# The War with Mexico/Volume 1/Notes On Chapter 16

XVI. THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION
1. In 1845 there entered at Monterey, the only port of entry, twenty-seven American vessels (9435 tons), eighteen Mexican (2620), four British (966), three French (756) and three German (525).
2. Mexico tried to keep the emigrants out with proclamations and orders to the California authorities, but the Americans appealed successfully to the treaty of amity and commerce and (it may be presumed) to the self-interest of local authorities. ​3. The Mexican government was urged to buy New Helvetia, and negotiations began; but it was said that the Americans in the valley declared they would not permit Sutter to sell, and it seemed doubtful whether Mexico could hold the place even if she purchased it.
4. California and its population. 13Pakenham, nos. 66, 78, 1840; 1, 1842. 13Capt. Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841. Revue de Paris, Jan., 1849. 13Forbes, no. 2, 1846. Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 26, 1842; Nov. 5, 1844. Madisonian, Dec. 24, 1842. 77To gov. Calif., June 1, 1842. 77Almonte, no. 84, 1844. 13Barron, May 5, 1837; Jan. 20, 1844. Id. to Seymour, Jan. 28, 1845. 12Blake to Seymour, July 5, 1846. 52Vessels entering at Monterey, 1845. Forbes, Calif., 155, 225, 276. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77, May, 1844, 99-102. Dana, Two Years, 83-8, 90-3, 200. Colton, Three Years, 19-22, 37-8, 45, 68, 111, 118, 155, 158, 172-3, 231. Whittier, "The Crisis." 61R. B. Mason, Sept. 18, 1847. Sherman Letters, 43. Duflot de Mofras, Explor., i, 319, 402; ii, 24. Wise, Gringos, 42, 49. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 7-8. 61Kearny, Mar. 15; Apr. 28, 1847. 77Covarrubias, Apr. 5, 1846. 247March to Larkin. 247Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. Bidwell, Calif., 157, 161. Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, p. 1039. Sherman, Sloat, xv, xxxix. St. Amant, Voyages, 513. Richman, Calif., 265, 267, 276. 13Forbes to Barron, Jan. 27, 1845. 13Elliott, July 3, 1845. Royce, Bidwell. Boston Post, Nov. 27, 1845. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 946. 247Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. 372Hyde, statement, 6. Farnham, Life, 358-60. Diario, Mar. 21, 1846. Soulé, Annals, 168, 201. Sherman, Home Letters, 114. Niles, June 6, 1846, p. 211. Schafer, Pac. Slope, 231. Simpson, Narrative, i, 287, 297. Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 97. Revere, Tour, 70. Sen. Rep. 75; 30, 1, p. 50. Sherman, Mems., i, 20. Bryant, What I Saw, 447. Royce, Calif., 31-2, 38-9, 41. 123Bidwell, statement. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846 (52Cons. letters, Monterey, i, 1). Letter from 8. Fe, July 29, 1841; Mex. in 1842, p. 128. London Times, June 18, 1841. Phila. No. American, Oct. 31, 1843. 52Larkin, nos. 7, June 20; 9, Aug. 18, 1844; 12, Mar. 22; 22, June 6; 26, Sept. 29, 1845.
5. Startled by this affair, the Mexican government now proposed to send 1200 men to California with the idea of establishing them as military colonists; and in May, 1845, Ignacio Iniestra, a Mexican educated at Paris and regarded as a competent officer, was appointed to the chief command. No such number of troops was, however, provided; Iniestra refused to set out until sure his men would be paid and fed; and the requisite money was not supplied. In August U. S. Consul Parrott and the Amigo del Pueblo of Mexico stated that a commissioner had come from California to inform the government that the troops would not be admitted. About this time the lack of funds caused a mutiny; but that was suppressed, and the dwindling forces lingered on until, at the end of the year, a large part of them were swept by Paredes into the vortex of his revolution. For nearly two months they were cantoned near Mexico; but finally another sham effort was put forth. Though Iniestra died, the men proceeded under various embarrassments — receiving accessions en route from the prisons of Guadalajara — to the port of Mazatlán, and the arms, munitions and provisions made their way under equal difficulties to Acapulco, where seven small vessels were gathered to receive them. But the restless Juan Alvarez, called "The Tiger of the South," seized the effects of the expedition, giving his brigandage a color of respectability ​by pronouncing, as we have seen, against Paredes, and three weeks later the troops at Mazatlán, commanded now by Col. Rafael Téllez, took a similar step — being determined on the one hand not to go to California, and quite willing on the other to live riotously on the funds of the expedition and the ample revenues of the customhouse. They pronounced for Santa Anna; and soon after the revolution of the citadel took place, August 4, 1846, the government, promising to make up his command to 1000, ordered Téllez to sail, but the necessary reinforcements were not provided. Téllez advised giving up the expedition, and on Sept. 7 the government expressed its concurrence in this recommendation. Thus ended even the pretence of taking the California situation in hand. Téllez stated that according to documents in his possession Paredes never intended to have the expedition sail; and it is certain that secret instructions were given to Iniestra, which the government was extremely anxious to keep from the knowledge of the public. In all probability the real purpose of proposing the expedition was merely to make people feel that something was to be done. (13Bankhead, nos. 13, 1845; 74, 1846. Diario, May 4, 1846. London Times, Jan. 8, 1846. 47Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. Comunicación Circular que. . . Peña. Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 14, 1845. Of the author's very numerous 76documents relating to the expedition the following are enough to cite. Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. Tornel to gov. Calif., May 13, 1846. N. Flores, Mar. 8, 1846. Yáñez, Mar. 10, 23, 1846. Alvarez, Mar. 17; Apr. 7, 1846. M. Gutiérrez, May 19; June 16, 1846. To J. I. Gutiérrez, May 13, 1846. Téllez to prest. of consejo de gob., July 25, 1846; reply, Aug. 18. J. I. Gutiérrez, May 9, 1846. To Iniestra, Mar. 31; May 9, 1845. Iniestra, July 31; Aug. 24, 29; Sept. 23; Dec. 2, 24, 1845; Jan. 5, 18, 24; Feb. 28, 1846. Castañares, Oct. 27, 1845. To Monterde, Apr. 10, 1846. T. Moreno, Mar. 3, 1846. Baneneli to Téllez, May 7, 1846. Moreno to Gutiérrez, Apr. 16, 24, 1846. Téllez, Feb. 9, 27; Mar. 2; Apr. 11; Aug. 24, 26; Sept. 2, 1846. To Téllez, Sept. 7, 1846. See also chap. xxx, note 27.)
6. Mexico fully warned. London Times, June 18, 1841; Aug. 6; Oct. 6, 1845. 77Almonte, no. 84, P., July 16; 153, P., Dec. 12, 1844. 13Pakenham, no. 2, Jan. 6, 1842. 13Bankhead, nos. 31, Mar. 31, 1845; 42, 1846. 77Arrangóiz, Sept. 17, 1842; nos. 64, res., June 28, 1844; 41, res., Feb. 28; 70, res., May 7; 101, res., July 8, 1845. London Chronicle, Aug. 13, 1845. Castañares, Documentos. 75Sánchez, Apr. 2, 1846. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 32. 76Mora y Villamil, Nov. 15, 1845. 76Bustamante, Nov. 13, 1845. 76Mil. comte., Acapulco, July 22, 1845. 76J. Castro to Castañares, Oct. 6, 1845. 76Id., May 30, 1845. 76Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. In November, 1845, the Mexican minister of relations told Bankhead that Castro could not be punished for revolting (13Bankhead, no. 113). i
7. If anyone doubts this, let him look at the present populous, rich, happy state of California, think how much it contributes to the world, and consider what it would now be, had it remained a part of Mexico, and suffered from the anarchy, devastations and massacres of recent years.
8. France had at one time cast longing glances at California. In the early forties Duflot de Mofras made a visit there, and according to the British vice consul in California a formal offer of protection was made by him, Admiral Du Petit Thouars and Capt. Laplace in the name of their government (13Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844); but the time for such a move was not then ripe, and France, aside from maintaining a consular ​representative on the ground, became inactive. England was even less responsive. While many British subjects, particularly the correspondence of the London Times at Mexico (e.g. Times, Sept. 9, 1845), felt that England should take California, the British government, though doubtless extremely anxious that the territory should not fall into the possession of the United States, refused to move or countenance any move in that direction. December 31, 1844, the Foreign Office wrote to Consul Barror at Tepic, Mexico, who had charge of Vice Consul Forbes at San Francisco that in the California agitation the British agents were to be entirely passive, and that the idea of a British protectorate could not be countenanced, adding that the authorities of California "should be clearly made to understand that Great Britain would view with much dissatisfaction the establishment of a protectoral power over California by any other foreign State." Other documents bearing on the subject are the following. 13Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844. Kennedy in London Times, June 18, 1841. 13Pakenham, nos. 91, Aug. 30, 1841; 61, July 21 1842. 13To Id., Dec. 15, 1841. Bankhead, nos. 74, July 30, 1845 73, May 30, 1846. 13To Bankhead (exactly in line with the despatch addressed to Barron on the same day), nos. 53, Dec. 31, 1844; 18, May 31 1845; 16, June 1; 4, Aug. 15, 1846. 108Ashburton to Sturgis, Apr. 2 1845 ("we certainly do not want colonies, and least of all such as would be unmanageable from this distance, and only serve to embroil us with our neighbours"). 13Mora to Palmerston, Dec. 15, 1847. London Times, Oct. 6, 1845. 12For. Off. to Admty., June 19, 1846. Webster Writings, xviii, 192. 12Seymour to Admty., Apr. 27, 1846. Monitor Repub., Apr. 16, 1846. 52Everett, Mar. 28, 1845. Gordon, Aberdeen 183. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 155, 230, 417. Mackintosh, Brit. consu at Mex., proposed to place 500,000 European colonists in California it twenty years (13to Bankhead, July 26, 1845) with a view to turning ove to England the control of the province (13Bankhead, no. 73, May 30, 1846) Paredes promised to give "every possible facility" for the execution of this plan (13Bankhead, no. 73), but the British government would no take it up.
9. Mexican rule to the end of 1845. 13Forbes, nos. 1, Oct. 19, 1843 2, Jan. 26, 1846. Boston Advertiser, Sept. 26, 1842. Nat. Intelligencer May 11, 1844. London Times, Aug. 6; Oct. 6; Nov. 11, 1845; Mar. 13 1846. Revue de Paris, Jan., 1849. 77Almonte, nos. 84, P., July 16 153, P., Dec. 12, 1844. 13Barron, May 5, 1837; Feb. 18, 1845. 13Id., to Seymour, Jan. 28, 1845. 13Pakenham, nos. 13, 1837; 66, 1840; 91 1841; 2, 1842. 13Doyle, no. 79, 1843. 13Bankhead, nos. 108, 1844 31, 52, 113, 1845; 73, 1846. Paredes, address on opening Cong., June 6 1846 (Diario). Mobile Commercial Register, June 13, 1843. Diario, Mar. 27; June 3; Aug. 21, 1845. Wash. Globe, May 29; Oct. 21, 1845 Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 14, 1845. St. Louis New Era, Aug. 20, 1845 Memphis Eagle, Oct. 1; Nov. 5, 1845. 52Black, Sept. 2, 1845. Britannia May 15, 1847. 52Virmond to Jones, Feb. 4, 1837. 52Larkin, nos. 9 Aug. 18; 11, Oct. 30; 12, Dec. 9, 1844; 16, Jan. 1; 1, Mar. 22; 2, Mar. 22 20, Mar. 24; 25, July 10; 26, Sept. 29, 1845. 247Stearns to Larkin May 14, 1846. 52Parrott, Aug. 26, 1845. 12Blake to Seymour, July 9 1846. 12Seymour, June 13. Otero, Cuestión Social, 117. Giménez Memorias, 90. México á través, iv, 404. 52Burroughs to Ellis, Jan. 10 1837. 77Castillo, no. 119, 1835. (Simpson) Amer. Hist. Rev., xiv, pp. 88-9. Memoria de . Relaciones, Mar., 1845. Royce, Calif., 203 ​Memoria de . . . Guerra, Jan., 1844; Mar., 1845. Mateos, Hist. Parl. vy, 98. Bandini, Calif., 138. 13Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841. Löwenstern, Le Mexique, 84. 13Diaz to Barron, Sept. 29, 1845. London Chronicle, Aug. 13, 1845. 47Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. St. Louis Reveille (weekly), May 18, 1846. 77Arrangóiz, Jan. 9; Sept. 17, 1842; nos. 64, res., 1844; 70, res., 76, res., 101, res., 1845. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183. Forbes, Calif., 146-52. Bulletin de la Soe. de Géog., no. 77, p. 186. Castañares, Documentos. Colton, Three Years, 20, 22, 32, Argonaut, Feb. 2, 1878 (Sutter's diary). Sherman Letters, 43-4. 13Forbes to Barron, Aug. 9; Sept. 5, 1844; Jan. 27; Mar. 10, 1845. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 7-8, 42. 75P. Pico, July 1, 1845; Feb. 13, 1846. 75Covarrubias, Apr. 5, 1846. 75Sánchez, Apr. 2, 1846. 75Calif. Commission, Aug. 10, 1846. Reforma, Feb. 10, 1846. 122Bidwell, Calif., 119, 123. 3Alvarado, Calif., v, 129. Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, p. 1037. Richman, Calif. . 273-9. 334Torres, Peripecias, 49. Blackmar, Span. Instits., 10-12. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 205. N. Y. Journ. Commerce, Dec. 30, 1846. 11Cyprey to Guizot, no. 58, 1841. Wilkes, Narrative, v, 171. 13Aberdeen to Bankhead, no. 53, 1844. Sen. 7; 30,1. 52Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846 (Cons. letters, Monterey, i, 1). Dana, Two Years, 90-1, 200. (Prussia) 52Everett, no. 284, confid., Mar. 28, 1845. And from 76 the following. To gov. Calif., Apr. 1, 1845; May 9, 1846. Téllez, Mar. 23, 1846. Alvarez, Mar. 17, 1846. Guerra, circular, Apr. 1, 1845. Comte. gen. Iguala, Mar. 13, 1846. Mora y Villamil, Nov. 15, 1845. Bustamante, Nov. 13, 1845. J. Castro, memo., undated. Jd., Oct. 6, 1845. Castañares, Jan. 27, 1846. Estado, Monterey, June 15, 1845. Castro and Alvarado, May 30, 1845. Sutter to Mex. commr., Nov. 19, 1845. Castañeda to P. Pico, Feb. 10, 1846. Carrera, Apr. 8, 1846.
