between Buchanan and Slidell contains, to be sure, expressions
indicating a design to influence public opinion in the United States.
January 20, 1846, the minister was directed to conduct himself "with
such wisdom and firmness in the crisis" that the voice of the American
people would be "unanimous in favor of redressing the wrongs of our much
injured and long suffering claimants" (Buchanan, no. 5). But as Herrera
had now refused to receive Slidell and a peaceful settlement had become
extremely improbable, this was obviously a wise and proper injunction,
and by no means implied that a rupture had been desired. No one who goes
open-mindedly through the documents can accept the fine-spun theory
that Polk knew Slidell would not be received, and sent him in order
to make a show of pacific intentions and obtain a pretext for war. He
already had better grounds for war; and had he been determined to fight,
he would have been extremely foolish to offer his intended victim an
opportunity to restore friendly relations, for undeniably it was quite
possible--from the American point of view, considering the comparative
weakness of Mexico, far more than possible--that she would seize upon
it. Polk, Diary, Mar. 28-30; Apr. 3. _American (Whig) Review_, 1847, p.
325. Slidell, no. 13, Apr. 2. _Id._, Apr. 9 (Curtis, Buchanan, i, 599).
6.30. _Examiner_, June 13. Ho. 158; 28, 2, p. 3 (Upshur). =13=Ashburnham
to Backhouse, July 6, 1838. Santangelo, Address, 31: "Have a number
of American citizens been unjustly injured by Mexico in their persons
and property, or not? Have our government and nation been gratuitously
outraged by Mexico, or not?"
6.31. Slidell, Mar. 18 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 66). =52=Dimond, no. 265, Oct.
1, 1845. British minister in _Siglo XIX_, Sept. 24, 1845.
6.32. _Times_, Jan. 8, 15. _Picayune_, Dec. 30, 1845. Buchanan to
Slidell, no. 7, Mar. 12, 1847 (Information received from various
quarters that several European powers may be aiming to establish
monarchy in Mexico). Dec. 1, 1847, Olozaga showed in the Spanish Cortes
a statement of large sums spent by Spain in 1846 to place a Spanish
prince on the throne of Mexico (Dix, Speeches, i, 214, note). See also
chap. x, note 21.
6.33. Vattel, Law of Nations (Chitty), book ii, chap. iv, secs. 49-51.
6.34. American trade with Mexico declined from $9,029,221 in 1835
to $1,152,331 in 1845 (_Niles_, Oct. 17, 1846, p. 104). (Contrary)
=52=Buchanan to Slidell, Nov. 10, 1845. The protest of the Mexican
minister at Washington against the annexation of Texas asserted the
right of his country to recover Texas at any time and by all the means
in her power (_Cong. Globe_, 30, 1, 334).
6.35. (Oregon) London _Times_, Sept. 30, 1847. Polk, Diary, Apr. 22,
1846.
VII. THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONFLICT
7.1. The claims did much to embitter feeling in both countries, were
one reason for Mexico's breaking off and refusing to resume diplomatic
relations, and brought Polk to the point of resolving to recommend
forcible action to Congress (p. 181). The series of diplomatic clashes
led to the danger of a Mexican attack and hence to Taylor's advance; and
his movement, besides exciting further displeasure in Mexico, offered
her a convenient and promising opportunity to strike.
7.2. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 445, 449. =56=Wickliffe, private, May 21,
1845. =63=Marcy to Taylor, confid., May 28, 1845. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp.
79, 804. Donelson, June 4, 1845, in Sen. 1; 29, 1, p. 66. =297=Polk to
Dallas, confid., Aug. 23, 1845.
7.3. Richardson, Messages, iv, 388. =52=J. Y. Mason to Donelson, Aug. 7,
1845.
