the field batteries was Taylor's; the other was Talcott's howitzer and rocket battery (R. Jones to ordnance dept., Dec. 3, 1846). Steptoe's field battery and a squadron of dragoons accompanied Patterson later. The statement regarding the artillery outfit is from Lieut. Hatch (=213=to father, Apr. 7), who went with Twiggs.

23.16. Scott has been called rash for sending his army forward and exposing it to attack piecemeal. But (1) had it all formed one column it would have been no safer against a raid from some crossroad; (2) had it been attacked in front, numbers would not have signified, and the individual superiority of the Americans as well as their superior artillery would have given them the advantage; and (3) Santa Anna, having possession of such fine defensive positions, was not likely to make a venturesome attack, especially as the battle of Buena Vista had shown how tenaciously the Americans could defend themselves. The two last points bear also upon the criticism that Santa Anna ought to have attacked Twiggs before the arrival of Pillow and Shields (see remark at the end of note 23.14). The volunteer division left Vera Cruz April 9 under Patterson. It consisted of two brigades, for Quitman's men had not sufficient transportation, and probably needed time to recover from the effects of the Alvarado expedition. Capt. Loch, a British naval officer off Vera Cruz, was as much surprised as Scott when it was found that Santa Anna had a large force at Cerro Gordo (=12=to commodore, Apr. 9).

23.17. From the national bridge to Cerro Gordo the pavement was not in very good condition. Above the latter point stone blocks took the place of cement. In places, where these had never been laid, or had been taken up by revolutionists, or had been overlaid with stones by floods, the highway was extremely bad.

23.18. The position looked impregnable but was not, for a besieging force could easily deprive the garrison of provisions and water.

23.19. The march from Vera Cruz to Plan del Rio. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 920-2, 928 (Scott); 921 (gen. orders 94). Hartman, Journal, 10. Picayune, Dec. 9. Delta, May 15. =312=Gutiérrez to gov. Puebla, Apr. 9. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 274 (Twiggs). =217=Henshaw papers. Stapp, Prisoners of Perote, 159-60. Raleigh Star, May 5. =280=Nunelee, diary. =159=Narrative based on papers of F. Collins. =220=Higgins to Clutter, Apr. 1, 1851. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 36-48. Davis, Autobiog., 142-4. Apuntes, 169. Ward, Mexico, i, 12; ii, 177-88. Robertson, Visit, i, 269. Ruxton, Adventures (1849), 22-5. Tudor, Tour, ii, 171-5. Bullock, Six Months (1825), i, 32-42. Orbigny, Voyage, 409-10. Robertson, Remins., 238-40, 242. Latrobe, Rambler, 297. Velasco, Geografía, iii, 28, 37, 54, 64. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 123, 132. Engineer School, U. S. Army, Occas. Papers, no. 16. =291=Pierce, diary. Journal Milit. Service Instit., v, 38 (Coppée). Bishop, Journal. =60=G. W. Smith to Stevens, Apr. 23. Hawthorne, Pierce, 78-85. Steele, Amer. Campaigns, i, 121. =185=Memo. on the route. =356=Whitcomb, diary. Carleton, address. Löwenstern, Le Mexique, 32. =236=Judah, diary. Wash. Union, May 1. Vedette, viii, no. 5. =322=Smith, diary. Norton, Life. =270=Moore, diary. =358=Williams to father, Apr. 21. =152=Claiborne, memoirs. =136=Butterfield, recolls. Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844. =66=Stevens to J. L. Smith, May 7. =66=G. W. Smith to Stevens, May 1. =65=Scott, gen. orders 91. Thompson, recolls., 11-12. Poinsett, Notes, 25-9. =335=Calendario de Ontiveros. =12=Loch to Lambert, Apr. 9. Oswandel, Notes, 108-10, 119. Semmes, Service, 162-75. =256=J. Parrott to Marcy, Apr. 19. =254=McClellan, diary. Mag. Amer. Hist., xiv, 575. Littell, no. 162, p. 546. =139=W. B. Campbell to wife, Apr. 8. Moore, Scott's Camp. =71=Diccionario Universal (Puente Nacional).

23.20. Twiggs and his operations, Apr. 11-13. Maury, Recolls., 29. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 274 (Twiggs). =217=Henshaw papers. Trans. Ills. State Hist. Soc., 1906, p. 181. =159=Narrative based on the papers of Francis Collins. Polk, Diary, Apr. 30. =66=Tower to Twiggs, Apr. 16. =60=Scott (on Twiggs), remarks on a letter from Worth. Id., Mems., ii, 432. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 250. Grant, Mems., i, 131. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 25-6, 51-4. Brackett, U. S. Cavalry, 141. Davis, Autobiog., 143-6. Apuntes, 173-5. Robertson, Remins., 240. =270=Moore, diary. Lancaster Co. Hist. Soc. Mag., Mar. 6, 1908 (Nauman). Bishop, Journal. =210=Bragg to Hammond, Dec. 20, 1847; May 4, 1848. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --; Nov. 28, 1847. =358=Williams to father, Apr. 21. =152=Claiborne, mems. =112=Beauregard to Patterson, Apr. 20. =204=Gouverneur, diary. =66=Tower to Maj. Smith, undated. =273=Mullan, diary. Lee, Lee, 38. =139=W. B. to D. Campbell, Apr. 13. Hist. Teacher's Mag., Apr., 1912, p. 75. Ho. 60; 30, 1; pp. 921 (gen. orders 94); 928 (Scott). So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1852. =170=Crooker to father, Apr. 27. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 268. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 331. Some may ask why Scott put a general like Twiggs forward. Twiggs had a rank and a position that had to be recognized, and his officers and men had their right to see honorable service and win distinction.

23.21. Major J. L. Smith commanded the engineer company of fifty-one men. Lee had ten of the men, and under his direction Lieut. Foster with eight had charge of building the road "located" by Lee. Lieut. Mason also worked on the road. McClellan with ten was assigned to Pillow's command, and G. W. Smith with ten to Harney's (=66=G. W. Smith to I. I. Stevens, Apr. 23). Tower had charge of the reconnoitring on the Mexican right.

23.22. I. I. Stevens, one of the engineer officers, =66=reporting on May 7, stated in the most distinct manner that according to this plan El Telégrafo was not to be attacked before the highway in its rear should have been occupied in strength, and that insistence upon this point constituted the essential difference between this plan and the operations previously suggested by Beauregard. Scott wrote to Marcy (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 261) that he had intended to turn the Mexican position and attack in the rear. He clearly indicated as much in his Memoirs (ii, 432), and his orders for the battle were that Twiggs's division, supposed to be already near the highway, should move before daybreak to occupy it, while the orders only contemplated an attack in front as likely to be made before 10 o'clock. It was well understood in the army that his plan was to bag Santa Anna's army, and this implied--since some of the Mexicans were likely to retire early--that the way of escape must be cut off before a frontal attack should be launched. Stevens tried to reach the highway via the Mexican right, but was taken ill and had to return (Stevens, Stevens, i, 124).

23.23. Scott's operations, Apr. 12-16. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 261 (Scott). Picayune, May 1, 2. =217=Henshaw papers. A Soldier's Honor, 24. Trans. Ills. State Hist. Soc., 1906, p. 181. =159=Narrative based on the papers of F. Collins. Scott, Mems., ii, 432. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 250. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 56-8. Davis, Autobiog., 144-8. Bishop, Journal. =322=Smith, diary. =112=Beauregard to Patterson, Apr. 20. =111=Stevens to J. L. Smith, May 7. =111=G. W. Smith to Stevens, Apr. 23. =111=Tower to J. L. Smith, undated. =111=Mason to J. L. Smith, Apr. 24. =65=Scott, gen. orders 105, 111. =332=Tennery, diary. McCabe, Lee, 19, note. =12=Loch to Lambert, Apr. 9. Oswandel, Notes, 113-5. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 122-4. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 929 (Scott); 939 (Twiggs); 940 (Pillow).

23.24. The range had to be estimated (=322=W. B. Smith, diary), and perhaps it was not easy to rectify the estimate by seeing where the shot struck. Many of them flew much too high.

23.25. Scott's orders for the battle gave no directions for such a charge. His plan was to place Twiggs's division and Shields's brigade, supported by Worth's command, on the highway in Santa Anna's rear and attack from that quarter. From one of his reports it appears that he made some suggestion to Twiggs about the possibility of a frontal attack on El Telégrafo--presumably in the case of some unlooked-for turn of events; but he did not expect that officer to create the turn. The charge seems to have been ordered by Scott during the night (=213=Hatch to father, Apr. 21). To be sure, Scott's orders spoke of a frontal attack, but evidently the reference was to Pillow's movement.

The officers of the Rifles were taken by Polk from civil life. Scott offset this by having Major Sumner of the Second Dragoons, a veteran and able soldier, command the corps; but as Sumner had been disabled on Saturday, Major Loring was now at its head. When moving from shelter he exposed his men to being enfiladed by the enemy's cannon, and the other troops actually cried out, "That's the way to murder men" (=218=Henshaw). This illustrates how political appointments are likely to work on the firing line. The Rifles were expected to join in the attack on El Telégrafo after repulsing the enemy on the left, but a part of them were unable to do so (p. 352).

23.26. Events of Apr. 17-18 {except Pillow's operations). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 255-95, 298 (Scott's orders; reports of himself and officers). Maury, Recolls., 37, 44. Hartman, Journal, 11. M'Sherry, El Puchero, 221-3. Picayune, May 1, 6, 9, 19. Delta, May 1, 15; June 18. =252=Mackall to father, Apr. 18. =335=Trist, May 7, 25. =217=Henshaw papers. Trans. Ills. State Hist. Soc., 1905, p. 213; 1906, pp. 182-3. =159=Narrative based on F. Collins papers. =6=Riley court of inquiry. =60=Plympton to Scott, July 27. =60=E. K. Smith to Plympton, July 23. =60=J. R. Smith to Polk, Nov. 30, 1848. =60=Twiggs to J. R. Smith, Nov. 9, 1848. =60=Morris to J. R. Smith, Nov. 15, 1848. =66=Russell court of inquiry: orders 155. =223=Hirschorn, recolls. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 46-52, 98-114. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 251-2. Grant, Mems., i, 132. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 59-84, 88, 90-1. Davis, Autobiog., 148-52, 155-8. Apuntes, 175-83. Tributo á la Verdad, 42, 49, 62, 136. S. Anna, Apelación, 34-41. Id., Manifiesto, 1847, 7. Eye witness, Complete History, 79-80. Robertson, Remins., 248-52. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 137-40, 267. Engineer School, U. S. Army, Occas. Papers, no. 16. N. Y. Times, July 16, 1916 (Worth). Bishop, Journal. Nebel and Kendall, 24-5. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 67-8. =66=G. W. Smith to Stevens, Apr. 23. Mansfield, Mex. War, 195. =210=Bragg to Hammond, May 4, 1848. =254=McClellan, diary; to sister, Apr. 22. Diario, Apr. 28, 30; May 20; June 10, 23, 30. Republicano, Apr. 21, 23, 27; June 9; July 10. =84=Ampudia to gov. S. L. Potosí, Oct. 10. Gamboa, Impug., 30. Kenly, Md. Vol., 337. Ramírez, México, 227-9, 231, 261. =298=Porter, diary. London Times, June 15. Wash. Union, May 10, 11; Oct. 23. Monitor Repub., Apr. 20, 23, 24, 27; May 3, 6; Nov. 1, 30. Spirit of the Times, May 29; June 5. =124=Blocklenger, recolls. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --. Vedette, ii, no. 2. =322=Smith, diary. =307=Roberts to wife, Apr. 21. =178=Davis, diary. =270=Moore, diary. =358=Williams to father, Apr. 21. =152=Claiborne, memoirs. =112=Beauregard to Patterson, Apr. 20. =66=Stevens to J. L. Smith, May 7. =66=Tower to J. L. Smith, undated. =66=Mason to J. L. Smith, Apr. 24. Arnold, Jackson, 87. =66=G. W. Smith to Lee, Apr. 20. =66=Lee to Twiggs, undated. =65=Scott, gen. orders 249. =60=Riley to Westcott, Nov. 30. =332=Tennery, diary. Giménez, Apología. Ho. 85; 30, 1. Journal U. S. Artill., 1892, pp. 419-20. Lee, Gen. Lee, 38. Oswandel, Notes, 116, 122-8. Semmes, Service, 178-81, 183. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 887-94. =82=Soto to gov. Puebla, Apr. 18. =82=Pavón to Puebla sec. state, Apr. 29. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1089 (Hitchcock). Niles, May 22, pp. 183, 188. =148=Chamberlain, recolls. Elderkin, Biog. Sketches, 66. Journ. Mil. Serv. Instit., xlii, 128. Henderson, Science of War, 215. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 126. Smithwick, Evolution, 286. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 17, 21; May 7. =76=Canalizo, Apr. 18, 21. =76=Carrera, May 1. =76=Circular, Apr. 20. =76=Ampudia, Apr. 25. =76=To Brito, May 25. =76=Alvarez, Oct. 28. =76=Canalizo to Villaba & Co., Apr. 24; to son, Apr. 24. =76=Memorias by heads of depts., Nov., 1847.

REMARKS on the battle (April 18). The perfect confidence displayed in Scott's orders for the battle is noteworthy. No doubt it had a great effect on the troops. The orders to Worth were rather vague. Probably this was because the course of the battle was expected to indicate how his division could be used to the best advantage, but possibly on account of his intense jealousy of Twiggs it was not deemed wise to say clearly that he was to support Twiggs. In fact he followed Twiggs, ascended El Telégrafo, saw the white flag at the tongues, and sent Harney and Childs (Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 74) to accept the surrender of the Mexican right wing. The movement assigned to Twiggs was hazardous, but the military quality of Santa Anna and the Mexican troops was now well understood.

General Shields was struck by a grape shot that passed through the upper part of his body; and his recovery, due to high surgical skill and the most devoted nursing, seemed almost miraculous. When Shields fell, Col. E. D. Baker took command. Canalizo was ordered to charge Shields's brigade; but the ground was only partly cleared, and Santa Anna reported that a charge was not practicable. Canalizo was, however, accused by many of causing the Mexican defeat by letting the Americans reach the highway. He could have dismounted all his cavalry, as he did his cuirassiers, and 2000 fresh troops--especially if aided by those at the tongues--might have done a good deal; but probably he believed that the battle had already been lost. When Shields's men approached the highway they came upon a party of Mexican surgeons, and on learning their business became instantly, according to the surgeons, their friends and protectors (Diario, Apr. 30). The chief Mexican surgeon stated that the Americans made no distinction between the two nationalities in bringing wounded men to the hospitals (Courrier Français, May 5). Worth's command, deprived of its expected share in the battle through Twiggs's departure from Scott's plan, played the part of a reserve. Harney's charge may have been launched just when it was because a thinning out of the summit of El Telégrafo (probably due to sending troops against Riley) led to the belief that the La Atalaya guns were doing great execution (Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 81). Harney placed the Seventh Infantry on his right, deploying some of the men as skirmishers to guard that flank, and the Third on his left, protected by the Rifles. (In consequence of Loring's incompetence (=213=Hatch to father, Apr. 21) the Rifles did not charge in a body or effectively.) This line was supported by the First Artillery. Some of Harney's men joined with Riley's in capturing the minor crest. The La Atalaya battery fired over the heads of the charging Americans as long as this appeared to be safe. Vázquez died bravely at his post, whereas a number of high Mexican officers proved recreant. After the fighting began near the summit of El Telégrafo the Mexican cannon placed there could not be used, for they would have injured Mexicans as well as Americans. Santa Anna appears to have done all in his power to stem the tide of defeat. About 1000 Puebla men under Gen. Arteaga arrived during the battle. They were placed at the headquarters battery, but took flight early. S. Anna's line was about a mile and a half long.

23.27. It has been argued that Pillow's attack should have been a "mere feint," i.e. threat. But (1) Scott had reason to fear that the purpose of a "mere feint" would be detected as soon as the grand battle should begin, and that the feint would fail of its purpose (see Donaldson and Becke, 387); and (2) Pillow had troops of superior mettle, who probably would not have been satisfied to make a mere threat (Nebel and Kendall, 25, note). In ordering this attack Scott violated Napoleon's principle, which was to turn the enemy's flank without dividing his own army (Johnston, Foundations, 180), but the circumstances warranted doing so. In particular Santa Anna had shown that he did not wish to be aggressive, and Scott intended to keep him busy (see Hamley, Operations, 160).

23.28. Pillow had also a few Tennessee horse and (attached to Haskell's regiment) a Kentucky company--in all about 2000 men (Robertson, Remins., 244).

23.29. The text is based primarily on the full and minute account given in the diary of George B. McClellan (who accompanied Pillow and whose integrity and technical ability will not be questioned) and the following documents: reports of Engineers Stevens (=66=May 7) and Tower (=66=undated); Haskell and sixteen officers (Picayune, May 29); Haskell (ib., June 28); Pillow, reply (ib., June 9); Id., =61=substitute report, May 29 (to take the place of his published report, which he admitted was not correct); =139=letters of Col. Campbell, an able and fair man (who said privately the affair was most badly managed; also that Pillow was no general, and on the field had no judgment or decision); =224=Williams to Hitchcock, June 4, 1849; Wynkoop, July 16, in Picayune, Sept. 19; Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 125 (Stevens says, e.g., that Pillow's attack failed because "made prematurely, with great precipitation, without order in the assaulting columns, and before the supporting columns were in position, and at the wrong point," and that it, "both as to time and as to direction, was earnestly remonstrated against by the engineer officer directing the attack, by the personal staff of the general, and by Col. Campbell, second in command"). Of course Ripley, who wrote his history of the war in consultation with Pillow, gives a misleading account of this affair as of others.

The author used also the following sources: Sen. 51; 32, 1. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 257 (Scott); 258 (orders 111); 294 (Patterson); 296 (Pillow). =217=Henshaw papers. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 109. =69=Pillow to adj. gen., June 25, 1848. =69=Ripley to adj. gen., June 25, 1848. =66=Tower to Twiggs, Apr. 16. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 50. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 251. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 593. Grant, Mems., i, 133. Davis, Autobiog., 146. Apuntes, 173, 181. Weekly Courier and N. Y. Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848. Robertson, Remins., 244-8. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 139. =293=Pillow to wife, June 9. =293=Rains to Mrs. Pillow, Apr. 18. Republicano, June 9, 24. Picayune, May 9; Sept. 11. México á través, iv, 654. Hillard, McClellan, 18, 19. Nat. Intelligencer, June 11. Monitor Repub., June 24. =358=Williams to father, Apr. 21. Vedette, viii, no. 5. Oswandel, Notes, 110-1, 122-35. Semmes, Service, 182-3. Hitchcock in semi-weekly Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. =100=Mata, Apr. 18. =82=Pavón to Puebla sec. state, Apr. 29. =288=Tapper to wife, May 3. Niles, June 5, p. 219; Oct. 2, p. 75. Boston Atlas, Dec. 13. Griepenkerl, Applied Tactics, 116. =316=Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Johnstone, Foundations, 180. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1852. =181=Armstrong to Donelson, July 4. =139=Cummings to Campbell, May 12; June 13. =76=Carrera, May 1. =76=S. Anna, May 7. The reason why reversing the regiments caused trouble seems to have been that infantry were accustomed to man[oe]uvre and fight in a certain formation, and felt awkward if the right was unexpectedly brought out on the left. As Wynkoop had farther to march than Haskell and did not wish to attack before his support was in position, placing Campbell third in the line of march involved a delay. One derives a lesson on the value of official reports from Patterson's representation that Pillow was wounded while gallantly leading his brigade (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 295).

23.30. The American soldiers were not pleased with this policy. The American government expressed itself against it and, placing an undeserved value on Mexican officers, ordered that no more of them should be paroled except for special reasons. It is probably enough to say that Scott was in the best position to judge; but one may remark that Santa Anna's difficulty was not so much to obtain men as to obtain arms. Further grounds for releasing them are mentioned in Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 257. According to Gen. Pavón, Gen. La Vega and twenty-four other officers were not paroled. Some six declined to give their paroles. Among the spoils were a large amount of ammunition, $11,791.19 in cash (Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 24), and a wooden leg (supposed to have belonged to Santa Anna) now preserved in the capitol at Springfield, Ill.

23.31. Pursuit, losses, prisoners, spoils. Ho. 60; 30, 1, 948, 1012, 1221 (Scott); 1089 (Hitchcock); 1233 (Marcy). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 258 (gen. orders 111); 262 (Scott); 276, 278, 283, etc. Scott, Mems., ii, 443. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 253. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, 86-7, 106-7. Tributo á la Verdad, 62. Bustamante, N. Bernal, ii, 189. S. Anna, Apelación, 40. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 140, 179. Ho. 24; 31, 1. Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 37. Republicano, Apr. 27.; June 9. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 122, 136. Courrier Français, May 5. México á través, iv, 655. Monitor Repub., Apr. 24; May 6. =322=Smith, diary. Williams to father, Apr. 21. =152=Claiborne, mems. =332=Tennery, diary. =82=Pavón to Puebla sec. state, Apr. 29. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 16. Niles, May 15, p. 164; May 29, p. 201. McClellan, diary. Nebel and Kendall, 25. Robertson, Remins., 249, 253. =76=Carrera, Apr. 27; May 1. =76=Ampudia, Apr. 25. =76=Canalizo, Apr. 18. =76=Id., undated. =76=S. Anna, May 7. =76=Junta directiva, May 3. =76=G. Gómez to Gaona, Apr. 18. The cavalry appear to have been late in beginning the pursuit. Ripley (War, etc., ii, 75) says Scott was so busy that he forgot to send for the cavalry, but Scott's orders for the battle put the responsibility on the commander of that corps, which was placed in reserve on the highway with a field battery (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 259). In places, too, they found the highway cut or blocked.

23.32. A deputation of the ayuntamiento met Patterson (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 296), and were promised protection on condition that no liquor should be sold to the troops. The term "nondescript costumes" applies primarily to the volunteers, but probably some of the regulars had lost parts of their outfits.

23.33. Scott's report was a model in concealing facts; and Worth, writing to a member of his family, called it "a lie from beginning to end." Gen. U. S. Grant, doubtless recording without investigation his early impressions, wrote in his Personal Memoirs (i, 132): "Perhaps there was not a battle of the Mexican war, or of any other, where orders issued before an engagement were nearer being a correct report of what afterwards took place," and such has been the accepted opinion, though a thoughtful comparison of the orders with Scott's own report (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 258, 261) is enough to disprove this view. For example, Scott in his orders, intending to attack from the enemy's rear, assigned no troops to the frontal attack on El Telégrafo, which was the main feature of the actual battle. Unpublished documents of a wholly unbiassed character disprove it still further. As two more illustrations, the artillery, for which infinite trouble was taken to make a passable road, did not figure at all in the battle (though a section of Taylor's battery went that way in season to join in the pursuit), and a court of inquiry declared that Riley's brigade, which played a most important rôle, was diverted from its original destination--a finding approved by Scott (=65=gen. orders 249). Robert Anderson said that if Scott's orders had been carried out, not a Mexican would have escaped (Lawton, Artillery Officer, 137); and Davis, Shields's aide, stated that Twiggs failed to execute Scott's orders and disappointed Scott's expectations (Autobiography, 148). See also notes 22 and 25. It is possible that one reason why Scott in his report commended Twiggs's course was that, even if satisfied as to the practicability of his own plan, he did not care to raise an issue on that question. Obviously it would have been impossible to prove now that the plan was practicable, and a bitter, harmful controversy would have resulted. That on general principles such an exposure of the American flank was very hazardous could not be denied.

23.34. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 296 (Patterson). =217=Henshaw papers. =159=Narrative based on F. Collins papers. Robertson, Remins., 253-7. Ruxton, Adventures (1847), 16. (King Death) Griffis, Perry, 217. =298=Porter, diary. Monitor Repub., Apr. 24, 27. =322=Smith, diary. =66=G. W. Smith to Stevens, May 1. Oswandel, Notes, 140. =256=J. Parrott to Marcy, Apr. 19. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 948 (Scott). =254=McClellan, diary. Ramírez, México, 260.

XXIV. PUEBLA

24.1. Worth's advance. Henshaw narrative. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 255. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 154. Davis, Autobiog., 173. Delta, July 8. Picayune, May 19. =159=Collins papers, Apr. 21; June 19. México á través, iv, 655. Tornel, Breve Reseña, 345. Robertson, Visit, i, 303. Orbigny, Voyage, 411. Lyon, Journal, ii, 181. Balbontín, Estado, 22. Velasco, Geografía, iii, 97, 99. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 141-4. Robertson, Remins., 276. =68=Scott to Worth, May 6. Colección de Itinerarios. Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844. Oswandel, Notes, 162. Semmes, Service, 217-22. =139=W. B. to D. Campbell, Apr. 25. =185=Memo. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 261 (Scott); 300 (Worth). Ramírez, México, 228-9. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 236-9. =254=McClellan to sister, Apr. 22. =236=Judah, diary. Moore, Scott's Campaign, 10-2. Norton, Life. Diccionario Universal (Las Vigas and Perote). =327=Sutherland to father, undated. Ward, Mexico, ii, 193-5. Green, Journal, 238. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 944-6, 948 (Scott). =364=Worth to daughter, Apr. 30. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 58, 60, 110. Tributo á la Verdad, 43-6. =76=Gaona, Mar. 4, 8, 15; Apr. 8, 19. =76=To Id., Apr. 17. =76=Canalizo, Apr. 21, 24, etc. =76=Baneneli, Apr. 24. =76=Bravo, Apr. 23. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 27. The distance from Jalapa to Perote was called about thirty miles.

24.2. "Convoy" will be used to signify a line of wagons or pack-mules or both transporting merchandise or supplies under escort. Among the difficulties in getting articles from the coast were the sandy road, the heat, the weakness and insufficient number of animals, the shortage of wagons, and above all the want of good drivers and conductors (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 127). Scott had supposed that successive bodies of new troops would escort the convoys up, but the diversion of these to the Rio Grande for some time (in consequence of S. Anna's advance against Taylor) made it necessary to weaken his forces by sending escorts from Jalapa (=61=Scott to Wilson, Apr. 26). The policy of treating the Mexicans kindly required more self-support and therefore larger trains than would otherwise have been necessary. Moreover, in order to avoid a reverse, which would have had consequences of peculiar gravity in Mexico, Scott had to avoid risks.

24.3. It has been argued (e.g. by Semmes) that Scott was in fact able to obtain subsistence from the country all the spring and summer, and therefore the matter involved no difficulties (Service, 208); but Scott had to ascertain beforehand through agents (Delta, May 18) both that subsistence existed and that it could be obtained; and to make the success of his precautions a basis for asserting that he should not have waited to take them, is unreasonable. Scott said later that he might have rushed ahead by depending upon the provisions near at hand, but that within a week the army would have had to scatter and fight for supplies (Mems., ii, 553). The resources of the country were found to be mostly at a distance from the line of march (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 949). Time was required to select intelligent, reliable agents, and they needed time to go and come. A particular reason for deliberation lay in the fact that the new crops would not be ready before about the middle of June. It should be added that some statements of Semmes and others regarding material elements of the situation are contradicted by Scott's reports written at the time. Semmes was probably influenced by Worth, whose aide he was.

24.4. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 904. Marcy forgot this when he severely censured Scott for dismissing the men before their time was out (ibid., 1245).

24.5. By the =61=field return of May 7 Scott had: Engineer Co. (Smith), 43; Ordnance Co. (Huger), 60; First Div. (Worth), 2331; Second Div. (Twiggs), 2216; Dragoons (Harney), 433; volunteers (Quitman), 2030. The disparity between Scott's numbers as figured at Washington and his numbers as counted at the front is suggested by the fact that on April 26 his volunteers (aside from those now discharged) were estimated by the adjutant general as 4994 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 928). The regiments that went home were the Georgia, the Alabama, the Third and Fourth Illinois, and the First, Second and Third Tennessee.

24.6. Scott at Jalapa (except his proclamation, etc.: Note 8. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 910, 944-8, 954-8, 1221 (Scott); 983-92; 950 (H. L. Scott); 904, 953, 1241 (Marcy); 967 (Worth). =61=Scott to Wilson, Apr. 26. =68=Worth court of inquiry, proceedings. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, i, 278; ii, 118-23, 126-7, 129-30, 143-4. =66=Beauregard to Smith, May 10. =52=Trist to Buchanan, May 7. Davis, Autobiog., 164-6. Hartman, Journal, 13. =330=Scott to Cadwalader, Apr. 25. =304=Patterson, orders 10, May 1. (The district) Robertson, Visit, i, 278; Ruxton, Adventures (1915), 56; Kendall, Narrative (N. Y., 1844), ii, 398; Orbigny, Voyage, 410; Lyon, Journal, ii, 186; Velasco, Geografía, iii, 99. =362=G. A. Worth to Van Buren, May 20. Robertson, Remins, 261, 275. Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844. =218=Henshaw narrative. Löwenstern, Le Mexique, 26. =68=Scott to Worth, May 6. =65=Scott, gen. orders 128, 129, 135-6, Apr. 30, 30; May 4, 5. =332=Tennery, diary. Thompson, Recolls., 13. Oswandel, Notes, 142, 149, 152. Sen. 14; 30, 1, p. 6 (Scott). Semmes Service, 189-90, 207-10. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528 (Hitchcock). =139=W. B. to D. Campbell, Nov. 2, 1846. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 124, 129 (Scott). Picayune, May 4, 7, 11; Nov. 14. Steele, Amer. Campaigns, i, 110. =335=Scott to Trist, July 21, 1848. =61=Field report, May 7, 1847. =61=Scott to Wilson, May 2. Moore, Scott's Camp., 68. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 236. =322=Smith, diary. =270=Moore, diary. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Polk, Message, Feb. 13 (Richardson, iv, 515). Scott, Mems., ii, 452, 466, 553. London Times, Aug. 6. Diario, Aug. 5. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 16. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 133, 135. (Bounty) U. S. Statutes at Large, ix, 184. Upton, Mil. Policy, 215. So. Qtrly. Review, Apr., 1852, 376-85. =6l=Scott, memo., Nov. 29, 1846 (12 new regts.). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 45-6. =364=Worth to daughter, Apr. 30. Bishop, Journal. =112=Beauregard to Smith, May 2. Negrete, Invasion, iii, app., 60. =60=Scott to Marcy, Apr. 5. Stevens, Campaigns, 16. =139=Five colonels to Scott, May 1. =62=Adj. gen. to Brooke, May 29. (Govt. will move) =76=To S. Anna, Apr. 21.

The Spanish minister reported that if Scott had been prepared to attack the capital immediately after April 18, he could have taken it without a shot (no. 517, June 29). Patterson left the army at this time because the return of so many volunteers destroyed his command, and Pillow left because he had been appointed a major general and wished to bring on his division. Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 514) says Scott could have established a garrison of 4000 at Mexico and held the city. But assassinations and sickness would soon have reduced his numbers. Parties sent out for provisions and forage would have been cut off. The Mexicans, not yet thoroughly beaten, would have been encouraged by the isolation of so weak a force, as they had been by the size of Taylor's army. They might have been able to starve out the garrison. The result would probably have been at best that a rescue-army would have had to fight its way to the capital without the assistance of Scott, his regular officers and his veteran troops. He had no right to take such a risk, especially when it seemed very doubtful whether success in holding the capital would signify much.

24.7. This agent, whose name has been given as Campos and (probably correctly) as Campomanes, appears to have been the parish priest of Jalapa (Baz, Juárez, 47, note). The paper, which was printed first in Spanish and then in English (=76=Hitchcock to Worth, May 12), may be summarized as follows: It is my duty, Mexicans, to make known certain facts that are purposely concealed from you. For the sake not only of ourselves but of the whole American continent and of republican institutions, we of the United States made every effort consistent with honor to adjust our difficulties with Mexico, but the patriotic Herrera was thrown from power, and the new government, ignoring your interests in order to further its monarchical designs, compelled my nation to take up arms. Like you, we hoped that good would result from the overthrow of Paredes, and therefore we permitted Santa Anna to return; but, again like you perhaps, we were mistaken as to his intentions. What has followed, you know. Your troops, whose devotion and valor we admire, have been badly led, and even betrayed or deceived; and he has not only rewarded those who waged civil war at Mexico, but insulted the brave defenders of Vera Cruz. Recently the battle at Cerro Gordo showed what you may expect from him. Everywhere generals long supported in idleness by the nation have exhibited a lack of honor or skill, while the dead or wounded soldiers, abandoned on the field, have not been given by their leaders even the poor recompense of a grave. The clergy and all other peaceable and useful citizens have been, and still are, taxed, menaced and sacrificed, whereas criminals go unpunished. Can this be called liberty? The Mexicans, I am sure, have the courage to admit mistakes that involve no dishonor, and to adopt for the future a policy of peace, of liberty and of harmony with their brethren of the United States. My troops, as your bishops and priests will testify, have not committed the outrages alleged against us for the purpose of exciting your anger. We adore the same God as you, and many of our people and of our army are Roman Catholics. We punish crime and reward merit; we respect property--especially that of the Church--and we seek your friendship. Abandon prejudice, then; cease to be victims of the ambitious; act as a great American nation. If, however, the war must go on, my country will send--should they be needed--100,000 men, and settle the pending difficulties in a decisive manner. Guerilla warfare, should it be persisted in, would lead to reprisals, and you could not blame us for your sufferings. I have set out for Puebla and Mexico, and shall certainly reach those places; but my desire is peace, friendship, union. It is for you to choose between these and war (Tributo á la Verdad, doc. 18).

It has been said that this proclamation, by opening old political sores and insulting the Mexicans, did more harm than good (Southern Quarterly Review, April, 1852, p. 394); but (1) even the formal reply made to it admitted its truth, and the facts outlasted any temporary resentment that may have been produced in some minds; (2) it was intended for the common people, with whom plain, solid interests had more influence than high-flown sentiments of pride; (3) the clericals, who suggested the contents of the proclamation, were shrewd men; (4) the fury of Santa Anna against it (=76=May 18) is sufficient evidence that he saw it would injure him; and (5) we have direct proof that it was received eagerly by the Mexicans. See, for example, Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 240-1.

Closely allied with the clerical party were the monarchists, who, though comparatively few, wielded much influence on account of their wealth and social position. They had good reason to fear the United States but they hated Santa Anna; and it was suspected that they wished the people to realize that without European aid they were helpless.

Among minor matters attended to by Scott at Jalapa were the establishment of a battery commanding the city, and the creation of the military department of Jalapa (Plan del Río to La Hoya, inclusive).

24.8. The understanding with the clericals, etc. (Beach) =56=Report, June 4; N. Y. Sun, May 19, 22. (Agent) Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 255-6; =68=Id. to Worth, May 10; Baz, Juárez, 47, note; Apuntes, 192; Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 125 (Scott). Tributo á la Verdad, 49, 54, 56 and doc. no. 18 (proclam. of May 11). S. Anna, Apelación, 41-3. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 311. Consideraciones, 3, 7, 22-3. (Priests tolerant) Kendall, Narrative (N. Y., 1844), ii, 341-3; Consideraciones, 32, 37; Lawton, Artill. Officer, 160-1, 175. (True) =13=Bankhead, no. 57, May 29; Impug. del Manif. London Times, July 15. Apuntes, 193. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 127 (Marcy). Ramírez, México, 239, 256-7, 263, 272. México á través, iv, 661. =236=Judah, diary, May 2, 6, 17, 26. =95=Protest, Apr. 12. Monitor del Pueblo, Apr. 29. =95=Sánchez, proclam., Apr. 29. =95=Orders, May 8. =95=Ayunt., proceedings. Picayune, June 30. =82=Otero, proclam., Apr. 26. =82=Baranda to gov., Apr. 24 and reply (draft). =82=Isunza, proclam., May 13. (Crowning) Scott, Mems., ii, 549. (Proclam. of May 11) Wash. Union, June 12. Courrier des Etats Unis, May 22. Mata, Reflecciones. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 967, 995 (Worth); 968 (proclam.) Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 190. =76=Winette, statement, May 2. =76=To S. Anna, May 14. =76=S. Anna, May 18. =76=Hitchcock to Worth, May 12 (intercepted). =76=Fúrlong, May 17.

24.9. His intellectual plane is suggested by the fact that after the battle he promptly sent instructions to his mistress but not to his second in command (=76=Canalizo, Apr. 24).

24.10. At this juncture appeals were again made to the Roman Catholics, particularly the Irish, of the American army, and apparently 2-300 deserted while at Jalapa (Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 144). One appeal said, "Are Catholic Irishmen to be the destroyers of Catholic temples, the murderers of Catholic priests, and the founders of heretical rites i this pious country?" A large amount of money seems to have been collected by Santa Anna at this time. The Manifiesto of Vera Cruz State (Monitor Republicano, Dec. 19, 1847) asserted that in fifteen days he obtained 120,000 pesos, though he said (May 9) he had received less than 25,000 (Gamboa, Impug., 35).

24.11. Santa Anna's flank position was even more favorable than Washington's at Morristown. While he lingered near Vera Cruz, Scott could not feel safe, and his trains were in imminent danger. Had he remained there, Scott, whose small numbers would not have permitted him to send an adequate detachment to Orizaba, might have felt compelled to go there with his whole army, and much embarrassment might have resulted (Steele, American Campaigns, i, 125-6. W. B. Lane, The United Service, June, 1896, p. 485. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, 146).

24.12. Santa Anna's operations till he reached Puebla. Only the principal documents can be cited here. Tributo á la Verdad, 48-9, 54, 136. Picayune, May 6. Diario Sept. 10. =312=Guerra to S. Anna, Apr. 8. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 265-7, 570, 634. S. Anna, Apelación, app., 72-3, 76. =366=Id., Address to Amer. soldiers, Apr. --. Id., Detall, 8. Defensa de ... Estrada. S. Anna, Manifiesto, Mar. 24, 1848. =12=Loch to admiralty, Apr. 20, 1847. Apuntes, 183-91. Gamboa, Impug., 36. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 274. =13=Bankhead, no. 42, 1847. Courrier Français, May 5. Ramírez, México, 261. México á través, iv, 660-1. =88=Córdoba ayunt., proceedings, Apr. 26-9. =82=Official docs., Apr. 20-30. =82=Prefect of Matamoros, Apr. 26. (Indians) =82=Prefect Tlapa, May 13. Republicano, May 4. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Nat. Intelligencer, June 2. Monitor Repub., May 4, 23. (Tlacotálpam) Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 547. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 190. S. Anna, Comunic. Oficial. Carreño, Jefes, cclxx. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 260. =76=Carrera, Apr. 27. (Chiquihuite.) =76=Acuerdo, Mar. 29; =76=Soto, Apr. 3; =76=to Soto, Apr. 1. =76=Canalizo, Apr. 21, 24, 28. =76=To S. Anna, Apr. 21. =76=To Canalizo, Apr. 21. =76=To Bravo, Apr. 21. =76=Fúrlong, May 9. =76=Gov. to comte. gen. Oaxaca, May 4. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 27. =76=Id. to Rosa, Feb. 5, 1848.

24.13. Santa Anna's operations after he reached Puebla (except the Amozoc fight). Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 250-2, 255, Tributo á la Verdad, 49-53, 56-7. S. Anna, Apelación, 41-3. Id., Detall, 8. =166=Pommarès to Conner, Aug. 29, 1846, confid. Donnavan, Adventures, 99. Dos Palabras. London Times, July 9. Apuntes, 192-3. Gamboa, Impug., 33-5. Ramírez, México, 260, 282. México á través, iv, 661. =95=Protest, Apr. 12. Monitor del Pueblo, Apr. 29. =82=Comte. gen. to gov., May 10. =82=Letter to secy., May 11. =95=Puebla ayunt., proceedings, May 10-15. =82=Isunza, proclam., May 12. =199=S. Anna to Giménez, May 15. Diario, May 10. Monitor Repub., May 13, 23; Dec. 12. Baz, Juárez, 47, note. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 190. =312=Bishop Puebla to S. Anna, Apr. 8. =76=S. Anna, Apr. 27, 29; May 11, 15. =76=To S. Anna, Apr. 20, 30. =76=To Bravo, Apr. 21. =76=To Gaona, Apr. 21. =76=Carrera, Apr. 23. =76=Fúrlong, May 9. =76=S. Anna to Rea, May 12.

24.14. The American advance to Puebla (including the Amozoc fight). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 944-8, 957 (Scott); 967, 994 (Worth). =61=Scott to Wilson, Apr. 23. =218=Henshaw narrative. Tributo á la Verdad, 50. Scott, Mems., ii, 460. Grant, Mems., i, 135. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 159, 161, 175-6. S. Anna, Apelación, 41-2. =303=Worth to Quitman, May 10. =159=Collins papers, May 20; July 3-8. Robertson, Visit, i, 312. Orbigny, Voyage, 412. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 145, 156, 162, 170-4, 207-8. Journal Milit. Serv. Instit., xvii (Van Deusen). Löwenstern, Le Méxique, 31. Smith, To Mexico, 153, 163, 165 (nothing in U. S. equal to Puebla), 166. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 527. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 191, 276. =213=Hatch to father, June 3. =68=Scott to Worth, May 6. Colección de Itinerarios. Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844. Semmes, Service, 225-6, 230-7. Apuntes, 193-6. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 125 (Scott). Gamboa, Impug., 36. México á través, iv, 662. =236=Judah, diary. Moore, Scott's Camp., 84-96. Rosa, Impresiones, passim. =270=Moore, diary. Steele, Amer. Camps., i, 107, 110. Diario, May 16. Ward, Mexico, ii, 201. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 140, 142. =364=Worth to daughter, Apr. 30. =76=Prefect of S. J. de los Llanos, May 11. =76=Comte. milit. Huamantla, Apr. 29. =76=To Bravo, Apr. 26. =76=Fúrlong, May 5. =76=Bravo, Apr. 23. =76=S. Anna, May 13, 15. =76=To S. Anna, May 14. =76=S. Anna to Rea, May 12. And others.