10. Interest of the American people in California. 13Pakenham, no. 63, 1841. N. Orl. Commercial Bulletin, Feb. 19, 1840; May 21; Oct. 12, 1841. London Times, June 18, 1841; Aug. 1, 1845. N. Y. Journ. Commerce, Oct. 9, 1841; Feb. 23, 1842. St. Louis Reveille, Sept. 17, 1845. Wash. Globe, Feb. 27; Aug. 23; Oct. 21; Nov. 4, 1845. Nashville Union, Mar. 13, 1845. Memphis Eagle, May 2; Nov. 5, 1845. N. Orl. Picayune, Apr. 21, 1842; Apr. 5, 1844; Nov. 25, 1845; Mar. 31, 1846. 13Bankhead, no. 118, 1845. Savannah Republican, Apr. 25, 1845. N. Orl. Courier, Feb. 17, 1840; Apr. 26; July 10, 1845. American Review, Jan., 1846, 82-99. Diario, Nov. 3, 1845. Charleston Courier, July 11, 1845. Journal des Débats, June 1, 1846. Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 12, 1845. Balt. Clipper, Mar. 2, 1840. N.Y. Herald, Feb. 22, 1845. (Regulations) 52Larkin, no. 8, June 24, 1844. Charleston Mercury, Feb. 24, 1845. N. Orl. Bee, Apr. 19, 1842. Phila. North American, Nov. 1, 1845. N. Y. Tribune, Apr. 5, 1845. Forbes, Calif., 147-8. Dana, Two Years, 200. Southwestern Hist. Qtrly., xviii, nos. 1-3 (R. G. Cleland). (Whalers) Hunt's Merchants' Mag., Jan., 1845. Cong. Globe, 29, 1, p. 197 (Allen); app., Hunter, Jan. 10, 1846. Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 98. 77Almonte, no. 84, P., July 16, 1844. 77Arrangóiz, 71, res., May 12, 1845.
11. Views and policy of U.S. government. Ho. 42; 25, 1, p. 18 (Forsyth, Aug. 6, 1835). 52Ellis, Sept. 24, 1836. 108Hooper to Bancroft, June 25, 1846. 52Slidell, no. 3, Dec. 17, 1845. 13Pakenham, nos. 43, 1833; 63, 91,1841. 13Forbes, no. 2, Jan. 26, 1846. London Times, June 18, 1841; Aug. 6; Sept.9; Oct.6; Nov. 19,1845; Apr. 11, 1846. 77Mex. commrs., Feb. 16, 1842. 52Larkin to Stearns et al., Apr. 17, 1846. Journal des ​Débats, July 10, 1843; Jan. 12; June 1, 1846. México á través, iv, 399. Wash. Globe, Feb. 27, 1845. 52Everett, no. 284, confid., Mar. 28, 1845. 52Shannon, Jan. 9, 1845. Gilmer in U. 5. Ho. Repres., Jan. 28, 1843. N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Nov. 17,1845. 77Almonte, no. 4, res., Jan. 10, 1843; 84, P., July 16, 1844. 52Thompson, nos. 1, Apr. 29; 4 July 30, 1842. 56W. S. Parrott, May 13; Sept. 2, 1845. Constitutionnel, Oct. 13, 1844; Mar. 29, 1845; July 9, 1846. National, Sept. 4, 1845. 52Wickliffe to Buchanan, private, [June] 3, 1845. N.Y. Journ. Commerce, Feb. 23, 1842. Harvey, Webster, 203-4. 52Buchanan to Slidell, no. 1, Nov. 10, 1845. Adams, Mems., xi, 346, 355. Curtis, Webster, ii, 250. Forbes to Barron, Mar. 10, 1845. Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 19. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. Charleston Mercury, July 12, 1845. Charleston Courier, Nov. 12, 1845. Forbes, Calif., 149. Mofras, Exploration, i, 517. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 109. Polk, Diary, Oct. 24, 1845. St. Louis Reveille, Apr. 29, 1846. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, i, 45. 247Hastings to Larkin, Mar. 3, 1846. 247Allerton to Larkin, Mar. 4, 1846. 247Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. 1Allen in U. S. Sen., Aug. 6, 1846. Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, pp. 1037, 1043. Vallejo, Documentos. Van Tyne, Letters of Webster, 269. Texas Review, Jan., 1917, p. 217 (Barker). Schafer, Pac. Slope, 229. Reeves, Amer. Diplomacy, 280-1. 52Flower to Van Buren, Feb. 8, 1840. 52Kelley to Webster, Jan. 2, 1842. Kelsey, Consulate, 7, 35, etc. 52Larkin, nos. 8, June 24; 9, Aug. 18, 1844; Mar. 22; 25, July 10; 26, Sept. 29; 29, Dec. 31, 1845; 37, Mar. 9; 42, Apr. 17; 44, June 1, 1846. Webster, Writings, xviii, 203-4. N. Orl. Picayune, Nov. 25, 1845. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 978. 351Thompson to Webster, Jan. 30, 1843. Monitor Repub., Apr. 16, 1846. Royce, Calif., 38-9. 122Bidwell, Calif., 138. Richardson, Messages, iv, 398, 539-40. Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 12, 1845. 77Arrangóiz, no. 41, res., Feb. 28, 1845. 13Crampton to Palmerston, no. 63, 1848. London Chronicle, Aug. 13, 1845. Democratic Review, July, 1845, p.9. 48Bancroft to Sloat, Mar. 21, secret and confid., Oct. 17, 1845. Southwestern Hist. Qtrly., xviii, nos. 1-3 (R. G. Cleland). Meade, Letters, i, 65.
12. For the facts merely alluded to here see pp. 127-8, 130-4. (Virtually forbid) chap. iv, note 24. Polk's announcement that he should endeavor to obtain California (Schouler, United States, iv, 498) is sufficiently explained by his attempts to purchase it. When he determined to lay our grievances before Congress, it.is not certain that he expected war to result. He seems to have felt that a determined stand on our part might bring Mexico to terms. And his promptly taking advantage of the rights conferred by the state of war to occupy the territory and bar out foreign interference counts for nothing as proof that he brought on the war for the alleged purpose. See e.g. Von Holst, U. S., iii, 266.
13. Bancroft's history of California, which at times is rather free in its conclusions, denies that such a meeting was held (Pacific States, xvii, 61-2). His principal reasons are lack of corroborative evidence, the silence of Larkin, and the inconsistencies in the accounts of it. But (1) we have corroborative evidence from several persons; (2) Larkin may not have wished to mention a confidential talk held under his own roof — especially as it accomplished nothing; and (3) inconsistencies are found in the accounts of many events. On the other hand some accounts of the meeting have no doubt been exaggerated and embellished.
14. Bancroft (Pacific States, xvii, 200) says there is no evidence that Gillespie had official relations with Sloat; but Sloat's 47report, February ​25, 1846, said that in accordance with "the verbal orders he delivered me," Gillespie was immediately sent forward.
15. Although no formal meeting took place at Santa Barbara, Capt. Blake, of the British warship Juno, who went there, was appealed to for protection on the ground that Mexico and England were allied nations (12Seymour to Admiralty, Aug. 27, 1846). Some proposed, should England refuse it, to address France. About this time an Irish priest named McNamara arrived in a British vessel with a grand scheme of colonization, and obtained an immense grant of land. The scheme was much talked about, but signified nothing. The grant was illegally made. Mexico, though she treated McNamara pleasantly did not endorse the plan, and in all probability would not have confirmed such a grant, had California remained under her jurisdiction, for she was extremely suspicious of England, and could see that 10,000 British colonists would be a dangerous element. Indeed, McNamara was suspected at Mexico of acting in the interest of England. A few of the documents bearing on this subject are: Ramírez, Méx., 246; Ho. 17; 31, 1 (Halleck, Cuevas, Castillo y Lanzas); Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 215-23; Sen. Report 75; 30, 1 (testimony of Frémont and others; the McNamara papers); Royce, California, 166; 52Larkin, no. 56, Aug. 22, 1846; 335McNamara, proposition, May 17, 1845.
16. Politics in California, Jan. — June, 1846. 13Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841. 108Hooper to Bancroft, June 25, 1846. 13Forbes, no. 2, Jan. 26, 1846. Boston Advertiser, May 27, 1843. 13Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844; Jan. 27; Mar. 10, 1845. 13To Barron, Dec. 31, 1844. Diario, Aug. 21, 1845. 62J. Castro to P. Pico, June 8, 1846. 12Blake to Seymour, July 5, 1846. 52Larkin to Stearns et al., Apr. 17, 1846. 13To Bankhead, no. 53, 1844. 47Sloat to Bancroft, Feb. 25, 1846. 47Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. 12Seymour to admty., Aug. 27, 1846. Colton, Three Years, 429. 247Stearns to Larkin, May 14, 1846. 13Forbes to Calif. govt., Jan. 28, 1846. 13Seymour to Bankhead, June 13, 1846. 13Pico to Forbes, June 29, 1846. 13Barron, Aug. 12, 1846. 62Military junta, Monterey, Apr. 11, 1846. 52Larkin to Gillespie, Apr. 23, 1846. 52Larkin, circular (in Spanish). Sherman Letters, 43. 13J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9, 1846. Sen. 18; 31, 1, p. 574 (Stevenson). 75P. Pico to Relaciones, Feb. 13, 1846. 75Covarrubias to Relaciones, Apr. 5, 1846. 15Sánchez to Relac., Apr. 2, 1846. Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 41-75, 215-22. 247Allerton to Larkin, Mar. 4, 1846. 247Larkin to Bennett, May 26, 1846; to Stearns, May 24, 1846. 247Stearns to Larkin, June 12, 1846. Revere, Tour, 24. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. 122Bidwell, Calif., 138, 147, 151. Alvarado, Calif., v, 129-43, 222, 241. 126Botello, Anales, 133, 136. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 284. Amer. Hist. Rev., xiv, 88-9. Richman, Calif., 316, 474. Ramírez, México, 246. Lancey, Cruise. 343Vallejo, Documentos. 334Torres, Peripecias, 48-9. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 208. Ho. 17; 31, 1, p. 121. Hall, S. José, 143. Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 377. McGroarty, Calif., 190-1. Sen. Report, 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 16 (Frémont), 19, 31, 33 (Gillespie), 37 (Hensley), 44 (Minor), 46 (Childs). Sherman, Sloat, 56, xv. 263Mervine to Sloat, July 1, 1846. Swasey, Early Days, 57, 81. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 604-7 (Benton). Willey, Transition Period, 19. Kelsey, Consulate, 45, 51. Royce, Calif., 36, 166. 123Bidwell, statement. 52Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846 (Consular letters, Monterey, i, 1). 52Id., nos. 4, Apr. 16; 9, Aug. 18, 1844; 20, Mar. 24; 26, Sept. 29, 1845; 39, Apr. 2; 42, Apr. 17; 44, June 1; 48, ​June 18; 54, July 20; 56, Aug. 22, 1846; 63, Jan. 14, 1847. 13Crampton to Palmerston, nos. 35, 63, 1848. 76P. Pico to Relac., June 29, 1846. 76Id., proclams., May [13]; June 23, 1846. 76Vallejo, Nov. 24, 1845. 76Pico, May 25, 1846. 76J. Castro, Mar. 5; Apr. 1,2; May 30, 1846. 76Castro and Alvarado, May 30, 1845.
