# The War with Mexico/Volume 1/Notes On Chapter 12

XII. MONTEREY
1. 66Mansfield to Totten, Feb. 1, 1847. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 76, 83 (Taylor). Wilhelm, Eighth Inf., ii, 289. 76Comte. gen. N. León, Sept. 20. Stevens, Campaigns, 22. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 192. Nebel and Kendall, 5, 6. Apuntes, 58.
2. Apuntes, 59. Monitor Repub., Oct. 31 (Berra). Nebel and Kendall, 6. Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 20. J. Davis in Cong. Globe, 31, 1, app., 1034-41. Picayune, Oct. 4; Nov. 13, 221Hill, diary. Smith, To Mexico, 73-4. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 21, 8:15 a.m. 147Chamberlain, diary. Balbontín, Invasión, 25, 36. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 102 (Worth).
The Federation 9-pdrs. were classed by the Mexicans as 8-pdrs. The half-moon battery was designed to come into play after the capture of the city, annoying the captors and defending the line of retreat to Saltillo.
3. 76Comte. gen. N. León, Sept. 20. 69Worth to Bliss, Aug. 28. 76Ampudia, Sept. 19, res.
4. 221 Hill, diary. 277Staniford to Pemberton, Sept. 26. Robertson, Remins., 130. Nebel and Kendall, 6. Chamberlain, diary. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 83 (Taylor), 102 (Worth). 76Comte. gen. N. León, Sept. 20. Picayune, Nov. 13. 245Hays to Henderson, undated. Pennsylvanian, Nov. 2. Meade, Letters, i, 133. Metropol. Mag., Dec., 1907 (Hamilton). Spirit of the Times, Nov. 7. (Worth) Robertson, Remins., Sept. 20; 185J. Van Buren, oration; Chase, Polk Admin., 156; 185W. to Duncan, Apr. 15; Jacksonville (Ala.) Republican, Nov. 25; Grone, Briefe, 83; Semmes, Service, 282; 327Sutherland to father, Aug. — .
A part of Hays's four hundred did not march until a little later. It seems clear, although neither Taylor nor Worth mentions the fact, that a party of dragoons accompanied the expedition (Chamberlain, diary; Haskin, First Artillery, 307). It will be recalled that most of our "artillery" served as infantry. Blanchard's company was made up of men who did not wish to leave when most of the Louisiana infantry was ordered home (p. 205).
Worth's movement was in principle extremely hazardous (Halleck, Mil. Art, 414). Napoleon (Maxims, p. 24): "Nothing is more rash or more opposed to the principles of war, than a flank'march in the presence of an army in position, especially when that army occupies heights at the foot of which you must defile." This maxim seems to fit the case precisely. Stevens (Campaigns, 28) defended the movement on the ground that Taylor knew what could be expected of Worth's command and of the Mexicans; but as Ampudia had shown no conspicuous want of ability and courage on May 8 and 9, Taylor had no reason to suppose he would act here as badly as he did. Indeed the struggle at Monterey showed that if Taylor assumed the Mexicans would not fight, he erred. It was doubtless realized by Taylor and Worth that the small American army, without siege artillery or adequate supplies, could escape ruin only through extreme boldness. Apparently the plan originated with Worth, for he knew more about the terrain than Taylor did. Wilhelm so states, and the N. Y. Sun also, the editor of which was close to Worth, gave him that credit (Aug. 14, 1847). Bragg (210to Hammond, May 4, 1848) ascribed the plan to Taylor; but, as Taylor was the commander-in-chief, this was the natural presumption.
5. Meade, Letters, i, 133. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 83 (Taylor). Picayune, Nov. 13. Monitor Repub., Oct. 29 (Jáuregui), 31 (Berra). 245Hays to ​Henderson, undated. Reid, Scouting Expeds., 152. 218Henshaw narrative. Ampudia, Manifiesto. Robertson, Remins., 130-1. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 20, 9:30 p.m.
6. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 83 (Taylor), 102 (Worth). Monitor Repub., Oct. 29. 76Vázquez, Sept. 23. Balbontín, Invasión, 27. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 20, 9:30 p.m. Meade, Letters, i, 133. Robertson, Remins., 131-2.
7. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 83 (Taylor), 102 (Worth). 185Duncan to Worth, Sept. 28. Henshaw narrative. Chamberlain, diary. Apuntes, 59. González, Aguascalientes, 152. 185Worth to Marcy, July 14, 1847. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 21, 8:15 a.m.; 3:40 p.m. Picayune, Nov. 13, 1846; Feb. 17, 1847. Meade, Letters, i, 133. Wash. Union, Nov. 20. 252Mackall to father, Sept. 27. N. Y. Sun, Oct. 14. Monitor Repub., Oct. 17, 31; Nov. 15. 245Hays to Henderson, undated. Haskin, First Artillery, 309. 180C. F. Smith to Pemberton, Sept. 30. 277Staniford to Pemberton, Sept. 26. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 201. Prieto, Memorias, 205. Reid, Scouting Expeds., 157-9.
McCulloch, being in advance, did not receive the order to take post behind the fence, and hence fought in the road.
8. The operations on Federation Ridge. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 21, 3:40 p.m. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 102 (Worth). 245Hays to Henderson, undated. 180C. F. Smith to Pemberton, Sept. 30. 277P. F. Smith to Id., Sept. 27. Monitor Repub., Oct. 31 (Berra). 252Mackall to father, Sept. 27. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 201-3. Nebel and Kendall, 6-7. Hist. Mag., Mar., 1874, p. 188. Wash. Union, Nov. 12, 20. ChamberJain, diary and recolls. 278Niehenke, statement. Meade, Letters, i, 134. Picayune, Oct. 4; Nov. 13. Henshaw narrative. Reid, Scouting Expeds., 162-6. Hill, diary.
Meade (Letters, i, 88) wrote: Worth '"'has the great misfortune of being most rash and impetuous, and of constantly doing things which cooler reflection causes him to repent. This infirmity, in my opinion, renders him unfit to command, but on the field of battle, under another, his gallantry and bravery are well known and most conspicuous." U. S. Grant (Mems., i, 123) said: Worth "was nervous, impatient and restless on the march, or when important or responsible duty confronted him."
Miles set out about forty-five minutes later than C. F. Smith. On reaching the ridge he sent off detachments in order to divert attention from Smith. Still restless, Worth sent Col. Hays and more Texans to the ridge, but these did not arrive in time to do anything of consequence. Gen. Smith's attack upon El Soldado, made on his own responsibility, had a very important bearing upon the movement against Independence Hill and the Bishop's Palace. Hitchcock said Gen. Smith not only aided Worth materially but saved his reputation (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 528). The summit and El Soldado continued to be held by the Americans. Scott and Blanchard (who was under Scott's orders) were recalled from No. 3 to El Soldado the next morning to coöperate in the attack on the Palace. According to some Americans three guns were captured. This mistake probably arose because one piece was used by the Americans at the summit and then moved to El Soldado. According to the Mexicans there seem to have been only 175 of them on the ridge. On both sides the loss of men on Federation Ridge was insignificant. Worth had 15 or 20 killed and wounded. Some thought the summit of Federation Ridge not less than 800 feet high. As the Monterey plans are unavoidably based to ​a large extent upon sketches and estimates, it has not been thought best to give a scale of miles.
9. The capture of Independence Hill. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 102 (Worth). Ampudia, Manifiesto. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 22, 8:30 a.m., 5 p.m. French, Two Wars, 64-5. 147Chamberlain, diary. 148Id., recolls. Balbontín, Invasión, 38-9. Apuntes, 61-2. 190Ewing, diary. 218Henshaw narrative; 221Hill, diary. Picayune, Nov. 13. 252Mackall to father, Sept. 27. Meade, Letters, i, 135-6. Wash. Union, Nov. 20. Diario, Sept. 30. Monitor Repub., Oct. 31 (Berra). 245Hays to Henderson, undated. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 205. Nebel and Kendall, 6. 185Duncan to Worth, Sept. 28. Reid, Scouting Expeds., 183-5. Ampudia to the People. Some officers thought the hill nearly 600 feet high. Ampudia tardily ordered reinforcements to the hill, but they did not arrive. Worth's loss, Sept. 22, was only about a dozen killed and wounded.