Santa Anna, to justify his course, said he felt compelled to leave Puebla on account of the unfavorable local conditions and the approach of the Americans (Detall, 8). Worth did not have outposts and scouts on the alert, as he should have had, at Amozoc, and knew nothing about the roads (Stevens, Stevens, i, 142). Scott's delay showed that he did not feel strong enough to advance to the capital. That city was therefore in no danger from his army. If Santa Anna, instead of going there, had now gathered all the Mexican strength between Puebla and Vera Cruz and prevented reinforcements from reaching Scott, the latter would have been in a hard position.

24.15. The Puebla ayuntamiento archives contain the agreement signed at Chachapa by Worth. Later he sought to modify this (=68=orders 31), calling it merely a memorandum (=68=to H. L. Scott, June 16), and on May 20 he signed a new =95=version. Naturally the Pueblans held to the former (=68=Dorán to Scott, June 17). For general orders 20 see p. 455.

24.16. Semmes represents Worth's régime as entirely satisfactory to the civil authorities (Service, 275). This illustrates the fact that caution is necessary in reading what he says when Worth is concerned, for the records of the ayuntamiento give a different impression. For Worth's characteristics see chap. xii, note 12.8. The Southern Quarterly Review, April, 1852, 406, note, said Worth "was quite superficial, had no solid or profound attainments, nor was he gifted with grasp of mind requisite to high combinations and extended operations." Robert Anderson remarked once that he hoped Worth would not, "from a fit of passion, alter his opinions" (Anderson Artill. Officer, 32). Hitchcock in N. Y. Courier and Enquirer (semi-weekly), Mar. 1, 1848: Worth has striking manners and great felicity in conversation, but is utterly destitute of stability and judgment.

24.17. Worth's operations at Puebla. =68=Worth court of inquiry, proceedings, documents. Weekly Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848. Tributo á la Verdad, 12, 48, 51-2. =224=H. L. Scott to Worth, June 20. =61=Scott to Wilson, Apr. 26. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 257. (Alarms) Grant, Mems., i, 136; Delta, July 8; =218=Henshaw narrative; =307=Roberts, diary; Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 527-8. =303=Gen. orders 128. Collins papers. Robertson, Visit, i, 314. Ruxton, Adventures (1847), 30. Bullock, Six Months (1825), i, 83. León, Hist. Gen., 477. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 169, 174-5, 226. Journal des Débats, July 6, 1847. Semmes, Service, 210, 254, 264, 275. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 912. Apuntes, 193-5. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 125 (Scott). Gamboa, Impug., 33-4. Ramírez, México, 261, 267-8, 272. México á través, iv, 662. =236=Judah, diary. Monitor del Pueblo, Apr. 29. =95=Ayunt., orders, May 8. =95=Ayunt., proceedings and corresp. with Worth. =95=W. to first alcalde, May 18. =82=Bravo, proclam., Apr. 28. =82=Isunza, proclam., May 13. =270=Moore, diary. Davis, Autobiog., 274. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 61, 86-7. Monitor Repub., May 2, 21; June 5. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 994 (Worth). Niles Jan. 15, 1848, p. 311. =364=Worth to Sprague, July 29, 1847. =76=S. Anna, May 13, 16. =76=Fúrlong, May 13. =76=Worth, May 12. =76=Bravo, Apr. 30. =76=Worth to Furlong, May 17. =76=To Fúrlong, May 20.

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 115) points out very pertinently that Worth placed his troops injudiciously at Puebla. Worth's errors bore most unfortunate fruit. Scott, before knowing or suspecting what had been conceded to Mexican laws, made sharp comments on the attitude of the Puebla authorities. Naturally he felt seriously troubled. Worth even allowed them to try citizens who had killed American soldiers, and of course the culprits were acquitted (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 527; =95=ayunt. to Worth, May 22). Scott thought seriously of evacuating the city and recapturing it in order to wipe out that concession; but, concluding that such a course would be rather farcical, he simply overrode the concession by republishing general orders 20 (chap. xxxi, note 31.22). This action and the comments angered Worth. Scott angered him further by requesting him to withdraw the =68=circular of June 16, which was impolitic, implied that Worth held an independent command, and if entitled to credence (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 227) should have been given to headquarters, so that all the troops could be warned (=224=H. L. Scott to Worth, June 20). Worth therefore demanded a court of inquiry (=65=gen. orders 196). Quitman, Twiggs and P. F. Smith formed the court and sat on June 30. Their =68=conclusions strongly condemned the circular, the terms granted to Puebla and Worth's complaints against Scott; and they pronounced him worthy of a severe rebuke, as certainly he was. Scott could not avoid approving the verdict and publishing it in orders (=65=no. 196), but these orders were made known only to chiefs of the general staff and commanders of divisions and brigades. From this time Worth was no doubt in his heart a mortal enemy of Scott. Unhappily, more will be heard of this matter. As for criticising Scott, Worth wrote on July 29 (=364=to S.) that Scott might have entered Mexico city by May 20, in which case (it was Worth's "firm belief") "peace would have immediately resulted"--a very superficial judgment. Worth added: "We gain victories and halt until all the moral advantages are lost." Hitchcock well said that Worth looked only at his ability to march troops to a certain place, while Scott had to see also how the advance could be supported and supplied (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528). (Other references for this note. =68=Scott to Worth, June 16. =68=Worth to Scott, June 20. =68=Id., order 61, June 20. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 226-8. =68=Worth to H. L. Scott, June 16. =68=Scott to Worth, May 6. Nacional (Atlixco), May 16. Davis, Autobiog., 270-1, 274.)

24.18. At Jalapa he left Brev. Col. Childs with the First Artillery (five companies), the Second Pennsylvania and three companies of the First Pennsylvania; at Perote seven companies of the First Pennsylvania with some artillerists; and at each place a troop of dragoons (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 125). The stock of ammunition was still inadequate, and the paymaster had only half of his estimate for January-April (ibid., 124-5).

24.19. Domínguez, leader of the Spy Company, had been an honest weaver, it was said, but on being robbed by a Mexican officer, took to the road and became a brigand chief. When the Americans reached Puebla he was living there quietly with his family; but, knowing the insecurity of his position, he accepted Hitchcock's offer to become a scout. His band consisted at first of five men but rose to about 100, and probably might have been increased to 2000 (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 266). He and men of his even entered the capital in disguise. While he was at the head of the company, the actual captain was a Virginian named Spooner, who had been a member of his band; and the two lieutenants also were foreigners. The men seem to have served and obeyed orders faithfully, and their leader refused very advantageous terms offered by Santa Anna. (For the Spy Co. see Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 259, 263-4, 330, 335-41, 344-5. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 187. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 266. Henshaw narrative, Aug. 8. =69=Domínguez to Polk [Sept., 1848].)

24.20. Hargous, an American merchant of Vera Cruz, was Scott's financial agent (Picayune, June 30). Without him one hardly sees what the Americans could have done. An intercepted letter from the wife of Brev. Col. Childs, abusing Polk roundly, gave considerable comfort to the enemy. Another letter imparted much information about military matters. One is again surprised that our war department did not use a cipher.

24.21. Scott instructed the commander at Vera Cruz what to do in case of attack, and gave the commander at Jalapa full directions with reference to the sick and wounded (about 1000) lying there (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 997). There were also about 1000 sick at Vera Cruz and 200 at Perote (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 129). The people at home did not understand Scott's situation. Regiments nominally 800-1000 strong had actually less than 300 (=185=-- to Duncan, July 20).

Owing to the state of public sentiment in Mexico, cutting loose from Vera Cruz was much less hazardous than it seemed. Besides, the smallness of the American army made the problem of subsistence and forage comparatively simple. Marcy was candid enough to admit that Scott understood the advantages of holding Jalapa, and was the best judge as to the advisability of giving it up (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1003-4). The British consul at Vera Cruz reported it as the unanimous opinion of the merchants of that place that with five times his actual force Scott could not have kept the line to the interior open (=13=no. 19).

24.22. Scott at Puebla. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 954, 957, 993, 997, 1012-3 (Scott); 967 (Worth); 998, 1002-4 (Marcy); 1021-7 (Scott and Quitman). Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 124, 129, 135 (Scott); 242 (Trist). Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 912, 925. Henshaw narrative. Haynes, Scott's Guide. Tributo á la Verdad, 56. Scott, Mems., ii, 453-4, 460, 466. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 256-9, 261, 266, 270, 341-4. Grant, Mems., i, 136. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 135-6. Davis, Autobiog., 169. Picayune, May 19; June 30; Aug. 20; Nov. 14. Delta, June 12; July 9. Republicano, June 6, 7, 14. (Sickness) =223=Hirschorn, recolls.; Delta, July 9; Lawton, Artill. Officer, 145, 154, 242; =291=Pierce, diary; Scott, June 4 (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 129); Moore, Scott's Camp., 119; =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29; =316=Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Polk, Diary, Apr. 2, 10, 12; July 9, 13, 15. =159=Collins papers, May 22. León, Hist. Gen., 477-8. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 153, 177-8, 189, 203, 206, 211-6, 228, 233-4, 242-6, 256, 265, 272, 274. =68=Worth court of inquiry, docs. =68=Scott to Worth, May 6. =65=Gen. orders 206, 211, 238; July 9 12, 28. (4000 available) Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 257. Simples Observaciones (written by Hitchcock). =60=Wilson to Marcy, Aug. 1. =335=Trist to wife, Aug. 6. Oswandel, Notes, 223, 240. Semmes, Service, 210, 239, 247, 263, 275-6, 278-81. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 524. =224=L. V. to M. O., Aug. 21 (intercepted Mex. letter). =185=[Duncan] to Lewis, July 20. =307=Roberts, diary. =236=Judah, diary. =95=Ayunt. to Bravo, Apr. 29. =95=Amable to prefect, Aug. 18. =270=Moore, diary. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Kennebec Journal, May 21. Repub. Banner, May 19. Nat. Intelligencer, June 1. Monitor Repub., May 2; June 5, 8. Sedgwick, Corres., i, 101. =132=Atocha to Buchanan, Aug. 1. Baz, Juárez, 47, note. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 87-9. =364=Worth to S., July 29; to daughter, Apr. 30. Ohio Arch. and Hist. Qtrly., Apr.-July, 1912, p. 292. =61=Scott to Wilson, May 2. Steele, Amer. Camps., i, 122. And from =76= the following and others. R. Rueda, statement [June 18]. Acuerdo, July 13. Soto, July 3. Soldier from Puebla, statement, July 17. Alvarez, June 16; July 28. Isunza to Canalizo, July 20. Bravo, proclam., Apr. 28. Fúrlong, May 17. To Fúrlong, May 20. "Ein Deuttcher," circular to Germans. To Alvarez, June 19. Worth to first alcalde, May 17; to ayunt., May 18.

Alvarez stated that he had an organized party at Puebla preparing for an insurrection, and meanwhile was systematically promoting desertion.

The alarm caused by Santa Anna's advance against Taylor led to the temporary diversion of troops (intended for Scott) to the Rio Grande, but on April 30 Marcy sent Scott statements showing that about 3500 new regulars were expected to land at Vera Cruz before June 1 and that some 5500 volunteers also had been ordered to him. Unfortunately the despatch was captured by the enemy, and Scott did not receive another copy of it until June 6 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 922-5, 1012). (Expected) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 994. The official counting of the votes was deferred until Jan., 1848.

24.23. Richardson, Messages, iv, 508. Benton wanted full powers to negotiate (Polk, Diary, Mar. 8, 1847), and was willing to take the position mainly with a view to its diplomatic functions (Cong. Globe, 29, 2, pp. 246-7).

24.24. The new regiments (which brought the regular army up to 1356 officers and 29,534 men) were to serve during the war and then be disbanded. One of them was the Third Dragoons. Another consisted of "voltigeurs," theoretically an equal number of infantry and of mounted men (the former to be taken up on the horses of the latter, when celerity of movement should be desired) with a battery of small guns that could be taken apart and transported on mules (Niles, May 15, 1847, p. 161); but practically the Voltigeurs were foot-riflemen (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 924). The regiments destined for Scott were the following: (Brig. Gen. Pierce's brig.) 9 Inf. from N. Eng. under Col. Ransom, 12 Inf. from N. and S. Car., Mo., Ark. and Texas under Lieut. Col. Bonham in the absence of Col. Wilson, and 15 Inf. from Ohio, Mich., Wis. and Iowa under Lt. Col. Howard in the absence of Col. Morgan; (Brig. Gen. Cadwalader's brig.) 11 Inf. from Pa., Del. and Md., under Col. Ramsey, 14 Inf. from Ill., Tenn. and La. under Col. Trousdale, Voltigeurs from Pa., Md., Va., Ga., Ky. and Miss. under Col. Andrews (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 924). Each regiment was theoretically to consist of 851 men including 47 officers (ibid.), but the two brigades going to Scott were not expected to muster quite 3500. Scott was authorized to change the organization should the exigencies of the campaign require (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 922). Each private serving a year or more was to receive 100 acres of government land or $100 in treasury scrip as a bounty. The law of March 3 provided also that (in view of the deficiency in field officers caused by the lack of a retirement law) an additional major might be appointed in each regiment, that individuals might be accepted to fill vacancies in volunteer corps, that non-commissioned officers might be brevetted to the lowest commissioned rank, that distinguished privates might be given certificates of merit and $2.00 extra per month, that two companies might be added to each artillery regiment, that one more company in each artillery regiment might be equipped as field artillery, that unfilled regular or volunteer regiments should be consolidated and the supernumerary officers discharged, etc. (These laws were quite elaborate and cannot be given in full here; see U. S. Statutes at Large, ix, 123, 184.) After receiving Scott's report on the battle of Cerro Gordo, Polk ordered five companies of the Third Dragoons to him.

24.25. Reinforcements provided. Upton, Milit. Policy, 206-7. =62=Adj. gen. to Scott, May 10. =65=Id., gen. orders 57, Dec. 22; 2, Jan. 8; 8, Mar. 4; 17, Apr. 15. Semmes, Service, 314-5. =354=Welles papers. Polk, Messages, Dec. 29 (Jan. 4, 1847), 1846; Feb. 13, 1847 (Richardson, Messages, iv, 508, 513. =108=Polk to Bancroft, Jan. 30. Wash. Union, Jan. 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 21, etc. Nat. Intelligencer, May 26. Cong. Globe, Sen. and Ho., Dec. 28 to Mar. 3 (One needs to examine the proceedings and speeches considerably in detail). (Voltigeurs) Niles, May 15, p. 161. Amer. Review, Sept., 1847, p. 223. Statutes at Large, ix, 117, 123, 184. Boston Atlas, Jan. 14. =316=Bragg to Sherman, Mar. 1, 1848. =61=Ransom, Apr. 12; May 9, 21; June 26. =61=Scott to Wilson, Apr. 26. =330=H. L. Scott to Cadwalader, Apr. 25. =61=Adj. gen. to Scott, Dec. 17, 1846; Jan. 23; Mar. 20; May 6, 10, 22, 1847; to Cadwalader, Apr. 28; to qtr. mr. gen., Apr. 21. Ho. 42; 29, 2: adj. gen., Jan. 13. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, Jan. 6, 10; July 16. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 121 (Marcy). Senex, Myth. Ho. 48; 29, 2 (adj. gen.). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 45, 50. =62=Marcy to Brooke, Mar. 22; to Pierce, Mar. 22; to govs. Ala., Miss., La., Mar. 22. =61=Adj. gen. to Cadwalader, Mar. 26. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 866, 944, 948, 1221 (Scott); 873, 905-6, 922, 953, 1241 (Marcy); 924, 926 (statements). =69=Scott, mems. for adj. gen., Nov. 29, 1846. Polk, Diary.

The principal references for the attempt to give Benton the chief command are the following. =345=Benton to Polk, Mar. 6; to Van Buren, Jan. 26. Polk, Diary, Nov. 10, 11, 18; Dec. 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18-21, 24, 25, 1846; Jan. 2, 4, 16, 19, 22-3; Feb. 4-Mar. 12; Mar. 19-20, 22; Apr. 6, 14, 28; May 10-4; July 17, 1847. =210=Simms to Hammond, May 1. =354=Welles papers. =345=Blair to Van Buren, Dec. 26, 1846; Mar. 13, 1847. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 727. Dix, Speeches, i, 166. London Times, Feb. 18; Mar. 17; Apr. 17. Meigs, Benton, 364-7. Benton, View, ii, 698. Id., speech: Niles, June 5, 1847, p. 223. Scott, Mems., ii, 401. Public Ledger, Jan. 8, 27; Mar. 1. Cong. Globe, 29, 2, Senate, Jan. 11, 14, 15 (Badger's speech the most important one made on the subject), 25 (Benton); House, passim. Blaine, Twenty Years, i, 76. Buchanan, Works, viii, 365, 367. Mag. of Amer. Hist., xiv, 575. Wash. Union, Mar. 11. =61=Benton to adj. gen., Mar. 9.

This call of Apr. 19 included (infantry) a regiment, each, from Ills., Oh., Ind.; a battalion (5 cos.), each, from N. J., Mo., Ga., Ala., La.; three cos. from the Dist. of Columbia; two cos., each, from Pa., Md., Va.; and one co. from Fla.; also (horse) two cos. from La. and one co., each, from Oh., Ills., Ga., Ala., Ark. A regt. consisted of ten cos. Each co. included a capt., a first lieut., two second lieuts., four sergts., four corps., two musicians and eighty privates. A co. of horse had also one farrier and blacksmith (=62=memo., Apr. 21). Of vols. Scott was now to have two brigades: I, *one N. Y. and *two Pa. regts. and two Pa. cos.; II, *one S. Car. and *one La. regt., one La. and one Ga. battal., two cos. La. horse and one co. Ga. horse (asterisks mean, "already in Mexico"). There were certain exceptions as to the dates of calls which it seems unnecessary to specify.

After the lieutenant general plan failed, Benton was nominated as a major general, and was promptly confirmed by the Senate, and a bill authorizing Polk to place him in supreme command was urged upon Congress (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1219); but as it appeared doubtful whether the chief authority could be conferred upon him, Benton declined the position abruptly (=345=letters dated Mar. 9). This episode caused no material delay in war legislation.

24.26. One unfortunate result of giving up the line of communication was that new troops had to wait at Vera Cruz until assembled in sufficient force to defy the enemy, and some of them fell sick in consequence; but this was not fairly chargeable to the evacuation of Jalapa, for the irregulars did their worst below that city. It was the intention of the government that Quitman should go to Taylor, but Scott retained him because his services were valued and he could not be sent away without a heavy detachment (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 137). Having only two full regiments, though a major general, Quitman naturally felt aggrieved (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1024). To illustrate once more the difference between paper figures and real ones, the Washington Union stated on July 20 that more than 15,000 reinforcements had marched from Vera Cruz. The text shows how many did go. July 19 Marcy wrote that 1900 men were en route to Vera Cruz (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1003). The fact was that on August 2 or 3 about 850 men left that place for the interior under Col. L. D. Wilson of the Twelfth Infantry (=60=Wilson, July 31).

24.27. Reinforcements arrive. (Other references will be given when the guerillas are studied: chap. xxix.) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1002, 1241 (Marcy); 1012, 1221 (Scott). Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 4, 13, 16, 18, 20-25 (McIntosh et al.). Scott, Mems., ii, 453, etc. =65=Id., gen. orders 250, 1847. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 265, 269. Davis, Autobiog., 174-5. =69=Marcy to Pillow and Quitman, Apr. 14. Hartman, Journal, 15. Picayune, Aug. 20. Delta, Oct. 1. Upton, Milit. Policy, 213-4. Polk, Diary, May 10. =159=Collins papers. =291=Pierce, diary. =61=Cadwalader to Wilson, June 13. =62=Adj. gen. to Scott, May 10, 22. =287=Parrish, diary. =60=H. Wilson to Marcy, Aug. 1. =60=L. D. Wilson to Marcy, July 31. Mansfield, Mex. War, 224. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 136. =236=Judah, diary. Monitor del Pueblo, Apr. 29. =178=Davis, diary. =335=Dimond to Trist, July 14. Semmes, Service, 314. Wash. Union, July 20. =180=Pillow to wife, June 14. =61=H. Wilson to adj. gen., June 7, 14. =61=Pillow to adj. gen. [June 19]. Henshaw narrative. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 215, 238-41, 272-4. =61=Jones to Wilson, Apr. 29. =76=Soto, July 17, 21, 23, 25, 31; Aug. 3, 11. =76=Canalizo, July 8. =76=Alvarez, July 5. =76=Hitchcock to Worth, May 12. =76=Many other documents.

24.28. Under general orders 218, July 16, 1847, the following artillery companies were ordered to be equipped (i.e., were recognized) as light (field) artillery in accordance with the law of March 3, 1847: First Regiment, Co. I, Capt. J. B. Magruder; Second, Co. M, J. F. Roland; Third, Co. E, T. W. Sherman; Fourth, Co. G, S. H. Drum. Co. M was not organized in time to serve during the war; the others were already in the service.

24.29. Scott, Mems., ii, 460-5. Grone, Briefe, 84. =60=Marcy to Quitman, Apr. 14. Upton, Milit. Policy, 214. =159=Collins papers, June 18. =236=Judah, diary, Apr. 26. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 274. Aldrich, Marine Corps, 104. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1002 (Marcy); 1012 (Scott). =62=Adj. gen. to Scott, May 22. Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit., iii, 415.

The general staff (as given by Scott in his Mems., ii, 460-3) included at this time: Lt. Col. Hitchcock, asst. inspect. gen.; Capt. H. L. Scott (not related to the General) actg. adj. gen.; First Lt. T. Williams, Bvt. First Lieut. G. W. Lay and Second Lieut. Schuyler Hamilton, aides; Maj. J. P. Gaines (one of the Encarnacion prisoners, who had escaped) vol. aide; Maj. J. L. Smith, Capt. R. E. Lee, and Lieuts. P. G. T. Beauregard, I. I. Stevens, Z. B. Tower, G. W. Smith, G. B. McClellan and J. G. Foster, engineer officers; Maj. Wm. Turnbull, Capt. J. McClellan, Second Lieut. George Thom and Bvt. Second Lieut. E. L. F. Hardcastle, topog. engs.; Capt. Benjamin Huger, First Lieut. P. V. Hagner and Second Lieut. C. P. Stone, ordnance officers; Capt. J. R. Irwin, chief quartermaster; Capt. J. B. Grayson, chief of subsistence dept.; Maj. E. Kirby, chief paymaster; Surgeon Gen., Thomas Lawson. The Marine Corps, which had no regimental organization, included, Mar. 2, 1847, 1283 privates. On that day Congress raised the number to 2293, and added twelve "commanding officers" (Sen. 66; 30, 1). In May, 1847, the secretary of the navy, in order to help strengthen Scott, offered a part of this corps (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 957). Perry did not think it wise to detach all of the men whom the department proposed to contribute (=47=July 4), but a battalion under Lieut. Col. Watson and Maj. Twiggs marched to Puebla with Pierce.

24.30. Picayune, Aug. 20; Nov. 14. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 244, 246, 274-5. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 135 (Scott). =65=Scott, gen. orders 246, Aug. 5. Collins Papers. Smith, To Mexico, 178. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 271.

XXV. ON TO THE CAPITAL

25.1. This chapter is amply supported. About 1400 documents were used in writing it. As, however, any investigator consulting on this subject the =76=archives would easily find the pertinent papers, only the most important ones belonging to that collection will be cited.

25.2. Affairs at Mexico to Apr. 20. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith). =341=Black, memorial, Dec. 20. =312=Anaya to S. Anna, Apr. 9. =312=Baranda to S. Anna, Apr. 9. Monitor Repub., Apr. 11. Picayune, May 12. Semmes, Service, 328. =92=Gov. Federal Dist. to Mex ayunt., Apr. 10. =92=Mex. ayunt., proclam., Apr. 27. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1088. Niles, May 15, p. 168 (Gamboa). Kenly, Md. Vol., 338. N. Y. Sun, May 19. Apuntes, 198-9. Otero, Comunicación. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 483. From =76= the following. Memo., Apr. 10. Salas, Apr. 12. Ords. to generals, Apr. 2. Ords. to Liceaga, Apr. 10. Relaciones to gov. Fed. Dist., Apr. 11. Almonte, May 14. To comte. gen. Guanajuato, Apr. 16. To J. P. Gálvez, Apr. 9. Measures recommended, Apr. 6, 14. Relaciones, Apr. 12. Berrospe to Monterede, Jan. 20, 1846.

25.3. This specimen may be quoted: "The cunning dissimulator, Ibarra [a member of the Cabinet], venomous as a serpent, crawls forth obscurely from his lurking-place to-day in order that he may set his malignant teeth to-morrow in the vitals of the republic.... Off with the heads of the vile traitors!" One ingenious writer said: If Santa Anna will not sacrifice his vanity by admitting he is incompetent, why should we sacrifice our lives and property? April 21 a general amnesty for political offences was declared in the vain hope of producing harmony (=76=to Bustamante, Apr. 21).

25.4. This important law provided (México á través, iv, 656): 1, The government is authorized to take all steps necessary to carry on the war and preserve the republican system; 2, but it must not make peace with the United States, cede territory, conclude negotiations [particularly with reference to a monarchical régime] with foreign powers; 3, make colonization contracts, impose punishments or confer civil or military appointments except those placed within its authority by the Constitution; 4, any arrangement between the United States and authorities superseding the present government shall be void; 5, any person, whatever his status, who treats with the United States is hereby declared a traitor; 6, should Congress be unable to meet, its place shall be taken by a council of government, consisting of the senior member present of each state delegation.

25.5. Affairs at Mexico, Apr. 20 to May 18. S. Anna, Apelación, 44-5; app., 76. Id., Detall, 8. Dublán, Legislación, v, 267 (Apr. 20). Giménez, Mems., 107-9. Méx. en 1847, 20. Picayune, May 6, 20. Defensa de ... Estrada. =312=Basadre to S. Anna, Apr. 9, very private. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Manifiesto del Supr. Tribunal. Molina, El Asalto. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Jan., 1849. Boletin de Noticias, May 14. Republicano, May 10, 22. Courrier Français, May 5. London Times, June 15; July 9. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 196-8. Encarnacion Prisoners, 67. =52=Trist, no. 7, June 13. =92=Donations, Mex., May 1-6. =92=Bravo, proclam., May 6. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 570. =92=Ayunt., call for volunteers, May 20. Consideraciones. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 967 (Worth). =80=Olaguíbel to Relac., Aug. 15. Lara, Resumen, 66, note. México á través, iv, 655-6, 661, 704. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 210-2. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 255. Ramírez, México, 229, 233-4, 239, 241, 246-7, 250-1, 256, 272-7, 284. =88=Metropol. dean, May 8. Monitor Repub., Apr. 22; May 3, 8, 10-11. S. Anna, manifiesto, Mar. 24, 1848. Apuntes, 199, 200-1, 203-4. =80=Guerra to gov., Mar. 11; Apr. 22. =80=Gov. to Bravo, May 5. Diario, Apr. 25, 28; May 3, 4, 6, 12, 15. From =76= the following. Decrees, Apr. 26; May 1. Junta directiva, May 1, 3. Acuerdo, Apr. 20, 25. Circular, Apr. 30. Garrison, estado, May 13. To generals, Apr. 25. To Brito, May 25. J. J. Miñón, Apr. 24. Deserters, May 15. Circular, May 4. Basadre, May 16, res. To Alvarez, Apr. 26. To Monterde, May 18. To S. Anna, Apr. 20-2. To Bravo, Apr. 24. To Bustamante, Apr. 21. Almonte, Apr. 28, 30; May 8, 12, 15, 18. Monterde, May 9. Bravo, May 11, 16. Rincón, May 17. S. Anna, May 16.

25.6. Affairs at Mexico, May 18 to June 2. Negrete, Invasion, iii, app., 61-72, 81-3; iv, app., 261-8, 273-4. Tributo á la Verdad, 56, 74-6. Giménez, Memorias, 109-11. S. Anna to Congress, May 28 (Biblioteca Nac.). Id., Apelación, app., 83-8. Id., Detall, 8. Defensa de ... Estrada. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 177-8. Portrait of Anaya: city hall, Mex. Picayune, July 15; Aug. 7, 8. Monitor Repub., May 20; June 3, 4, 14; Dec. 12 (S. Anna, Nov. 19). Republicano, May 10; June 5, 10, 15, 26. México á través, iv, 662, 664-7. Ramírez, México, 229-30, 233, 284-6. =13=Bankhead, nos. 59, 60, May 29. London Times, July 9, 16; Aug. 6. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 290-3. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 157, 196-204. Encarnacion Prisoners, 67. =80=Guerra to gov. Méx., May 20. Diario, May 19, 21, 23-4; June 8. Boletín de la Democracia, May 25. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 260. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 967. Apuntes, 201, 204. Otero, Réplica. Dublán, Legislación, v, 264. =76=Bravo, May 15, 16, 24, 30. =76=S. Anna to Rosa, Feb. 5, 1848. =76=Valencia, June 7, 1847. =76=Mora, June 5. =76=To Brito, May 25. =60=Bravo, proclam., May 6. =76=S. Anna, May 21.

The statesmen who met S. Anna were Manuel Baranda, Ignacio Trigueros and J. F. Ramírez.

25.7. A signal illustration of the incompetence of the Mexican government, particularly Congress, was afforded by its treatment of Great Britain. At the end of August, 1846, Bankhead, under the instructions of the Foreign Office (=13=to Bankhead, no. 20), proposed mediation to Mexico, but the offer was not welcomed. Santa Anna and Rejón believed that it proceeded wholly from self-interest, and that, in order to prevent her commerce from suffering longer from the war and other interests from becoming imperilled, England was ready to sacrifice the honor and welfare of their country (=73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 332, res., 343, res., Sept. 24, 27, 1846); and, moreover, the Mexicans still felt quite able to cope with the United States (=13=Bankhead, no. 130, Sept. 7, 1846). In October, under renewed instructions (=13=no. 11), Bankhead again submitted the proposal (=13=nos. 162, 180), and later he returned to the charge (Apuntes, 202). The subject was unwisely referred by the Mexican Executive to Congress, but nothing was done (ibid.). After the battle of Cerro Gordo, however, the administration thought negotiations might be used to delay the American advance (ibid.; Ramírez, México, 246) and the Puros hoped the subject might be made embarrassing to the government (Ramírez, México, 224). Violent, acrimonious and dangerous debates followed in Congress and, in order to embarrass the Executive (=13=Bankhead, no. 45, 1847), enough Puros remained away (at the time set for voting) to destroy the quorum (ibid.). The matter was then dropped (Ramírez, México, 246, 274). The general feeling was that British mediation would signify British control and a dishonorable, disadvantageous peace (London Times, June 15; Monitor Repub., May 18). But, even if this view contained some elements of justice, trifling with a great power and throwing the vital interests of Mexico into the cockpit of party politics could not be excused.

25.8. The political situation after June 2. S. Anna, Apelación, app., pp. 3, 6, 8, 10, etc. Id., Detall, 8. =87=Coalition junta, July 7; Aug. 8; etc. Republicano, June 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 20, 22, 26. =312=Baranda to S. Anna, Apr. 8. México á través, iv, 667, 704. Iniciativa que el Hon. Cong. del Estado de Zacat. Otero, Réplica. =13=Bankhead, nos. 60, May 29; 64, 65, 70, June 29. Id., no. 125, Dec. 30, 1845 (Tornel has no reputation for honesty). London Times, Aug. 6. =77=Gov. S. Luis Potosí, June 19. =13=Thornton to Bankhead, June 14. =52=Consul Black, no. 389, Sept. 12, 1846. Encarnacion Prisoners, 68, 77-8, 86. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. =77=Letter from Coatepec, June 26. =82=Treas. to sec. state of Puebla, June 14; reply, June 15. =82=Guerra to gov. Puebla, Aug. 2; reply, Aug. 7. =80=Legisl. of Méx. state, Mar. 26; June 12. =80=Id., address, Apr. 26. =80=Coalition, address, Aug. 4. Verdadero Liberal, Aug. 12. =80=Coal. junta to gov. Méx., June 17. =80=Id., dictamen, July 4. =80=Oaxaca state, exposición, June 26. =83=Gov. Querétaro to gov. S. Luis Potosí, Apr. 9. Diario, June 7, 8, 11, 24, 30; July 3, 9, 18. Monitor Repub., May 3, 4, 26-7; June 3, 7, 11, 13, 14-16, 18, 19, 24, 30; July 6, 7, 9; Dec. 12 (S. Anna, Nov. 19). Niles, Oct. 30, p. 141. =83=Gov. Querétaro to Farías, Oct. 20, 1846; to Anaya, May 4; to all govs., May 7. =82=Gov. Jalisco to gov. Puebla, Apr. 13. =82=Gov. Méx. to gov. Puebla, Apr. 12. Ramírez, México, 237, 244-6, 254, 263, 272, 288-90. =80=Gov. Méx. to Bravo, May 5. =76=To Alvarez, June 29. =76=Extracto re Guanajuato. =76=J. J. de Echeverría, June 6. =76=Arellano, July 9. =76=Olaguíbel to Relac., Apr. 19. =76=Hacienda to Basadre, Aug. 9. =76=Reyes, June 1, 22. =76=Basadre, Aug. 9. =76=Yáñez, June 15. =76=Mora, Apr. 28.

In February, 1847, a revolutionary government satisfactory to the people was set up in Oaxaca state, and this supported the national cause to the full extent of its ability. A factional combination made up in Congress, however, took the side (May 8) of the deposed authorities. This action naturally caused great dissatisfaction in Oaxaca (=76=exposición de la cong. de Oaxaca, June 26), and it was particularly imprudent because Gen. Antonio de León and his officers were partisans of the revolutionary party (Ramírez, México, 255).

25.9. July 9 the Mexican Army of the East included, according to a document published by Santa Anna, 17,548 officers and men. A. López (Décimo Calendario, 57) placed the army, including the National Guards, at 30,000 on Aug. 9. The only official Mexican accounts of the forces present in and near the capital early in August was made up during the following November, and are far from complete; but they were stated to have been five times as large as those existing in November, which were 8109 total, 6785 available (=75=report at meeting of govs.; México á través, iv, 701). The unofficial statements cannot be harmonized with these accounts nor (except when drawn from the same source) with one another. It does not help us to know what corps were present (see Roa Bárcena), for we have not the number of men in each of them. The commanders of brigades in the Army of the East were Generals Terrés, Martínez, Rangel, Pérez, León and Anaya and Col. Zerecero. The three sections of Valencia's army were commanded respectively by Mejía, Parrodi and Salas. A portion of Alvarez's force consisted of semi-savage "pintos"--men from the hot region, who were marked with spots (=11=Mémoire). They lay flat when charged upon, and hewed the enemy down with heavy knives (machetes), and they were expected to fill the Americans with terror.

25.10. The hill (El Peñón Viejo) was about 1000 yards in length at the base, and the higher of its two summits reached an elevation of about 400-450 feet (=66=reports of Lee, Stevens and Mason, Aug. 12, 26). The work of fortifying it was skilfully as well as thoroughly done. Engineer I. I. Stevens made out nearly forty guns. Topog. Engineer M. L. Smith thought there were about sixty (Sen. 19; 30, 2, p. 4). A large stock of rations was placed here (=76=acuerdo, Aug. 5).

25.11. Santa Anna's preparations (see note 25.1). =66=Stevens to J. L. Smith, Aug. 12, 26. =66=R. E. Lee, J. L. Mason to J. L. Smith, Aug. 12. S. Anna, Apelación, 44-7. Id., Detall, 8-11. =60=Patterson to Marcy, Oct. 26. Picayune, June 30; Aug. 8. Donnavan, Adventures, 29. Pacheco, Exposíción. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 91-4, 123-5. Scott, Mems., ii, 466. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 274. =224=Intercepted Letters (ed. by Hitchcock). (Embezzlement) Consideraciones, 25; Apuntes, 207. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, E. L. F. Hardcastle). Apuntes, 205-10, 223-8. Molina, El Asalto. Raleigh Star, Sept. 1. =13=Thornton, June 29. =178=Davis, diary. Portrait of Lombardini: city hall, Mexico. =350=Weber, recolls. N. Orl. Delta, July 18. Verdadero Liberal, May 20. (San Patricio cos.) Dublán, Legislación, v, 290; Diario, July 15. México á través, iv, 668-71. =70="Guerra," no. 1120. London Times, May 10; Sept. 6. Semmes, Service, 348-9. Dublán, Legislación, v, 280, 284, 289, 294. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 517, June 29; 534, res., July 28. =73=Lozano, No. 2, Aug. 24. Gamboa, Impug., 51. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 205-6. =335=Thornton to N. P. Trist, July 29. Encarnacion Prisoners, 69. =60=Wilson to Marcy, Aug. 1. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 23. Diario, May 24; June 5-10, 14-6, 18, 20, etc. Monitor Repub., May 31 (Eleventh Inf.); June 13-5, 18, etc.; Dec. 12 (S. Anna, Nov. 19). Niles, June 19, p. 251. =13=Bankhead, no. 74, 1846. (Honduras) =60=Patterson to Marcy, Oct. 26, 1847. (Powder from N. Orl.) =166=Consul McFaul to ----, Nov. 12, 1846. Ramírez, México, 268. The following from =76= are cited for particular reasons. Valencia, proclam., May 14. Estado of garrison, May 13. Ayunt., Mexico, June 3. Recommended measures, Apr. 6, 14. Circulars, June 12; July 24. S. Anna to Alcorta, June 12; Aug. 3. Valencia, July 19. Statement, lines of defence, June 29. J. Terrés, report on cavalry [Nov.]. J. de D. Peza, report on infantry, Nov. 29. Acuerdos, May 21, 23-4; June 5, 6, 8, 19, 25; July 17, 18, 19, 28, 30; Aug. 2, 3, 5, 6. To Alvarez, June 3, 30, etc. To Mora, June 26; July 2, 20, 23, etc. To Lombardini, June 26; July 2, 5, 7, 11, 22, 31, etc. Alvarez. May 29; June 9, 16; July 5, etc. Mora, July 9, 19, 20, 22, etc. Lombardini, July 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, etc. Olaguíbel, Aug. 20. Decrees, June 5, 8; July 10, 12; Aug. 8, etc.

Among other preparations were the following: information about the defence not to be published, and no communication to be had with points occupied by the Americans; the troops to be trained in firing (June 6); the state of siege to be rigorous (June 28); as much wheat as possible to be ground and stored in the city, and the rest to be removed from the Valley; all Americans, even if naturalized, to leave the city (July 12); the American prisoners (e.g., from La Encarnación) to go to Toluca; prices of provisions fixed; no persons to be tried for acts not injurious to a third party. Naturally there was much evasion of these edicts. A Council of Defence composed of the heads of the executive departments most concerned in the work began to meet on July 2 (=76=acuerdo, June 29; Lombardini, July 6). After the near approach of the enemy the shops (excepting those selling provisions and those of the Plaza del Mercado) were to close, civilian horses and carriages to keep off the streets, and no civilian to leave the city [without a pass] except those who had brought in coal and provisions [but on August 13 permission was given old men, women and children to go out]. By August 24 nearly all civilians [of any importance] left the city (=73=Lozano, no. 2). After the Americans came within easy reach the usual efforts to cause desertion among them were made by the Mexican government. The Paixhan guns cast by the Mexicans were believed by them to equal the American ordnance (Apuntes, 207).

25.12. Diario, Aug. 10-13. =77=Relaciones, circular, Aug. 9. =73=Lozano, no. 2, Aug. 24. Apuntes, 206-8, 210-20. México á través, iv, 671-2. Ramírez, México, 296. =76=To Basadre, Aug. 10. =76=To Alvarez, Aug. 12. =76=Relaciones to gov. Zacat., Aug. 11. =76=Olaguíbel, Aug. 11. =76=Decree, Aug. 8.

25.13. April 30 Marcy had promised that by the end of June, Scott should have about 20,000 men (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 922). Scott felt he needed that number in addition to the garrison of Puebla (Sedgwick, Corres., i, 141). He has been criticised for having his small army march in four divisions a day apart. Twiggs and Quitman together had only about 4000 men and it has been represented that, even had they and the cavalry combined, Santa Anna could have crushed them before Worth could have reached the scene (Semmes, Service, 326); but, as a day's march was only 12-15 miles (Hardcastle in Sen. 19; 30, 2, p. 10), Worth was but five hours (in case of emergency much less) behind Quitman, and an attack strong enough to crush Harney, Twiggs and Quitman, provided as they were with heavy ordnance, could not have taken place in a moment nor without warning. Scott expected to be attacked on the march (Scott, Mems., ii, 466). He might have avoided the high mountains by taking the route via Tlaxcala and Apam; but this route was long and unsuitable for his trains. There were nearly 1000 wagons (=335=Trist to Buchanan, Aug. 22).

25.14. These works were abandoned because not in keeping with Santa Anna's plan. Very likely the fact that it would not have been easy to subsist a large force here counted also. Many of the Americans believed Santa Anna had built the works in the expectation of using them to cut Scott off after defeating him in the Valley, and set their teeth the harder. All felt that they must conquer or die.