XVII. THE CONQUEST OF CALIFORNIA
1. Frémont's clash with Castro. 13Forbes to Barron, Jan. 26. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 50-1. Benton, View, ii, 580, 688. 67Abert to Frémont, Feb. 12, 1845. 13Pakenham, no. 130, 1846. 13Forbes to Calif. govt., Feb. 28. 62Adj. gen. to Benton, Nov. 2, 1847. 75J. Castro to P. Pico, Jan. 30, 1846. 75Frémont to J. Castro, Jan. 29. 247Larkin's memoranda and correspondence with Frémont and others on the subject. 52Id., nos. 36, 38, Mar. 5, 27; 41, Apr. 17, 1846; 63, Jan. 14, 1847. 3Alvarado, Hist. de Calif., 239. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 279. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 4-23. Frémont, Mems., i, 454-70. Id., Geog. Memoir. Niles, Nov. 21, 1846, pp. 188-9. Diario, Apr. 24. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 372-4 (Frémont here states that he was given permission to explore south of the Colorado, and was on his way to do so when stopped by Castro. This permission does not appear in the documents of March, 1846. It may have been given very incidentally, and this may have been the cause of the trouble). Bandini, Calif., 139. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 16. Richman, Calif., 308. Tuthill, Calif. 163. Sherman, Sloat, xv. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 604-5. Kelsey, Consulate, 96. 76Castro, Mar. 6; Apr. 1. 76Larkin to alcalde, Mar. 10. Journ. Mil. Serv. Instit., xxxi. 711.
Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 172-3) decides roundly against Frémont, and cites for support a letter from the prefect to Larkin demanding the reason for Frémont's movements; but it was perfectly in accord with Mexican methods that such a letter should have been written purely to satisfy the authorities at Mexico.
2. Gillespie's mission. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 605. 247Gillespie to Larkin, May 24. 13J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9. Polk, Diary, Oct. 30, 1845. 247Leidesdorff to Larkin, Apr. 25, 1846. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. Atlantic Monthly, Oct., 1890, pp. 548, ete. Sen. 33; 30, 1, 873. Ho. Report 817; 30, 1. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 30. Frémont, Mems., i, 489. Century Mag., N. S., xix, 923. Calif. Hist. Soc. Papers, i, pt. 1 (1887), pp. 69-72. 52Larkin, no. 44, June 1. 52Id. to Stearns et al., Apr. 17. Benton, View, ii, 689. Cooke, Conquest, 203-4. Royce, Bidwell.
Gillespie took to Frémont a letter of introduction from Buchanan and letters from Frémont's father-in-law, Senator Benton. The former was entirely non-committal; and the latter, while very likely they contained veiled allusions to conversations in which the desire of the administration to acquire California had been mentioned, must have been like it in that respect, else Gillespie would not have dared to carry them through Mexico.
3. The evidence on this point, including Frémont's positive statements made not long after the event, is conclusive (Polk, Diary, March 21, 1848; Senate Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 13, 32; 132Benton, Feb. 18, 1848; Ho. Report 817; 30, 1, p. 4; 52Larkin to P. Pico, July 5, 1846 Speaking in the Senate, April 10, 1848 (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 604), Benton, though feeling extremely bitter toward Polk and no doubt fully informed by his son-in-law and client regarding all the facts, did not intimate that any ​instructions inconsistent with the instructions of Larkin were sent to Frémont. Indeed he stated the contrary. See also his Thirty Years View, ii, 689.
4. Frémont stated before a committee of the Senate that he had learned from Bancroft that Polk's plan, in case of war, contemplated the occupation of California; but Frémont wrote to Capt. Montgomery of the Portsmouth, June 16, 1846, that even in the case of war he was not expected to prosecute "active hostilities." In 1886 Bancroft stated that Gillespie was to inform Frémont of the President's intentions.
5. First, many of the settlers had ample reasons to feel alarmed: the illegality of their presence; Castro's sudden and cruel seizure of Americans in 1840; his attack upon Frémont in violation (the Americans believed) of a promise; official notices, issued about May 1, to the effect that the majority of the Americans were liable to be expelled at the convenience of the authorities; Castro's warlike preparations; his talk of moving against the immigrants with armed forces (52Larkin, no. 42, April 17); and reports, more or less authentic and reliable, from various persons regarding what he said or intended. Secondly, the contemporary testimony of Frémont, Gillespie and other Americans — some of it given under oath — that alarm was actually felt is too strong to be rejected (see note 6). Much has been made of Bidwell, a clerk of Sutter's, who tells us that alarm was not felt. But (1) his 123Statement was made thirty years after the events; (2) he admits that he was not on good terms with Frémont, and the Statement aims to show that Frémont invented the story of alarm as an excuse for his conduct; (3) his Statement is in other respects clearly inaccurate; (4) it assumes that he knew the sentiments of all the persons on the Sacramento, yet proves that an important fact may have been known to but few; (5) it shows that at the critical time he was absent in the mountains; (6) it says, "Californians were always talking of expelling Americans" [and therefore were talking of it in April, 1846]; (7) his book mentions that in 1845 an attack upon New Helvetia was so confidently expected that he rode day and night to warn Sutter; (8) he undertakes to disprove positive testimony with negative. The legitimate settlers had no direct occasion to feel alarmed; but, as Bidwell himself points out, they could not have held aloof, had an attempt been made to expel their fellow-countrymen. It would be a mistake to suppose that the Americans who joined Frémont in these operations were actuated solely by patriotism and the idea of self-defence.
6. The Bear movement. (Starred citations refer, among other facts, to the alarm felt by Americans.) *12Blake of Juno to Seymour, July 5. Benton, View, ii, 691. 12Seymour to admty., Aug. 27, 1846. 75M. Castro to Calif. govt., Jan. 29. Niles, Nov. 21, 1846, p. 191; Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110. Colton, Three Years, 175. Cooke, Conquest, 204-11. 13J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9, 14. 13P. Pico to J. A. Forbes, June 29. 52M. Castro to ——, [Apr. 30]. 52Larkin to M. Castro, June 14. *52Ide, proclams., June 15, 18. 52J. Castro, proclams., June 17. 52P. Pico, proclam., June 23. 52Id. to Larkin, June 29. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 51-2. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. 52J. Castro to Larkin, undated. 247Larkin to Stearns, Apr. 17. 62Larkin to Pico, July 5. 48Bancroft to Sloat, June 24; Oct. 17, 1845. 123Bidwell, statement. Royce, Bidwell. Willey, Thirty Years, 10. 256Marcy to Wetmore, Dec. 5, 12. McGroarty, Calif., 192. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 39-48, 101-86, 199. Apuntes, 353-4. 247Gillespie to Larkin, May 24; June 7. 247Larkin ​to Mott, Talbot & Co., June 18. Peters, Kit Carson, 269. 247Leidesdorff to Larkin, Mar. 19; June 19. 247Montgomery to Larkin, July 2. 247Vallejo to Larkin, Sept. 15; to J. Castro, July 23. 122Bidwell, Calif., *141-2, 161, etc. *3Alvarado, Calif., 184. *Phelps, Fore and Aft, 279, 284, 291. Oakland (Cal.} Tribune, June 30, 1914. *Richman, California, 308-14. 249Leese, Bear Flag Papers, 9. 105Baldridge, Days of 1846. Diario, Dec. 27, 1846. *Colton, Deck and Port, 389. 247Guerrero to Leidesdorff, Apr. 30. 314Sawyer papers. Polk, Diary, Sept. 1. Niles, Nov. 14, 1846, p. 174; Nov. 21, p. 191 (Frémont to Benton, July "25"); Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110 (Frémont's declaration of June 6). *Upham, Frémont, 228. Century Mag., N. S., xix, 1917 (Mrs. F.), 780 (Royce), 782. Schafer, Pacific Slope, 258. 263Mervine to Sloat, July 1. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 606 (Benton). 52Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846. *Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 374. Ho. Report, 817, 30, 1, p. 4. Bandini, Calif., 142. Revere, Tour, 64. *Sen. Report, 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 13, 25-9, 32-4, 38-40. *Sherman, Sloat, xv (Gillespie's note). *Swasey, Early Days, 49. Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 11. *Willey, Transition Period, 39, 42. Kelsey, Consulate, 15, 72. Royce, Calif., 132. Atlantic Monthly, Oct., 1890, pp. 548-57. 52Larkin, nos. *41, Apr. 17; *48, June 18; 53, July 18; 54, July 20, 1846; 63, Jan. 14, 1847. *Californian, i, nos. 3-5. 76Pico to Relac., June 29. 76Pico, procl., June 23. 76M. Castro to Pico, June 19. 76Alvarado, June 28. 76Narváez (undated). * Journ. Mil. Serv. Instit., xxxi, 715.
7. As Sloat was in personal intercourse with Gillespie about Feb. 20-22, he probably learned from him something more about the intentions of our government.
8. 48Oct. 17, 1845, Bancroft wrote to Sloat, "In the event of actual hostilities between the Mexican Government and our own," you will carry out "the instructions [of June 24] forwarded to you from the Dept. in view of such a contingency." Rives (U.S. and Mexico, ii, 168) draws: a sharp distinction between the "actual hostilities" of this order and the "declaration of war" of June 24. But (1) Bancroft said, Oct. 17, "actual hostilities" [not between forces in the field but] between the two governments; and (2) in his last quoted words above he indicated that the two orders contemplated precisely the same [not, as Rives holds, a different} contingency. As, therefore, the order of June 24 was the formal and fundamental one, Sloat had a technical ground for falling back upon it, whereas an officer of broad, clear views, decided character and unselfish loyalty would have acted more promptly, even at a slight personal risk. To do him justice, the reader should recall that many Senators refused to believe that the border hostilities were hostilities between the two governments (p. 182); and also that Sloat was old and not robust, and that he had the case of T. A. C. Jones before his eyes.
9. We find both July 1 and 2 given as the date of his arrival. The log book of his vessel says that she anchored at Monterey July 1, and that Larkin came aboard July 2. As he would have gone aboard as soon as possible, it seems probable that the vessel arrived July 1 at night.
10. Capt. Mervine wrote, July 6, to Capt. Montgomery that Larkin believed Castro, Pico and others would meet the following day to deliberate about declaring independence and hoisting the American flag.
11. Sloat stated later that he acted on his own responsibility in taking possession of California; and in fact the orders of May 13 did not reach their destination until about August 28 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 229).
12. It has been said (Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 250) that Sloat ​merely pretended to have based his action on Frémont's operations, so as to have a way of escape should he be blamed; but (1) we should not without evidence accuse him of lying, (2) he showed strong feeling when he learned that Frémont had acted without authority (e.g. Baldridge, Days of 1846; Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 178), and (3) as a rational man he could not fail to be influenced greatly. Bancroft says (ibid., 227) that Sloat learned from Larkin that Frémont's coöperation with the insurgents was not certain; but he admits (ibid., 228-9) that on July 5 a launch from the Portsmouth, then lying at San Francisco, brought proof that Frémont was so doing; and the next day Sloat and Larkin, according to the log book of the Savannah, were busy preparing the proclamation, etc. Royce (California, 158) places against Frémont's testimony (that Sloat said his action had resulted from Frémont's) the fact that Larkin did not so state; but silence is not equal_in strength to assertion, and Frémont is supported by Gillespie (Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, p. 32), by Wilson of the Savannah (ibid., 41), by Sloat's private secretary (Baldridge, Days of 1846), by Sloat's anxiety to obtain Frémont's coöperation, and by the resentment that he exhibited on finding that Frémont had acted without authority (Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 178). See also Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 17.
