The Mexican-American War (1846–1848) | Encyclopedia.com (2024)

Causes

Manifest Destiny

Since the settlement of Plymouth Colony in 1620, white Americans felttheir presence in the New World was their deliverance, reward, and providence.In the nineteenth century, some Americans pushed for the annexation of Texas, New Mexico, California, and Oregon. They claimed that the United States hadthe God-given right and responsibility to fill the continent, no matter whostood in their way. They called it America’s “manifest destiny.”

From Sea to Shining Sea

From a very early date, the vision of American expansion has motivatedU.S. policy. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) purchased the LouisianaTerritory in 1803, saying in his second inaugural address, “Who canlimit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively?… is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi shouldbe settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of anotherfamily?” In 1819, the Adam-Onis Treaty acquired Florida and partsof Alabama and Mississippi.

Still, the phrase “manifest destiny” was not widely useduntil 1845, when John O’Sullivan (1813–1895), editor of the New York Post, used it to support the annexation of Texas. “Itis our manifest destiny,” he wrote, “to overspread the wholeof the continent which Providence has given us for the development of thegreat experiment entrusted to us.”

By “experiment,” O’Sullivan meant federal governmentand self-rule, also “schools and colleges, courts and representativehalls, mills and meeting-houses.” He believed that the political andsocial systems of the United States offered the best formula for human happiness.He thought that other peoples should be persuaded to adopt American ways.

This attitude grew partially out of the United States’ religiousmissionary tradition—Christians believed that they possessed the truefaith, and they felt called to spread it. Others, like John Quincy Adams(1767–1848), took a more practical approach. Adams said that the UnitedStates had a duty to develop the wilderness, since the Indians had failedto do so.

Above all, the mystique of manifest destiny was fueled by the frontierexperience. It was the dream of every family who bundled into covered wagons.It drove every grizzled prospector who dug for gold in California. Manifestdestiny was the collective expression of a million individual ambitions.

Oregon Country

When James K. Polk (1795–1849) made his bid for the presidencyin 1844, he ran on an expansionist platform. He particularly championed theAmerican claim to Oregon Country, which had been jointly owned by Britainand the United States since 1818. Polk demanded that the United States shouldhave sole possession of the northwest, up to latitude line fifty-four degrees,forty minutes north, almost to the southern boundary of Alaska. Democratsrallied behind Polk’s slogan: “Fifty-four forty or fight.”

Great Britain, on the other hand, reacted with scorn, and some fiercesaber-rattling ensued. As negotiations with Mexico also broke down, manyobservers feared that the United States would have to fight two wars at once.However, a compromise was reached with the British government in April 1846.The United States would take Oregon up to the forty-ninth parallel, and Britainwould retain Vancouver Island.

The Southwest

Meanwhile, the United States annexed Texas in 1845. The Mexican government,which had never recognized Texan sovereignty, immediately broke off diplomaticrelations.

In response, Polk sent John Slidell (1793–1871) to Mexico Cityas minister plenipotentiary of the United States. Polk did not particularlywant war, and he thought that Mexico would be willing to bargain. Slidellwas given the authority to buy parts of Texas, New Mexico, and California.The United States would pay with a combination of cash and the assumptionof Mexican debt.

Mexican President José Herrera (1792–1854), had indicatedthat he would talk with an American representative, but hardliners in theMexican government would not accept losing any Mexican territory. They feltthat Herrera was a traitor for even considering it. Neither Herrera nor hissuccessor, Mariano Paredes (1797–1849), would receive Slidell duringhis visit. Thus, unable to make his case for U.S. purchase of the land diplomatically,Polk set about taking them by force.

All of Mexico Movement

From the outset of the Mexican-American War, Polk intended to claim NewMexico and California as spoils of war. However, many Americans demandedmuch more. The colorful journalist Jane McManus Storm Cazneau (1807–1878)wrote in favor of “keeping the whole of Mexico.” Why should(white Americans) give away territory, she argued, “when they hadpaid for it in blood and treasure?”

She was not alone in this opinion. Many Southerners wanted to establisha slave-owning empire in Central America. Some Northerners believed thatemancipation was inevitable, but that freed blacks would never fit into whitesociety. They suggested that former slaves could migrate to Mexico, wheresociety would accept them.

Newspapers like the New York Sun supported the annexation of Mexico.But despite their efforts, most white Americans did not want people of “mixedand confused blood” as United States citizens. They also deeply distrustedthe Mexicans’ Catholicism.

There were more practical considerations. Union with Mexico meant theassumption of the Mexican national debt—over $10 million.

Interestingly enough, a sizable number of Mexican radicals also advocatedannexation by the United States. They hoped that the American governmentwould rid their land of military tyrants and corrupt Catholic priests.

The issue became moot, however, with the ratification of the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo. Nicholas Trist (1800–1874), had failed at one attemptto negotiate an armistice with Mexican General Santa Anna (1794–1876),but remained in Mexico and brokered the agreement even after Polk had recalledhim to Washington. The treaty maintained the sovereignty of the Mexican nation,but ceded a third of its land to the United States.

Destiny and War

Not all Americans embraced the theory of manifest destiny, and many sawthe Mexican-American War as a bald-faced, thuggish land grab. Ulysses S.Grant (1822–1885), a young officer at the time, labeled the war “oneof the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation.”

Congressman Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) also opposed the war, astance that probably cost him his reelection. Lincoln would later say thathe “did not believe in enlarging our field, but in keeping our fenceswhere they are.”

The rhetoric of manifest destiny died down during the Civil War, but itsinfluence has persevered in the American psyche. It would reemerge with vigoras American Imperialism in the Spanish-American War. Its echo can be heardin American politics even today.

Major Figures

Stephen F. Austin

Stephen F. Austin (1793–1836) organized the Anglo colony in Texasand then was a leader in the Texas Revolution, which allowed the territoryto become free from Mexico. He is often called “the Father of Texas.”Born Stephen Fuller Austin on November 3, 1793, in Austinville, Virginia,he was the son of Moses Austin, the operator of a nearby lead mine, and hiswife, Maria Brown. When Austin was five years old, his father moved the familyto the frontier territory of Missouri, then under Mexican control. MosesAustin again successfully worked in the mining of lead as well as land speculation.

Early Years

Because of the family’s wealth, Austin primarily received his educationout of state after 1804. He attended Bacon Academy and Colchester Academy,both in Connecticut, and Transylvania University in Kentucky. When his fatherasked him to return home after only a year or two of college, in 1810, Austinwent back to Missouri. He went to work in his father’s businessesand soon showed his management abilities. In 1814, Austin was elected tothe state legislature, where he served until 1820. He also served in thestate militia as an officer, worked for a bank in St. Louis, and was brieflya storekeeper.

Austin had total control over the family’s mining operations by1817, when his father decided to focus on other businesses. As the minesfailed, the family’s debt increased greatly. The family enterpriseswent bankrupt during the Panic of 1819. Austin then went to Arkansas to tryto erase family debts by buying land on credit with the intent of developinga town. This scheme failed, but Austin became an appointed district judgein early 1820. This position did not offer a large enough salary to pay offthe money the Austin family owed, which had landed Moses Austin in jail andresulted in the sale of the family mines at auction. By the end of the summerof 1820, Austin was living in New Orleans, Louisiana, and working at a newspaperto help pay the family’s debts. He also studied law.

Austin’s Colony

Moses Austin died in the spring of 1821, but he had already started anew scheme that he hoped would allow his family to repay its debts and restoreits wealth. He believed that immigration to Texas and starting a colony therewould be profitable. Upon his father’s death, Austin inherited thegovernment permit to found a colony with three hundred families in Texasthat Moses Austin had obtained from the Spanish, who controlled the area.With the help of his younger brother Brown, he publicized the venture throughoutthe United States and moved to Texas himself.

