Under Scott’s orders, Pillow with the Ninth and Fifteenth Infantry was at S. Borja and Riley’s brigade (Twiggs’s division) at Nalvarte on Sept. 7, evening (Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 363). Late on Sept. 7 Quitman’s division also was sent to the south front of Mexico. Reconnoitring was done there on rather an extensive scale during the night, and the Mexicans were thoroughly roused.
[5.] The battle of Sept. 8. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 354, 375 (Scott), 361 (Worth), 368 (return), 373 (Sumner), 374 (Huger), 425 (Smith), 430 (Hitchcock); app., pp. 134–165, 192 (officers). Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1237 (Perry). [179]Diario Esactísimo. Stevens, Stevens, i, 204–7. Sedgwick, Corresp., i, 170. Semi-weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. Elderkin, Biog. Sketches. So. Qtrly. Rev., Oct., 1852, 298–315. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 463–9; iv, app., 295–9. S. Anna, Detall, 23–5. Balbontín, Invasión, 125–9. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 296–9, 303. Grant, Wems., i, 152–3. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 238, 240. [217]Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13. [218]Henshaw narrative. [61]Letter from Mexico, Sept. 11. [69]May to Harney, Nov. 17, 1848. [69]Steele to Harney, —, 1848. [69]Harney to Marcy, May 22, 1848. [66]Mason to J. L. Smith, Sept. 25, 1847. [66]Stevens to Id.., Sept. 25. [66]G. W. Smith to Stevens, Sept. 20. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 352. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. [221]Hill, diary. [304]Kirby to Mrs. E. K. Smith, Sept. 12. [60]Andrews to Daniel, Dec. 10. Louisville Democrat, Dec. 17. [68]Testimony at Bonneville court martial. London Times, Nov. 13. Semmes, Service, 436–449. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 503. Apuntes, 210, 294–304. [100]Relaciones, circular, Sept. 8. [199]Anon. MS. Correo Nacional, Dec. 10. Gamboa, Impug., 52. [70]“Guerra,” no. 155 (testimony of Garay). [70]“Guerra”, no. 274 (testimony at the trial of Andrade and Jáuregui). Picayune, Oct. 14; Nov. 3. [350]Weber, recolls. Delta, Oct. 14, 26. Ramírez, México, 304–6. México á través, iv, 687–9. Davis, Autobiog., 271. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Diario, Sept. 8. [364]Worth to daughter, Sept. 28; to S., Dec. 27. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 238–9. [73]Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Moore, Scott’s Camp., 155–63. Steele, Amer. Camps., i, 117. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 137. Bartlett, Pierce, 153. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 259. Giménez, Memorias, 112, 266. [205]Graham, memo. book. [178]Davis, diary. Diccionario Univ. (León). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). Molina, El Asalto. [291]Pierce to Hooker, Sept. 15. Stevens, Vindication. [328]Sweet, statement. [69]Huger, Sept. 9. Lawton, Artill. Off., 311–4, 323, 326. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 426–7, 437–9, 447–53. [76]Herrera to Relaciones, Oct. 14. [76]Ortega, Sept. 13. [76]To comte gen. Mex., Oct. 29. [76]M. Andrade, Sept. 9; Nov. 3. [76]J. Y. Gutiérrez, proclam., Sept. 11. [76]Noriega, Nov. 19. [76]Alcorta, circular, Sept. 11. [76]Comte gen. Oaxaca, Sept. 15. [76]Id.of Querétaro, Sept. 14. Calderón, Rectificaciones.
