[13.] Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 377 (Scott), 397 (Twiggs), 399 (Riley), 400 (Pillow), 410 (Quitman), 422 (Huger); app., 197 (Pierce), 201 (Cadwalader), 230 (Porter). Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 185 (Ripley). [260]Henshaw, comments on map. [217]Id.to wife, Sept. 13. [66]Lee to J. L. Smith, Sept. 15. [66]McClellan to Smith, Sept. 20. [66]Beauregard to Smith, Sept. 20. [111]Id.to Id.., Sept. 27. [304]Andrews to Lovell, Sept. 19. [304]Hunt to Id.., Sept. 15. [304]Steptoe to Id.., Sept. 16. [304]Porter to Id.., Sept. 16. [304]Wilcox, diary. Ramsey, Other Side, 457. [327]Sutherland to father, Aug. —. [178]Davis, diary. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 426. [76]Carrera, Sept. 1.
[14.] Negrete Invasión, iv, app., 299–300. [61]Letter from Mex., Sept. 11. Apuntes, 305–6, 309–10, 314. Ramírez, México, 307–8. Diario, Sept. 11. [73]Lozano, no. 7, 1847. S. Anna, Apelación, 57. Id.., Detall, 25. [76]To Bravo, Sept. 10. [76]Bravo, Sept. 11. [76]Tornel to Carrera, Sept. 9. [92]Ayunt. to S. Anna, Sept. 11. [92]Letter from Piedad, Sept. 11. [199]Anon. MS.
[15.] [76]Bravo, Sept. 14. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 427; iv, app., 299–300. [179]Diario Esactísimo. London Times, Nov. 13. S. Anna, Detall, 26. [76]To comtes. gen. Querétaro and Guanajuato, Sept. 12. Arco Iris, Nov. 30. Apuntes, 310–2. [70]Trial of Bravo (“Guerra,” no. 273). [70]Trial of Terrés (“Guerra,” no. 155). Molina, Asalto. [269]Id.., recolls. Prieto, Memorias, ii, 241–3. Rangel, Parte (with notes).
[16.] Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 377 (Scott), 410–2 (Quitman); app., 231 (Mackenzie). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 143 (Lee), 193, 200–1 (Worth), 259 (Quitman). Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 301–2. Henshaw narrative. [376]Nicholson, recolls. [221]Hill, diary.
[17.] The battle of Chapultepac Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 375, 391–425; app., 169–231 (reports of Scott and officers). Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 119 (Tilton), 146 (Lee), 155–6, 158 (Bennett), 170, 172 (Hooker), 204–9 (Rains), 217–8 (Drum), 219 (Bates), 220–1 (Johnston), 222–4 (Loeser), 270–5 (Howard). Stevens, Stevens, i, 208–10. Niles, Oct. 30, p. 137. Cong. Globe,34, 1, pp. 105–7. Sen. Report 32; 34, 1. Brown, Ninth Inf., 70. Henderson, Science of War, 97 (“The issue of battle”). So. Qtrly. Rev., Jan., 1853, pp. 15–42. [76]Bravo, Sept. 14. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 428–9; iv, app., 300–4. Balbontín, Invasión, 131. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 302–3. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., ii, 242–7. Davis, Autobiog., 231–2. Henshaw narrative. [180]Pillow to wife, Oct. 18. Weekly N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 2, 1848. [61]Seymour, Oct. 31, 1847. [69]H. V. Johnson et al. to Polk, Apr. 6, 1848. [376]Nicholson, recolls. [183]Drum, recolls. 223Hirschorn, recolls. [66]G. W. Smith to Stevens, Sept. 20. [66]Tower to J. L. Smith, Sept. 23. Claiborne, Quitman, i, 361–2, 380–6. Raleigh Star, Oct. 27. [221]Hill, diary. [200]Reid to Gladden, May 27, 1849. S. Anna, Detall, 16, 26–9, 38–42. [151]Numerous reports and letters regarding Quitman’s operations. [113]Beauregard, remins. (based on diary and notes). [151]Wilcox, diary. [303]Quitman papers. National, Nov. 14. [179]Diario Esactísimo. [60]Riley to Westcott, Nov. 30, 1847. [60]Loring to P. F. Smith, Sept. 27. [68]Testimony at Bonneville court martial. [60]Miller to sister, undated. [60]Id.to mother, Mar. 24, 1848. London Times, Nov. 13, 1847. [335]Reynolds to Trist, Sept. 27. Oswandel, Notes, 426. Semmes, Service, 453–5. Arco Iris, Nov. 30. Apuntes, 311, 314–6. [199]Anon. MS. Rangel, Parte (with notes). Eco del Comercio, May 1, 1848. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (M. L. Smith, Nov. 30, 1848). Gamboa, Impug., 55. [70]“Guerra,” no. 1044 (trial of Alemán). [70]“Guerra,” no. 273 (trial of Bravo). Monitor, Apr. 27, 1848. [70]“Guerra,” no. 155 (trial of Terrés). Statue of Bravo at Puebla. Delta, Oct. 14, 26; Nov. 3, 20. México á través, iv, 690–5. [76]Bravo, Dec. 27. Dunovant, Battles, 5–10. Wash. Union, Nov. 3. Monitor Repub., Oct. 24; Dec. 16 (S. Anna). Nashville Repub. Banner, Oct. 28, 1857. [292]Pillow to wife, Oct. 18. Spirit of the Age, Feb. 10; July 29, 1848. Pacheco, Exposíción. Wise, Gringos (N. Y., 1849), 257–9. Calderón, Rectificaciones, 47. Vedette, iv, nos. 3, 8, 12. [327]Sutherland to father. Aug. —. [178]Davis, diary. Flag of Freedom, Nov. 27. Molina, El Asalto. [269]Id.., recolls. [291]Pierce to Appleton, Sept. 26. [51]Marine off., Oct. 20. Reynolds, Exculpation. [131]Brindle, statement. Ripley, War with Mexico, ii, 396–402. Encarnacion Prisoners, 84. Hist. Teacher’s Mag., Apr., 1912 (Vieregg).
