[17.] Shields’s operations. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 303, 306, 315, 325, 333, 342; app., 76, 106, 113, 118, 128, 130–4 (reports of Scott and officers). [66]Lee to Smith, Aug. 21. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 342–3. City of Charleston, Year Book, 1883, p. 523. [303]Shields to Quitman, Aug. 21. [221]Hill, diary. [335]Trist, draft of address. Semmes, Service, 402. [224]Intercepted letters (22, diary; 25, to E.). Hawthorne, Pierce, 100. Apuntes, 246–7. Murphy, Hungerford, 102. [76]Zerecero to Guerra, Aug. 25. Balbontín, Invasión, 121–2. Davis, Autobiog., 200–1, 286. [70]“Guerra,” no. 30 (F. Pérez). Stevens, Stevens, i, 198. Ramírez, México, 300. Carreño, Jefes, ccxciv (Torrejón), cccvii (Pérez). [170]Crooker to mother, Sept. 1. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 93–9. Oil painting of Butler: sen. chamber, Columbia, S. C. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert). [291]Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. Monitor Repub., Dec. 17. [125]Bonham to adj. gen., June 15, 1848. Nat. Intelligencer, Jan. 3, 1848. Stevens, Vindication, 4–7. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 285. [277]Burnett, statement. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 279. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 464. S. Anna, Detall, 15.
[18.] Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 306, 315, 325, etc.; app., 35, 42, 46, 49, 64, 77, 127, etc. (reports of Scott and officers). Semmes, Service, 397, 401–2. [224]Intercepted letters (17, J. U. to J. P. F.). Apuntes, 254–8. [76]Argüelles, Aug. 22. [76]Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26. Balbontín, Invasión, 122. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 233. Carreño, Jefes, cccvii (Pérez). Niles, Jan. 22, 1848, p. 323.
[19.] S. Anna, Detall, 15–6. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 313, 318, 340, 347; app., p. 36 (reports of Scott and officers). Picayune, Oct. 21. Apuntes, 247. Charleston Courier, Oct. 2. Balbontín, Invasión, 123. Fate of F. D. Mills. Grant, Mems., i, 146. Davis, Autobiog., 202. [223]Hirschorn, recolls. De Peyster, Kearny, 140, 142–5. Journ. U. S. Cavalry Assoc., Mar., 1911, p. 841. Ramsey, Other Side, 287, note. Negrete, Invasión, iv, app., 285–6.
Remarks on the battle of Churubusco. The active fortifying of the convent did not begin until the afternoon of Aug. 18 ([76]Rincón to S. Anna, Aug. 26); one gun arrived there on the morning of the twentieth and the rest were left by Santa Anna later that day (Apuntes, 252); and hence Scott could not well have learned from spies what the situation was in that quarter. It is bootless to say (Calderón, Rectificaciones, 43) that Santa Anna should have prevented Scott from reaching Coyoacán. Neither he nor his army was in a condition to fight without fortifications, and they could not have stopped the Americans anywhere if not at Churubusco. On the Mexican right at the convent were two 8-pounders and a 4-pounder; in embrasures at the front, an 8-pounder and a 4-pounder; en barbette at the left an 8-pounder; and in an embrasure defending the left flank a 6-pounder. A detachment of the Independencia battalion under Peñúñuri occupied Coyoacán when the Americans approached, and retired with some loss. The fight at Churubusco convent was actually begun by the Mounted Rifles, but their orders were merely to escort the reconnoitring party, and the First Artillery was expected to clear the way by turning the supposed one-gun battery (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 330). Riley had only the Second and Seventh Infantry at Churubusco. The Fourth Artillery was on guard at Valencia’s camp. Scott ordered that Worth should attack and turn San Antonio after finding the Americans were in its rear, but when he sent Lee to give the signal to Worth, Lee found Worth had already done this.
Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 250–1) says that Scott ordered Pillow to do what Twiggs did and vice versa. But (1) nothing of this is found in Scott’s or Pillow’s report; (2) Scott would not have been likely to order two bitter enemies (Worth and Twiggs) to coöperate in an indefinite manner, and (3) H. L. Scott testified at the Pillow trial that he carried from Gen. Scott to Twiggs the order to attack the convent (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 98). Davis, Shields’s aide, says on the other hand (Autobiog., 199) that Scott knew by reconnaissances of a remarkably strong fortification at Churubusco, and ordered Twiggs to take the route actually taken by Shields. But (1) Davis’s first statement is not correct; (2) Scott was at Coyoacán, where the roads forked, and would have recalled Twiggs, had he seen that officer take the wrong road; (3) Scott felt in haste to strike the retreating Mexicans, and the quickest way to do that was apparently by the road to Churubusco; and (4) H. L. Scott’s testimony, supported by the reports of Gens. Scott and Twiggs, seems to be decisive. Davis’s account contains other errors, and appears to have been written long afterwards from memory.
