[15.] Picayune, Sept. 9; Oct. 16, 17. Gamboa, Impug., 49, 50. Apuntes, 270–1, 286. [13]Bankhead, nos. 77, Aug. 27; 83, Aug. 29. [221]Hill, diary. Ramírez, México, 275, 303. México á través, iv, 686. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 280, 287–92, 294. Grant, Mems., i, 148. Davis, Autobiog., 211. [224]Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). Henshaw narrative. Haynes, Gen. Scott’s Guide. [259]Intercepted letter. Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). [291]Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 297, 301, 303, 306. [178]Davis, diary. Diario, Sept. 2, 4, 8. [335]Belton to Hitchcock, Aug. 23. [335]E. E. Smith to Trist, Aug. 31. [335]Memo. in Spanish, Aug. —. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 415. Semmes, Service, 424. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (Hardcastle). [80]Relaciones, circular, Aug. 23. [80]Alcalde S. Fe to Olaguíbel, Aug. 29. [80]Olaguíbel to legislature, Aug. 30; reply, Sept. 1. [80]Valencia to O., Aug. 21, 23. [80]O. to Guerra, Aug. 22. [80]Guerra to O., Aug. 24; reply, Aug. 29. [199]MS. written by leading citizen. [73]Lozano, nos. 5, res., Aug. 28; 8, res., Sept. 17. Encarnacion Prisoners, 81, 83–4. Monitor Repub., Nov. 16 (Alvarez). Carreño, Jefes, cccxv, note. [260]Henshaw, comments on map. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Apuntes, 271–2. And from [76] the following (and many others). Alvarez, Aug. 22, 23, 24, 26, 29. To comandante Toluca, Aug. 24. Acuerdos, Aug. 23, 25, 26, 28, 31; Sept. 1, 4. To Alvarez, Aug. 21, 25, 28. Tornel, Aug. 27, 27, very res., 29. To Ugarte and comtes. gen. Guanajuato, S. Luis Potosí and Querétaro, Aug. 29. Cosío, Sept. 6. J. Y. Gutiérrez, Sept. 2, res. To Lombardini, Aug. 9, 22, 24, 25. Alcorta, Aug. 22. Quijano to Lombardini, Aug. 23, 24. To comte. gen. Mexico, Aug. 27, 29, 30. Bravo, Aug. 28. To Herrera, Aug. 25. To Relaciones, Aug 27. Tornel to comte. gen., Sept. 4. Pacheco to Tornel, Aug. 23. Circulars, Aug. 26; Sept. 1, 6, 7. Alvarez to Olaguíbel, Oct. 30. Olaguíbel, Aug. 27.
Paredes, who had been banished, landed at Vera Cruz on Aug. 14 (Paredes, Breve Exposición).
On August 26 a long train of army wagons went to the capital for provisions and was turned back; but an explanation came promptly from Santa Anna. The next day a similar train, while waiting in the main plaza of the city ([76]Tornel, Aug. 27), was attacked by the populace because the teamsters appeared to gaze with indifference, if not insultingly, at a religious procession (Carreño, Jefes, cccxv; Henshaw narrative). Immediately the prevailing hostility against the Americans and a suspicion that Santa Anna was planning to introduce Americans in this way and betray the capital (Arco Iris, Nov. 29, 1847) led to a riot, in which six or seven of the Americans were injured and two killed. Tornel, now governor of the Federal District, tried without effect to quell the mob; but Herrera, comandante general, succeeded (Apuntes, 271). Mexican troops defended the wagons (Davis, Autobiog., 211). Santa Anna felt and expressed deep regret for the incident ([76]to Relaciones, Aug. 27), and some Mexican officers were punished for imprudence ([76]to comte. gen. Mex., Aug. 27). Scott viewed the affair philosophically. After this Herrera and Tornel took precautions ([76]Tornel, Aug. 29), the business was done at a very early time in the morning, the wagons did not actually go into the city ([76]to comte. gen. Mex., Aug. 29), and an officer of the American commissary department, disguised as a peasant, had charge of them. Minor riots occurred later, however, and after a time the place where the supplies intended for Scott were kept was discovered and sacked (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 291). Owing to the non-success of the negotiations, about $300,000 of American cash had to be left in the town. Both cash and provisions had been arranged for by the indefatigable Hargous (ibid.) During the armistice the American equipments, artillery, etc. were put into the best possible order.