7.4. M. B. de Arispe in _Niles_, Aug. 17, 1816. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 130
(Cárdenas); 140 (Ampudia); 430 (Taylor, no. 93). _Cong. Globe_, 30, 1,
p. 911 (Stephens). =245=Bliss to Lamar, Oct. 15, 1846. =52=Buchanan to
Slidell, Nov. 10, 1845. Wilson, Slave Power, ii, 8. Z. T. Fulmore in
_Tex. State Hist. Assoc. Qtrly._, v, 28. T. M. Marshall, _ibid._, xiv,
277. I. J. Cox, _ibid._, vi, 81. _Aguila del Norte_, Mar. 11, 1846.
_Nat. Intelligencer_, Nov. 5, 1845; Dec. 12, 1846. Ho. Report 70; 29, 2.
Kennedy, Texas, ii, 30. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 200. Fisher, Memorials.
Bolton, Texas, 1. Bancroft, No. Mex. States, i, 375, 604. Garrison,
Extension, 100, 103-7. Tex. Dipl. Corres., i, 257 (Irion). =52=Consul
Belt, July 5, 1844. Jones, Memoranda, 299 (Hockley). Sen. 18; 30, 1,
p. 8 (Marcy). Garrison, Texas, 262. México á través, iv, 375-6. Sen.
1; 29, 1, p. 90 (Donelson). =351=Storrs to Webster, Oct. 23, 1847.
=52=Woll, proclam., June 20, 1844. Boston _Advertiser_, July 13, 1843.
=64=Ayunt. of Matamoros to Taylor, June 10, 1846. =82=Gov. Tamaul. to
govs., Nov. 27, 1846. South. Hist. Assoc. Pubs., v, 351.
The mere assertion of a boundary by Texas proved nothing. She claimed
Santa Fe, but the U. S. did not regard the claim as valid (=52=Buchanan
to Slidell, Nov. 10, 1845). Her jurisdiction was not established far
beyond the Nueces. Santa Anna, while a prisoner in her hands, made a
convention with her which appeared to recognize her claim, and the
fact that he was under duress did not signify; but he did not possess
Presidential powers at that time; Texas broke the agreement, and Mexico
repudiated it. England appeared to countenance the claim of Texas by
negotiating with her about the Beales grant, which lay in the disputed
region (Wash. _Union_, Feb. 25, 1847), but this was not at all decisive.
Trist's view that any previously existing boundary had been obliterated
by the war does not seem to have been attacked by the Mexican peace
commissioners (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 214). Roa Bárcena argues that if there
was no boundary in Apr., 1846, the United States could not assert that
its territory had been invaded. This is a typically Mexican style of
argument, apparently decisive but not sound. The reply is that while no
_established_ boundary existed, there was a _claimed_ boundary, and that
a serious claim entitles one to act and speak provisionally very much as
if it had been established. Trist made another point: If Mexico does not
consider the wide and swift Bravo a safe boundary, how could Texas feel
satisfied with the little Nueces? The fact that the terms of annexation
specified "the territory rightfully belonging to Texas" was often cited
as evidence that we knew the Nueces-Rio Grande region did not. This was
a mistake. The expression only meant that we were not ready to endorse
all the territorial claims of Texas without investigating them. The most
doubted of her claims had nothing to do with that region; it related to
a part of New Mexico.
7.5. Clay, Works, v, 213. Amer. State Papers: For. Rels., ii, 662; iv,
424, 430, 468-78. _Cong. Globe_, 25, 2, app., 555 (Preston); 29, 1, p.
817 (Adams). Richardson, Messages, iv, 483. Woodbury, Writings, i, 361.
Wash. _Globe_, Feb. 3, 1844 (Walker). Treaties in Force, 593. Buchanan
to Slidell, Nov. 10, 1845. _Forum_, July, 1901 (Boutwell). Ficklen in
So. Hist. Assoc. Pubs., Sept., 1901. Sato, Land Question. Wash. _Union_,
Apr. 27, 1846. =297=Polk to Houston, June 6, 1845; to Donelson, June
15, 1845. Claiborne, Quitman, ii, 14. Richardson, Messages, iv, 479
(Texas as a part of old Louisiana). Ho. Report, 752; 29, 1. =52=Donelson
to Mayfield, July 11, 1845. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 140-4, 457-8.
