History of the War Between Mexico and the United States with a Preliminary View of its Origin Part 1

History of the War Between Mexico and the United States, with a Preliminary View of its Origin.

by Brantz Mayer.

Volume 1.

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I.

Introductory views of Mexico--The people and government.

The war which broke out between the United States of North America and the Mexican Republic, in the spring of 1846, is an event of great importance in the history of the world. Profound peace had reigned among Christian nations, since the downfall of Napoleon; and, with the exception of internal discords in France, Belgium, Poland and Greece, the civilized world had cause to believe that mankind would henceforth resort to the cabinet rather than the field for the settlement of international disputes. The recent conflicts between the French and the Arabs in Algeria, and between the British and Indian races, have been characterized by ferocity and endurance. But, it will be recollected these encounters took place between nations unequal alike in religion, morals, law, and civilization. The temper or character of Mahomedans was not to be measured by that of Christians nor had we just reason to hope for a pacific or temporizing spirit in people whose savage habits have ever rendered them prompt to return invasion by a blow, and make war the precursor of negotiation. It was, thus, reserved for the Mexicans, whose blood is mixed with that of an Arab ancestry, to exhibit the spectacle of continual domestic broils, and, latterly of a positive warfare against a nation whose friendly hand was the first to summon them into the pale of national independence.

The disorganized condition of our neighbor for nearly thirty years, may, partly account for and palliate this fault. With administrations s.h.i.+fting like the scenes of a drama, and with a stage, at times dyed with blood, and at others imitating the mimic pa.s.sions and transports of the real theatre, it may be confessed that much should be pardoned by a forbearing nation whose aggregate intelligence and force are not to be compared with the fragmentary and impulsive usurpations in Mexico. To judge faithfully of the justice or injustice of this war, and to comprehend this history in truth and fairness, we must not only narrate in chronological order the simple events that occurred between the two nations; but the student of this epoch must go back a step in order to master the scope and motives of the war. He must study the preceding Mexican history and character; and, it will speedily be discovered that when he attempts to judge the Spanish republics by the ordinary standards applied to free and enlightened governments, he will signally fail in arriving at truth. He must neither imagine that when the name of Republic was engrafted on the Mexican system, that it accommodated itself at once to our ideal standard of political power, nor that the dominant faction was willing to adopt the simple machinery which operates so perfectly in the United States. There are many reasons why this should not be the case. The Spanish race, although it has achieved the most wonderful results in discovery, conquest, colonial settlement, diplomacy, feats of arms, and success of domestic power, has proved itself, within the present century, to be one of the few opponents of the progressive principles of our age. A Castilian pride of remembered greatness, and a superst.i.tious reluctance to cast off the bondage of the past, have made the Spaniards content to cling devotedly to their ancient edifice without bestowing on it those repairs or improvements without which governments, must evidently crumble and decay. Spain believed that what had produced national power and greatness in one age must ever continue to effect the same results, and, thus, she was content to bear the evils of the present time rather than disjoint a fragment of her ancient temple, lest the whole should fall in indiscriminate ruin. The blindness of national vanity was made more profound by the universal glare of progressive civilization that surrounded this doomed country, whilst superst.i.tious influences clogged every avenue to progress which might have saved and regenerated both the parent and her colonies.

It may be urged by the apologists for Spain, that, being nearly as deep in moral, political and social degradation as France was at the period of the revolution, she naturally contemplated such an event with horror, especially when she remembered the sensitive and excitable race that peopled her vallies and sierras, and the likelihood that the b.l.o.o.d.y dramas of Paris would be frightfully exaggerated in Madrid. But I still believe that the true cause will be found more deeply seated, in the nature of the people; and that Spain,--made up as she is of many nations, incompetent for self-government, uneducated and bigoted,--will ever be content to find her ideal future in her traditionary past.