13. August 27, 1846, 12Seymour wrote to the Admiralty: "My principal object has been, for many months, to be at hand to prevent or retard it [the American occupation of California], if I should be directed to take any proceedings for these purposes." It was presumably to wait for orders that he placed himself at San Blas. What led him to sail for Monterey, however, as he did on June 14, was not Sloat's leaving Mazatlán, but news that the Santa Barbara convention was likely to declare for independence (13Seymour to Bankhead, June 13). Had that been done, he would have felt that he had a ground on which to oppose American occupation, though he thought that a large body of reliable colonists would be necessary to establish British ascendancy (12Id., Aug. 27). When he arrived at Monterey he was aware that the United States and Mexico were at war, and this was in his opinion an additional reason for inaction (12Id., Aug. 27); but he wrote to Pico that American occupation should be regarded as merely provisional (12to Pico, July 23). Sir Thomas Johnson, commanding a British sloop-of-war off Mazatlén, showed his sympathies by constantly giving the Mexicans information about our vessels (76Gutiérrez, Apr. 8, 1846, res.).
14. Sloat also guaranteed land titles. This was impracticable. In annexing California he exceeded his authority.
15. Sloat's operations, etc. 47Sloat, Nov. 19; Dee. 3, 1845; Feb. 25; Mar. 17; Apr. 8, 30; May 31; June 6, 1846. 47Id. to Howison, Apr. 1, 1846; to Montgomery, Apr. 1. 47Wood to Bancroft, June 4. Benton, View, ii, 692. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77. 12Seymour to admty., no. 47, Aug. 27, 1846; to Pico, July 28. Dana, Two Years, 78-9, 90. Sherman, Address. Wise, Gringos, 47. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 258-64. 247Sloat to Larkin, May 18. 247Larkin to Stearns, Aug. ——. N. Y. Herald, Mar. 4, 1880. Davis, Sixty Years, 196. Hist. Soc. of So. Calif., viii, 77 (Barrows). 47Conner, Oct. 9, 1846. 13Seymour to Bankhead, June 13. 13A. Forbes to Bankhead, Aug. 1. 13J. A. Forbes to A. Forbes, July 14. 52J. Parrott, June 4. 13Letter from Mazatlán, Aug. 4, 13Seymour to J. A. Forbes, July 22. 52Larkin to J. Castro, July 8; reply July 9. 52Id. to Alvarado, July 8; reply, July 9. 142Carson, recolls. ​52Sloat, gen. orders, July 14. 47Conner, Aug. 26. 48-9Bancroft to Sloat, June 24; Oct. 17, 1845; May 13, 15; June 8; July 12; Aug. 13 (two), 1846. 108J. Parrott to Buchanan, private, July 23, 1846. Duflot de Mofras, Explor., i, 400-6. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 378-9. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 204, etc. 247Larkin to Ten Eyck, Sept. 19. 247Frazer to Larkin, Aug. 27. 4Amador, mems., 169. 247Atherton to Larkin, Dec. 3. 3Alvarado, Hist., 214-9. Proceeds. U. S. Naval Institute, 1888, pp. 53940. Bennett, Steam Navy, 91. N. Orl. Picayune, Oct. 23, 1848. Sherman, Sloat, passim. 120Fauntleroy to Biddle, Mar. 12, 1847. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 291. Richman, Calif., 315. México á través, iv, 643-4. Diario, Aug. 16; Oct. 16, 1846. 106Lancey, cruise (log book of Savannah). 105Baldridge, Days of 1846. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 204. Wash. Union, Sept. 24; Oct. 3, 26. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1013-4, 1019-20. Dunbar, Romance, 38. Sherman, Home Letters, 85. Niles, Oct. 10, 1846, p. 87. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 18, 32, 40, 44, 70-4. Century Mag., N. S., xviii, 794. N. Y. Nation, xlviii, 141. Hittell, Calif., ii, 466. 295Pinto, Apuntaciones, 104. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 374, 377. Ho. Rep. 817; 30, 1, pp. 45. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 649-67. Revere, Tour, 55,77. Frémont, Mems., 534,539. 172Cyane log book. 263Mervine, letter book. Swasey, Early Days, 60. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 606-7. Royce, Calif., 157-61. 52Larkin, nos. 1 (descript. of Calif.); 52, July 10; 53, July 18; 54 and 55, July 20. 76Gutiérrez, no. 42, res, Apr. 8. 76To Castro, May 9; July 25. 76To comte. gen. Sonora, July 25. 76To min. of eccles. affrs., July 25. 76Monterey estado, Apr. 1. 76S. Anna, Oct. 30.
16. Stockton sailed from Norfolk on the Congress in October, 1845. Some mystery has been attached to his sealed orders (Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 251); but they were merely to sail via the Sandwich Islands for Monterey, deliver the original of the despatch of October 17 to Larkin, and then join Sloat's squadron. For his character see e.g. Royce, California, 179; 330Taylor to brother, January 19, 1848; 108Appleton to Bancroft, 'April 27, 1847; Porter, Kearny, 6, 7; Sherman, Home Letters, 108; Quincy, Figures, 230-40.
17. One aim of the proclamation was doubtless to provide a way of escape for the United States and its agents in case there should be no war, but even from this point of view it was ridiculous. Sloat repudiated the reasons for his action that were ascribed to him by Stockton.
18. Castro and the Californians generally did not believe that war had been declared, and of course Larkin's letter to Stearns tended to confirm their opinion. Had it proved correct, Stockton would soon have been making apologies like T. A. C. Jones. This may help to explain Castro's firm attitude. The Life of Stockton attempts to explain his haughty and menacing language as due to Castro's military preponderance and the necessity of intimidating him. Stockton himself said later that, as Castro had no authority from the central government to make terms, it would have been useless to treat with him; but Castro could have laid down his arms, and that was the vital point just then. Stockton's other reasons (Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1041-2) are equally unsatisfactory. Bancroft (Pacific States, xvii, 269) expresses the belief that Stockton did not wish to make terms with Castro and the other officials, but to eliminate them. This is quite possible. Probably temperament and thirst for glory counted. Stockton's pretence (in his reply to Castro) that since the two countries were at war, he could not suspend hostilities until Castro should raise the American flag, was absurd. Truces have often been made during ​war, and never during peace. This was enough — especially as it came after Larkin's overture — to show Castro he could expect nothing from Stockton.;
19. 76Later Castro complained bitterly that after forsaking all for Mexico he had to beg for bread.
20. Stockton's régime to Sept. 30. Memoria de . . . Relaciones, Dec., 1846. Colton, Three Years, 16, 25, 28-9, 32, 56, 175, 180. Cooke, Conquest, 213-6. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 265-8. 247Larkin to Stearns, Aug. ——, 1846. 61R. B. Mason, Sept. 23, 1847. Sec. navy to Stockton, Aug. 18, 1846. 13J. A. to A. Forbes, July 14; Sept. 22, 1846. 13Seymour to Bankhead, July 22, 1846. Californian, i, no. 1. 47Stockton, proclam., Aug. 22. 47Id. to Frémont, July 23; Aug. 24, 1846. 47Flores to Stockton, Aug.7. 47Stockton to Bancroft, July 25; Aug. 22; Sept. 19; Oct. 1; Nov. 23. Id. to Mervine, Sept. 19. Bancroft to Sloat, Aug. 13. Mason to Stockton, Nov. 5, 1846; Jan. 11, 1847. Bancroft to Stockton, Oct. 17, 1845. 108Appleton to Bancroft, Apr. 27, 1847. Wise, Gringos, 50, 70. Royce, Bidwell. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 52, 379. Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 1-3. Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 143. 4Amador, mems., 169. 115Belden, statement, 48. Alvarado, Calif., v, 239-41. 161Journal of the Congress, 1846. 171Journal of the Cyane, 1846. Cutts, Conquest, 125. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 299, 300. Richman, Calif., 318. 109Bandini, documentos. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 215. Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 9-14. Wash. Union, Oct. 26; Dec. 4, 1846. 295Pinto, Apuntaciones, 104. Diario, Oct. 16. Statement to the author by Asst. See of the navy Roosevelt. Sherman, Home Letters, 108. Du Pont, Official Despatches, 1. Quincy, Figures, 230, etc. Proceeds. of U. S. Naval Instit., xxiv., pt. 1, 270 (Neeser). Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 10, 83, 109-10, 118-9, 175, 178-83, 374, 377. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 36-41, 43-5. Ho. 4: 29, 2, pp. 657-8. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1034-42, Ho. 19; 29, 2, p. 104. McGroarty, Calif., 199. Bandini, Calif., 143. Revere, Tour, 55, 77-80 Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 17, 47, 51. Ho. Report 817; 30, 1, p. 9. 263Mervine to Stockton, Sept. 16. Swasey, Early Days, 73. Porter, Kearny, 6-7. Life of Stockton, 120-3, 157-8. Bryant, What I Saw, 330, 366. Royce, Calif., 177-84. 123Bidwell, statement. 52Larkin, nos. 54, 55, 58, 1846. And the following from 76. J. Castro, July 13; Sept. 9, 1846; June 5, 1847. To comte. gen. Calif., May 9; July 25. To comte. gen. Sonora, July 25. Stockton to Castro, Aug. 7. Castro to Stockton, Aug. 7. Id., procls., Aug. 9, 10. Id. to consuls, Aug. 9. Moreno to Bustamante, Mar. 20, 1847. Castañeda to Pico, Feb. 10, 1846. Bustamante to Castro, June 23, 1847.
21. In a proclamation of October 1 Flores charged that the Americans were dictating "arbitrary and despotic laws" and crushing the people with exactions intended to ruin them. His aim was announced as the expulsion of the Americans. All Mexicans and Californians 15-60 years old, not joining the insurgents, were declared to be traitors and under penalty of death. All Americans acting directly or indirectly against the insurgents were to lose their property and be sent into Mexico as prisoners. It cannot be denied that many Californians, especially in the north, had been deprived of their property — particularly horses and saddles — by Frémont's men in the name of the United States, and that many had suffered personal abuse (Sen. 33; 30, 1; pp. 97, etc.; Ho. Report, 817; 30, 1; Sen. Report 75; 30, 1; Colton, Three Years, 155). Colton estimated that in all 1200 Californians were in arms at one time. ​22. Flores charged that Gillespie violated the terms and Gillespie denied this vigorously. Gillespie seems to have interpreted the terms, which were loosely drawn, with a view to the advantage of his side, and Flores to have judged largely, if not entirely, from what he supposed to be Gillespie's intentions. We have not sufficient data to say more. A misunderstanding was very natural, and possibly Gillespie, since he was dealing with perjured men, thought it right to take every advantage he could. Flores sent parties to San Diego and Santa Barbara, and captured those places. Capt. Merritt of the California Battalion, commanding at the former place, took refuge on a whale-ship. Lieut. Talbot, commanding at Santa Barbara, refused to surrender, and with his eight or ten men made an extremely brave escape through the mountains.
23. At this point Mervine's log book was extremely bitter with reference to Stockton, whom it described as vain, selfish, cowardly, false and ignorant of naval life and duties. The Captain was doubtless smarting under his repulse, due (he asserted) to Stockton's selfishness in retaining all his field pieces. Stockton explained his going to San Diego by saying that San Pedro was not a good base, and there was force in this view; but it was much nearer to Los Angeles, and certainly he should have decided whether it was a good base before attempting to use it as such. San Diego had been recovered by Merritt and others (Proceeds. U. S. Naval Instit., 1888, p. 544). Lieut. Minor of the navy now commanded there.
24. Kearny's march; battle of S. Pascual. Colton, Three Years, 153, 180. Cooke, Conquest, 84-6. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 153, 242. Hist. Soc. So. Calif., iii, pt. 2, pp. 55-66. 337Turner, diary. 61Kearny to adj. gen., Oct. 3, 11. 62Marcy to gov. Mo., June 3. Ho. 41; 30, 1, pp. 55163, 567-614. 47Stockton, Feb. 4, 1847. Polk, Diary, May 25, 30; June 2, 1846. 61Emory to adj. gen., Feb. 2, 1847. Hughes, Doniphan's Exped., 204-30. 61Wooster to adj. gen., Sept. 25, 1846. Apuntes, 359-60. Bidwell, Calif., 200. 126Botello, Anales, 154-6. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 315. 177Davis, statement. 290Pico, documentos, 105, 115. Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 23, 1847. , July, 1892, p. 204; Oct., 1892, p. 413, Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 513-6. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 31, 41, 46, 64-5, 129-33, 161, 186-9, 204, 272, 331. McGroarty, Calif., 261. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 236, 1049-50. Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 24-7. (Losses) Ho. 24; 31,1. Peters, Kit Carson, 281. Porter, Kearny, 14-23. Life of Stockton, 134-6. 76Flores, Dee. 11, 1846; Mar. 31, 1847. 207Griffin, journal.