Chase, Polk Admin., 128. Polk assured Houston that he need feel no
apprehensions regarding the Texas boundary in the event of annexation.
It may be said that Polk was inconsistent in offering to negotiate about
the boundary; but people negotiate about claims they believe in and even
about property they clearly own. He had in mind of course to hold the
Rio Grande boundary by satisfying Mexico.
The aim in this paragraph is to bring out the essential (for the present
purpose) points of a matter that it would require a long article to
discuss fully, and many things have to be left unsaid. Personally the
author regards the American claim and all conclusions based upon it as
unsound. His aim is to show how the matter appeared to Polk. The author
is indebted to Dr. E. C. Barker and Dr. I. J. Cox for assistance in
reference to this statement; but no responsibility rests on them.
7.6. Sen. 1; 29, 1, pp. 236 (Totten); 193 (Marcy); 208 (Scott). Sen.
378; 29, 1, p. 44 (Cooper). Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 81 (Bancroft). Wash.
_Globe_, Sept. 4, 1845. _Journal Milit. Serv. Instit._, xvii (Van
Deusen). Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, i, 32, 36-7, 57. Stevens, Campaigns,
12-3. _Commercial Review_, Dec., 1846, 429 (Poinsett). Capt. Willing in
Prof. Memoirs of Corps of Engineers. _Cong. Globe_, 29, 1, 534-5 (Yell
_et al._). Ho. 38; 30, 2 (strength of the regular army, Jan. 1, 1846:
7194). Ho. 24; 31, 1: on Texas frontier, May, 3554 (regulars "present
and absent"). =61=Maynardier, June 15, 1846. Grant, Mems., i, 47-8. Sen.
1; 29, 2, p. 53 (Marcy: May 13, 1846, the entire military force was not
over 7640). In Nov., 1845, the army occupied thirty-seven posts.
Each regiment comprised ten companies, but for economy the army had
virtually been skeletonized in 1842. After that time a company of
infantry and "artillery" included theoretically forty-two privates, a
company of field artillery sixty-four (_Journ. Milit. Serv. Inst. of U.
S._, iii, 415), and a company of cavalry fifty; but the numbers always
ran ten or twenty per cent below what the law allowed (Sen. 1; 29, 1,
p. 193). One or more "grenadier" companies (tall men) formed the right
of the infantry regiment, and it had also one or more "light" companies
(=180=C. F. Smith, Sept. 30, 1846; J. D. Toll in Mich. Pioneer Soc.
Colls., vii, 112).
Most of the infantry carried flintlock muskets, which could not be
relied on for more than a hundred yards. Scott preferred that arm
because it had been thoroughly tested (Rowland, Register, 407) and
perhaps also because flints could be obtained more readily and surely
than could percussion caps. Some 38,000 smooth-bore muskets and 10,000
rifles (calibre 54) were issued during the war. There seem to have been
several models of muzzle-loading rifles: Harper's Ferry (1814), model of
1819, model of 1840 or 1842; and some of Hall's breech-loading rifles
were used (Sen. 54; 30, 1, particularly table C). The First Mississippi
had Whitney rifles (Rowland, Register, 407). The rifles were much more
effective but much slower in operation than the muskets. Some 400,000
flints and 950,000 percussion caps were issued. Regarding arms, etc.,
one may consult Talcott, June 10 (Sen. 54; 30, 1); =39=Maynardier to
gov. Tenn., Sept. 28, 1847; =39=Marcy to _Id._, Sept. 27; Ho. 2; 29,
1, pp. 402, 418, 425; Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 162; Ho. 41; 29, 2 (Talcott's
report); Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 683; Norton, Amer. Breech-Loading Small Arms;
and visit the National Museum (Washington), and the museums at West
Point, Colt's factory (Hartford), and U. S. Cartridge Co. (Lowell).
Our dragoons, who were "light cavalry," were armed with musketoons which
were carried on sling belts except on the march, sabres of the Prussian
dragoon style and horse pistols. The Mounted Rifles had percussion
rifles and Colt's army revolvers but no sabres. The cavalry had sabres,
rifle carbines, and Colt's navy revolvers (Brackett, U. S. Cav., 160).
