Congressman Lincoln and the return of the wooden leg of General Santa Anna

[David Lockmiller]

(05-12-2013 05:26 PM)william l. richter Wrote:  Before we all go bonkers about the evil President Polk and the cruel United States, we ought to read the introduction to North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848, by Seymour V. Connor and Odie B. Faulk. They present quite a different story that was unavailable to Lincoln and Grant and other Americans against the war.

The land below the Nueces was not accepted by anyone as the southern boundary of Texas until the US advanced below Corpus Christi and Mexico made that spurious claim. Further, both California and Texas were practically separated from Mexico on their own--the only problem being who would get them, the US or the British, or some other European power, like Spain or France. All of these other nations had already attacked Mexico during the Pastry War in 1839, to collect debts owed them by Mexico, during which Santa Ana had lost his leg successfully defending Mexico. They would do it again in 1861 during our Civil War, leaving France to rule Mexico until 1867.

The real quarrel was internal between Mexican political parties, the Centralists and the Federalists, and had been since 1821 and the final Mexican separation from Spain. It lasted until Porfirio Diaz took over Mexico City after the death of Benito Juarez, who had thrown the French occupiers out in 1867.

Mexico went to war with the US fully expecting to march on New Orleans and Mobile and win. After all they had been fighting a war with themselves since 1821 and had one of the largest veteran armies in the Western Hemisphere, regardless of their methods of command and conscription. Mexico's real problem was they their officers lacked a West Point education. But no one knew this would be a critical factor until after the war. Another advantage the US has was the "flying artillery," 6-gun batteries drawn by 6 horses per gun. These proved a critical factor in the US winning so many battles. None of these factors had proved decisive in any US war before that time. Both sides were surprised at the effectiveness of the US artillery and the US volunteers (mostly westerners and southerners who loved to fight) and the American officer corps.

What really happened was that Mexico declared war on the US before Polk got Congress to do it. But communications were so bad that no one knew this until later. Thornton's US dragoons were attacked in the disputed area after Mexico declared war in a legal attack as far as Mexico was concerned. This news reached Washington City before the Mexican declaration of war and Polk used it to sucker Congress into a defensive declaration of war that proved to be all he need to conquer Mexico and take half of her territory.

Given the political desires of certain Americans of Mexican descent (often referred to Chicanos in the Southwest today, as opposed to the rest of the media calling them Latinos or Hispanics) and their organizations, like La Raza, MECha, Lulac, to recreate the independent Spanish-speaking entity La Republica de Aztlan out of the Mexican cession of 1848, returning Santa Ana's wooden leg might mean more to the US than the above post indicates so casually. Mexicans don't call their presidents past and present los Ladrones (the Thieves) for nuttin'.

So let's call it a draw. Mexico got Santa Ana's leg bones when a couple of old soldados saved them from a mob hell-bent to throw him and all his bones out of the country one more time for his incompetent ruining of his homeland (the Texas Revolution, the Mexican War, the Gadsden Purchase), and we got his prosthesis. They got the real thing--we got the fake. History is never so simple as we Americans assume. Que viva!

Mr. Richter makes the statement in his posting that Seymour Connor and Odie Faulk, in their book “North America Divided: The Mexican War,” “present quite a different story that was ‘unavailable’ to Lincoln and Grant and other Americans against the war.” To this seemingly conclusive statement, Mr. Richter added: “The land below the Nueces was not accepted by anyone as the southern boundary of Texas until the U. S. advanced below Corpus Christi and Mexico made that spurious claim.”

Lieutenant Ulysses Grant served in the army commanded by General Zachary Taylor that was ordered by President Polk to march from Corpus Christi on the Nueces River to the Mexican settlement of Matamoras on the Rio Grande River. In the “Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant”, in the chapter entitled “Causes of the Mexican War,” Ulysses Grant in 1885 makes two important statements on the causes of the Mexican War (Vol. I, at page 55):

1. The fact is, annexationists wanted more territory than they could possibly lay any claim to, as part of the new acquisition. Texas, as an independent State, never had exercised jurisdiction over the territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande.

2. In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory. The army did not stop at the Nueces and offer to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war.

In his memoirs, Grant provided his observations and detailed his experiences during this military campaign in 1846.

“Corpus Christi is near the head of the bay of the same name, formed by entrance of the Nueces River into tide-water, and is on the west bank of that bay. (Id at 64)

“Gradually the ‘Army of Occupation’ assembled at Corpus Christi. . . . The men engaged in the Mexican war were brave, and the officers of the regular army, from highest to lowest, were educated in their profession. A more efficient army for its number and armament, I do not believe ever fought a battle than the one commanded by General Taylor in his first two engagements on Mexican—or Texan soil.” (Id at 67)

“We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, ‘Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.

“Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the ‘invaders’ to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras. It was desirable to occupy a position near the largest centre of population possible to reach, without absolutely invading territory to which we set up no claim whatever.

“The distance from Corpus Christi to Matamoras is about one hundred and fifty miles. The country does not abound in fresh water, and the length of the marches had to be regulated by the distance between water supplies. . . . There was not at that time a single habitation, cultivated field, or herd of domestic animals, between Corpus Christi and Matamoras.” (Id at 68-69)

“[O]rders were issued for the advance to begin on the 8th of March [1846]. General Taylor had an army of not more than three thousand men.” (Id at 84)

“General Taylor was opposed to anything like plundering by the troops and in this instance, I doubt not, he looked upon the enemy as the aggrieved party and was not willing to injure them further than his instructions from Washington demanded. His orders to the troops enjoined scrupulous regard for the rights of all peaceable persons and payment of the highest prices for all supplies taken for the use of the army.” (Id at 85)

“About the middle of the month of March the advance of the army reached the Rio Grande and went into camp near the banks of the river, opposite the city of Matamoras and almost under the guns of a small fort at the lower end of the town. There was not at that time a single habitation from Corpus Christi until the Rio Grande was reached.The work of fortifying was commenced at once. The fort was laid out by the engineers, but the work was done by the soldiers under the supervision of their officers, the chief engineer retaining general directions. The Mexicans now became so incensed at our near approach that some of their troops crossed the river above us, and made it unsafe for small bodies of men to go far beyond the limits of camp. They captured two companies of dragoons, commanded by Captains Thornton and Hardee.” (Id. at 89)

Mr. Richter wrote of this initial military engagement in his post: “What really happened was that Mexico declared war on the U. S. before Polk got Congress to do it. But communications were so bad that no one knew this until later. Thornton’s U. S. dragoons were attacked in the disputed area after Mexico declared war in a legal attack as far as Mexico was concerned.”

Grant wrote of the military situation for General Taylor’s army at the time:

“There was no base of supplies nearer than Point Isabel, on the coast, north of the mouth of the Rio Grande and twenty-five miles away. . . . The supplies brought from Corpus Christi in wagons were running short. Work was therefore pushed with great vigor on the defences, to enable the minimum number of troops to hold the fort. All the men who could be employed, were kept at work from early dawn until darkness closed the labors of the day. With all this the fort was not completed until the supplies grew so short that further delay in obtaining more could not be thought of. By the latter of April the work was in a partially defensible condition, and the 7th infantry, Major Jacob Brown commanding, was marched in to garrison it, with some few pierces of artillery. (Id at 90-91)

“While General Taylor was away with the bulk of his army, the little garrison up the river was besieged. As we lay in our tents upon the sea-shore, the artillery at the fort on the Rio Grande could be distinctly heard. The war had begun.” (Id at 92)

Grant described the first battle between the respective armies in this manner:

“Early in the forenoon of the 8th of May as Palo Alto was approached, an army, certainly outnumbering our little force, was seen, drawn up in line of battle just in front of the timber. Their bayonets and spearheads glistened in the sunlight formidably. The force was composed largely of cavalry armed with lances. General Taylor halted his army before the head of column came in range of the artillery of the Mexicans. He then formed a line of battle, facing the enemy. . . . As I looked down that long line of about three thousand armed men, advancing towards a larger force also armed, I thought what a fearful responsibility General Taylor must feel, commanding such a host and so far away from friends.” (Id at 93-94)

“The Mexicans were armed about as we were so far as their infantry was concerned, but their artillery only fired solid shot. We had greatly the advantage in this arm.

The artillery was advanced a rod or two in front of the line, and opened fire. The infantry stood at order arms as spectators, watching the effect of our shots upon the enemy, and watching his shots so as to step out of their way. It could be seen that the eighteen-pounders and howitzers did a great deal of execution. On our side there was little or no loss while we occupied this position. . . . During the day several advances were made, and just at dusk it became evident that the Mexicans were falling back. We again advanced, and occupied at the close of the battle substantially the ground held by the enemy at the beginning. . . . Our causalities for the day were nine killed and forty-seven wounded. At the break of day on the 9th, the army under Taylor was ready to renew the battle; but an advance showed that the enemy had entirely left our front during the night.” (Id at 95-96)