Spain and the Spaniards have few more zealous admirers than the author of this history. The nation contains individuals who in patriotism, love of liberty, and devotion to science, literature, and art, are unsurpa.s.sed by any people of the world. As Americans we owe a debt of grat.i.tude to the n.o.ble discoverers and conquerors of this continent. In deeds of bravery, in chivalrous enterprise, and in intellectual power, with what people may they not be matched in their perfect period. But their golden age has pa.s.sed, and manifold corruptions in church and state have preyed upon the country with paralyzing influence.

For a long time we received from England with the submissive credulity of children, all her traditionary ignorance and abuse of Spain, much of which was owing to political animosity, as well as to the rivalry that grew up between that country and the rest of Europe during the reign of Philip the second. But the study of her language, history and literature, has unveiled the legendary falsehoods with which we were cheated. Whilst a large portion of her past history should be admired and lauded, her present downfall should be regarded with compa.s.sionate censure and sympathy. We should endeavor, in writing history, to make ourselves men of the times and nations we describe, and it is in this manner alone, that we can establish the spiritual sympathy between ourselves and foreign countries, which will enable us to enter into their feelings and motives, and thus become not only merciful but true and discreet judges.

The two great impressions made on this continent by the Spaniards were in Mexico and Peru. Avarice and ambition induced the conquest of the latter, while that of Mexico may also be attributed to the same motives, although the hero who added the Aztec empire to the Spanish dominions, modified his victories by personal qualities which were infinitely superior to those of the conqueror of Peru.[1] Yet, in neither of these great adventures do we find any of the fruits of peaceful acquisition, or of those well regulated advances in civilization which always mark a people whose conquest is undertaken under the immediate direction and legal restraints of government. The conquests in America were, in truth, chiefly individual enterprises, and, of course, could not be conducted in a spirit of temperance and justice. The exploits of Cortez and Pizarro, especially those of the latter, are characterized by ferocity and barbarism which would place them in the category with freebooters and buccaneers, were they not saved from it by the splendor of their successful results. The Indians of the countries they subjected to Spain, were utterly vanquished; yet, unlike the hardy and warlike aborigines of the north, they remained on their native soil, content to serve or mingle with their conquerors.--Wherever the white man came at the north, the Indian retreated to his congenial wilderness;--he could not inhabit the same country or breathe the same air with the intruder;--but, as the Spaniard advanced at the south, the semi-civilization of the enervated native, induced him to linger near the homes of his ancestors, and, with a tame heart, to obey his conqueror rather than to resist him or enjoy the fierce independence of the forest.

The territory thus seized by violence was held by fear.--Loyalty can never be the tenure of conquerors, and, especially, of the conquerors of an inferior race. The Spaniard and Indian lived together in a spirit of lordly dominion on the one hand, and of crushed dependence on the other, whilst the Castilian derived from the native nothing but his habits of savage life, and the Indian, in turn, learned nothing from the Castilian but his vices.

A conquest thus achieved, an empire founded in blood and terror, would naturally seem to have a doubtful destiny. It is unquestionably true that Spain made humane laws, and that Charles the Fifth pa.s.sed a decree by which his American possessions were declared to be integral parts of the Spanish kingdom. It is true, moreover, that he sought to abolish the special grants to discoverers and conquerors by which they were invested with almost absolute authority; and, by mitigating the system _repartimientos_[2] or of va.s.salage among the Indians, to raise them to the dignity of Spanish subjects. But, at the same time, these humane laws were badly administered in a country so difficult of access as America was at that period from Spain; and viceroys and governors acted as they pleased, with but little regard to the people or the country, except for their individual interests. Whilst this system of maladministration made the royal and beneficent laws nugatory, Spain seems to have been engaged in creating a colonial system which was calculated to paralyze the energies of Mexico and Peru. She taught them to look exclusively to mining for wealth, and to their Indians for labor. All the laws relative to the natural development of a new country were disregarded, and civilized existence in America began on artificial principles. The example of the last fifty years has proved that America is capable of producing all the necessaries, and most of the luxuries of life quite as abundantly as Europe. Yet, Spain denied her colonies the privilege of an effort. For instance,--she resolved at the outset not to allow them to be independent in agriculture, commerce or manufactures. She would not permit them to cultivate the soil save for the merest daily necessaries. Wine and oil were to be made in the old world. Cotton and wool were not to be woven into the beautiful fabrics for which the ancient Peruvians were so celebrated. The church aided the strong arm of government by the weight of her exactions and the power of superst.i.tious control. The Inquisition put its veto on the spread of knowledge by restraining the sale and publication of books.