10. Taylor's and Ampudia's operations, Sept. 20-3; Worth's, Sept. 23. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 76-109 (reports of Taylor and officers). Ho. 17; 30,1 (reports of officers). 169Taylor to Crittenden, Oct. 9, 1846; Jan. 26, 1847. 190Ewing, diary. 218Henshaw narrative. Coleman, Crittenden, i, 309. Claiborne, Quitman, ii, 303-7. 221Hill, diary. Numerous reports and letters in 174 and 176. Smith, Chile con Carne, 82-97. Thorpe, Our Amy at Monterey, 55, 59. Ampudia, Manifiesto. Id. to Fellow-citizens. Robertson, Reminiscences, 136-50. 61Graham to Polk, April ——, [1847]. 61Quitman to Hamer, Sept. 28. 69Capt. Vinton to Worth, Aug. 19. Taylor, gen. orders 115. 69Worth to Bliss, Sept. 23, 11 p.m. 69Trowbridge to Stewart, Feb. 8, 1848. French, Two Wars, 62, 64-6. 66Mansfield to Totten, Feb. 1, 1847. 69Backus to Brady, Sept. 22, 1848. 147Chamberlain, diary. 148Id., recolls. Balbontín, Invasión, 24, 27-35, 40-3. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 72. Apuntes, 53, 60-4. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 419 (Worth), 424 (Taylor). Roberts, diary. Hist. Mag., Jan., 1874, pp. 8-9. Picayune, Oct. 23; Nov. 4, 13. Meade, Letters, i, 134-5, 137-8, 163-5. 185Duncan to Worth, Sept. 28. 242Kingsbury to mother, Oct. 14. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 29, 30. Stevens, Camps., 23-9. 73Bermúdez de Castro, no. 371, res., 1846. Hist. Mag., x, 207-18, 255-7. Johnston, A. S. Johnston, 136-40. J. Davis: note 2. Pennsylvanian, Nov. 2 (Peyton). Wash. Union, Nov. 20, 1846; Mar. 2, 1847. Balt. Sun, Nov. 6. Monitor Repub., Nov. 15. Spirit of the Times, Nov. 7, 28, 1846; Jan. 9, 1847. 245Wood to Henderson, Sept. 24. 245Hays to Id., undated. Niles, Nov. 28, p. 201. 244Chandler to Lakin, Nov. 23. 175Russell to Davis, Sept. 26; Oct.18. 175Cooper to Davis, Sept. — . Wilcox, Mex. War, 119. Kenly, Md. Vol., 77, 107-27, etc. 139W. B. to D. Campbell, Sept. 28; Nov. 2, 9, 1846; Feb. 19, 1847. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 193-201, 203-4, 206-12, 221. 130Brichta, Letter. Nebel and Kendall, 7-10. 139Campbell to Quitman, Sept. 27; to wife, Oct. 1. 150Cheatham to son, Oct. 6; to sister, Oct. 16. 277P. F. Smith to Pemberton, Sept. 27. Reid, Scouting Expeds., 108, 152, 170, 173, 190. 76Ampudia, Sept. 22, 25. 76Id. to comte. gen. S. L. P., Sept. 28. 76Head of Ampudia's medical service, Sept. 24. The author of the verse was C. F. Hoffman.
Remarks. Taylor's lack of interest in studying the topography and fortifications is illustrated by the fact that Butler, second in command, does not seem to have been shown the map drawn by Meade from information obtained by Worth, though Taylor certainly saw it (Wilhelm, Eighth Infantry, ii, 283). Butler stated officially that when he attacked the city he knew nothing about the locality. Capt. Henry said Garland's ​charge was made in "utter ignorance" regarding it (Camp. Sketches, 194). It has been said that Taylor lacked entrenching tools; but he had tools for building roads, planting the mortar and howitzers, and erecting new defences at the Tenería redoubt. Stevens (Campaigns, 29) undertook to defend Taylor's operations on Sept. 21 by saying that the ardor of Garland's men brought them into action before Mansfield's reconnaissance had been completed; but (1) Garland was virtually instructed to follow Mansfield's directions and did so, and (2) Oct. 24 Taylor said he would have pursued the same course, had he known all that he learned later about the situation — i.e. Garland executed Taylor's ideas and wishes (61Graham to Polk, Apr. ——, [1847]). Waiting for a fuller reconnaissance, therefore, would have consumed time without giving any advantage. It follows, too, from this statement of Taylor's that he would not have excused Mansfield, had Mansfield instructed Garland not to charge. Taylor did not recommend a brevet for Garland. This was an implied censure. Capt. G. M. Graham of Garland's command therefore addressed a letter to Polk, giving a full account of Garland's proceedings. This letter was presented to Polk by Gen. George Gibson, who gave the writer "a high character." It may be added, that it was impossible for Mansfield to make a complete reconnaissance under the circumstances. He would not have lived to finish it.