In 1822 and 1823, Austin went to Mexico City to make sure that Mexico,which had won its independence from Spain in 1822, recognized the permit.Mexican authorities did so after he pledged his allegiance to their country.Austin later applied for Mexican citizenship. The Mexican government alsogave Austin the title of “empresario,” which meant that hewas the official authority of the colony. As empresario, Austin was givenlarge amounts of the best land as well as the ability to collect a fee forland bought, usually on credit, by other settlers.

Austin maximized the permit and brought three hundred families to Texasin 1823 and 1824. Over the next decade, he was able to acquire more permitsand found legal loopholes to bring 750 more white families to the colony.To attract settlers, he allowed slavery, though he personally opposed thepractice. The number of whites soon surpassed the Spanish Mexicans livingin Texas.

Austin spent the rest of his life working to make the Texas colony viable.He served as the leader of the colonists in Texas, taking charge of coordinatingthe defenses against the Native Americans in the area as well as acting asa liaison to authorities in Mexico. He also created a land system and servedas the translator of Mexican laws for the colony. In addition, Austin wasable to survey and map what would become the state of Texas.

Texas Independence

Within a decade of the founding of the Texas colony, the white settlersdecided they wanted Texas to be an independent state. (It had been namedpart of a state in Mexico in April 1824.) Continuing to serve the colonists,Austin acted as the president of the first of many conventions to discussindependence and draft a proposal to present to the Mexican government. Healso went to Mexico City in 1833 to argue the matter, but he was arrestedin early 1834 because such conventions were illegal under Mexican law. Austinwas charged with sedition and imprisoned for nearly two years. Released withoutbeing tried, he went back to Texas in 1835, and by September, became activein the independence movement. While he was in jail, the Anglo populationin Texas had continued to grow.

When the Texas Revolution broke out, soon after his release from jail,Austin supported the military operation to seek independence. He took chargeof the armed forces organized by the Texas settlers. Austin’s timeat the top of the military order was short-lived because of his poor health.Taking on a diplomatic role by the end of 1835, Austin was in the UnitedStates as a commissioner from Texas to ask for American aid in the whitesettlers’s cause. When Texas declared its independence from Mexico,Austin also asked the American government to recognize Texas’s newstatus.

In 1836, after Texas won its independence and declared itself a republic,Austin was compelled to run for the new country’s presidency. Hisopponent was Sam Houston (1793–1863), who was a military hero of theTexas Revolution. Houston won the election and offered Austin an office inhis administration. Austin served in the post for only a short time. Austindied on December 27, 1836, in Columbia, Texas, of pneumonia.

Sam Houston

Samuel Houston (1793–1863) was a soldier, governor of Tennesseeand Texas, president of the Republic of Texas, U.S. congressman from twostates and senator from one, and was instrumental in Texas’s independencefrom Mexico and annexation by the United States. Houston was the fifth childand fifth son of Samuel Houston and Elizabeth Paxton. He was born on March2, 1793, at his family’s plantation in Rockbridge County, Virginia.Houston was thirteen years old when his father died. In 1807, he moved withhis mother, five brothers, and three sisters to a farm near Maryville, ineastern Tennessee, where they farmed and operated a store.

Early Years

Houston received about six months of basic education while in Virginia.He attended an academy near Maryville for about a year and developed a lovefor classical literature there.

In 1809, when he could not tolerate his older brothers’s demandsthat he work both on the farm and at the store, Houston ran away from home.He lived for three years with the Cherokees across the Tennessee River andmade occasional visits to Maryville. Chief Oolooteka adopted him and gavehim the Indian name “the Raven.” This experience gave him greatinsight into Indian cultures and traditions, which he would draw on repeatedlyin later years.

He left the Cherokees in 1812 and established a private school so thathe could repay debts. With the outbreak of the War of 1812, he enlisted inthe U.S. Army as a private. He was severely wounded at the Battle of HorseshoeBend in March 1814, and was commended by General Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)for his courage and promoted to second lieutenant. Houston was assigned toJackson’s command at Nashville and named an Indian subagent, and heassisted in the removal of Chief Oolooteka to the Indian Territory. He resignedfrom the regular army in 1818 to study law, was admitted to the bar, andopened a practice in Lebanon, Tennessee. He also received Jackson’sassistance with an appointment as a colonel in the state militia, and in1821, was named major general of the Tennessee militia.

The Tennessean

As a Jacksonian Democrat, Houston was elected to Congress in 1823, wasreelected in 1825, and became governor of Tennessee in 1827. He married nineteen-year-oldEliza Allen in January 1829 and announced his candidacy for another termas governor. His marriage lasted eleven weeks. Allen left him and returnedto her parents. For the rest of their lives, neither party spoke of the reasonfor the breakup. On April 16, in the wake of the scandal, Houston resignedhis office and moved to Oolooteka’s Cherokee clan in present-day Oklahoma.

The Cherokee

He lived among the Indians again for three years. He was granted Cherokeecitizenship, established a trading post near Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, marriedCherokee Diana Rogers Gentry under tribal law, and acted as an emissary betweentribes. He maintained contact with the non-Indian world outside the tradingpost with trips east as well as correspondence with various government officials,including his mentor, who was then President Jackson.

The Texan

In 1832, Jackson tasked Houston with presenting peace medals to westernIndian tribes. Once he completed this mission, Houston turned his thoughtsto Texas. He left Diana and the trading post, and on December 2, 1832, crossedthe Red River into Mexican Texas (in the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas)and started a law practice in the present day–east Texas town of Nacogdoches.

Within a few months, Houston was elected as a delegate to the Conventionof 1833, which advocated making Texas a separate province of Mexico. Relationsbetween Texians (residents of Mexican Texas) and federal authorities in MexicoCity deteriorated, and in November 1835, he was appointed major general ofthe Texas Army. When volunteers refused to obey his orders, the Texas provisionalgovernment gave him the task of negotiating peace with the Indians and givena furlough until March 1, 1836. Returning to the Texas provisional governmentheadquarters on March 1, he arrived in time for the adoption of the Texas Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836. At last, Texas was fightingfor independence from Mexico. He was again named commander of the army. Fourdays later, General Antonio López de Santa Anna had approximately2,500 Mexican soldiers assembled to attack the Alamo. All of the defenders(about 180) were killed. A few weeks later, at Goliad, more than 340 Texasvolunteers were killed after their capture. Houston was left with about 400volunteers at Gonzales facing more than 4,000 Mexican troops on Texas soil.

Houston began a march across eastern Texas, trying to drill the recruitsalong the way. Additional volunteers joined the Texas Army as the withdrawalcontinued. Heavy rains and swollen streams slowed both armies. When Houstonlearned Santa Anna intended to cross the San Jacinto River at Lynch’sFerry, he knew that was the place to meet the Mexican Army. On April 21,1836, Houston led about 900 men against an estimated 1,200 Mexican soldiers.In a mid-afternoon silent march, the Texans caught the Mexicans by completesurprise, approaching within 550 yards of Santa Anna’s fortificationsbefore any alarm sounded. The battle lasted eighteen minutes. Nine Texanswere killed, and thirty were injured. Houston’s official report listed630 Mexican soldiers killed, 208 wounded, and hundreds taken prisoner. SantaAnna was captured the next day. With the Treaty of Velasco signed May 14,Santa Anna agreed to remove all Mexican forces south of the Rio Grande.

After this military victory, Houston was elected president of the Republicof Texas through 1838, and again for 1841–1844. During his terms,he sought annexation of Texas by the United States, peace with various Indiantribes, and low government spending. In 1837, he formally divorced ElizaAllen. He married twenty-one-year-old Margaret Moffette Lea of Marion, Alabama,on May 9, 1840. Houston became a father at age fifty-five when Sam HoustonJr. was born in 1843. He went on to father three more boys and four girls.