25.15. Scott's march to Ayotla. Scott, Mems., ii, 465-7. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 266, 271. Grant, Mems., i, 164-5. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 190-3. Davis, Autobiog., 192. Missouri Republican, Nov. 3, 1857 (Hitchcock). =217=Henshaw papers. =218=Henshaw narrative. Haynes, Gen. Scott's Guide. =183=Drum, recolls. =376=Nicholson, recolls. Donnavan, Adventures, 98. =159=Collins papers. (Route) Lyon, Journal, ii, 106; Thompson, Recolls., 33; Velasco, Geografía, i, 25; Cardona, Méx. y sus Capitales, 129; Robertson, Visit, i, 321; Ruxton, Adventures (1847), 33-4; Tudor, Tour, ii, 211; LeClercq, Voyage, 178-9; Mason, Pictures, ii, 6; Bullock, Across Mex., 67-8. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 274, 281-7. =65=Gen. orders 246, Aug. 5. =291=Pierce papers. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (map). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, E. L. F. Hardcastle). G. W. Smith, Co. A. Carleton, Address. =178=Davis, diary. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 124 (Scott); 186-8. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303 (Scott). app., 37. Kenly, Md. Vol., 344. Rosa, Impresiones Nebel and Kendall, 27. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 280-1. Colección de Itinerarios. Oswandel, Notes, 242, 245. Semmes, Service, 235, 286-9, 325-8, 452-3. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 534, res., July 28; 550, Aug. 21. =73=Lozano, no. 2, Aug. 24. =335=Trist, statement, July 25, 1849. =236=Judah, diary. Diario, July 2. Sedgwick, Corres., i, 108, 141. Smith, To Mexico, 188-93. Wilson, Mexico, 168. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 138. Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 37. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1032 (Scott). =132=Atocha to Buchanan, Aug. 1. Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 187. Michigan Pioneer Soc. Colls., vii (Toll). So. Qtrly. Rev., Apr., 1852, pp. 406-7. =316=Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Ramírez, México, 239. Monitor Repub., Oct. 1 (Gamboa). Manifiesto que dirige ... Alvarez.

25.16. S. Anna, Apelación, 44; app., 146-50, 157-61. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 186-7. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 534, res., July 28. Monitor Repub., Dec. 12 (S. Anna, Nov. 19). And from =76= the following. To Canalizo, June 30. To Alvarez, June 29, 30; July 13, 28; Aug. 6, 9, 12, 14, 21. To Valencia, Aug. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15. Canalizo, June 23; July 19; Aug. 9, 10, 11. Alvarez, July 5, 8; Aug. 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 12, 25. Valencia, Aug. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. Expediente against Valencia. Acuerdo, Aug. 13.

25.17. The choice of approaches. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 272-4. Grant, Mems., 164-5. Mo. Republican, Nov. 3, 1857 (Hitchcock). Weekly Courier and N. Y. Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848 (letter from Hitchcock). =217=Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21. Haynes, Gen. Scott's Guide. =61=Hamilton to Scott, Oct. 17, 1850. =66=R. E. Lee, I. I. Stevens, J. L. Mason to J. L. Smith, Aug. 12, 26. Chase, Polk Admin., 225. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 333-7. =221=Hill, diary. =159=Collins papers. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 289. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (M. L. Smith). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, E. L. F. Hardcastle). =178=Davis, diary. =136=Butterfield, recolls. S. Anna, Detall, 11. =52=Trist nos. 11, 12, Aug. 14, 22. =185=Letters from Worth, Duncan and others. =335=H. L. Scott to Worth, Aug. 13. Picayune, Oct. 8. Nebel and Kendall, 27. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303, app., 27. Apuntes, 208, 225. Semmes, Service, 348-52, 355-8. Ramírez, México, 293. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 461-2 (Lee); 522-7 (Hitchcock). =68=Charges against Duncan (Scott). =236=Judah, diary. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 12. Diario, Aug. 18. =377=Capt. Willing (paper published by Engineer School, Washington). Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 148-9, 190. So. Qtrly. Rev., Apr., 1852, p. 412. =76=Order to Lombardini, June 19. =76=To Mora, July 2. =76=Acuerdos, Aug. 5, 8. =76=Mora, Aug. 2. =76=Gugerson to Alvarez, Aug. 10. =76=(Spies) Alvarez, Aug. 12; Valencia, Aug. 13, 14; Becerril, Aug. 13; spy, Aug. 12; etc. =76=Bravo, Aug. 13. =76=To Bravo, Aug. 13.

The Mexicaltzingo plan was said to be, that while the rest of the troops should force their way between Lakes Chalco and Xochimilco by a broken causeway commanded by five batteries on a hill, Worth should pass round or across the latter lake and coöperate with them wherever he could do so to the best advantage (Davis, Autobiog., 193; etc.). Under orders from Scott (Hitchcock in Mo. Republican, Nov. 3, 1857; =377=paper; =335=H. L. Scott to Worth, Aug. 13; =68=charges against Duncan) to examine the Chalco route, Worth (at Duncan's suggestion) had Duncan, supported by strong detachments, reconnoitre that route on August 14 under the pretence of obtaining provisions. Duncan, who reported (=305=Aug. 14) favorably, was sent to Scott late that day to give an account of the reconnaissance and deliver a =305=letter from Worth, which argued against dividing the army. Not receiving credit in Scott's report Duncan published (Picayune, Oct. 8; Dec. 18) a letter claiming in effect to have caused the change of plan (chap. xxix, p. 187). But the letter proved that he knew less about the matter than he supposed (=68=charges); it did not prove that the change of orders resulted from his report; and there is no proof that Scott intended to divide the army--though he collected boats enough for about 2000 men with a view to crossing or to making the Mexicans believe (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 335) he intended to cross the lake and it was thought that as many more could be obtained--or definitely decided to attack Mexicaltzingo. On the other hand Scott stated (=68=charges) that he was himself investigating (=305=Mackall to ----, May 10, 1848) the Chalco route while Duncan was doing so, and that a spy sent from headquarters reported favorably upon it (=68=charges); and he denied squarely that he gave up the Mexicaltzingo for the Chalco route in consequence of Duncan's report (=68=charges). Extreme secrecy and all possible mystification of the enemy were necessary, and on account of Worth's unfriendliness Scott had special reasons for not opening his mind fully to him. Other generals have purposely kept their subordinates in the dark (see Henderson, Jackson, i, 421, 441; Id., Science of War, 42). Instead of proving that Worth was the better general, Worth and Duncan proved the opposite, for they showed that Worth committed himself to the Chalco route on very incomplete data, whereas Scott studied three routes and reserved his decision until, as far as was possible, he had full information before him. As usual, when Worth's relations with Scott were concerned, we find Semmes inaccurate and biassed here. Ripley uses the incident against Scott at great length and very unfairly. Facts regarding the Mexicaltzingo route are brought forward, though not known to the Americans at the time (Ripley, War with Mexico, 194). We are told (p. 191) that Scott ordered Duncan to study the Chalco route after Duncan had proposed to do so, as if Scott had not previously ordered Worth, Duncan's commander, to investigate the route. It is alleged that the case did not warrant "a departure from the rules of the [military] art to so great a degree" [as was proposed by the Mexicaltzingo plan]; yet Ripley shows that the Texcoco route was impracticable (pp. 179, 186), that El Peñón was virtually "impregnable" (p. 188), and that the Chalco route was considered out of the question (p. 190). This was a situation clearly warranting extraordinary measures. On p. 202 Ripley seems to argue that the orders to attack Mexicaltzingo cannot have been given to conceal the movement that Scott actually made, since any movement against that point would have caused Santa Anna to place troops in that vicinity, detect promptly Scott's real intention, and defend the southern line, and so the ruse would have defeated itself. But (1) the question concerns orders, not--as Ripley assumes--an actual movement toward Mexicaltzingo; (2) Santa Anna had troops in the vicinity of Mexicaltzingo, but the results anticipated by Ripley did not follow; (3) indeed, though Ripley was not aware of the fact, Santa Anna concluded Aug. 14 (=76=to Valencia) that Scott was going to S. Agustín, and merely had the reserves at S. Antonio garita go with five 4-pounders to S. Antonio hacienda (=76=to Valencia, Aug. 14), for he was relying on his fortified points; and (4) since the same troops could not defend at the same time the works near Mexicaltzingo and also the road to S. Agustín, orders involving a threat against the former would have tended, without costing Scott anything, to keep the latter clear.

The vulnerable point of El Peñón Viejo was that owing to its steepness the cannon could have little action on the slopes (=66=Stevens to Smith, Aug. 26). A particular disadvantage in attacking Mexicaltzingo would have been that (Santa Anna said) such a movement could have been detected in good season, and reinforcements could have been placed there promptly (=76=to Bravo, Aug. 13). As the American generals needed information that could only be obtained from Mexicans, they were peculiarly exposed to the artifices of spies, and some of these gained a confidential footing with Worth and even with Scott.

25.18. To S. Agustín. =218=Henshaw narrative. S. Anna, Apelación, 47, 50; app., 146-51. Id., Detall, 12. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 195. Davis, Autobiog., 192-5. =217=Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21. =221=Hill, diary. =159=Collins papers. Latrobe, Rambler, 121. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 290, 293. Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 37. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (map). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, E. L. F. Hardcastle). G. W. Smith, Co. A. =204=Gouverneur, diary. =178=Davis, diary. Gamboa, Impug., 38-9. México á través, iv, 672. Apuntes, 220, 229. Arróniz, Manual, i, 243. Semmes, Service, 352-5, 370-5. Nebel and Kendall, 28. =12=Caryton to Lambert, Sept. 1. Steele, Campaigns, i, 123. =236=Judah, diary. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 275. Moore, Scott's Camp., 129. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, 168. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 139. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303 (Scott); app., 28 (Twiggs); 37 (Sumner); 39 (McKinstry). =76=To Alvarez, Aug. 11, 21. =76=To Valencia, Aug. 14, 15. =76=To Lombardini, Aug. 14. =76=Acuerdos, Aug. 15, 16. =76=To Herrera, Aug. 15. =76=Becerril, Aug. 15. =76=Valencia, Aug. 14, 15. =76=Alvarez, Aug. 16, 17, 19, 22, 25. =76=To Alvarez, Aug. 14, 15. Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 647 (Lee to Mason).

Santa Anna's policy seems to have been wise. Any detachments that he could have thrown hastily in front of Worth must have consisted of inferior troops, and would no doubt have been routed. The last portion of the Chalco route was over ground which, though in part hilly, was firm (T. F. Davis, diary). The brush with Twiggs was greatly exaggerated by the Americans, some of whom estimated the enemy as 12,000 strong, and felt that a victory was gained, whereas Alvarez had no intention of fighting, and did not come within musket range. It has been said (Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 289) that Scott should have had the cavalry, Worth and Pillow advance without heavy baggage, and reach S. Agustín in twelve hours. But (1) there was a distinct advantage in keeping Worth's division intact, (2) Scott's van was less likely to be attacked than his rear, (3) Scott probably understood that Santa Anna intended to rely on his fortified positions, for he was well posted about affairs at the capital (=13=Thornton to Bankhead, June 14), nothing could be kept secret there, and Santa Anna's Plan was known to many, (4) Scott's judgment on the point was likely, especially in view of his fuller knowledge of the facts, to be better than Ripley's, and (5) it was justified by the event. The Chalco route was the one taken by Cortez (Gamboa, Impug., 38). In leaving Peñón Viejo Santa Anna had money and provisions remain there for a prospective "distant march" (=76=to Herrera, Aug. 15). Whether this referred to a pursuit of the Americans or his own flight can only be guessed, but as the order was addressed to Herrera, one inclines to the former view.

25.19. =52=Trist, no. 11, Aug. 14. México á través, iv, 672-3. Apuntes, 220-2, 230. S. Anna, Detall, 11-2. =95=Notice to first alcalde, Aug. 19. So. Qtrly. Rev., Apr., 1852. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 446. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 445, Mar. 2. =76=To Valencia, Aug. 14, 15, 16. =76=To Lombardini, Aug. 14. =76=Valencia, Aug. 15, 16. =76=To Alvarez, Aug. 16. =76=Acuerdo, Aug. 16.

XXVI. CONTRERAS, CHURUBUSCO

26.1. The basis for distances is Smith and Hardcastle's map of the Valley (Sen. 11; 31, 1). A garita had to be a somewhat formal place, for municipal duties were levied and collected there, and some accommodations for the officials and the guards were necessary. The last word of "S. Antonio Abad" was commonly omitted. For the sake of distinction the Acapulco road will be called the "highway" and the road via Tacubaya, San Angel and Ansaldo the "turnpike" (Trist's word for it). The name Contreras was applied by Americans to three places, to none of which it belonged. Contreras was a village on the turnpike some distance south of Padierna. San Agustín was also known as Tlálpam.

26.2. August 14 Valencia's =76=return (estado) included 486 officers, 5078 rank and file, 1447 horses, one siege 16-pounder, three siege 12-pounders, five 8-inch (68-pound) howitzers and fifteen smaller guns. One of the guns was assigned to Torrejón and he saved it. Another small one disappeared. The name of the rounded hill where Valencia took post was Peloncoahutitlán.

26.3. Valencia had one excuse, for very possibly he believed (in view of Santa Anna's delay at San Luis Potosí, abandonment of Tampico, apparent neglect of Vera Cruz, etc.) that the President traitorously intended to leave open a door by which Scott could reach the capital; but none the less he was a conscienceless conspirator and the mortal foe of Santa Anna, disgusted with subordination, and eager to overthrow his chief. His past conduct had been thoroughly suspicious, and his manifiesto of August 22 does not bear analysis well. To remove him would have seemed an act of jealousy, if not treason, and very likely have caused a mutiny. Santa Anna hoped that the national crisis would hold him in line for the time being. Besides, Santa Anna did not know precisely where Valencia proposed to make a stand (Diario, Sept. 1). When he learned, he sent General Mora to reconnoitre the position (=76=to Valencia, August 19). Again, he could not afford to raise an issue with Valencia now, for the latter (doubtless with the help of his engineers) had divined Scott's plans better than the former, and undertaken to guard a quarter left open by the President. Finally it was quite possible that Santa Anna thought Valencia would be taught a lesson by the Americans. It is unnecessary to discuss the merits and disadvantages of Valencia's position, for they will appear plainly in the narrative (see Balbontín, Invasión, 110-11). Had the Americans been willing to do as he wished, the hill would have been entirely satisfactory. Of Valencia's intellectual quality the following specimen is suggestive: "Soldiers of Liberty, anarchy put out its head, but your arms drowned it in a moment."

26.4. Mexican preliminaries. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 304, 306 (Scott); 348-9 (Smith); app., 80 (Alexander). Collins papers. =66=Lee to Smith, Aug. 21. Semmes, Service, 393. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 276 (Longstreet); 570. =224=Intercepted Letters (14, L. V. to M. O.; 26, to Old Gentleman). Apuntes, 221, 230-6. Balbontín, Invasión, 111. Gamboa, Impug., 41. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (F. Pérez). México á través, iv, 672-3, 677. Long, Memoirs, 54. So. Qtrly. Rev., Apr., 1852, pp. 408-9. Latrobe, Rambler, 90. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Hardcastle to Smith; Smith to Abert). Valencia, Manifiesto. Calderón, Life, i, 314. =178=Davis, diary. Prieto, Mems., ii, 213. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 534, res., July 28. S. Anna, Apelación, 51-2; app., 140-54, 157-60. Id., Detall, 12. Monitor Repub., Dec. 17, 1847. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 276. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 279-83. =76=Acuerdo, Aug. 16. =76=To Lombardini, July 22. =76=To Alvarez, Aug. 21. =76=Zerecero, Aug. 25. =76=To Valencia, Aug. 16. =76=Expediente contra Valencia.

The defences of Valencia's camp were somewhat extended later, but not enough to render them formidable.

26.5. According to a topographical officer (Washington Union, Nov. 3, 1847) the only route from San Agustín to Mexico of which the Americans knew when they reached the ground was the highway. This surprises one at first. But the turnpike beyond San Angel was a local road serving only a few farms, the small villages of San Gerónimo and Contreras, and a manufacturing establishment near Contreras. It seemed to be of no strategic significance, and was not likely to be heard of at a distance. The fortifications along the highway were largely developed after Scott turned toward San Agustín. Valencia's movements were impromptu. Scott had an Englishman residing at Mexico in his pay, and we know that two persons brought data on Aug. 19 (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 162). Apparently Scott did his duty as to seeking information.

26.6. American preliminaries. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 304, 307, 315, 348-50 (reports of Scott, Worth and Smith); app., 41 (Mason); 66 (Smith); 101 (Magruder); 118 (Cadwalader). Wilhelm, Eighth Inf., ii, 307. Picayune, Sept. 8; Oct. 21. =66=Lee to Smith, Aug. 21. Semmes, Service, 380, 393. =224=Intercepted Letters (26, To Old Gentleman). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 275. Grant, Mems., i, 142. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 188 (Trist, no. 12). =76=Expediente contra Valencia. =236=Judah, diary. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Hardcastle to Smith). Monitor Repub., Dec. 17. Diario, Aug. 19.

26.7. Quitman had only the Second Pennsylvania, the Marines, Steptoe's battery and a troop or two of dragoons (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 341); but Worth's division was available in case of need. See Claiborne, Quitman, i, 347.

26.8. 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 (=335=Trist, 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 29.31), 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); =335=Pillow 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 (=139=to 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" (=316=Judd, 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.

26.9. Valencia could see that retreat meant his personal ruin, and he preferred to argue that honor required him to hold his ground.

26.10. Persifor F. Smith, a graduate from Princeton, was admitted to the bar at Philadelphia, practised law at New Orleans, and had considerable military experience in the Florida war. He was a simple, scholarly, unassuming man; but all ranks appreciated his ability, attainments, clear perception, valor, promptness and steadiness.

26.11. The battle of Contreras. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303, etc.; app., pp. 66, etc. (reports of Scott and his officers). S. Anna, Apelación, 52-5; app., 154-6, 160. Id., Detall, 12-4. Picayune, Sept. 8; Oct. 21. =221=Hill, diary. =61=Twiggs to Marcy, Feb. 7, 1848. =66=Lee to Smith, Aug. 21, 1847. =60=Riley to Westcott, Nov. 30. Semmes, Service, 381, 385, 392. =224=Intercepted letters (14, L. V. to M. O.; 25, note by E. A. H.; 28). Apuntes, 237-43. McSherry, El Puchero, 73, 76. Murphy, Hungerford, 99. Delta, Sept. 9; Nov. 12; Dec. 1. Monitor Repub., Sept. 27 (Salas); Dec. 12 (S. Anna). Porvenir, Aug. 26, supplem. (Valencia). =65=Scott, gen. orders 258. Balbontín, Invasión, 111-8. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 276-8, 281. Ballentine, English Soldier, ii, 207, 218-20, 223-6, 228-9. Davis, Autobiog., 196-8. =66=Foster to Smith, Aug. 23. =66=McClellan to Smith, Aug. 23. =66=Beauregard to Smith, Aug. 25. =66=Tower to Smith, Aug. 25. =66=Mason to Smith, Aug. 24. Prieto, Mems., ii, 222-7. López, Décimo Calendario, 58. =80=Olaguíbel, Aug. 20-1. =199=Anon. MS. written by a person of importance. =307=Roberts, diary. Gamboa, Impug., 42-3. =350=Weber, recoils. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (F. Pérez). Ramírez, México, 298. México á través, iv, 677. =217=Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21. =327=Sutherland to father, Nov. 28. Jackson, Memoirs of Jackson, 41. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 188. Long, Memoirs, 54-9. Wash. Union, Sept. 20. Diario, Aug. 24; Sept. 1. So. Mag., July, 1874, p. 75. =204=Gouverneur, diary. =277=Burnett, statement. United Service, June, 1896 (Lane). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 62 (H. L. Scott); 68-9 (Williams); 72-4, 298, 300 (Gen. Scott); 75-9, 463 (Lee); 81-6 (Cadwalader); 97 (Deas); 99-106 (Smith); 137-8 (Canby); 147-51 (Riley); 162 (Hooker); 180 (Hodge); 182-4, 188 (Ripley); 208-9 (Rains); 230-1 (Beauregard); 232-3 (Hitchcock); 246 (Morgan); 267 (Shields); 270 (Howard); 283, 286-7 (Twiggs); 334-5 (verdict); 570. Stevens, I. I. Stevens, i, 174-9, 196. Carreño, Jefes, ccxc (Pérez), ccxciv (Torrejón). Niles, Oct. 30, pp. 138-9. Cong. Globe, 34, 1, p. 105 (Foote). Lancaster Co. Hist. Soc. Mag., Mar. 6, 1908. Giménez, Mems., 266. =291=Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. =291=Gardner to Canby, Aug. 30. =291=Pierce to Hooker, Aug. 22. Engineer School, U. S. A., Occas. Papers, No. 16. Valencia, Manifiesto. =178=Davis, diary. Stevens, Vindication, 4-7. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 281-3. =76=Tornel, Aug. 19. =76=Orders to Valencia, Aug. 26. Kenly, Md. Vol., 421. =73=Lozano, No. 2., Aug. 24. =210=Bragg to Hammond, Dec. 20. =125=Bonham to wife, Aug. 24; to adj. gen., Feb. 26, 1849. So. Qtrly. Rev., Apr., 1852, pp. 415-26. Calderón, Rectificaciones, 41. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 72-3. =112=Beauregard to Smith, Aug. 25. =76=Valencia, Aug. 19. =76=J. B. Argüelles, Aug. 22. =76=Alcorta to Alvarez, Aug. 21. =76=Alvarez, Aug. 21.

REMARKS. This engagement was called by the Mexicans the battle of Padierna. At first Valencia had a reserve under Salas at Ansaldo, but he drew this in at about the time when the battle began. He then placed Torrejón's cavalry between Ansaldo and his main position. A turn in the road near his position enabled him to command the turnpike for some distance. For further details regarding his dispositions see Apuntes, 236. During the afternoon of Aug. 19 the Ninth Infantry (Ransom) and a battalion of the Twelfth under Lieut. Col. Bonham crossed the ravine and remained about 200 yards from Valencia's camp until 9 or 10 o'clock, partly occupying usefully Valencia's attention. When these troops retired, Mexicans attacked the guard at Padierna, but American reinforcements defeated them. R. E. Lee and G. B. McClellan helped set up Magruder's battery, and T. J. ("Stonewall") Jackson commanded one section of it a part of the time. These officers distinguished themselves highly. Riley understood he was "sent across the pedregal to cut off the retreat of the enemy and check reinforcements" (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 148). When Smith moved to the right, he had Magruder resume firing to divert attention from that movement. Magruder's men tried to save themselves by falling flat at each Mexican discharge, and the ground sheltered them somewhat, yet fifteen were killed or wounded. His guns were withdrawn over the rocks after nightfall.

It has been said with force that it would have been better had Scott been on the ground from the first. But he did not wish or expect to fight; no doubt he had much administrative work on hand; he was not far away; and he believed that his instructions to Pillow provided for all probable contingencies. It seems to be true that Pillow, a most plausible and insinuating talker, had gained a certain ascendency over him. Probably for this reason, as well as owing to his general wish to gratify his officers, Scott permitted Pillow to make statements in his report on the battle, which, as the trial of Pillow showed, ought not to have been there (=210=Bragg). Pillow later urged the point that Scott approved of his dispositions; but it was Scott's practice to accept what his officers did, and make the best of it. Scott was slightly wounded in the leg during the afternoon of August 19 but did not mention the incident at the time. Later the wound made him trouble.

The Fifteenth Infantry (Morgan) did not act with the rest of Pierce's brigade on Aug. 19, for Pillow had detached it as a reserve. Pierce was injured by falling from his horse, and hence Col. Ransom took command of the brigade. Late in the afternoon Valencia placed a 4-pounder and two battalions of infantry on the turnpike toward Ansaldo to prevent more Americans from reaching San Gerónimo (Balbontín, Invasión, 114), but this force accomplished nothing. At first he had thought the Americans crossing the pedregal in groups, partly concealed by the ground and trees, were mere scouting parties. It was found impossible at the Pillow trial to decide at just what time Scott arrived on the lookout hill (the lower summit of Zacatepec). The variation of careful witnesses was an hour and twenty-five minutes. Watches appear to have been out of order, and therefore one cannot be positive regarding the precise time of any event.

Smith's plan to attack Santa Anna on Aug. 19 has been criticised as unsound (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 339, note). But he believed a repulse of Santa Anna would ensure the defeat of Valencia; he wanted to dispose of Santa Anna before his forces could become stronger; he did not wish (having no artillery) to let him cannonade at his leisure; and probably the situation of the American right appeared to require unusual boldness. Lee (=66=to J. L. Smith, Aug. 21) attached less importance to this operation. Tower (=66=to J. L. Smith, Aug. 25) said the inexperience of the new troops, particularly Cadwalader's, had something to do with leading Smith to give up the plan. Doubtless Pillow's fiasco, Aug. 19, tended to inflate Valencia's confidence and so to ensure his destruction. Valencia's artillery accomplished nothing against the Americans at San Gerónimo, partly because the trees and rough ground hid and protected them, and partly because the guns he used were not very powerful. Smith supposed he was Shields's senior, and retained the command after the latter's arrival at San Gerónimo. Shields refrained from claiming it, knowing that Smith had made preparations to attack and understood the situation best. Cadwalader, as well as Shields, outranked Smith; but doubtless he felt unequal to the situation, and he did not assert his rights. During the night the few houses at San Gerónimo were required for the wounded.

Santa Anna has been too much criticised for his course. Valencia did not see the Americans in force, Aug. 19, until after one o'clock, and we do not know how promptly he reported the fact. Santa Anna stated that at about two o'clock he received word from Valencia that cannon fire had begun. He was then at San Antonio, yet in about four hours he had a considerable force near San Gerónimo. He reasonably hesitated about attacking an unknown number of Americans in an admirable defensive position. His cavalry could have done nothing in the ravines, lanes and woods which composed it, and his artillery little. Had he attacked, as he threatened to do, late on Aug. 19, he would have been beaten. After Riley joined him, Smith had about 3600 men (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 105). Had Santa Anna advanced by the turnpike he would have exposed his flank to Smith. Valencia had got himself into a hopeless impasse, and the best thing he could have done was to tear himself out of it, as Santa Anna ordered. Santa Anna sent orders to Pérez in the afternoon to help Valencia, but overtaking that brigade (which had set out for the purpose) took charge of it. Shields brought about 600 men (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 344).

Smith's plan of attack against Valencia was not perfectly safe, for, as Napoleon said, the ground of a night attack should be thoroughly known; but the circumstances warranted the risk. Friday morning Tower, who had discovered the ravine (=66=Tower to J. L. Smith, Aug. 25), led Riley's brigade, and Beauregard led Smith's. As soon as Valencia was routed, orders were given to complete the road begun Aug. 19, but this was soon found to be unnecessary. The Fifteenth regiment, on account of its distance from Riley, reached Valencia's camp too late to take part in the battle. It should be remembered that Smith's troops did not know of the demoralization of the Mexicans, and expected to find them elated and confident. Apparently Shields made a mistake in leaving San Gerónimo to go to the road on Friday morning, but the mistake was natural. Valencia went to Toluca with a few troops. He was notified to present himself for trial, which would have meant death. Some irregulars made a trivial attack upon Quitman (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 347), but Alvarez's troops did not come near San Agustín. Twiggs had a lame foot at this time, and he was not under fire Aug. 19. Brookes (Brooks) was on his staff.

Ripley (War with Mexico ii, 291) intimates that Scott sent Pillow and Twiggs forward, Aug. 19, without taking much into account Valencia's army and cannon, and permitted the Mexicans to open the battle when they pleased. This seems careless on Scott's part; but, as the text shows, Scott did not know Valencia had marched to Padierna, and had no reason to suppose (particularly in view of the threat against S. Antonio) that large Mexican forces would be there. Ripley suggests (p. 292) that it was improper to let Valencia see the road-building, learn the Americans were moving that way, and prepare to receive them; but road-building ceased when the Americans came in view of Valencia, and after that time he had little opportunity for preparations. Ripley complains (p. 293) that it was confusing to have Twiggs open the battle, Pillow take charge of it, and Scott supersede Pillow; but it is not customary for the general-in-chief to ride at the head of his forces on a road-building expedition, and under the circumstances the above arrangement was natural. He remarks (p. 297) that Riley's reconnoitring with a view to assaulting Valencia's rear proves that he understood his mission was more than to occupy S. Gerónimo and await orders [i.e. understood that Pillow sent him to do what Smith did]; but Riley testified that he had no such understanding, and reconnoitred on his own responsibility to obtain information that might prove useful (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 147-8). Ripley, in his efforts to sustain Pillow's claims, says (p. 297) that Riley fell back because of his "believing himself unsupported," yet says that Riley "relied" on being supported. He explains (p. 298) Pillow's not informing Riley of the despatch of Cadwalader by saying that a single mounted officer could not cross the pedregal; but an officer could cross on foot, and all or most of the officers were afoot (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 304). Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 488) observes that placing four brigades successively between superior forces of the enemy involved a great risk; but it should be remembered not only that it was worth while to take the risk and that the American troops were of superior quality, but that Santa Anna was not present when Riley went to S. Gerónimo, Valencia could not see what was taking place in that quarter, he was expecting a frontal attack all the afternoon, S. Gerónimo was a splendid defensive position, and the Mexicans could not see how large forces occupied it.

Had Santa Anna and Valencia coöperated with judgment and good-will, Scott's army would perhaps have been crushed; but had the Mexicans been sensible and patriotic, we should have had no war. How much Scott knew about the mutual relations of Santa Anna and Valencia one cannot say, but in all probability he was well informed regarding them. As scarcely needs to be pointed out, this battle and that of Churubusco had a great effect in discouraging, not merely the Mexicans in the vicinity but those at a distance. Men intending to fight or to provide money drew back at once (e.g. =76=Isunza, Aug. 24).

26.12. Santa Anna's course after the battle of Contreras. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert). =224=Intercepted letters (14, L. V. to M. O.; 22, diary; 23, narrative; 26, to Old Gentleman). Apuntes, 209-10, 241, 244, 250-4. Semmes, Service, 396-7. Picayune, Oct. 8. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306, 315, 325; app., 69 (reports of Scott and others). S. Anna, Apelación, 53 Id., Detail, 14-5. Balbontín, Invasión, 120-1. =217=Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21. =61=Huger, Aug. 22. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (F. Pérez, Rangel, Argüelles, Zenea). México á través, iv, 678. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Diario, Sept. 1, 2. Monitor Repub., Oct. 24; Dec. 13, 17. Carreño, Jefes, ccxc (Pérez), ccciv, cccvi. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 446; iv, app., 283-4. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 295. Remarks on Mason and Hardcastle's Plan of Worth's operations (Sen. 1; 30, 1). =76=Report of losses, Churubusco, Aug. 21. =76=Rincón, Aug. 20. =76=Argüelles, Aug. 22. =76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26.

26.13. To guard against contingencies Scott had ordered Worth with Garland's brigade and Quitman with his troops to proceed toward San Gerónimo on Friday morning, leaving San Agustín guarded by Harney (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306-7). This has been thought risky. But Scott had no doubt learned from Lee that Santa Anna was operating in the vicinity of San Gerónimo, where was evidently the critical field, and hence probably he felt that there was little danger of an attack upon San Agustín that Harney aided, if necessary, by Clarke's brigade (not far distant) could not meet.

26.14. Scott's course after the battle of Contreras. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306-9, 338, 344; app., 36 (reports of Scott, Pillow, Shields, Kearny). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 278, 281-2. Davis, Autobiog., 199. Picayune, Sept. 8. =66=Lee to Smith, Aug. 21. =335=Trist, draft of address. Wash. Union, Sept. 15. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 74, 632 (Scott); 77 (Lee). So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 81-2. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1018 (Scott). Smith, To Mexico, 199.

26.15. Worth's operations at Churubusco. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306, 315, 333; app., 36,41-2,44-65 (reports of Scott and officers). =221=Hill, diary. =68=Bonneville court-martial (testimony of Hoffman, Nelson, Pemberton, Worth, Armistead, Ruggles, etc.). =335=Trist, draft of address. Semmes, Service, 394-400. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert). Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 464 (Lee). =224=Intercepted letters (14, L. V. to M. O.; 23, narrative; 26, to Old Gentleman). Apuntes, 244-6. Picayune, Sept. 22; Oct 8. Delta, Sept. 26. =76=Zerecero to Guerra, Aug. 25. =76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26. Balbontín, Invasión, 120-2. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 278, 282. =260=Henshaw, comments on map. Stevens, Stevens, i, 198. =61=Huger, report, Aug. 22. =65=Scott, gen. orders 327, Oct. 28. Gamboa, Impug., 47. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (Pérez, Perdigón Garay). Ramírez, México, 299-301. =73=Lozano, no. 2, Aug. 24. =236=Judah, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1018 (Scott); 1076 (Hoffman). Carreño, Jefes, cccvi (Pérez). So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 82-4, 90-1. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 294-5, 298. Smith, To Mexico, 199-202. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 284. S. Anna, Detall, 15. Monitor Repub., Dec. 17.

26.16. Twiggs's operations. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306, 315, 322, 325, 348, etc.; app., 69-82, 85-8, 96-7, etc. (reports of Scott and officers). =221=Hill, diary. =12=Caryton to Lambert, Sept. 1. Apuntes, 246, 250-3. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 230. =66=Stevens to Smith, Aug. 24. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 98 (H. L. Scott). Stevens, Stevens, i, 180-4, 199. Stevens, Vindic., 4-7. Carreño, Jefes, 29. Michigan Pioneer Soc. Colls., ii, 173; vii, 117. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 87-90. Engineer School, U. S. A., Occas. Papers, no. 16. Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit., xvii (Van Deusen). =76=Argüelles, Aug. 22. =76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26. Davis, Autobiog., 199. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (G. Pérez). Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 447. Calderón, Rectificaciones, 43. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 73-4. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 278-9, 282.

26.17. Shields's operations. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303, 306, 315, 325, 333, 342; app., 76, 106, 113, 118, 128, 130-4 (reports of Scott and officers). =66=Lee to Smith, Aug. 21. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 342-3. City of Charleston, Year Book, 1883, p. 523. =303=Shields to Quitman, Aug. 21. =221=Hill, diary. =335=Trist, draft of address. Semmes, Service, 402. =224=Intercepted letters (22, diary; 25, to E.). Hawthorne, Pierce, 100. Apuntes, 246-7. Murphy, Hungerford, 102. =76=Zerecero to Guerra, Aug. 25. Balbontín, Invasión, 121-2. Davis, Autobiog., 200-1, 286. =70="Guerra," no. 30 (F. Pérez). Stevens, Stevens, i, 198. Ramírez, México, 300. Carreño, Jefes, ccxciv (Torrejón), cccvii (Pérez). =170=Crooker to mother, Sept. 1. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 93-9. Oil painting of Butler: sen. chamber, Columbia, S. C. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert). =291=Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. Monitor Repub., Dec. 17. =125=Bonham to adj. gen., June 15, 1848. Nat. Intelligencer, Jan. 3, 1848. Stevens, Vindication, 4-7. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 285. =277=Burnett, statement. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 279. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 464. S. Anna, Detall, 15.

26.18. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306, 315, 325, etc.; app., 35, 42, 46, 49, 64, 77, 127, etc. (reports of Scott and officers). Semmes, Service, 397, 401-2. =224=Intercepted letters (17, J. U. to J. P. F.). Apuntes, 254-8. =76=Argüelles, Aug. 22. =76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26. Balbontín, Invasión, 122. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 233. Carreño, Jefes, cccvii (Pérez). Niles, Jan. 22, 1848, p. 323.

26.19. S. Anna, Detall, 15-6. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 313, 318, 340, 347; app., p. 36 (reports of Scott and officers). Picayune, Oct. 21. Apuntes, 247. Charleston Courier, Oct. 2. Balbontín, Invasión, 123. Fate of F. D. Mills. Grant, Mems., i, 146. Davis, Autobiog., 202. =223=Hirschorn, recolls. De Peyster, Kearny, 140, 142-5. Journ. U. S. Cavalry Assoc., Mar., 1911, p. 841. Ramsey, Other Side, 287, note. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 285-6.

REMARKS ON THE BATTLE OF CHURUBUSCO. The active fortifying of the convent did not begin until the afternoon of Aug. 18 (=76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26); one gun arrived there on the morning of the twentieth and the rest were left by Santa Anna later that day (Apuntes, 252); and hence Scott could not well have learned from spies what the situation was in that quarter. It is bootless to say (Calderón, Rectificaciones, 43) that Santa Anna should have prevented Scott from reaching Coyoacán. Neither he nor his army was in a condition to fight without fortifications, and they could not have stopped the Americans anywhere if not at Churubusco. On the Mexican right at the convent were two 8-pounders and a 4-pounder; in embrasures at the front, an 8-pounder and a 4-pounder; en barbette at the left an 8-pounder; and in an embrasure defending the left flank a 6-pounder. A detachment of the Independencia battalion under Peñúñuri occupied Coyoacán when the Americans approached, and retired with some loss. The fight at Churubusco convent was actually begun by the Mounted Rifles, but their orders were merely to escort the reconnoitring party, and the First Artillery was expected to clear the way by turning the supposed one-gun battery (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 330). Riley had only the Second and Seventh Infantry at Churubusco. The Fourth Artillery was on guard at Valencia's camp. Scott ordered that Worth should attack and turn San Antonio after finding the Americans were in its rear, but when he sent Lee to give the signal to Worth, Lee found Worth had already done this.

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 250-1) says that Scott ordered Pillow to do what Twiggs did and vice versa. But (1) nothing of this is found in Scott's or Pillow's report; (2) Scott would not have been likely to order two bitter enemies (Worth and Twiggs) to coöperate in an indefinite manner, and (3) H. L. Scott testified at the Pillow trial that he carried from Gen. Scott to Twiggs the order to attack the convent (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 98). Davis, Shields's aide, says on the other hand (Autobiog., 199) that Scott knew by reconnaissances of a remarkably strong fortification at Churubusco, and ordered Twiggs to take the route actually taken by Shields. But (1) Davis's first statement is not correct; (2) Scott was at Coyoacán, where the roads forked, and would have recalled Twiggs, had he seen that officer take the wrong road; (3) Scott felt in haste to strike the retreating Mexicans, and the quickest way to do that was apparently by the road to Churubusco; and (4) H. L. Scott's testimony, supported by the reports of Gens. Scott and Twiggs, seems to be decisive. Davis's account contains other errors, and appears to have been written long afterwards from memory.

What Scott intended to do after concentrating we do not know. Probably, as was his custom, he held several plans in suspense, awaiting developments and fuller information regarding the enemy, which the delay expected in Worth's operations would have given him time to acquire. But his promptness in sending off Pierce and Shields, and his attempt to hold back one of Smith's and one of Pierce's brigades, suggest that he aimed to get behind Santa Anna himself and force a decisive battle. Gen. U. S. Grant endorsed Scott's strategy at Churubusco as faultless and said the engineers served him perfectly (Mems., i, 145); but Stevens's confession is decisive on both points (Stevens, Stevens, i, 180, 184, 196, 199). Stevens states expressly that Scott had intended to reconnoitre before attacking at Churubusco.

Worth's attacking the bridge without reconnoitring was mainly due to over-confidence and eagerness; but the intense ambition and rivalry of Worth and Twiggs probably had something to do with the undue haste of both. Of course Semmes (Service, 398, 446) asserts that Worth advanced with deliberation and reconnoitred the bridgehead, but the evidence, especially that given at the trial of Major Bonneville, is decisively against him. Ripley, on the other hand, states that a reconnaissance was not practicable (War with Mexico, ii, 267); but while a complete reconnaissance could not be made, the cornfields on the right would have enabled an officer to advance unseen, and at a glance learn something regarding the obstacle in front. This would have been to save, not lose, time.

Scott was accused of having no plan and leaving his generals to attack as they saw fit, and was criticized especially for fighting to gain a road neither needed nor used by him, from which the enemy could easily have been manoeuvred, had they cared to hold it (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 378); but the text explains these apparent errors. The battle was, however, in effect a blunder, even though not chargeable to Scott as such. Still, the ardor of the army was something not to be thrown away by delaying, and the promptness of the Americans prevented Santa Anna from completing his preparations. (Greene, Russian Army, 433: Excessive prudence has a bad effect on the morale of the men.) Perhaps Scott gained as much as he lost in this way. Moreover, had he manoeuvred the Mexicans out of Churubusco, it would have been necessary to fight them elsewhere, when they would probably have been more ready to fight; the moral effect of this victory on both armies would not have been gained; and our military annals would not have contained this page. The moral effect on the Mexicans, however, was largely offset by pride in the stubborn resistance they had offered, and by the armistice that Scott immediately offered. One could not always determine just where firing, heard from a distance, was taking place. Probably for this reason we have inconsistent reports that make it impossible to determine precisely where and when the battle began. The Sixth Infantry, moving toward the bridge a considerable distance in advance of Worth himself, were said to have received the first fire from the convent (Hoffman: Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1076), but Scott reported that the attack upon the convent began some time before that upon the bridgehead. Stevens (I. I. Stevens, 198) supports him. The writer in "Apuntes" says that Worth was checked by ammunition wagons in the road, and that Santa Anna, seeing this, recalled Pérez to defend the bridge; but the wagons appear to have caused no such delay as this writer assumed. The rest of Santa Anna's force (which this writer says kept on towards Mexico) was mainly cavalry, and presumably this cavalry assisted in flanking Shields. Brev. Lieut. Col. C. F. Smith's battalion consisted of two companies from the Second Artillery, one from the Fifth Infantry and one from the Eighth Infantry (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 316).

