Volume 2 — NOTES

XXI. BEHIND THE SCENES AT MEXICO

Oct. 12Oct. 16Dec. 26Dec. 29

On hand$8510$3410—$1148

Rec’d—3500$71623700

Paid1402362857134367

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

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.

XXII. VERA CRUZ

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).

Next let us inquire as to the provisions. Giffard stated (13Mar. 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). 76April 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 (76Soto, 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.

Had Vera Cruz held out until April 15, perhaps 5000 regulars would have been in Scott’s rear (chap. xxiii, note 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.

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

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):

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).

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).

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” (218Henshaw). 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).

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 (213Hatch 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.

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). 217Henshaw papers. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 109. 69Pillow to adj. gen., June 25, 1848. 69Ripley to adj. gen., June 25, 1848. 66Tower 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. 293Pillow to wife, June 9. 293Rains 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. 358Williams 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. 100Mata, Apr. 18. 82Pavón to Puebla sec. state, Apr. 29. 288Tapper to wife, May 3. Niles, June 5, p. 219; Oct. 2, p. 75. Boston Atlas, Dec. 13. Griepenkerl, Applied Tactics, 116. 316Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Johnstone, Foundations, 180. So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1852. 181Armstrong to Donelson, July 4. 139Cummings to Campbell, May 12; June 13. 76Carrera, May 1. 76S. Anna, May 7. The reason why reversing the regiments caused trouble seems to have been that infantry were accustomed to manœuvre 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).

XXIV. PUEBLA

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.

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 (76May 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).

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.

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; 95ayunt. 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 22). This action and the comments angered Worth. Scott angered him further by requesting him to withdraw the 68circular 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 (224H. L. Scott to Worth, June 20). Worth therefore demanded a court of inquiry (65gen. orders 196). Quitman, Twiggs and P. F. Smith formed the court and sat on June 30. Their 68conclusions 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 (65no. 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 (364to 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. 68Scott to Worth, June 16. 68Worth to Scott, June 20. 68Id.., order 61, June 20. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 226–8. 68Worth to H. L. Scott, June 16. 68Scott to Worth, May 6. Nacional (Atlixco), May 16. Davis, Autobiog., 270–1, 274.)

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 (13no. 19).

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.

The principal references for the attempt to give Benton the chief command are the following. 345Benton 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. 210Simms to Hammond, May 1. 354Welles papers. 345Blair 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. 61Benton 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 (62memo., 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 (345letters dated Mar. 9). This episode caused no material delay in war legislation.

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 (47July 4), but a battalion under Lieut. Col. Watson and Maj. Twiggs marched to Puebla with Pierce.

XXV. ON TO THE CAPITAL

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

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 (76exposición 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).

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 (76acuerdo, 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 (73Lozano, 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).

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; 377paper; 335H. L. Scott to Worth, Aug. 13; 68charges 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 (305Aug. 14) favorably, was sent to Scott late that day to give an account of the reconnaissance and deliver a 305letter 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 (68charges); 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 (68charges) that he was himself investigating (305Mackall to ——, May 10, 1848) the Chalco route while Duncan was doing so, and that a spy sent from headquarters reported favorably upon it (68charges); and he denied squarely that he gave up the Mexicaltzingo for the Chalco route in consequence of Duncan’s report (68charges). 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 (76to 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 (76to 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 (66Stevens 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 (76to 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.

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 (13Thornton 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” (76to 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.

XXVI. CONTRERAS, CHURUBUSCO

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

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 (210Bragg). 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 (66to J. L. Smith, Aug. 21) attached less importance to this operation. Tower (66to 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 (66Tower 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. 76Isunza, Aug. 24).

Remarks on the battle of Churubusco. The active fortifying of the convent did not begin until the afternoon of Aug. 18 (76Rincón 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 (65Scott, 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 (335notes 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: 12Caryton 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; 178Davis, diary; Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 452; Hartman, Journal, 17–8; Scott, 65gen. 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.

XXVII. NEGOTIATIONS

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 (364to daughter, Sept. 2).

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 (162Oct. 1).

The request for two millions apparently grew out of the negotiation with Santa Anna; see chap. ix, note 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.

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” (162Conner, Feb. 17), returned to Mexico ostensibly on private business, but with 132letters 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!”

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 (335Trist 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” (52to 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 (52to 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 256Scott 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 256wrote 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.

June 4 Poinsett said he should be “surprised” if the Mexicans could be made to accept the terms of the United States (345to Van Buren). June 11 Buchanan said privately he should not be “much disappointed” should the war continue for years (132to Frémont). July 16 Marcy could see no hopes of terminating it (256to 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 (224Hitchcock, 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 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 (68Shields 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 (52to 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 (224Hitchcock, 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; 68Marcy, Mar. 17). They did what they could, but the investigation came to nothing, for Trist and Scott would not implicate the British legation. See 68proceedings of the court and statements of generals; Daily Democrat, Chicago, Sept. 15, 1857; 256Marcy to Towson, Mar. 17, 1848; 68Scott to Marcy, Jan. 28, 1848, and Shields to Marcy, Feb. 12, 1848; Davis, Autobiography, 177; 224Hitchcock, memo.; Claiborne, Quitman, i, 326; 256memo. 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.

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 335Memorandum 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” (68Scott 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 (52Trist, no. 9, July 23).

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 (52Trist, 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 52no. 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 (61undated 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 (52Trist, 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.

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 (76Tornel, 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 (76to Relaciones, Aug. 27), and some Mexican officers were punished for imprudence (76to comte. gen. Mex., Aug. 27). Scott viewed the affair philosophically. After this Herrera and Tornel took precautions (76Tornel, Aug. 29), the business was done at a very early time in the morning, the wagons did not actually go into the city (76to 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.

Santa Anna was extremely anxious to gain foreign support and, if possible, a foreign guaranty of the boundary (73Lozano, 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 (73Lozano, 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 (73Lozano, 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 (73nos. 5, res., 8, res.).

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).

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).

XXVIII. MOLINO DEL REY, CHAPULTEPEC, MEXICO

The foundry was decreed in July, 1846 (76report 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 (76Carrera, Sept. 6).

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.

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 (364Worth 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 178diary 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.

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.”