PROMOTION TO FIRST LIEUTENANT--CAPTURE OF THE CITY OF MEXICO--THE ARMY
--MEXICAN SOLDIERS--PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
On entering the city the troops were fired upon by the released
convicts, and possibly by deserters and hostile citizens. The streets
were deserted, and the place presented the appearance of a "city of the
dead," except for this firing by unseen persons from house-tops,
windows, and around corners. In this firing the lieutenant-colonel of
my regiment, Garland, was badly wounded, Lieutenant Sidney Smith, of the
4th infantry, was also wounded mortally. He died a few days after, and
by his death I was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant.(*4) I had
gone into the battle of Palo Alto in May, 1846, a second lieutenant, and
I entered the city of Mexico sixteen months later with the same rank,
after having been in all the engagements possible for any one man and in
a regiment that lost more officers during the war than it ever had
present at any one engagement. My regiment lost four commissioned
officers, all senior to me, by steamboat explosions during the Mexican
war. The Mexicans were not so discriminating. They sometimes picked
off my juniors.
General Scott soon followed the troops into the city, in state. I
wonder that he was not fired upon, but I believe he was not; at all
events he was not hurt. He took quarters at first in the "Halls of the
Montezumas," and from there issued his wise and discreet orders for the
government of a conquered city, and for suppressing the hostile acts of
liberated convicts already spoken of--orders which challenge the respect
of all who study them. Lawlessness was soon suppressed, and the City of
Mexico settled down into a quiet, law-abiding place. The people began
to make their appearance upon the streets without fear of the invaders.
Shortly afterwards the bulk of the troops were sent from the city to the
villages at the foot of the mountains, four or five miles to the south
and south-west.
Whether General Scott approved of the Mexican war and the manner in
which it was brought about, I have no means of knowing. His orders to
troops indicate only a soldierly spirit, with probably a little regard
for the perpetuation of his own fame. On the other hand, General
Taylor's, I think, indicate that he considered the administration
accountable for the war, and felt no responsibility resting on himself
further than for the faithful performance of his duties. Both generals
deserve the commendations of their countrymen and to live in the
grateful memory of this people to the latest generation.
Earlier in this narrative I have stated that the plain, reached after
passing the mountains east of Perote, extends to the cities of Puebla
and Mexico. The route travelled by the army before reaching Puebla,
goes over a pass in a spur of mountain coming up from the south. This
pass is very susceptible of defence by a smaller against a larger force.
Again, the highest point of the road-bed between Vera Cruz and the City
of Mexico is over Rio Frio mountain, which also might have been
successfully defended by an inferior against a superior force. But by
moving north of the mountains, and about thirty miles north of Puebla,
both of these passes would have been avoided. The road from Perote to
the City of Mexico, by this latter route, is as level as the prairies in
our West. Arriving due north from Puebla, troops could have been
detached to take possession of that place, and then proceeding west with
the rest of the army no mountain would have been encountered before
reaching the City of Mexico. It is true this road would have brought
troops in by Guadalupe--a town, church and detached spur of mountain
about two miles north of the capital, all bearing the same general name
--and at this point Lake Texcoco comes near to the mountain, which was
fortified both at the base and on the sides: but troops could have
passed north of the mountain and come in only a few miles to the
north-west, and so flanked the position, as they actually did on the
south.
It has always seemed to me that this northern route to the City of
Mexico, would have been the better one to have taken. But my later
experience has taught me two lessons: first, that things are seen
plainer after the events have occurred; second, that the most confident
critics are generally those who know the least about the matter
criticised. I know just enough about the Mexican war to approve
heartily of most of the generalship, but to differ with a little of it.
It is natural that an important city like Puebla should not have been
passed with contempt; it may be natural that the direct road to it
should have been taken; but it could have been passed, its evacuation
insured and possession acquired without danger of encountering the enemy
in intricate mountain defiles. In this same way the City of Mexico
could have been approached without any danger of opposition, except in
the open field.