In 1845, after Texas was admitted to the United States, Houston servedtwo terms as a U.S. senator. In 1859, he ran for governor and won, becomingthe only person to have been elected governor of two states. He opposed secession,and when he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy in 1861,he was thrown out of office. In 1862 he moved the family to Huntsville, Texas.The next year, he contracted pneumonia. Sick and ailing for several weeks,he died July 26, 1863. His last words were reported to be, “Texas!Texas! Margaret!”

William Barret Travis

Early Years

William Barret Travis (1809–1836) was the Texas commander at theAlamo. Travis was born in early August of 1809 near Saluda, South Carolina.He was the first of eleven children born to Mark and Jemima (Stallworth)Travis. He grew up on the family farm and received his first education athome. The family moved to Alabama in 1817, and Travis received formal schoolingnear Sparta. He also attended school in Claiborne, taught other studentsthere, and apprenticed as an attorney under James Dellet. Once he was admittedto the bar, he practiced for a time with Dellet before opening his own office.Travis married a former student, Rosanna Cato, on October 26, 1828. Theirfirst child, Charles Edward Travis, was born about ten months later.

For a while, it looked like Travis would establish himself in business.He started a newspaper, the Claiborne Herald, practiced law, becamea Mason, and joined the Alabama militia as an adjutant. Despite these outwardsigns of stability, he was falling deeper and deeper in debt. The paper wasnot getting the advertising he needed, and his legal practice was floundering.Court records show judgments rendered against him. In 1831, he decided tomake a clean break and left for Texas, leaving his pregnant wife and son.He promised to send for the family when he was successful in his new location.Shortly after arriving in Texas, he established a legal practice in Anahuac,a small port on the northeast side of Galveston Bay.

Service to Texas

There were few lawyers in this part of the Mexican province, and his practiceflourished. In 1832, he had his first brush with the Mexican military. Ona pretense, the military commander had Travis and his law partner arrested.When word of the arrest spread, settlers descended on Anahuac to gain therelease of the two. Mexican troops were outnumbered, the lawyers were released,and Travis had newfound fame and notoriety.

Travis moved to San Felipe de Austin shortly after being released. SanFelipe was headquarters of Stephen F. Austin’s colony and the de factocapital of Anglo settlement. He became more involved with politics and themilitia, although his main credentials were his law education and passionfor Texas independence. Meanwhile, Rosanna Travis allowed Charles EdwardTravis to move to Texas to be close to his father. Travis never sent forMrs. Travis and his daughter, Susan Isabella, to join him in Texas. Mrs.Travis filed for divorce, citing desertion as the reason in her 1834 pleadings.The divorce became final in the fall of 1835. It is not known if Travis knewthis, since he was traveling extensively across the settled parts of Texasas the revolution grew ever closer. He pursued many women, promising onehe would marry her.

In June 1835, Travis launched a water-borne attack on Anahuac, capturingMexican soldiers at the port. Reacting to this affront and other disturbances,General Martin Perfecto de Cos (1800–1854), the Mexican military commanderfor that part of the country, moved troops from Matamoros, on the southerntip of the Rio Grande river, almost 250 miles northwest, to San Antonio,then the largest town in Texas. General Cos was also the brother-in-law ofAntonio López de Santa Anna, commander-in-chief of all the country’sarmed forces. Travis learned General Cos wanted the Anahuac participantsdelivered to him for a military trial.

When Travis finally came close to San Antonio in late October 1835, itwas with hundreds of Texas militia who laid siege to the town. He distinguishedhimself on November 8, when three hundred mules and horses were captured.He then left the siege and returned to San Felipe, where he served as thechief recruiting officer for the Texas army. General Cos surrendered in December,agreeing to march south of the Rio Grande and not return. Once back in Mexico,he met with Santa Anna. The commander-in-chief told Santa Anna that the agreementto not move north was null and void. Santa Anna ordered a force of severalthousand soldiers to march on San Antonio.

In January 1836, Travis was ordered to gather volunteers and go to theAlamo, the former mission, because Santa Anna’s arrival there wasanticipated. He arrived on February 3 and met commander James Clinton Neill(c. 1790–1848) and James Bowie (1796–1836). On February 8, David Crockett (1786–1836) arrived with a group of volunteers. OnFebruary 14, Neill announced he had to take a leave of absence to care forhis ill family. After his departure, Travis was voted commander of the membersof the Texas regular army, while Bowie commanded the volunteers.

The question of command structure among the different pro-Texas forcestook on little to no significance with the arrival of Santa Anna’sadvance forces and the start of the battle on February 23. Defenders fellback from the town and moved to the limited protection of the Alamo. Thesiege had begun. On February 24, Bowie became seriously ill, and Travis assumedcommand of all forces.

Travis continued Neill’s attempt to fortify the Alamo by bringingin provisions, building gun emplacements, and appealing to the Texas provisionalgovernment for reinforcements. After the siege began, the largest contingentreaching the mission, on March 1, was thirty-two volunteers from Gonzales.Travis’s had a total of 190 defenders against Santa Anna’sforces, which eventually totaled almost 2,500 soldiers. As the thirteen-daysiege dragged on, Santa Anna moved his cannons closer to the Alamo, crumblingthe fortified walls with each shot. On March 3, Travis received word aroundnoon that there would be no reinforcements from Goliad, where James Fannin(1804–1836) commanded almost five hundred Texas soldiers. That sameday he wrote a friend, “I am determined to perish in the defense ofthis place, and my bones shall reproach my country for her neglect.”

Travis’s Letter From the Alamo

William Barret Travis was an imperfect man, but one talent he did notlack was the ability to write stirring prose. The day after Santa Anna’sforces began their siege at the Alamo, Travis penned one of the most famousheroic appeals for aid ever written. While it did not save him and the otherTexas defenders, it rallied support for the Texas cause and the battles yetto come:

Commandacy of the Alamo—Bexar, Feby 24th, 1836

To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World—

Fellow Citizens & Compatriots—

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna—Ihave sustained a considerable Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours& have not lost a man—The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion,otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken—Ihave answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still wavesproudly from the walls—I shall never surrender or retreat.Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, & everythingdear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch—Theenemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase tothree or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, Iam determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldierwho never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country—

Bibliography

The History of the Alamo & the Texas Revolution. Texas A&MUniversity <www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/bios/travis/travtext.html> (accessed April 30, 2007).

At approximately 5:30 a.m. on March 6, 1836, Santa Annaordered his troops to advance towards the Alamo. The mission defenders ranto their positions, alerted either by shouting Mexican troops or buglerssounding the advance. Travis raced to the northern wall, near the steps ofthe present-day San Antonio downtown post office, about one block northwestof the front chapel door. As he looked over the side, he saw Mexican soldiersalready at the wall, putting up scaling ladders. Travis’s slave, Joe,stood beside him. One of the few survivors that day, Joe later recountedthat Travis emptied his shotgun into the crowd below. Shortly after thisvolley, he saw Travis stumble backwards from the force of a round of ammunitionthat found its mark. There was a gaping hole in his forehead. The twenty-six-year-oldcommander still clutched his sword as he fell down an incline, raised upfor a moment, and then died. He was one of the morning’s first casualties.After the battle, his body was burned along with that of the other defenderswho had been killed. The site of the funeral pyre is not known.