The Fourth Infantry, having been detached to cover the battery, was not in Garland's charge. The mortar does not seem to have been effective on Sept. 21 (Giddings, Sketches, 202); had it been so, it would not have been put out of commission for a considerable time by being sent to Worth, who does not seem to have asked for it. It appears to have been used by Taylor only twenty minutes, which suggests that its inefficiency was speedily discovered. Had the cause been merely the lack of a platform (Ripley, War with Mexico, i, 206), it could have been removed. There was timber enough at Walnut Grove. The statements regarding the number of guns in Tenería redoubt cannot be wholly reconciled. This may arise from the fact that not all the pieces could be used. The statement in the text seems to be safe.
The author feels some scepticism about the doings of Backus. No unanimity prevailed then about him. He is rather too precise in his own statement. He says (Historical Magazine, x, 255) that the distance from the building he occupied to the tannery was found to be 1173/4 yards. One can hardly understand how so exact a measurement can have been made in such a locality. The distance from, his position to Tenería redoubt was considerably more than this. Henry estimated it at 130 yards (Campaign Sketches, 195). Muskets were not reliable at this distance. His claims were not accepted by all at the time. Still, many believed that he contributed materially to the capture of the redoubt. After the capture of this redoubt Col. Davis undertook to sterm El Diablo, but was recalled. There was a sharp clash between Taylor and Butler in the course of the operations, Sept. 21. Taylor should, of course, have kept out of the street fighting (Griepenkerl, Applied Tactics, 187). There was sufficient demand for head work at that time to absorb his full attention. It was stated that after the repulse of the Americans, Sept. 21, Mejía asked to have both infantry and cavalry charge them. Had this been done the results might have been very serious.
The American artillery when in the town was handled as cautiously as possible. For example, a gun would be loaded and leveled behind a ​corner, drawn out by ropes, fired, and drawn back by the ropes (French, Two Wars, 66). Yet even in a case of this kind four out of the five gunners were killed. Taylor does not mention the presence of the Fourth Infantry, Sept. 23, but U. S. Grant does (Mems., i, 115-6); and as he belonged to that corps, it seems hardly possible that he was mistaken. It had been so much reduced the day before, that perhaps Taylor did not think it worth mention. According to Taylor's report the reason for withdrawing his men from the city on the afternoon of Sept. 23 was to prepare for a general assault. But considerable time would have been necessary to do this in concert. with Worth, and it is hard to see why they were withdrawn under fire when they were doing good work in safety, and night was not far distant. Apparently the best way to arrange for such concerted operations would have been to leave these troops where they were, and open a line of communication through the northern part of the city (Ripley, op. cit., i, 264). The rumors that Mexican forces were approaching by the Saltillo road were correct, but Ampudia sent them an order to retire. They were not strong enough to accomplish anything.
When Worth attacked the city, Sept. 23, his right-hand column, headed by Texan riflemen, dismounted, under Col. Hays, took the Calle de Monterey; the left-hand column, headed by similar troops under Lieut. Col. Walker, took the Calle de Itúrbide. Besides the Texans and the field batteries, the Seventh and Eighth Infantry and the Artillery Battalion joined in the attack. The detachment that had been sent up the Saltillo road was recalled and acted as a reserve. The American shells thrown during the night of Sept. 23 seem to have injured nothing except Ampudia's courage. Purísima Bridge was about 2300 feet from the cathedral:
It is probably true that Taylor's operations at the eastern end of the town and the disregard of life exhibited by his troops tended to dismay Ampudia. But Taylor had no reason to suppose that operations so badly planned, so ineffective and so costly would have that effect; they were wasteful; and they demoralized his own men. The Mexicans fought in most cases with a courage and tenacity deserving of high praise (Henry, Camp. Sketches, 209). So far as one can see, nothing saved Taylor from a disaster that would have meant the ruin of his army but the poltroonery of one man, Ampudia; and as we have remarked, he had no reason to expect that. The head of Ampudia's medical service reported, Sept. 24, that only sixty privates had been seriously wounded.