Remarks on the battle of Chapultepec. Chapultepec had been a protected summer palace, not a fortress. At this time the upper stories that one sees now did not exist. There were perhaps three times as many large trees in the grove as at present. For military reasons the small trees had recently been cleared away. Scott had a small map of the city, apparently purchased from the British courier (Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 25). The Twelfth Infantry guarded the stores at Mixcoac, and Sept. 10 Harney was sent there with a body of dragoons. Sumner was then placed in command of all the dragoons at Tacubaya (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 421). P. F. Smith’s brigade remained at Mixcoac until the morning of Sept. 13. Lee, Beauregard, Stevens and Tower reconnoitred the southern front. Scott was there nearly all day Sept. 9, and on the morning of the eleventh. The purposes in view were to study the Mexican preparations, ascertain the nature of the ground, and find places for batteries. In general the ground, even where covered with water, appeared to be firm enough for infantry, and suitable places for batteries were found.
Bravo was appointed to the command of Chapultepec on August 27. Sept. 9 Alvarez was ordered to take the cavalry to Guadalupe. According to [76]Bravo, Sept. 14, the garrison of Chapultepec on the morning of Sept. 12, aside from gunners and engineers, was the Tenth Line Infantry (250), Mina battalion (277), Unión battalion (121), Querétaro battalion (115), Toluca battalion (27), Patria battalion (42). These 832 men were disposed as follows: defending the road to Tacubaya, 160; redoubt on south side of hill (apparently at B), 215; glorieta redoubt (C), 92; entrenchment at the right of the glorieta (D), 42; north side of the hill, 80; buildings at summit, 243 ([76]Bravo, report, Sept. 14). The buildings near the gateway batteries were defended principally by the Matamoros de Morelia battalion.
At the conference of Sept. 11 Engineers Smith, Lee, Stevens and Tower favored attacking San Antonio, and Quitman, Shields, Cadwalader and Pierce took that view. Pillow did the same. Riley and Twiggs sided with Scott though not for positive reasons. Hitchcock and Trist do not seem to have expressed opinions. Worth and P. F. Smith were engaged elsewhere. Scott’s attacking Chapultepec against the advice of Lee illustrated the fact that his success in Mexico was not due to that officer, as the value of Lee’s services and his later fame have led some to imagine.
Gen. U. S. Grant regarded the battles of Sept. 8 and 13 as wholly unnecessary (Mems., i, 154). But here, as elsewhere in referring to the Mexican War, he seems to have been merely recording youthful impressions. He says that, had Scott gone round those positions, the Mexicans would have evacuated them; but Scott did not wish the Mexicans to evacuate El Molino and Casa Mata, taking with them their gunpowder and (supposed) foundry material: i. e., Grant failed to understand the question. With regard to Chapultepec also it is an issue between a lieutenant and the major general commanding. Scott did not overlook the idea of going round (Worth: Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 199); and hence, as he understood the case far better than Grant did at the time or when he wrote his Memoirs, one concludes that his judgment was correct. He stated (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 377) that [Grant’s] plan would have required too wide and hazardous a circuit. The following other objections against it may be suggested. Grant’s plan would have required the army to abandon the roads for difficult fields and marshes, limited the practicability of defending the rear in case of attack, weakened greatly the effective feinting upon which Scott counted (ibid., 376), produced a bad moral effect—especially in view of the recent battle—by suggesting that he dared not attack Chapultepec, exposed our assaulting troops to a cannonade from the rear, and left behind them a menace of other uncertain but alarming possibilities. The capture of Chapultepec, on the other hand, worked morally as well as physically in our favor, and was thought by Scott likely to have an even greater effect than it had (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 169); and it was stated by our engineers that mortars planted there would command a large part of the city. It has been said that our batteries were too far from the target; but it was not known what guns Chapultepec had, and no doubt our engineers and artillery officers ventured as far as appeared expedient. Clearly, however, too much was expected of our batteries.
Battery No. 1, to play on the south side of the fort, was laid out by Lee; No. 2, opposite the southwest angle of the fort, by Huger. The batteries did not fire accurately at first ([179]Diario Esactísimo). This seems to have been due to a lack of platforms for the guns. Quitman’s division supported No. 1, which was particularly exposed, and in the afternoon he made a bold reconnaissance of the road, discovering artillery and a ditch in his front (Claiborne, Quitman, ii, app., 308). The Mexicans made advances toward No. 1 on Sept. 12, but canister repelled them. To hinder reinforcements from reaching Chapultepec, Quitman by Scott’s order placed fifty men well forward on the road in the night of Sept. 12–13, and some skirmishing occurred. A 9-pounder protected with sand-bags was planted just in front of No. 1. The intention had been to establish an advanced battery, but the Mexicans prevented this. Two New York companies supported No. 2. Battery No. 3 had a brass 16-pounder. This, becoming unserviceable, was replaced with an iron 24-pounder. Batteries 1, 2 and 3 commanded the south and west fronts of Chapultepec fort, and No. 4 commanded its interior. No. 1 stood about 1000 yards from the south front of the fort; No. 2 about 1400 yards from its southwestern angle; No. 3 about 1140 yards from its west front; and No. 4 a little nearer than No. 3 (Hardcastle’s map in Sen. 1; 30, 1).