Some "pepper-box" revolvers were used (Arnold, Jackson, 113). The
regular cartridge (very carefully made) consisted of powder, a bullet,
and three buckshot (=148=Chamberlain, recolls.).
The field batteries were Companies K (Taylor) of the First regiment, A
(Duncan) of the Second, C (Ringgold) of the Third, and B (Washington)
of the Fourth. E (Bragg) of the Third actually served as light
artillery though not officially recognized as such until June, 1847.
Each of these companies had four or six bronze pieces, which included
two or more 6-pounders and usually one or two 12-pound howitzers.
See particularly =61=Maynardier's statement, June 15, 1846, several
letters in the Duncan papers, and _Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit._, iii,
415. In 1839 Capt. Robert Anderson translated the French "System
of Light Artillery." By 1842 a long course of experimenting gave
us suitable bronze for guns (Sen. 1, 30, 1, p. 679). That year the
commander-in-chief ordered a regular course of practice with field
artillery, and a liberal allowance of ammunition was made (_ibid._,
680). This branch of the service was also greatly improved by sending
three ordnance officers abroad to study the subject. Each head of a
battery was chosen for his special fitness, and Ringgold in particular
devoted himself to developing the arm with remarkable intelligence
and zeal (Henry, Camp. Sketches, 105; _Niles_, May 30, 1846, p. 201;
=259=Ridgely to cits., July 24, 1846; Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 679; Wynne,
Ringgold; Benet, Ordnance Reports, ii, 158).
By permission of the French government, Capt. A. J. Swift was sent to
Metz soon after the war with Mexico began to qualify himself to command
and instruct an engineer company. The corps included Swift (who died
before seeing service), G. W. Smith, and G. B. McClellan as officers,
10 sergeants, 10 corporals, 39 artificers, 39 second class privates,
and two musicians (Engineer School, U. S. Army, Occas. Papers no. 16).
The American infantry drill did not differ materially from that of the
British army (Ballentine). Our army was not fully equal to the best
European troops (Poinsett). There had been few opportunities to work the
three arms together. A serious defect of the army was the lack of an
intelligence department.
The privates wore cloth fatigue caps, jackets and trousers, all of
blue; and the officers wore the same, except that at first they had
single-breasted frock coats (=128=Brackett, diary. _Id._, Lane's
Brigade, 250. Ramsey, Other Side, 424). Later, officers frequently had
jackets like the men's, but differently trimmed. Further remarks on our
army may be found in chap. xxxvi.
7.7. _Taylor._ Fry and Conrad, Taylor, _passim_. French, Two Wars, 84.
=224=Hitchcock to brother, Aug. 10, 1845. Howard, Taylor, _passim_.
Robinson, Organization, ii, 6. =147=Chamberlain, diary. =332=Tennery,
diary. Scott, Mems., ii, 382-3. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 198, 203.
Meade, Letters, i, 26. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 253-4. Poore, Perley's
Remins., i, 354. =280=Nunelee, diary. Frost, Taylor, 277. =139=W. B.
to D. Campbell, Apr. 25, 1847. Grant, Mems., i, 100, 139. Donnavan,
Adventures, 21. =180=Pillow to wife, Aug. 8, 1846. Wash. _Union_, Aug.
24, 1846. _Am. Hist. Review_, Apr., 1919, 446, 455-6, 462 (Marcy's
diary). And all of Taylor's correspondence.
7.8. Scott, Mems., ii, 381-2, 386, 408. _Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit._,
xiv, 444. =224=Williams to Hitchcock, Nov. 8, 1848. Hitchcock, Fifty
Years, 147. Meade, Letters, i, 131. Mrs. W. R. Stauffer of New Orleans,
granddaughter of Gen. Taylor, to whom the author is indebted for
documents and information, told him that the family name for Bliss was
"Perfect Bliss." His precise title was Assistant Adj. Gen., of course.
