Volume 2 — NOTES (continued 4)

Public sentiment was well voiced by the governor of Virginia in a 42Message to the Assembly, Dec. 6, 1847 (exec. letter book, no. 73, p. 325): “Shall the insolent Mexican go unpunished? Shall the glories of Palo Alto, Resaca de La Palma, Monterey, etc., pass away in a dream, leaving no solid memorials behind them of a skill, a gallantry, and a self-sacrificing devotion unsurpassed in the history of man? I regard this war as a practical question, and to be disposed of accordingly. That morbid sympathy that lives only for Mexico—that Mexico which murders the drunken soldier, and lances the wounded on the field of battle—I cannot approve, nor can I respect that closet philosophy that calls on us to surrender everything because we are victorious. No, my sympathies are for my country, for the gallant dead, for those whose mighty deeds have given a bolder and a broader light to our glorious constellation, for the widows and for their orphans.... I would be just to Mexico, but just also to my own country.”

The difficulty of reaching an agreement in Congress about the relation of slavery interests to the war was thought by the British representative to stand in the way of compelling the administration to stop hostilities (13Crampton, no. 71, Dec. 30, 1847), and no doubt had considerable effect. In the speakership contest 220 Representatives voted (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 2). To hold that Congress had power to prescribe the objects of the war was virtually to declare Congress the supreme commander and treaty-making power. It was also to declare the nation impotent to wage the war, for, as the parties stood, it could not pass a bill over the President’s veto.

The British chargé at Washington, though that legation was strongly in sympathy with the Whigs, reported that the Whigs lost no opportunity to embarrass and discredit the administration (13Crampton, no. 19, Feb. 9, 1848). Slidell’s instructions never having been acted upon, were practically a dead letter, and it was important not to make them public, lest the Mexicans, knowing on what terms the United States had been willing to restore friendly intercourse, should use the information to embarrass future negotiations; but the House, admitting this point by promising to keep them secret—which everybody knew could not be done—demanded them, and resented Polk’s wise refusal to transmit them. The National Intelligencer (Dec. 18, 1847) asserted that Slidell had been “ordered not to negotiate a settlement of the Boundary of Texas ... unless in complication with the cession to the U. S. of California,” which was positively false. Polk, Diary, Jan. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 23; July 6, 1848. After peace was declared he sent them (Richardson, Messages, iv, 594–600).

The Mexican tariff gave rise to some of the best declamation of the war period. The National Intelligencer accused Polk of exercising “absolute monarchical power” in that matter (Apr. 3, 1847). The Albany Statesman (Apr. 9) said, “This is surely the most flagrant usurpation and the most matchless piece of impudence with which any ruler in modern times has ever ventured to insult an intelligent people.” In March, 1848, the subject came up in Congress, and Webster (Writings, x, 262) declared the President had no right to lay the duties, and that the duties were paid by Americans and neutrals; whereas in fact his military powers gave the President ample authority, and of course the duties were added to the prices of the goods. The National Intelligencer went so far as to deny that the President had any military initiative whatever, and to assert that as commander-in-chief he was merely “a subordinate” of Congress (see Wash. Union, Aug. 21, 1847).

XXXV. THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE WAR

Martin, our chargé at Paris, wrote (52no. 17, Aug. 15, 1845) that the skill, prudence, firmness and disregard of European interference exhibited by our government in dealing with the annexation of Texas had improved our position in Europe; and McLane expressed the opinion (no. 5, Sept. 18, 1845) that our spirited preparations during the summer of 1845 to fight Mexico had had a good effect; but these were matters to increase respect rather than favor. The London Morning Chronicle of July 27, 1846, after we had shown our prowess, politely explained our occasional coarseness of manners and speech as due to the working out of the principle of political equality, and asserted that the English middle classes viewed the United States with admiration and pride as a “magnificent demonstration of the progressive energy and self-governing power of their own victorious race.” Probably a similar feeling lurked in the upper and controlling classes. McLane’s report to Polk, cited at the end of the paragraph, was made in June, 1846; but such a state of feeling could not have arisen in a few months.

Even during the war Mexico gave offence to England by her treatment of the offer to mediate (vol. ii, p. 368) and by her action regarding her debt. In the latter business Bankhead charged her with a “breach of publick faith” (77to Relaciones, May 18, 1847).

R. M. Saunders, the American minister, mistakenly invited an offer of mediation from Spain, but she felt very much afraid that we should reject it, and also that it might give offence to England and France. No written communications on the subject passed between him and the Spanish government, however. El Heraldo also remarked that the war would tend to unite the Spaniards of both Americas against the U. S., and that Spain, seizing the opportunity, should offer them her protection and tolerate no other influence. Such a suggestion was not likely to help Mexico.

Baron Gerolt, the Prussian minister at Washington, sympathized with and assisted our government (181Buchanan to Donelson, May 23, 1848).