ll. Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 78 (Taylor). 364Worth to S., Oct. 2. García, Revolución, 16. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 262-9. Ampudia, Manifiesto. Apuntes, 64. 13Pakenham, no. 122, 1846. Balbontín, Invasión, 50-2. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 348 (Ampudia), 348 (Taylor), 349 (terms). 76Ampudia, Sept. 29. Nat. Intelligencer, Oct. 26; Nov. 7. Wash. Union, Jan. 18 (Ampudia); Feb. 18, 1847. Niles, Nov. 28, p. 197. Epoca, Feb. 9, 1847 (Ampudia). Observador Zacatecano, Dec. 27, 1846, supplement (Requena). Diario, Oct. 2 (Ampudia). Republicano, May 28, 1847.
Worth's cannon were prevented by a fog from opening fire early Thursday morning. Worth's 364reasons, as explained privately to a friend, for giving liberal terms were: (1) Owing to the feelings of the Texans and resentment occasioned by the American losses in the battle, an assault, would have been attended with the slaughter of many women; (2) The numbers and the position of the Mexicans rendered them formidable; (3) "Neither myself nor many others had the slightest confidence in the ​intelligence that directed" the American operations; (4) Our government wanted peace. The Mexicans were allowed twenty-one rounds for their battery.
The principal excuses alleged by Ampudia for surrendering were the failure to injure the Americans on their march, the lack of the Fourth Brigade, a want of funds, provisions and artillery ammunition, the inefficiency and cowardice of a part of his army, the hostility of the superior officers, and their failure to support him. According to a Mexican letter from S. Luis Potosí dated October 3, 1846, the loss of the city was attributed wholly to his cowardice. A number of his chief officers appear to have been no more courageous than he, but the decision did not rest with them. Perhaps he thought it necessary to save the one veteran army of Mexico, but a successful or even heroic defence of Monterey would have probably been more beneficial to his cause. There were provisions enough and a large stock of ammunition; but we are not sure that his supply of artillery ammunition was adequate. The commission consisted of Worth, Henderson, J. Davis, Requena, Ortega, Llano. The Mexicans actually carried away three 12-pounders and three 8-pounders (Requena). The British minister at Washington reported: The armistice seems to be "in direct opposition to the rule laid down in Mr. Buchanan's letter to Commodore Conner of the 27th July" [Sen. 107; 29, 2, p. 3], by which it was determined that no armistice should be agreed to until a treaty of peace should have been actually concluded (13Pakenham, no. 122, Oct. 16, 1846). San Fernando de Presas was east of Linares near the Gulf. See note 12.
12. Polk, Diary, Oct. 11,12. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 79 (Taylor), 106 (Worth). (Instructions) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 323, 333, 355 (Marcy). Henshaw narrative. Nunelee, diary. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 62. 364Worth to S., Oct. 2. Meade, Letters, i, 138. Taylor, Letter to Gaines. Pennsylvanian, Nov. 2 (Peyton). 139W. B. to D. Campbell, Nov. 2. Robertson, Remins., 157. 13Pakenham, no. 127, 1846 (Taylor's ammunition would not have lasted many hours longer). Cong. Globe, 29, 2, p. 316 (Clayton).