Foreigners were not allowed to navigate Spanish seas or enter American harbors. And these distant sh.o.r.es were only visited at stated seasons by national vessels, carrying such produce at exorbitant prices, as Spain might think proper to despatch from Seville or Cadiz.[3]

I have thought it proper to state in my introductory chapter, thus much of the laws and system under which Mexico began her national existence;--for laws modify the character whenever they are not self-imposed. Let us now, for a moment consider the population which was subjected to the bad administration of such laws; and we shall then understand better the character of the belligerents.

The blood of the Spaniards, even at home, is a mixed blood. But when we remember the various races that have overrun, resided in, ruled, and incorporated themselves with Spain, we cannot be surprised at detecting so many and diverse characteristics in Mexico. The Celti-gallic, Celt-Iberian, Carthagenian, Roman, Vandalic, Visigothic, and Moorish blood have mingled again in Mexico and Peru with the Indian, and in some cases have been dashed even with the Negro.[4] Mexicans are thus, as I have observed elsewhere, grafts rather of the wild Arab on the American Indian, than of the Spanish Don on the n.o.ble Aztec.[5]

When Mexico was completely conquered and emigration began to fill up the land, the soil was divided, in large estates, among the adventurers and the Indians, by a system of _repartimientos_, were apportioned to the land holders.[6] This created an absolute va.s.salage, and bound the Indian, virtually and forever, to the spot where he was born. As it became wearisome to the planters to dwell in the seclusion of these vast and lonely estates, they left them and their Indians to the care of an _administrador_, and retreated to the chief cities of the provinces or to the capital. Thus all the intelligence and cultivation of Mexico became compacted in the towns, whilst the original ignorance and semi-civilization remained diffused over the country. It is, therefore, not at all surprising to find that out of a population of seven millions, four millions are Indians and only one million purely white, while more than two millions, of the rest, are zambos, mestizos and mulattos. Nor is it singular that of this whole population of seven millions, not more than six hundred thousand whites and eighty thousand of other castes, can read and write.[7]

Indeed it may be said with truth,--as agriculture has received but little attention beyond the ordinary wants of life, and as the great proprietors of estates have chiefly devoted their attention to the _raising of cattle_,--that the ancient nomadic habits of the Indian and half-breed, have remained unchanged, and, consequently, that the great body of this semi-civilized people is quite as much at home on horseback with sword and lance as in the _corral_ or _hacienda_.[8]

The RANCHERO, who has played so conspicuous a part in this war, is the natural offspring of such a state of society. This cla.s.s of men is composed of individuals, half Spanish half Indian, who resemble the _gauchos_ of the South American Pampas. Gaunt, shrivelled and bronzed by exposure, though hardy and muscular from athletic exercise, they are, indeed, the Arabs of our continent. Living half the time in their saddles, for they are matchless hors.e.m.e.n, they traverse the plains and mountains, with la.s.so[9] in hand, either searching for, or tending their herds. The slaughter of beasts and preparation and sale of hides is their chief means of livelihood, varied occasionally by the cultivation of a small patch of ground, or by taking part in the civil wars that are always waging. Their costume generally consists of a pair of tough leggings of skin and leathern trousers, over which is a _serape_ or blanket, with a hole in the centre large enough for the head to pa.s.s through, whence it falls in graceful folds over the chest and shoulders, leaving room for the play of hands and arms. Add to this a broad _sombrero_, and the _la.s.so_, hanging ready for use at his saddle bow, and the reader will have a picture of the _ranchero_ as he appears in peace or in the ordinary pursuit of his occupation. Join to this garb a long sabre, a horse as savage and untamed as himself, and a belt plentifully studded with pistols and _machetes_, and the _ranchero_ presents himself ready either to join a troop of banditti, or to serve in a body of cavalry.