David Crockett

Early Years

David (Davy) Crockett (1786–1836) was a hero at the siege of theAlamo as well as of the American frontier. His backwoods exploits were popularizedin print and on stage in his own lifetime, in a 1950s children’s televisionseries, and in folklore. Crockett was born on August 17, 1786, in Tennessee,which was on the frontier of the United States. He was born in a cabin locatedon the Holston River in Greene County. Crockett was the son of John and Rebecca(Hawkins) Crockett. His family, squatters, regularly moved around Tennessee,where his father, an Irish immigrant worked variously as a farmer, mill operator,tavern keeper, and store manager.

When Crockett was still a child, the family put down roots in northwestTennessee. He had little schooling. When he was twelve, his father sent himto Virginia to work as a cattle driver to help the family’s alwaysprecarious financial situation. Returning to Tennessee that winter, he wentto school for four days before getting into a fight. Crockett then stoppedgoing, but did not tell his father he was not attending school and ran awayfrom home to avoid being punished.

Crockett spent most of the next three years in Virginia, North Carolina,and Maryland working as a teamster and hatter apprentice as well as traveling.After going back to Tennessee, he determined that he needed some educationto find a worthy spouse and spent six months in the employ of a teacher inexchange for a basic education. In 1806, Crockett married his first wife,Polly Findley, and he began farming. Crockett liked hunting better than farming,and in 1811 he began moving west. The family settled in Franklin County,Tennessee, in 1813.

Early Career

From 1813 to 1815, Crockett served two stints in the Tennessee militiaduring the Creek War, which was part of the greater War of 1812. The battleswere fought between Creek Indians and settlers after some frontiersmen ambusheda number of Creek warriors in Alabama. The Creek responded by killing fivehundred settlers hiding in the undefended Fort Mims. During the conflict,Crockett served primarily as a mounted scout and hunter, and saw only limited,if any, action.

After nearly dying of malaria, Crockett began a career in politics inTennessee. His first post came in 1817 when he was an appointed, popular justice of the peace. By 1818, he added three more titles: county court referee,Lawrenceburg county commissioner, and colonel of the state militia. Resigningas commissioner in 1821, Crockett decided to make a run for the Tennesseelegislature.

One reason for Crockett’s political success was his storytellingabilities. Though still only partially literate, he used his formidable storytellingabilities in his successful campaigns. His political campaign speeches wereoften filled with stories that appealed to his audience of frontiersmen.Elected to the state legislature in 1821, he worked to defend the interestsof settlers in the west by reducing taxes, providing for debtor relief, andoffering solutions to land claim disputes. He served in the Tennessee legislatureagain from 1823 to 1825, this time representing his new home of Gibson County,Tennessee.

National Politics

After a failed 1824 campaign for U.S. Congress, Crockett ran again in1826 as a Democrat and was elected to the House of Representatives. He heldthe seat until 1831. A split with fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson, thenpresident of the United States, contributed to Crockett’s losing the1830 election. He then joined the Whig party and was again elected to Congressby a close margin in 1832. During his congressional terms, he worked to getfrontier settlers land for free through his support of the Tennessee VacantLand Bill and worked on relief for those in debt.

After continued criticism of Jackson, Crockett lost in the 1834 election.By this time, he had become something of a national celebrity. The popularplay The Lion of the West popularized his legend while he was a stillcongressman. He toured the East Coast on speaking engagements, and a numberof best-selling books were published based on his life.

Texas Hero

When Crockett lost the 1834 Congressional election, he decided to moveto Texas. He traveled with his second wife and neighbors in search of landopportunities. At the time, Texas was in transition as a part of Mexico thatwas primarily inhabited by white American settlers. The settlers soon beganfighting Mexico for the freedom to make Texas an independent nation. Joiningthe Texas Volunteers in January 1836, Crockett participated in the fightfor Texas independence as an officer.

By February 1836, Crockett and other volunteers were in San Antonio, defendingthe Alamo. The former mission was serving as a fort for the Texans. Mexicantroops descended on the fort, and the white colonists were martyred in thebattle. Among the casualties of the Mexican siege and capture was the Alamotroop commander, Crockett, who was executed by Mexican troops on March 6,1836. Journalists of the day embellished his life and death at the Alamo.Crockett’s fame resurged in the mid-twentieth century, when televisionseries and movies loosely based on his life were popular.

James Bowie

Early Years

James (Jim) Bowie (1796–1836) was an important military leaderfor the Texas Rangers who lost his life during the siege of the Alamo. Bornin Kentucky, he was the son of Rezin Bowie and his wife, Alvina Jones. Notmuch is known about Bowie’s childhood other than the fact that theBowie family, including Bowie’s four brothers, moved first to Spanish-ownedMissouri in 1800 and then to Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, in 1802.

By adulthood, Bowie and his brother Rezin (1793–1841) ran a sawmilland invested in a successful sugarcane plantation. They were the first inLouisiana to employ steam power in the grinding of sugarcane. Bowie was laterbelieved to be in the slave smuggling business with one or more of his brothers,and he also was a land speculator in Natchez, Mississippi, in the late 1820s.

Moved to Texas

By 1828, Bowie was living in Texas. Settling in San Antonio, he spenttime looking throughout the nearby region for a lost mine. After becominga Mexican citizen in October 1830, he obtained large amounts of land by convincingMexicans to ask for land grants, then buying the land tracts from them ata cheap rate.

Though Bowie married Ursula Martin de Veramendi, the daughter of the governorof the Mexican state Coahuila y Tejas, in the spring of 1831, his allegiancewas with the other white American settlers who had been colonizing Texasin greater numbers in the early to mid-1830s. These Americans challengedthe Mexican government, which had allowed them to move to Texas, and soughtmore freedom and independence. Bowie’s wife, two children, and manymembers of her family had died of cholera in 1833, so he focused much ofhis time and energy serving in the Texas Rangers as a colonel in supportof the settlers’ efforts.

Colonel Bowie

Bowie participated in several battles between the white Texans and theMexican government. In August 1832, he was part of the conflict at Nacogdoches,Texas, in which Colonel José de las Piedras surrendered. Bowie escortedthe prisoners back to San Antonio and then spent most of the next two yearsin private life, but he also fought in Mexico in support of Monclova as capitalof the Mexican Texas state of Coahuila y Tejas in 1833.

Texas settlers continued to call for freedom from Mexico. In May 1835,Bowie was selected to be a member of the first committee of safety, whichwas organized at Mina. The Texas Revolution broke out soon afterward, andBowie was named a colonel in the settlers’s military. He was in commandof a small number of troops and helped with war strategy. Bowie helped ridTexas of the Mexican military by mid-December 1835.

Early in 1836, the Mexican Army, headed by General Santa Anna, returnedto Texas. Bowie and the other volunteer soldiers under his command were forcedto retreat to the Alamo. The former mission gave refuge to the soldiers asthey made their failed stand against the Mexicans. Ignoring orders to leave,Bowie and his men stayed and fortified the Alamo. Bowie’s commandwas stymied when he either fell ill with respiratory disease or sufferedbroken bones while fortifying the Alamo. Thus, he was in bed on March 6,1836, as the Mexican army besieged the Alamo. Bowie died there, though hemanaged to inflict casualties on the enemy before he died.

The Bowie Knife

James Bowie’s name is often associated with the invention of theso-called bowie knife, though claims that his brother Rezin invented it aresupported by letters from as early as 1827. Some sources claim that JamesBowie did devise the knife, and that he was inspired by a fight with an Indianin which he was carrying a butcher’s knife. He hurt himself when hishand slipped from the knife’s hilt to its blade. Bowie then is saidto have carved a wooden model for a new kind of knife with a guard, a singleedge, and an uncurved blade that was fifteen inches long. He showed it toa blacksmith named John Sowell, who made the first one. Sowell named theknife the bowie knife. The weapon became well known after James Bowie usedit to kill another man in a fight known as the “Sandbar Fight”in Mississippi in 1827. By 1840, the bowie knife, which was also called theArkansas toothpick, was being manufactured in England. The bowie knife provedto be a popular weapon in Texas and beyond for mountaineers, Texas Rangers,hunters, and those living on the frontier.