Including servants and quartermaster's men, Kearny probably had at least 150; but precisely how many took part in the fighting one cannot say — perhaps not more than 80. Some of the men had to guard the baggage and manage the howitzers, and probably others did not reach the front in time. The howitzers were tied up with rawhide; when made ready they could not fire at first because the two parties were mixed in a hand-to-hand struggle; and when they were preparing to do so later, one was carried away by frightened mules and captured by the enemy. Botello, who talked with Pico after the fight, says that Pico was afraid forces from San Diego would attack him, should he continue to operate against Kearny, and also that Pico's horses were now too much exhausted to be serviceable. 207Griffin thought the Californians drew off to make sure of keeping the howitzer. It seems clear that Pico did not retire from fear of Kearny — unless possibly from fear of his guns. Dec. 7 Kearny advanced a short distance, drove some Californians from a rocky hill near ​San Bernardo, and occupied it. In the night of Dec. 10-11 Lieut. Gray and about 215 men from San Diego reinforced him. Lieut. Beale of the navy and the scout Christopher ("Kit") Carson made their way past the enemy with remarkable courage and endurance, to inform Stockton of Kearny's desperate situation, and arrived just as Gray was setting out.
25. The troops were all on foot except Gillespie's men. Stockton had two 9-pounders and four smaller pieces.
26. Only six shells were captured with the howitzer at San Pascual, and owing to its construction the gun could use no other ammunition. Flores reported that he had also a 6-pounder, a 3-pounder, and a 2-pounder (76Mar. 31).
27. The insurrection in the south. 330Taylor to brother, Jan. 19, 1848. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 266-8. Hist. Soc. So. Calif., iii, pt. 1, pp. 47-54; ix, p. 19. 237Kearny to Stockton, (Jan. 13, 1847]. 47Flores, procl., Oct., 1846. 47Id. to Stockton, Jan. 1, 1847. 47Stockton to Bancroft, Nov. 23, 1845; Jan. 11, 15; Feb. 4, 5, 1846. 51Queen to Henderson, Apr. 30, 1848. 61R. B. Mason, Oct. 7, 1847. 61Emory, Feb. 2, 1847. 373Evans, narrative. 376Nicholson, recolls. Kell, Recolls., 29, 80. 12Admty. records, class 1, 5577, enclosure in Y 93. Apuntes, 355-61. 247Gillespie to Larkin, Nov. 29, 1846. 247Larkin to wife, Dec. 14, 1846. 115Belden, statement. 3Alvarado, Calif., v, 220, 240, 267-8. 126Botello, Anales, 140, 158-61. Colton, Three Years, 64, 74, 78, 82, 95, 98, 123, 131, 169-70, 201. Proceeds. U. S. Naval Instit., 1888, pp. 139, 539 — 49. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 311, 316-19. Parker, Recolls., 50. Richman, Calif., 317. 334Torres, Peripecias, 49. 103Avila, notas. 258Marshall, recolls. Upham, Frémont, 258. Morrell, Four Voyages, 201. 171Journal of the Cyane. Wash. Union, Apr. 23; May 7; July 24, 1847. N.Y. Journ. Commerce, Apr. 2, 1847. Diario, Dec. 1, 1846; Jan. 24, 1847. Sherman, Home Letters, 100. Schafer, Pacific Slope, 266. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 47-323. Ho. 70; 30,1, p. 45. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 516-7. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1045-54, 1065-70. McGroarty, Calif, 246-52. Bandini, Calif., 143, 146. Revere, Tour, 164-6. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 49-52. Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 15-20, 22-4, 30-6 (Stockton). 207Griffin, diary. (Losses) Ho. 24; 31, 1. 172Cyane log book. 263Mervine to Stockton, Oct. 25 (2). Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 608 (Benton). Porter, Kearny, 7-9, 25-9. Life of Stockton, 129-48 and appendices. Cutts, Conquest, 156, 197, 203, 207. Bryant, What I Saw, 330. Royce, Calif., 185-94. 47Stockton to Bancroft, July 25, 1846. 52Larkin, no. 63, Jan. 14, 1847. And from 76 the following. Flores, Sept. 30; Oct. 7, 9, 24, 25, 1846; undated; Jan. 2; Mar. 31 (2), 1847, Currillo, Oct. 8, 1846. Gillespie to Flores, Oct. 2 (2), 3 (2), 4. Flores to Gillespie, Oct. 4 (2). Flores-Gillespie, terms of capitulation, Sept. 29. Carrillo to Flores, Oct. 9. To Flores, Feb. 6, 1847. Bustamante, Mar. 8, 13, 1847. Moreno to Bust., Mar. 20, 1847. Stockton, procl., Jan. 5, 1847. Flores to Stockton, Jan. 1, 1847. And others of minor importance. Jan. 9 some Mexicans charged our front.
28. Frémont's methods were unscrupulous. He promised the men large pay, and took horses, saddles, etc., where he could get them (Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, particularly Wilson, p. 42). Probably he intended to pacify the owners later by paying liberally. Apparently one must accept the explanation of his policy proposed in the text, or ascribe to him a tenderness not suggested by his choice of a profession and his conduct in ​June, or accuse him as did many at the time of a cowardice that would explain, after all, only a part of the facts.
29. It is particularly singular that Frémont did not use the Savannah to communicate with Stockton.
30. The reports of Flores show that Frémonts approach embarrassed the insurgents. Frémont now had six guns. January 10 Kearny wrote a note to Frémont stating that the Americans were entering Los Angeles.
31. For later events see chap. xxxi. Disturbances, resulting partly from the insurrection in the south and partly from depredations committed by Americans, occurred in the north. Monterey was threatened, and some fighting occurred near San Francisco Bay; but those who had taken up arms to protect their property gladly laid them down (about the time Stockton entered Los Angeles) when satisfied there would be no more plundering, and the treaty of Cahuenga quieted those still acting in sympathy with Flores. (See particularly Colton, Three Years, 73-6, 86, 152, 155, 158,170; Bancroft, Pacifie States, xvii, 378-383; 10Aram, statement; 4Amador, memorias, 175; Aldrich, Marine Corps, 95.) During these troubles Larkin was made a prisoner, and but for the fear of reprisals might have suffered severely for what the Californians regarded as doubledealing. Just before leaving California Flores released him. (See particularly 52Larkin, no. 63, January 14, 1847; Bryant, What I Saw, 361; 263Mervine to Frémont, Nov. 21.)
32. Frémonts operations. 316Fulsom to Sherman, Jan. 9, 1848. 47Stockton to Bancroft, Nov. 23, 1846; Jan. 11, 15, 1847. Colton, Three Years, 98. 47Frémont, orders, Jan. 12, 1847. 122Bidwell, Calif., 203. 258Marshall, recolls. Bryant, What I Saw, 365-94. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 6, 73-7, 119-21, 131, 184, 194, 260, 377-9, 405. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1045, 1052, 1067-9. Revere, Tour, 78. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 40-2 (Wilson), 50 (Russell). Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 18, 21-2. Tuthill, Calif. 222. Porter, Kearny, 29. Life of Stockton, 148-9. Royce, Calif., 194. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). 76Flores, Mar. 31, 1847 (2). 76Moreno to Bustamante, Mar. 20, 1847. Cutts, Conquest, 156-64. Sherman, Home Letters, 113.
XVIII. THE GENESIS OF TWO CAMPAIGNS
1. As early as August 16 Pillow wrote to his wife that Taylor thought it would be necessary to attack the city of Mexico by way of Vera Cruz.
2. The fortress of San Juan de Ulúa stood on a reef about three-quarters of a mile from the strong fort which guarded the north end of Vera Cruz at the water line. U.S. Consul Campbell of Havana informed Conner before June 10, 1846, that the defences of Ulúa on the side facing the city were partially undermined and poorly armed, and that, as all the Mexican preparations had been founded on the belief that future assailants would adopt the French plan of attack, he could place his vessels on that side at night with little or no injury, and easily take the fortress by escalade; but Conner does not appear to have endorsed this opinion. An American named Jobson, who resided at Vera Cruz, wrote to the war department, Feb. 14, 1847, that nobody except the Americans was afraid of Ulúa; that in September, 1846, it had been garrisoned by only 180 men, who, being neither paid nor fed, ran up the American flag on the night of Sept. 17; and that Conner might have passed in by the south ​channel, put 500 men ashore, and captured the fortress in half an hour. See chap. xxx, note 20.
3. These regiments were to come from Mass., New York, Penn., Va. No. and So. Carolina, Miss., La. and Texas (mounted men) — one from each; and in December a second regiment was invited from Penn. There was considerable hesitation about calling on Massachusetts, but it was concluded that should she fail to supply her quota, the country would take note of her attitude. Marcy issued the calls on Nov. 16 (Nov. 27 Florida was asked for a company), and the abruptness of the change wrought by Benton is shown by the fact that only five days earlier Marcy had stated that the volunteers then in service were "deemed sufficient for the prosecution of the war” (Wash. Union, May 28, 1847). The field and staff officers were to be a colonel, a lieutenant colonel, a major, an adjutant (a lieutenant from one of the companies), a sergeant major, a quartermaster sergeant and two principal musicians. Each of the ten companies of a regiment was to have a captain, a lieutenant, two. second lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, two musicians and eighty privates, but a company including sixty-four effective privates was to be accepted. These privates were to be in physical vigor and apparently 18-45 (inclusive) years of age. The field and company officers were to be men appointed and commissioned under the laws of their state. The rendezvous of the infantry were to be Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Guiandotte (Va.), Wilmington, Charleston, Vicksburg, New Orleans. Most of the regiments were made up rather slowly, and there was so much difficulty in Virginia that her recruiting officers went into Maryland. This difficulty appears to have been due to a lack of enthusiasm for the war (first part of chap. xxxiv). The supposedly brilliant victory at Monterey had exercised a favorable influence, but the obligation to serve the war out had a contrary effect, and the terms of the law, which required the independent action of the state governments, caused delay in some instances. The First Pennsylvania reached New Orleans Dec. 29 and 30, and at that time the Mississippi regiment was expected to arrive there by Jan. 10. The South Carolina regiment was ready on Dec. 22.
Special efforts were made at the same time to bring the regular army up to 15,000 men. The authorized maximum was at this time 16,998 (including 780 commissioned officers), but in spite of energetic recruiting only 10,381 were actually serving in the two regiments of dragoons, one of Mounted Riflemen, four of "artillery,” eight of infantry, and a co. of engineer soldiers (Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 62-3). Nov. 3 the recruiting officers were authorized to pay a citizen, non-commissioned officer, or soldier $2.00 for each accepted man brought to the rendezvous (65gen. orders 48). The minimum height was reduced to five feet and three inches (65gen. orders 51). Men desiring to enlist had probably felt more drawn to the briefer volunteer service, and had waited for a second call. Besides, the widows and orphans of volunteers (but not of regulars) were to be pensioned, and the prevailing high wages for labor deterred many from wishing to enlist. The lack of officers in the regular army still continued serious. On July 30, 1846, less than one third of the regimental field officers were available. The regiments in Mexico did not average one field officer apiece.
According to the report of the adjutant general dated Dec. 5, 1846, Taylor had (including the garrison at Tampico and troops en route, but subject to some deductions) 7406 regulars and 10,926 volunteers, besides ​621 and 2039 respectively under Wool. Adding to these 446 and 3546 respectively under Kearny, and the New York regiment en route to California, one finds that the land forces amounted to 25,750 men before the November calls were issued; but subtractions of an unknown magnitude needed to be made from these figures so far as availability was concerned. These and further details may be found in Sen. 1; 29, 2. See also the following. 62Marcy to govs., Nov. 16. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 46 (Marcy, report). 61Bowman to Jones, Dec. 4; to Polk, Dec. 29. 61Brooke to Jones, Dec. 29. Wash. Union, Nov. 30, 1846; May 28, 1847. 61Jones to Scott, Dec. 17. Polk, Diary, Nov. 7, 10, 14-16. 62Marcy to gov. Fla., Dec. 27. 63Marcy to gov. Mass., Nov. 16; to gov. Tex., Nov. 20; to gov. Iowa, Nov. 25. Niles, Nov. 21, 1846, p. 179; Jan. 16, 1847, p. 308. 29Brown to Marcy, Oct. 6. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 62. 13Pakenham, no. 132, Nov. 23. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 428 (Cabell). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 478 (Freeman), 873 (Marcy). West Va. dept. arch. and hist., report, 1910, p. 186.