“The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma seemed to us engaged, as pretty important affairs; but we had only a faint conception of their magnitude until they were fought over in the North by the Press and the reports came back to us. At the same time, or about the same time, we learned that war existed between the United States and Mexico, by the acts of the latter country. On learning this fact, General Taylor transferred our camps to the south or west bank of the river, and Matamoras was occupied. We then became the ‘Army of Invasion.’” (Id at 99)

Thus, it came to pass that this small U. S. army of not more than three thousand men, with one hundred and fifty miles of desert at its back and no apparent means of military support available to it, had been sent by President Polk to provoke a war with Mexico. If General Taylor’s small army of 3,000 men had been massacred by “one of the largest veteran armies in the Western Hemisphere” (as Mr. Richter described the Mexican Army in his post), President Polk would have been called to account by Congress and the nation. But as it turned out, the previously reluctant Congress of the United States declared war upon Mexico, and President Polk’s “war of invasion” was now to begin in earnest.

Question: If a bully walks into a neighborhood bar with the intention of provoking a fight, and even though a long-time patron of the local bar throws the first punch, which party really has started the fight?

Question: As applicable between nations, which party really started the war between United States and Mexico in May, 1846?

Professor Michael Burlingame, in his book “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” discusses Congressman Lincoln’s challenge to President Polk’s stated justification for going to war with Mexico:

“On December 22, 1847, Lincoln introduced a series of resolutions asking Polk to supply information about the commencement of the war. In his annual message earlier that month, the president had insisted that the conflict began as a result of Mexican soldiers ‘invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil.’ In eight legalistic interrogatories, which became known as the ‘spot resolutions,’ Lincoln clearly intimated that the soil where blood was initially spilled was not American and that in the spring of 1846 Polk had dispatched troops to Mexico in order to provoke an attack. Lincoln was particularly graphic in inquiring if ‘the People of that settlement [where hostilities began], did, or did not, flee from the approach of the United States Army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed.’ Polk ignored these interrogatories.” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. I, page 265)

“On January 3, 1848, Lincoln provoked further Democratic criticism by voting for Representative George Ashmun’s amendment asserting that the Mexican War had been ‘unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President.’ . . . [E]arlier in the [Congressional] session, Illinois Democratic Congressman William Richardson had introduced resolutions echoing Polk’s self-serving version of history.” (Id at 266)

Congressman Lincoln addressed in the House this further Democratic criticism on January 12, 1848:

“Some if not all the gentlemen on the other side of the House who have addressed the committee within the last two days have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. . . . I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case.” (“Abraham Lincoln, In His Own Words,” Maureen Harrison and Steve Gilbert, Editors, Barnes & Noble Books, 1996, page 57.)

“The President, in his first war message of May, 1946, declares that the soil was ours on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico, and he repeats that declaration almost in the same language in each successive annual message, thus showing that he deems that point a highly essential one. In the importance of that I entirely agree with the President. To my judgment it is the very point upon which he should be justified, or condemned.” (Id at 58)

“The issue, as he presents it, is in these words: ‘But there are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume the ground that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that, therefore, in marching our army to the east bank of the latter river, we passed the Texas line and invaded the territory of Mexico.’ Now this issue is made up of two affirmatives and no negative. The main deception of it is that it assumes as true that one river or the other is necessarily the boundary; and cheats the superficial thinker entirely out of the idea that possibly the boundary is somewhere between the two, and not actually at either.” (Id at 59)

[Please note that this is the same argument that Mr. Richter makes, as quoted in the first paragraph of this post.]

“[T]he President tells us the Congress of the United States understood the State of Texas they admitted into the Union to extend beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so understood it. But how far beyond? That Congress did not understand it to extend clear to the Rio Grande is quite certain, by the fact of their joint resolutions for admission expressly leaving all their questions of boundary to future adjustment. And it may be added that Texas herself is proved to have had the same understanding of it that our Congress had, by the fact of the exact conformity of her new constitution to those resolutions.” (Id at 63-64)

“I propose to state my understanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It if that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one from that of the other was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two was.” (Id at 64-65)

“If [President Polk] can show that the soil was ours where the first blood of the war was shed – that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown – then I am with him for his justification. In that case I shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. . . . But if he can not or will not do this, . . . then I shall be fully convinced of what I more that suspect already – that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels the blood of this war . . .; that originally having some strong motive – what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning – to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory – that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood – that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy – he plunged into it, and swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where. . . . The war has gone on some twenty months . . . .” (Id at 66-67)