[16.] Santa Anna had much difficulty in persuading good men to serve as commissioners. Trist met the Mexican commissioners first on Aug. 27 at Atzcapuzalco, about eight miles from Tacubaya (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 191, 195), but at the second session (Aug. 28) it was agreed to meet at the house of Alfaro (Casa Colorada) near Tacubaya and within the Mexican lines. The instructions drafted for the Mexican commissioners, Aug. 24 and 29, were avowedly drawn as if Mexico had “triumphed,” and represented merely a basis for bargaining (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 313–5, 369–71). The commissioners were authorized at first only to receive and transmit the American propositions; but, believing they would be given (as they were on Aug. 31: ibid., 335) full powers, like his own, to negotiate, Trist laid his projet (ibid., 326–30) before them on Aug. 27 (see Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 389, note 1). Aug. 29 Santa Anna and his Cabinet discussed this (Sen 52; 30, 1, 330). Aug. 30 he discussed it with his generals (Diario, Aug. 31). Sept. 1 the Mexicans presented to Trist their full powers, and the discussion of his terms began. Sept. 2 they were discussed further, and, as agreement was found to be impossible, Trist proposed that the armistice be extended. A large gathering at the palace then discussed the situation (Apuntes, 278). Sept. 3 Santa Anna ordered that no more provisions and other articles that could be useful to the Americans should leave the city ([76]to comte. gen. Mex.). Sept. 4 Pacheco, the minister of relations, issued a [77]circular intimating that unless Trist should moderate his terms, negotiations would be broken off. Cabinet consultations followed, however (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 202). Sept. 5 Pacheco notified the Mexican commissioners that the Nueces-Rio Grande district and New Mexico would not be surrendered (ibid., 373–5). Sept. 6 the final meeting was held and the Mexican counter-projet presented (ibid., 375–80). The Spanish chargé had thought that, owing to Santa Anna’s disposition to jockey, the negotiations would last a long time. This was prevented by Trist’s frank, direct methods. Trist was now in good health except for a severe toothache. He and Scott worked in perfect harmony.
Santa Anna was extremely anxious to gain foreign support and, if possible, a foreign guaranty of the boundary ([73]Lozano, no. 3, res., Aug. 25). Seiffart, the Prussian minister, who had felt annoyed by the insignificant rôle to which the negative policy of his government and his own lack of capacity had condemned him, now broke out with an unauthorized expression of sympathy for Mexico, and Santa Anna endeavored to use this as a lever on his colleagues ([73]Lozano, no. 8, res., Sept. 17). But France had no representative on the scene. Bankhead, besides entertaining considerable displeasure because his advice and the British offer of mediation had not been effective, had been for some months, and still was, too ill to take a strong position ([73]Lozano, no. 5, res., Aug. 28); and Ramón Lozano, the Spanish chargé (the minister having left for home on the conclusion of the armistice), would not act without instructions, and personally expressed the opinion that it would not be easy to obtain a European guaranty of the new line ([73]nos. 5, res., 8, res.).
[17.] The negotiations (including S. Anna’s difficulties). Sen. 52; 30, 1, must be studied closely by any one desiring to investigate the subject, and hence citations of the documents that it contains need not be given. [52]Trist to Buchanan, nos. 13, Aug. 24; 15, Sept. 4, confid. [335]Thornton to Trist, July 29. Sen. Report 261; 41, 2. Sen. 20; 30, 1. Ho. 40; 30, 1. Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 43, 47, 56, 59. [52]Contestaciones Habidas, 1847, with Trist’s notes, throughout. Delta, Nov. 13. Picayune, May 12; June 30; Sept, 9; Oct. 1, 15, 16, 17. Apuntes, 264–9, 277–9, 283, 286. [52]Buchanan to Trist, no. 3, July 13. [13]Bankhead, nos. 83, Aug. 29; 87, Sept. 28. Constitutionnel, Aug. 17. Ramírez, México, 234, 241, 271–2, 274, 278, 303. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 287–9. Davis, Autobiog., 209. [224]Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). [108]Buchanan to Bancroft, Sept. 29. [224]Letter from member of Congress (intercepted), Aug. 21. Henshaw narrative. Pacheco, Exposición. [284]Comunicacion que sobre ... dirigió ... Otero. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 483 (Otero). Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 388–408. México en 1847, 34. London Times, May 10; Oct. 26. Polk, Message, Dec. 7, 1847; Feb. 2, 1848 (Richardson, Messages, iv, 536–9). [291]Pierce to Appleton, Aug. 27. [47]Private letter from Orizaba, undated. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 240, 271. [13]Thornton to Addington, June 29. Arco Iris, Sept. 16. Opinión Pública, Aug. 29. Diario, Aug. 31. [335]E. E. Smith to Trist, Aug. 31. [83]Gov. Querétaro to Relaciones, Sept. 4. [83]Gov. Jalisco to Relaciones, Aug. 31. [83]Farias, Otero et al., declaration, Aug. 22. [83]Querétaro legislature to Rel., Sept. 4. Semmes, Service, 414, 426, 446. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 540. [80]Gov. S. L. Potosí to Olaguíbel, Aug. 28. [80]Gov. Querétaro to O., Aug. 21; reply, Aug. 27. [80]Relaciones, circulars, Aug. 23, 30. [80]Olag. to Relac., Aug. 26. [80]Olag., proclam., Aug. 26. [80]Relac. to Olag., Aug. 31, res.; Sept. 6, 8. [80]Proceedings of Coalition junta, Aug. 4, 25. [80]México legisl., Aug. 27. Porvenir, Aug. 24, supplmnt, [199]MS. written by a leading person. [82]Gov. Oaxaca to gov. Puebla, Sept. 9. [73]Bermúdez de Castro, no. 550, Aug. 21. [73]Lozano, nos. 3, res., Aug. 25; 5, res., Aug. 28; 6, Sept. 10; 8, res., Sept. 17. Encarnacion Prisoners, 83. [80]Coalition junta to México state, Aug. 14. [92]Mexico ayunt. to gov. Fed. District, Sept. 3. N. Y. Herald, Feb. 5, 1848. Nat. Intelligencer, Aug. 31. Monitor Repub., May 26, 31; Oct. 8. [132]Atocha to Buchanan, Sept. 4. Amer. Hist. Review, x, 319 (Reeves). Amer. Review, Jan., 1848, 5–14. So. Qtrly. Review, July, 1852, pp. 114–5. Republicano, May 11. [181]Buchanan to Donelson, Jan. 29. Prieto, Mems., 236. [364]Worth to S., July 29; to Marcy, Oct. 30. [221]Hill, diary. S. Anna, Detall, 16. S. Anna, Mi Historia, 74. [86]Relaciones, circular, Sept. 4. and from [76] the following (and many others). Cosío, Sept. 6. J. Y. Gutiérrez, Sept. 2. To Herrera, Aug. 25. To Bravo, Aug. 31. To comte. gen. Mexico, Sept. 3. To Canalizo, Aug. 12. To comte gen. Querétaro, Sept. 4. Gov. Michoacán, Sept. 3. Alvarez to Olaguíbel, Oct. 30. To Alvarez, Aug. 21.
Santa Anna said in his manifesto: “A perpetual war is an absurdity; because war is a calamity, and the instinct of self-preservation, which is even stronger and more powerful in nations than in individuals, recommends that no means whatever should be omitted that may lead to an advantageous arrangement. To adopt this course the constitution gives me competent authority. Consecrated to interests so noble and highly privileged, it is my duty to maintain at all cost the respect and reverence due to the supreme authority with which I am invested .... I will be yet more explicit: sedition and attempts at subverting the government shall be exemplarily punished” (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 250). (Trist’s “vague remark”) Ibid., 253.
The Mexican commissioners were instructed (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 314, 369–71) to draw Trist into discussions that not only would have given them opportunities to create awkward dialectic situations, as Rejón and others had done with reference to Texas, but might have excited fresh discord in the United States regarding our treatment of Mexico. For example, they were to ask the motives and aims of the war, and whether the United States based its expectations upon force or upon friendly negotiation. The ground was taken that since Mexico was now ready to give up Texas, all reason for the war had ceased to exist [as if the fighting that had already occurred, its loss of life, triumphs and expenses, signified nothing]. It was urged that since no title except to Texas had been claimed by the United States, we could continue the war only for the odious sake of conquest or the unheard-of purpose to punish Mexico because she was unwilling to sell her lands and her people (see Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 391, 400–1, 588, note 3).
In justification of his plan to extend the armistice, Trist pointed out that the American sick and wounded would recover, the rainy reason end, the inundations diminish, the roads improve and the temperature fall (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 259). Ripley, on the other hand, asserts (op. cit. ii, 350) that the Americans would have been “dependent upon the good faith of the Mexicans for all of the conveniences and many of the necessaries of life,” and, at the end of forty-five days, after living in unhealthy villages, would hardly have been fit to act. But had Santa Anna accepted Trist’s proposal he would have done so with the strong expectation of peace and American assistance, and hence would have treated our army well; and Tacubaya, S. Angel and S. Agustín were not only salubrious but delightful in comparison with the capital, and free from its temptations. With reference to Trist’s departing from his instructions by proposing to refer a point back to Washington, it is interesting to recall Napoleon’s dictum (which bears also on Scott’s action supra regarding the sealed despatch): “A general-in-chief cannot exonerate himself from responsibility for his faults by pleading an order of his sovereign or the minister, when the individual from whom it proceeds is at a distance from the field of operations, and but partially, or not at all, acquainted with the actual condition of things” (Maxims, p. 59).
[18.] There was probably some basis for certain of Santa Anna’s charges against the American troops. Scott allowed a day to pass, it was said, in order to enable Americans in town to get away. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 352) says this was done to allow unarmed inhabitants to do so. But it was good policy to prevent such persons from leaving, and such had been Scott’s course at Vera Cruz (chap. xxii, [p. 32]). Naturally Santa Anna wavered back and forth, and Trist believed that at about three o’clock, Sept. 5, he almost decided to accept the American terms (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 251).