Cowardly as they generally are in the open field when encountering regular troops, yet, in ambuscade, a sudden fight, or, as _guerillas_, they are both a formidable and cruel foe. Their power of endurance is inexhaustible. Fatigue is almost unknown to them, and a scanty meal, each day, of jerked beef and corn or plantain, is sufficient to sustain them on the longest marches.

Such are the _rancheros_, who, by discipline, might be rendered the best light troops in the world. These are the men who form the material of the Mexican cavalry; and they bear the same relation to the armies of that republic that the Cossacks do to the Russians;--ever on the alert,--easily lodged,--capable of supporting fatigue or hunger,--and untiring in pursuit of an enemy, when even the most trifling plunder is to be obtained.[10]

Another large and formidable body in Mexico is that of the _Indians_, amounting, as we have seen, to four millions; whose knowledge of their governors' language is generally confined to such phrases as will enable them to buy and sell, or perform the ordinary functions of life.

Formerly they lived, and usually still live, in narrow huts built of mud, thatched with straw or palm leaves, and which have scarcely the merit of being picturesque. In these miserable lairs, they nestle with their families, their domestic animals, and a table or altar on which they erect a cross or place the figure of a patron saint. Their food is mostly maize, and their dress corresponds with this grovelling wretchedness. Five out of every hundred may perhaps possess two suits of clothes, but their general vesture consists of a large cotton s.h.i.+rt, a pair of leathern trousers, and a blanket. Even the Indian women, who elsewhere, like their s.e.x in civilized countries, are always fond of personal adornment, exhibit no desire to appear decent or to rival each other in tasteful ornaments when they go abroad. They are as foul and ill-clad on their festivals at church, as in their hovels at home, so that few things are more disgusting to a foreigner than to mingle in an Indian crowd.[11] It is impossible to imagine such a population capable of becoming landed proprietors; and, consequently, we find them contented with the annual product of their small fields, amounting, perhaps, to thirty or fifty _fanegas_ of corn. When they live on the large estates of Mexican proprietors, they are, in reality, va.s.sals, although free from the nominal stain of slavery.[12] On these plantations they are beaten when they commit faults, and, if then found incorrigible, are driven beyond their limits,--a punishment deemed by them the severest that can be inflicted, and which they bear with as much difficulty as our Indians do their banishment from the "hunting grounds" of their forefathers. When they have gained a little money by labor, they hasten to squander it by making a festival in honor of their favorite saint, and thus consume their miserable earnings in gluttony, gambling, ma.s.ses, fire works, and drunkenness. When it is not absolutely necessary to toil for the necessaries of life,--especially in the _tierras calientes_, or warmer portions of Mexico,--they pa.s.s their time in utter idleness or sleep. Zavala declares that in many portions of the country, the _curates_ maintain such entire dominion over the Indians, that they order them to be publicly whipped whenever they fail to pay their _ovenciones_, or tributes, at the regular time, or commit some act of personal disobedience. But the degradation of this cla.s.s does not stop even here, for the same author alleges that he has frequently seen many Indians and their wives flogged at the village church door, because they had failed to come to ma.s.s upon some Sunday or festival, whilst, after the punishment, these wretches were obliged to kiss the hand of the executioner![13]

It will be seen from this sketch and description that the vicious colonial system of Spain formed only two great cla.s.ses in America,--the proprietor and the va.s.sal,--and that, in the nature of things, it was utterly impossible for the latter to amalgamate with the former except by creating an inferior race, whose sympathies were with the Indian rather than the Spaniard, and whose type is the nomadic _ranchero_. This fact was proved in the revolution which broke out in Spanish America.

