Transcriber’s Note: The cover image was created from the title page by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

The annexation of Texas and the consequent war with Mexico resulted in adding to the United States eight hundred and eighty-six thousand four hundred and ninety square miles of territory, an area much greater than all that is comprised in the States lying east of the Mississippi River, and almost equal to that embraced in the Louisiana purchase of President Jefferson from Napoleon the First in 1803. The events of the war which added and confirmed to the Union this magnificent domain have been obscured by the magnitude of the recent civil war, and they have become almost as remote in the popular imagination as the romantic incidents in the campaigns of Cortez in the sixteenth century. But as the fires of civil strife are almost dead, and peaceful industries are developing the wonderful resources of our Mexican acquisitions, new interest is awakened in the circumstances of the conquest and the brilliant military achievements that attended them. By the enterprise of our own people millions of gold and silver have been added to the world’s wealth from the mines and placers of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, and the plains of Texas are teeming with countless herds for the feeding of Europe. A new but peaceful invasion of Mexico by American capital has been begun, which arouses fresh interest in its history, its native wealth, and its destiny. A railway under American management traverses the line of Scott’s march from Vera Cruz to the capital city, another will soon pass over the fields made immortal by Taylor and his[4] handful of rough and ready soldiers; engineering skill proposes to cross the Isthmus of Tehuantepec with an iron highway for the transportation of ocean vessels from the Bay of Campeche to the waters of the Pacific Ocean, and a line of railway following the track of Doniphan’s march will soon reach Chihuahua in its progress to the City of Mexico, being built with a rapidity almost equal to the speed of his little army of victorious Missourians who first marked out this pathway of improvement.

The time has not yet come when the war with Mexico can be treated with the philosophic dignity of which it is worthy, embellished with the imagination of poetry, and its events appropriated by the historical novelist. Certain it is, whether strange or not, that no hand has been put forth to extract the philosophy of its history, to direct our opinions of its events and its men, to trace the connections of its causes and effects, and to draw from its occurrences and results general lessons of political wisdom. Almost all the histories and sketches of it were written soon after its close, and may be considered almost contemporaneous with it, when the authors of the period could not avail themselves of the mass of material which time has now made accessible. The party passions of the hour, intensified by the slavery struggle, so tinged all efforts at the philosophical discussion of it that its great, enduring, and far-reaching consequences were not foreseen, much less appreciated, and are only just now beginning to be felt under the influence of the material development of the vast regions that were added to the country at its termination. Numerous books have been written about it, many of which will have some value to him who shall in the future assume the task of illustrating this brilliant period of American history, and there is appended to this essay a list of those volumes which have been examined and seem worthy of study. So little, however, is the history of this portion of the nation’s life appreciated that President Porter, of Yale College, in the list of historical studies in his[5] work upon “Books and Reading” omits all reference to works upon the Mexican War, and gives but bare mention to that valuable authority upon the subject, “Benton’s Thirty Years View,” a work of which William Cullen Bryant has said: “Its literary execution, the simplicity of its style, and the unexceptionable taste which tempers all its author’s allusions to his contemporaries have been the subject of universal admiration.” For a clear and dispassionate discussion of the causes of the war, for just judgment of the motives of the actors in it, and the impartial statements of the facts that are given, Col. Benton’s chapters on the Mexican War cannot be commended too highly to the student or the historian. It is worthy of mention that the chapter which contains his address of welcome to Doniphan and the Missouri Volunteers at St. Louis on their return from the war is a masterpiece of dignified and graphic eloquence, worthy of a place as a classic model, and calls to mind the days when Athens witnessed the most splendid exhibitions of oratory the world has ever known. Since most of the histories of this war have been written a valuable addition has been made to the stores of knowledge on the subject in an admirable translation by Col. Albert E. Ramsey of a Mexican history of the conflict, which has been published under the title, “The Other Side.”

For the limited purposes of this essay it will be sufficient to select for rapid review those volumes which are esteemed the best types of all that has been written, and present them for consideration.

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[6] 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[7] 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[8] 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.

[9]

This author was born in Connecticut in 1801. His father afterwards became the first Professor of Natural Philosophy at West Point, and there the son graduated in 1819. Declining a commission in the Corps of Engineers, he resumed his studies at Princeton and graduated there in 1822. He then practiced law in Connecticut, whence he removed to Cincinnati, and practiced law there till 1836, when he abandoned law for literature.

