Essay on the Literature of the Mexican War

by W. T. Lawson

This seems by all odds the best history of the Mexican War. As a military history it is almost faultless, and will probably remain an authority upon the military events of the war for all time. The author, who was born in Ohio, graduated from the Military Academy in 1843. His regiment, the Second Artillery, was sent to the Rio Grande, took part in the battles around Monterey in September, 1846, and was then ordered to report to Gen. Scott. In the reorganization of the forces he became First Lieutenant of the Second Artillery, March 3, 1847. He took part in the operations which ended in the capitulation of Vera Cruz and the occupation of that port by the American Army, (March 9 to 29, 1847,) and for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battle of Cerro Gordo (April 17 and 18, 1847,) was breveted Captain. When Gen. Scott began his final movement upon the City of Mexico (Aug. 6, 1847) Ripley was assigned to duty as aide to Gen. Pillow, and was with that General in the battles of Contreras, Churubusco, and Molino del Rey, and also in the storming of Chapultepec, and for his gallant and meritorious conduct was breveted Major (Sept. 13, 1847). He was, therefore, an actor in most of the scenes which he describes, and held towards the superior officers of the Army relations which enabled him to comprehend what was done.

As an aide-de-camp and friend of Gen. Pillow, he naturally sympathized with that officer in the unseemly dissensions which broke out between Gen. Scott on the one hand and Gens. Worth and Pillow and other distinguished officers on the other, and was more or less interested in the protracted military investigations which followed the war. In this way he made the military history of the war a careful study, and he studied not only carefully but intelligently. His military education, his actual service in the war, his taste for military studies, the position which he held on Pillow’s staff, and his very decided ability fitted him peculiarly to be the military historian of the war. In order to write his history he obtained a protracted leave of absence, and devoted himself faithfully to his work. That he was prejudiced against both Gen. Scott and Gen. Taylor, and criticizes both of these eminent soldiers too severely, and very unjustly, is true, but he tells the story of the campaign with singular fidelity and in a masterly way. He understood what was done and has told it in a style worthy of the great deeds which he narrates. His obstinate temper, his prejudice, and his contentious spirit are too often apparent, but we pardon them in reading his luminous account of the many intricate movements of the troops, and the wonderful battles which were fought in the Valley of Mexico. However unjust his criticisms, they are always able and dignified, and compel our respect.

It is not strange that he did not appreciate the romantic performances of Kearney and Doniphan and Fremont, for he viewed all things as one fresh from the Military Academy, where are taught the duties of a soldier, not those of a statesman, and he was still a youth of 26 when he wrote his history. He could not understand the meaning of Kearney’s long march across the desert, of Doniphan’s wonderful expedition, or of Fremont’s daring exploits and strange adventures. He did not see that statesmen had duties more important than those of the soldier, and that Doniphan and Kearney and Fremont were adding an empire to the Union, while Scott and Taylor were covering our armies with undying glory and securing the possession of the conquests which our little armies were making in New Mexico and California.

A soldier of distinction, (Stevens,) in reviewing the book, says: “The work is professedly critical, and much space is devoted to the discussion of the political and military movements of both Mexico and the United States. A very thorough exposition has been made of both campaigns and of battles. The style is decidedly good. His view of the origin of the war is eminently just and told in sufficient detail.”

The freedom with which he, a mere subaltern, criticizes the conduct of such veterans as Scott and Taylor, both of them his superior officers, and one of them the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Army, is remarkable.

After commenting on Taylor’s mistakes at Palo Alto and criticizing severely his movement upon Monterey, he denounces his generalship in that battle and the armistice which followed. As to Buena Vista, he evidently thinks that it was won in spite of Taylor, and he says that the battle was saved once by the brilliant courage and hard fighting of Davis’s Mississippi regiment, and again by the timely and splendid execution of Bragg’s battery; that Davis suggested his own movement, and that Bragg moved without orders in the direction of the plateau, and both came in at the proper hour, and were both successful—giving fresh proof of the “supremacy of fortune in war.”

His criticisms of Scott are intensely bitter, and he says that the first great cause of American success in the operations around the City of Mexico lay in the bravery and courage of the army, and not in the ability and skill of the General-in-Chief, who (in our author’s opinion) gave more attention to politics and his own personal position than to the operations of the war.

Santa Anna is skillfully and ably portrayed, and appears as the most remarkable figure on either side. Ripley charges that Scott was successfully duped by the Mexican from the outset of his movement from Puebla till the capture of the city.

With all its faults, this book of Ripley’s is the very best history of the war with Mexico that has been written, and it will probably always remain the standard military history of the war, as Kinglake’s is of the Crimean contest, and Napier’s of the Peninsular War—the two military histories of surpassing excellence. Its author, who is still alive and in the perfection of his powers, ought to revise it by the light of subsequent events, and leave it to his country as an imperishable record of the most glorious war which the Union has ever fought.