It is instructive to compare Taylor's autograph letters with the
official reports credited to him.
7.9. =63=Marcy to Taylor, confid., May 28. Sen. 1; 29, 1, pp. 57, 107
(Donelson). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 81 (Bancroft); 800-2, 806 (Taylor);
804 (Donelson). Sen. 18; 30, 1, pp. 6 (Donelson); 3 (Taylor); 8, 9
(Marcy).Sen. 337; 29, 1, pp. 73-5. Sen. 378; 29, 1, p. 44 (Cooper).
_Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit._, 1882, p. 399. _Autograph_, Dec., 1911
(Taylor). Wash. _Union_, June 25, 1847. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 193.
_So. Qtrly. Rev._, Apr., 1846, pp. 440-3. _Hist. Mag._, Jan., 1870, 19.
Mexico had an outpost customhouse at Point Isabel, just north of the Rio
Grande. Paredes charged that a Mexican reconnoitring party was disarmed
at Laredo, on the north side of the Rio Grande. We have no other
evidence of such an affair. Taylor instructed Maj. Hays, commanding
Texas Rangers at S. Antonio, to send word of any Mexican movements in
the vicinity of Laredo, "with strict injunctions, however, to molest
no Mexican establishments" (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 107), and the orders to
occupy Laredo were not given until Oct. 15, 1846 (=245=Bliss to Lamar).
Possibly a threatening Mexican party may have been disarmed as a measure
of precaution, but the bare statement of Paredes cannot be accepted as
proof.
7.10. Taylor, gen. orders, 1. Henshaw narrative. _So. Qtrly. Review_,
Apr., 1846, pp. 442-4. =66=Sanders to Taylor, Feb. 15, 1846. =197=Gaines
to R. Jones, Sept. 10. N. Orl. _Tropic_, Oct. 16. =42=Gov. Va. to gen.
assembly, Dec. 7, 1846. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 173. =224=Hitchcock
to brother, Feb. 10, 1846. =13=Elliot, no. 21, 1845. =13=Kennedy, no.
22, 1845. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 98, 100, 102-3, 802 (Taylor). Richmond
_Enquirer_, Sept. 13, 1845. =52=J. Y. Mason to Donelson, Aug. 7.
=331=Taylor to Conner, July 16. Mayer, War, 91-2. N. Y. _Tribune_,
Sept. 12. French, Two Wars, 34. J. Davis in _Cong. Globe_, 31, 1, app.,
1034-41. Polk, Messages, May 11; Dec. 8, 1846 (Richardson, Messages).
Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 194. Meade, Letters, i, 26. Grant, Mems., i, 64.
Henry, Camp. Sketches, 17, 32. Sen. 378; 29, 1, p. 45.
The Texans were kept at that point as scouts. Corpus Christi had been
held by Texas during her revolutionary contest with Mexico (_Tropic_,
Oct. 25, 1845). The other two companies of the Fourth Infantry were
ordered from Fort Scott to Taylor, and Bragg's artillery came from
Charleston harbor. The New Orleans artillery companies were called out
without authority by Gaines, who commanded the military dept. of the
west. They remained with Taylor the three months for which they engaged
(Sen. 378; 29, 1, p. 3). Taylor planned to go on to S. Patricio, now a
name rather than a place, 25 miles up the Nueces--a plan like that which
he soon executed on the Rio Grande. Lieut. Col. E. A. Hitchcock, who had
taught at West Point and now commanded the Third Infantry, pointed out
that, should he do so, his base would be a fine mark for attack. Taylor
would not see the point but he gave up the plan. (For this episode see:
=224=Hitchcock to brother, Feb. 10, 1846; _Id._, Fifty Years, 48, 196;
Grant, Mems., i, 71-2; Meade, Letters, i, 29.) He thought of Pt. Isabel
also; but, having so small a force, no engineers, and little artillery
(at first none), he deemed it unsafe to go there (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 107).