4. Genesis of the Vera Cruz expedition. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 45 (Marcy, report). 52Black, Oct. 29. Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 63. 13Pakenham, nos. 119, 130, 132, 140, 150. 228G. Flagg to A. Flagg, Dec. 17. Picayune, Apr. 30; Oct. 5; Dec. 11, 1846; Feb. 2, 1847 (Taylor to Gaines). (Calhoun) Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 323. Polk, Diary, July 2; Aug. 29; Oct. 10, 17-22; Nov. 7-17; Dec. 1, 2, 1846; Jan. 2, 1847. Meigs, Benton, 361. 108Bancroft to Polk, Dee. 3. Benton, View, ii, 693-4. 108Buchanan to Bancroft, priv., Dec. 29. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 273. 335Letter from P. F. Smith (with Trist’s letter to Buchanan, Sept. 28, 1847, private). Wash. Union, Sept. 29; Oct. 2. Niles, Mar. 13, 1847, p. 20. 206James Graham to Gov. Graham, Jan. 10, 1847. 256Marcy to Wetmore, Nov. 1. Scott, Mems., ii, 404. Johnston, A. S. Johnston, 134. Ho. 60; 30,1, pp. 333, 355, 363, 1231 (Marey); 1268-1270, 1273-4 (Scott); 351 (Taylor). 297Benton, memo., July 4. 297Mackenzie to Buchanan, July 7. 47Conner, June 11; July 22; Oct. 4. Meade, Letters, i, 148. 52Campbell, June 9. Schouler, Hist. Briefs, 155. 58Jobson, Feb. 14, 1847. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 170. Bancroft to Conner, May 30. Conner, Castle of Ulloa. 256Totten to Marcy, Nov. 23, 1847. 180Pillow to wife, Aug. 16. 169Taylor to Crittenden, Sept. 1. 13Doyle, no. 79, 1843. 69P. F. Smith, memoir, Oct. 14. 354Welles papers. 152Mason to Conner, Nov. 29, priv. and confid. Journal des Débats, Nov. 4. Boston Atlas, Dec. 17. Buchanan, Works, viii, 365. Diccionario Universal (Ulúa). Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 191. (Ulúa) See chaps. xxii, p. 21, xxx.
5. It is believed that the preceding text and notes afford ample support for this sentence. Note 27 contains additional references; and see Ripley, War with Mexico, i, 361-2. Taylor seems never to have perceived that Polk could have superseded him with a Democrat by merely sending Jesup or Wool to the army with reinforcements before brevetting him major general and ordering him to serve with his brevet rank. Nov. 10 Polk asserted in his diary that he had known no politics with reference to Taylor. The diary shows that he was aware how Taylor felt about him. This was not at all surprising. Pillow’s letters indicate plainly that he understood the matter and he was in confidential correspondence with the President. Pillow wrote to his wife that Taylor systematically proscribed Polk's friends, and this may offset some of Taylor’s assertions that he himself was persecuted by the administration.
6. Dec. 10 (Bixby) Taylor wrote to his son-in-law that he would not ​say he would refuse to serve, if elected President. This meant of course that he was a candidate. His formal announcement came the following month.
7. It is probable that the administration knew how Taylor felt about the Vera Cruz expedition, for he was outspoken, and Polk had more than one correspondent in his camp.
8. Scott, like nearly all the Whigs, disapproved of a war made by a Democratic administration for (as the Whigs generally alleged) party reasons, but was ready to do his duty as a soldier (13Pakenham, separate and confidential, Sept. 28). 5
9. The selection of the commander. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 363, 367, 369, 373 (Marcy); 372, 1268-70 (Scott); 383 (Bliss); 384 (Patterson). 169Scott, to Taylor, Sept. 26 ("I never, for a moment, ceased to watch over your fame and interests with the liveliest solicitude"). Polk, Diary, Sept. 5, 15; Oct. 22; Nov. 10, 14, 17-19, 21, 1846; May 6, 1847; Jan. 4, 1848. Scott, Mems., ii, 386, 399. London Times, June 30, 1847. 132Slidell to Buchanan, Nov. 5. 169Scott to Crittenden, Sept. 17. 169Taylor to Crittenden, Jan. 26; Mar. 25, 1847. 354Welles papers. Note particularly Taylor’s political exchanges with. 169Crittenden and Wood (Bixby coll.) during the summer and autumn. 180Pillow to wife, Oct. 27; Dec. 8. 330Taylor to brother, Dec. 12, 1846; Jan. 19, 1848. Id., Letters (Bixby), June 3; Aug. 23; Nov. 26; Dec. 10, 13, 1846; Jan. 26; Feb. 9; May 9; Aug. 29, 1847. 345Blair to Van Buren, July 7. Coleman, Crittenden, i, 243-4. 169Scott to Marcy, Sept. 12. 62Marcy to Scott, Sept. 14. 256Id. to Wetmore, June 28. Watson, In Memoriam, 115. Grant, Mems., i, 120. Meade, Letters, i, 175. Nat. Intelligencer, Aug. 29. Garrison, Extension, 242. Bancroft, Pacific States, viii, 375. Mag. of Amer. Hist., xiv, 564. Slidell to Buchanan, Nov. 5, 1846, private: “The fate of the Administration depends on the successful conduct of the war” (Curtis, Buchanan, i, 601).
10. Scott’s figures were slightly below the adjutant general’s. Possibly the latter used returns of later dates. Taylor did not have so many available troops, and accused Scott of stating what he knew or should have known to be false (Bixby coll., 181); but if the adjutant general was incorrectly informed as to the strength of the forces, the fault was Taylor’s. See note 3.
11. Scott was severely criticised by Marcy (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1239) and others for ordering so many boats, guns and shells, and it was triumphantly proclaimed that, as the result proved, he did not need so large an outfit. But this argument was not sound. He had to reckon on a failure to produce and deliver at the point of shipment in season all that he specified, on a heavy loss through wreckage and other accidents, on the probability that his landing would be opposed, and on the expected necessity of reducing Ulúa; nor did he know that naval guns (to which he actually was compelled to have recourse) would be available. It has been said, too, that the army could have landed in the boats of the blockading squadron, but Scott found on inquiry that only about 500 could go ashore in them at a single trip (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1274). Scott on the other hand was unreasonably bitter in charging the war department with negligence. More could have been done by the government, and errors were committed, but shortcomings and mistakes were inevitable. Marcy’s reply to Scott’s charges (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1218, 1227) needs to be scrutinized carefully. Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 14) ridicules Scott (for asking ​for a pontoon train) on the ground that every stream between Vera Cruz and Mexico was fordable. But (1) Scott could not be sure his operations would be confined to that line; (2) he operated in fact on the lower Alvarado River, where it was not fordable; (3) had the national bridge been blown up, pontoons might have been useful there for] wagons and heavy guns. Río del Plan was a small stream, but the enemy caused the Americans much trouble by destroying the bridge at Plan del Río. See Ripley, op. cit., ii, 165.
12. The proof that Scott and the administration intended that Taylor should not be placed in jeopardy is superabundant: Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 357, 366, 389 (Marcy); 844, 1272, 1276 (Scott). Scott even intended to give Taylor his personal aid, should the Mexicans attack him in force; and this was one of his reasons for going to Camargo (ibid., 844; 61Scott to Brooke, Dec. 28).
13. As late as Jan. 2, 1847, every member of the Cabinet except Clifford was opposed to Scott’s marching against the city of Mexico, though Polk favored taking that step should it be necessary in order to obtain peace (Polk, Diary).
14. Taylor alleged bitterly (Bixby, 182) that discourtesy and injury were done him by the failure to notify him promptly of the expedition, but Polk’s precaution was wise. Some despatches were intercepted or lost, and soon a most important letter from Scott to Taylor, marked “confidential’’ both outside and within, was opened by a subordinate at Monterey and publicly discussed (Scott, Mems., ii, 402). See note 15.
15. Nov. 25 Marcy wrote guardedly to Taylor with reference to the new expedition, but the despatch went astray (62adj. gen. to Taylor, May 5, 1847). It is surprising that cipher was not used. It seems as if a ciphered letter giving the necessary explanations and ordering Taylor to place the required forces at specified points by specified dates should have, been sent to Taylor in triplicate by trusty messengers not later than Nov. 30.
16. Scott's operations, etc., up to Dec. 27. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 373, 838-41, 1218, 1268, 1270, 1273-5 (Scott); 369, 372, 873, 1231 (Marcy); 1253 (Jesup); 1100 (Taylor). Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 95, 181. Senex, Myth. Wise, Seven Decades, 235. Polk, Diary, Nov. 10, 20, 1846; Jan. 2, 1847. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 727-8. Journ. of Milit. Serv. Instit., xiv, 442. 234A. Johnson to ——, Dec. 2. 191Fairfield to wife, Dec. 13. Scott, Mems., ii, 402. 256Id. to Marcy, Dec. 27, private. 61H. L. Scott, Nov. 24. 61W. Scott, memo., Nov. 29. 62Jones to Taylor, May 5, 1847. 164Scott to Conner, Dec. 26 (P.S. Dec. 27). Picayune, Dec. 24. “The Brazos” signified loosely a region comprising Brazos Id., Pt. Isabel, and sometimes the mouth of the Rio Grande.
Scott blamed Marcy for permitting him to spend only four days at Washington in preparatory work (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1218). Marcy replied that Scott passed twenty-six days in going from the capital to New Orleans via New York when he might have reached that place in seven (ibid., 1228). The reply looks effective but does not cover the ground. Marcy said Scott was not needed at the war department, where the initial work had to be done; and hence the General did well to fortify himself for the campaign and gain time for reflection by choosing the sea route. The voyage took nineteen days instead of twelve on account of head winds.
While he was at New Orleans a newspaper published there stated that ​the expedition (which Scott intimated was bound for San Luis Potosí) would strike at Vera Cruz, and Polk showed what he meant in promising Scott his full confidence by charging that he had betrayed the secret (Diary, Jan. 14; Feb. 27). The secret was out at New Orleans in reality about two weeks before Scott arrived there, and the newspaper stated later that its information did not come from any person connected with the army (Niles, Feb. 18, 1847, p. 370). (See 256Scott to Marcy, Jan. 27, priv.) Polk also complained — another mark of confidence — that Scott’s vanity was causing him to make “extravagant preparations,” as if Taylor had not shown at Monterey the consequences of failing to prepare adequately. In fact Scott, instead of insisting upon extravagant preparations, wrote Dec. 23 that he would move against Vera Cruz if he could land even 5000 men there early in February (374to Conner).
17. The new First Division included Harney’s (Third) Brigade, now consisting of Co. C (Bragg’s light battery) of the Third Artillery, companies B, C, D and E of the Second Dragoons, the Second Infantry and the Third Infantry; and P. F. Smith’s (Fourth) Brigade, now consisting of Co. E (Sherman’s light battery) of the Third Artillery, two companies of the Mounted Riflemen (without horses), the First and the Seventh Infantry. The rest of the Second Dragoons were to be assigned whenever they should join. Five companies of the Second Infantry had been for some weeks at Montemorelos; the rest, like the Second Tennessee, marched to that point from Camargo. The Fourth Infantry and two companies of the First Artillery were to occupy the citadel. The Washington and Baltimore battalion, which had belonged to the First Division, was now attached to Quitman’s brigade. It will be noted that Taylor, who was incorrectly said to have been exposed with inadequate forces to Mexican attack, now treated Worth in precisely that way, exposing also Saltillo, which he himself called ‘our most important point” in that region (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 381). ‘Taylor overtook Quitman Dec. 16. Nearly 2000 wagons were now under Taylor’s orders, yet pack-mules were used mainly for the train. By the railroad Victoria is 284 kilometers from Monterey.
18. As the Americans had no positive information regarding Santa Anna’s intentions and movements, Worth was blamed for giving a false alarm. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 304) says S. Anna was unable to leave S. L. Potosí. Worth really did expect the Mexicans to reach him considerably sooner than they could have done. Major Gaines with three companies of Kentucky cavalry, previously ordered to Saltillo, seems to have arrived there on Dec. 17. Butler was now ordered to take command at that point.
19. In one letter Taylor stated that he received Scott’s note when two days from Monterey, but this must mean “second day.” Dec. 20 Scott had written to him from New Orleans, explaining his plans more fully, but this letter did not reach him until January 16 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, 1101).
20. From Montemorelos Taylor sent a topographical engineer, escorted by a squadron of dragoons under May, to examine Santa Rosa Pass and rejoin the command at Linares. Ten men of May’s rear guard and the baggage were cut off in the pass (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 387-8, 1095. Maury, Recolls., 31. Henry, Camp. Sketches, 284).
21. “Norther” was the name given to an extremely violent wind which blew at frequent intervals from October to April, lasting usually about three days. During Scott’s operations one lasted seventy-six hours. ​It grew more violent as one went south toward Vera Cruz, probably because the cordillera approached the coast and produced somewhat the effect of a funnel. Its merit was that it prevented yellow fever.