The Fifteenth, but only one battalion (commanded by Capt. Wood) of the Twelfth Infantry was with Pierce, and a battery of mountain howitzers. Pierce, who had been thrown from his horse the day before, fainted and fell out before coming into action, so Shields commanded both brigades. Lee was the engineer officer with Shields. Seeing the need of more troops, he went back to Scott and obtained the Mounted Rifles and a troop of the Second Dragoons, but these men did not reach the spot in time to fight. Scott has been criticized for not sending a stronger force in this direction; but in fact he did not even retain an escort, and the Rifles were Twiggs's reserve (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 309). The South Carolina regiment, commonly known as the "Palmettoes," was made up of superior material. Men fit to be officers were in the ranks. Shields's movement was partly based on a misapprehension, for the Mexicans could retreat from Churubusco via Mexicaltzingo; but anyhow it was wise to aid the frontal attack on the bridge by applying pressure on the flank. Shields seems to have marched too far north to coöperate effectively with the attack upon the bridgehead. Presumably he did so in order to reach Santa Anna's rear. The combined effect of this movement and the outflanking of the Mexican left was to extend the American line enormously, and expose it to a (happily very improbable) counter-attack. At about three o'clock the Americans were in three sections, badly separated by distance or by the enemy, while the Mexicans, besides fighting behind strong defences, were all actually or virtually in touch one with another, and able to give mutual support.

Shields naturally overestimated the numbers opposed to him. Perhaps the Victoria and Hidalgo battalions from San Antonio passed along the highway to Mexico at this time. They would not fight. They thought hunger, sunburn and blistered feet bad enough. The Americans believed that they fought at least 32,000 men on Aug. 20 (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 313); but this was a great exaggeration. Rangel's brigade was in town; Alvarez's was far away; and there must have been a large number of soldiers guarding the fortifications, and attending to the general requirements of the service. The number fighting that day on the Mexican side seems to have been about 16,000, though Mexican authors have tried to reduce it to 12,000 or 13,000 (e.g. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 375).

Scott's dragoons were divided and assigned to special duties at this time (Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 38). Pillow and a part of his troops joined Worth, but figured very little in reports of the fighting. The Eleventh and Fourteenth Infantry attempted to cut the Mexican line from the bridge to the convent, but on account of the heavy fire were ordered to lie down. Col. Andrews explained that his regiment (Voltigeurs) came up later than Worth's division, and could not fire without endangering troops ahead of him (Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 122); but this is not convincing, for he must have left Coyoacán at about noon, and there was room enough at the front.

It was stated at Puebla in October, 1847, that 260 Americans fought with the Mexicans at Churubusco (Flag of Freedom, i, no. 1). Some of these men cut their way through (=70="Guerra," no. 30, Perdigón Garay), and reached Mexico (ibid., Rangel). Some eighty appear to have been captured. They were fairly tried. A number were found not guilty of deserting, and were released. About fifteen (Hartman, Journal, 18), who had deserted before the declaration of war, were merely branded with a "D," and fifty of those taken at Churubusco were executed (=65=Scott, gen. orders 296). There was bitter complaint because any were spared, but Scott declared he would rather be put to the sword with his whole army than do an injustice in the matter (Davis, Autobiog., 226), and urged the courts to find grounds for reducing the number of executions (=335=notes on letter to Ho. of Repres.). It was said that more than once the American deserters killed Mexicans who tried to raise a white flag at the convent. For the deserters and their fate consult: =12=Caryton to Lambert, Sept. 1; Picayune, Sept. 8; Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 319, 344; Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 230; =70="Guerra," no. 30 (Rangel, Perdigón Garay); Judah, diary; Amer. Star, Mexico, Sept. 20; Diario, Sept. 2; Flag of Freedom, Puebla, i, no. 1; =178=Davis, diary; Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 452; Hartman, Journal, 17-8; Scott, =65=gen. orders 281-3; Davis, Autobiog., 224-7). Hancock and Longstreet, destined to be on opposite sides at Gettysburg, here fought together. Twiggs was at this time under fire (Stevens, Stevens, i, 199). Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 493) explains the stiff defence of the convent as due to the presence of "men of Spanish (not Indian) descent"; but (1) the Victoria and Hidalgo battalions, which would not fight (supra) were still more truly "Spanish" (vol. ii, p. 3), and (2) the nearly worthless officers were always of such descent.

26.20. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 465, 478. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 313-4, 348, 384. Ho. 24; 31, 1. =76=Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26. =76=Quijano, Sept. 3. =76=Olaguíbel, Aug. 27. Ramírez, México, 299. Monitor Repub., Dec. 17 (S.Anna). =76=Alcorta, Aug. 30. =12=Caryton to Lambert, Sept. 1. Semmes, Service, 408. =76=Report, Aug. 21. =224=Intercepted letters, passim. =76=Cuerpo Médico, report, Aug. 24.

26.21. Mich. Pioneer Soc. Colls., ii, 173. Stevens, Stevens, i, 199. Encarnacion Prisoners, 55. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 278-80. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 331. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 464 (Lee). Apuntes, 247. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 377.

XXVII. NEGOTIATIONS

27.1. The American situation after the battles of Aug. 20. =260=Henshaw, comments on map. =61=Trousdale, Aug. 22. =217=Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21, etc. =218=Henshaw narrative. Vedette, vii, no. 9 (Toll). St. Louis Republican, Sept. 27. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 314 (Scott). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 284-5, 294. McSherry, El Puchero, 88, 100. =364=Worth to daughter, Sept. 2. =61=N. C. to Elizabeth Miller, Nov. 30. Semmes, Service, 413. London Chronicle, Nov. 12. N. Y. Herald, Feb. 5, 1848 (Pierce). =236=Judah, diary. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 129 (Scott). Semi-weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. =358=Williams to father, Oct. 1. =291=Pierce to wife, Aug. 23. Davis, Autobiography, 189. =350=Weber, recolls. =303=Shields to Quitman, Aug. 21. =221=Hill, diary. =68=Scott's statement to court of inquiry, Apr. 17, 1848. Gamboa, Impug., 49. Picayune, Sept. 9. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 460 (Turnbull).

Semmes (Service, 413) says that eventually Scott had to disperse the elements of peace, and incorrectly adds that they seemed to reassemble all the more rapidly. But Scott had reason to believe that what it required months to do later could be done now in only a few weeks. He reported that understanding his nation's desire for peace and "Willing to leave something to this republic--of no immediate value to us--on which to rest her pride, and to recover temper--I halted our victorious corps at the gates of the city" (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 314). Even the fiery Worth deemed it best not to enter Mexico at this time (=364=to daughter, Sept. 2).

27.2. =108=Marcy to Bancroft, Apr. 28. Polk, Messages, May 11; June 16, 1846; Feb. 10, 1847 (Richardson, iv, 437, 451, 511). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 328 (Scott); 334 (Marcy). =297=Benton MS. (with Polk's notes) received by Polk, July 4, 1846. =69=Worth to Bliss, Nov. 29; Dec. 14, 1846.

27.3. Bankhead reported, Oct. 10, 1846, that he was weary of arguing in favor of treating with the United States; that the dominant faction, positively refusing to negotiate, were crying, "A levy of 40,000 and make terms only on the other side of the Nueces!"

27.4. The overture of July, 1846. Sen. 107; 29, 2, pp. 1-3. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 43-4. =13=Pakenham, nos. 93, July 13; 107, Aug. 13; 119, Sept. 28; 130, Nov. 12, 1846. =13=Bankhead to Pakenham, Oct. 10. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, June 13. Locomotor, June 27. =158=Cobb to wife, June 4. National, June 22. Pregonero, June 11. Monitor Repub., June 22. =162=Buchanan to Conner, Oct. 1. =162=Conner, July 19. =13=Bankhead, nos. 92, 104, 105, June 29; July 30; 125, Aug. 31; 128-30, Sept. 7, 1846. Rejón to Buchanan, Aug. 31 (in Memoria de ... Relaciones, 1846). Polk, Diary, Sept. 19, 20, 26. Buchanan, Works (Moore), vii, 40, 82, 87. Indicador, Aug. 27. Nat. Intelligencer, Sept. 28. Diario, Dec. 6, 13, 25. =52=Black, May 21; June 9; July 4. =166=Id. to Conner, July 9; Aug. 1. =166=Pommarès to Gregory, July 2. =166=Id. to Conner, July 4, 21; Aug. 12. Reeves, Amer. Diplomacy, 298. Polk, Message, Dec. 8 (Richardson, iv, 494). =297=Mackenzie, July 7. =76=Comandante, V. Cruz, Aug. 26. See vol. i, pp. 217, 502, 504.

Sept. 26 Buchanan replied to Rejón that the United States did not wish to ignore in the peace negotiations the causes of the war, since to do that would be to abandon the just claims of the United States (Polk, Diary, Sept. 26; Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 44). The necessity of explaining his previous despatch illustrated once more the Mexican superiority in diplomatic fencing. Buchanan added that delay would make it the harder to end the conflict. Polk regarded the Mexican reply as a refusal to treat (Diary, Sept. 19). In consequence he proposed aggressive operations in Tamaulipas (chap. xiii, p. 263) and the imposition of contributions in lieu of paying for needed supplies (chap. xxxiii, p. 264). Buchanan, however, directed Conner to notify Slidell, who was still on waiting orders at New Orleans, whenever the Mexican government should announce that it was "disposed" to treat (=162=Oct. 1).

27.5. Polk, Diary, July 26, 30, 31; Aug. 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 1846. Id. to Senate, Aug. 4, 8 (Richardson, Messages, iv, 456, 466). Id., Message, Dec. 8, 1846 (ib., 494-5). Benton, View, ii, 681-2. Cong. Globe, 29, 1, pp. 1211-21. See also the long debates on the subject in Senate and House, Jan. and Feb., 1847 (Cong. Globe). Von Holst, United States, iii, 293. Benton, Abr. Debates, xvi, 40, note, 45 (Sevier), 60 (Cass). Boston Atlas, Feb. 17, 1847. =13=Mora to Palmerston, May 26, 1847. Diario, May 24; June 8, 1847. Republicano, June 11, 1847. =13=Thornton to Bankhead, June 14, 1847. (Consul Black notified) =13=Pakenham, no. 40, Mar. 29, 1847. Wash. Union, Aug. 12, 1846. =108=Polk to Bancroft, Jan. 30, 1847. Daily Telegraph, Oct. 16, 1852.

The request for two millions apparently grew out of the negotiation with Santa Anna; see chap. ix, note 9.38. Polk's object was probably to be able to supply funds promptly to the Mexican administration making a treaty, and to satisfy it that it would be able to gain the needful military support. The three millions could not be used until after Mexico should have ratified the treaty (Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 46 (Berrien), 60 (Cass); Washington Telegraph, Oct. 18, 1852), and the government was required to account for the expenditure of the money (U. S. Stat. at Large, ix, 174; Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 45). An improper use of it was therefore impossible.

27.6. The overture of January, 1847. Ho. 85; 29, 2. Washington Union, Oct. 9, 1846 (N. Y.); Apr. 22; June 11, 1847. =162=Matson to Conner, Feb. 20, 1847. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 36-7. =162=Conner to wife, Feb. 17. =132=Benton to Buchanan, Jan. 14. =132=Atocha to Buchanan, July 3. =132=Buchanan to Atocha, Jan. 18; to Scott and Perry, Apr. 23. Niles, May 1, p. 129; May 15, p. 162. Von Holst, United States, iii, 332. Courrier des Etats Unis, Aug. 15, 1846. Buchanan, Works (Moore), vii, 198, 211. =13=Bankhead, nos. 141, Sept. 29, 1846; 16, Mar. 2, 1847. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 444, res., Mar. 1. Tributo á la Verdad, 26. =58=Dobson, Feb. 14. Epoca, Feb. 23. =86=Gefe V. C. dept. to gov., Feb. 9. Don Simplicio, Feb. 17. Diario, Aug. 18. Webster, Writings, ix, 158. =52=Black, Feb. 24. =13=Pakenham, nos. 107, Aug. 13, 1846; 40, Mar. 29; 56, Apr. 28, 1847. Nat. Intelligencer, June 10, 1845; May 3, 1847. =52=Shannon to Cuevas, Mar. 1, 1845. =69=A clipping from Republicano. Polk, Diary, Nov. 7, 1846; Jan. 12-19; Mar. 20, 1847. Picayune, May 6, 1847. Delta, Mar. 13. =76=Morales, Feb. 9.

At Atocha's suggestion the American commissioners were to have power to suspend hostilities after actually meeting Mexican commissioners. Such was Webster's idea (Writings, ix, 158). The plan would have given Mexico a fine opportunity to protract the negotiations, let our war expenses accumulate, and cause our war spirit to languish. The Mexican reply said that the Texas affair [besides being atrocious in itself] was "a cover to ulterior designs, which now stand disclosed" (Sen. 1; 30, =1=, p. 37). The failure of the overture naturally angered Polk, and he declared for a most energetic military movement against the capital (Diary, Mar. 20). In April Atocha, who loved to represent himself as "sole agent for Santa Anna's gamecocks and all, and his particular friend in every respect" (=162=Conner, Feb. 17), returned to Mexico ostensibly on private business, but with =132=letters of introduction from the government to Scott, Shields and Perry. "O God", exclaimed El Republicano, "send unto us shells, rifles, shot and every kind of projectiles and misfortunes; burn and destroy us, reduce us to ashes, annihilate us, but ... permit not that Atocha be the broker of a treaty of peace!"

27.7. The Mexican attitude. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 190, 205-12 (Trist), 174. Picayune, May 12; July 8; Oct. 15, 17. Apuntes, 264. =13=Bankhead, nos. 42-3, Apr. 30; 58, May 29; 83, Aug. 29. Polk, Diary, Apr. 16. Ramírez, México, 224, 234, 239, 248, 263, 271, 275. Meade, Letters, i, 180. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 44. México en 1847, 34. =77=Undated clipping from N. Y. Sun describing a Mexican society to promote annexation to U. S. =47=Mexican letter, Orizaba, [Sept., 1847]. =13=Pakenham, no. 40, Mar. 29. =13=Bankhead to Pak., Oct. 10, 1846. Semmes, Service, 426. =335=Belton to Hitchcock, Aug. 23. Ocampo, Obras, 263. Republicano, Oct. 24, 1846; May 8, 11; June 9, 11, 1847. Esperanza, Aug. 8, 1846. Eco de Tampico, Nov. 11, 1846. Zempoalteca, July 15, 1847. =80=Speaker in México legislature, Apr. 21. London Times, July 15; Oct. 27; Nov. 6, 16, 1846; Jan. 8, 13; Feb. 9; Mar. 15; May 10, 1847. Tributo á la Verdad, 27. M'Sherry, El Puchero, 189. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 332, res., Sept. 24, 1846. Encarnacion Prisoners, 83. Opinion del Ejército, Nov. 13, 1846. Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 211 (Corwin); 323 (Calhoun). =335=Eayres to S. Anna, Oct. 10, 1846; reply, Oct. 21. =52=Black, Sept. 22, 28, 1846. =92=Mex. ayunt. to gov. Fed. District, Sept. 3, 1847. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 36. Wash. Union, Sept. 28; Oct. 6, 27, 1846; Apr. 22; May 22; July 10; Aug. 5; Oct. 5, 1847. Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 7, 1846; Feb. 5, 1847. N. Y. Express, Nov. 12, 1846. Iris Español, Oct. 30, 1846. Regenerador Repub., Dec. 23, 1846. Benton, Abr. Debates, xvi, 58-9 (Calhoun). =132=Cushing to Buchanan, Oct. 31, 1847. Constitutionnel, Nov. 10; Dec. 5, 1846; Aug. 17, 1847. Correspondant, Sept. 15, 1846. London Globe, Nov. 16, 1846. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 270. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 144. Monitor Repub., Sept. 2; Nov. 14, 18, 1846; Apr. 21, 29; May 15, 17, 27, 1847. Diario, Oct. 8; Nov. 21; Dec. 20, 23, 1846; Feb. 13, 14; Mar. 31; Apr. 11; May 5, 21, 23, 25; June 10, 18; July 8; Aug. 29, 1847. =76=Mora, Apr. 23, 1847. See also chap. xxxiv, note 34.21, and the corresponding text.

27.8. Appointment of Trist. Polk, Diary, Dec. 3, 4, 9, 1846; Jan. 18; Apr. 10, 14, 16, 21-2, 1847. =335=Buchanan to Trist, July 13, 1847. Mansfield, Mexican War, 275. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 310. =52=Trist to Buchanan, July 31, private. Ho. 69; 30, 1, p. 43 (Buchanan). =57=Trist, reports. Polk, Message, Dec. 7, 1847 (Richardson, iv, 536). Benton, View, ii, 704. Chase, Polk Administration, 215-6. =335=Mrs. Trist to T., July 13. =345=Blair to Van Buren, Dec. 26, 1846; July 7, 1847. Delta, May 1, 1848. =335=Trist to Mann, Dec. --, 1853 (draft). =335=Document by Trist re his wife. =335=Trist, draft of letter to the Times. Amer. Hist. Review, x, 312-4 (Reeves). =335=Trist to Felton, June 14, 18--. =335=Id., memorial (draft). =335=Buchanan, Aug. 28, 1845 (appointing Trist chief clerk). For Buchanan: =354=Welles papers; Monitor Repub., Mar. 10, 1848 (Landa); Poore, Perley's Remins., i, 332.

27.9. Trist's early relations with Scott in Mexico. =335=Trist's credentials, etc. =335=Walker to Trist Apr. 15. =335=Buchanan to Relaciones, Apr. 15. Pennsylvanian, Apr. 18. Boston Post, Apr. 15. =335=Trist to wife, Apr. 18, 25, 28; May 4, 8, 15, 21, etc.; to Buchanan, May 21. =335=Trist's sister to T., May 22. =335=Trist, drafts and memoranda. Scott, Mems., ii, 399-401, 576, 579. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 150, 153, 159, 181 (Trist); 126, 135, 157, 172 (Scott); 123, 128, 131 (Marcy); 108-9. =335=Buchanan to Trist, July 13, private. Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 43, 47, etc. =52=Trist to Scott, May 9. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 940 (Marcy); 993, 1218 (Scott). Kenly, Md. Vol., 336. Mansfield, Scott, 364. Polk, Diary, Apr. 15, 16; June 12-15; July 9, 13, 15, 17; Aug. 24. =52=Buchanan to Trist, July 13. London Times, July 15; Aug. 16 (Genevese traveller: Scott warned). Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 38. Polk, Message, Dec. 7, 1847 (Richardson, iv, 535). =47=Scott to Semmes, May 9. =48=Mason to Perry, Apr. 15, confid. =335=Trist to Scott, Sept. 30 (draft). Oswandel, Notes, 155-6. Semmes, Service, 197-201. =345=Blair to Van Buren, Mar. 3, 1848. =335=Trist to Ho. Repres., Feb. 12, 1848 (draft). Sen. 107; 29, 2, p. 3 (Buchanan to Conner, July 27, 1846). =132=Mason to Buchanan, June 28. N. Y. Courier and Enquirer in Niles, July 10. Buchanan, Works (Moore), vii, 270-9. So. Qtrly. Review, Apr., 1852, pp. 386-93. (Semmes episode) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 976-92. =335=Trist to Felton, June 14, 18--.

The government desired to keep the despatch of the peace commissioner secret, lest Whigs should defeat the plan (Polk, Diary, Apr. 16), but a member of the Cabinet betrayed the fact (=335=Trist to Mann, Dec. --, 1853). Scott had been given some reason to expect that he would be (as he naturally desired to be) one of a peace commission (Mems., ii, 576), as would have been very proper, and no doubt he was not pleased to find he had been ignored. He was further exasperated at this time by the arrival of Lieut. Semmes, as a representative of the navy, to see about the case of a naval prisoner (Rogers: chap. xxx, p. 444), as if Scott had not been able and willing to attend to the business, and in fact had not already attended to it (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 989), and by Semmes's demand (which had to be refused) for an escort (Semmes, Service, 198, etc.; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 977-92). It would not have been proper to detach one soldier unnecessarily. May 31 Marcy wrote to Scott that Trist was "directed" to show the General his instructions (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 123); but Buchanan used the word "authorised" (=52=to Trist, July 13). So did Polk (Message, December 7, 1847) and Marcy to Scott on July 12 (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 133). Polk and the Cabinet were greatly disturbed by the quarrel between Scott and Trist, blaming both but of course blaming Scott most. Polk proposed to recall them, but Marcy said Scott could not be spared at that time, and the rest of the Cabinet agreed with him (Polk, Diary, June 12, 14; July 9). Polk said Scott had thrown away "the golden moment" to make peace. But, as Scott knew (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 120), the Mexican Congress by its law of April 20 (vol. ii, p. 81) had made peace negotiations practically impossible. A military officer is not expected to execute an order if the condition of things when he receives it is essentially different from that known or assumed by his superior at the time of issuing it. Trist admitted later that he had been misinformed about the Mexican situation, and was not sorry Scott did not promptly forward the despatch (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 819, 825). As for the power to grant an armistice, Scott held that the army, cut off without supplies in the heart of a hostile country, must be free to take military security for its own safety (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 121). Trist was given authority to draw any part of the three millions appropriated to facilitate making a treaty. Buchanan to excuse himself wrote (=52=to Trist, June 14) that Scott would not have replied to Trist as he did, had he waited to see Trist's instructions. This amounted to saying that, since Scott knew nothing about those instructions, his letter was natural. Marcy admitted (May 31: Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 122) that Scott ought to have seen the instructions, the projet and Buchanan's despatch, of which Trist had a copy. Dec. 26 =256=Scott had written privately to Marcy that he had heard from Congressmen of a plan to place Benton over him, but did not believe a word of it; and Jan. 16 he again had expressed his gratitude and loyalty to the President. But it should not be forgotten that while the administration was entitled to full credit for its meanness and blundering, the trouble arose primarily from Scott's having gone deeply into politics. He was not politically active now. Jan. 16 he =256=wrote privately to Marcy, "On setting out, on my present mission, I laid down whiggism, without taking up democracy," but the politicians were not fitted to believe this manly and truthful declaration. The Whigs insisted that Trist had been sent to embarrass and perhaps to ruin Scott.

27.10. Thornton, later Sir Edward Thornton, British minister to the United States, saw Scott also, who gave him to understand that he should advance against Mexico July 1 or 2 unless a reply to Buchanan's despatch should seem probable (=13=T. to Addington, June 29). Thornton believed that Rejón was intriguing with Scott to have the Americans come to Mexico, install the Puros and make peace with them, and that Rejón's party were insisting upon war for this reason (ibid.). Baranda had tried to catch Scott in some entanglement by means of secret negotiations through the British legation, but had failed (=13=Bankhead, nos. 47, 54, 1847). Bankhead exerted all his influence with the government in favor of negotiations. June 22 the minister of relations replied politely to Buchanan that his despatch had been referred to Congress, with which the settlement of the matter rested (Diario, June 26).

27.11. Scott =335=wrote to Trist, July 17, to the following effect: I concur with you, several of my generals and many foreigners of high standing here and at Mexico in believing that our occupation of twenty principal towns, besides those we already hold, probably would not within a year or more force the Mexicans to accept a peace on terms honorable to the United States without the pledge in advance or the payment of money to some of the principal authorities. This is expected as a preliminary to any negotiation. We must pay $10,000 down to one high official, and $1,000,000, probably to be divided among many, on the ratification of a treaty. With your concurrence I sent $10,000 to Mexico yesterday, and at the proper time I will unite with you in pledging $1,000,000. I have no question as to the morality of this course, nor have you. We have tempted the integrity of no one. The overture, if corrupt, came from parties already corrupted. We merely avail ourselves of that corruption to obtain an end highly advantageous to both countries. Such transactions have always been considered allowable in war. We do not know that this money would not go into the same channels as that which our government is willing to pay publicly for territory would go into.

June 4 Poinsett said he should be "surprised" if the Mexicans could be made to accept the terms of the United States (=345=to Van Buren). June 11 Buchanan said privately he should not be "much disappointed" should the war continue for years (=132=to Frémont). July 16 Marcy could see no hopes of terminating it (=256=to Wetmore). Hence the fears of Trist and Scott do not seem unreasonable. The $1,000,000 was to have been deducted from the sum to be paid by the United States government (=224=Hitchcock, memo.) Who the intended go-between was cannot be stated, though on settling his accounts Scott told confidentially who received the $10,000 (Scott in N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857); but there is reason to believe that it was Miguel Arroyo, who will presently appear as secretary to the Mexican peace commissioners. It has been said (Rives, U. S. and Mexico, ii, 501) that Scott acted as he did with reference to peace because anxious to get back to the United States for personal political reasons. Had this been true, Scott would have resigned under the cloud of glory rising from his capture of Mexico City. We have political letters written by Taylor at this period, but Scott seems to have shown no such activity. On the other hand he wrote to Marcy (note 27.9), "On setting out, on my present mission, I laid down whiggism."

July 16 Scott mentioned the subject of paying for a treaty to a number of his principal officers at what came to be called improperly a council, stating (cf. supra) that he felt no scruples about it (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 257). Pillow, who had already assented heartily to the plan (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 317), supported that view of it strongly (=68=Shields to Marcy, Mar. 11, 1848). Quitman, Shields and Cadwalader opposed it. Probably their opinions had no practical effect, for Scott had already committed himself, and the Mexicans soon ceased to desire peace. July 7 Trist sent to Buchanan a copy of a note written by him (=52=to Thornton) which could hardly fail to suggest to a politician that something peculiar was afoot, and early in August "Gomez," an army correspondent of the St. Louis Republican, gave some account of the negotiations (published Nov. 22, republished by the Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6). Polk and the Cabinet made no sign, however. But on Oct. 28 and January 18 Pillow, now a bitter enemy of Scott, wrote to Polk about the affair (Polk Diary, Dec. 11, 18, 20, 28, 1847; Feb. 16, 19, 1848), pretending (=224=Hitchcock, memo.) that Scott had beguiled him into supporting the plan, and that his better nature had almost immediately reacted against it. Pillow and Polk doubtless thought that here lay an opportunity to do Scott a great injury, and took the matter up with much apparent indignation; and in March, 1848, Marcy confidentially ordered the officers sitting in the Pillow court of inquiry to make an investigation (Polk, Diary, Mar. 14, 16; =68=Marcy, Mar. 17). They did what they could, but the investigation came to nothing, for Trist and Scott would not implicate the British legation. See =68=proceedings of the court and statements of generals; Daily Democrat, Chicago, Sept. 15, 1857; =256=Marcy to Towson, Mar. 17, 1848; =68=Scott to Marcy, Jan. 28, 1848, and Shields to Marcy, Feb. 12, 1848; Davis, Autobiography, 177; =224=Hitchcock, memo.; Claiborne, Quitman, i, 326; =256=memo. Scott overlooked the facts that such a bargain could not be kept secret indefinitely, and that, even if ethically justifiable and in accordance with the practice of giving presents to Indian chiefs and Barbary pirates, it would give great offence to American pride. The latter point was urged forcibly by Shields. To buy peace of a vanquished enemy seemed to him and Quitman humiliating and degrading.

27.12. The Puebla negotiations. =52=Trist to Buchanan, nos. 7, June 13; 9, July 23 (and P. S., July 25); 12, Aug. 22. =52=Thornton to Trist, July 29. =13=Thornton to Bankhead, June 14; to Addington, June 29. =13=Pakenham, no. 116, Sept. 13, 1846. =335=Trist to Scott, June 25, confidential; July 16, confidential. =335=Worth to Trist, July 2, 22. =132=Atocha to Buchanan, July 3. =335=[Thornton] to Hargous, undated. =335=Trist to Thornton, July 3. =335=Scott to Trist, July 17; to P. F. Smith, July 6. =335=Trist to Buchanan, no. 8, July 7. =335=---- to Trist, July 8. St. Louis Republican, Nov. 22. Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6. Diario, May 21, 23-5; June 8, 26, 27; July 2, 18, 24-6; Aug. 18. Monitor Repub., May 13; June 18, 25, 27-8. =335=---- to ----, July 21. =335=Otero to Pesado, July 13. Picayune, June 30; Aug. 8; Oct. 1, 15. Republicano, June 24-5. Scott, Mems., ii, 579. =47=Semmes to Perry, July 28. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 314-21, 326. Polk, Diary (see note 27.11). =68=Quitman to Marcy, Mar. 9, 1848. =68=Pillow to Marcy, Jan. 18, 1848. =52=Buchanan to Trist, no. 7, Dec. 21, 1847. =68=Shields to Marcy, Mar. 9, 1848. Raleigh Star, Aug. 25, 1847. =60=Wilson to Marcy, July 31; Aug. 1. London Times, May 10; Aug. 6; Sept. 6. Ramírez, México, 239, 255-6, 263, 271. Davis, Autobiography, 177-8, 207-9. =224=Hitchcock, Memorandum. N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 2, 1848. Missouri Republican, Sept. 16, 1857. =68=Scott to Marcy, Jan. 28, 1848. =68=Shields to Marcy, Feb. 12, 1848. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 38, 40. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 44. Sen. 34; 34, 3, pp. 21, 37-9. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 144, 150, 229, 232, 235, 238, 240, 259-61, 269-70. =335=Trist to Thornton, July 30. =335=E. E. Smith to Trist, Aug. 31. =335=Trist to Scott, Sept. 30 (draft). =256=Marcy to Wetmore, July 16; Oct. 21. Otero, Comunicación. Dictamen de la Comisión, etc., 29, 30. Republicano, May 8, 21; June 9, 28. =82=J. J. Otero, proclam., Apr. 25. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 115-20. =52=J. A. Jones to Polk, May 2. Delta, July 15. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 260-1, 264-9, 326. =60=Scott to Marcy, Apr. 5. =13=Bankhead, nos. 184, Dec. 30, 1846; 6, Jan. 29; 34, Apr. 1; 42, 46, Apr. 30; 47, May 6; 54, 58-60, May 29; 61, June 26; 67, June 29; 75, July 29, 1847. =68=Scott to Towson et al., Apr. 17, 1848. =335=H. L. Scott to Trist, May 29, 1852. Wash. Telegraph, Oct. 13, 22, 1852. London Chronicle, Aug. 6. =335=Trist to Scott, Sept. 1, 1861. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 524-5. =56=M. Y. Beach, June 4. Wash. Union, June 2; July 10; Aug. 5, 20. N. Y. Sun, May 22, Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 830 (Trist); 945, 1011, 1085 (Scott); 922 (Marcy). =132=Atocha to Buchanan, July 3; Aug. 1; Sept. 4, 21. =132=Dimond to Buchanan, Aug. 2. Klein, Treaty, 255. Buchanan, Works (Moore), vii, 484. N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857 (Scott). Furse, Organization, 143. Réplica á la Defensa. Semmes, Service, 310, 413. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, June 29. Apuntes, 199. =185=---- to Lewis, July 20. =335=Trist, marginal notes on Sen. 52; 30, 1. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 135, 172 (Scott); 181-6, 231-46, 306 (Trist); 194 (S. Anna). =76=Orders for Guzmán and Avila. =76=Alvarez, July 16.

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 149) represents Scott as desiring a reconciliation with Trist in order to play a brilliant part in bringing about peace and so increase his political popularity. This view, which befits a pupil and friend of Pillow and furthers the purpose of both to injure Scott, is disproved by a number of circumstances and particularly by the fact that, after the reconciliation took place, Scott, while ready to do all in his power for peace--even at the sacrifice of military glory--kept himself entirely in the background so far as that business was concerned. July 23, 1847, Trist wrote to Buchanan: Scott's whole conduct with reference to the duties with which I am charged "has been characterized by the purest public spirit, and a fidelity and devotion which could not be surpassed, to the views of the government, in regard to the restoration of peace" (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 831). Aiming to further the negotiations with Santa Anna, Scott sent from Puebla to Mexico a =335=Memorandum that he would advance and would either defeat the Mexicans in view of the capital (if they would offer battle) or capture a strong position, and then, if able to restrain his troops, would halt and give the Mexicans an opportunity to save the capital by making peace (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 524). Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 167-9) endeavors to relate this honorable incident in a way to represent Scott as the dupe of Santa Anna and to compliment Pillow. But the fact that for good and purely American reasons the general-in-chief pursued this very course after the negotiations had ended, refutes Ripley; and it also proves that in offering to make that agreement Scott did not allow his military plans to be influenced by the enemy, as was charged, for by the morning of Aug. 20, as no sign of a disposition to treat had met Scott, he regarded the Memorandum and every other vestige of an understanding as no longer binding upon him "in any degree" (=68=Scott to court, Apr. 17, 1848, confid.). Scott was ready, in the interest of his country and humanity, to do anything, compatible with his duty, to obtain peace.

Rives (op. cit., ii, 445) states that in consequence of a letter of July 16 from Pacheco, minister of relations, to Congress a committee of Congress reported that the restrictions placed by the law of Apr. 20 on the prerogatives of the Executive had been removed by the recent "Act of Reforms" of the Constitution. This would have been an important point; but the facts are that the committee's report, now lying before the author, was dated July 13 and did not mention the law of Apr. 20, and that Congress was not in session to receive Pacheco's reply of July 16 to its report (=52=Trist, no. 9, July 23).

27.13. Pacheco asked Bankhead to use his good offices with Scott to save the city from sack; but as neither the United States nor Mexico had shown favor to the offer of British mediation, he would not act. It is hard to see how, with due regard to Polk's declarations and the real desire of the United States for peace, Scott could have taken the risk of scattering the Mexican government and the elements of peace by refusing to remain outside the city for a time; and remaining outside involved an armistice, because--for one thing--the only large stock of provisions on which he could count lay in town. Hence censure of Scott for making the armistice came from Polk with a very bad grace (=52=Trist, no. 22; =221=Hill, diary).

27.14. The making of the armistice. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 186, 190, 231-2 (Trist); 189 (Pacheco), 192 (Scott). =52=Trist to Buchanan, no. 12, Aug. 22. =52=Bankhead to Trist, Aug. 20, 21. Contestaciones Habidas, 3-7, 11-19. Picayune, Sept. 9. Apuntes, 260-3, 268-9. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 314 (Scott); 356-9. Kenly, Md. Vol., 350. =68=Scott, statement to court, Apr. 17, 1848, confid. =13=Bankhead, nos. 76, Aug. 21; 82, Aug. 29. Raleigh Star, Sept. 22. =221=Hill, diary. México á través, iv, 681. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 279-80, 284-6. Davis, Autobiog., 189, 207, 215-6. =224=Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). =259=Intercepted letter. Chicago Democrat, Sept. 15, 1857. =61=Gates to adj. gen., Aug. 31. Henshaw narrative. S. Anna, Apelación, 61-2. =291=Pierce to wife, Aug. 23; to Appleton, Aug. 27. =335=Trist, memo., July 29. Semmes, Service, 412, 415-9, 427, 446. N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 170, 178, 191, 196-8, 204, 281, 288, 460, 465, 543. =80=Relaciones, circulars, Aug. 23, 30. =80=Relaciones to Olaguíbel, Aug. 31, res. =73=Lozano, no. 5, res., Aug. 28. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 447-8; iv, app., 286. =335=Trist, notes on a letter to Ho. of Repres., Feb. 12, 1848. Wash. Telegraph, Oct. 13, 1852. =236=Judah, diary. Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 114. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 112-6. S. Anna, Detall, 16. Monitor Repub., Dec. 12 (S. Anna, report, Nov. 19). =70="Guerra," no. 30 (F. Pérez, statement, June 17, 1853). Ramírez, México, 301. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. =76=To Lombardini, Aug. 21. =76=Tornel to Lombardini, Aug. 24. =76=Circulars, Aug. 26; Sept. 1, 6, 7. =76=Many others. Mora was accompanied by Arrangóiz, lately Mexican consul at New Orleans.

Quitman and Pierce, who had not been able to distinguish themselves in the recent battles, and P. F. Smith were armistice commissioners for the Americans and Generals Mora and Quijano for the Mexicans. They met at Mackintosh's house. In brief the terms, as drawn up, were as follows: 1, cessation of hostilities; 2, to continue while the peace commissioners are negotiating or forty-eight hours after one of the commanders-in-chief gives formal notice of its termination; 3, during the armistice no military work, offensive or defensive, shall be begun, enlarged or reinforced; 4, neither army shall be reinforced; troops and munitions en route shall stop twenty-eight leagues [about seventy-five miles] from Mexico; 5, no troops of either side shall advance "beyond the line now actually occupied"; 6, the intermediate ground shall not be trespassed upon by military men except when acting as messengers or engaged under a white flag on other business; 7, neither side shall prevent the other from receiving provisions; the Americans may obtain supplies from city or country; 8, prisoners shall be exchanged; 9, Americans residing at Mexico and banished thence may return; 10, either army may send messengers to or from Vera Cruz; 11, the Americans will not interfere with the administration of justice when Mexicans are the parties; 12, they will respect private property, personal rights and trade; 13, wounded prisoners shall be free to move for treatment and cure; 14, Mexican army health officers may attend on such Mexicans; 15, commissioners shall superintend the fulfilment of this agreement; 16, the agreement is to be approved by the commanders-in-chief within twenty-four hours (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 310). Santa Anna struck out article 9, but through passports the same end was reached (=52=Trist, no. 13); and it was agreed that "supplies" (recursos) in article 7 should cover everything needed by the army except arms and munitions. For Scott's draft see Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 543.

It is believed that enough has been said in the text to show the wisdom of making the armistice, and more space cannot be given to the subject. Any one interested in it should read Trist's =52=no. 22 (most of it in Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 231-66). It should be borne in mind that the Mexicans believed the armistice was greatly for the advantage of the Americans. Alcorta, minister of war, said that Scott's purpose in proposing it was solely to give his troops a needed rest, collect his wounded, obtain provisions and prepare batteries (Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 448). It was believed that his losses had been severe (=61=undated Mexican letter). The reasons avowed by Santa Anna for accepting the armistice were to let the troops rest and recover morale, to gather the wounded and the dispersed, and in general to undo the effects of the recent battles; also to show the world that Mexico was willing to discuss peace, and to convince all that the American demands were unreasonable. The weakest point about the armistice was Scott's not requiring that Chapultepec should be surrendered or evacuated, as at one time he intended to do (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 285). The reason for his policy was, in brief, that he believed Santa Anna fully intended to make peace, and, understanding the immense difficulties that Santa Anna would have to meet, he did not wish to increase them (=52=Trist, no. 13). Besides, magnanimity--which is a strong quality, not a weak one--to a beaten foe often produces good results. Perhaps Scott erred on this point; but if so, it was a noble error and not hastily to be censured. Apparently by oversight, neither Scott nor Trist had been instructed what to do should the Mexicans ask for an armistice with a view to peace. Hence Scott was left to take the course that seemed to him best, and that he did. Pillow claimed great glory for opposing the unsuccessful armistice. Rives says (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 501) that Scott was too eager for a return to the United States to be "critical" of Santa Anna's honesty. This is to say that Scott was unfit to be a corporal. Everybody was suspicious of Santa Anna. See Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 248-52. Rives further says (p. 507) that Scott should have seen that Santa Anna, situated as he was, would have accepted any conditions; but Santa Anna certainly would not. He did not accept our peace terms. Rives also alludes to Scott's "amiable weakness" in the matter (p. 508)--very erroneously, the present author thinks.

27.15. Picayune, Sept. 9; Oct. 16, 17. Gamboa, Impug., 49, 50. Apuntes, 270-1, 286. =13=Bankhead, nos. 77, Aug. 27; 83, Aug. 29. =221=Hill, diary. Ramírez, México, 275, 303. México á través, iv, 686. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 280, 287-92, 294. Grant, Mems., i, 148. Davis, Autobiog., 211. =224=Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). Henshaw narrative. Haynes, Gen. Scott's Guide. =259=Intercepted letter. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). =291=Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 297, 301, 303, 306. =178=Davis, diary. Diario, Sept. 2, 4, 8. =335=Belton to Hitchcock, Aug. 23. =335=E. E. Smith to Trist, Aug. 31. =335=Memo. in Spanish, Aug. --. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 415. Semmes, Service, 424. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (Hardcastle). =80=Relaciones, circular, Aug. 23. =80=Alcalde S. Fe to Olaguíbel, Aug. 29. =80=Olaguíbel to legislature, Aug. 30; reply, Sept. 1. =80=Valencia to O., Aug. 21, 23. =80=O. to Guerra, Aug. 22. =80=Guerra to O., Aug. 24; reply, Aug. 29. =199=MS. written by leading citizen. =73=Lozano, nos. 5, res., Aug. 28; 8, res., Sept. 17. Encarnacion Prisoners, 81, 83-4. Monitor Repub., Nov. 16 (Alvarez). Carreño, Jefes, cccxv, note. =260=Henshaw, comments on map. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Apuntes, 271-2. And from =76= the following (and many others). Alvarez, Aug. 22, 23, 24, 26, 29. To comandante Toluca, Aug. 24. Acuerdos, Aug. 23, 25, 26, 28, 31; Sept. 1, 4. To Alvarez, Aug. 21, 25, 28. Tornel, Aug. 27, 27, very res., 29. To Ugarte and comtes. gen. Guanajuato, S. Luis Potosí and Querétaro, Aug. 29. Cosío, Sept. 6. J. Y. Gutiérrez, Sept. 2, res. To Lombardini, Aug. 9, 22, 24, 25. Alcorta, Aug. 22. Quijano to Lombardini, Aug. 23, 24. To comte. gen. Mexico, Aug. 27, 29, 30. Bravo, Aug. 28. To Herrera, Aug. 25. To Relaciones, Aug 27. Tornel to comte. gen., Sept. 4. Pacheco to Tornel, Aug. 23. Circulars, Aug. 26; Sept. 1, 6, 7. Alvarez to Olaguíbel, Oct. 30. Olaguíbel, Aug. 27.