Worth: Twiggs's division and the volunteers "were taken into action without order, direction, support, or command; in fact murdered" (364to S., Oct. 2). Col. Campbell: Taylor showed little generalship in the handling of my regiment; took too great a risk in coming to Monterey without more transportation (139to D. Campbell, Sept. 28; Nov. 9). Capt. Cheatham (Campbell's regiment): "I consider, that old Taylor committed one of the greatest blunders that ever a General was guilty of, in coming here to attack one of the strongest fortified towns in Mexico, with nothing in the world but small Artillery, for open field fighting" (50to son, Oct. 6). Id.: "We were rushed headlong into the fight and our Generals did not know where we were going" (150to sister, Oct. 16). Capt. Henry (Garland's brigade): 'I look upon the exposure of the field artillery in the streets as perfectly useless" (Spirit of the Times, Nov. 7). Capt. Backus (Garland's brigade): The Third and Fourth Infantry were "entirely inadequate to the duty required" of them; "this hazardous and useless enterprize' (Hist. Mag., x, 212). Baltimore Captain: Sept. 21 I was under first one general and then another till I and my men "became completely worn out" (Picayune, Nov.7). Engineer Stevens: The eastern attack was marked by rash and headlong movements; the mortar, instead of being sent to Worth, should have been placed in Tenería redoubt; ​Taylor should not have withdrawn his troops on Wednesday, etc. (Campaigns, 27). Officer: Garland's charge a fatal mistake (Balt. Sun, Nov. 6). Officer: The eastern attack very injudicious (Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 20). Lieut. Hamilton (West Pointer): The officers who fell at the cast end were "a sacrifice to the blind folly and ignorance of our general-in-chief" (Metrop. Mag., Dec., 1907, p. 321). C. M. Wilcox, who arrived at Monterey not long after the battle: "Harsh and unfavorable criticism" of the operations at the east end was "universal" there (Mex. War, 120). Robertson: The lack of a siege train was due to Taylor's misunderstanding the intentions of the enemy; the cannon could easily have been transported (Remins., 129, 160). Smith: Only Ampudia's personal unfitness saved Taylor from deserved ruin (Remins., 18). Monterey letter, Oct. 11: 6-pounders were sent to batter down fortifications that 24-pounders would not have affected. Gen. Requena, probably the best Mexican officer: Worth made the real attack; Taylor blundered (Observador Zacatecano, Dee. 27, supplem.). G. Ferry: Prudence forbade Taylor, in view of the too evident discouragement of his army, to press his advantage; by negotiating he changed almost certain defeat into victory (Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1, 1847,'410). An editorial in Niles' Register of July 18, 1846, is curiously interesting: "Owing to an error in estimating the capacities of the enemy" Taylor "made a narrow escape from almost utter annihilation" in May. "One lesson of this kind, we venture to predict, will be a sufficient admonition to" Taylor. "He will be cautious to keep his troops within reach of supplies, and to have at hand the means of transportation."' The editor proved to be mistaken in every point.
One of Taylor's excuses for the terms was consideration for the noncombatants (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9), and it may have counted for something; but he had just refused these non-combatants permission to leave the town (Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 78). Another (ibid.) was the propinquity of the citadel, and the impossibility of taking it without a siege of twenty or thirty days or else a large expenditure of life; but the citadel had not been able to injure the Americans materially while they were fighting in the town, and could not injure them at all in Walnut Grove; and, as Taylor admitted that he would hardly be able to advance for six weeks (Bixby coll., 62), there was no lack of time. In point of fact, as could easily have been surmised, the citadel had neither water nor provisions enough to stand a siege (Balbontín, Invasión, 46).
The gallant defence of the city was another excuse (Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 79; Bixby coll., 61); but while that is a just reason for doing honor to a garrison, it is none for relinquishing the substantial fruits of a dearly bought victory. It would have cost the lives of fifty or one hundred soldiers, besides the wounded, to take the city by storm, said Taylor (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9). But this would have been a low price for the elimination of an army that he said was rated at 7200 besides 2000 irregulars (Bixby coll., 61) — the only army possessed by Mexico — with its arms, accoutrements, artillery and horses. The moral effect of such a victory would probably, in the unanimous opinion of Polk and his Cabinet (Polk, Diary, Oct. 12), have ended the war; and the desperate fury displayed by Santa Anna when he supposed that such had been the outcome (52Black, Sept. 26; 76S. Anna, Sept. 29) tends to support this view. The Mexicans could have escaped, "done what we might," Taylor urged (cf. Ho. 60; 30, 1, 359). But if he could have captured the city so easily, entrenched as the garrison were in the strong buildings near the ​main plaza, he could certainly have scattered them and captured a large number, had they attempted to flee with artillery, ammunition and provisions through those narrow streets commanded by low, flat houses; and indeed no road available for artillery crossed the mountains except the one (held by Worth) through Rinconada Pass. Ampudia wrote to his government that even if he could have cut his way out, his forces would have been dispersed and his military material captured (Sept. 25). (Taylor seems to have taken no steps to prevent the Mexicans from escaping during the night of the twenty-fourth, though their protracting the negotiations until late in the day might have suggested a design to do this.)