What Scott intended to do after concentrating we do not know. Probably, as was his custom, he held several plans in suspense, awaiting developments and fuller information regarding the enemy, which the delay expected in Worth’s operations would have given him time to acquire. But his promptness in sending off Pierce and Shields, and his attempt to hold back one of Smith’s and one of Pierce’s brigades, suggest that he aimed to get behind Santa Anna himself and force a decisive battle. Gen. U. S. Grant endorsed Scott’s strategy at Churubusco as faultless and said the engineers served him perfectly (Mems., i, 145); but Stevens’s confession is decisive on both points (Stevens, Stevens, i, 180, 184, 196, 199). Stevens states expressly that Scott had intended to reconnoitre before attacking at Churubusco.
Worth’s attacking the bridge without reconnoitring was mainly due to over-confidence and eagerness; but the intense ambition and rivalry of Worth and Twiggs probably had something to do with the undue haste of both. Of course Semmes (Service, 398, 446) asserts that Worth advanced with deliberation and reconnoitred the bridgehead, but the evidence, especially that given at the trial of Major Bonneville, is decisively against him. Ripley, on the other hand, states that a reconnaissance was not practicable (War with Mexico, ii, 267); but while a complete reconnaissance could not be made, the cornfields on the right would have enabled an officer to advance unseen, and at a glance learn something regarding the obstacle in front. This would have been to save, not lose, time.
Scott was accused of having no plan and leaving his generals to attack as they saw fit, and was criticized especially for fighting to gain a road neither needed nor used by him, from which the enemy could easily have been manoeuvred, had they cared to hold it (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 378); but the text explains these apparent errors. The battle was, however, in effect a blunder, even though not chargeable to Scott as such. Still, the ardor of the army was something not to be thrown away by delaying, and the promptness of the Americans prevented Santa Anna from completing his preparations. (Greene, Russian Army, 433: Excessive prudence has a bad effect on the morale of the men.) Perhaps Scott gained as much as he lost in this way. Moreover, had he manoeuvred the Mexicans out of Churubusco, it would have been necessary to fight them elsewhere, when they would probably have been more ready to fight; the moral effect of this victory on both armies would not have been gained; and our military annals would not have contained this page. The moral effect on the Mexicans, however, was largely offset by pride in the stubborn resistance they had offered, and by the armistice that Scott immediately offered. One could not always determine just where firing, heard from a distance, was taking place. Probably for this reason we have inconsistent reports that make it impossible to determine precisely where and when the battle began. The Sixth Infantry, moving toward the bridge a considerable distance in advance of Worth himself, were said to have received the first fire from the convent (Hoffman: Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1076), but Scott reported that the attack upon the convent began some time before that upon the bridgehead. Stevens (I. I. Stevens, 198) supports him. The writer in “Apuntes” says that Worth was checked by ammunition wagons in the road, and that Santa Anna, seeing this, recalled Pérez to defend the bridge; but the wagons appear to have caused no such delay as this writer assumed. The rest of Santa Anna’s force (which this writer says kept on towards Mexico) was mainly cavalry, and presumably this cavalry assisted in flanking Shields. Brev. Lieut. Col. C. F. Smith’s battalion consisted of two companies from the Second Artillery, one from the Fifth Infantry and one from the Eighth Infantry (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 316).
The Fifteenth, but only one battalion (commanded by Capt. Wood) of the Twelfth Infantry was with Pierce, and a battery of mountain howitzers. Pierce, who had been thrown from his horse the day before, fainted and fell out before coming into action, so Shields commanded both brigades. Lee was the engineer officer with Shields. Seeing the need of more troops, he went back to Scott and obtained the Mounted Rifles and a troop of the Second Dragoons, but these men did not reach the spot in time to fight. Scott has been criticized for not sending a stronger force in this direction; but in fact he did not even retain an escort, and the Rifles were Twiggs’s reserve (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 309). The South Carolina regiment, commonly known as the “Palmettoes,” was made up of superior material. Men fit to be officers were in the ranks. Shields’s movement was partly based on a misapprehension, for the Mexicans could retreat from Churubusco via Mexicaltzingo; but anyhow it was wise to aid the frontal attack on the bridge by applying pressure on the flank. Shields seems to have marched too far north to coöperate effectively with the attack upon the bridgehead. Presumably he did so in order to reach Santa Anna’s rear. The combined effect of this movement and the outflanking of the Mexican left was to extend the American line enormously, and expose it to a (happily very improbable) counter-attack. At about three o’clock the Americans were in three sections, badly separated by distance or by the enemy, while the Mexicans, besides fighting behind strong defences, were all actually or virtually in touch one with another, and able to give mutual support.
Shields naturally overestimated the numbers opposed to him. Perhaps the Victoria and Hidalgo battalions from San Antonio passed along the highway to Mexico at this time. They would not fight. They thought hunger, sunburn and blistered feet bad enough. The Americans believed that they fought at least 32,000 men on Aug. 20 (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 313); but this was a great exaggeration. Rangel’s brigade was in town; Alvarez’s was far away; and there must have been a large number of soldiers guarding the fortifications, and attending to the general requirements of the service. The number fighting that day on the Mexican side seems to have been about 16,000, though Mexican authors have tried to reduce it to 12,000 or 13,000 (e.g. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 375).