Paredes, who had been banished, landed at Vera Cruz on Aug. 14 (Paredes, Breve Exposición).

On August 26 a long train of army wagons went to the capital for provisions and was turned back; but an explanation came promptly from Santa Anna. The next day a similar train, while waiting in the main plaza of the city (=76=Tornel, Aug. 27), was attacked by the populace because the teamsters appeared to gaze with indifference, if not insultingly, at a religious procession (Carreño, Jefes, cccxv; Henshaw narrative). Immediately the prevailing hostility against the Americans and a suspicion that Santa Anna was planning to introduce Americans in this way and betray the capital (Arco Iris, Nov. 29, 1847) led to a riot, in which six or seven of the Americans were injured and two killed. Tornel, now governor of the Federal District, tried without effect to quell the mob; but Herrera, comandante general, succeeded (Apuntes, 271). Mexican troops defended the wagons (Davis, Autobiog., 211). Santa Anna felt and expressed deep regret for the incident (=76=to Relaciones, Aug. 27), and some Mexican officers were punished for imprudence (=76=to comte. gen. Mex., Aug. 27). Scott viewed the affair philosophically. After this Herrera and Tornel took precautions (=76=Tornel, Aug. 29), the business was done at a very early time in the morning, the wagons did not actually go into the city (=76=to comte. gen. Mex., Aug. 29), and an officer of the American commissary department, disguised as a peasant, had charge of them. Minor riots occurred later, however, and after a time the place where the supplies intended for Scott were kept was discovered and sacked (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 291). Owing to the non-success of the negotiations, about $300,000 of American cash had to be left in the town. Both cash and provisions had been arranged for by the indefatigable Hargous (ibid.) During the armistice the American equipments, artillery, etc. were put into the best possible order.

27.16. Santa Anna had much difficulty in persuading good men to serve as commissioners. Trist met the Mexican commissioners first on Aug. 27 at Atzcapuzalco, about eight miles from Tacubaya (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 191, 195), but at the second session (Aug. 28) it was agreed to meet at the house of Alfaro (Casa Colorada) near Tacubaya and within the Mexican lines. The instructions drafted for the Mexican commissioners, Aug. 24 and 29, were avowedly drawn as if Mexico had "triumphed," and represented merely a basis for bargaining (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 313-5, 369-71). The commissioners were authorized at first only to receive and transmit the American propositions; but, believing they would be given (as they were on Aug. 31: ibid., 335) full powers, like his own, to negotiate, Trist laid his projet (ibid., 326-30) before them on Aug. 27 (see Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 389, note 1). Aug. 29 Santa Anna and his Cabinet discussed this (Sen 52; 30, 1, 330). Aug. 30 he discussed it with his generals (Diario, Aug. 31). Sept. 1 the Mexicans presented to Trist their full powers, and the discussion of his terms began. Sept. 2 they were discussed further, and, as agreement was found to be impossible, Trist proposed that the armistice be extended. A large gathering at the palace then discussed the situation (Apuntes, 278). Sept. 3 Santa Anna ordered that no more provisions and other articles that could be useful to the Americans should leave the city (=76=to comte. gen. Mex.). Sept. 4 Pacheco, the minister of relations, issued a =77=circular intimating that unless Trist should moderate his terms, negotiations would be broken off. Cabinet consultations followed, however (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 202). Sept. 5 Pacheco notified the Mexican commissioners that the Nueces-Rio Grande district and New Mexico would not be surrendered (ibid., 373-5). Sept. 6 the final meeting was held and the Mexican counter-projet presented (ibid., 375-80). The Spanish chargé had thought that, owing to Santa Anna's disposition to jockey, the negotiations would last a long time. This was prevented by Trist's frank, direct methods. Trist was now in good health except for a severe toothache. He and Scott worked in perfect harmony.

Santa Anna was extremely anxious to gain foreign support and, if possible, a foreign guaranty of the boundary (=73=Lozano, no. 3, res., Aug. 25). Seiffart, the Prussian minister, who had felt annoyed by the insignificant rôle to which the negative policy of his government and his own lack of capacity had condemned him, now broke out with an unauthorized expression of sympathy for Mexico, and Santa Anna endeavored to use this as a lever on his colleagues (=73=Lozano, no. 8, res., Sept. 17). But France had no representative on the scene. Bankhead, besides entertaining considerable displeasure because his advice and the British offer of mediation had not been effective, had been for some months, and still was, too ill to take a strong position (=73=Lozano, no. 5, res., Aug. 28); and Ramón Lozano, the Spanish chargé (the minister having left for home on the conclusion of the armistice), would not act without instructions, and personally expressed the opinion that it would not be easy to obtain a European guaranty of the new line (=73=nos. 5, res., 8, res.).

27.17. The negotiations (including S. Anna's difficulties). Sen. 52; 30, 1, must be studied closely by any one desiring to investigate the subject, and hence citations of the documents that it contains need not be given. =52=Trist to Buchanan, nos. 13, Aug. 24; 15, Sept. 4, confid. =335=Thornton to Trist, July 29. Sen. Report 261; 41, 2. Sen. 20; 30, 1. Ho. 40; 30, 1. Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 43, 47, 56, 59. =52=Contestaciones Habidas, 1847, with Trist's notes, throughout. Delta, Nov. 13. Picayune, May 12; June 30; Sept, 9; Oct. 1, 15, 16, 17. Apuntes, 264-9, 277-9, 283, 286. =52=Buchanan to Trist, no. 3, July 13. =13=Bankhead, nos. 83, Aug. 29; 87, Sept. 28. Constitutionnel, Aug. 17. Ramírez, México, 234, 241, 271-2, 274, 278, 303. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 287-9. Davis, Autobiog., 209. =224=Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). =108=Buchanan to Bancroft, Sept. 29. =224=Letter from member of Congress (intercepted), Aug. 21. Henshaw narrative. Pacheco, Exposición. =284=Comunicacion que sobre ... dirigió ... Otero. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 483 (Otero). Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 388-408. México en 1847, 34. London Times, May 10; Oct. 26. Polk, Message, Dec. 7, 1847; Feb. 2, 1848 (Richardson, Messages, iv, 536-9). =291=Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. =47=Private letter from Orizaba, undated. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 240, 271. =13=Thornton to Addington, June 29. Arco Iris, Sept. 16. Opinión Pública, Aug. 29. Diario, Aug. 31. =335=E. E. Smith to Trist, Aug. 31. =83=Gov. Querétaro to Relaciones, Sept. 4. =83=Gov. Jalisco to Relaciones, Aug. 31. =83=Farias, Otero et al., declaration, Aug. 22. =83=Querétaro legislature to Rel., Sept. 4. Semmes, Service, 414, 426, 446. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 540. =80=Gov. S. L. Potosí to Olaguíbel, Aug. 28. =80=Gov. Querétaro to O., Aug. 21; reply, Aug. 27. =80=Relaciones, circulars, Aug. 23, 30. =80=Olag. to Relac., Aug. 26. =80=Olag., proclam., Aug. 26. =80=Relac. to Olag., Aug. 31, res.; Sept. 6, 8. =80=Proceedings of Coalition junta, Aug. 4, 25. =80=México legisl., Aug. 27. Porvenir, Aug. 24, supplmnt, =199=MS. written by a leading person. =82=Gov. Oaxaca to gov. Puebla, Sept. 9. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 550, Aug. 21. =73=Lozano, nos. 3, res., Aug. 25; 5, res., Aug. 28; 6, Sept. 10; 8, res., Sept. 17. Encarnacion Prisoners, 83. =80=Coalition junta to México state, Aug. 14. =92=Mexico ayunt. to gov. Fed. District, Sept. 3. N. Y. Herald, Feb. 5, 1848. Nat. Intelligencer, Aug. 31. Monitor Repub., May 26, 31; Oct. 8. =132=Atocha to Buchanan, Sept. 4. Amer. Hist. Review, x, 319 (Reeves). Amer. Review, Jan., 1848, 5-14. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 114-5. Republicano, May 11. =181=Buchanan to Donelson, Jan. 29. Prieto, Mems., 236. =364=Worth to S., July 29; to Marcy, Oct. 30. =221=Hill, diary. S. Anna, Detall, 16. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 74. =86=Relaciones, circular, Sept. 4. and from =76= the following (and many others). Cosío, Sept. 6. J. Y. Gutiérrez, Sept. 2. To Herrera, Aug. 25. To Bravo, Aug. 31. To comte. gen. Mexico, Sept. 3. To Canalizo, Aug. 12. To comte gen. Querétaro, Sept. 4. Gov. Michoacán, Sept. 3. Alvarez to Olaguíbel, Oct. 30. To Alvarez, Aug. 21.

Santa Anna said in his manifesto: "A perpetual war is an absurdity; because war is a calamity, and the instinct of self-preservation, which is even stronger and more powerful in nations than in individuals, recommends that no means whatever should be omitted that may lead to an advantageous arrangement. To adopt this course the constitution gives me competent authority. Consecrated to interests so noble and highly privileged, it is my duty to maintain at all cost the respect and reverence due to the supreme authority with which I am invested .... I will be yet more explicit: sedition and attempts at subverting the government shall be exemplarily punished" (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 250).

(Trist's "vague remark") Ibid., 253.

The Mexican commissioners were instructed (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 314, 369-71) to draw Trist into discussions that not only would have given them opportunities to create awkward dialectic situations, as Rejón and others had done with reference to Texas, but might have excited fresh discord in the United States regarding our treatment of Mexico. For example, they were to ask the motives and aims of the war, and whether the United States based its expectations upon force or upon friendly negotiation. The ground was taken that since Mexico was now ready to give up Texas, all reason for the war had ceased to exist [as if the fighting that had already occurred, its loss of life, triumphs and expenses, signified nothing]. It was urged that since no title except to Texas had been claimed by the United States, we could continue the war only for the odious sake of conquest or the unheard-of purpose to punish Mexico because she was unwilling to sell her lands and her people (see Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 391, 400-1, 588, note 3).

In justification of his plan to extend the armistice, Trist pointed out that the American sick and wounded would recover, the rainy reason end, the inundations diminish, the roads improve and the temperature fall (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 259). Ripley, on the other hand, asserts (op. cit. ii, 350) that the Americans would have been "dependent upon the good faith of the Mexicans for all of the conveniences and many of the necessaries of life," and, at the end of forty-five days, after living in unhealthy villages, would hardly have been fit to act. But had Santa Anna accepted Trist's proposal he would have done so with the strong expectation of peace and American assistance, and hence would have treated our army well; and Tacubaya, S. Angel and S. Agustín were not only salubrious but delightful in comparison with the capital, and free from its temptations. With reference to Trist's departing from his instructions by proposing to refer a point back to Washington, it is interesting to recall Napoleon's dictum (which bears also on Scott's action supra regarding the sealed despatch): "A general-in-chief cannot exonerate himself from responsibility for his faults by pleading an order of his sovereign or the minister, when the individual from whom it proceeds is at a distance from the field of operations, and but partially, or not at all, acquainted with the actual condition of things" (Maxims, p. 59).

27.18. There was probably some basis for certain of Santa Anna's charges against the American troops. Scott allowed a day to pass, it was said, in order to enable Americans in town to get away. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 352) says this was done to allow unarmed inhabitants to do so. But it was good policy to prevent such persons from leaving, and such had been Scott's course at Vera Cruz (chap. xxii, p. 32). Naturally Santa Anna wavered back and forth, and Trist believed that at about three o'clock, Sept. 5, he almost decided to accept the American terms (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 251).

27.19. The termination of the armistice. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 195-203, 231-66 (Trist); 307, 346, etc. =52=Trist to Buchanan, no. 15, confid., Sept. 4. Sen. 20; 30, 1, pp. 9, 14. Contestaciones Habidas (1847), 22, 26, 28, 30, 34. Picayune, Oct. 16. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 354, 360. =303=H. L. Scott to Quitman, Aug. 31. National, Nov. 14. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 291-4. Haynes, Gen. Scott's Guide. =217=Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13. London Times, Nov. 13. Sen. 34; 34, 3, pp. 21, 37-9. Ho. 40; 30, 1. =291=Pierce to wife, Aug. 23. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 309. =335=Trist to Thornton, confid., Nov. 24 (the Americans kept the armistice faithfully). =335=Memo. in Spanish, Aug. --. Semmes, Service, 415. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (Hardcastle). =80=Relaciones to Olaguíbel, Aug. 31, res.; Sept. 6, 8. =73=Lozano, no. 7, Sept. 16. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 448. =92=Tornel to Méx. ayunt., Aug. 30. =187=Thomas to Eddy, Aug. 26. N. Y. Sun, Oct. 5. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 67. Ramsey, Other Side, 330, note. And from =76= the following (chiefly showing orders contrary to the armistice). To Alvarez, Aug. 28. Tornel, Aug. 27, very res.; Sept. 3. Bravo, Sept. 5. Acuerdos, Sept. 3, 4. Orders to Tenth Infantry, Aug. 28. To govs. Puebla and four other states, Sept. 6. To govs. México, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Sept. --. To Relaciones, Aug. 27. S. Anna, proclam., Sept. 7.

27.20. The armistice as viewed in the United States. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 138 (Marcy); 231 (Trist, no. 22). Sen. 20; 30, 1, p. 14 (Trist). Apuntes, 278-9. Polk, Diary, Feb. 7, 19; Mar. 16, 1848. London Times, Oct. 29, Ramírez, México, 241. Polk, Message, Dec. 7, 1847 (Richardson, iv, 536). =13=Crampton, no. 42, Oct. 13. Wash. Union, Oct. 4-6. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, Oct. 21. =58=Jones to Polk, May 2. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 448. =354=Welles papers. =191=Fairfield to wife, Jan. 10. N. Y. Herald, Dec. 15. Monitor Repub., Dec. 21. Baltimore Sun, Oct. 5. Ho. 69; 30, 1, p. 56 (Buchanan). =335=Buchanan to Trist, Oct. 24-5, 1847.

It has been said with truth that the war was waged on the theory that Texas extended to the Rio Grande, but the United States could have neutralized (and this is the most that was considered by Trist: Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 258) the region between that river and the Nueces without implying in the least that our claim to it had not been valid. The fact that Santa Anna and Pacheco thought that an extension of the armistice would benefit the Americans (ibid., 260) is a striking, though by no means the only, answer to Polk's charge that it would have been greatly to our disadvantage (ibid., 259). Ramírez (México, 241) pointed out that inaction was bad for the Mexicans, since they lacked funds to support troops long. Santa Anna could not materially increase his army after Sept. 1, and he subsisted it with extreme difficulty (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 259-60). The armistice in general was regarded by the Mexicans as an American trick. The American Review (Whig) argued that the rejection of the counter-projet (which conceded to us Texas as far as the Nueces and California down to 37 degrees) proved that Polk was fighting, not for peace, but for conquest; but the counter-projet did not recognize the American claim to the Rio Grande line nor to an indemnity for the costs of the war, which Mexico had forced upon us. Any one interested in the equity of the matter should read the reply to the Mexican commissioners drafted by Trist (Sen. 20; 30, 1, p. 14).

27.21. Army feeling. =252=Mackall to wife, Feb. 21, 1848. Picayune, Oct. 17. =221=Hill, diary. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 271, 290. _291_Pierce to wife, Aug. 23; Sept. 1. Robertson, Visit, ii, 344. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 309. Diccionario Universal (Mixcoac). Semmes, Service, 414, 427. Calderón, Life, i, 142, 146. N. Y. Sun, Sept. 16. Such scenes were noted with keen appreciation not only by officers but by privates, as diaries and letters attest. Clear afternoons and evenings occur now and then even at the height of the rainy season.

XXVIII. MOLINO DEL REY, CHAPULTEPEC, MEXICO

28.1. Hardcastle's map (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 312) and (as elsewhere) the author's observations. So. Qtrly. Rev., Oct., 1852. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 295-6. Balbontín, Invasión, 126. Grant, Mems., i, 149. =66=J. L. Mason to J. L. Smith, Sept. 25. =66=Stevens to Smith, Sept. 25. Semmes, Service, 436, 440. Apuntes, 290-1. Picayune, Aug. 8. Delta, Oct. 14. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 355 (Scott), 373 (Sumner), 425-6 (Smith). Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 259. =269=Molina, recolls.

The foundry was decreed in July, 1846 (=76=report on artillery, Nov., 1846; Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec.). The building it occupied had been a powder mill. The principal entrance to El Molino was by an archway near the south end. Sept. 5 Scott heard that bells had been sent to El Molino to be cast into cannon (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 355). Santa Anna did in fact call for gifts of bells, etc. to be used for military purposes (=76=Carrera, Sept. 6).

28.2. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 381-2 (S. Anna to Scott, Sept. 6). =76=To Herrera, Sept. 6. =100=Guerra, circular, Sept. 11. Apuntes, 290-2. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 75. Id., Detall, 23. =76=Acuerdo, Sept. 4. Giménez, Memorias, 266. =76=Alvarez to S. Anna, Sept. 25. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 293. Balbontín, Invasión, 125-6. Grant, Mems., i, 151. Mason to Smith: note 1. =76=Alvarez, Sept. 6. Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 134-5 (Duncan). Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 424.

28.3. Ramírez, México, 299. =73=Lozano, nos. 2, 8, res., 1847. =199=Anon. MS. Kenly, Md. Vol., 346. S. Anna, Apelación, 49. Giménez, Memorias, 111. =358=Williams to father, Oct. 1. Exposición dirigida. =179=Diario Esactísimo. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 295-6. =100=Alcorta, circular, Sept. 11. _76_Tornel, decree, Sept. 7.

28.4. Smith, Co. A, Corps of Engineers. =221=Hill, diary. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 296. =260=Henshaw, comments on map. =217=Id. to wife, Sept. 13. =65=Scott, gen. orders, Sept. 7. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 354 (Scott), 361 (Worth), 425 (Smith). =178=Davis, diary. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 298 (Scott). Mason to Smith: note 1. =66=Foster to Smith, Sept. 8. =66=Beauregard to Smith, Sept. 20. =224=Hitchcock, introd. to intercepted letters. So. Qtrly. Rev., Oct., 1852, 302. Semmes, Service, 431-4.

Under Scott's orders, Pillow with the Ninth and Fifteenth Infantry was at S. Borja and Riley's brigade (Twiggs's division) at Nalvarte on Sept. 7, evening (Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 363). Late on Sept. 7 Quitman's division also was sent to the south front of Mexico. Reconnoitring was done there on rather an extensive scale during the night, and the Mexicans were thoroughly roused.

28.5. The battle of Sept. 8. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 354, 375 (Scott), 361 (Worth), 368 (return), 373 (Sumner), 374 (Huger), 425 (Smith), 430 (Hitchcock); app., pp. 134-165, 192 (officers). Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1237 (Perry). =179=Diario Esactísimo. Stevens, Stevens, i, 204-7. Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 170. Semi-weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. Elderkin, Biog. Sketches. So. Qtrly. Rev., Oct., 1852, 298-315. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 463-9; iv, app., 295-9. S. Anna, Detall, 23-5. Balbontín, Invasión, 125-9. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 296-9, 303. Grant, Wems., i, 152-3. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 238, 240. =217=Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13. =218=Henshaw narrative. =61=Letter from Mexico, Sept. 11. =69=May to Harney, Nov. 17, 1848. =69=Steele to Harney, --, 1848. =69=Harney to Marcy, May 22, 1848. =66=Mason to J. L. Smith, Sept. 25, 1847. =66=Stevens to Id., Sept. 25. =66=G. W. Smith to Stevens, Sept. 20. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 352. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. =221=Hill, diary. =304=Kirby to Mrs. E. K. Smith, Sept. 12. =60=Andrews to Daniel, Dec. 10. Louisville Democrat, Dec. 17. =68=Testimony at Bonneville court martial. London Times, Nov. 13. Semmes, Service, 436-449. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 503. Apuntes, 210, 294-304. =100=Relaciones, circular, Sept. 8. =199=Anon. MS. Correo Nacional, Dec. 10. Gamboa, Impug., 52. =70="Guerra," no. 155 (testimony of Garay). =70="Guerra", no. 274 (testimony at the trial of Andrade and Jáuregui). Picayune, Oct. 14; Nov. 3. =350=Weber, recolls. Delta, Oct. 14, 26. Ramírez, México, 304-6. México á través, iv, 687-9. Davis, Autobiog., 271. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Diario, Sept. 8. =364=Worth to daughter, Sept. 28; to S., Dec. 27. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 238-9. =73=Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Moore, Scott's Camp., 155-63. Steele, Amer. Camps., i, 117. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 137. Bartlett, Pierce, 153. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 259. Giménez, Memorias, 112, 266. =205=Graham, memo. book. =178=Davis, diary. Diccionario Univ. (León). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). Molina, El Asalto. =291=Pierce to Hooker, Sept. 15. Stevens, Vindication. =328=Sweet, statement. =69=Huger, Sept. 9. Lawton, Artill. Off., 311-4, 323, 326. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 426-7, 437-9, 447-53. =76=Herrera to Relaciones, Oct. 14. =76=Ortega, Sept. 13. =76=To comte gen. Mex., Oct. 29. =76=M. Andrade, Sept. 9; Nov. 3. =76=J. Y. Gutiérrez, proclam., Sept. 11. =76=Noriega, Nov. 19. =76=Alcorta, circular, Sept. 11. =76=Comte gen. Oaxaca, Sept. 15. =76=Id. of Querétaro, Sept. 14. Calderón, Rectificaciones.

REMARKS on the battle of Sept. 8. In forming an opinion of the battle as a military operation one must ignore the fact that the position gained was used later as a stepping-stone, for at this time Scott was not planning to capture Chapultepec. It appears surprising that Scott, knowing that heavy Mexican forces were on the spot, apparently desiring to fight there, should have thought that a place as valuable to the enemy as he deemed El Molino (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 355) ought to be attacked at night, and could be taken easily (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 579) by men unacquainted with ground and buildings familiar to the enemy, and should have neglected to have more of his troops near at hand; but we do not know what details were included in the information upon which he so confidently relied, nor do we know the source of it (ibid., 298). Pillow reported, apparently during the evening of September 7, that the cannon and machinery had been removed (ibid., 298, 579); no smoke appeared to issue from the mill; no sound of boring could be heard (Semmes, Service, 431). It has been suggested that Scott felt over-eager to punish Santa Anna for disappointing his expectations of peace; but he doubtless had learned from Trist of Santa Anna's political difficulties. He was, however, angry on account of the violations of the armistice. The principal information on which Scott acted was understood to have come through Trist; it had been correct; but Scott seems to have erred in overlooking the chance that conditions might change in two or three days. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 528) states that the attack was based on a "rumor." This is an error. On account of the apparent incorrectness of Scott's information and the massing of Mexican troops in and near El Molino, some Americans suspected that Santa Anna set a trap for him. But the fact that Santa Anna left this quarter and took away a considerable part of his troops early in the night of Sept. 7--leaving behind, according to Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, 427) 4000 infantry and artillery privates--disposes of that idea. It has been said that Scott might have stopped work at the foundry (had work been then proceeding) by cutting off the supply of water (i.e., power); but he wished to seize the finished cannon supposed to be there (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 298) and the large quantity of powder that he had heard was at Casa Mata.

The only argument advanced in favor of a night attack seems to have been the danger of fire from Chapultepec. In reply it was said that (as had been seen at Cerro Gordo) a plunging fire did little harm. The distance of Chapultepec seems almost to nullify this reply; but as a matter of fact the cannon of Chapultepec appear to have done no execution in the battle. Worth's officers met him after dark, Sept. 7, and later one of them submitted his general plan of operations to Scott, who discussed it at considerable length and finally (virtually admitting that a night attack was not advisable) approved all of it except the following point. Worth strongly desired to effect a lodgement in the grove of Chapultepec, which he believed he could take at a cost of fifty men (=364=Worth to S., Dec. 27). (Indeed, he pushed some of his troops several hundred yards that way: Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 138; Davis, Autobiog., 271). But Scott refused positively to have this done. Semmes (Service, 447) says that Worth desired to capture Chapultepec at this time because with his remarkable intuitive judgment he saw, as Scott saw later, that this was the true approach to the city; but Scott's later opinion was due to a study of the ground which neither he nor Worth had at this time been able to make and to Mexican fortifying not yet done. Even if Worth could have carried Chapultepec rather easily, the prudent maxim that one should not buy (because it can be got cheaply) what one does not want, appeared to apply with especial force after losses that could be so ill afforded had been suffered; and it was not certain that the castle could be taken without a struggle. One costly surprise was enough for one day. Engineer Stevens (Stevens, Stevens, i, 206) thought an attempt should have been made to reconnoitre the Mexican right with a view to turning the position; but to push a reconnoitring party between the Mexican right wing and the cavalry of Alvarez must have looked extremely hazardous.

Clarke's brigade consisted of the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Infantry, it will be recalled. Cadwalader had the Voltigeurs and Eleventh and Fourteenth Infantry. C. F. Smith being ill, his battalion was commanded by Captain E. K. Smith, who was mortally wounded. Semmes (Service, 445) says that Cadwalader's brigade and Drum's guns had been added at Worth's request, but Hitchcock (Fifty Years, 296) and Scott's general orders of Sept. 7 show that Scott originally intended to give Worth one of Pillow's brigades. Worth could no doubt have had more light guns, but it was said that projectiles for the heavy guns were so few that it was necessary to husband them closely. Scott, however, stated (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 377) that he had plenty of such ammunition. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 461) says that "the nature of the orders [given to Worth] forbade an attack by artillery"; but (1) there is no evidence to prove this; (2) artillery was used on Casa Mata, only not long enough; (3) it was used again later with success (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 527; Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 136). See Stevens, Stevens, 206. Indeed, it seems to have been unnecessary to attack Casa Mata. It could not have held out long after the fall of El Molino. Ripley admits (p. 462) that the battle "was confused," but adds, "storming is always a work of confusion." Here he confounds occurrences with management. The former must involve noise and confusion in such an affair, but the latter should not.

Sumner had one troop of the First Dragoons, six troops of the Second, part of a troop of the Third, and a company of Mounted Rifles. Foster had ten pioneers. Drum had three guns, but one of them was sent out on the road to Mexico, and during the battle one of the others became disabled by the breaking of a priming wire. Semmes--determined, as usual, to defend Worth at all hazards--says that during McIntosh's charge Duncan's battery was called away to repel the Mexican cavalry; but Duncan's report (Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 136) shows that his guns did not turn against the cavalry until masked by McIntosh's troops. The part of Cadwalader's brigade that moved to the left was the Voltigeurs. After the repulse of Clarke's brigade some of the Voltigeurs went into the ravine and moved toward the rear of Casa Mata. This perhaps helped to force the Mexicans out, and certainly resulted in the capture of many prisoners. Vigorous pursuit of the Mexicans was in general impracticable on account of the character of the ground and the fire from Chapultepec. Finding the engagement far more serious than he had expected, Scott summoned forces from the southern front of the city and from Mixcoac, but these could not arrive soon enough to give material assistance. Jackson's section of Magruder's battery came from Mixcoac in time to contribute a little to the final repulse of the Mexican cavalry. Worth blamed Scott for saying in his report that Pierce's brigade interposed between Garland and the Mexicans, and asserted that it did not arrive until a considerable time after the battle ended (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1079); and it was felt by others, too, that Scott erred here. But from the =178=diary of a man in the Ninth Infantry it seems clear that that regiment--a part of Pierce's brigade--did as Scott stated.

The number of Americans actually engaged was 3251 (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 369). Our loss was 116 (including nine officers) killed, 665 (including forty-nine officers) wounded, and eighteen privates missing (ibid., 384). We captured 685, including 53 officers. One third of Clarke's brigade, including one half of the officers, were killed or wounded (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 145). The Fifth Infantry seemed little more than a company after the battle (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 297).

Santa Anna stated later (Mi Historia, 75) that Iturbe, a wealthy resident of Tacubaya, notified Tornel that Scott intended to enter the city during the night of Sept. 7 by the San Lázaro garita, on the eastern side of Mexico, and that for this reason he (Santa Anna) took troops away from El Molino; but Santa Anna always laid the blame for his mistakes upon some one. No doubt Scott's feint against the southern side of the city and his not attacking during the afternoon were enough to cause alarm, but Santa Anna blundered in going to the southeast corner of the city, for an American attack there must have developed slowly owing to the swamps, whereas an attack upon El Molino could be made quickly. He reached the scene of the battle at about half-past nine, and claimed that, but for his arrival, Chapultepec might have been lost (Apelación, app., 111). The government represented that he was in command during the battle (Apuntes, 304). By Scott's orders Casa Mata was blown up. The Mexicans believed that a shot of theirs exploded the magazine. Andrade was tried and acquitted. Had he been as much at fault as Alvarez alleged, the latter should have replaced him on the spot with another officer. About noon the Mexican cavalry (or at least Andrade's division) were ordered to charge, but on reaching the battlefield found the Americans had retired. It has been suggested (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 448) that a part of the Mexican cavalry should have been dismounted and placed between El Molino and Casa Mata; but one may feel sure that Alvarez would not have consented to that arrangement. One hesitates to think what the results of the battle might have been, had not Santa Anna withdrawn previously with a considerable part of his troops; and of this movement Scott was not aware, though he may have hoped that his feint against the city would have an effect of that sort.

After the battle the American troops reoccupied in general the positions held by them before it.

28.6. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 297-9, 303. =224=Id., introd. to intercepted letters. =217=Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13. =73=Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. =221=Hill, diary. Semmes, Service, 447-9. London Times, Nov. 13. =76=Ortega, Sept. 13. =100=Guerra, circular, Sept. 11. =76=J. Y. Gutiérrez, proclam., Sept. 11. Apuntes, 303-4. =199=Anon. MS. Picayune, Oct. 14. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 361 (Worth), 430 (Hitchcock); app., 156 (Cadwalader). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert, Nov. 30, 1848). =69=Huger, Sept. 9, 1847. Ho. 24; 31, 1. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 145 (Lee). Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 468. N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 17, 1882 (Mayne Reid). S. Anna, Detall, 24. =70="Guerra", no. 273 (trial of Bravo). Stevens, Stevens, i, 206.

28.7. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 375 (Scott) and map. =73=Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Semmes, Service, 430. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, 2-3. Niles, Oct. 9, p. 89. =92=Piedad judge, Sept. 9. Diccionario Universal (México). Robertson, Visit, ii, 344.

28.8. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 376 (Scott), 425-7 (Smith). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 77 (Lee), 185 (Ripley), 579 (Pillow says he reported to Scott on Sept. 9 that the Mexican works opposite Piedad, where Pillow then was, could be carried easily). Davis, Autobiog., 223. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 298-300. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, pp. 4-5. =66=Lee to J. L. Smith, Sept. 15. =66=Beauregard to Id., Sept. 20. =111=Id. to Id., Sept. 27. =218=Henshaw narrative. =76=To Olaguíbel, Sept. 11.

Ripley (op. cit., ii, 470) and Rives (op. cit., ii, 528) reflect upon Scott for having no reconnaissances made between Aug. 20 and Sept. 7. But to make them would have violated the meaning and spirit of the armistice, which prescribed an "absolute cessation of hostilities" (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 310), and it was highly important to show the strictest good faith during the delicate negotiations. Rives (ibid.) says "no preparation whatever had been made for the contingency of renewed hostilities." This statement results from a lack of information. Numberless things had been done to put the army and its equipment into fighting trim. Rives says also (ibid.) that the Mexicans, had they been enterprising, could easily have beaten our army in detail at this time. This seems to be a mistake (see Sen. 19; 30, 2, p. 8). A frontal attack upon Worth could certainly have been repulsed, and an attempt to strike Pillow, Twiggs or Quitman would have exposed their own flank and rear. Moreover it was clear that Santa Anna had no intention of assuming the offensive. Rives says himself he had none (op. cit., 466), attributing his decision to "well-justified distrust of his own army"; and since the decision was made (July) nothing had occurred to reassure him. Napoleon said, "A well-established maxim of war is, not to do anything which your enemy desires."

28.9. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 77-8, 145 (Lee), 81 (Cadwalader), 112-3 (Beauregard), 123 (Trist), 169 (Hooker). Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 375 (Scott), 427 (Smith). Exposición dirigida, 6. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, pp. 6-15. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 300. =113=Beauregard, remins. =66=Id. to J. L. Smith, Sept. 20. =111=Id. to Id., Sept, 27. =69=Letter of Sept. 11 from Mexico. Semmes, Service, 430. (Gunners) =76=Carrera, report, Dec., 1847. (Key) Apuntes, 304, 317. Wash. Union, Dec. 9. =210=Alvord to Hammond, Feb. 21, 1848. Rodríguez, Breve Reseña, 870. Stevens, Stevens, i, 207.

Ripley (op. cit., ii, 472) remarks that even after taking Chapultepec Scott was "yet at a distance of two miles from the city, with the positive certainty of running upon the citadel if the direct route were pursued." But two miles on a broad, good causeway signified little, it was unnecessary to take the direct route, and Scott had no intention of taking it. Ripley admits (p. 473) that Scott reasonably supposed that the defences at S. Cosme were comparatively weak.

28.10. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 428 (Smith). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 77 (Lee), 112 (Beauregard), 169 (Hooker), 257 (Quitman). =113=Beauregard, remins. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 300. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 353-5. The description of Lee is based principally upon a picture (seen at the Confederate Museum, Richmond) made soon after the Mexican war. The weather was still unusually favorable for military operations.

28.11. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 294-6. Evidence at the trial of Bravo (=70="Guerra," no. 273). S. Anna, Detall, 22. =76=To Monterde, May 24. =76=Monterde, June 18, 21-2. =76=To Lombardini, July 6, 23; Aug. 3. =76=Tornel, Sept. 12. =76=To Bravo, Sept. 10. =76=Bravo, Sept. 14. =76=Liceaga to Lombardini, Aug. 22. =76=Reports on Bravo's conduct, July 21, 24, 1848. Apuntes, 317. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 459.

28.12. Sen. 1; 30, 1, map; pp. 400 (Pillow), 410 (Quitman). =76=Bravo, Sept. 14. Negrete, Inv., iv, app., 294-6. Semmes, Service, 450-1. Tornel, Sept. 12. To Bravo, Sept. 10. Apuntes, 307-8. =357=Wilcox, diary. =70=Evidence at the trial of Bravo ("Guerra," no. 273). Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 396-8. (Impreg.) =221=Hill, diary. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 285, 302.

The southeastern corner of the rectangle was irregularly cut off. A bullet-proof wall, about fifteen feet high, protected the eastern end, and ran along the southern line of the rectangle with platforms or scaffolds for infantry on its inner side, while a stone aqueduct--its arches filled in here with heavy masonry--extended (in the Anzures causeway) along the northern side of the rectangle, and continued via S. Cosme to the city. Cultivated fields, adjacent to El Molino, occupied about a third of the rectangle. On each side of the north-and-south drainage ditch there was an embankment. The next section--perhaps one sixth--of the rectangle was occupied by the swamps and cypresses, and then came the hill--extremely steep except at the west, and steep there. A road or wide path led east through the grove to the foot of the hill. The opening in the south wall, covered by the exterior, unarmed redan (B), had a ditch outside of the redan for additional protection. The road that went up to the college was defended inside the main gateway with a 9-pounder (placed here Sept. 12). The circular (arc of a circle) redoubt (C) was at the glorieta (an open space furnished with seats, etc.). One or two other slight fortifications probably existed.

The south wall of the terre-plein had a parapet except near the southeast corner. Along the base of the west wall ran a fosse about twelve feet wide and ten deep. Rather extensive mines (to be fired by powder-trains laid on or just under the surface of the ground) lay below the fosse; and beyond them--about half-way down the slope--stood a redan (E) for some fifty men, which seems to have been about 125 feet from the wall. This west wall was a priest-cap: i.e., it was indented like a shallow V, so that its two halves could afford support to each other. In the central portion of the terre-plein stood the masonry edifice of the military college with an open terrace at its eastern end and some stone buildings with flat, parapeted roofs, at its western end. A half-round bastion on each of the long sides afforded room for a heavy gun commanding in each case a semicircle. (The one in the southern bastion seems to have been disabled on Sept. 8.) East of the southern bastion, in a smaller projection, stood a lighter gun looking toward the lower gateway; behind the somewhat zigzag parapet westward two or three smaller pieces covering the road and the southwest approach; on the terre-plein commanding the upper gateway a couple of light howitzers; and at the western end, specially screened with timber and sand-bags, two heavy pieces, which swept the approach from El Molino. (One of the pieces was a 68-pound howitzer. Ripley is precise in his account of the size and the placing of the guns, but the evidence is against him. He says there were eleven. There seem to have been thirteen; but one of them was not mounted, and two were now disabled.) Timbering, proof against bullets, covered much of the lower story, the parapeted azotea of the main edifice and some other parts of the buildings; and sand-bags afforded further, though inadequate, protection at a number of peculiarly exposed points.

28.13. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 377 (Scott), 397 (Twiggs), 399 (Riley), 400 (Pillow), 410 (Quitman), 422 (Huger); app., 197 (Pierce), 201 (Cadwalader), 230 (Porter). Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 185 (Ripley). =260=Henshaw, comments on map. =217=Id. to wife, Sept. 13. =66=Lee to J. L. Smith, Sept. 15. =66=McClellan to Smith, Sept. 20. =66=Beauregard to Smith, Sept. 20. =111=Id. to Id., Sept. 27. =304=Andrews to Lovell, Sept. 19. =304=Hunt to Id., Sept. 15. =304=Steptoe to Id., Sept. 16. =304=Porter to Id., Sept. 16. =304=Wilcox, diary. Ramsey, Other Side, 457. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --. =178=Davis, diary. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 426. =76=Carrera, Sept. 1.

28.14. Negrete Invasión, iv, app., 299-300. =61=Letter from Mex., Sept. 11. Apuntes, 305-6, 309-10, 314. Ramírez, México, 307-8. Diario, Sept. 11. =73=Lozano, no. 7, 1847. S. Anna, Apelación, 57. Id., Detall, 25. =76=To Bravo, Sept. 10. =76=Bravo, Sept. 11. =76=Tornel to Carrera, Sept. 9. =92=Ayunt. to S. Anna, Sept. 11. =92=Letter from Piedad, Sept. 11. =199=Anon. MS.

28.15. =76=Bravo, Sept. 14. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 427; iv, app., 299-300. =179=Diario Esactísimo. London Times, Nov. 13. S. Anna, Detall, 26. =76=To comtes. gen. Querétaro and Guanajuato, Sept. 12. Arco Iris, Nov. 30. Apuntes, 310-2. =70=Trial of Bravo ("Guerra," no. 273). =70=Trial of Terrés ("Guerra," no. 155). Molina, Asalto. =269=Id., recolls. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 241-3. Rangel, Parte (with notes).

28.16. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 377 (Scott), 410-2 (Quitman); app., 231 (Mackenzie). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 143 (Lee), 193, 200-1 (Worth), 259 (Quitman). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 301-2. Henshaw narrative. =376=Nicholson, recolls. =221=Hill, diary.

28.17. The battle of Chapultepec. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 375, 391-425; app., 169-231 (reports of Scott and officers). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 119 (Tilton), 146 (Lee), 155-6, 158 (Bennett), 170, 172 (Hooker), 204-9 (Rains), 217-8 (Drum), 219 (Bates), 220-1 (Johnston), 222-4 (Loeser), 270-5 (Howard). Stevens, Stevens, i, 208-10. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 137. Cong. Globe, 34, 1, pp. 105-7. Sen. Report 32; 34, 1. Brown, Ninth Inf., 70. Henderson, Science of War, 97 ("The issue of battle"). So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, pp. 15-42. =76=Bravo, Sept. 14. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 428-9; iv, app., 300-4. Balbontín, Invasión, 131. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 302-3. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 242-7. Davis, Autobiog., 231-2. Henshaw narrative. =180=Pillow to wife, Oct. 18. Weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848. =61=Seymour, Oct. 31, 1847. =69=H. V. Johnson et al. to Polk, Apr. 6, 1848. =376=Nicholson, recolls. =183=Drum, recolls. =223=Hirschorn, recolls. =66=G. W. Smith to Stevens, Sept. 20. =66=Tower to J. L. Smith, Sept. 23. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 361-2, 380-6. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. =221=Hill, diary. =200=Reid to Gladden, May 27, 1849. S. Anna, Detall, 16, 26-9, 38-42. =151=Numerous reports and letters regarding Quitman's operations. =113=Beauregard, remins. (based on diary and notes). =151=Wilcox, diary. =303=Quitman papers. National, Nov. 14. =179=Diario Esactísimo. =60=Riley to Westcott, Nov. 30, 1847. =60=Loring to P. F. Smith, Sept. 27. =68=Testimony at Bonneville court martial. =60=Miller to sister, undated. =60=Id. to mother, Mar. 24, 1848. London Times, Nov. 13, 1847. =335=Reynolds to Trist, Sept. 27. Oswandel, Notes, 426. Semmes, Service, 453-5. Arco Iris, Nov. 30. Apuntes, 311, 314-6. =199=Anon. MS. Rangel, Parte (with notes). Eco del Comercio, May 1, 1848. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). Gamboa, Impug., 55. =70="Guerra," no. 1044 (trial of Alemán). =70="Guerra," no. 273 (trial of Bravo). Monitor, Apr. 27, 1848. =70="Guerra," no. 155 (trial of Terrés). Statue of Bravo at Puebla. Delta, Oct. 14, 26; Nov. 3, 20. México á través, iv, 690-5. =76=Bravo, Dec. 27. Dunovant, Battles, 5-10. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Monitor Repub., Oct. 24; Dec. 16 (S. Anna). Nashville Repub. Banner, Oct. 28, 1857. =292=Pillow to wife, Oct. 18. Spirit of the Age, Feb. 10; July 29, 1848. Pacheco, Exposíción. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 257-9. Calderón, Rectificaciones, 47. Vedette, iv, nos. 3, 8, 12. =327=Sutherland to father. Aug. --. =178=Davis, diary. Flag of Freedom, Nov. 27. Molina, El Asalto. =269=Id., recolls. =291=Pierce to Appleton, Sept. 26. =51=Marine off., Oct. 20. Reynolds, Exculpation. =131=Brindle, statement. Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 396-402. Encarnacion Prisoners, 84. Hist. Teacher's Mag., Apr., 1912 (Vieregg).