Antonio López de Santa Anna

General Antonio López de Santa Anna (1794–1876) led theMexican Army to a victory at the Alamo, but he suffered a number of defeatsand eventually lost the Mexican-American War. Santa Anna also served as thepresident of Mexico six times and was generally perceived to be more concernedwith gaining glory and advantage for himself than with improving the emergingMexican nation. Santa Anna was born in 1794 in Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico,to Antonio Lafey de Santa Anna and his wife, Manuela Perez de Lebron. Hisfather worked as a mortgage broker and public official, and the family waswealthy. Though Santa Anna longed for a military career from childhood, hisfamily pushed him into an unsuccessful apprenticeship with a merchant.

Early Career

When Santa Anna was sixteen years old, he was finally allowed to jointhe Veracruz Infantry regiment as a foot soldier. Part of the colonial SpanishArmy, he later served in the cavalry as well. When Mexicans began rebellingagainst Spain as they looked for their independence, he fought in supportof Spain. Santa Anna proved formidable in battles, including conflicts inTexas against independence leader Miguel Hidalgo (1753–1811). SantaAnna reached the rank of captain by the early 1820s and had a favorable recordof service, despite a gambling scandal and accusations that he had stolenmoney. In 1821, when the rebellion seemed near victory, Santa Anna defectedto the pro-independence, yet conservative, side and joined the army of future–Emperorof Mexico General Agustín de Iturbide (1783–1824). Santa Annawas soon named a brigadier general of his forces.

When Mexico gained its independence in August 1821, Santa Anna soon displayedhis political inconsistency by revolting against Iturbide’s self-declaredimperial empire in 1823. After taking the port of Veracruz that year, SantaAnna declared himself in support of a republic for Mexico, even though hedid not fully understand what that meant. He then retired to his hacienda,Magna de Clavo, until the late 1820s when political events again drew hisinterest. He put together an army in support of liberal Vicente Guerrero(1782–1831) to oust the elected conservative president Manuel GómezPedraza (1789–1851).

Political Prominence

In 1827, Santa Anna gained widespread fame in Mexico when he handled thesurrender of Cuba-based Spanish forces that made a feeble attempt to invadeMexico at Tampico. He was regarded as a hero for his actions and became importantin Mexican politics. In 1833, Santa Anna became Mexico’s presidentafter its Congress elected him to the post. Claiming personal illness, butactually disinterested in governing, Santa Anna remained at home and allowedhis vice president, Valentín Gómez Farías (1781–1858)to serve as provisional president. When Gómez Farías’sactions and reforms proved unpopular, Santa Anna overthrew him in 1834 andlabeled himself “liberator of Mexico.”

Santa Anna then became Mexico’s dictator for a time, though therewas political instability in the country. Amid the revolts and Santa Anna’sown resignation and resumption of control, he led Mexican troops into Texasin 1836. White Americans had been forming a colony in Texas with Mexicanapproval but now wanted their independence. Santa Anna achieved some successesin his military maneuvers, including a victorious siege at the Alamo, buthe ultimately suffered a humiliating loss to Sam Houston at the Battle ofSan Jacinto on April 21, 1836.

Captured as a prisoner of war, Santa Anna was forced to sign the Treatyof Velasco, which granted Texas its independence and withdrawal of Mexicantroops. Santa Anna was later held prisoner in Washington, D.C., for a brieftime. In February 1837, Santa Anna returned to Mexico to find that he hadbeen deposed in favor of a former president, Anastasio Bustamante (1780–1853).Santa Anna was further disgraced when Bustamente declared the Treaty of Velascoinvalid, but he would soon emerge again to help his country.

After spending a year and a half on Magna de Clavo, Santa Anna led Mexicantroops to a victory over a French squadron bombing a city in Veracruz. TheFrench had attacked Mexico because of unpaid debts owed to their country,in the so-called “pastry war.” Santa Anna lost his leg in theconflict, which demonstrated his courage and only heightened his alreadygrowing political attractiveness. By 1839, Bustamente was compelled to nameSanta Anna interim president of Mexico, and the general eventually gainedthe post outright again in 1841. Santa Anna retained the presidency until1842, then again from March 1843 to July 1844, when he was overthrown oncemore and imprisoned.

Service in the Mexican-American War

Rather than being charged with treason by the new government, Santa Annainstead was forced to go into exile in Cuba in 1845. He was able to convincethe United States that if he was allowed to return to Mexico and regain hispost, he would settle the disputed border of Texas and negotiate peace. Whilethe Americans had the Mexican coast blockaded, Santa Anna was allowed toslip through. When he arrived in Mexico he reneged on his word and helpedMexico prepare for war with the United States.

Santa Anna once more became president of Mexico in December 1846, andthen took charge of gathering and training twenty thousand Mexican soldiersearly in 1847. He soon began attacking U.S. troops with his army, battleswhich were part of the Mexican-American War. However, his leadership provedto be inadequate, if not inept, and the Mexican army lost key battles tothe Americans.

One stinging defeat came in the Battle of Buena Vista, in which the outnumberedAmericans displayed their superior artillery skills. They compelled SantaAnna to retreat at night after losing many men in one day of conflict. SantaAnna also suffered heavy casualties at the Battle of Vera Cruz and the Battleof Cerro Gordo. As Mexico lost territory to the Americans, Santa Anna resignedhis presidency and later abandoned his troops and his military post. He wasforced into exile in Jamaica, then a British territory, before spending twoyears in Central America as a farmer.

Returned to Mexico

After conservatives, led by Lucas Alamán, (1792–1853) regainedcontrol in 1853, Santa Anna was asked to return as interim president. SantaAnna took the post in April of that year and retained the office even afterAlmán’s death. In April 1854, Santa Anna agreed to sell Arizonato the United States under terms of the Gadsden Treaty.

Because of continued corruption, liberal forces organized a revolt againstSanta Anna in August 1855. He fled Mexico, and spent ten years in exile inCuba, the United States, Columbia, and St. Thomas. He tried to return againin the mid-1860s, but had no support. His banishment lasted until 1873, whenhe was permitted to return to Mexico because he was not a political or militarythreat. Already suffering from ill health, Santa Anna died on June 21, 1876,in Mexico City.

James Polk

James Knox Polk (1795–1849) was the eleventh president of the UnitedStates, overseeing the country during the Mexican-American War. He was thefirst president to lead the United States during a foreign war. Born November2, 1795, in Pineville, North Carolina, he was the son of Samuel Polk, a wealthyfarmer, and his wife, Sarah Jane. When Polk was ten, his father moved thefamily to Tennessee, where he farmed thousands of acres with slave labor.Polk spent the rest of his formative years there.

Early Political Career

After receiving the bulk of his education at home, Polk attended the Universityof North Carolina, where he focused on the classics and mathematics. Upongraduating in 1818, he began studying law with Felix Grundy, a congressman.In 1820, Polk was admitted to the bar and spent two years in legal practice.He then ran for a legislative office in Tennessee in 1822. Winning the seatin the Tennessee legislature, Polk opposed land speculators as well as Tennessee’sbanks.

After fellow Tennessean and family friend Andrew Jackson won the presidencyin 1824, Polk, who supported Jackson’s campaign, won a seat in theU.S. House of Representatives. Serving seven consecutive terms, Polk supportedstates’ rights and soon became a Democratic Party leader. By 1833,Polk was serving as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee andwas a backer of the banking policies espoused by President Jackson.