The war cry was against the Spaniard[14] and his pure descendants. The _creole_[15] rose against the _gachupin_,[16] and the ferocity with which the soldiers of old Spain carried on the war against the natives confirmed their hereditary animosity.

The struggle for domestic power commenced as soon as the independence of Mexico was achieved, and the people began to establish a system of government upon a republican basis after the downfall of the Emperor Iturbide. The Spaniards had taught a lesson of privileged cla.s.ses which was never forgotten; so that, when the revolution took place, THE PEOPLE were only used to effect national emanc.i.p.ation rather than to establish general political liberty.

The n.o.bles or great proprietors, and the clergy, had, in the olden time, formed the influential cla.s.s of society which ruled the land. The theory of republicanism was marvellously captivating so long as there was an European foe to subdue. But, when the last remnant of Spanish power disappeared, the men who had governed during the revolution were loath to surrender power and subside into the insignificance of mere citizens.h.i.+p. In such a country as Mexico, and in such a war as had just occurred, this controlling influence in public affairs was, of course, to be chiefly found in the army; so that when the nation looked around for men to direct her at a period when Spain had not yet recognized her independence and might again a.s.sail her, she naturally turned to the military chieftains whose valor sustained her cause so bravely. Thus it was that in her first moments of peace, the army obtained an important ascendancy, which it has ever since contrived to retain during all administrations.

It is not just to the Spanish colonies to blame them for such a procedure, especially when we remember that even our republic is beginning to manifest a marked partiality for military men. The great deed rather than the great thought,--the brilliant act rather than beneficent legislation,--arrests and captivates the mult.i.tude. In republics, where an eager strife for wealth, distinction or power, is constantly going on, the notice and position that each man obtains must be won either by intrigue or by the irresistible power of talents and achievements. Ambitious parties sometimes even compromise for the weakest, rather than yield the palm to superior merit of which they are meanly jealous. The great ma.s.s of the country has no time to pause in the midst of its earnest labor to meditate wisely on the political abilities and moral claims of individuals. They cannot weigh them in the golden scales of justice;--but, by a more rapid and easy process, they yield their suffrages promptly to those whose manifestations of genius or power are so resistless as to compel admiration. Thus is it that the brave soldier, performing his n.o.ble exploit on the field of battle, speaks palpably to the eye and ear of the greedy mult.i.tude. His is, indeed, the language of action, and each new deed makes national glory more distinct, and national vanity more confident. But the more quiet and un.o.btrusive statesman, with a field infinitely less glaring or attractive, exacts from his judges a suspension of party feeling, an investigation of motive and merit, a calm and forbearing justice, which the impatient ma.s.ses have seldom the time or talent to bestow. It is, therefore, by no means surprising to find in history, that the sword has commonly been mightier than the pen, and that military chieftains become the natural heads of republics which are created by long and bitter revolutions.

It must be remembered that the army in Mexico is not what armies are generally understood to be in other countries. In Europe they are designed to restrain the aggressive ambition of rival powers, to act as military police, and, by their imposing skill, discipline and numbers, to preserve the balance of national power. But in Mexico, whilst the members of an immensely rich hierarchy const.i.tute a distinct _order_ in society, the army forms another.--The policy of the existing military chieftains was to sustain, foster and increase their individual power and patronage. The mere domestic police of the country could surely never require, in time of peace, so large a numerical force under arms as that which has always been supported in it; yet the military presidents, at once, sought to establish an _army of officers_, and by the enlistment of a body of commanders, entirely disproportionate to the number of rank and file, they immediately created a _military order_ upon whose support they could rely so long as they possessed the means of patronage. The officers thus became armed and paid politicians, whilst the common soldiers formed a military police;--the one an element of all political revolutions, the other a tool by which those revolutions were effected. The great practical idea of government, it will be perceived, was derived from _compulsory force_. The church wielded the spiritual power, whilst the army held the physical; and, between the two, _the people_,--composed of merchants, professional men, farmers, proprietors, and artisans,--were refused all partic.i.p.ation in authority, or progress in civil order which might have placed Mexico among the foremost nations of the world. In this manner a central despot has always found means and instruments to suppress federalism;--for whilst near _thirty_ revolutions have occurred in Mexico since her independence, every one of her presidents has been a military chieftain.[17]