REMARKS on the battle of Chapultepec. Chapultepec had been a protected summer palace, not a fortress. At this time the upper stories that one sees now did not exist. There were perhaps three times as many large trees in the grove as at present. For military reasons the small trees had recently been cleared away. Scott had a small map of the city, apparently purchased from the British courier (Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 25). The Twelfth Infantry guarded the stores at Mixcoac, and Sept. 10 Harney was sent there with a body of dragoons. Sumner was then placed in command of all the dragoons at Tacubaya (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 421). P. F. Smith's brigade remained at Mixcoac until the morning of Sept. 13. Lee, Beauregard, Stevens and Tower reconnoitred the southern front. Scott was there nearly all day Sept. 9, and on the morning of the eleventh. The purposes in view were to study the Mexican preparations, ascertain the nature of the ground, and find places for batteries. In general the ground, even where covered with water, appeared to be firm enough for infantry, and suitable places for batteries were found.

Bravo was appointed to the command of Chapultepec on August 27. Sept. 9 Alvarez was ordered to take the cavalry to Guadalupe. According to =76=Bravo, Sept. 14, the garrison of Chapultepec on the morning of Sept. 12, aside from gunners and engineers, was the Tenth Line Infantry (250), Mina battalion (277), Unión battalion (121), Querétaro battalion (115), Toluca battalion (27), Patria battalion (42). These 832 men were disposed as follows: defending the road to Tacubaya, 160; redoubt on south side of hill (apparently at B), 215; glorieta redoubt (C), 92; entrenchment at the right of the glorieta (D), 42; north side of the hill, 80; buildings at summit, 243 (=76=Bravo, report, Sept. 14). The buildings near the gateway batteries were defended principally by the Matamoros de Morelia battalion.

At the conference of Sept. 11 Engineers Smith, Lee, Stevens and Tower favored attacking San Antonio, and Quitman, Shields, Cadwalader and Pierce took that view. Pillow did the same. Riley and Twiggs sided with Scott though not for positive reasons. Hitchcock and Trist do not seem to have expressed opinions. Worth and P. F. Smith were engaged elsewhere. Scott's attacking Chapultepec against the advice of Lee illustrated the fact that his success in Mexico was not due to that officer, as the value of Lee's services and his later fame have led some to imagine.

Gen. U. S. Grant regarded the battles of Sept. 8 and 13 as wholly unnecessary (Mems., i, 154). But here, as elsewhere in referring to the Mexican War, he seems to have been merely recording youthful impressions. He says that, had Scott gone round those positions, the Mexicans would have evacuated them; but Scott did not wish the Mexicans to evacuate El Molino and Casa Mata, taking with them their gunpowder and (supposed) foundry material: i. e., Grant failed to understand the question. With regard to Chapultepec also it is an issue between a lieutenant and the major general commanding. Scott did not overlook the idea of going round (Worth: Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 199); and hence, as he understood the case far better than Grant did at the time or when he wrote his Memoirs, one concludes that his judgment was correct. He stated (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 377) that [Grant's] plan would have required too wide and hazardous a circuit. The following other objections against it may be suggested. Grant's plan would have required the army to abandon the roads for difficult fields and marshes, limited the practicability of defending the rear in case of attack, weakened greatly the effective feinting upon which Scott counted (ibid., 376), produced a bad moral effect--especially in view of the recent battle--by suggesting that he dared not attack Chapultepec, exposed our assaulting troops to a cannonade from the rear, and left behind them a menace of other uncertain but alarming possibilities. The capture of Chapultepec, on the other hand, worked morally as well as physically in our favor, and was thought by Scott likely to have an even greater effect than it had (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 169); and it was stated by our engineers that mortars planted there would command a large part of the city. It has been said that our batteries were too far from the target; but it was not known what guns Chapultepec had, and no doubt our engineers and artillery officers ventured as far as appeared expedient. Clearly, however, too much was expected of our batteries.

Battery No. 1, to play on the south side of the fort, was laid out by Lee; No. 2, opposite the southwest angle of the fort, by Huger. The batteries did not fire accurately at first (=179=Diario Esactísimo). This seems to have been due to a lack of platforms for the guns. Quitman's division supported No. 1, which was particularly exposed, and in the afternoon he made a bold reconnaissance of the road, discovering artillery and a ditch in his front (Claiborne, Quitman, ii, app., 308). The Mexicans made advances toward No. 1 on Sept. 12, but canister repelled them. To hinder reinforcements from reaching Chapultepec, Quitman by Scott's order placed fifty men well forward on the road in the night of Sept. 12-13, and some skirmishing occurred. A 9-pounder protected with sand-bags was planted just in front of No. 1. The intention had been to establish an advanced battery, but the Mexicans prevented this. Two New York companies supported No. 2. Battery No. 3 had a brass 16-pounder. This, becoming unserviceable, was replaced with an iron 24-pounder. Batteries 1, 2 and 3 commanded the south and west fronts of Chapultepec fort, and No. 4 commanded its interior. No. 1 stood about 1000 yards from the south front of the fort; No. 2 about 1400 yards from its southwestern angle; No. 3 about 1140 yards from its west front; and No. 4 a little nearer than No. 3 (Hardcastle's map in Sen. 1; 30, 1).

Pillow reoccupied El Molino early Sept. 12 and his division slept there the following night. Early Sept. 13 Twiggs resumed operations at La Piedad, and the Mexicans endeavored to draw him on. Steptoe had two 12-pounders and two 24-pound howitzers. The weakness and gradual discontinuance of his fire and the fact that Twiggs did not expose his infantry rendered this feint ineffective. Scott states that Taylor's battery also was at La Piedad, but it does not seem to have been used at this time. Perhaps, as the Mexicans were likely to attack, it was held in reserve.

The storming parties were composed of volunteers. In some and possibly in all cases some slight reward was offered. In a number of regiments so many volunteered that it became necessary to draw lots. Scott thought Pillow would need one brigade; but Pillow sent for Worth's whole division and received one (Clarke's) brigade of it. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 420) states that Pillow asked for only one of Worth's brigades, but against him is the testimony of Scott, of Worth and of Semmes, who bore Pillow's message. Some of Clarke's men arrived in time to fight. After the battle Pillow admitted that not over 1000 of his men took part in the assault (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 408). He had too many. They were in one another's way. Pillow stated that the garrison was 6000, thus probably reckoning almost every Mexican soldier within a mile of the hill. Pillow wrote (=180=Oct. 18): I led "to the very Cannon's mouth, where I was cut down--Then my men picked me up and carried me forward under my orders and with a shout of exultation and triumph, scaled the ditches and wall." In fact he seems to have received a painful wound on the ankle from a glancing grapeshot at the foot of the hill (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 378), and was not carried to the summit until serious fighting had ended (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 156, 172, 204, 217, 222, 224). Cadwalader succeeded him in command. Lt. Col. Hébert with the Eleventh Infantry, assisted by Sumner's dragoons and in effect by Trousdale and Jackson, kept off a strong force of lancers that menaced the American rear from the direction of Los Morales.

Sept. 13 when Santa Anna finally sent the San Blas battalion (perhaps 400) toward the summit, the approach of the Americans forced it to halt--apparently at the entrenchment (D) near the glorieta. The Third Ligero was ordered to reinforce this battalion, but the college fell before it arrived, and it retired. Other troops were sent to the lower parts of the hill. Some perished, some retreated, some were captured. The Hidalgo battalion fought on the Tacubaya road. Reserves of 2-5000 were on the Belén causeway near Chapultepec.

A Mexican lieutenant of engineers named Alemán had charge of firing the mines, and he was ordered to do his work. At his trial he said that he found his way blocked by Mexican troops, and that before he could reach his post the Americans were there. Some, if not all, of the canvas pipes containing the trains had already been found and cut by our troops. The Americans got over the fosse by laying ladders across it. The man who first reached the Mexican flagstaff appears to have been Capt. Kimball, a Vermonter but born in New Hampshire. He stood on guard there till Seymour, who commanded his regiment after Ransom's fall, arrived. Sept. 13 the Americans took revenge for the atrocities perpetrated upon our wounded on the eighth.

The second in command in Casey's party was Capt. Paul, but Capt. B. S. Roberts, whose company stood at the head of it, led the successful charge. Gen. Rangel reported that by this time the Mexican muskets had become useless and the one cannon that directly enfiladed the road had been accidentally disabled. It is quite clear, particularly in the light of Mexican evidence, that the fort on the summit was carried before the gateway batteries. Quitman rendered no essential service in the capture of Chapultepec, though he kept many Mexicans occupied. His troops that went up the hill were not needed. (Even Clarke's brigade was a greater reinforcement than the situation called for.) Shields states that the three regiments turned off to the left because the Mexicans in Quitman's front were found too strong, and if these could not be beaten before those three regiments were detached, evidently the remainder of Quitman's command was not strong enough to beat them. When Roberts led the successful charge, Worth (whom Clarke rejoined), Trousdale and Jackson had appeared at the northeast of Chapultepec and menaced the rear of the gateway batteries. Except thirty to fifty under Capt. Terrett the Marines did not distinguish themselves. Their commander, however, said that their ammunition failed, and other officers stated that Quitman ordered the corps to halt. This was their first battle.

P. F. Smith had the Mounted Rifles (minus two companies detached), First Artillery and Third Infantry (minus two companies detached). It was hoped that he could strike the Belén aqueduct, break through, and take the Mexican flank and rear. Smith's brigade not being strong enough--under the difficulties of the ground and in view of Quitman's halt--to attack Santa Anna's reserves, veered toward the causeway, and under the partial shelter of maguey opened fire. His right companies took part in the final charge against the gateway batteries. Had Quitman given Smith the pioneer party with planks, etc., for bridging the ditches, and a storming party, and supported him with two of the regiments that went up the hill, Smith could have struck the Mexicans effectively on the Belén route, while Quitman himself was doing what he could on the Tacubaya road with the rest of his command. A great number of prisoners could probably have been captured in this way (Stevens, Stevens, i, 214-5). Gen. Rangel reported that the corps which defended the work on the Tacubaya causeway lost one third, and that almost every member of his staff was wounded Sept. 8 or 13. The serious fighting inside the fort lasted only four or five minutes. When the final assault occurred, the effective defenders, all told, probably did not number more than 275. Bravo's sword was returned to him. He was charged by Santa Anna with bad conduct, but when tried was fully exonerated. In reference to Chapultepec the author was kindly assisted by Señor D. Ignacio Molina, head of the cartography section of the Mexican government, who was a student at the military college in Sept., 1847, and, being an engineer by profession, could be relied upon.

28.18. Pillow estimated the Mexican killed, wounded and captured at Chapultepec at about 1800 (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 408), and mentioned that the prisoners included Gens. Bravo, Noriega, Monterde [Dosamantes, Saldaña], three colonels, seven lieut. colonels and 40 captains. The actual number of Mexicans captured in the operations of Sept. 13-14 was 125 officers, 698 men besides about forty students (Hitchcock in Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 430). As to their killed, wounded and missing, one can only guess. The American loss on Sept. 12-14 was: killed, 10 officers, 128 rank and file; wounded, 60 officers, 613 rank and file (Ho. 24; 31, 1). What part of this loss was incurred at Chapultepec cannot be stated. (Black) McSherry (M'Sherry), El Puchero, 108.

28.19. The Belén operations. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1019, 1021-5. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 381-3 (Scott), 398 (Twiggs), 414-6 (Quitman), 423 (Huger); app., 180 (Bonneville), 184 (Smith), 191 (Beauregard), 215 (Seymour), 223 (Smith), 225 (Shields), 230 (Porter). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 188 (Ripley). 633 (Pillow). Carreño, Jefes, 166. Niles, Oct. 30, pp. 137-8. Sen. Report 32; 34, 1. Brown, Ninth Inf., 62. Haskin, First Artill., 115. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, pp. 43-4. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 133, 145-9; iv, app., 304-8. Balbontín, Invasión, 132. Davis, Autobiog., 209-10, 232-4, 262-3. =376=Nicholson, recolls. =218=Henshaw narrative. =69=Dimick to Woodbury, Dec. 1, 1848. =69=Childs to Dimick, Dec. 2, 1848. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 347, 364, 367-9, 372, 385-6. =151=Reports and letters. City of Charleston, S. C, Year Book, 1883, p. 523. Rowland, Miss. Register, 418. =113=Beauregard, remins. =357=Wilcox, diary. =303=Reports. =60=Loring to P. F. Smith, Sept. 27. =60=Dimick to Id., Sept. 20. =60=Id. et al. to P. F. Smith, Oct. 19, 1848. =60=Id. to adj. gen., Nov. 30, 1848. =69=Williams to Porter, Apr. 11, 1857. =65=Adj. gen., orders 7, Feb. 20, 1847. Rodriguez, Breve Reseña, 870. Gamboa, Impug., 56. =70="Guerra," no. 155 (trial of Terrés). Picayune, Nov. 20. Delta, Oct. 14, 26, 1847; Jan. 11, 1848. México á través, iv, 695. Dunovant, Battles, 11-17. Wash. Union, Sept. 11. Monitor Repub., Nov. 3; Dec. 16. South. Mag., July, 1874, p. 78. =364=Worth to daughter, Sept. 28. Ramsey, Other Side, 249, note. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 246. =270=Moore, diary. =335=Statement re Quitman by Trist. =80=Relac. to Olaguíbel, Sept. 14. Statements to the author from Quitman's daughters. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --. =178=Davis, diary. =269=Molina, recolls. Reynolds, Exculpation. Stevens, Vindication. S. Anna, Detall, 21, 29-32. Raleigh Star, Nov. 3. =76=Tornel to Carrera, Sept. 9. Apuntes, 309, 317-22. Diccionario Universal (México). =68=Bonneville court martial. Semmes, Service, 457. Monitor Repub., Nov. 3 (Terrés). Stevens, Stevens, i, 210-1. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 492-3.

REMARKS on the Belén operations. The Mexicans retiring by this road were commanded by Gen. Lombardini. The principal corps was the Activo regiment of Morelia. The ditch across the Tacubaya causeway at the gateway batteries was promptly filled in by the Americans to permit passage. A part of the men who captured the gateway batteries pursued the fleeing Mexicans, but not far. A part of the Sixth Infantry, having gone astray, joined Quitman. It has been suggested that Scott made a mistake in not giving orders, before the attack upon Chapultepec, for subsequent operations, and thus left the troops to their own devices; but it was impossible for him to calculate in advance what the situation would be, and he went as soon as possible to the summit of the hill, which was the proper place for surveying the field and issuing suitable commands.

The Belén garita presented a hard problem because, having been more threatened than the San Cosme garita, it seemed likely to be more strongly guarded, because, being nearer to the forces protecting the southern front, it could be more quickly and effectively reinforced, and because it was supported by the citadel, which could only be approached over open ground. Scott, therefore determined to make only a feint at Belén (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 382). Quitman, however, owing to the abortive Alvarado expedition, had not figured at Cerro Gordo. Aug. 20 and Sept. 8 his duty had been to guard the rear. Hence he had won no éclat under Scott, and, feeling that Scott was unfriendly to him, he apparently resolved at this time to take the bit in his teeth (Davis, Autobiog., 232). During his operations against the city Scott repeatedly signified his disapproval of them, but Quitman refused to retire without a positive order (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 386), and, since Quitman had committed him, Scott, although extremely annoyed (Davis, Autobiog., 234-5), wisely refrained from giving this. Gen. U. S. Grant said, "It is always, however, in order to follow a retreating foe, unless stopped or otherwise directed" (Mems., i, 152). This principle authorized Quitman's moving toward the city but not the later part of his operations. At the expense of his men, therefore, Quitman was guilty of virtual insubordination--though not of positive disobedience--for personal reasons. This fact it is necessary to make clear. But his men were no doubt as willing as he to risk their lives, and it was only natural that Quitman should seek to distinguish himself. That motive had to be recognized, for without it probably few volunteer officers would have been in the field. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 549) says that according to Scott's report orders were repeatedly sent to Quitman to prevent his too rapid advance, but Quitman did not receive them and could not find the staff officer who had borne them. What Scott said (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 382) was that he repeatedly communicated his "views" to Quitman, and Davis (Autobiog., 234-5) supports this statement. The purpose of Ripley's remark apparently was to hint that Scott's statement was untrue.

The intermediate battery (at what was called the Bridge of the Insurgents) seems to have been built for four guns but to have had only one, two, three guns in place, or perhaps none. The accounts disagree. Quitman and Smith, both of them volunteer officers, appear distinctly to have colored their reports in favor of the Palmetto regiment, which was second to none in gallantry, but was not enabled by circumstances to do all it would gladly have done here. The First Artillery, on the other hand, did not receive the credit it deserved. It was merely a question of precedence, not of courage, but vigorous protests against their reports were the consequence. Perhaps, however, the real explanation of their inaccuracies is that the reports represent orders of which circumstances (unknown or forgotten by them) prevented the execution.

Sept. 9, believing Scott would attack the southern side, Santa Anna had two guns removed from the Belén garita. The "citadel" had originally been a tobacco factory. Terrés was treated by Santa Anna with the utmost contempt and even subjected to personal violence, but a court martial exonerated him, and he was regarded by Scott with marked respect (Delta, Jan. 11, 1848).

28.20. The S. Cosme operations. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 381-2 (Scott), 391-3 (Worth), 421 (Sumner), 424 (Huger), 428-9 (J. L. Smith); app., 166 (Huger), etc. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1072-3, 1077, 1079. Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit., v, 46; xxxiii, 444. Wilson, Grant, 63-7. Stevens, Stevens, i, 211-2, 215. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, p. 44. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 430-41, 450; iv, app., 305-8. Grant, Mems., i, 150, 155-9. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 249. =66=Lee to J. L. Smith, Sept. 15. =66=McClellan to G. W. Smith, Sept. 14. =66=Stevens to J. L. Smith, Sept. 25. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 379. =113=Beauregard, remins. =60=Paul to Lovell, Sept. 20. Semmes, Service, 457-61. Apuntes, 316-22. Rangel, Parte (with notes). =70="Guerra," no. 273 (trial of Bravo). Delta, Oct. 14. S. Anna, Detall, 30-2. México á través, iv, 695. Monitor Repub., Dec. 16 (S. Anna). =76=Mora to Lombardini, Aug. 9; to Guerra, July 22. =76=Lombardini, Aug. 22. Jackson, Mems., 43. =80=Relac. to Olaguíbel, Sept. 14. G. W. Smith, Co. A, Corps of Engins. =51=Letter from Marine officer, Oct. 20. =51=Terrett, undated. =51=Henderson to sec. navy, May 12, 1848. Stevens, Vindication. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. Arnold, Jackson, 130, 177. Dabney, Jackson, 47-9. Murphy, Remins., 69. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 496-502.

REMARKS on the San Cosme operations. The Mexicans retreating by this route were commanded by Gen. Rangel, assisted by Gen. Peña y Barragán and Lt. Col. Echeagaray. It is impossible to be as precise as would be desirable in describing the first part of Worth's advance, for the reports are both vague and inconsistent. This is mainly, no doubt, because the officers wrote from memory and without the aid of a map. Ripley observes (op. cit., ii, 484) that Worth's movement "had the great element of success, celerity." In reality, it was very slow, but unofficial accounts and the Mexican reports contain evidence that the resistance was not only vigorous but more than once temporarily triumphant. The one-gun redoubt seems to have been abandoned when the hill yielded. Ripley observes also (op. cit., ii, 485) that Worth did not need to advance rapidly: "Time was not immediately pressing." But this is a mistake, for substantially all the Mexican preparations at the S. Cosme garita were made after Worth's advance began. The fortification (unarmed) near the English cemetery was at the bridge of Santo Tomás. The Mexican infantry was withdrawn from this position because the Americans could have struck the S. Cosme highway (by a cross-road) between it and the city; but a large body of cavalry under Torrejón remained and charged in order to gain time for Rangel to make preparations at the garita.

While Quitman was struggling with the intermediate battery, Duncan of Worth's command sent a gun from La Verónica causeway into a road that extended some distance toward the right, and fired at the Mexicans. He and Worth believed they gave Quitman material assistance, but this does not appear to have been the fact, for the distance was found to be much greater than they supposed (=113=Beauregard). The better way to aid Quitman would have been to press forward without loss of time, and threaten the rear of the Mexicans opposing Quitman. Later some of Worth's guns did aid Quitman by firing at the garita.

With remarkable daring Capt. Terrett of the Marines, Lieuts. Gore and U. S. Grant of the Fourth Infantry, a few other officers and a small party of men captured the unarmed work near the junction of La Verónica and San Cosme roads by moving to the left round the English cemetery, and took the parapet on the San Cosme highway. From the latter Worth recalled them because the American guns behind them were about to open. Cadwalader, sent to Worth by Scott, was placed by the former at the English cemetery to guard Worth's left and rear. Sumner, after pursuing the Mexicans for some time, was detached to protect Tacubaya. Scott joined Worth near the English cemetery and directed him to carry the garita (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 392), but he soon returned to the base of Chapultepec so as to be within easy reach of all his scattered forces (ibid., 382). By Scott's order Huger sent to Worth four siege guns and a mortar, but on account of the nature of the ground none of these pieces was used against the garita (ibid., 424). Santa Anna brought four guns to the garita, but only three of them were available. The stampede from the garita seems to have been due in part to a cornet signal for retreat, meant for a single corps. The cavalry under Alvarez entered the city during the afternoon of Sept. 12. Grant was assisted by Lieut. Lendrum of the Third Artillery in handling the mountain howitzer.

28.21. The night of Sept. 13-14. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 383 (Scott), 393 (Worth), 416 (Quitman), 424 (Huger), 429 (J. L. Smith); app., 168, etc. (officers). Ho. 60: 30, 1, pp. 1077-9 (Worth), 1079 (Scott). =179=Diario Esactísimo. Stevens, Stevens, i, 213, 215. Sen. Rep. 32; 34, 1. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 129, 450; iv, 108, 116-22; app., 309-10. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, p. 49. Davis, Autobiog., 235-7, 287-90. =217=Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13 [partly later]. =218=Henshaw narrative. =61=Gates, Oct. 6. =376=Nicholson, recolls. =151=Steptoe to Lovell, Sept. 16. London Times, Nov. 13. =92=S. Anna to Mex. ayunt., Sept. 15. =80=Fernández to gov. Michoacán, Sept. 13. =80=Relac. to Olaguíbel, Sept. 14. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 83. Gamboa, Impug., 57-8. =70="Guerra," no. 954 (trial of Bonilla). =366=Ayunt. poster, Sept. 25. Monitor Repub., Sept. 27 (Pacheco); Oct. 2 (S. Anna). S. Anna, Contestación. Lawton, Artill. Off., 315. =73=Lozano, nos. 4 and 8, res., 1847. Ramírez, México, 318. =92=Mex. ayunt. to Scott, Sept. 13, 11 P.M. S. Anna, Apelación, 58-9. Calderón, Rectificaciones, 48. Giménez, Memorias, 114. Stevens, Vindication. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. =112=Beauregard to Quitman, Sept. 17. =113=Id., remins. Rangel, Parte (with notes). Claiborne, Quitman, i, 370. =221=Hill, diary. Semmes, Service, 463. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 304. S. Anna, Detall, 32-3. Apuntes, 334-5. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 503-4.

Quitman sent to Scott for heavy cannon and ammunition, and the latter, though offended by Quitman's course, had them supplied. During the night, under Beauregard's direction, two batteries inside the Belén garita (for a 24-pounder, an 18-pounder and a 24-pound howitzer) and a breastwork on the right for infantry were made ready. Steptoe, sent here by Scott, was on hand to superintend the firing. To assault the citadel across about 300 yards of open ground, even with the aid of these pieces, would have been a very serious affair, and it was most fortunate for Quitman that Worth's entering the town where no citadel existed made it unnecessary.

It has been supposed that Huger's brief bombardment caused Santa Anna to evacuate the city (Semmes, Service, 463); but Santa Anna knew, without being shown again, what the American artillery could do, and he seems to have decided upon his policy before this firing occurred. Santa Anna's chief published reasons for the evacuation were that he wished to save the city from bombardment, assault and sack, and save the army, arms and cannon for future operations. Gamboa complained that no provision was made before the evacuation for the security of the people, the archives, etc. But Scott's previous conduct was an adequate pledge, and the council relied upon his regard for international law. Considering Santa Anna's known love of money, the vast Mexican interests now imperilled, and his summary manner of deciding the question of evacuation, one cannot help suspecting that inducements were offered him. The council was probably held merely to divide the responsibility for what he had resolved to do.

It was charged that Santa Anna let the criminals out of jail expressly to attack the Americans, and to bring odium upon us by committing outrages that could be attributed to our troops. One cannot be sure about this matter; but it is noticeable that Gamboa, in piling up all possible charges against the President, only accused him of failing to prevent the criminals from getting free. Santa Anna must have been completely exhausted, but it seems to be true, as was stated by the British minister (Bankhead, no. 86, 1847), that some one in authority let about 2000 men out of confinement. Very likely it was hoped that the Americans would be guilty of disorder; but the palace at least was sacked before they entered it. Some of the Mexican soldiers acted like brigands, it was reported--even robbing the British consul. No preparations to evacuate the town had been made. Some one might and should have had sentinels posted at the public buildings and offices ready to surrender them in a proper manner. See chap. xxix, note 29.2.

On account of illness Pierce had no part in the battles of Sept. 8 and 13. Probably in order to occupy a place in the reports he appeared at the Belén garita at about four A.M., Sept. 14 (though he belonged to Pillow's division) on the ground that the Ninth Infantry was then serving under Quitman. Although Scott refused to grant a capitulation or sign any pledge, he seems to have indicated quite definitely to the commission how the capital would be treated (Negrete, Invasión, iv, 122), and in particular that in consideration of being protected it would have to pay $150,000 for necessaries and comforts to be given our troops. The ayuntamiento attempted to force Scott to make pledges by saying that otherwise it could offer no security to his army or its property. This was ingenious, and so was its solemn Protest (Negrete, Invasión, iv, 108) that it had no intention of submitting voluntarily to any foreign authority.

Scott's report offended Worth by saying that he did not pass the garita until Sept. 14 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1077). This was technically an error, and Scott so acknowledged in writing (ibid., 1079). But one cannot suppose he intended (though Worth imagined he did) to belittle Worth, for his plan had been to give that officer the glory of capturing the city, and he was displeased to find that Quitman had taken precedence of Worth (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 377). Moreover, Scott stated expressly in his report that Worth, had he not halted in obedience to orders, might have anticipated Quitman (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 383). Scott seems, indeed, to have intended, in giving Worth the command on Sept. 8 and destining him to take possession of the city, to close the breach between that officer and himself, but Worth contrived, by taking needless offence on both occasions, to widen it. Another complaint was that Scott ordered Worth to stop at the Alameda, and thus enabled Quitman to reach the palace first (Semmes, Service, 464); but apparently this was because Scott intended to join Worth there (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 417), for when Scott proceeded from Tacubaya to the city on the morning of Sept. 14 he took the long route via San Cosme, not knowing what Quitman had done.

Semmes (Service, 469) states that S. Anna left 40 pieces of artillery behind when he evacuated the city. Gamboa asserted that at the end of the fighting, Sept. 13, there were still 9000 Mexican soldiers besides 4000 National Guards (Impug., 59). The Spanish chargé reported that when the fighting ended Santa Anna had 12,000 troops. As the minister of relations was his guest at the time this would seem almost equivalent to an official estimate (=73=Lozano, no. 7, Sept. 16). Mounted and unmounted, the Americans found twenty-two cannon at the citadel (=304=Geary to Quitman, Sept. 14). In spite of Santa Anna's efforts to prevent the capture of the city, many still believed that he was in league with the Americans (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 419).

28.22. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 383 (Scott), 393 (Worth), 398 (Twiggs), 417 (Quitman). Niles, Oct. 30, p. 137. Sen. Rep. 32; 34, 1. Scott, Mems., ii, 535. Davis, Autobiog., 237. =376=Nicholson, recolls. =224=Introd. to intercepted letters. =66=Beauregard to Quitman, Sept. 17. =304=Watson to Shields, Sept. 16. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 362, note, 376. =113=Beauregard, remins. =151=Roberts to Union, July 12, 1848. =357=Wilcox, diary. Arroniz, Manual, i, 411. =65=Scott, gen. orders 286. Semmes, Service, 464. Apuntes, 326. London Chronicle, Nov. 12. =307=Roberts, diary. =187=Thomas to Eddy, Oct. 26. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 255. Norton, Life, 172. =327=Sutherland to father, Aug. --. Lowell (Mass.) Journal, Sept. 14, 1852. Verse by Grace Greenwood (in Stevenson, Poems).

Epitomizing his operations in the Valley, Scott said his army had beaten thirty-odd thousand men, posted behind defences at chosen positions, killed or wounded more than 7000, taken 3730 (one seventh officers), including thirteen generals, and captured more than twenty colors and standards, 75 pieces of ordnance, 57 wall-pieces, 20,000 small arms, and an immense quantity of munitions (Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 384-5). The total American losses on Sept. 12, 13 and 14: note 28.18.

XXIX. FINAL MILITARY OPERATIONS

29.1. The chief documents relating to Taylor's field. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 31-2. =63=Marcy to Taylor, July 15, 1847. =169=Taylor to Crittenden, May 15; Sept, 15, 1847. Delta, Aug. 3. Wash. Union, June 17. =76=Mora, Mar. 31; Apr. 7; May 12. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1118-49, 1170, 1172, 1175, 1177, 1180, 1185-8, 1195, 1197-8 (Taylor); 1003, 1193-4 (Marcy). =76=A. Chávez, July 29. =76=González to Urrea, July 12. =76=Valencia, June 7, 19, 26. =76=Filisola, Aug. 10. =76=Extracto, Aug. 10. Scott, Mems., ii, 409-11, 460. =354=Welles papers. =330=Taylor, Aug. 16. Spirit of the Age, Feb. 17, 1848. =76=Peña y Barragán, June 26, 1847. Charleston Mercury, Sept. 2. Polk, Diary, May 11. =61=Adj. gen. to Brooke, May 29; to Taylor, July 16; to Talcott, Mar. 24. =69=Wool to Bliss, Aug. 25. (Tampico) Kenly, Md. Vol., 241, 244, 252; =69=Riley to Bliss, Dec. 14, 1846; =61=Shields to adj. gen., Jan. 19, 1847; =66=Beauregard to Gates, Feb. 24; =76=I. Múñoz, Dec. 19, 21, 25, 1846; =65=Gates, special orders 7, Feb. 25, 1847; =76=Váldez to F. de Garay, Jan. 3, 1847; =76=Garay, Jan. 22, res., 29, res.; =76=J. J. Landero, Jan. 25; =76=S. Anna, Jan. 9; =76=F. de Garay, Jan. 22; =76=to Mora, May 24. (Tamaulipas authorities) =76=J. Cárdenas to Relaciones, Nov. 16, 1847; =76=Urrea, Nov. 15; =75=Memoria de ... Relaciones, Nov. 19; =76=gov. Tam. to comte. gen. Tam., Jan. 17, 1848; =76=Id. to Relaciones, Nov. 29, 1847; =76=Tam. congress, decree, Nov. 14. (Taylor's going home) =61=Taylor, Oct. 26, 1847; Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 145 (Marcy); =330=Taylor to Gen. --, Aug. 16, 1847; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1199, 1213-4 (Taylor); 1210 (Jones). (Costume) Delta, Aug. 3, 1847. =69=Wool, gen. orders, Dec. 22, 1847.

The distance from Camargo to Mexico City seems to have been about 820 miles by the direct road. As early as May 11, 1847, Polk remarked to the Cabinet that it was more important to reinforce Scott than Taylor (Diary). In March, 1847, Taylor had: (regulars) 2 cos. of First Dragoons; ditto, Second Dragoons; four artillery cos. (C of 1st; C and E of 3d; B of 4th) with batteries; five artillery cos. as infantry; (volunteers) Arkansas horse regt.; ditto, Kentucky; two cos. Texas horse; two regts. Kentucky foot; three Ohio foot; three Ind. foot; two Ill. foot; two Miss. foot; one each Va., No. Car., So. Car. and Mass. foot (=62=adj. gen. to ordnance dept., March 24, 1847). June 16 Taylor wrote that Wool would soon have at Buena Vista six regular companies (Second Dragoons, Fourth Artillery), four cos. of volunteer horse (First Arkansas, Third Texas), and Marshall's brigade (in all about 2500); that there would be a small garrison at Monterey, and that the troops on or coming to the Rio Grande would go to a camp of instruction at Mier. He reckoned that by August 15 he would have about 8000 effectives (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1177, 1180). The New Orleans Delta of Aug. 3 said Wool had at Buena Vista about 2900, Taylor at Monterey 800, and the posts at Cerralvo, Mier and Matamoros about 3300. In May and June the time of practically all Taylor's 12-months men (thirteen regts.) was out. Only enough for one company would reënlist. The government intended Taylor should have after losing these men fully 10,000, to wit (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 924-6): (regulars) Hopping's brigade consisting of Tenth Infantry (N. Y., N. J.) under Col. Temple; Thirteenth Infantry (Va., Ga., Ala., Fla.) under Col. Echols; Sixteenth Infantry (Ky., Ind., Ill.) under Col. Tibbatts; and also the Third Dragoons; (volunteers) Marshall's brigade (one regt. each from *Miss., *Va. and *No. Car., five Va. companies--*three of them already in Mexico); Lane's brigade (Ill. regt., Ill. horse co., Ind. regt., five N. J. cos., one Fla. co., one Ark. horse co., five Texas horse cos.); Cushing's brigade (*Mass. regt., Ohio regt., Ohio horse co., five D. C. and Md. cos., five Ala. cos., one Ala. horse co.). (The star means "already in Mexico.") In spite of this it was charged that the government was leaving Taylor with only a corporal's guard. Troops began to leave Taylor's for Scott's field during the latter part of August. Taylor retained the Tenth and Sixteenth regular regts. and the battery of Deas (Co. B, Fourth Artillery) and sent to Scott, besides Hays's men and a body under Cushing, three regts. of volunteers (Mass., Ohio, Ind.): an aggregate of 2957 (=62=adj. gen., Oct. 6). He estimated that Hays had about 400. Wool, who had been commanding at Saltillo and Buena Vista, moved to Monterey after Taylor left that place, and Col. John Hamtramck succeeded him. A letter from Buena Vista dated Jan. 17, 1848, said that Hamtramck then had 2600 and Wool at Monterey 1400; and that the total force in that field amounted to five light batteries, four infantry regiments, ten companies of dragoons and four companies of horse (Spirit of the Age, Feb. 17, 1848).

About 200 American prisoners (privates), who were supposed by themselves and other Americans to have been exchanged for Mexicans captured at Cerro Gordo, were sent by the Mexican government in May, 1847, to Huejutla, about 120 miles from Tampico on the road to Mexico, in order to prevent them from escaping or being recaptured, and suffered terrible privations in the mountains. July 7, 1847, Gates, commanding at Tampico, sent Col. De Russey of the Louisiana volunteers, with 126 men (including 35 mounted men) and a 6-pdr. under Capt. F. O. Wyse to endeavor peaceably to obtain the release of these prisoners, or, if that could not be done, to rescue them. De Russey sent word to Gen. F. de Garay, the Mexican commander in that district, regarding his mission, but was ambushed near Huejutla. With some loss he beat off his assailants, and after fighting more or less three days on his retreat, succeeded, after receiving aid from Tampico, in reaching that place. His loss was 12 killed and 7 wounded. Later the prisoners were released on parole. The garrison of Tampico at this time was only about 650 effectives; but July 31 five companies of Ill. vols. were ordered to go there from N. Orleans. In April, 1848, Gen. Shields was ordered to take command at Tampico. (For this paragraph: Encarnacion Prisoners, 70; =65=Gates, special orders 41, July 7; =61=Id., July 21, Aug. 24; =365=Wyse, May 15, 1876; =61=adj. gen. to Gates, July 31; Ho. 24; 31, 1; Tampico Sentinel, extra, July 18; =76=Garay, July 19, 28; =76=V. de Mora, Sept. 10; Apuntes, 380-4; Niles, Aug. 7, p. 357; =61=adj. gen. to Shields, Mar. 30, 1848.)

In the summer of 1847 discipline at Buena Vista was in a bad state (=76=Filisola, Aug. 10; =76=report of a trustworthy spy). In August a mutiny occurred (Sen. 62; 30, 1), and Wool discharged dishonorably two lieuts. and two privates (Ho. 78; 30, 1). Polk countermanded this discharge on the ground that Wool had exceeded his authority (=256=Marcy to Wool, Jan. 17, 1848). A court of inquiry was ordered (Ho. 60; 30, 1, 1207-8). This fully vindicated Wool (Sen. 62; 30, 1).

By the autumn of 1847 the Americans occupied Tamaulipas and Nuevo León pretty effectively, but in Coahuila held only Saltillo and its vicinity. In Feb. and March, 1848, that state was overrun (=61=Wool, Mar. 2, 1848; =76=gov. Coahuila, Mar. 29, 1848), and on March 7 Mazapil in northern Zacatecas was made an American outpost (=61=Wool to Price, Apr. 5, 1848; =76=comte. gen. Zacatecas, Mar. 10). The Americans tried repeatedly without success to apprehend Gov. Aguirre, who was known to be hostile. Finally, about the middle of Dec., 1847, they burned his house and destroyed the clothing of his family who were there (=76=report to comte. gen. Durango, res., Dec. 21, 1847).

Valencia's plan of combined operations appears to have been an elaboration of a suggestion of Filisola. By June 22 Filisola, then at Durango, was ready to advance. July 31 he feared his men would disband from lack of means. About Aug. 1 he moved. Many deserted or fell sick. August 11 he had 634 available privates. Avalos was in a similar condition, and his brigade shrank rapidly. Most of the troops placed under Filisola's orders were diverted or simply failed to appear, and finally on Aug. 23, 1847, he was ordered to Querétaro. (This paragraph is based upon numerous =76=reports from the officers concerned.)

Price's campaign. In Oct., 1847, it was feared at Santa Fe that the Mexicans intended to attack New Mexico (Santa Fe Republican, Oct. 9), and a considerable American force appears to have gone to the southern part of the province (=76=prefect El Paso, Oct. 26). In November El Paso was the scene of preparations to march south. The people of Chihuahua state had mostly been cowed at Sacramento, but Trias and a few others were determined to fight. He obtained 500 muskets that were landed at Guaymas, and his arsenal turned out eight small field pieces. At Santa Cruz de Rosales he took post with 804 men, besides officers. Price had 665 men, but his artillery was much superior to that of the Mexicans. His object was to get the munitions and other public property that Trias had brought from Chihuahua City. Trias said he knew officially that a treaty had been signed; but, as the Mexicans were more noted for astuteness than for veracity, Price would not believe him. He did, however, wait about a week. After some fighting Trias and his entire force surrendered. He lost 238 killed. The American loss was 4 killed and 19 wounded (=62=adj. gen. to Price, Oct. 4; Nov. 20, 1847. =256=Marcy to Price, May 22, 1848; to Wool, May 23. =76=Trias, Nov. 30; Feb. 15; Mar. 21. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 76-7, 113-36. =61=Corresp. between Price and Trias, Mar. 10, etc. Ho. 24; 31, 1. Eco del Comercio, June 22, 1848. =76=Chávez to Armijo, Oct. 21, 1847. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 535-7. México á través, iv, 710. =61=Justiniani and Trias, report, Mar. 22, 1848. Apuntes, 397-401). Price exhibited energy and courage in this campaign but poor judgment. A force occupying El Paso would have protected New Mexico, and to go even beyond the city of Chihuahua and fight so serious an aggressive battle long after the capture of Mexico City and in the face of positive assurances that a treaty had been signed was hardly reasonable. One suspects that commercial interests were behind this campaign. Gen. Butler ordered restitution made (=60=to Marcy, Apr. 7).

29.2. The chief documents relating to hostilities at Mexico. =221=Hill, diary. National, Nov. 14, etc., 1847. =65=Scott, gen. orders 289, 296. Apuntes, 325, 330-9, 362. London Chronicle, Nov. 12. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 451, etc.; iv, app., 310-2. S. Anna, Apelación, 59, 60, 63. Gamboa, Impug., 59, 60. Ramírez, México, 317-8. Semmes, Service, 466-7. =92=Ayunt. proclams. =92=Corresp. between Veramendi and S. Anna. =92=Ayunt. to Quitman, Sept. 15-6. =92=Mexican officials to Veramendi, Sept. --. =92=Quitman, proclam., Sept. 26. =92=Veramendi, proclam., Sept. 27. Arco Iris, Dec. 1. Picayune, Oct. 14; Nov. 20. N. Y. Sun, Oct. 14. Diario Esactísimo. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 138. =364=Worth to daughter, Sept. 28. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 248-58. =357=Wilcox, diary. Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 25. =366=Poster. S. Anna, Detall, 33-4. London Times, Nov. 13. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 383-4 (Scott), 393 (Worth); 399 (Riley); 417 (Quitman); 424 (Huger); app., 169 (Smith), 185 (Smith), 188 (Morris), 190 (Plympton). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 304-5. Monitor Repub., Sept. 28. Grant, Mems., i, 162-3. Henshaw narrative. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 378. Engineer School, Occas. Papers 16. =73=Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Davis, Autobiog., 240. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 507-11, 542. American Star, Oct. 14.