But General Scott's successes are an answer to all criticism. He invaded
a populous country, penetrating two hundred and sixty miles into the
interior, with a force at no time equal to one-half of that opposed to
him; he was without a base; the enemy was always intrenched, always on
the defensive; yet he won every battle, he captured the capital, and
conquered the government. Credit is due to the troops engaged, it is
true, but the plans and the strategy were the general's.
I had now made marches and been in battle under both General Scott and
General Taylor. The former divided his force of 10,500 men into four
columns, starting a day apart, in moving from Puebla to the capital of
the nation, when it was known that an army more than twice as large as
his own stood ready to resist his coming. The road was broad and the
country open except in crossing the Rio Frio mountain. General Taylor
pursued the same course in marching toward an enemy. He moved even in
smaller bodies. I never thought at the time to doubt the infallibility
of these two generals in all matters pertaining to their profession. I
supposed they moved in small bodies because more men could not be passed
over a single road on the same day with their artillery and necessary
trains. Later I found the fallacy of this belief. The rebellion, which
followed as a sequence to the Mexican war, never could have been
suppressed if larger bodies of men could not have been moved at the same
time than was the custom under Scott and Taylor.
The victories in Mexico were, in every instance, over vastly superior
numbers. There were two reasons for this. Both General Scott and
General Taylor had such armies as are not often got together. At the
battles of Palo Alto and Resaca-de-la-Palma, General Taylor had a small
army, but it was composed exclusively of regular troops, under the best
of drill and discipline. Every officer, from the highest to the lowest,
was educated in his profession, not at West Point necessarily, but in
the camp, in garrison, and many of them in Indian wars. The rank and
file were probably inferior, as material out of which to make an army,
to the volunteers that participated in all the later battles of the war;
but they were brave men, and then drill and discipline brought out all
there was in them. A better army, man for man, probably never faced an
enemy than the one commanded by General Taylor in the earliest two
engagements of the Mexican war. The volunteers who followed were of
better material, but without drill or discipline at the start. They
were associated with so many disciplined men and professionally educated
officers, that when they went into engagements it was with a confidence
they would not have felt otherwise. They became soldiers themselves
almost at once. All these conditions we would enjoy again in case of
war.
The Mexican army of that day was hardly an organization. The private
soldier was picked up from the lower class of the inhabitants when
wanted; his consent was not asked; he was poorly clothed, worse fed, and
seldom paid. He was turned adrift when no longer wanted. The officers
of the lower grades were but little superior to the men. With all this
I have seen as brave stands made by some of these men as I have ever
seen made by soldiers. Now Mexico has a standing army larger than that
of the United States. They have a military school modelled after West
Point. Their officers are educated and, no doubt, generally brave. The
Mexican war of 1846-8 would be an impossibility in this generation.
The Mexicans have shown a patriotism which it would be well if we would
imitate in part, but with more regard to truth. They celebrate the
anniversaries of Chapultepec and Molino del Rey as of very great
victories. The anniversaries are recognized as national holidays. At
these two battles, while the United States troops were victorious, it
was at very great sacrifice of life compared with what the Mexicans
suffered. The Mexicans, as on many other occasions, stood up as well as
any troops ever did. The trouble seemed to be the lack of experience
among the officers, which led them after a certain time to simply quit,
without being particularly whipped, but because they had fought enough.
Their authorities of the present day grow enthusiastic over their theme
when telling of these victories, and speak with pride of the large sum
of money they forced us to pay in the end. With us, now twenty years
after the close of the most stupendous war ever known, we have writers
--who profess devotion to the nation--engaged in trying to prove that the
Union forces were not victorious; practically, they say, we were slashed
around from Donelson to Vicksburg and to Chattanooga; and in the East
from Gettysburg to Appomattox, when the physical rebellion gave out from
sheer exhaustion. There is no difference in the amount of romance in
the two stories.