Both of these British attempts to mediate were accompanied with similar offers to Mexico, which proved equally unfruitful (vol. ii, p. 368). At the end of October Bankhead was instructed to advise Mexico that, since the United States had rejected the British good offices, she should settle with us at once on the most favorable terms that she could obtain.

Peña y Peña (Comunicación Circular) said publicly and distinctly in 1848 that foreign powers signified to Mexico that they regarded the annexation of Texas as an accomplished fact; and he added that the one most interested to prevent the aggrandizement of the United States felt that its economic interests required it to digest in silence its own grievances rather than compromise those interests by declaring war.

Dec. 28, 1847, Chargé Thornton was instructed (13no. 2) that, should Mexico propose British mediation, he was merely to say that he would transmit the proposal to London.

J. F. Ramírez, who saw numerous letters from Europe, concluded by April 3, 1847, that Mexico would receive no aid from that direction (Ramírez, México, 224–5).

Some of the French papers also bore heavily upon the operations of 1846. Le Journal des Débats said they had been a failure; that no foresight, energy or skill had been displayed; that the war had proved costly and was likely to prove endless. Le Constitutionnel thought our resources might not hold out. But the press of France made no such exhibition of conscious weakness and humiliation trying to hide themselves (108Bancroft to Polk, Jan. 28, 1848) as did that of England.

Dr. J. M. L. Mora, beginning in April, 1847, endeavored to secure British aid in settling the terms and guaranteeing the permanence of peace, and did not give up until near the end of June, 1848; but Palmerston would not meddle, and cautioned the representative of England that, should a request for British mediation be presented to him, he should simply say the proposition would be transmitted to London. Dec. 28, 1847, the British Foreign Office wrote to Thornton (13no. 2) that Cuevas had asked England to guarantee the treaty of peace; that it was highly improbable the United States would join in making this request; that to guarantee the treaty without a joint application would be equivalent to a contingent alliance with Mexico against the United States; and that England was not likely to take that step in any event.

XXXVI. CONCLUSION

Senator Hannegan rebuked sentimentality (often feigned for political reasons) in these words: I cannot “participate in the sympathy which I have heard invoked in behalf of Mexico as a sister republic. In the first place the wrongs she has done us, and our citizens resident within her borders, show no very sisterly affection on her part; and in the next, I must confess my want of sympathy with any people where anarchy rules in the name of liberty. Her history is a libel upon republican government. When human sympathy shall follow insubordination, misrule, and bloodshed, then, but not till then, will it be properly invoked for Mexico” (Cong. Globe, 29, 2, p. 517, col. 1). 354Welles papers.

The Mexican newspapers did much to sap courage. From north to south there was a chorus of disheartening epithets for the adored patria: sad, unfortunate, lamentable, ill-starred, suffering, doomed. The whole diapason of misery filled the air. On all sides echoed confessions—on one another’s account, of course—of mistakes, blunders and vices; egotism, cynicism, deceit, selfishness, hypocrisy, rancor, partisanship, dissension, indifference to the welfare of the nation, unscrupulous ambition, malfeasance in office, wholesale plundering, rascality favored by the authorities, personal degeneracy, social demoralization, military incompetency. Even the orthodox estimate of the Americans tended the same way. What had become of justice in heaven and hope on earth when our “infamous,” “incompetent” generals could triumph again and again, with a handful of barbarians and adventurers, cowardly, ill-clad, ignorant, debased and undisciplined, over devout Catholics and valiant patriots? A particular fact tended to promote dissension. There were three groups of states—the north, the centre and the south; and the first and the third felt that their interests had always been sacrificed to those of the centre. This paragraph and most of the other paragraphs of the present chapter are of course to be read in the light of what has already been said. For this one may refer to the index.

Some readers may feel that the author is inconsistent in saying (vol. i, p. 116) that Mexico wanted the war and here that she was not really in it; but (1) many persons desire things which they feel unwilling later to pay for, and (2) the course of the war was very different from that which Mexico had expected. The nation desired the uprising against Santa Anna, December, 1844, but was soon dissatisfied with the results of it.

Judging Santa Anna one must allow for the facts that his subordinates were incompetent, and that neither he nor they had known what real armies and real wars were. But this condition of things was far more due to him than to any other person. It should be remembered, too, that while the Americans had numbers against them, they possessed the advantage of the offensive. But this, again, was very largely the fault of Santa Anna.

Our problem was hard. The report of the quartermaster general, Nov. 24, 1847, said that our nearest dépôts were farther from the source of supply than Algiers from Marseilles, yet we had accomplished more in a few months at the beginning of the war than France had accomplished in Africa in seventeen years (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 549). Polk’s relations with Pillow offer a curious problem in psychology and in morals; but one sees from his diary how deeply Buchanan’s cleverness impressed his plodding mind, and a person like Polk, with more taste than talent for subtlety, was naturally fascinated by Pillow’s readiness and cunning. Besides, he was much indebted to Pillow. His treatment of Scott is another problem. Perhaps he felt that as President he was above the ordinary requirements of fair dealing, and certainly he was intensely partisan.