Polk’s political career continued to rise when he was elected speakerof the House of Representatives in 1835. While holding the post, Polk expandedthe speaker’s powers. Because of his actions, his office of the speakertook charge of overseeing organizational matters as they passed through Congress.Polk left the House in 1839 to take on political challenges in his home state.

Polk became governor of Tennessee in 1839. He held the post through 1841.Though he ran for reelection in 1840, he was defeated. He ran again in 1843but again lost. During these years, Polk made his living as a farmer.

The U.S. Presidency

Though Polk was twice unable to win the governorship of Tennessee, hewas nominated by the Democrats to run for U.S. president in 1844. Polk wasnot the front-runner for the Democrats—divisive Martin Van Buren (1782–1862)was—but a compromise candidate who was able to bring disparate Democratstogether during his political campaign. Though the relatively unknown Polkwas not expected to win the election against Henry Clay (1777–1852),a more prominent Whig, he was able to capture an upset victory by a slimpopular plurality. This victory marked the first time a so-called “darkhorse” candidate won the presidential election.

Once in office, Polk proved successful—he had useful administrativeorganizational abilities and assembled a strong cabinet. In his inauguraladdress, he defined four goals he wanted to achieve as president—andhe was able to achieve them all by the time he left office in 1849. Polkwas able to lower the tariff with the passage of the Walker Tariff, and setup an independent federal treasury. Polk also added California to the Unionwith the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War,and resolved the Oregon border dispute with Great Britain by getting theBritish to agree to define the border between Oregon and Canada at the forty-ninthparallel. In addition to these issues, Polk had to deal with political andphilosophical differences between slave and free states, an issue broughtto the forefront by the acquisition of new territories and the inabilityof either side to compromise.

The Mexican-American War

Polk inherited a difficult political situation that soon led to war. Onthe very last day of the presidency of his predecessor, John Tyler (1790–1862),Texas was annexed to the United States. Though Mexico immediately ended diplomaticrelations with the United States because of this action—Mexico believedthe United States did not have the authority to annex lands located westof the Sabine River—Polk tried to negotiate with the Mexican government.He sent envoys to negotiate with the Mexican government on several matters,including settling boundary disputes. These negotiations failed, and theMexican government also ejected an American emissary to Mexico, John Slidell,from the country.

In the spring of 1846, Polk determined that the United States had no choicebut to go to war with Mexico. On May 11, 1846, the House of Representativesformally passed the war resolution, though battles had already been foughtby troops under the command of General Zachary Taylor (1784–1850).During the war, Polk played an active role in overseeing the actions of army,in part for his own political well-being. He regarded both General Taylorand General Winfield Scott (1786–1866), two heroes of the war whowere instrumental in the American victory, as political rivals. Polk alsodirected the details of organizing the troops, helped appoint officers, anddirected the United States’s war strategy.

Polk pursued secret diplomacy with Mexico during the war. He still hopedto acquire both California and New Mexico via this method, but failed. Itwas not Polk’s only disappointment. He had agreed to pay Mexico’sformer dictator, Antonio López de Santa Anna, to return home in exchangefor an agreement to end the war and begin peace negotiations. Santa Annabacked out of the deal after he returned to Mexico. As soon as Santa Annawas back in Mexico, he became the commander of the Mexican army and joinedthe conflict.

The U.S. Army won the Mexican-American War with military superiority anda decisive strategy that included the capture of Mexico City. The peace treatynegotiated after the war’s end in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,saw the United States retaining Texas and gaining both California and NewMexico in exchange for $15 million. Because of this treaty, Polk was ableto add more than one million square miles to the United States.

No Second Term

Early in his presidency, Polk announced he would not run for a secondterm. He did this because he hoped it would reduce tensions within the DemocraticParty and free him from party politics so that he could represent all Americans.In 1848, he gave his support to Lewis Cass (1782–1866), who becamethe party’s presidential nominee. General Taylor, the Whig candidate,was able to win when Martin Van Buren left the Democrats, offered himselfas a third-party candidate, and split the Democratic vote.

When Polk left office early in 1849, he was already suffering from poorhealth. He died only twelve weeks later, on June 15, 1849, in Nashville,Tennessee. Years after his death, Polk was considered one of the best presidentsthe United States ever had.

Zachary Taylor

Zachary Taylor (1784–1850) was a hero of the Mexican-American Warand the twelfth president of the United States. He was nicknamed “OldRough and Ready” and was known for his tactical and exceptional leadershipskills. Taylor was born November 24, 1784, on the Montebello estate abouttwenty miles from Charlottesville, Virginia, the son of Richard Taylor, anofficer who had served during the Revolutionary War, and his wife, SarahDabney Strother.

When Taylor was less than a year old, the family moved to Louisville,Kentucky, where his father had been given land as a reward for his war service.Although his father built a plantation on his land, he also took a job asa customs collector. Taylor received his education from private tutors athome, but it was limited and not of high quality. He also worked on the plantationand learned about agriculture.

Early Career

Though Taylor’s father wanted him to remain on the plantation,Taylor was permitted to act on his interest in the military and enter theU.S. Army after an elder brother died. When he twenty-four years old, hewas given a commission as a lieutenant in the Seventh Infantry and sent to New Orleans under the command of General James Wilkinson (1757–1825).After a brief leave when he contracted yellow fever, Taylor was promotedto captain and sent to the Indiana Territory in 1810.

Taylor was put in charge of Fort Harrison during the War of 1812, andwas breveted major for the duration of the conflict. While Taylor was incommand, the fifty soldiers in the fort survived an assault by four hundred Native Americans led by Shawnee Chief Tec*mseh (1768–1813). The victorymade him famous. When the war ended, he was demoted to captain. Taylor wasinsulted by the demotion, resigned, and went home intending to work againin agriculture.

The Indian Wars

Taylor’s retirement was short-lived, because President James Madison(1751–1836) reinstated his promotion to major in 1816. Over the nexttwenty years, Taylor served in the Wisconsin Territory as the commander ofthe Third Infantry and as the head of garrisons in Louisiana and Minnesota.After being promoted to colonel in 1832, Taylor was in charge of four hundredsoldiers during the Black Hawk War. He was the recipient of Black Hawk’s(1767–1838) surrender.

After Taylor served as the commanding officer of Fort Snelling, in Minnesota,for several years, he was put in charge of the U.S. Army during the Florida-basedSeminole Wars in 1837. He was breveted brigadier general after defeatingthe Seminole Indians in a major victory at Lake Okeechobee. By 1840, Taylorwas serving as commander of the Department of the Southwest and was basedin Louisiana’s Fort Jessup. He then made Baton Rouge his home, thoughhe also bought a plantation in Natchez, Mississippi, in 1841 and became aslave owner.

Service in the Mexican-American War

By the spring of 1845, Taylor was positioned in the Republic of Texasas the territory was being annexed by the United States. He was under ordersto fend off any attempt by Mexico to interfere or reclaim the territory.Taylor led the four thousand men under his command to Corpus Christi, Texas,during the summer of 1845, and a few months later moved his troops to theRio Grande’s mouth. The Americans wanted the river to be the southernboundary of Texas.

Taylor prepared for war by building Fort Brown (sometimes called FortTexas, in present-day Brownsville, Texas) in March 1846. After the Mexicanarmy struck the Americans, Taylor fought back even before war was declaredby the United States. At the Battle of Palo Alto in May 1846, Taylor’stroops won a victory over a much larger Mexican force. Two reasons for thewin were the precision of the artillery’s and Taylor’s owncourage and inspiring leadership. A day later, Taylor won another victoryat the Battle of Resaca de la Palma. With these victories, Taylor’stroops were able to occupy Matamoros, the Mexican town across the Rio Grandefrom Fort Brown.