But, suggested Taylor, magnanimous terms were favorable to peace (Bixby coll., 61). On the other hand the United States had used in vain with Mexico every method except hostilities; our national authorities had now instructed him to try vigorous warfare (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 324); and it was for them to say whether this deliberately adopted policy should — on a political ground — be abandoned. To meet this obvious view the General said that a change of régime had occurred at Mexico since the date of his orders. That was true; but it would be singular indeed if a political change in the enemy's country — of which nothing definite was heard except from an enemy notorious for subterfuges — could authorize a general in the field to violate his instructions. Taylor himself stated (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 360) that his "grand motive" in advancing from the Rio Grande was "to increase the inducements of the Mexican government to negotiate for peace" — i.e. by showing that otherwise it would suffer the rigors of war; how then could he believe that acting gently and indulgently would have the desired effect?
Finally, and upon this aspect of the matter Taylor laid great stress (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 360), Ampudia stated that his government was now favorable to peace. But Ampudia transmitted no official proposition, could present no evidence; and it is impossible to believe that a shrewd American like Taylor can have taken this argument seriously. Taylor seems to have had no respect for the Mexicans, and therefore had no confidence in them; and what he must have heard about Ampudia was calculated to make him distrust that man peculiarly. Besides, Scott's letters of June 12 and 15 had intimated (Hv. 60; 30, 1, pp. 326, 328) that he was not to grant even a short armistice unless met with a definite formal offer of the Mexicans to treat; and on July 27 Marcy instructed Taylor to pursue, under similar circumstances, the course recommended at that time to Conner (Sen. 107; 29, 2, p. 3) — i.e. not to grant an armistice even should the Mexican government consent to negotiate (256to Taylor, confid.). If a knowledge of Mackenzie's negotiations with Santa Anna was enough to justify Taylor for violating such instructions, he should not have attacked Monterey. Moreover, he did not consider the government of Mexico stable enough to treat with (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9). Taylor defended the armistice on the ground also that he needed time to bring up cannon, ammunition and provisions (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9); but had he captured or dispersed the Mexican army he would have had time, cannon, ammunition and provisions enough. Col. Davis and Taylor also argued that the explosion of the cathedral by an American shell would have caused great loss of life (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 359); but if Taylor knew the cathedral was liable to explode, this was a reason for pressing unconditional surrender upon Ampudia, since the Mexicans would have been the principal sufferers. ​All the arguments put forth in Taylor's despatches to the government were formally pronounced unsatisfactory by Polk and the Cabinet (Polk, Diary, Oct. 12), since the terms made it possible for a Mexican army, which Taylor said he could have beaten completely without severe loss, to reorganize and make another stand. The simple facts were that, in order to escape from the blame due to his inefficiency, Taylor advanced from Camargo with an inadequate expedition, and, when the result convicted him of bad judgment, endeavored to excuse himself without letting the truth be known.
A particularly imprudent point in the terms was that they did not require the Mexicans to retire well beyond Rinconada Pass. It was left possible for them to fortify the pass, which was supposed to be impregnable or almost so, and thus make an advance from Monterey to Saltillo costly, if not impracticable. Taylor's course in this matter was not due to an expectation that Wool's column (chap. xiii) would render Rinconada Pass untenable, for he wrote on Oct. 15 that it formed 'no element" in his calculations (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 351). There was another singular oversight. Taylor argued in favor of the armistice that it bound the hands of the Mexicans during the time needed by him for preparations to advance (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 359); but in fact, since either government could disallow the armistice and the Mexican authorities were within easy reach, its terms bound him for six weeks but bound them for only, say, a fortnight or, as he admitted (Bixby coll., 62), twenty days. Scott said privately — and one can easily believe him — that only Taylor's popularity saved him from removal at this time (169to Crittenden, Oct. 19).