The little volume before us gives a succinct but clear account of the origin of the war, and of the campaigns under Taylor and Scott, based chiefly upon the reports of those officers and other official documents. It must be remembered, however, that this, and indeed, every other history of the war, was published immediately after the establishment of peace, and without that knowledge of thousands of important facts which have since come to light and which is essential to a correct understanding of the diplomatic, political, and military history of that period. Therefore, this, like all other histories of the war written about that time, is necessarily imperfect and untrustworthy.

The chief defects in Mansfield’s book spring from several facts. 1st. He was vehemently opposed to the annexation of Texas, and to the acquisition of territory. 2d. He was a warm partisan of Gen. Scott, whose biographer he became. 3d. His style was intensely florid, as will appear from the last paragraph of his book, which we quote. Speaking of the United States and Mexico, he says: “Egypt and her millions, with the famed Valley of the Nile, fade before the broad magnificence, the mighty growth, of those American empires. Even the terrible and far-seeing eagles of Rome grow dizzy and dim[10] in their sight as they look down from the summits of history upon these continental nations, these colossal giants of the modern world. And now this Spaniard and this Northman meet in battle panoply in this valley of volcanoes, by the ancient groves of unknown nations, on the lava-covered soil where nature once poured forth her awe-inspiring flames and the brave Tlascalan once sung of glory and of greatness. Three centuries since, these warrior nations had left their homes beyond the wide Atlantic; two thousand miles from each other they had planted the seats of their empire; and now, as if time, in the moral world, had completed another of its grand revolutions, they have met in mortal conflict. Like the eagle and the vulture, who long had pursued different circles in the heavens, and long made prey of the weak tenants of the air, their circles have been enlarged till they cross each other. They shriek! They fight! The victorious eagle bears the vulture to the earth, and screams forth through the clouds his triumphant song! Has the bold bird received no wound? Has no blood tinged the feathers of his wing? Is there no secret flow of life from the portals of his heart? Will he continue to look with unblenched eye on the blazing glories of the sun?”

This is a large royal folio volume, with twelve full-page colored lithographs, speaking of which the author and the artist say that “no country can claim that its battles have been illustrated in a richer, more faithful, or more costly style of lithography.”

The author of this book was a native of Vermont, but moved to New Orleans in 1835, and became widely known as[11] the editor of the Picayune. He was a man of adventurous disposition and decided ability, and wrote prior to the war several books which acquired great popularity. At the outbreak of the Mexican War he volunteered to serve on the staff of Gen. Taylor. He was with that officer throughout his campaigns, and afterwards accompanied Gen. Scott’s column on its march to the City of Mexico. He was consequently an eye-witness of the scenes which he describes. His descriptions are vivid and real, and place him high in the ranks of war correspondents. His book, though hardly deserving a place among histories, will always be a rich storehouse from which historians will gather materials for their more pretentious and more lasting works. He was a brilliant correspondent, and, strange to say, a truthful story-teller.

Mr. Nebel’s illustrations are valuable as truthful pictures of the costumes of the contending armies, and of the scenes which they illustrate, but, like all battle pictures, they are highly imaginative.

This handsome volume is the best general history of the Mexican War, far better than any of them with the exception of Ripley’s, which is in some particulars, and especially as a military history, very much better than Brooks’s and all other histories of this war. Mr. Brooks, brought to the work qualifications and experience which fitted him particularly to write charmingly the story of a romantic war. He was in the prime of a life which had been passed among books; had been a teacher and journalist; had edited gracefully and learnedly a[12] series of Greek and Latin classics; was a student, historian, and poet. His judgment was impartial and his taste refined and highly cultivated. He was a believer in the manifest destiny of his country, and sympathized earnestly with those who sought to benefit mankind by enlarging “the area of freedom.” His heart was with the armies which had marched towards the “Halls of the Montezumas,” and he studied the reports of their campaigns, not only eagerly, but faithfully and intelligently—by the light of a student’s knowledge and the inspiration of a highly poetic fancy.

Written at a time when but a tithe of the material which now awaits the historian’s plastic hand was before him; when the great mass of state papers, memoirs and reminiscences which disclose the truth as to the negotiations which preceded the annexation of Texas and the initiation of the war, as well as the events of the conflict itself, were still unpublished and inaccessible; when absolutely nothing was known to us of the negotiations of the Mexican Government except through its correspondence with ours, and when nothing had been ascertained of its military operations except as disclosed upon the battlefield—it is not to be wondered that Mr. Brooks’s history is characterized as being more interesting and attractive than accurate and instructive, since he neither fully understood the great events which he was narrating nor foresaw the great consequences which were to flow from them; nor, moreover, had he learned the lessons which they taught, by which this generation will profit.