Remarks on the battle of Sept. 8. In forming an opinion of the battle as a military operation one must ignore the fact that the position gained was used later as a stepping-stone, for at this time Scott was not planning to capture Chapultepec. It appears surprising that Scott, knowing that heavy Mexican forces were on the spot, apparently desiring to fight there, should have thought that a place as valuable to the enemy as he deemed El Molino (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 355) ought to be attacked at night, and could be taken easily (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 579) by men unacquainted with ground and buildings familiar to the enemy, and should have neglected to have more of his troops near at hand; but we do not know what details were included in the information upon which he so confidently relied, nor do we know the source of it (ibid., 298). Pillow reported, apparently during the evening of September 7, that the cannon and machinery had been removed (ibid., 298, 579); no smoke appeared to issue from the mill; no sound of boring could be heard (Semmes, Service, 431). It has been suggested that Scott felt over-eager to punish Santa Anna for disappointing his expectations of peace; but he doubtless had learned from Trist of Santa Anna’s political difficulties. He was, however, angry on account of the violations of the armistice. The principal information on which Scott acted was understood to have come through Trist; it had been correct; but Scott seems to have erred in overlooking the chance that conditions might change in two or three days. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 528) states that the attack was based on a “rumor.” This is an error. On account of the apparent incorrectness of Scott’s information and the massing of Mexican troops in and near El Molino, some Americans suspected that Santa Anna set a trap for him. But the fact that Santa Anna left this quarter and took away a considerable part of his troops early in the night of Sept. 7—leaving behind, according to Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, 427) 4000 infantry and artillery privates—disposes of that idea. It has been said that Scott might have stopped work at the foundry (had work been then proceeding) by cutting off the supply of water (i.e., power); but he wished to seize the finished cannon supposed to be there (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 298) and the large quantity of powder that he had heard was at Casa Mata.
The only argument advanced in favor of a night attack seems to have been the danger of fire from Chapultepec. In reply it was said that (as had been seen at Cerro Gordo) a plunging fire did little harm. The distance of Chapultepec seems almost to nullify this reply; but as a matter of fact the cannon of Chapultepec appear to have done no execution in the battle. Worth’s officers met him after dark, Sept. 7, and later one of them submitted his general plan of operations to Scott, who discussed it at considerable length and finally (virtually admitting that a night attack was not advisable) approved all of it except the following point. Worth strongly desired to effect a lodgement in the grove of Chapultepec, which he believed he could take at a cost of fifty men ([364]Worth to S., Dec. 27). (Indeed, he pushed some of his troops several hundred yards that way: Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 138; Davis, Autobiog., 271). But Scott refused positively to have this done. Semmes (Service, 447) says that Worth desired to capture Chapultepec at this time because with his remarkable intuitive judgment he saw, as Scott saw later, that this was the true approach to the city; but Scott’s later opinion was due to a study of the ground which neither he nor Worth had at this time been able to make and to Mexican fortifying not yet done. Even if Worth could have carried Chapultepec rather easily, the prudent maxim that one should not buy (because it can be got cheaply) what one does not want, appeared to apply with especial force after losses that could be so ill afforded had been suffered; and it was not certain that the castle could be taken without a struggle. One costly surprise was enough for one day. Engineer Stevens (Stevens, Stevens, i, 206) thought an attempt should have been made to reconnoitre the Mexican right with a view to turning the position; but to push a reconnoitring party between the Mexican right wing and the cavalry of Alvarez must have looked extremely hazardous.
Clarke’s brigade consisted of the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Infantry, it will be recalled. Cadwalader had the Voltigeurs and Eleventh and Fourteenth Infantry. C. F. Smith being ill, his battalion was commanded by Captain E. K. Smith, who was mortally wounded. Semmes (Service, 445) says that Cadwalader’s brigade and Drum’s guns had been added at Worth’s request, but Hitchcock (Fifty Years, 296) and Scott’s general orders of Sept. 7 show that Scott originally intended to give Worth one of Pillow’s brigades. Worth could no doubt have had more light guns, but it was said that projectiles for the heavy guns were so few that it was necessary to husband them closely. Scott, however, stated (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 377) that he had plenty of such ammunition. Ripley (op. cit., ii, 461) says that “the nature of the orders [given to Worth] forbade an attack by artillery”; but (1) there is no evidence to prove this; (2) artillery was used on Casa Mata, only not long enough; (3) it was used again later with success (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 527; Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 136). See Stevens, Stevens, 206. Indeed, it seems to have been unnecessary to attack Casa Mata. It could not have held out long after the fall of El Molino. Ripley admits (p. 462) that the battle “was confused,” but adds, “storming is always a work of confusion.” Here he confounds occurrences with management. The former must involve noise and confusion in such an affair, but the latter should not.