7.11. London _Times_, May 14, 1846. (Knew) Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 195;
_So. Qtrly. Rev._, Apr., 1846, p. 443; Mayer, War, 91. (Accepted) =52=J.
Y. Mason to Donelson, Aug. 7, 1845. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, May 10, 1846
(private): A "liberal confidence" was reposed in Taylor; "His positions
in Texas were left very much to his own judgment except they were to be
taken between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte."
7.12. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 38-9. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 110. Wilhelm,
Eighth Inf., i, 257. J. Davis, in _Cong. Globe_, 31, 1, app., 1034-41.
N. Y. _Tribune_, Sept, 12, 1845.
7.13. =65=Taylor, gen. orders, 2. =61=_Id._ to adj. gen., Feb. 3,
1846, and Scott's comments. =61=Adj. gen. to Taylor, Jan. 5, 1846.
_So. Qtrly. Rev._, Apr., 1846, pp. 440-57 [probably from Bragg].
_Nat. Intelligencer_, Nov. 20, 1845. =13=Elliot, nos. 3, 14, 1846.
=218=Henshaw narrative. =136=Butterfield, recolls. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp.
93, 96. =224=Hitchcock to brother, Aug. 10, 1845; Feb. 10, 1846. Mobile
_Commercial Register_, Aug. 23, 1845. _Autograph_, Jan.-Feb., 1912
(Taylor). =364=Worth to S., Oct. 24; Nov.--, 20, 1845; to daughter,
Nov. 3. _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Aug. 1, 1847, 388-90. Hitchcock, Fifty
Years, 198, 203, 215. Meade, Letters, i, 31, 37. =13=Letter from Corp.
Chr., Nov. 29 (sent by Elliot). =185=Duncan to Bliss, Jan. 5, 1846;
to court of inquiry, Jan. 7. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 45. =213=Hatch to
sister, Oct. 28, etc. The conditions were probably tolerable until
November.
7.14. Worth to S., Dec. 20, 1845; Jan. 1; Mar. 4, 1846. Meade, Letters,
i, 87. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 204, 206. =60=Worth to Taylor, Mar. 8,
1846, and Scott's comments. =60=Churchill to Scott, Mar. 2. =69=Twiggs
to Bliss, Feb. 18. =69=Worth to Taylor, Feb. 24. =66=Mansfield to
Totten, Apr. 2. Polk, Diary, Mar. 11, 1846. (Concluded) =224=Hitchcock
to brother, Feb. 10, 1846.
7.15. =63=Marcy to Taylor, Aug. 23. (No declaration) =297=Polk to
Dallas, Aug. 23; =52=J. Y. Mason to Donelson, Aug. 7, 1845.
July 30 Marcy =63=instructed Taylor to place some forces south of the
Nueces, but Taylor had anticipated the order. The government was accused
of issuing vague orders with the hope that the General would assume
the responsibility of going to the Rio Grande; but it does not seem to
have shrunk from taking a stand when it had the requisite information.
Mexico did not in fact have all the "posts" north of the Rio Grande that
Marcy seems to have supposed were there, but besides the customs men at
Pt. Isabel, there seem to have been troops at Laredo and soldiers from
Matamoros crossed the river. Aug. 30 Marcy ordered Taylor to drive the
Mexicans beyond the Rio Grande, should they invade Texas (Ho. 60; 30,
1, p. 88). This was proper, for such an invasion would have seemed to
mean war; but the order showed a want of prudence (Upton, Mil. Policy,
197) because (1) Taylor was expected to draw reinforcements from the
states, which could not have provided them in time to save him from the
sudden attack of an overpowering Mexican army, and (2) he was authorized
to cross the river with militia, who could not legally be taken beyond
the border. Oct. 4 Taylor wrote that under his instructions he did not
feel at liberty to go to the Rio Grande. Oct. 16 Marcy directed him to
place his winter quarters (which implied that no aggressive plans were
in mind) as near the Rio Grande as prudence and convenience would permit
(Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 89). This was judicious, for (as Marcy pointed out)
the troops might have to repel Mexican or Indian incursions, and, at a
season when they would be somewhat unprepared to move quickly, it was
particularly desirable to have them as near as possible to scene of
action.