Santa Anna sent an order to Herrera to return to Mexico, but by the time Herrera received it he was so far away that he did not think it best to go back, and the order was soon rescinded. One of the =92=proclamations of the president of the ayuntamiento, 12:30 p.m., Sept. 14, said: "The general in charge of the American forces which have occupied the city this morning has informed the Ayuntamiento that if within three hours, counted from the time this notice is posted, there is not an entire cessation of the acts of hostility now being committed with palpable imprudence and to the grave prejudice of the peaceable citizens, he will proceed with all rigor against the guilty, permitting their goods and property to be sacked and razing the block in which are situated the houses from which the American troops are fired upon." There is no evidence that the last threat was executed. In another =92=proclamation of the same day the people were called upon to "reciprocate the civilization" of the American army, and to leave national affairs to the nation. In a =92=third the people were told that Scott had refused to give the pledges asked for by the ayuntamiento until the hostilities should cease. The action of the ayuntamiento brought upon President Veramendi the most violent denunciations and menaces of Santa Anna. Veramendi =92=replied that he "idolized" his country, and was only trying to avert the disasters to which it had been doomed by "the most well-proven rapine, the most lamentable demoralization of our people, and not by true patriotism or zeal to prevent the sacking of the churches" and other outrages. Veramendi wrote finally that it would be a waste of time to continue the discussion; that the authorities would do their duty and accept the verdict of public opinion.

The Americans commonly believed that the convicts were released from the prison by Santa Anna with the expectation that their crimes would be charged to the Americans; and on the other hand Otero asserted that the Americans released them to prey upon the people. His view was certainly erroneous; and the other, though not without support, may have been so. In the confusion the jailers perhaps left the prisoners unguarded or released them to save them from starving. Some believed that the real purpose of the uprising was to plunder the houses of the city under cover of the disorder, and there is reason to think this motive existed. No doubt, too, some Americans robbed the houses of innocent citizens from which they supposed, or pretended to suppose, that bullets had come (=221=Hill, diary). As late as December an uprising was planned. Scott had agents (including a member of Congress and a governor) to give him information (Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 38). Scott's general orders 289, Sept. 18, for the distribution of the troops in the city show that all the principal sections were covered, and that a guard and two guns defended each of the principal gates. No private house was to be used for quarters till all suitable public buildings had been occupied, nor then without the owner's consent or an order from headquarters. Officers were to be with or near their troops.

29.3. The chief documents. Lieber, Guerrillas, 19, 20. Diario, Apr. 28; May 2, 4, 10, 23, 1847. =80=Address of Méx. legislature, Apr. 26. Republicano, May 8. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 138 (Marcy). Porvenir, May 27. Picayune, Feb. 23; May 6; Dec. 9. Kenly, Md. Vol., 312. Ramírez, México, 241, 244, 260. México á través, iv, 712. =256=Marcy to Kearny, Dec. 10, 1846. =76=Mora, Apr. 23, 1847. =86=Vera Cruz congress, manifiesto, Sept. 28. =76=Soto, proclam., undated. =92=Address of citizens, Apr. 6. =61=Salas, proclam., Apr. 21. =76=S. Anna, May 16. =76=Relaciones to Olaguíbel, Aug. 16. =257=[Hughes] to Frank, Nov. 11. =76=Decrees, Apr. 28; May 1. Roa Bárcena, Rec., 250-5, 262.

In Spanish guerrilla means a party, each member of which is a guerrillero. The value of the work done by the Spanish guerillas was commonly much overrated by the Mexicans. Not only did the "patriotic" irregulars act atrociously in Mexico during the revolution against Spain, but those organized by the viceroy behaved so badly that he disbanded them (México á través, iii, 234). Guerillas ("light corps of the National Guard") were decreed by the Mexican government on April 8, 1847. A citizen after obtaining authorization from the state or the national government, could raise a body of volunteers (not less than fifty), rank according to the number from lieutenant to colonel (800), and give his name to the corps. Other corps were to be supported by the state or the central government. Goods taken from the enemy were to be divided among the captors and could be sold without paying duty. August 16, 1847, the government ordered that the people within thirty leagues (about eighty miles) of every point occupied by the enemy should rise en masse, and attack them with "the arms each may have, fire-arms or cold steel, great or small, long or short--in a word, if there be nothing else, with sticks and stones" (=76=Relaciones to Olaguíbel).

Other guerilla leaders in Vera Cruz state were M. Senobio (near the coast), the Spanish priest J. A. Martínez, Juan Aburto, F. Mendoza and J. M. Vázquez. T. Marín had charge of the guerillas near Córdoba. Jarauta was ordered to bring together a number of small parties that were simply preying upon the people. In the autumn of 1847 he offered to join the Americans, but Gen. Patterson, who arrived at Jalapa just then, would make no arrangement with him (Kenly, Md. Vol., 328-31; =257=[Hughes] to Frank, Nov. 11).

29.4. =76=Urrea, Aug. 12, res. =76=Canales to Urrea, Feb. 5; Aug. 6; to alcalde of Guerrero, Apr. 4. =69=Lamar to Bliss, Apr. 21. =245=Canales to ----, Apr. 4. Apuntes, 387-8. Republicano, June 11. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1138-42; 1197 (Belknap). =256=F. J. Parker to F. Smith, Apr. 1. Picayune, Feb. 23. Smith, Chile, 294, 298. =245=Boyd to Bee, Apr. 4. =148=Chamberlain, recolls.

If a train moved in sections with troops between them its length was increased so much that more strength was believed to be lost than gained. The "roads" were usually narrow, especially in rough country. For Urrea see chap. xx, p. 400.

29.5. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1138, 1142, 1180, 1211 (Taylor). =61=Wool to adj. gen., Dec. 20, 1847; Feb. 4; Mar. 2; May 9, 1848; to Hunter, Dec. 14, 1847; to Hamtramck, Dec. 18; to Lobo, July 25; to Marcy, Feb. 26, 1848; =65=orders, 11, Dec. 17, 1847. =65=Id., orders 66, Feb. 26, 1848. =69=Commrs. of N. León towns to Taylor, Apr. --, 1847. =61=McDowell to Butler, Jan. 18, 1848. =348=Pattridge to Miss W., July 21, 1847. Apuntes, 387. Republicano, Apr. 14, 1847. Niles, May 8, 1847, p. 152. =212=Hastings, diary. Sen. 32; 31, 1 (Hughes, mem., 43). =148=Chamberlain, recolls. =76=Aguirre, proclam., Aug. 27, 1847. =76=Canales to R. Uribe, Apr. 10. =76=Urrea, May 27. =76=Jefe político, Saltillo, to ayunt., Sept. 28; Nov. 4.

Final action regarding the fine of $96,000 was made contingent on the conduct of the people (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1139). General Mora, commanding at San Luis Potosí, thought he could take advantage of a small massacre perpetrated by Americans to score a point, but Taylor disposed of him summarily (ibid., pp. 1138-41).

29.6. Sun of Anahuac, Aug. 25, 1847. Apuntes, 385-7. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, 1847. =350=Weber, recolls. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 579. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 278, 281. Picayune, Oct. 15; Dec. 19. Kenly, Md. Vol., 323. Oswandel, Notes, 153, 166, 215. =76=Mora, Apr. 23, 1847. =76=Rea, Nov. 14. Dublán, Legislación, v, 284, 288. Diario, May 2, 10; June 27 (S. Anna, decree, June 26). =76=Lombardini, May 27. =76=Guerra, circular, June 26.

29.7. =61=Wilson to adj. gen., Aug. 21, 1847. (Losses) Ho. 24; 31, 1. =68=Court of inquiry, Puebla, July 17. =221=Hill, diary, Nov. 8. =69=Hughes to Capt. Scott, Jan. 8, 1848. Grone, Briefe, 33, 37, etc. =61=Lally to Wilson, Aug. 11, 26. =61=Briscoe, report, Mar. 1, 1848. =65=Scott, gen. orders 250, 1847; 45, 1848. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 579, 582. Delta, Oct. 1, 5, 1847. Kenly, Md. Vol., 304-8, 318. Apuntes, 386-7. =234=McDaniel to Johnson, Jan. 28, 1848. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1068 (Marshall); 1069 (Miles); 1082 (Scott). Niles, Sept. 18, 1847, p. 35; Oct. 16, p. 103. =291=Pierce, diary. =291=Bonham to Pierce, July 27. =61=Cadwalader to Wilson, June 13. =287=Parrish, diary. =76=Soto, June 10, 14; July 19. =76=Mendoza to Soto, June 16. =178=Davis, diary. Diario, June 23. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 482 (Lally); 488 (Sears); 489 (Ridgely); 491-5; app., 4, 13, 16 (McIntosh); 18 (Cadwalader); 21 (Wynkoop); 23 (Walker); 25 (Pierce). Roa Bárcena, Rec., 252, 254, 262. Oswandel, Notes, 381. June 6 McIntosh lost six killed, fifteen wounded.

For McIntosh and Pierce see chap. xxiv, pp. 76-7. McIntosh left Vera Cruz June 4 with 132 wagons, about 500 pack-mules, 170 dragoons, 100 dismounted dragoons and about 450 infantry. The wagon horses were weak mustangs; the mules unbroken and vicious; the teamsters Mexicans, mostly new to the business. The wagons became too much separated. The dragoons acted imprudently. A court of inquiry exonerated McIntosh. The guerillas destroyed the fine bridge at Plan del Río in the hope of stopping Cadwalader, who marched from Vera Cruz to reinforce McIntosh. Lally had two companies of the Fourth Infantry, two of the Fifth, one of the Eleventh, three of the Twelfth, one of the Fifteenth, two of the Voltigeurs and one of Louisiana horse. The "missing" numbered twelve. He admitted that at the national bridge only his artillery gave him the victory. Lally had been appointed from civil life, and, though military in appearance, did not understand his present business (Grone, Briefe, 46-8). Hearing at Perote that Lally had been repulsed, Colonel Wynkoop with two companies of infantry and one of cavalry marched to Jalapa in thirty-six hours. Naturally the Americans greatly overestimated the numbers of the guerillas they were fighting. In November, 1847, the guerillas operated so near Vera Cruz that the farmers would not bring milk and vegetables to the city unless escorted. January 3, 1848, Lieut. Col. Miles left Vergara with some 500 wagons and a large number of pack-mules. He had 1300 troops, but only 150 of them were cavalry. The train extended at least nine miles. In spite of unusual precautions 250-300 of the pack-mules were captured near Santa Fe. Most of the goods thus lost belonged to Mexican merchants. In February, 1848, a party under Lieut. Col. Briscoe was attacked on its way to Orizaba. A number of other encounters are mentioned by Mexicans.

29.8. Oswandel, Notes, 156, 215-6, 365, 382. =13=Giffard, nos. 19, May 30; 37, Oct. 20, 1847. =13=Doyle, no. 1, Jan. 13, 1848. =61=Hughes to [Wilson], Sept. 13. =65=Scott, gen. orders 127, Apr. 29; 372, Dec. 12, 1847. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 174, 186, 194, 196. =128=Id., diary. =12=Pell to Lambert, Nov. 30. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 50, 53, 61-2. Correo Nacional, Dec. 21. Henshaw narrative. Grone, Briefe, 37-61. =61=Twiggs to Marcy, Mar. 1, 1848. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 310. Scott, Mems., ii, 575. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 579, 582. =152=Claiborne, mems. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 138 (Marcy). Delta, Dec. 23. Apuntes, 386. =62=Adj. gen. to Wilson, Aug. 12. Moore, Scott's Camp., 72. Ramírez, México, 241-3, 260. Fraser's Mag., xxxviii, 91-6. =76=J. G. Terán, May 17. Stevens, Stevens, i, 134. Vera Cruz Eagle, May 29. =61=Wilson to adj. gen., June 7. =159=Collins papers. Polk, Diary, July 16. =76=Soto, July 23; Aug. 11. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 60-1. Flag of Freedom, i, no. 4. =305=Richardson, recolls.

It was a common practice of these guerillas to mutilate wounded Americans. The lasso was one of their weapons. Their rule was to take no prisoners. After Scott had to abandon his communications with Vera Cruz, the government felt extremely anxious to have the line re-opened and kept open. August 12, 1847, the commander at Vera Cruz was assured that this was "of the first importance," and troops were sent to him expressly for the purpose. The volunteers in general, personally brave and enterprising, did good service against the guerillas (Stevens, Stevens, i, 134); but as the latter almost always had horses, there was a particular need of cavalry on our side. About the first of July, 1847, the governors of Illinois and Georgia were called upon for two and five companies respectively of mounted men to help keep this line open. Polk himself selected Hays's regiment (Diary, July 16). Walker, though stern with the guerillas, would not permit his men to pillage. Rebolledo was betrayed, and was taken by Mexican counter-guerillas in November, 1847; but he was defended by an American named Kennedy, who resided at Jalapa, and was merely imprisoned. Jarauta was shot in July, 1848, for revolutionary activities. Marcy wrote to Scott that the guerilla system was "hardly recognized as a legitimate mode of warfare, and should be met with the utmost allowable severity" (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 138), and ordered him to destroy the rendezvous of the guerillas. The guerillas failed completely to affect the general course of the war, as they were expected to do, but even as late as March, 1848, the road from Vera Cruz to Jalapa was safe for large parties only. Hays's Rangers seemed to aim to dress as outlandishly as possible, and with their huge beards looked almost like savages. The officers were like the men in looks and costume. The horses were of all sizes and colors. For arms each had a rifle, a pair of pistols and one or two Colt's five-shooters (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 310; Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 174). Hays's usual order for attack was to point at the enemy and shout, "Give 'em hell!" (Zirckel, Tagebuch, 11).

29.9. =128=Brackett, diary. Tributo á la Verdad, 58. Grone, Briefe, 33. =61=Childs, Jan. 13, 1848. (Hostilities) =47=Perry, Nov. 2, 1847. =76=Mendoza to Soto, June 16, 1847. =47=Private letter (Mexican), Orizaba, [Sept., 1847]. =307=Roberts, diary. Porvenir, May 27. Picayune, May 6. =76=Acuerdo, July 30. =76=Mora, Apr. 23, 1847. =76=Relaciones to Guerra, Aug. 26. =76=Soto, Sept. 12. =86=Llorea to Soto, June 12. =76=Marín to Soto, Sept. 22, 25. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 517, 1847. Diario, June 11. =214=Hays and Caperton, Hays. =257=[Hughes] to Frank, Dec. 16. México á través, iv, 662.

29.10. =128=Brackett, diary. =80=Méx. legislature, address, Apr. 26, 1847; decree, May 31. =61=Childs, Jan. 13, 1848. Flag of Freedom, i, no. 3. Gamboa, Impug., 66. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 53, 215. Apuntes, 386. Nacional, Dec. 18. S. Anna, Apelación, 29. =82=Puebla state treas. to secy., May 10. And from =76= the following. Bravo, May 22, 1847. Guerra, circular, May 4. Lists of guerilla patents issued. Gov. Oaxaca, proclam., Jan. 25, 1848. Peña y Barragán, Nov. 24, 1847. To Torrejón, Dec. 28. Rea to Peña y Barragán, Nov. 26; to Guerra, Nov. 14. Rules of Rea's officers. Alvarez, June 16. Rea said he had commanded regulars. He treated some captured Americans with much civility.

29.11. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 385 (Scott); 471 (Childs); app., 33 (Gwynn); 34 (Morehead). =13=Thornton, no. 5, Oct. 29, 1847. National, Nov. 14. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 113, 117, 131. =356=Whitcomb, diary. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 102. =95=Puebla ayunt., proceedings, Aug. 31. =65=Scott, gen. orders 246, Aug. 5. =66=J. L. Smith to H. L. Scott, July 13. Scott, Mems., ii, 550. Flag of Freedom, i, nos. 1, 5. Kitchen, Record, 63-9. Lawton, Artill. Off., 278. =270=Moore, diary. Oswandel, Notes, 248, 254, 259, 265, 268, 293. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 85. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 313. S. Anna, Apelación, 60. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 202, 206. México á través, iv, 699. =76=Comte. gen. Puebla, Sept. 18. =76=Relaciones to Guerra, Dec. 11. Moore, Scott's Camp., 116, 214-6. =73=Lozano, no. 9, 1847. =82=Puebla congress, decree, Aug. 12. Ramsey, Other Side, 394-5. Smith, To Mexico, 171. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 517. S. Anna, Detall, 33, 35.

The cavalry were under Capt. Ford, the artillery under Capts. Kendrick and Miller, and the infantry (six companies) under Lieut. Col. Black (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 471). Capt. Rowe, Ninth Infantry, commanded a hospital that was persistently attacked. A considerable number of the sick were able to do light duty. Some civilian employees helped. Childs had authority from Scott to organize the convalescents into companies and battalions (=65=Scott, gen. orders 246). Scott spoke of the garrison as "competent" (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 303), and no doubt it was as nearly equal to the dangers that appeared to threaten it as was the army that advanced from Puebla. But the garrison was weaker than Scott had intended it to be, for many convalescents had represented themselves as well. Four Pennsylvania companies, Ford's company and Miller's company held S. José, which was a poor building for the purpose and badly placed. Guadalupe was occupied as a protection to Loreto.

Guerillas entered Puebla Aug. 12. Childs at once gave notice to the prefect that, should the people attempt to overpower the garrison, "the City would probably suffer" from his artillery (=69=Aug. 12). The first attack upon the Americans gave the guerillas about 700 mules and some other property. The next day some fifty armed teamsters and others went against the guerillas, and only fifteen of them returned. The authorities of the city were disgusted with the operations of the guerillas. About the first of September, by order of the state congress, the National Guards moved to help recover the city from the Americans, but the orders given them seemed to show little determination to coöperate with Rea or fight in earnest, and hence many became disheartened and deserted (=82=Ochoterena). Typhoid fever broke out among the American sick and carried off many (Moore, Scott's Camps., 218). News of the capture of Mexico was brought in by a courier disguised as a lépero. S. Cristóbal was on the road from Mexico to Puebla via Apam, which Santa Anna chose to take. Alvarez went via S. Martin.

29.12. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 471 (Childs); app., 28 (Black); 34 (Morehead). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1029 (S. Anna); 1030 (Childs). Ramsey, Other Side, 396. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 113, 117. Moore, Scott's Camp., 218, 223-4. Rodríguez, Breve Reseña, 1848. =95=Puebla prefect to ayunt., Sept. 17. =95=Rea to prefect, Sept. 23. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 314. Flag of Freedom, i, nos. 1, 5. =270=Moore, diary. =76=S. Anna to Guerra, Sept. 23, 30. Gamboa, Impug., 60. S. Anna, Detall, 35-6.

29.13. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 460; iv, app., 295. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 347. Flag of Freedom, i, no. 3. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 324. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 71, 80, 101. =152=Claiborne, mems. =76=Isunza to Relaciones, Oct. 12. =76=S. Anna, Sept. 30; Oct. 4. México á través, iv, 699. =82=J. A. Ochotorena, Oct. --. =82=S. Anna to gov. Puebla, Oct. 6. =82=P. M. Herrera to Puebla sec. state, Oct. 7. =82=Id., diary. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 50, 53, 61-2. =61=Taylor, order, Aug. 16. Apuntes, 347-8. =321=Smith, diary. =327=Sutherland to father, undated. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 477 (Lane). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1030 (Lane); 1198 (Taylor). =246=Lane, Autobiog. Rosa, Impresiones. Semmes, Service, 234. Hartman, Journal, 14-5. Smith, To Mexico, 161. S. Anna, Detall, 36. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 519.

From Perote, hearing that large Mexican forces were in his front, Lane took four companies of the First Pennsylvania, Walker's company of Mounted Riflemen, some convalescents and three guns under Taylor (Third Artillery). Wynkoop of the First Pennsylvania commanded these men. Before long they returned to Perote. Santa Anna reported that he took from Puebla 3500 men. His worst trouble was with his Puebla National Guards, who thought the expedition was a treasonable scheme of his to get them away from Puebla. On finding his command melting away, he sent all but about 1000 cavalry back to Puebla under Alvarez. From Puebla Alvarez retired to Atlixco and thence to the south. Later he took possession of Cuernavaca in the state of México.

29.14. The Huamantla affair. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1031 (Lane). Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 477 (Lane). Apuntes, 348. Perry, Indiana, 234. ("Peg-Leg") =166=Pommarès to Conner, Aug. 4, 1846. Norton, Life, 154, 157. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 88-94. =129=Id., diary. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 96-8, 155. Flag of Freedom, Oct. 23; 24, extra; 27. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 460-3; iv, app., 315-6. Correo Nacional, Mar. 30, 1848. S. Anna, Apelación, 65. =222=Hiney, diary. Grone, Briefe, 65-7. =152=Claiborne, mems. Gamboa, Impug., 61. =147=Chamberlain, diary. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 519. S. Anna, Detall, 37. Besides losing Walker, Lane had 23 men wounded (Ho. 24; 31, 1).

Lane was born in 1814. For a time he was a trader at Lawrenceburg, Indiana; and then he studied law in the manner of that time and region. He was not a man of much education. He meant thoroughly well in a rough way, but was rather careless about discipline. His men realized that he did not look out for their comfort or husband their strength, but admired his courage, energy and shrewd planning so much that they forgave him. He was called the Marion of the war.

To guard his baggage, etc., Lane left at the hacienda the Fourth Ohio (Col. Brough), three regular companies under Capt. Simmons, and Lieut. Pratt (Second Art.) with two guns. Walker had his own company of Mounted Riflemen, two companies of Louisiana cavalry, and one company of Georgia cavalry (Brackett, Lane's Brig., 89). Lane had, in the following order, the Fourth Indiana (Col. Gorman), four Pennsylvania companies (Col. Wynkoop), five guns (Capt. Taylor), a battalion of the Ninth Infantry (Maj. Lally) and six companies of regulars (Capt. Heintzelman). Santa Anna, hearing that a few Americans were on their way to Huamantla, sent a party of Puebla mounted police to protect the town. Evidently this was the party that Walker saw approaching it.

Much was written about this fight. It was said that Walker was ordered not to advance beyond supporting distance; that he was authorized to act according to circumstances; that he dashed ahead because he received word that the Mexican guns were being taken away, etc.; but Lane reported that he ordered Walker to move ahead ("within supporting distance") and, should the Mexicans be found in force, to wait for the infantry (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 477). He reached the town about forty-five minutes before the infantry did. Santa Anna was repulsed by the Fourth Indiana. In spite of Lane, much plundering was done by the victors, in whose defence it was urged that citizens fired from the houses. Though Walker captured two guns, he had no priming tubes, and therefore could make little, if any, use of them. Lane's loss was about twenty-five killed and wounded. Santa Anna reported two killed, seven wounded, and a number missing, but his loss was estimated by Americans at 100.

29.15. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 108. =356=Whitcomb, diary. Perry, Indiana, 253. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 103. =76=Scott to Childs, Sept. 16. Negrete Invasión, iii, app., 460. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 347. Flag of Freedom, i, no. 5. Oswandel, Notes, 339-41. =76=Alvarez, Oct. 13. =76=Rea to Alvarez, Oct. 13. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 471 (Childs); 476 (Lane). ("Rough paw") =335=Trist to wife, Mar. 14, 1848.

Santa Anna overtook Lane at El Pinal, but admitted that the Americans marched so cautiously that he could accomplish nothing. The loss of the garrison, Sept. 13 to Oct. 12, was fifteen killed, thirty-seven wounded (Ho. 24; 31, 1). The loss of the Mexicans was estimated by Americans at 300-500.

29.16. Diccionario Universal (Atlixco). México á través, iv, 662, 702. Calderón, Life, ii, 93. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 112. =76=G. Rodríguez, Oct. 14. =76=Rea, Oct. 24. =356=Whitcomb, diary. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 479 (Lane).

29.17. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 479 (Lane). Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 75-6 (Marcy, report). Grone, Briefe, 69. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 522-3. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 146, 149-51, 164. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 110-3. Flag of Freedom, i, nos. 1, 3. =76=Alvarez, Dec. 14. =76=Rea, Oct. 24, 1847; Feb. 10, 1848. =76=Memo. to head of plana mayor, Feb. 19, 1848. =61=Dumont to Lane, Nov. 15. =307=Roberts to Iowa State Hist. Soc., Dec. 14, 1863.

Lane had the Fourth Ohio, Fourth Indiana, Lally's and Heintzelman's battalions, Wynkoop's four Pennsylvania companies, Taylor's (3) and Pratt's (2) guns, and a squadron of the Third Dragoons (Capt. Ford) on the Atlixco expedition. When he entered the town the city authorities met him, surrendered, and asked protection. Lane had one killed and one wounded; the Mexicans admitted a loss of 219 killed and 300 wounded. On his way back to Puebla Lane turned off with 450 men to Guexocingo to capture two guns just made there. They had been removed, but he destroyed the carriages (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 481).

October 29-30 an expedition from Puebla visited Tlaxcala (=356=Whitcomb, diary). November 9-10 at night Lane with a force of dragoons went over this road again, and recovered twenty-one loaded wagons that had been captured by guerillas, besides seven that they had set afire as he approached. Thirteen Mexican officers and many horses and cattle were taken. This time he had about 100 cavalry, 200 Indiana and 200 Ohio men. He returned to Puebla in the night of Nov. 12-13 without having lost a man. In the evening of Nov. 22 he left Puebla for Izucar de Matamoros with about 200 mounted men. In the morning he surprised (=76=Arenal to Rea, Nov. 26) a body of Mexican irregulars, causing considerable loss, captured three cannon (=76=Peña y Barragán, Nov. 28) and much ammunition, and rescued a number of American prisoners. On his return, Nov. 24-5, he was attacked by Rea, but again triumphed (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 87). One or two Americans were killed and several wounded. If Rea's report can be believed, the Americans greatly exaggerated, as was natural, his numbers and losses (=76=to Peña y B., Nov. 26). In January, 1848, Lane with four companies of Texas Rangers, two of the Third Dragoons and one of Mounted Riflemen was sent from Mexico to clear the roads of guerillas (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 75). In the course of his rapid march he almost succeeded in capturing Santa Anna, then residing at Tehuacán. He finally proceeded to Orizaba and Córdoba, captured public property, recovered stolen merchandise, and released American prisoners (Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 89-95). February 17 he set out from Mexico with 250 Rangers and 130 of the Third Dragoons against the guerillas north and northeast of the capital (ibid., p. 76). February 25 he captured the town of Sequalteplán after a stiff skirmish, killing a considerable number and taking some fifty prisoners. It was said that Jarauta led the guerillas here. For Lane's operations subsequent to the Atlixco expedition: Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 168, 174, 192, 205, 234-45. Whitcomb, diary. Zirckel, Tagebuch, 122-3. =61=Dumont to Lane, Nov. 15. =76=S. Anna, Feb. 1, 1848. Id., Apelación, 65. Amer. Home Journal, Aug., 1906. Flag of Freedom, i, no. 1. T. F. Davis, diary. Claiborne, memoirs. =76=Puebla comte. gen., Nov. 28. =76=Rea to Peña y Barragán, Nov. 26. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 75-6 (Marcy, report), 86-103. Mention should also be made of Capt. Ruff, who on July 30, 1847, with eighty-two Mounted Riflemen attacked about 300 Mexicans (guerillas and infantry) entrenched in houses and a church at S. Juan near Ojo de Agua. With a loss of one man wounded, he killed or wounded about seventy to ninety of the enemy, it was believed (=69=Porter to Mrs. P., July 31; Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 25-6 (Smith); Smith, To Mexico, 187).

29.18. (Destruction, etc.) Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 205-6 (Trist); Exposición dirigida. =52=Trist, no. 16, confid., Sept. 27, 1847. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 130-2, 134-6, 155-65, 421-6. =13=Bankhead, no. 86, Sept. 28. Pacheco, Exposición. Colección de Documentos, 4. S. Anna, Contestación al Oficio. México á través, iv, 700. =76=Rosa to Herrera, Sept. 29. =76=M. Ocampo to Herrera, Sept. 24. =80=Méx. legislature, decree, Sept. 18. Rivera, Jalapa, iv, 74.

Real or at least additional reasons for the decree of Sept. 16 were probably that Santa Anna intended to leave the country or desired to let it try to get on without him. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 584) denies that Peña was timid: but (1) Bankhead and Trist so described him; and (2) his conduct in the negotiations with Slidell and with Trist confirms their opinion. In the latter case all the strength of his entourage was required to make him face the situation.

29.19. =76=Rosa to Herrera, Sept. 29. México á través, iv, 700. Gamboa, Impug., 65. =52=Trist, nos. 16, confid., Sept. 27; 17, confid., Oct. 1; 18, Oct. 25. =52=Id. to Hetty Parker, Sept. 28. Colección de Documentos, 110. =80=México legislature, decree, Sept. 23. =80=Id., comtee. on constit. points, report, Sept. 18. =80=Olaguíbel to Méx. legisl., Sept. 25. =80=Michoacán legislature, decree, Sept. 24. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 566. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 155-61. (Toluca) Revue de Paris, Dec., 1844; Encarnacion Prisoners, 75. =73=Lozano, no. 9, 1847.

Peña admitted that it was impossible to fulfil the constitutional requirements, but said it was a public duty to establish a government as near them as was practicable (Colec. de Docs., 110). The legislature of México state denounced Peña as representing the peace element, and refused to recognize any federal authority except the Lagos Coalition; but its decree was not favorably received by the public, and Olaguíbel would not promulgate it.

29.20. =75=Circular del ... Peña ... á los Gobernadores, Sept. 27. =75=Circulares del min. de relac., Sept. 27. =75=Peña, manifesto, Oct. 13. =75=Rosa to prest. of Congress, Oct. 14. =52=Trist, no. 16, confid., Sept. 27. Communicaciones habidas. Correo Nacional, Oct. 18. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 176, 408-11, 421-6, 469-83. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 90. =6=Anderson papers. =76=Peña, circular, Nov. 16. =6=S. Anna to J. M. Guerra, Oct. 25. Id., Contestación al Oficio. Id., Comunicación Oficial. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 385 (Scott). =75=S. Anna to Congress, Nov. 1.

Scott assisted Peña by giving safe-conducts to several members of Congress (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 385). Santa Anna took the ground that he was still legally responsible for the government of the country, and therefore must be allowed to exercise the powers of a President. Nov. 1 he made this demand formally (Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 469). He also tried to create trouble for the new government by proclaiming that his removal from the command of the army was intended to cause his personal destruction or to pave the way for a disgraceful peace. He further said he could not be placed on trial until Congress should declare there were grounds for trying him. But he found he had no prestige left. Rosa said to Santa Anna that his resignation of the Presidency had been consummated by actually giving up the executive power, and that, in view of public opinion, it would be impossible to prove Peña's impartiality and maintain discipline in the army, unless the conduct of the general defeated at Cerro Gordo and in the later battles were officially inquired into (ibid., 421). In reply to another letter from Santa Anna he said (Nov. 11) that Peña would not discuss the resignation further, that his authority had been recognized by all the states and by Congress, and that Congress admitted no right on Santa Anna's part to resume the Presidency. In January, 1848, Rosa issued a circular reproaching Santa Anna for his past political conduct.

29.21. =76=M. Ocampo, Nov. 27. =76=Comte. gen. Oaxaca, Mar. 16, 1848. =76=Guerra to Relaciones, Feb. 14. =76=Gov. Oaxaca to Relaciones, Dec. 27, 1847. =76=Milit. comte. Orizaba, Jan. 20, 1848. México á través, iv, 699-700. Kenly, Md. Vol., 391-7. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 205-6. =76=S. Anna to Reyes, Oct. 16, 1847. Correo Nacional, Oct. 26, 1847; Apr. 4, 1848. =76=J. M. Miñón to Guerra, Oct. 20. Comunicaciones habidas. =47=Perry, Nov. 3. Eco del Comercio, Apr. 6, 1848. Rivera, Jalapa, iii, 927; iv, 8-9. Monitor Repub., Nov. 10, 1847. =179=Diario Esactísimo, Sept. 15. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 519-21, 532. =69=Thomas to Twiggs, Mar. 6, 1848. =69=Seymour to Hughes, Mar. 27. =69=---- to adj. gen. of the Amer. army, Mar. 29. =69=Hughes, safeguard to S. Anna, family and attendants, Mar. 17. =69=Hughes to Twiggs, Mar. 15. S. Anna, Detall, 37. =13=Doyle, nos. 29, 38, 1848.

Santa Anna's military reports had excited resentment because he had been liberal with censures, particularly to relieve himself of blame.

Santa Anna was ordered to turn the command over to Rincón or (temporarily) Alvarez. But he said that he did not know where Rincón was, and that on account of the position of the Americans he could not safely send his artillery to Alvarez. Reyes marched north. Santa Anna then chose Tehuacán for a place of residence instead of going nearer Guatemala, because he still had hopes of regaining power through intrigue or revolution. His presence was not desired there by the people, presumably because it endangered them. They made it difficult for him to stay; and his friends, whose opinions he asked, now felt that his remaining in the country would injure them. See also chap. xxxii, p. 242. He sailed from La Antigua on or about April 4 in a Spanish brig for Venezuela, it was understood, after expressing warm appreciation of the treatment received at this time from the Americans (=69=to Gutiérrez, Mar. 11, 1848). Some thought he had increased his wealth since his return to Mexico.

29.22. Chief documents used. S. Anna, Apelación, app., 138-9. Id. Comunicación Oficial. Suárez y Navarro, Causas, 70-2. México á través, iv, 700-1. Dublán, Legislación, v, 300-4, 307-14, 333-5. Apuntes, 339-40. Curtis, Buchanan, i, 590. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 399. =335=Thornton to Trist, Dec. 5. =75=Anaya at meeting of govs., Nov. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 572. And from =76= the following. Director gen. of artill., Dec. --, 1847. Suárez y Navarro, Nov. 9. J. de D. Peza, Nov. 29. Sección de operaciones, Nov. --. J. M. Márquez to Mora, Nov. 29. Rincón, Jan. 8, 1848. Olaguíbel, Oct. 29; Dec. 24, 1847. Id. to Alvarez, Oct. 23, 26. Bustamante, Oct. 2. Memorias of the chiefs of sections, Nov. --. To plana mayor and to Filisola, Nov. 19. Orders for reorganizing the army, Dec. 1, 20. Min. of war, memoria, Nov. 19. Diario, división del oriente, Sept. 29-Oct. 15. Rosa to Herrera, Sept. 29. Comte. gen. Querétaro, Sept. 16. To Bustamante, Oct. 30; Dec. 30. Quijano, Jan. 27, 1848. Gen. staff, memo., Dec. 31, 1847. Filisola, Dec. 27. Alcorta (plana mayor), Dec. 27. Gen. in chief of infantry, Oct. 14. Rosa, Nov. 2. Alvarez, Oct. 20, 28; Nov. 19. To Alvarez, Oct. 28, 31. Alvarez to Olaguíbel, Oct. 21. To Rea, Nov. 1. To Olaguíbel, Oct. 23. Valencia, Jan. 4, 1848.

Nov. 19 a detailed statement of the available forces gave the figures as 6785 scattered over twelve states. The largest body (2683) was at Querétaro. Oct. 14 the Army of the East had only one 16-pounder, one 12-pounder, one 6-pounder, three 5-3/4-pounders, one 4-pounder and two 24-pound howitzers. It was pointed out that even if men could be raised, they would be of the poorest sort, and long before an efficient army could be created, the Americans might be expected to attack them. Herrera probably had about 4000 men when he left Mexico, but he could not prevent wholesale desertion on the way to Querétaro. (Gamboa asserted that Herrera took only 2-3000 infantry from Mexico, but his statements are not always to be relied upon.) Jan. 2, 1848, Valencia was captured by the Americans.

Filisola and Alcorta agreed substantially in recommending an elastic, evasive plan of campaign: bodies of, say, 2000 men to be stationed at strategic positions; the one attacked to fall back upon the next; these to fight or join the third, as might seem best; those not otherwise engaged, to strike for the American rear; and thus a campaign of movements, in which the Mexicans would have the advantages of mobility, of knowing the country, and of having the coöperation of the people, would be pursued in order to wear out the Americans. But the means of carrying out this system were lacking. In October the government planned to have three sizable armies; but by the end of December it limited its ambition to having two small brigades of infantry and one of cavalry, each headed by a colonel.

29.23. Chief documents. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 60-2. =108=Bancroft to Polk, Dec. 3, 1846. =256=Barnard to Totten, Oct. 11, 1847. =66=Id. to Id., Dec. 15, 1847 (Taylor) =169=Peyton to Crittenden, Jan. 25, 1848; =169=Taylor to Crittenden, Nov. 15, 1847. =354=Welles papers. Davis, Autobiog., 257-8. Wash. Union, Jan. 7, 1848, N. Y. Sun, May 17, 1847. Niles, Oct. 23, 1847, p. 114. Schouler, Hist. Briefs, 155. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 60-2 (Marcy, report). Calhoun Corres., 718 (to Clemson). Public Ledger, Jan. 4, 1848. =169=Rives to Crittenden, Feb. 8, 1847. Richardson, Messages, iv, 542-4. =13=Crampton to Palmerston, nos. 71, 1847; 5, 1848. Claiborne, Quitman, ii, 7. Polk, Diary, Oct. 30, 1847. =61=Scott, Sept. 18. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 138-40, 211. =256=Totten to Marcy, Nov. 23, 21. =256=Trist to Buchanan, Sept. 28. Picayune, Dec. 15. See chap. xxxii, p. 235.

Sept. 17, at a gathering of generals, one of the best proposed retiring at once to Vera Cruz. For the defensive plan see chap. xviii, p. 348. General Butler (Calhoun, Corres., 1146) and apparently Daniel Webster (Boston Courier, Feb. 20, 23, 1847) favored this plan. Had it been adopted we should in all probability have been forced sooner or later to resume active operations after having given up the results of much fighting. It seemed hardly possible that a majority in Congress would soon be able to agree upon a policy, and it looked as if injurious debates on the subject might occur. Marcy particularly advised Scott to prevent the formation of a new Mexican army, but authorized him to use his own judgment as to military operations. They were not, however, to be modified in consequence of Mexican peace proposals (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 140). For the difficult situation of the United States see the first paragraphs of chap. xxxii.

29.24. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1031, 1033, 1036, 1039, 1047-50, 1067 (Scott); 1006-9 (Marcy); 1060, 1260 (Jesup). Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 98 (H. L. Scott). =364=Worth to S., Dec. 27, 1847. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 140-4. =76=Comte. gen. Mexico, Jan. 10, 1848. =61=Scott to Twiggs, Dec. 26, 1847. =65=Id., gen. orders 376, 389 of 1847; 7 of 1848. =356=Whitcomb, diary. =12=Pell of sloop Daring to Lambert, Nov. 30, 1847. =66=Lee to Totten, Jan. 1; Feb. 1, 1848. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 310-1. =178=Davis, diary. Picayune, Feb. 27.

In June and August, 1847, the First and Second Illinois regiments (12-months men) were replaced with "for the war" regiments bearing the same names. As we have seen (note 29.8) Illinois and Georgia were called upon about the first of July for mounted companies. June 23 Louisiana was asked to furnish two mounted, acclimated companies to clear guerillas from near Vera Cruz. July 16 a Pennsylvania foot regiment, organized some time earlier at Carlisle, was accepted. July 16 a proposed battalion of Mississippi riflemen was accepted as infantry. July 19 an Illinois horse company and a Delaware infantry company were accepted. July 24 a Maryland artillery company was authorized, and Missouri was requested to furnish an artillery company, two infantry companies and two mounted companies. August 17 Polk found that 6000 of the 50,000 volunteers authorized by the war bill had not been called out, and that the Cabinet were in favor of calling more of them (Diary). That day Ohio was asked for an infantry regiment. August 21 an infantry company, tendered by W. J. Corcoran of Washington, D. C., was accepted. August 26 Tennessee and Kentucky were called upon for two infantry regiments each, and an Indiana regiment was accepted. Sept. 6 a North Carolina company was accepted on the condition that it should be ready for muster by Oct. 10. Sept. 7, owing to the delay of the Carlisle company, a Pittsburgh, Pa., company was accepted in lieu of it. Sept. 8 two Ohio companies were asked for. Sept. 27 Marcy stated that nearly or quite all of the 50,000 volunteers had been accepted (Niles, Oct. 30, p. 144). Oct. 8 another Tennessee regiment (ten extra companies were ready) and a Michigan regiment were called for. Aug. 23 only one of the five Mississippi companies was ready. The government explained that men did not wish to serve on foot. The battalion was completed near the end of December (Rowland, Register, 416). Alabama and Virginia also were backward at this time. The Act of March 3, authorizing individual enlistments of volunteers, provided no means for its execution, no bounty and no clothing, and volunteers received less pay than the regulars (=62=adj. gen. to Hamtramck, Feb. 28, 1848). Naturally men did not care to leave home singly and be kept at dépôts for perhaps weeks, waiting for enough to be collected to be sent on. In Aug. and Sept. the transportation of troops was embarrassed by a serious epidemic of yellow fever at New Orleans. Transportation difficulties at Vera Cruz caused delays later.