After the two battles, Taylor received other honors. He was named commanderof the Army of the Rio Grande by President James K. Polk. Taylor was alsobreveted general and given gold medals by Congress. In September 1846, Taylorled six thousand soldiers to Monterrey, Mexico, and was able to capture thecity after a four-day battle. But only Taylor’s increasing popularityprevented his being removed as commander by President Polk, who was unhappywith Taylor’s merciful attitude toward the Mexicans.

Taylor briefly remained at Monterrey with three thousand troops whileGeneral Winfield Scott led the rest of the U.S. Army in the area on an invasionat Veracruz, Mexico. Though Taylor was supposed to stay on the defensivein Monterrey, he soon took his men and marched south to engage the biggerMexican army—15,000 to 20,000 strong—led by Antonio Lópezde Santa Anna. The Battle of Buena Vista took place on February 22 and 23,and again, the stronger artillery compelled a U.S. victory and a Mexicanretreat.

Elected U.S. President

After returning from Mexico in November 1847, Taylor was ready to runfor the U.S. presidency. Though his supporters considered his political skillsabysmal, and he had never voted in a presidential election, Taylor won thenomination of the Whig party in 1848. He unexpectedly defeated Democrat LewisCass and took office in 1849.

As president, Taylor’s lack of political skill made his short-livedpresidency essentially unsuccessful, especially in the areas of foreign policyand congressional relations. Taylor dealt with the growing issue of slavery,however. Though he did own slaves, he wanted California and New Mexico admittedas free states and strongly opposed Texas’s claims on lands east ofthe Rio Grande as well as any talk of secession by southern states. He wasalso the last Whig president, in part because he created division withinthe party.

Taylor developed cholera or gastroenteritis and fever on July 4, 1850,probably as a result of drinking large amounts of water on a hot day. Hedied shortly thereafter, on July 10, 1850, in Washington, D.C., and was buriedin Louisville, Kentucky.

General Winfield Scott

General Winfield Scott (1786–1866) was a hero of the Mexican-AmericanWar and eventual general in chief of the U.S. Army. He led U.S. troops tosignificant victories in Mexico during the conflict. Scott was born on June13, 1786, near Petersburg, Virginia, the son of William Scott and his wifeAnn Mason. The family had inherited significant wealth. William Scott wasalso a Revolutionary War veteran who worked as a farmer, but died when Scottwas six years old. Scott’s mother died when he was seventeen, butshe had raised him with a strong sense of manners and a love of books.

Scott chose to go to college after his mother’s death, attendingWilliam and Mary College for a year. Deciding to pursue a legal career, hestudied law with well-known attorney David Robinson and was admitted to thebar of Virginia in 1806. Scott practiced law until his military career began.

Early Military Career

Scott’s military experiences began in 1807 when he heeded President Thomas Jefferson’s call for volunteers for a militia to keep Britishships away from the American shore. Scott volunteered as a lance corporaland was in charge of a patrol that watched over a small amount of coastline.He soon asked Jefferson for a permanent commission in the military.

In 1808, Scott was appointed a captain in the U.S. Army and stationedin New Orleans. Within a short amount of time, he faced difficulties. Heserved under a commanding general, James Wilkinson, for whom he had littlerespect. Scott was court-martialed after he called Wilkinson a traitor tothe United States. He was convicted and spent the year 1810 suspended fromthe Army. He resumed his legal career during this time.

After being reinstated to the Army, Scott was promoted to lieutenant colonelby the time the War of 1812 began. He was in charge of recruiting what cameto be the Second Artillery. On the battlefield in Canada, he showed himselfto be a superior soldier, both courageous and able to make solid judgmentsdespite being captured at the battle at Queenstown. Scott later led troopsto victory at Niagara, Stoney Creek, and Fort George. Scott’s valorled him to be promoted first to brevet brigadier general and then brevetmajor general. He also received congressional thanks and a gold medal.

Though Scott was asked to become President James Madison’s secretaryof war, the general turned down the offer. Instead, Scott left the army from1815 until 1821. He returned as the commander of the Army’s EasternDivision until 1825, when he was temporarily relieved of his duties afterbeing court-martialed for refusing orders. In addition to training officersunder his command, Scott also wrote military manuals on infantry and tactics,both of which became accepted standards. He twice went to Europe to learnabout other countries’s military tactics as well.

Leading American General

Beginning in the late 1820s, Scott participated in several significantmilitary operations. He took part in the Black Hawk War in 1828 and thenwas stationed in South Carolina during the nullification controversy of 1832.Scott here showed his burgeoning negotiating skills, which prevented civilwar—one of several times his expertise proved effective in preventingbattles. Scott was on his way to becoming the leading military mind in theUnited States.

By 1835, Scott was in Florida to combat the Seminole and Creek Indiansunder President Andrew Jackson’s orders. Because of the lack of materialsupport, Scott’s effectiveness was limited, however. Though Jacksonrelieved him of his command and ordered him to go in front of a board ofinquiry, Scott was not only absolved of any wrongdoing, but also praisedfor his handling of the situation. Scott continued to show his military andnegotiating skills in various military operations during the late 1830s,including bringing peace to the Niagara region after the failed Canadianrevolt of 1837, overseeing the removal of Cherokee Indians to the IndianTerritory in 1838, and helping negotiate peace in the 1839 Lumberjack War.

Such successes led to Scott being named the Army’s general in chiefin 1841. He would remain in the post until 1861. Scott was personally responsiblefor making the U.S. Army more efficient and effective. He also enforced highstandards of discipline and dress on troops, including a personal crusadeagainst the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Service in the Mexican-American War

Though General Zachary Taylor had been in charge of U.S. troops throughthe early part of the Mexican-American War, Scott was brought in by PresidentJames K. Polk in 1847 to seal the victory Taylor had been unable to achieve.(Polk had not appointed Scott the head of U.S. forces in the region for politicalreasons. Scott had already been considered as the Whig nominee for presidentin 1838, 1840, and 1844, and Polk did not want to heighten Scott’svisibility.)

Scott proved effective in the conflict. Beginning in March 1847 with hislanding at Veracruz, Mexico, Scott reeled off a succession of victories.He won battles at Cerro Gordo, Molino del Rey, and Chapultepec before securingMexico City six months after his initial landing in Mexico. While the peacetreaty was being negotiated, Scott commanded the U.S. troops occupying andkeeping order in Mexico City. Some Mexican citizens even asked Scott to becometheir country’s dictator, but Scott soon returned home and left GeneralWilliam O. Butler (1791–1880) in charge of the troops.

Failed Political Ambitions

After coming back to the United States, Scott continued to serve as generalin chief of the Army while General Taylor was elected to the White Housein 1848. Scott’s own political ambitions took hold when he receivedthe Whig nomination for president in 1852. Though he desperately wanted tobe president, Scott lost by a wide margin, in part because of the arrogancedisplayed in his campaign.

While his political career had essentially ended, Scott continued to distinguishhimself as a military officer. In 1855, he was promoted to lieutenant general,a rank last held by George Washington (1732–1799). Remaining withthe Union Army during the Civil War, Scott proposed the policy of dividing the South to contain it. President Abraham Lincoln adopted the measure, whichproved successful. It was one of Scott’s last acts as general in chief.He chose to retire on November 1, 1861, at the age of seventy-five. Scottdied less than five years later, on May 29, 1866, at West Point, New York.He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Major Battles and Events

The Alamo

The two-week siege at the Alamo saw the Anglo and Mexican Texans fortifiedtherein to stand up to their Mexican colonial overlords. The Texans wantedtheir independence but suffered a devastating defeat at the Alamo at thehands of the Mexican army on March 6, 1836. Texans had begun organizing militarilyafter the Mexican president, General Antonio López de Santa Anna,sent Mexican troops in 1835, under the command of General Martín Perfectode Cos, to the forts located along the Rio Grande River, the border of theTexas colony with Mexico. Cos was attempting to administer new Mexican federallaws in the colony, but failed.