The fault which we find with his book is one common to all histories, not strictly military, which treat of wars that have just happened; we refer to its extremely prolix descriptions of battles. The reader, however, can pass over such parts of these as do not interest him, and will lose little save the noise and fury of the fights and the lurid phrases which describe them.

The most felicitous chapters of the book are those which tell[13] the story of the conquest of New Mexico and California, and of Doniphan’s romantic expedition. To tell these stories well and truly the historian needed all his poetic fancy, and all that rich and exuberant diction with which nature and study had so bountifully endowed him. These chapters recall the pictured pages of Prescott, and are not unworthy of the historian of the Conquest.

Nearly five hundred pages of this volume are devoted to the Mexican War. The author, who was born in Maine in 1800, studied at Bowdoin, and then at Harvard, where he graduated in 1822. He then taught school, first at Boston and afterwards at Philadelphia, till 1845. After that time he gave himself up exclusively to the compilation of his many pictorial histories, all of which achieved great popularity, and deserved it.

His intention seemed always to be to write readable and saleable books. To do this he was well fitted by his predilection for historical composition, and his great experience as a teacher. His style was natural and simple and perspicuous. The arrangement of his subject was orderly, and there was in his grouping of facts a picturesqueness which was somewhat fascinating and always pleasing. He was not a philosopher, or an erudite historian, nor did he pretend to be either—hence we are not to look in his works for any profound thoughts, or for any facts which are not the common property of every one.

He had no prejudices, no enthusiasms, no theories to maintain, no heroes to exalt and magnify. He wrote to please and to sell—to please that he might sell. Taking the official[14] reports of battle and the state papers at Washington, he drew from them an intelligible statement of the main facts which he intended to narrate, and then, with good taste and consummate skill, made the dry details interesting and indeed captivating by weaving among them stories of American prowess, and such heroic deeds and patriotic daring as were easily found in the letters of war correspondents and hero-worshipers. He also availed himself of the multitude of memoirs and books of adventure which flooded the country immediately after the war, and thus made his book partake of that patriotic fervor which the splendid achievements of our troops in Mexico had kindled in the heart of every American. He has thrown into it the charm that lingers in the wonderful stories of Herodotus. Had he not done this, his book would have remained unsold on the shelves of his publishers, and would not have taken its place in every household by the side of Parson Weem’s veracious chronicles and “The Tales of a Grandfather.”

It follows from what has been said that Frost’s work on the Mexican War is not a book for the students of either military or diplomatic history, nor for those who wish to learn the true history of the war, or the real truth as to the deeds which were then done, or, as to the men who did them, what manner of men they were, and what their motives, nor, lastly, as to the mighty results of the contest. Nevertheless, it is a good book and well worth a reading by those who want merely an intelligible and interesting account of the events which it narrates.

It would hardly be fair to dismiss the book without referring to the 500 engravings wherewith it is “embellished from designs of W. Croome and other distinguished artists” whose invaluable services Mr. Frost gratefully acknowledges. They are simply wonderful. We open, by hazard, at page 458. Before us is a picture of Fremont in his famous ride from Los Angeles “to Monterey and back; a journey of more than 800 miles, performed in eight days, including two days’ detention[15] and all stoppages.” This is more than 130 miles in a day. Look at the splendid charger whose flowing mane and mud-tossed tail and flying form brings to mind the magic horses of the “Arabian Nights”! See how he skims over the plains, disdaining to touch the earth with his hoofs! And see how erect the rider sits upon his flying steed, riding night and day through the trackless plains, en grande tenue, not a speck of dirt on his gold-embroidered, epauletted coat of blue; not a trace of the soil upon his immaculate trousers; not a sign of fatigue upon the earnest face which the three-cornered hat protects from sun and storm; nor any weariness in the stalwart arm, whose gloved hand carries a naked sword, holding it in strict conformity to Army regulations! Look and wonder! Certainly, this is further beyond our criticism than are the glowing canvases whereon Horace Vernet has immortalized the fields of French glory.