When Monterey yielded, according to Taylor, his provisions were sufficient for "not more" than ten days; but Worth had written privately on Sept. 16 (four days after the advance from Cerralvo began) that the army had provisions then for only about ten days (364to S.). According to the Washington correspondent of the Boston Atlas (Feb. 8, 1847) Clayton stated in the Senate, February 3, 1847, that Taylor had provisions for but three days when Monterey fell. A letter, probably from Gen. P. F. Smith, said that the provisions would have lasted only through Sept. 26, and that during the engagement Taylor had to send to Cerralvo for supplies, of which a sufficient quantity could scarcely have arrived in time (Littell's Living Age, no. 141, p. 191). Col. Davis stated later that the hope of supplies, when Monterey yielded, rested on the return of the mule-teams already despatched north for this purpose (73Address). Col. Campbell wrote privately that on the morning of Sept. 21 Taylor's supply of ammunition was very limited and the supply of provisions still more so (139to D. C., Nov. 2).
The loss of men that Taylor admitted was 488 killed and wounded (later 487: Ho. 24; 31, 1), but it must have been considerably more. Lieut. Hill said in his diary that the losses would never be revealed; but the inaccuracy of the official statement is evident. A writer quoted in Niles, Nov. 7, 1846, p. 148, said it was "generally supposed" at. Washington that Taylor might have lost more than 1000. A South Carolina officer, who must have had many opportunities to talk with men who had been at Monterey, gave the loss as about 950 (Cowan, Cond. Hist., 7). Kendall, editor of the New Orleans Picayune, who was on the ground, wrote that about 300 (including wounded men finished by the Mexicans) were killed or mortally wounded. Haile, 2 trustworthy correspondent of the same paper, expressed the same opinion. A letter in Niles, Oct. 17, 1846, p. 104 gives nearly the same ​figures. A Tennessee captain reported the number of killed as 200. To look at the matter more in detail, Meade (Letters, i, 165) wrote that Garland lost some 265 killed and wounded. Butler admitted his own division lost about 250. A. S. Johnston (Johnston, Johnston, 138) wrote that its loss was "perhaps many more" than that. Bliss admitted that it lost 225, killed, wounded and missing, on Sept. 21 alone (McCall, Letters, 461). Worth's loss seems to have been about 70. The Texas division lost not less than 27 (Ho. 24; 31,1). Here we get at least 612. But Garland did not have the Fourth Infantry (303 officers and men), which Bliss stated was "almost destroyed" (McCall, Letters, 461). This must mean a loss (killed and wounded) of at least one half; yet the official return was 36 (Ho. 24; 31, 1).
Taylor began the fighting with nearly 250 sick, and after three such days of excitement, fatigue and hardship, this number was probably quite 400. The guard at the camp — one company from each infantry regiment — probably amounted to at least 300, and, as some Mexican cavalry were looking for a chance to strike there, could not safely be reduced. A considerable number of men were needed to hold the captured forts, escort supplies of provisions and ammunition and perform other special services. If we call Taylor's loss 800, deduct 350 for the sick and allow 400 for guards and others detached on duty, we have about 4650 tired and considerably demoralized men (many of them horse and many without bayonets) as perhaps available for an assault.
The simple fact that Taylor himself believed he could not, in less than about six weeks (Bixby coll., 62), be in a condition to resume his advance, indicated what his situation now was. Finally, it should be mentioned, he entertained still the false idea of strategy shown at Matamoros. He only cared to get Monterey, he said, for he could beat the Mexicans at any time (Coleman, Crittenden, 309). The fact that it would cost the lives of soldiers to beat the Mexicans did not appear to signify.
13. 147Chamberlain, diary. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 82 (Taylor), 106 (Worth). 169Scott to Crittenden, Oct. 19. Delia, Feb. 14, 1847. 169Peyton to Crittenden, Oct. 2. Grant, Mems., i, 117-8. Welles papers. Griffis, Perry, 218. Smith, Chile con Carne, 97. Lane, Adventures, 42. Spirit of the Times, Nov.7. (Hardly) Ripley, War, 268-9. 76Ampudia, Sept. 28.
As Welles remarked, the people took delight in thinking and talking about the details of the fight. The capture of Monterey had no strategic bearing on the aim of the war (Scott, Mems., ii, 412). The demonstration of our fighting ability (which, however, had already been proved) had a moral value; but one may well question whether this was not fully offset by the blundering of Taylor and other officers, our losses and the terms granted to Ampudia. Many of superior intelligence in the United States criticised Taylor sharply.