Macaulay, in his essay on the life of Lord Bacon describes the condition of England when she was governed by warriors whose rude courage was neither guided by science nor softened by humanity, and by priests whose learning and abilities were habitually devoted to the defence of power.

The description of that age in England is by no means inapplicable to Mexico in the nineteenth century. "On the one side," says he, "the Hotspurs, the Nevilles, the Cliffords, rough illiterate and unreflecting, brought to the council-board the fierce and impetuous despotism which they had acquired amid the tumult of predatory war or in the gloomy repose of the garrisoned and moated castle. On the other side was the calm and placid prelate, versed in all that was considered as learning; trained in the schools to manage words, and, in the Confessional, to manage hearts;--seldom superst.i.tious, but skilful in practising on the superst.i.tions of others; false as it was natural for a man to be whose profession imposed on all who were not saints the necessity of being hypocrites;--selfish as it was natural that a man should be who could form no domestic ties and cherish no hope of legitimate posterity;--more attached to his order than to his country, and guiding the politics of England with a constant side glance to Rome."[18]

And so it was in Mexico. The sojourner in her capital is continually warned of this double dominion over the soul and body of the people. The drum and the bell resound in his ears from morning to night fall.

Priests and soldiers throng the streets; and, whilst the former enjoy the comfortable revenues which are derived from the one hundred millions of property owned by the church, the latter live upon the labor of the people, whom they are paid to control and transfer from one military despot to another.

The Mexican revolution,--like the revolutions of England, but unlike that of France,--was political rather than social. The great foundations of society were therefore undisturbed, and the priest and soldier took the ranks of the ancient privileged cla.s.ses, whilst the mixed people and the native Indians remained what they had ever been--the subjects of government.

Of all the officers who have commanded the army and enjoyed the presidency, Santa Anna has occupied the most distinguished position since the death of Iturbide, and it is with him and the nation thus described, that we shall deal in the following pages.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Prescott's Conquest of Peru, 2nd vol. pages 199: 245.

[2] The word _repartimiento_ means, division, part.i.tion, distribution, or apportionment. In the old Spanish historians and English books, such as Zarate, Garcila.s.so de la Vega, Fernandez, Robertson, it is uniformly used to denote the well known allotment of lands and va.s.sal Indians (_genuine adscripti glebae_) granted to the first conquerors in reward of their services. In some later writers, this word is applied to the _monopoly of sales to the Indians_ exercised by the _corregedores_, under pretext of protecting the Indians from imposition, by the official distribution of goods. N. A. Review, vol. xx. p. 287.

"Indeed the Spanish court made no scruple of regarding the Indians in the same light as the beasts and the soil, disposing of them as the rightful property of the crown; for it was not till 1537, nearly fifty years after the discovery, that the Pope issued a mandate declaring them to be really and truly men,--"_ipsos veros homines_,"--and capable of receiving the Christian faith." N. A. Review, vol. xix. p. 198.

[3] The American trade was confined to Seville until 1720, when it was removed to Cadiz, as a more convenient port. On the subject of these oppressions and misgovernment, see Zavala's "Revoluciones de Mexico,"

Introduction;--and North American Review. vol. xx. p. 158.

[4] The subjoined list shows the varieties of parentage and blood forming the castes throughout Spanish America:

PARENTS.

1. ORIGINAL RACES.

WHITE. European _whites_ are called _gachupines_ or chapetones.

_Whites_, born in the colonies, are called creoles.

NEGRO.

INDIAN.

PARENTS. CHILDREN.

2. CASTES OF WHITE RACE.