22. The real Mexican cavalry numbered about 1000 under Gen. Romero, who was sent by Valencia, now commanding at Tula, because the governor of Tamaulipas had asked for 1000 infantry. The cavalry arrived at Victoria on Dec. 24. Only 200 were regulars. The rest were badly armed and munitioned, and cavalry were not suitable for a region covered with woods and intersected with rivers. The people, however, prepared to coöperate with them; but arms were lacking, and the revenues of the state had mostly been cut off by the occupation of Matamoros and Tampico (Gaceta de C. Victoria, July 23, 1846). Valencia was very anxious to attack the Americans, but Santa Anna would not permit this — probably because he did not wish Valencia either to be defeated or to win éclat by succeeding. December 26 Romero received positive orders not to risk an action, and two days later he retired (82gov. Tamaul. to gov. Puebla, Jan. 6, 1847. 77Id. to Relaciones, Apr. 23). Taylor strongly desired to capture Valencia (Roberts, diary).
23. Taylor's march to Victoria (including Worth’s alarm). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 513 (orders 156); 361, 379, 381, 385, 387-8, 848, 1100 (Taylor); 839, 851, 1156 (Scott). Meade, Letters, i, 170, 172. Autograph, JulyAug., Nov. — Dec., 1912 (Taylor). Diccionario Universal (Itinerario). 307Roberts, diary. Sen. 32; 31, 1, p. 8, note. Henshaw narrative. Velasco, Geog., iv, 150. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 277 (Holt’s journal). Henry, Camp. Sketches, 262-287. Robertson, Remins., 185-198. Vedete, ii, no. 9 (Townes). 193Foster to father, Dec. 10. 139W. B. Campbell to D. C., Jan. 2, 1847. 69Worth to Bliss, Dec. 16; to Butler, Dec. 18. 69Butler to Bliss, Dec. 20. 69Wool to Worth, Dec. 24. 69Riley to Bliss, Dec. 10. 69Quitman to Bliss, Dec. 30. 69Worth to Bliss, Dec. 4. 65Taylor, gen. orders 160, Dec. 22. 169Id. to Crittenden, Jan. 26, 1847. Id., Letters (Bixby), 180. Wilhelm, Eighth Inf., ii, 300-1. 61Clarke to McCall, Dec. 27. Apuntes, 86-7. Scott, Mems., ii, 402. 69Wool to Butler, Dec. 25. Delta, Jan. 24; Feb. 13, 1847. 52Black, Oct. 8. 299Posey to Gordon, Feb. 19, 1847. N. Y. Herald, Feb. 6, 1847. Scott wrote privately (256Jan. 16) that "friend Taylor . . . turned his back upon the appointment I gave him . . . saying he would be back, at Monterey, in 36 days, the 1st of February!!” Taylor actually wrote that he might return “early in Feb.” (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 848). Also the following from 76. S. Anna, Dec. 22, muy priv. Id., Dee. 24; Jan. 1. Gov. Tamaul., Oct. 22; Dec. 3. E. González, Dec. 29. Comte. Nat. Gd., Catorce, Dec. 30. Instead of admitting that his journey to Victoria delayed the receipt of Scott’s letter of Jan. 3 to him, Taylor complained in his characteristic fashion that it should have been sent by a special messenger (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1101).
24. One naturally inquires why Taylor concentrated more than 5000 men at Victoria. He stated that he went in that direction to examine the passes and establish one or more posts, and that he sent Patterson’s command there because Mexican parties were going from Tula to that point; but he had been ordered, Oct. 22, to have 4000 men ready to embark for Vera Cruz, if he could spare them (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 366), and presumably had this in mind. But see his letter, Bixby coll., 72.
25. Such was the regular Mexican measure. In this as in some other cases the American estimates were higher. ​26. Patterson’s march to Victoria. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 358 (Marcy); 379, 387-8 (Taylor); 383 (Bliss); 383-4 (Patterson); 569, 571 (Jesup). 60Patterson, Dec. 8. 292Pillow to wife, Dec. 15. Amer. Flag, Matamoros, Dec. 26. 332Tennery, diary. 254McClellan, diary. 322Smith, diary. Diccionario Universal (Itinerario). Ho. 13; 31, 2 (G. W. Smith). Engineer School, U. S. A., Occasional Papers, no. 16 (G. W. Smith). 60Belknap, memo. (with Patterson, Nov. 1). 193Heiman to Mrs. Foster, Feb. 28. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 16. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 275-318. 335Trist, draft of address. Welles papers (Pol. Hist. of U. S.). 139Campbell to D. C., Nov. 2, 1846; Jan. 2; Feb. 19, 1847. Scott, Mems., ii, 423. 159Collins, diary. Hist. Teacher's Mag., Apr., 1912, p. 75. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 250-1. N. Y. Herald, Nov. 3, 1857 (Scott). 146Caswell, diary. 275Nelson to Coe, Oct. 14, 1846 (“The General in making a speech to us a day or two ago said that we should go on, or if it so happened that we had to stay that he (Pillow) would remain with us. This would make our situation deplorable indeed. Our Brigadier General I am sorry to say is universally unpopular”). Two soldiers wrote: "We do not charge Gen. Pillow with that wholesale abuse that has been heaped upon him by many. It is his misfortune to be cursed with unalloyed selfishness” (McLean County Hist. Soc. Trans., i, 24). 280Nunelee, diary. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 277 (Holt’s journal). 180Pillow to wife, Oct. 27. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 180. Trans. Ills. State Hist. Soc., 1906, 177-8. McCall, Letters, 474. 273Mullan, diary. Bishop, Journal.
27. Scott’s operations, Dec. 27-Jan. 7, including the division of the troops. 61H. L. Scott, Dec. 28. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 842, 844, 848, 851, 853, 875, 1156 (Scott); 858-9 (Butler); 860-1 (Worth). 61Butler, Jan. 8, 1847. Wash. Union, Jan. 13, 1847. (Suggested) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 353; Taylor, Letter to Gaines. (Ordered) Polk, Diary, Nov. 17-19. (Appointed) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 372 (Marcy). (Authority) Polk, Diary, Mar. 21, 1847; Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 502 (Douglas). (Condition) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 390, 1276. (Admitted) Ibid., 1102. (Manner) Ibid., 373, 839, 848, 851. (Purpose) Ibid., 373, 839; Scott, Mems., ii, 403. (Reach) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 848, 852. (Required) Ibid., 864; Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 47. (Recognized) 169Taylor to Crittenden, Jan. 26, 1847. ("Wormed") Ibid.; 370Taylor to Davis, Apr. 18, 1848. (Kill) 330Taylor to brother, May 29, 1847. ("Contemptible”) Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 180. (Suggestion) Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 337, 375 (Taylor). (“Intrigue”) Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 84. (Outraged) Ibid., 180. (Degraded) Ibid., 181. (‘Discourteous’’) Ibid., 179. (Ruin) Ibid., 90, 95. (Expecting) 169Taylor to Crittenden, Jan. 26, 1847; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 890, 1109-10, 1113. (“Sacrificed”) Ibid., 863; Bixby coll., 114. The New Orleans Comm. Bulletin said a fearful responsibility rested on the government for exposing Taylor. See also 330Taylor to brother, Feb. 8; Apr. 5, 22; May 29, 1847; Jan. 19, 1848.
For a particular reason both Scott and Taylor (169to Crittenden, Jan. 26) felt sure that Santa Anna would go to Vera Cruz promptly. This reason was the capture of Scott’s original letter of Jan. 3 to Taylor, borne by Lieut. Richey (French, Two Wars, 71; Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 876, 890; Meade, Letters, i, 182; Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 82). It was believed that the letter was in Santa Anna’s hands by about Jan. 15. For this reason and the tardiness of the new volunteer regiments Scott felt that he needed more and Taylor fewer troops than he otherwise would have estimated (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 893). Indeed, Taylor wrote to Scott on Jan. 26 ​that Santa Anna had already left the north (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 890). Scott was so confident that he would meet serious opposition at Vera Cruz that he employed five or six agents to obtain information about the forces assembling there. Marcy entertained the same expectation (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 369). Ripley (op. cit., i, 358) argues that S. Anna had a better chance of success in attacking Taylor than he would have had in attacking Scott, and therefore Scott should not have believed that S. Anna would oppose his debarkation. But Ripley could not have proved his premise; and, even were that true, the additional advantage that would have been gained by guarding the route from Vera Cruz to Mexico City looked like a decisive consideration. S. Anna’s moving against Taylor was largely due to political considerations not understood by either Scott or Ripley.
Taylor gradually settled down upon the idea that the aim of Polk and Scott was to cause him to leave Mexico in disgust (330to brother, Feb. 8; Apr. 5). Later he changed “Scott, Marcy & Co.” to "Scott, Polk & Co.” (330to brother, Jan. 19, 1848), thus smiting at one stroke a rival in his own party (see 330letter to brother, Apr. 5, 1848) and a supposed rival in the other.
The number of troops left with Taylor for defence against an enemy who was not expected to advance was about 800 regulars and 6-7000 well seasoned and respectably trained volunteers (169Taylor to Crittenden, March 25, 1847) besides several regiments of new volunteers — say 2400-2800 men — who were expected to arrive soon; while Scott had Jess than 13,000 to face (with all the disadvantages of debarking) the garrisons of Vera Cruz and Ulúa, the army that Santa Anna was believed to be leading against him, and all such reinforcements as the Mexican government could raise when threatened at the vital point. Moreover Scott’s new volunteers were to land with practically no training whatever, and could hardly be counted on for the initial fighting. Taylor said that for a blow at the capital 25,000 men (10,000 of them regulars) would be required (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 353). As Scott pointed out, Taylor now had really nothing to do except defend Texas (Memoirs, ii, 409) and, should it be practicable, aid Scott’s offensive by threatening to advance. Scott took Robert E. Lee from Taylor’s army.
On receiving Scott’s orders of Jan. 3 Taylor replied in a style corresponding to his state of mind (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 863). Scott answered: "There are some expressions in those letters [of Jan. 15] which, as I shall wish to forget them, I shall not specify or recall" (ibid., 864); and to Marcy Scott wrote privately: ‘However, he [Taylor] is still the same excellent man” (256Jan. 23). In his correspondence on this subject Taylor appeared to regard the troops placed under his command as his personal property. The battle of Buena Vista has commonly been cited as the cause of Taylor’s election, but it was the idea that he had been deliberately exposed to the Mexicans which gave that victory its remarkable political effect (210Simms to Hammond, Jan. 15, 1847; So. Qtrly. Review, Jan., 1851, p. 37). It may be observed further that for the government to sacrifice him, his army and all the public property in northern Mexico, and give Santa Anna an opportunity to ravage Texas would have been to commit suicide. The idea was unreasonable.
28. Scott, who was a great soldier but not a great lawyer, had the imprudence to attack Marcy, a master of fence, in regard to the supply of vessels, and he fared rather badly. Marcy’s defence was, however, by ​no means wholly sound. He himself called it privately a “special plea” (256to Wetmore, Apr. 11, 1848). For example, Dec. 15, 1846, he notified Scott (and also Jesup, who had gone to the front) that he was ordering ten transports in ballast to the Brazos, but later, on receiving a letter dated Jan. 27 from Jesup (then at the Brazos) which over-confidently stated that all needed vessels could be chartered there, he countermanded the order; and this looks like a satisfactory defence against Scott’s complaint that none of the ten transports specified by him in his requisition appeared. But Marcy neglected to inform Jesup or Scott that the order had been countermanded, and, as Jesup’s letter could not have reached Washington before about Jan. 7, Jesup naturally assumed that the ten transports had got under way. Indeed, Jan. 23 the adjutant general wrote what Scott understood to mean that the latter might soon expect ten ships in ballast (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 897). Therefore Jesup and Scott counted upon them (ibid., 896), and naturally did not exert themselves to obtain shipping (when disappointed about vessels already engaged) as otherwise they doubtless would have done. (See Scott, Marcy, Jesup, Hetzel in Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 894, 1218, 1227, 1253.) Besides, it was found necessary to send a number of the Brazos vessels to Tampico for the troops of Patterson, Twiggs and Quitman. Jesup (supra) charged Scott with causing delay by changing the assignation of certain regiments; but Scott certainly did not desire to waste time, and it is only fair to suppose that he made the changes for adequate reasons. Jesup complained that many of his officers were inefficient, and Marcy with well feigned naiveté replied that their names had been presented to Polk [by politicians] with "the highest testimonials.”