The literature of the war, as has been before remarked, is devoid of any novels of distinguished merit, and has not been rich in poetic inspiration. But during the period of hostilities, and amidst the political excitement that followed, James Russell Lowell began in a leading Boston paper a series of political satires on the war, in the Yankee dialect, purporting to be written by Hosea Biglow. These satires were afterwards collected in a volume with Lowell’s works, and are known as the “Biglow Papers.” Their wit and vigor are admirable. The character of Parson Wilbur, to whom is attributed the introduction, notes and index, is a comic creation full of delight. The whole is a rare repository of fun, and Hosea is the embodiment of the native humor and homely mother wit of the Yankee race. It is one of the most ingenious and well sustained jeux d’esprit in existence. It is perhaps not too much to say that it is the best burlesque poem that has appeared since Samuel Butler, in the first part of “Hudibras,” ridiculed the austerities of the Puritan leaders of the seventeenth century with his shining and merciless wit.

[16]

By far the most brilliant poetic production of the period is the elegiac ode, by Theodore O’Hara, a poet, soldier and editor, of Kentucky. It is entitled the “Bivouac of the Dead,” and had its origin in the occasion of the interment, at Frankfort, in 1847, of the gallant soldiers who fell in battle. It is noted for its rare beauty of style, its genuine pathos, its descriptive ideality, its heroic vigor, and its patriotic fervor. Genuine appreciation and candid criticism will place it with Wolfe’s “Burial of Sir John Moore” and Collins’s “How Sleep the Brave,” among the classic lyric gems of the language. Its lines are used for inscriptions upon the tombs of heroes all over the land, and one of its immortal stanzas adorns the National Cemetery at Arlington Heights. It goes to the heart of every true soldier, and is likely to remain enshrined there forever. Mention must also be made of the admiration which lingers about the pensive beauty, the pathetic grace, and the vivid picture of Whittier’s “Angels of Buena Vista.”

The excitement in the public mind occasioned by the war caused many remarkable discussions, and the pulpit of New England, with its usual disposition to intermeddle in political affairs, was not tardy in presenting its opinions. The most distinguished preacher of the time, Theodore Parker, in words of burning eloquence denounced all wars, and the injustice of this one, and with elaborate figures estimated its cost and expenses at two hundred millions of dollars, and, weighing this sum against the value of our acquisition, pronounced the war profitless, and asked, contemptuously, “What have we got to show for all this money?”

In the light of the present hour, the mere beginning that has been made in the development of the acquired regions will afford a partial answer to illustrate the lack of historic prescience that blinded the perceptions of the time. The growth of these new countries seems to point to a period, not far distant, when they shall contain a population as great as that which inhabits the Cis-Mississippi States.

[17]

The new apportionment bill which has just been enacted gives to the States already erected in this region almost as many Representatives in Congress as all New England, and another decade will show that it has passed far in advance in wealth and population. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah from their mines alone have added more than two thousand millions of dollars to the world’s wealth, and are now yielding more than one-third of the annual product of gold and silver in the entire world. Two Pacific railways, the greatest feats of modern engineering, traversing the regions that were said to be “occupied with broken mountains and dreary wilds,” and “fit only for the restless hunter and wandering trapper,” have revolutionized the commerce of the world. England seeks Australia and New Zealand through the Golden Gate, and the productions of China and Japan flow to our magnificent harbors of the Pacific and cross the American continent on their way to supply the demands of Europe.

The archæological discoveries in these regions disclose a prehistoric occupancy by a race that founded great cities and built palaces and temples, and who shall say, that, under the dominion of the Anglo Saxon, the glories of their antiquity may not be surpassed? Who shall say what mighty results shall flow from the contest which began when Gen. Taylor crossed the Nueces in the march to the Rio Grande?

[18]

BRACKETT, A. G.

BROOKS, N. C.

CARLETON, J. H.

CUTTS, J. M.

EDWARDS, F. S.

FROST, J.

GIDDINGS, Major.

HENRY, W. S.

HUGHES, J. T.

JAY, W.

[20]

KENDALL, G. W.

KENDALL, G. W.

LIVERMORE, N.

MANSFIELD, E. D.

MEYER, BRANTZ.

RAMSEY, A. C.

REYNOLDS, J. G.

RICHARDSON, W. H.

RICHARDSON, W. H.

RIPLEY, R. S.

SCRIBNER, B. F.

SEMMES, R.

SEMMES, R.

STEVENS, J. J.

SIMPSON, JAS. H.

[21]

THORPE, T. B.

THORPE, T. B.

WILLARD, E.

WOODWARD, ASHBEL.

Columbia College, New York.
SENIOR CLASS ESSAY, 1882.