7.16. Polk, Diary, Jan. 13, 1846. The despatches were Slidell's Dec.
17 (with copy of _El Siglo XIX_ containing the council's report) and
Black's Dec. 18, which indicated that the administration and the council
of state had decided against Slidell. Polk, Message, Dec. 8, 1846.
_Cong. Globe_, 30, 1, app., 240-1. =63=Marcy to Taylor, Jan. 13.
7.17. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 103, 108, 111, 116-21 (Taylor); 649, 651-2
(Cross). W. P. Johnston, Johnston, 131. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 207.
=224=_Id._ to brother, Feb. 10, 1846. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 52.
=65=Taylor, gen. orders, 13, 20, 26, 30. =69=Sibley, Feb. 21. =69=Hunt
of the _Porpoise_, Mar. 11. =69=Mansfield to Taylor, Mar. 6. =76=Mejía,
Mar. 14. The soldiers were accompanied by about an equal number of
quadrupeds.
7.18. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 90, 92 (Marcy); 117, 120-4, 127 (Taylor); 651
(Cross). _Diario_, Mar. 30; Apr. 10. C. Christi _Gazette_, Mar. 12.
7.19. _The march._ Wilhelm, Eighth Inf., i, 401-4. Henry, Camp.
Sketches, 53-65. Smith, To Mexico, 22-9. French, Two Wars, 37, 41-5.
Henshaw narrative. =69=Twiggs to Bliss, Mar. 15, 1846. Grant, Mems., i,
69. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 211.
7.20. _Picayune_, Apr. 7, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 123 (Taylor); 127
(Mejía). =65=Taylor, gen. orders 33. Wilhelm, Eighth Inf., i, 404-6.
_Diario_, Apr. 24. =69=Alba to Taylor, Mar. 12. Henshaw narrative.
Smith, To Mexico, 29-31. Grant, Mems., i, 87-8. =69=Statement of
Italian. And from =76=the following. To Mejía, Mar. 1 (Mejía was
forbidden to take the aggressive because the govt. wished first to
gather enough troops to strike a decisive blow: =76=to Vega, Mar. 1).
Mejía, Jan. 18; Feb. 16; Mar. 4, 6, 14, 17, 18. Canales, Feb. 28. Mejía
to Vega, Feb. 16. C. Bravo to Mejía, Mar. 13; reply, Mar. 17. To Vega,
Mar. 1. Mex. officer (spy), Feb. 18. Mejía to Parrodi, Mar. 6; to
Canales, Feb. 16. Ampudia, Mar. 28.
7.21. =65=Taylor, gen. orders 34-7. Henshaw narrative. Ho. 60; 30,
1, pp. 123, 125, 129, 132 (Taylor); 130 (Cárdenas). =224=Hitchcock,
diary, Mar. 25. =66=Mansfield to Totten, Mar. 25; Apr. 23. Taylor,
Letters (Bixby), 173. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 46 (Marcy). =69=Statement of
Italian. _Picayune_, Apr. 7; May 1. Apuntes, 32. _Niles_, Apr. 18, p.
112. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 211-7. Meade, Letters, i, 59, 100. Nebel
and Kendall, 1. Smith, To Mexico, 32-4. =163=Taylor to Conner, Apr. 3.
Robertson, Remins., July 7. _Monitor Repub._, Apr. 17. _Diario_, Mar.
15. =76=Mejía, Mar. 21, 28. =76=To Mejía, Mar. 21; Apr. 3.
On his way to Point Isabel Taylor was presented with a formal protest
against his advance by J. Cárdenas, prefect of northern Tamaulipas.
On the approach of his transports the captain of the port, by Mejía's
orders, set fire to the customhouse and the few poor thatched cottages
of the hamlet, and fled with the officials. Mar. 31 Taylor had present
opposite Matamoros and at Point Isabel 248 officers, 3001 rank and file
(=62=R. Jones to Cass, Jan. 21, 1848).