One of the principal histories of the war gives the deaths resulting from battle as 5101, and the total number as “not less” than 25,000! Many men afflicted with chronic diseases enlisted in the hope of deriving benefit from the climate of Mexico, but died there. Many came home bringing the germs of disease or with enfeebled constitutions.

To suppose, as many appear to do, that the only business in war is to fight, is as if one should think that in railroading the only work is to run the trains. The following from Scott’s 256letter to Marcy, Jan. 16, 1847, is pertinent: “A regiment of regulars, in fifteen minutes from the evening halt, will have tents pitched and trenched around, besides straw, leaves or bushes for dry sleeping; arms and ammunition well secured and in order for any night attack; fires made, kettles boiling, in order to wholesome cooking; all the men dried, or warmed, and at their comfortable supper, merry as crickets, before the end of the first hour.... Volunteers neglect all those points; eat their salt meat raw (if they have saved any at all) or, worse than raw, fried—death to any Christian man the fifth day; lose or waste their clothing; lie down wet, or on wet ground—fatal to health, and, in a short time, to life; leave arms and ammunition exposed to rain and dews; hence both generally useless and soon lost, and certainly hardly ever worth a cent in battle,” etc., etc. So in the field “the want of the touch of the elbow (which cannot be acquired with the best instructors in many months); the want of the sure step in advancing, falling back and wheeling; ... the want of military confidence in each other, and, above all, the want of reciprocal confidence between officers and men” cause frightful losses.

McClellan wrote in his 254diary: “I have seen more suffering since I came out here than I could have imagined to exist—it is really awful—I allude to the sufferings of the Volunteers. They literally die like dogs—were it all known in the States, ... all would be willing to have so large a regular army that we could dispense entirely with the Volunteer system.” Trist stated in a 335letter to the N. Y. Tribune, July 14, 1853, that the volunteer system was a debasing humbug, because the generals, aiming at political success, posed as great commanders with no basis except the courage of their men and the skill of their (regular) aides. Worth said that the intelligent volunteers ridiculed the system, except for home defence, more than the regulars did (364to Capt. S., Nov. 2, 1846).

Webster said the advantage of the volunteer service was that it was generous and patriotic, entered into mostly to gain distinction, and because it gave men what they liked—an opportunity to bear arms under officers chosen by themselves (Webster, Letters, 347); but one sees at once that these views came far short of covering the case practically. That very ambition to win distinction, for example, made them dissatisfied and insubordinate when expected to do the ordinary work of soldiering (169Taylor to Crittenden, Jan. 26, 1847); and volunteer officers like Pillow did not compare with regulars like Scott and Taylor in kindness toward the men. The battle of Buena Vista was popularly supposed to have proved the efficiency of volunteers, but failed to do so (see chap. xx; 316Bragg to Sherman, Mar. 1, 1848; 330Taylor to brother, Mar. 27, 1847; Zirckel, Tagebuch, 9), though they had had a sufficiently long training (Upton, Military Policy, 209). The Marquis de Radepont, who accompanied Scott’s army to observe its operations, was particularly astonished that the General had so little control over the volunteers, a state of things that more than once endangered all, he said. Scott, Taylor, Worth, Twiggs, Wool, Quitman, Smith and Shields were not West Pointers, but the first five were professionals. Some of the volunteer officers, who had been in business, surpassed the regulars in such work as transportation.

We are now trying to outgrow the old view of war and the analogous view of commercial and industrial competition, but in 1846 these had not become practical issues. This paragraph is to be understood in a broad, large way, of course. The London Chronicle said: In our colonies we fine owners who in a certain number of years do not develop their lands, and this fine is preparatory to ejectment; “The Americans have acted on this principle after a kind of public lynch-law” (Aug. 13, 1845). (Its direct reference was to the annexation of Texas, but the principle applied to the war with Mexico.) Rives argues that the war was “begun for the purpose of acquiring territory” in payment of our claims, and that therefore its morality was questionable (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 657–8). But (1) the territory was wanted in payment of what was justly due us, and therefore we could rightfully collect, and that Mexico could pay us only in land was not our fault; (2) the war was not entered into by us for the purpose of obtaining territory; and (3) it was not “begun” by the United States.

July 6, 1848, Polk informed Congress that we had more than 700 whaling ships in the Pacific, representing not less than $40,000,000, and employing fully 20,000 seamen, and that owing to the acquisition of California we were less than thirty days from Canton. These facts explain how important that acquisition was, and how serious it would have seemed to let a European power make it.

The war helped to save Mexican nationality because (1) it was to some extent a national issue; (2) it cut off the parts most likely to set the example of secession; (3) contact with the Americans convinced the people of Tamaulipas, N. León, etc., that they could not hold their own in competition with our citizens; (4) the Mexicans received a stern lesson in political wisdom, which was taken to heart for a time, and had some permanent effect; and (5) the money that we paid strengthened the Mexican government. The war helped the liberals, for it demonstrated our superiority.