I would not have the anniversaries of our victories celebrated, nor
those of our defeats made fast days and spent in humiliation and prayer;
but I would like to see truthful history written. Such history will do
full credit to the courage, endurance and soldierly ability of the
American citizen, no matter what section of the country he hailed from,
or in what ranks he fought. The justice of the cause which in the end
prevailed, will, I doubt not, come to be acknowledged by every citizen
of the land, in time. For the present, and so long as there are living
witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will
not be consoled for the loss of a cause which they believed to be holy.
As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it
was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified
institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.
After the fall of the capital and the dispersal of the government of
Mexico, it looked very much as if military occupation of the country for
a long time might be necessary. General Scott at once began the
preparation of orders, regulations and laws in view of this contingency.
He contemplated making the country pay all the expenses of the
occupation, without the army becoming a perceptible burden upon the
people. His plan was to levy a direct tax upon the separate states, and
collect, at the ports left open to trade, a duty on all imports. From
the beginning of the war private property had not been taken, either for
the use of the army or of individuals, without full compensation. This
policy was to be pursued. There were not troops enough in the valley of
Mexico to occupy many points, but now that there was no organized army
of the enemy of any size, reinforcements could be got from the Rio
Grande, and there were also new volunteers arriving from time to time,
all by way of Vera Cruz. Military possession was taken of Cuernavaca,
fifty miles south of the City of Mexico; of Toluca, nearly as far west,
and of Pachuca, a mining town of great importance, some sixty miles to
the north-east. Vera Cruz, Jalapa, Orizaba, and Puebla were already in
our possession.
Meanwhile the Mexican government had departed in the person of Santa
Anna, and it looked doubtful for a time whether the United States
commissioner, Mr. Trist, would find anybody to negotiate with. A
temporary government, however, was soon established at Queretaro, and
Trist began negotiations for a conclusion of the war. Before terms were
finally agreed upon he was ordered back to Washington, but General Scott
prevailed upon him to remain, as an arrangement had been so nearly
reached, and the administration must approve his acts if he succeeded in
making such a treaty as had been contemplated in his instructions. The
treaty was finally signed the 2d of February, 1848, and accepted by the
government at Washington. It is that known as the "Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo," and secured to the United States the Rio Grande as the
boundary of Texas, and the whole territory then included in New Mexico
and Upper California, for the sum of $15,000,000.
Soon after entering the city of Mexico, the opposition of Generals
Pillow, Worth and Colonel Duncan to General Scott became very marked.
Scott claimed that they had demanded of the President his removal. I do
not know whether this is so or not, but I do know of their unconcealed
hostility to their chief. At last he placed them in arrest, and
preferred charges against them of insubordination and disrespect. This
act brought on a crisis in the career of the general commanding. He had
asserted from the beginning that the administration was hostile to him;
that it had failed in its promises of men and war material; that the
President himself had shown duplicity if not treachery in the endeavor
to procure the appointment of Benton: and the administration now gave
open evidence of its enmity. About the middle of February orders came
convening a court of inquiry, composed of Brevet Brigadier-General
Towson, the paymaster-general of the army, Brigadier-General Cushing and
Colonel Belknap, to inquire into the conduct of the accused and the
accuser, and shortly afterwards orders were received from Washington,
relieving Scott of the command of the army in the field and assigning
Major-General William O. Butler of Kentucky to the place. This order
also released Pillow, Worth and Duncan from arrest.
If a change was to be made the selection of General Butler was agreeable
to every one concerned, so far as I remember to have heard expressions
on the subject. There were many who regarded the treatment of General
Scott as harsh and unjust. It is quite possible that the vanity of the
General had led him to say and do things that afforded a plausible
pretext to the administration for doing just what it did and what it had
wanted to do from the start. The court tried the accuser quite as much
as the accused. It was adjourned before completing its labors, to meet
in Frederick, Maryland. General Scott left the country, and never after
had more than the nominal command of the army until early in 1861. He
certainly was not sustained in his efforts to maintain discipline in
high places.
The efforts to kill off politically the two successful generals, made
them both candidates for the Presidency. General Taylor was nominated
in 1848, and was elected. Four years later General Scott received the
nomination but was badly beaten, and the party nominating him died with
his defeat.(*5)