Sumner had one troop of the First Dragoons, six troops of the Second, part of a troop of the Third, and a company of Mounted Rifles. Foster had ten pioneers. Drum had three guns, but one of them was sent out on the road to Mexico, and during the battle one of the others became disabled by the breaking of a priming wire. Semmes—determined, as usual, to defend Worth at all hazards—says that during McIntosh’s charge Duncan’s battery was called away to repel the Mexican cavalry; but Duncan’s report (Sen. 1; 30, 1, app., 136) shows that his guns did not turn against the cavalry until masked by McIntosh’s troops. The part of Cadwalader’s brigade that moved to the left was the Voltigeurs. After the repulse of Clarke’s brigade some of the Voltigeurs went into the ravine and moved toward the rear of Casa Mata. This perhaps helped to force the Mexicans out, and certainly resulted in the capture of many prisoners. Vigorous pursuit of the Mexicans was in general impracticable on account of the character of the ground and the fire from Chapultepec. Finding the engagement far more serious than he had expected, Scott summoned forces from the southern front of the city and from Mixcoac, but these could not arrive soon enough to give material assistance. Jackson’s section of Magruder’s battery came from Mixcoac in time to contribute a little to the final repulse of the Mexican cavalry. Worth blamed Scott for saying in his report that Pierce’s brigade interposed between Garland and the Mexicans, and asserted that it did not arrive until a considerable time after the battle ended (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1079); and it was felt by others, too, that Scott erred here. But from the [178]diary of a man in the Ninth Infantry it seems clear that that regiment—a part of Pierce’s brigade—did as Scott stated.
The number of Americans actually engaged was 3251 (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 369). Our loss was 116 (including nine officers) killed, 665 (including forty-nine officers) wounded, and eighteen privates missing (ibid., 384). We captured 685, including 53 officers. One third of Clarke’s brigade, including one half of the officers, were killed or wounded (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 145). The Fifth Infantry seemed little more than a company after the battle (Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 297).
Santa Anna stated later (Mi Historia, 75) that Iturbe, a wealthy resident of Tacubaya, notified Tornel that Scott intended to enter the city during the night of Sept. 7 by the San Lázaro garita, on the eastern side of Mexico, and that for this reason he (Santa Anna) took troops away from El Molino; but Santa Anna always laid the blame for his mistakes upon some one. No doubt Scott’s feint against the southern side of the city and his not attacking during the afternoon were enough to cause alarm, but Santa Anna blundered in going to the southeast corner of the city, for an American attack there must have developed slowly owing to the swamps, whereas an attack upon El Molino could be made quickly. He reached the scene of the battle at about half-past nine, and claimed that, but for his arrival, Chapultepec might have been lost (Apelación, app., 111). The government represented that he was in command during the battle (Apuntes, 304). By Scott’s orders Casa Mata was blown up. The Mexicans believed that a shot of theirs exploded the magazine. Andrade was tried and acquitted. Had he been as much at fault as Alvarez alleged, the latter should have replaced him on the spot with another officer. About noon the Mexican cavalry (or at least Andrade’s division) were ordered to charge, but on reaching the battlefield found the Americans had retired. It has been suggested (Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 448) that a part of the Mexican cavalry should have been dismounted and placed between El Molino and Casa Mata; but one may feel sure that Alvarez would not have consented to that arrangement. One hesitates to think what the results of the battle might have been, had not Santa Anna withdrawn previously with a considerable part of his troops; and of this movement Scott was not aware, though he may have hoped that his feint against the city would have an effect of that sort.
After the battle the American troops reoccupied in general the positions held by them before it.
[6.] Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 297–9, 303. [224]Id.., introd. to intercepted letters. [217]Henshaw to wife, Sept. 13. [73]Lozano, no. 7, 1847. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. [221]Hill, diary. Semmes, Service, 447–9. London Times, Nov. 13. [76]Ortega, Sept. 13. [100]Guerra, circular, Sept. 11. [76]J. Y. Gutiérrez, proclam., Sept. 11. Apuntes, 303–4. [199]Anon. MS. Picayune, Oct. 14. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 361 (Worth), 430 (Hitchcock); app., 156 (Cadwalader). Sen. 19; 30, 2 (Smith to Abert, Nov. 30, 1848). [69]Huger, Sept. 9, 1847. Ho. 24; 31, 1. Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 145 (Lee). Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 468. N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 17, 1882 (Mayne Reid). S. Anna, Detall, 24. [70]“Guerra”, no. 273 (trial of Bravo). Stevens, Stevens, i, 206.