29. Harney soon disobeyed Scott’s positive orders at Medellín bridge (chap. xxii, note 25), and his biographer admits that he might justly have been shot (Reavis, Harney, 186). Scott, however. merely refrained from reporting the affair, whereupon Harney complained that he had been unjustly ignored. One of the best reasons for studying the Mexican war is to observe how political considerations interfered with military affairs. The Harney episode was enough to justify Scott’s apprehensions of a fire from the rear, but it was not the only instance of executive meddling (213Hatch to sister, Feb. 11, 1847). Another incident also, which occurred at this time, illustrates his magnanimity and good sense. Lieut. Col. Ethan Allen Hitchcock, a man of notable talents and attainments and formerly instructor in tactics at West Point, was admirably qualified to act as inspector general, and Scott gave him the post although Hitchcock had repeatedly opposed him, and was personally unfriendly to him. Experience soon made Hitchcock one of Scott’s firmest admirers and partisans (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 234-6).
30. Scott’s operations, Jan. 8-Feb. 15. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 844, 855-6, 866, 875, 880, 882, 890-1, 893, 896, 1218, 1273 (Scott); 874, 1227 (Marcy); 568, 571, 1253 (Jesup); 884, 894 (Hetzel); 868, 870, 887-9, 893, 1164-6 (H. L. Scott); 867, 869, 888 (Harney); 860-1, 870 (Worth); 858-9 (Butler). Niles, Feb. 13, p. 369; Feb. 27, p. 401. 63Marcy to qtrmr. officer, Dec. 11, 15, 1846. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 42-3. 358Williams to father, Jan. 17. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 257. Picayune, Feb. 3; Mar. 12. 180Pillow to wife, Feb. 14. 65Scott, gen. orders. 8, 11. Polk, Diary, Dec. 14, 1846; Feb. 20, 1847. Reavis, Harney, 186. Grant, Mems., i, 123-4. 61Worth to adj. gen., Feb. 17. Meade, Letters, i, 176. 60Scott to Marcy, April 5, 1847. 256Id. to Id., Jan. 23, 1847, private. ​Amer. Flag, Matamoros, Feb. 17. Oswandel, Notes, 48. 62Stanton, Nov. 29; Dec. 7, 13, 20, 1846; Jan. 5; Feb. 16, 1847; Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 91 (Hitchcock). 322Smith, diary. 364Worth to S., Feb. 17; to wife, Feb. 18. Smith, To Mexico, 84-103 (Worth’s march from Saltillo).
31. An American estimate was 130 miles. This is partially explained perhaps by the fact that the pioneers made some "short cuts" (mule paths) available. Meade (Letters, i, 159) even cut the distance to about 100 miles, but this appears to have been little more than a guess. By the railroad the distance is about 141 miles.
32. From Victoria to Tampico. 146Caswell, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1097 (Taylor); 879 (Patterson). Diccionario Universal (Itinerario). 303Orders 3, Jan. 12. Robertson, Remins., 199-207. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 181. U.S. Engineer School, Occasional Papers, no. 16 (G. W. Smith). Ho. 18; 31, 2 (/d.). Prieto, Tamaulipas, 229. 332Tennery, diary. 273Mullan, diary. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 27. 322Smith, diary. 169Taylor to Crittenden, Jan. 26. 69Colección de Itinerarios. 307Roberts, diary. Meade, Letters, i, 174-5. Defensor de Tamaul., Jan. 18. 76Cos, Feb. 1. 218Henshaw narrative. 139W. B. Campbell to wife, Jan. 25. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 342-93.
33. The author’s opinion of Pillow is based upon his letters to his wife, Polk, Scott, Duncan and others, the Trist papers, the Campbell papers, the records of two courts of inquiry regarding his conduct, and a large number of additional documents, most of which will be cited later, particularly in chaps. xxvi and xxix. An army correspondent of W. T. (later Gen.) Sherman described Pillow, Feb. 26, 1848, as "a mass of vanity, conceit, ignorance, ambition and want of truth." There was good warrant for this characterization, but one should add plausibility, cunning, energy and a genial disposition. For his personal appearance: Semmes, Service, 165.
34. Scott had not yet heard from Washington regarding Harney.
35. At Tampico. 332Tennery, diary. 273Mullan, diary. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 10-64. 146Caswell, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 896, 899, 900, 1169 (Scott); 901 (Totten); 850 (Clarke); 896 (Hetzel). Robertson, Remins., 207-13. Bishop, Journal. 180Pillow to wife, Dec. 8, 1846; Feb. 23, 1847. 111Beauregard to Totten, Jan. 9, 14; to Gates, Feb. 24. Kenly, Md. Vol., 241-5. 330J. T. Taylor to Scott, Feb. 12. 280Nunelee, diary. Apuntes, 88. Meade, Letters, i, 177, 184-5. 218Henshaw narrative, Feb. 20. 254McClellan, diary. 303Shields to Quitman, Mar. 4. 159Collins, diary, Feb. 19, 25. Davis, Autobiog., 121-8. 65Scott, gen. orders.21, Feb.19. 76Cos,Feb.19. 76Anon. letters to Garay, Jan. 25, 28, etc. 139Campbell to wife, Feb. 3, 7, 16. Mason, Lee. 37. Furber, Twelve Months Vol., 394-415. Works defending the two land approaches to Tampico were now ready, and Col. Gates of the Third Artillery with a company of artillery, the Md. and D. C. battalion and the new Louisiana regiment — about 1200 men in all — were detached as a garrison. Rumors came that Taylor was in danger, but the air was full of rumors about the enemy, and Scott had ample ground for disregarding these, though criticised for doing so. Von Moltke said (Franco-German War, 71): "It would have been unjustifiable to entirely change the line of march on the ground of rumors that might, after all, prove unfounded." Feb. 19 Scott announced his staff appointments. The possession of Tampico was extremely useful to him. Fresh provisions abounded there, and the embarking of about 5000 men on the dangerous coast at the Brazos was avoided.
​36. The Louisiana men went from Lobos Islands to Tampico. Col. De Russey and the other part of the regiment were wrecked about Feb. 6 on the coast nearly opposite those islands, but after some hardships and considerable danger of being captured by Gen. Cos, commanding at Tuxpán about forty miles distant, they made their way to Tampico, meeting en route an expedition sent to rescue them (Meade, Letters, i, 179; Lawton, Artillery Officer, 32-5; 270Moore, diary; 76F. de Garay, Mar. 5).
37. To Lobos Islands. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1256 (Hetzel); 1259 (Babbitt); 878 (Conner); 568 (Jesup); 840, 841, 846, 880, 891, 896 (Scott). 65Scott, gen. orders 1, 6, 8, Jan. 15, 30, 30. Lawton, Artillery Officer, 23, 65. 61Brooke to Munroe, Jan. 11; to Scott, Jan. 9, 21. 62Stanton to Jesup, Feb. 16. Scott, Mems., ii, 418. 298Porter, diary. 254McClellan, Feb. 23. 193Foster to mother, Feb. 26. Ho. 59; 30, 1, p. 41. Smith, To Mexico, 105, 108. 164Scott to Conner, Dec. 26, 1846. Niles, Mar. 13, p. 21; 20, p.48. Hartman, Journal, 6. Oswandel, Notes, 54-6. Picayune, Feb. 18. 159Collins, diary. 146Caswell, diary. Ballentine, English Soldier, i, 266. Bishop, Journal.
38. Polk and Marcy felt that he was looking for an issue (256Marcy to Wetmore, April 25, 1847), and his course warrants that supposition.
39. Taylor's movements. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 861, 890, 1097(Taylor), 875 (Scott). Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 72, 85, 87, 180-2. 169Id. to Crittenden, Jan. 26. Polk, Diary, Oct. 20, 1846; Jan. 5; Mar. 21-23; Apr. 1, 1847. 256Marcy to Wetmore, Mar. 11. Journ. Mil. Serv. Instit. xiv, 443.
Jan. 26 Scott wrote to Taylor: 'I must ask you to abandon Saltillo, and to make no detachments, except for reconnaisances and immediate defence, much beyond Monterey. I know this to be the wish of the government, founded on reasons in which I concur" (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 864). In reply Taylor wrote on Feb. 7 that he was going to remain at his advanced position unless "positively ordered to fall back by the government at Washington" (ibid., 1162). In addressing the government on the same day (ibid., 1110) he referred to Scott's instructions as advice. But such language from a superior officer was clearly an order courteously phrased, and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Scott deemed it necessary to give Taylor express authority later to make a diversion toward San Luis Potosí (ibid., p. 876). Polk (Diary, April 7, 1847, and elsewhere) remarked that Taylor had violated his orders by taking his advanced position.
Taylor's ostensible reasons for so doing as given by himself (Bixby coll., 182) were these: 1. It would be safest to fight, should the Mexicans advance, immediately on their getting across the desert region that lay between San Luis Potosí and the advanced American position, rather than let them recuperate and use Saltillo as a base. 2. Had the Americans fallen back to Monterey, Santa Anna would have invested it, the Mexicans of that section would have risen, every animal at Monterey would have starved or been destroyed, the troops — disheartened by retreating, and beyond succor — would have surrendered or been cut to pieces, and every American dépôt in the rear would have been abandoned or captured. 3. Doniphan would have been ruined. But (1), as we have seen (note 27), Taylor believed on Jan. 26, Feb. 4, 7, and 14 (i.e. both before and after taking the advanced position) that he was in no real danger of being attacked by Santa Anna, and hence had not the warrant of a supposed emergency for disregarding his instructions. (2) This ​advanced position was not, as his explanation assumes, a good place at which to meet the Mexicans, and he retired from it before the battle of Buena Vista. (3) Rinconada Pass, on the other hand, could probably have been made virtually impregnable toward the south, and, if properly defended, could at least. have held out for a considerable time. (4) It was not reasonable to suppose that Santa Anna, learning that Scott was about to strike at the vitals of Mexico, would undertake to carry the Pass and besiege a city like Monterey, prepared in all ways — as Marcy had instructed Taylor on Oct. 13,22 (Ho. 60; 30,1, pp. 356, 364) to prepare it — for a stubborn resistance (Howard, Taylor, 238). (5) If, however, Santa Anna were going to do so, as Taylor's explanation assumes, the policy of Scott and the administration was certainly the true one, since it would have contributed to a triumph on the line from Vera Cruz to the capital. (6) Taylor's retirement to Monterey and vicinity would have entailed no loss of prestige or confidence on the part of the Americans, since it would have formed one part of a bold offensive plan; but would only have diminished somewhat Taylor's personal effulgence. (7) It was not reasonable to believe that the men with whom Taylor (Bixby coll., 86) was ready to meet Santa Anna in the field could not hold their own against him in strong works (Meade, Letters, i, 179), and a success at Monterey would have been not only more certain but more decisive and less costly than at Buena Vista (Scott, Mems., ii, 412) | Moreover Taylor would have had the Monterey garrison as well as the troops who actually fought at Buena Vista. (8) Taylor represented that he could not transport siege guns from Camargo to Monterey, and how could he have expected Santa Anna to bring them to Monterey from San Luis Potosí? (9) If Monterey did not contain ample forage for the animals, the fault was Taylor's; and, if he was to stand a siege, most of the animals could have been sent to the Rio Grande (Ripley; War with Mex., i, 485). (10) Reinforcements from the north were en route, and succor from Scott could have reached Monterey more easily than a position far in advance. (11) Doniphan could have retired from Chihuahua by the way he had gone there or (like a party of only forty men: Hughes, Doniphan's Exped., 335) via Presidio del Rio Grande; and before moving toward Saltillo it was his duty to ascertain, as he actually did, whether he could safely go there.
Another point brought forward by Taylor was that had he remained at Monterey, the Mexicans could more effectually have annoyed his flanks and lines of communication (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1110); but (1) evidently, had he remained at Monterey, his flanks and lines of communication would have been less extended and more easily protected than when he was about eighty-five miles farther on (Polk, Diary, Mar. 23, 1847), and (2) as a matter of fact his flanks were effectually annoyed and his communications entirely cut off. (For certain points in this discussion the author is indebted to Ripley's "War with Mexico.") In short, the only rational explanation of Taylor's course appears to be that suggested in the text. Oct. 15 Taylor wrote: Every day's march beyond Saltillo will weaken our position and strengthen the enemy's (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 352). Nov. 26 he wrote: "We have advanced as far from our base in this quarter as we ought to venture" (Bixby coll., 72).
The troops that Taylor now had were: regulars — two squadrons of cavalry, four batteries (16 guns), and at Monterey one company of artillery; volunteers — two regiments of horse, eight regiments of foot, ​and two guns at Monterey, Saltillo and beyond Saltillo; and three regts. of volunteer foot holding the line to Camargo and down the river (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1098).