Nov. 30, 1847, the authorized regulars were 1336 commissioned officers (eleven generals, thirty-five in general staff, 115 medical men, thirty-one in pay department, forty-three engineers, thirty-six topographical engineers, thirty-six ordnance officers, 118 officers in three dragoon regiments, thirty-five in Mounted Riflemen, 208 in four artillery regiments, 648 in sixteen infantry regiments, forty-seven in one regiment of Voltigeurs and foot riflemen) and 28,960 enlisted men (3408 dragoons, 1146 Mounted Riflemen, 5492 artillery, 17,664 infantry, 1104 Voltigeurs and foot riflemen, 100 engineer soldiers, forty-six ordnance sergeants, seventeen military storekeepers); but according to the returns (not all recent) the enlisted men numbered not more than 20,333 (adj. gen.'s report in Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 72). Of 12-months volunteers there were (mounted) one regiment of seven companies, one battalion and four independent companies, and two companies of infantry: aggregate, eighty-two officers, 2037 non-commissioned men and privates. Of volunteers "for the war" there were theoretically seven generals; 125 staff officers (including quartermaster's, commissary's and medical departments, and twelve (additional) in the pay department); of horse one regiment, two battalions, twenty-two independent companies (total, 184 officers, 4871 others); of foot artillery three companies (twelve and 342 respectively); of infantry twenty-two regiments, five battalions, eight independent companies (1159 and 27,603 respectively): aggregates, 1355 and 32,816 respectively. The number still on the rolls (Nov. 30) "for the war" was not supposed to exceed 20,286. This number was believed by the adjutant general to be "much beyond" the number of effectives.

There were supposed to be in the field 19,818 regulars and (aside from 803 on California service) 21,124 volunteers (officers and men); en route 1691 regulars, 100 volunteers: total (including the California men), 43,536. Scott's army (regulars) was figured as 15,071 in the field, 1396 en route, 555 at Vera Cruz, 79 at Tampico; (volunteers) in the field and at Tampico, 14,955. His operating army, including the sick and the disabled, was estimated as about 30,209. Wool's army was figured as (regulars) 3,642 in the field, 295 en route and (volunteers) 2790: total, 6727. Price was believed to have 255 regulars (dragoons), 2902 volunteers; and Mason (California) 216 regulars (one company of dragoons and one company of artillery), 803 volunteers (adj. gen.'s report, Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 72). All the figures were approximate and there were discrepancies in the reckoning.

Nov. 20 the adjutant general stated the regulars sent to Scott as reinforcements thus: of the old establishment (absent companies, reorganized companies and recruits), 5564; new establishment (troops raised and organized after March 4, 1847), five companies of Third Dragoons, the Ninth, Eleventh, Twelfth (nine companies), Fourteenth and Fifteenth Infantry, the Voltigeurs, and recruits for the same, 6345 (=62=to Scott); and also six companies (360) of Marines under Lieut. Colonel Watson. Scott's returns were infrequent or were lost on the way. Perhaps he dared not run the risk of exposing them to guerillas. Hence as a rule one must accept general statements. Quitman's division, being now very small, was broken up, and he was permitted to report at Washington for a new command (Claiborne, Quitman, i, 395). As a rule no officer was permitted to leave the army except "with a view to the good of the service or the recovery of health" (=61=Scott to Patterson, Oct. 28, 1847). Oct. 22 even leaves of absence that had been granted or promised were cancelled. The government ordered the reinforcements to leave Vera Cruz promptly, and Bankhead was put in the place of Wilson there in order to obtain more efficient management (=62=adj. gen. to Scott, Nov. 9). After about the middle of October the troops at Mexico were thoroughly drilled, and by the middle of November came to be better disciplined than ever before.

April 29, 1847, although the 12-months army was about to disband, Marcy requested Patterson and Butler to remain in the service as major generals, and Marshall, Lane and Shields to remain as brigadier generals. Marshall arrived at Mexico City January 21, 1848. It is not possible to state how many troops came with each of the officers. Col. Hays brought five companies of Rangers. Lt. Col. Johnston had about 1300 men when at Puebla. In general about half of a command fell out from sickness and other causes between Vera Cruz and Mexico (=125=Bonham to mother, Dec. 7, 1847). Fruits, liquor, insufficient clothing and at this time the measles were the chief causes of sickness.

Scott's announcement (=65=gen. orders 376) was dated Dec. 15. Jan. 6 Scott had 14,964, of whom 11,162 were effectives (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1061). By Feb. 13 his rank and file amounted to 26,910, and 2000 recruits were en route (=62=adj. gen. to Cass, Mar. 9, 1848). Though 5546 of the rank and file and 181 officers were then sick, he had been for some time strong enough to occupy Zacatecas and San Luis Potosí, but the peace negotiations (chap. xxxii) affected his plans. The new posts were at Río Frio (between Mexico and Puebla), and the national bridge and San Juan (between Jalapa and Vera Cruz). Early in March, 1848, a post was established at Ojo de Agua between Puebla and Perote. The purpose of the posts was to defend the line against the guerillas and furnish escorts for trains, couriers, etc. Jalapa and Puebla were held somewhat strongly. At the former there were on January 8, 1848, three infantry companies and a rifle company from the District of Columbia, two infantry companies, a rifle company and a battery (six guns) from Baltimore, four New Jersey infantry companies, a Pennsylvania infantry company and a mounted company. Sickness and other causes reduced the effectives, however, to 556 (=69=Hughes to H. L. Scott, Jan. 8, 1848). Puebla was held, Feb. 22, by some 2500 men: the Fourth Indiana, Fourth Ohio, Fourth Artillery, Fifth Ohio (five companies), Second Artillery (two companies), and two Florida companies (Perry, Indiana, 287). Pachuca was occupied Dec. 29 by the Ninth Infantry (=178=Davis, diary). Cadwalader marched for Toluca Jan. 6 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1062). Jan. 29 Col. Clarke set out for Cuernavaca with a brigade (=66=Lee to Totten, Feb. 1). His approach compelled Alvarez to break up the small force he had been holding at that point and hastily retire.

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 524) says that Scott neglected "the proper military measures of occupation" in order to favor peace negotiations contrary to the "policy" of his government; but the most fundamental policy of that government was to bring about a satisfactory peace; Scott had not sufficient forces to carry out a military occupation of the country until late in December; and by that time peace was within reach.

29.25. Twiggs to H. L. Scott, Jan. 16, 1848; to adj. gen., Jan. 17; to Bankhead, Feb. 3. =69=Id. to Marcy, Feb. 19. =61=Scott to Twiggs, Dec. 26, 1847. =61=Hughes to [Wilson], Sept. 13, 1847. Brackett, Lane's Brigade, 241-2. Free American, Jan. 14, 1848. =152=Claiborne, mems. Velasco, Geografía, iii, 176. Leclercq, Voyage, 386. Moreno, Cantón, 380. =88=Córdoba ayunt., proceedings, Feb. 16. Picayune, Feb. 27.

There was a convenient road from Orizaba to Paso de Ovejas on the national highway about thirty miles from Vera Cruz. The recently captured goods had been in charge of Lieut. Col. Miles (note 29.7). Bankhead arrived at Córdoba Feb. 13 and left for Orizaba Feb. 17. The Michigan volunteers remained there. Other reasons for this expedition will be mentioned in chap. xxxiii.

29.26. Remarks of Gov. J. D. Porter of Tenn. to the author (vanity, ignorance of war). Ill. State Hist. Soc. Trans., 1906, p. 178 (unfit to serve as corporal). =180=Pillow to wife, Dec. 8, 1846 (re Taylor). Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 252 (Trist's opinion). =307=B. S. Roberts, diary, Nov. 26, 1847 ("ass by nature"). =335=Trist, notes for letter to Ho. of Repres. ("Lie"; lack of probity; Scott's confidence, etc.). =252=Mackall, Sept. 18, 1847 (no vainer peacock or greater ass; gave no aid in the final battles). =292=Pillow to wife, Dec. 12, 1847 (eye to Presidency). =335=Paper prepared by Trist (re Polk's brother). =277=Pillow to Maj.-- (beautifully illustrates "wriggling"). Scott, Mems., ii, 416. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 338 (vanity). =297=Pillow to Polk, May 30, 1844 ("fatal blow"). M'Sherry Puchero, 179 (not considered a general). Chap. xxiii, note 23.29 (generalship). (Recommendations) =180=Pillow to wife, Dec. 8, 1846. (Confidence) =335=Trist, notes, supra. Pillow's letters generally.

For uncomplimentary opinions regarding Pillow see chap. xxvi, note 26.8. It should be remembered, however, that later he became a political issue in Tennessee, and many things said of him then were colored by partisanship; also that the prejudice of many regulars in reference to the volunteers may have counted.

29.27. (After Monterey) =364=W. to S., Oct. 2, 1846. (Ambition) Scott, Mems., ii, 416. (Restive) Lawton, Artill. Officer, 276. (Affection) Grant, Mems., i, 151; =335=Trist, notes for letter to Ho., supra (Pillow: Scott's fatherly affection for Worth will always get the better of any resentment); Lawton, ibid. (Rejected) =364=W. to --, Mar. 3, 1848. (Friend) =183=Drum, recolls.; =224=Hitchcock, diary, Apr. 14, 1846. (Ounce) =364=Worth to daughter, June 10, 1846.

29.28. (Told) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1226 (Scott). (Brother officer) =183=Drum, recolls. (his name was Lieut. Col. Black of Pa.). (Root) =183=Drum, recolls.; Davis, Autobiog., 286. N. Y. Sun, Aug. 14, 1847. (Favorably) Picayune, Jan. 17, 1848 (the plan ripening fast); =149=Eells to Chase, Feb. 24, 1848 (W. may be the Dem. nominee); =185=Pillow to Duncan, June 4, 1849 (W. had a good chance of nomination); =182=Bowdon to W., Mar. 18, 1848, strictly confid. (Clashes, conciliate) Infra. (Antagonism) =169=Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848; Grant, Mems., i, 172.

For remarks on Worth's character see chap. xii, note 12.8 and chap. xxiv, note 24.16. At Vera Cruz Worth ridiculed Scott's methods in comparison with his own at Monterey (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528), and his journalistic champion, the editor of the New York Sun, took the same line (Aug. 16). He was determined to have an assault, in which he would naturally have played a conspicuous part (Mag. of Am. Hist., xiv, 569). He was enraged because Scott properly had Twiggs lead the advance from that city (ibid., 562; see also chap. xxiii, note 23.5). Apparently in order to become prominent in the coming battle, he seems to have left Vera Cruz without a suitable supply of provisions--contrary to orders (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528). Probably because Scott, for reasons of policy, praised Twiggs's conduct at Cerro Gordo in his report, Worth pronounced the report "a lie from beginning to end" (=364=to S., Dec. 27, 1847). He was impatient and offensive because Scott would not permit him to advance upon Puebla as soon as he wished to go (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528; =364=W. to daughter, Apr. 30, 1847). Next, his wrath was excited there because, in accordance with the verdict of a court martial, Scott censured--in the mildest possible manner--his improper conduct (p. 361; Delta, Jan. 6, 1848). Wholly without authority he announced that his division was to lead the movement from Puebla against Mexico (=236=Judah, diary, May 6), though it was Twiggs's turn to lead. He accused Scott of trying to belittle his achievements at Churubusco (=364=to S., Dec. 27, 1847). He blamed Scott for the losses resulting from his own imprudence at Molino del Rey and for not permitting him to attack Chapultepec that day; and he protested because Scott, doubtless by accident, did not credit him with the technical distinction of actually passing the San Cosme garita on Sept. 13 (p. 416; Sedgwick, Corres., i, 169). Unmoved by Worth's conduct, Scott seems to have given him all the prominence to which he was entitled. It was understood that he assigned him to command on Sept. 8 with a special view to conciliating him (Grant, Mems., i, 151); and it is clear that he intended to have him capture the city of Mexico (p. 412). It is probable that Scott had shown some egotism and irascibility in the course of the strenuous campaign, but no doubt almost every high officer had done the same, for all had tempers and believed in themselves; and it is extremely doubtful whether any one had shown more kindness and magnanimity than he--particularly toward Pillow and Worth. Even after all the trouble, Scott wrote (Mems., ii, 416) that Pillow's nature was free from malignity, whereas Pillow's letters prove the contrary strikingly.

29.29. (Intimate) =185=Duncan papers, passim. (Widow) =185=P. to D., Sept. 3, 1848. (Urged) =185=P. to Polk, June 21, 1849. (Made) Scott, Mems., ii, 416; Cullum, Biog. Register, i, 447. (Trouble) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 305. (Gather) =329=Taliaferro to --, Apr. 26, 1848; Scott, Mems., ii, 417.

Pillow boasted of his power, and on that basis threatened men whom he wished to control (Taliaferro, supra; Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 117). How strong this influence was is illustrated by the fact that Col. Campbell of Tennessee, who had stated repeatedly that Pillow had no military ability (pp. 353, 377), recommended him for appointment as a major general (=139=to Polk, Feb. 19, 1847). It is interesting to note, in comparison with the character of the cabal against Scott, that he was supported by such men as Trist, E. A. Hitchcock, Robert E. Lee and Robert Anderson.

29.30. (Reports) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1015-20; Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 389-91, 629-34; Lawton, Artill. Officer, 319-20. (Same) Lawton, Art. Off., 319-20; Weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848; =169=Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848. (Terms) Remarks in note 29.28; =169=Mills to Crittenden, Jan. 28, 1848; =364=W. to ----, Mar. 3, 1848 ("an ass will be an ass"). (Trickily) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 391; Davis, Autobiog., 285; note 31. (Another) Semmes, Service, 358-9. (In U. S.) Picayune, Oct. 8. (Tampico) Semmes, Service, 360. (Mexico) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 117. (Improper) Ib., p. 454 (Marcy). (Necessary) =169=Mills, supra; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1087, 1225-6 (Scott).

29.31. (Gen. orders 349) Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 455. (Stigmatize) =210=Alvord to Hammond, Apr. 21, 1848; =210=Bragg to Hammond, Dec. 20, 1847. (Assumed) Picayune, Oct. 8; Dec. 18. (Defiant) Stevens, Stevens, i, 223. (Not written) Infra. (Seized) Semmes, Service, 361-4; Spirit of the Age, Mar. 9; Apr. 13, 1848. (Charges) Polk, Diary, Dec. 30, 1847; Jan. 1; Apr. 18, 1848; infra. (Appeals) Infra. (Arrest) =256=Marcy to Butler, Jan. 13, 1848.

See note 29.28. For the Leonidas letter see p. 376. This letter Pillow seems clearly to have smuggled into a packet sent by Freaner, the correspondent of the New Orleans Delta, to his paper, after Freaner had rejected its twin (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 14) on the ground that it was incorrect, and the editor, inferring that it was endorsed by Freaner, printed it (ibid., 250; Delta, Apr. 7, 1848). When Scott finally opened his eyes (after August 20) to the rascality of Pillow (=335=Trist, notes, supra), Pillow realized he had gone too far. He refused to ask for a court of inquiry when challenged to do so (=335=Hitchcock to Pillow, Nov. 24, 1847, and note by H.), told Quitman that he could not face an investigation (=335=Trist, statement), and wrote to his wife that he was going to resign and live quietly (=292=Oct. 27, 1847). Then, it would appear, he induced Burns (=335=ed. of Delta to Trist, May 16, 1848), a paymaster in his division, to assume the authorship of the Leonidas letter (the worst count against him), and became confident, even defiant, with reference to Scott (=180=to wife, Nov. 25). The friend to whom Duncan wrote, in sending his letter to the press, modified it freely, and inserted in it a passage regarding the Chalco route (p. 372) taken from a letter written by a man named Chason. So he explained to Duncan (=185=---- to Duncan, Jan. 1, 1848).

Gen. orders 349, Nov. 12, 1847, said (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 455): "It requires not a little charity to believe that the principal heroes of the scandalous letters alluded to did not write them, or specially procure them to be written, and the intelligent can be at no loss in conjecturing the authors--chiefs, partizans, and pet familiars. To the honor of the service, the disease--pruriency of fame, not earned--cannot have seized upon half a dozen officers (present,) all of whom, it is believed, belong to the same two coteries." The next two sentences were still stronger: "False credit," "despicable self-puffings and malignant exclusions of others," "the conceited and the envious," "indignation" of the honorable officers. Though in the right, Scott allowed himself to go too far in his use of language, as he did at other times. Commenting on the order, Braxton Bragg, though not one of Scott's friends, said in substance: Half the reputations in the war have been made by false reports and newspaper misrepresentations [this was to a large extent true], and it has gone so far that Scott has at last issued a strong order (=210=to Hammond, Dec. 20, 1847). Another correspondent of Gov. Hammond of South Carolina said he was glad that Scott had undertaken to expose "such quackery, charlatanry, imposture and lying braggadocio" (=210=Alvord, Apr. 21, 1848). This appears to have been the general sentiment of the officers (numerous citations could be given).

On the publication of gen. orders 349 Worth asked Scott whether the charge of scandalous conduct referred to him. Scott replied that it referred to the authors and abettors of the Leonidas letter, and that he could not be more explicit. Worth declared the reply unsatisfactory, and handed to Scott a sort of appeal to the President that referred insultingly to the former (=68=Scott, charges, Nov. 27). Scott therefore charged him with "behaving with contempt and disrespect towards his commanding officer." He was arrested for insulting Scott in a letter to Marcy (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 471). The charges against Duncan were writing a (published) letter in violation of the army regulation no. 650, and making in it a false statement about the adoption of the Chalco route in order to magnify himself and Worth (=68=charges, Nov. 27). "Arrest" signified confinement to the city of Mexico. The New York Tribune said truthfully with reference to the troubles between Scott and the generals: "The duties of a Commanding General in the heart of an enemy country, with an army flushed with victory yet inactive, and under the influences incident to so perilous a position, are very delicate, and can only be met by firmness and the maintenance of rigorous discipline" (Nat. Intelligencer, Dec. 28, 1847).

29.32. (Conviction) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1218 (Scott); infra. (Censures) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1229, 1248 (Marcy); Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 131 (Marcy). (Relieved) =256=Marcy to Butler, Jan. 13, 1848. (Rank) =60=Butler to Marcy, Mar. 2. (Deposed) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1044. Lee, Lee, 46. (Army) =152=Claiborne, mems.; Oswandel, Notes, 481, 483; =221=Hill, diary; =252=Mackall, Feb. 21; Picayune, Mar. 23; =13=Doyle, no. 27, 1848; Lee, Lee, 44; =210=Alvord to Hammond, Feb. 24; Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 321. (Departure) Lowell Journal, Sept. 14, 1852; Picayune, Mar. 23; Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 328. (Looked) =327=Sutherland to father, Feb. 15, 1848.

Jan. 9, 1847, a =137=correspondent of Calhoun wrote, "Unless some powerful influence is soon brought to bear we [in Charleston, S. C.] fear we shall stand forth discredited and degraded in the sight of all the world." It is hard to see how the country, without Scott, could have avoided this.

Scott's chief complaints were a failure to supply seasonably the desired means for waging the campaign, interference with the rights of the commanding general (e.g. in Harney's case), the plan to place a civilian (Benton) over him, the apparent intention to let Trist interfere in military affairs, and the refusal to provide a chief of staff satisfactory to him (Lawton, Artill. Officer, 319). See also chapter xxvii, p. 129. All the charges except those against Pillow were withdrawn. The latter should have been placed before a court-martial, and so Polk and the Cabinet decided (Polk, Diary, Jan. 3, 1848). But--probably because he feared that his friend would be convicted--Polk concluded to have first a court of inquiry in order to ascertain what the evidence was, and perhaps dispose of the matter (ibid., Jan. 8). The court was selected by Polk--doubtless with a view to Pillow's acquittal (ibid., Jan. 15). The fact that Pillow was entirely satisfied with it (=180=to wife, Feb. 27) is almost enough to prove this. The British chargé reported that it seemed to favor Pillow (=13=Doyle, no. 39, 1848). Two of the members were brevetted later, though one of them (Scott publicly stated) had no other connection with the war, and the connection of the other had been slight (Scott in N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857).

The principal charges against Pillow were, first, that Pillow's claim to have won the battle of Contreras was unfounded, on which the verdict went against him (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 317, 333); and, secondly, that he was directly or indirectly the author of the Leonidas letter. In order to maintain that he wrote it (which he had strongly denied on three occasions (ibid., 56-7, 131), Burns had to admit that he had spoken falsely in it (ibid., 33, 388-9), and he swore that he believed he wrote certain interlineations (ibid., 32) which it was found had been written by the editor of the Delta (ibid., 250); but he stuck to it that he had dared to steal into Pillow's private office, and remain there long enough to copy the substance and to a large extent the phraseology of a long document (ibid., 32). And therefore, although statements substantially equivalent to those of the Leonidas letter were brought home to Pillow (ibid., 389-391), Pillow had to be acquitted. John Sedgwick, later General Sedgwick, wrote: I think the court must acquit Pillow, "but the sentiment of the army will never acquit him" (Corres., i, 182). Naturally a lawyer like Pillow had a great advantage at the trial over Scott, upon whom it was incumbent to conduct the prosecution. His handling of the case was extremely clever. The same court was instructed to inquire into the so-called "council" of Puebla (p. 391), and thus Scott was virtually put on trial, yet, contrary to the articles of war, had no opportunity to question witnesses (Mo. Republican, Nov. 5, 1857). Pillow was before another court of inquiry (Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 338-73), and the evidence convicted him, morally at least, of attempting to appropriate, in violation of the articles of war, a captured Mexican howitzer. Pillow's appeal to the government grew out of Scott's approving the findings of this court, and his arrest resulted from the disrespect shown in connection with the appeal.

June 4, 1847, Scott wrote to Marcy: "Considering the many cruel disappointments and mortifications I have been made to feel since I left Washington, or the total want of support and sympathy on the part of the War Department which I have so long experienced, I beg to be recalled from this army the moment that it may be safe for any person to embark at Vera Cruz, which I suppose will be early in November" (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 131). This application was denied and (since the circumstances on which it was based appeared to change) became obsolete. A correspondent of Governor Hammond of South Carolina said it was "absurd, unjust, ridiculous, and impolitic, in this crisis of events here, to remove the victorious general, whose prestige with the Mexicans is great, very great, both for war and peace" (=210=Alvord, Feb. 24, 1848). He attributed the recall to "Mr. Quackery Pillow." The recall was dated January 13 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1044). Scott turned over the command to Butler on February 18 (=65=gen. orders 59). March 14 the British chargé reported that signs of relaxed discipline were visible (=13=Doyle, no. 27). As early as August 7, 1847, Polk had contemplated substituting Butler for Scott (Diary). Nov. 25 Pillow wrote that this was to be done (=180=to wife). Early in January, 1848, some members of the Cabinet favored giving Taylor the place, but Polk would not (Diary, Jan. 4).

May 6, 1848, the adjutant general stated that the army under Butler consisted of 26,785 (aggregate present), of whom 174 officers and 4611 men were sick, and that it occupied the following places: Mexico, Toluca, Cuernavaca, Pachuca, Río Frio, Puebla, Perote, Jalapa, national bridge, Orizaba, Córdoba and Vera Cruz. Some of the returns, however, on which the statement was based were several months old (=62=to Cass). By May 1 Scott, Pillow, Pierce, Cadwalader, Quitman, Shields and Cushing had left the country. May 23 S. W. Kearny was appointed governor of Mexico City (=65=orders 103).

XXX. THE NAVAL OPERATIONS

30.1. Sen. 187, 263; 29, 1. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 774-5 (Bancroft). Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 377-8. (War bill) Vol. i, p. 181. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 973. (Expense) Ho. 188; 29, 1; Sen. 139; 29, 2. In Jan., 1846, there were also 3 receiving ships and 11 small unarmed vessels and storeships. In ordinary and building there were 2 (5) ships-of-the-line, 5 (3) frigates and razees, 6 (2) sloops-of-war, 2 (0) brigs and 3 (1) steamers, carrying 576 (614) guns. (The figures in parentheses represent vessels building.) The time of the crews of the Savannah and Warren expired before July 1 and Sloat was authorized to send them east. Three schooners--the Bonita, the Reefer and the Petrel--built at New York for Mexico but not paid for, were purchased (Niles, June 13, 1846, p. 226; see chap. xiii, note 13.31). In Oct., 1847, there were also one ordnance transport and six storeships.

30.2. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 945. U. S. Naval Institute, Proceedings, xiv, 539 (S. C. Rowan, recolls.). Griffis, Perry, 200. Ho. 24; 30, 2 (Mason to Speaker). (Reputation) =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 445, 1847. Sen. 69; 30, 1 (punishments). =374=Shubrick to Conner, July 17, 1845: "The time has been when the conviction of an officer of having told a deliberate, premeditated, official lie would be fatal to him, so far at least as the opinion of a Court Martial would go, but that time has passed--alas! for the Navy." In the course of a short cruise, 1847-48, Farragut had to "rid the service" of five junior officers and bring to trial a first lieutenant for drunkenness (Mahan, Farragut, 97). Mar. 5, 1847, =120=Capt. Mervine charged a lieutenant with being intoxicated repeatedly while commanding at S. José, Calif., amidst a hostile population. July 10, 1847, =120=J. H. Brown, S. Francisco, Calif., wrote to Biddle that officers got drunk at his house and did havoc. =120=Commander Hull informed Biddle, Mar. 4, 1847, that a midshipman came aboard intoxicated. Many seamen were of foreign birth, but only 26 out of 853 officers.

30.3. =354=Welles papers. Ho. 188, 191; 29, 1. Howe, Bancroft, i, 292. Polk, Diary, Sept. 9, 1846; Feb. 20, 1847. =108=Buchanan to Bancroft, Sept. 29, 1847. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, Nov. 28, 1845. Seward, Seward at Wash., i, 51. "Bancroft" was of course George Bancroft, the historian.

30.4. =48=Bancroft to Conner, Aug. 30, 1845, secret. London Times, June 11, 1846. =52=Bancroft, no. 25, 1847. =52=King, no. 28, 1846. =52=Martin, no. 14, 1847. Picayune, May 7, 1846. =58=Spofford, Tyleston & Co., Dec. 11, 1846. =13=Bankhead, no. 79, 1845. =58=Emory, Stetson & Co., June 5, 1847. =46=Newell to J. Y. Mason, Nov. 25, 1846. Sen. 1; 30, 1, 945 (Mason, report). Richmond Enquirer, Aug. 15, 1845. Phila. No. Amer., June 20, 1845. Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec. 9, 1846. México á través, iv, 569. =13=Pakenham, no. 42, 1846. =52=Saunders (Madrid), nos. 9, 12, 1847. =52=Littlefield to Saunders, May 2, 1847. N. Y. Herald (weekly), May 16, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 566 (Jesup). Boston Atlas, May 18, 1846. Buchanan, Works, vii, 325-6 (to W. R. J.), 355-6 (to T. N. C.). =49=Bancroft to Conner, Aug. 29, 1846. What is said of Cuba applies to Porto Rico also.

30.5. (Action of Mexico) =13=Bankhead, nos. 68, 100, 147, 150, 161, 1846; London Times, Jan. 8, 13, 15, 1847; Dublán, Legislación, v, 161; =52=Slidell to Buchanan, Mar. 27, 1846; =52=Martin, no. 11, 1847; =297=Mackenzie (S. Anna) to Buchanan, July 7, 1846; Semmes, Service, 80-1; México á través, iv, 569; =52=Consul Black, Sept. 28; Oct. 29, 1846; =73=Bermúdez de Castro, nos. 294, res., 368, 1846; =52=Bancroft, no. 16, 1847; =76=Tornel, circular (regulations), July 26, 1846; Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec., 1846; =52=Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec., 1846; Diario, July 27; Oct. 3, 1846. Irving (Madrid), no. 8, 1847. London Times, Jan. 8, 13, 15, 1847. Semmes, Service, 80. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 40-1. =52=Saunders (Madrid), no. 9, 1847. =76=Almonte, Dec. 10, 1846. Buchanan, Works, vii, 334-42 (to R. M. S.).

30.6. =52=Martin, no. 11, 1847. =52=Bancroft, no. 16, 1847. =52=Irving, July 18, 1846. Richardson, Messages, iv, 495-6. Sen. 1; 30, 1, 945-6 (report). Wash. Union, July 22, 1847. The 29th Cong., second session, provided for the punishment of the citizens (apprehended on privateers) of those states having treaties with the U. S. which made their acts piracy (Wash. Union, Mar. 9, 1847; =13=Pakenham, no. 26, 1847). =108=Bancroft to Buchanan, Feb. 3, 1847. =13=For. Off. to Bankhead, no. 34, 1845. Cong. Globe, 29, 1, p. 811 (Berrien). Buchanan, Works, vii, 23, 52. The suggestion of commissioning American privateers excited opposition in Europe. It was feared that they would molest neutrals. Even in the U. S. it was opposed (Dayton in Senate, Jan. 27, 1847). Nothing came of it.

30.7. (England) =13=Bankhead, nos. 79, 1845; 150, 1846; =13=To Bankhead, nos. 34, 1845; 1, 1847; London Times, Jan. 22, 1847; Britannia, Jan. 23, 1847; =52=Bancroft, no. 16, 1847; Monitor Repub., Nov. 21, 1846; =52=Bancroft, no. 18, 1847; =108=Id. to Buchanan, Feb. 3, 1847; =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 294, res., 368, 1846. (France) =52=Martin, nos. 11, 15, 1847; =52=Guizot to Martin, Feb. 26, 1847. (Spain) =73=Bermúdez de C., nos. 294, res., 368, 1846; =52=To Consul Campbell, May 14, 1846; =77=Mex. Consul, Havana, Dec. 10, 1846, res.; =76=Almonte, Dec. 10, 1846; =72=Instructs. to capt. gen., June 18, 1846; =52=Irving, July 18, 1846; nos. 5, 8, 1847; =71=docs. relating to Cuban ports; Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 40; Boston Courier, Jan. 20, 1847; Buchanan, Works, vii, 334 (to R. M. S.). Sen. 1; 30, 1, 945-6 (report). Picayune, Aug. 26, 1846. Conner, Home Squadron, 12.

30.8. Richardson, Messages, iv, 548-9, 561. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 774-5 (Bancroft). Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 377. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 951. =59=Circular to U. S. ministers, May 14, 1846. =47=Conner to Bancroft, May 14, 1846. =52=Consul Chase, Jan. 20, 1846. =76=Parrodi, July 2, 1846. =52=McLane (London), no. 54, 1846. =13=Giffard (V. Cruz), June 30, 1846. =162=Morris to Conner, Oct. 24, 1846. =313=Conner, instructions, May 14.

American vessels were excluded on the score of impartiality and also because the admission of them would have defeated the main purposes of the blockade (Richardson, Messages, iv, 571). A particular advantage of the blockade is that it enables a belligerent to close ports that it is not desirable or not possible to capture and hold. Under the U. S. regulations vessels lying in Mexican ports on the announcement of the blockade could remain twenty days and then leave with or without cargo. Approaching vessels could not be captured or detained unless previously warned in writing by a cruiser (=313=Conner, instructions). Vera Cruz and Tampico remained open for British mail packets (ibid.). Fishing boats were not molested. Bona fide British property, including cochineal, could be embarked on British war vessels at Vera Cruz (=13=Bankhead, no. 23, 1847). From the end of June, 1846, Conner permitted British mail packets to land quicksilver and take bullion. Engagements made before the war could be fulfilled (=313=Saunders to Callaghan, June 23, 1846). A difficult question came up concerning the floating property of neutrals residing in Mexico (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 1305). Mexico decreed that since her ports of entry were blockaded, all her other ports might give free entrance to vessels forcing the blockade (=70="Guerra," no. 1079), and that no tonnage dues should be charged during the continuance of the blockade (=76=Guerra, circular, Oct. 10, 1846). England had to admit that she was the last nation to protest against a strict blockade, but warned us that difficulties might arise in the enforcement of it (=52=McLane, no. 50, 1846); and she would not have our announcement published in the London Gazette since, said Aberdeen, it might check trade and after all not be made good (=52=McLane, no. 55). Spain insisted upon neutral rights with peculiar jealousy. The Spanish commander even claimed free access to blockaded ports under arts. 14 and 15 of the treaty of 1795, but found that art. 16 warranted the blockade. Spain's vessels were treated with special indulgence, but she made many complaints. For Spain: =72=Instrs. to capt. gen. of Cuba, June 18, 1846; =52=Irving, no. 2, 1846; =52=Istúriz to Irving, Aug. 5, 1846; =71=papers relating to complaints; Buchanan, Works, vii, 240-1, 290-2; =47=Span. commander to Conner, June 24, 1846; reply, June 26.

30.9. =48=Bancroft to Conner, Aug. 30, 1845, secret. Picayune, Mar. 11, 1847. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 377 (Mason, report). Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1163 (Conner). =76=Parrodi, May 20, 1846. =76=Capt. of port, Tampico, May 20. Semmes, Service, 106. Conner, Home Squadron, 9. Negrete, Invasión, iii, 173. =313=Conner, proclam., May 14. =313=Id., instructions, May 14. =313=Saunders to C., June 20; Oct. 24; to Amer. consul, May 20. =313=C. to Saunders, July 22; Sept. 30. =164=Conner, reports, spring of 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 525 (spec. orders 128). Niles, Oct. 10, 1846, p. 85. =47=Conner, Oct. 8. (Goatzacoalcos) About 140 miles S. E. from V. Cruz.

It does not seem worth while to follow the movements of particular vessels. Sept. 30, 1846, the blockade was extended southeast to the River S. Pedro y S. Pablo. (Difficulties) =47=Conner, Sept. 22, 1846; Picayune, Mar. 11, 1847; Griffis, Perry, 210; =313=Saunders to Wash. Union, Oct. 10, 1846; =313=Id. to Conner, Oct. 24; Semmes, Service, 106; =162=Conner, Jan. 28, 1847. (Somers) Sen. 43; 29, 2; Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 945, 950; =374=Semmes to Conner, Dec. 10, 1846; =13=Pakenham, no. 151, 1846.

Just after the blockade began at Vera Cruz Gen. Bravo, commanding there, permitted several American vessels to leave the port, and in acknowledgment of his liberality two Mexican merchant vessels were sent in to him with their cargoes, crews and passengers. Courteous notes were exchanged (=76=Gacyores to Bravo, May 27; reply, May 28; Bravo, May 26). At Tampico Capt. Saunders and the city authorities were mutually considerate (=313=S. to Bancroft, June 6, 1846).

30.10. (Designed) London Times, Dec. 10, 1846. Comte. gen. V. Cruz. July 9, 1846. Sen. 1; 30, 1, 945, 950-1. =13=Pakenham, no. 98, 1846. =162=Conner, Dec. 18, 1846. Foltz, Report. Niles, Oct. 10, 1846, pp. 84-5. =47=Conner, July 22, 1846. Semmes, Service, 100. Parker, Recolls., 58, 62, etc. McClay, Navy, ii, 177-8. Bennett, Steam Navy, 98. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1233 (Perry).

30.11. =73=Bermúdez de Castro, no. 441, 1847. Lerdo de Tejada, Apuntes, ii, 540. Henshaw narrative, Mar. 17, 1847. Smith, To Mexico, 117-8. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1233 (Perry). =13=Giffard, Jan. 31, 1847. Picayune, Mar. 11, 1847. Contributory tariff: pp. 261-3.

30.12. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 775 (Bancroft). (Mex. navy) Balbontín, Estado, 19; Diario, Apr. 4, 5, 1846; =70="Guerra," no. 1120; =13=Giffard, Dec. 20, 1846. =76=Acta of naval offs., Mar. 12, 1846. Memoria de ... Guerra, Dec, 1846. =76=Mora y Villamil, Mar. 12, 1846. =76=Orders to Marín, Mar. 9, 1846. =76=Marín, Apr. 26, 1847. N. Y. Sun, June 8, 1846. Niles, May 1, 1847, p. 131 (Hunter).

30.13. =375=Perry to Mason, Nov. 16, 1846. Conner, Home Squadron, 9, 11, 14. Parker, Recolls., 67, 71. =162=Morris to Conner, June 24; Oct. 24, 1846. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1172 (Conner), 1191-2 (Perry). =46=Perry, Nov. 16, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 252-3. Taylor, Broad Pennant, 287, 293. =166=Perry to Conner, Dec. 27, 1846. =166=Reports on condition of engines, boilers, etc. Bennett, Steam Navy, 93. =47=Conner, Sept. 22, 1846. Soley, Porter, 64. =165=Conner, Nov. 24, 1846.

30.14. =162=Conner's letters to his wife. Curtis, Buchanan, i, 603 (Slidell). Soley, Porter, 53-4. Semmes, Service, 114, 128. Conner, Home Squadron, 6, 23. =162=Bancroft to Conner, Dec. 10, 1845. =162=Matson to Id., Feb. 27, 1847.

30.15. =48=Bancroft to Conner, Aug. 30, 1845, secret. Polk, Diary, Jan. 17, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 774-5 (Bancroft). =69=Conner to Taylor, Feb. 4. =47=Id. to Bancroft, May 14. =162=Id., May 20. =61=Bancroft to Conner, Jan. 17. London Times, June 29; Dec. 10. Semmes, Service, 100. =76=Bravo, May 4. Tampico Eco, June 9, 16. =76=Parrodi, June 8, 17. =76=Vilar to Parrodi, June 8. =162=Saunders to Conner, June 20. =313=Id. to Id., June 17. =313=Id. to Wash. Union, Oct. 10. Niles, May 23, 1846, p. 178. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 377 (Mason, report). Conner, Home Squadron, 9. Bennett, Steam Navy, 34-5, 43, 62-3, 67-8, 71. Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1163 (Conner). Picayune, Aug. 26. For Conner's coöperation with Taylor see vol. i, pp. 466, 469.

The Princeton was the earliest naval steam propeller. She was rigged as a ship. Saunders opened fire, June 8, because he feared new fortifications (near the mouth of the Pánuco) would make it hard to capture Tampico. He did little damage. The enemy replied feebly. Suspecting that the Mexican gunboats intended to sail out and raid American commerce, he determined to capture them by surprise in the night of June 14-15. He had no good pilot. The boats had much difficulty in finding the channel, which had recently shifted, and were even compelled to row more than half a mile against a swift current within pistol shot of the shore. One of them grounded twice. The moon came out. The Americans were discovered and fired upon. They replied; and then, as a surprise was no longer possible, they retired according to orders. May 28 Conner, on the Cumberland, was at Pensacola; the St. Mary's off Tampico; the Mississippi and Falmouth off V. Cruz; the Raritan there or on her way to that port; the Lawrence (which seems to have been a brig but was not mentioned in the department's list of vessels under Conner on May 13) assisting the army; and the Somers on the Yucatan service (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1163). Aug. 10 the Cumberland (still the flag-ship), Potomac, Falmouth, Mississippi, Princeton, Flirt and the three gunboats (Bonita, Reefer, Petrel) lay at Antón Lizardo; the St. Mary's and Porpoise were off V. Cruz; the John Adams off Tampico; the brig Truxtun had gone to Chagres, and the brig Perry had gone to look for privateers near Cape S. Antonio (Picayune, Aug. 26). These data give one an idea of the usual distribution of the vessels.

30.16. The affair of Aug. 7. =165=Conner to Bancroft, May 31. =47=Id. to Id., Aug. 10. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 630 (Conner). Picayune, Aug. 22, 26. N. Y. Sun, Dec 7. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 381. Semmes, Service, 88. Parker, Recolls., 66-7. Taylor, Broad Pennant, 287. =76=Landero, Aug. 10. =76=Comte gen. V. Cruz, July 15. Esperanza, Aug. 27. Locomotor, Aug. 10. For Alvarado, vol. ii, p. 344. For Antón Lizardo, vol. ii, p. 17. The Americans felt the more chagrined because British naval men witnessed their failure.

30.17. The Affair of Oct. 15. =162=Morris to Conner, Sept. 21. =47=Conner, Oct. 17. =162=Id., Oct. 16. United Service, July, 1895, p. 33. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 630-1. Taylor, Broad Pennant, 290, 293, 298-306. Picayune, Nov. 8. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 381. Griffis, Perry, 199. Semmes, Service, 88. Conner, Home Squadron, 17. =76=Marin to comte. gen., Oct. 17. =76=Landero, Sept. 5, 14; Oct. 12. =76=Soto, Oct. 18. =76=Marin to Soto, Oct. 15. Diario, Oct. 29, 30. =76=Guerra, circular, Oct. 21. Wash. Union, Nov. 30. London Times, Dec. 10.

According to Conner's son (Home Squadron, 17), the secretary of the navy on Sept. 22 instructed Conner to attack Alvarado, supposing he had been reinforced, and it has been said that the attack should not have been made without more strength; but the difficulty was that the American forces could not be made available. It is not easy to see how Conner was at fault unless, as perhaps on Aug. 7, he might have landed in boats under such protection as his cannon could give, stormed the fort that stood near the beach, and then landed more men. Conner does not seem to have thought that sailors could do much ashore. He had a landing-force (Conner, Home Squadron, 15), but whether at this time and place is not clear. Probably a bold, though unsuccessful, attack would have been better than to back out. He is said to have argued, after the failure of Aug. 7, that even success would not have been worth what it would have cost (Picayune, Aug. 26); but this left moral effects out of the account. It was said by a naval man that he should have added the McLane's tow to his own and gone ahead; but it seems extremely doubtful whether he could have advanced against the current. Conner's report (Oct. 17) says the Mississippi could not get near enough to make any impression on the fort, but a Mexican account printed in La Esperanza, Aug. 27, stated that some shot from our vessels struck more than 200 yards behind the fort, and one sees no reason to suppose that the statement was an invention. Conner seems to have thought of coming to Alvarado again, for in Jan., 1847, the Mexicans reported that the bar was being sounded (=76=Landero, Jan. 28). For the capture of the place at the beginning of April, 1847, see vol. ii, p. 344. Apr. 2 a naval expedition went up the river, returning on Apr. 4 (=66=J. L. Mason to J. L. Smith, Apr. 9).

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us