Setting the Stage

White settlers began firing on the Mexican troops under General Cos, andthe troops fired back. The Texans soon organized their own small militia,which took over two small towns in Texas, Goliad and Gonzales. By the endof October 1835, the Texans’s militia had arrived in the fortifiedcity of San Antonio, where General Cos had made his headquarters with fourhundred Mexican troops.

The Texans’s militia, which now included about three hundred newmembers, then spent six weeks exchanging fire with the Mexican army in SanAntonio. In early December, the Texans grew bold and besieged the fort. ByDecember 10, Cos had lost 150 of his 400 men, and he surrendered San Antonio,to the Texans. Though the victors let the Mexican army, including Cos, goback home without their weapons and with a promise not to return, they knewthere would be reprisals. The Texans fortified the Alamo and waited for anattack.

Furious, General Santa Anna decided that the Texas colony must be putin its place. He led six thousandMexican troops himself to the area in early1836. The Texans in the militia in San Antonio did not expect an attack fromMexico until spring. Because some of the volunteers in San Antonio had grownrestless during the winter and sought battles in other cities, only aboutone hundred militiamen remained there, though others joined those waitingin San Antonio. By the time Santa Anna arrived in February 1836, there wereabout 150 militia members in San Antonio, including David Crockett and JimBowie. Bowie and another new arrival, Colonel William Barrett Travis, werethe joint commanders of the militia’s volunteers.

The Siege Begins

On February 23, 1836, a sentry for the Texans saw 1,500 members of theMexican cavalry nearing San Antonio. With that warning, Travis ordered thatall in San Antonio should move into the Alamo. (The Alamo was once the SanAntonio de Valero mission, which had later served as a fort, but had beendeserted until shortly before the battle.) Surrounded by high walls, theAlamo consisted of several buildings that surrounded a three-acre plaza.To protect themselves, the Texans mounted the fourteen cannons in their possessionalong the walls. They also set up rifles.

Santa Anna’s army did not directly attack the Alamo right awaybut instead controlled San Antonio and surrounded the Alamo. That same day,February 23, Santa Anna sent a messenger to the Texans demanding their surrender.He and his troops were appalled when the Texans released a cannon shot thatnearly hit the messenger.

The Siege Reaches a Stalemate

For the next two weeks, the Mexican army laid siege to the Alamo. Fromthe Alamo, the Texans were able to use their superior Kentucky rifles andother weapons to injure and kill a many Mexican soldiers. The Mexican troopsused muskets and cannon fire on the Alamo—to much less effect becausethe Texans’ weapons had much longer range. Reinforcements for theMexican army continued to arrive during the siege.

While the siege was essentially a stalemate, with no injuries inside theAlamo, the Texans were hoping to hold on until reinforcements arrived. OnFebruary 24, Colonel Travis sent a message to Sam Houston, who was organizinga Texas army. Travis told him about conditions inside the Alamo and askedfor more troops.

By March 1, thirty-two additional volunteers were able to sneak insidethe Alamo. Travis realized that the situation was still dire and that nomore reinforcements were arriving. The fewer than two hundred defenders insidethe Alamo were no long-term match for the thousands of well-trained Mexicansoldiers. Travis informed the defenders on March 3 that they would have tofight to their deaths, but if they wanted to leave now, there would be noloss of honor. At most, only one man left, though even one man leaving isthe subject of historical debate.

Final Showdown

On March 6 at 5 a.m., Santa Anna ordered a degüelloattack (no prisoners to be taken) on the Alamo. The battle began with Mexicancannon fire creating two enormous holes in the walls of the Alamo. Throughthese holes, about three thousand Mexican soldiers entered the fortifiedmission. The Texans defended themselves with a hail of bullets and cannonfire, but they could not hold their positions for long. The battle soon turnedto hand-to-hand combat using knives and bayonets. The entire confrontationlasted less than ninety minutes.

Before the end of the March 6 battle, Travis, Crockett, and a bed-riddenBowie were already dead. Only five of the Texas defenders survived the attack.Though the remaining defenders surrendered to the Mexicans, they and nearlyeveryone who had sought refuge in the Alamo were killed by the Mexican army.Only Susanna Dickinson (c. 1814–1883), the wife of a Texas soldier,her baby, a few female Mexican nurses, and two slave boys were allowed tolive and leave the Alamo. Approximately six hundred Mexican soldiers diedin the final siege.

With the Alamo under control, Santa Anna pursued the fleeing Texas armyeast. The Texans lost again to the Mexican army at Goliad. “Rememberthe Alamo!” became the inspiring rallying cry as Texas fought forits declared independence from Mexico and began the Texas Revolution.

San Jacinto

The Battle of San Jacinto was fought on April 21, 1836. It was the definitiveengagement in the Texas revolution against Mexico. Fought on a slightly crestedpeninsular plain near present-day Houston, the battle and resulting eventscreated a viable Republic of Texas and set the stage for the annexation ofTexas by the United States in 1845. It also helped produce the Mexican-AmericanWar of 1846 and led to the eventual transfer of more than one million squaremiles of territory from Mexico to the United States.

After his victory at the Alamo on March 6, Mexican commander Santa Annasplit his army into thirds. He planned to sweep down from the north, securethe coast with a detachment moving northeast from Matamoros, and commandforces east across the middle of the Texas from San Antonio, destroying anyrebel resistance along the way. His combined army of almost 3,500 troopswould either eliminate any military threat in Texas or push all oppositionacross the Sabine River and into the United States. Mexico would again controlits northernmost province.

Goliad

Texas commander-in-chief Sam Houston needed time to gather strength, trainvolunteers, and concentrate his forces as he fell back across Texas beforethe advancing Mexican army. He ordered Goliad commander James Fannin andmore than four hundred defenders to leave their garrison and join him onthe march east. Fannin delayed and was captured with most of his men. OnMarch 27, Santa Anna ordered the execution of the 342 prisoners. This orderwas in keeping with a law the Mexican legislature had approved in December1835 that provided for the execution—as pirates—of all foreignerstaking up arms against Mexico. The Mexican commander at Goliad saved as manyTexans as he could and spared anyone with beneficial skills and prisonerscaptured without weapons. The message to Texas volunteers was clear. Afterthe Alamo and Goliad, any future Mexican victory meant almost certain death.

Coming Together

In mid-April, Santa Anna learned the Texas government was in Harrisburg(now Houston). He thought he could move swiftly and capture the civilianrebels and then deal with General Houston. Favoring speed over numbers, hemarched with roughly 650 soldiers, about 50 cavalry, and one piece of artillery,leaving his remaining force of 2,800 soldiers and numerous artillery piecesforty miles southwest of Harrisburg at Fort Bend (present-day Richmond) onthe Brazos River. When he got to Harrisburg, he found the government wasnow at New Washington, 20 miles east. He arrived there on April 18, justin time to see the Texas government sailing away across the bay, headingfor Galveston Island. On the same day, Texas scout Erastus “Deaf”Smith (1787–1837) captured a Mexican courier, and General Houston(with 1,200 troops) arrived in Harrisburg. Documents in the courier’ssaddlebags gave Houston Santa Anna’s troop strength, overall strengthand location of other Mexican forces, and Santa Anna’s planned movements.He also knew Santa Anna would soon get about six hundred reinforcements ledby his brother-in-law, General Martin Perfecto de Cos. Even counting theseadditional troops, after the Alamo, Goliad, and the overwhelming desire ofhis volunteers to avenge these defeats, Houston was ready for a fight against1,300–1,400 Mexican soldiers. Santa Anna had to cross the San JacintoRiver at the Lynchburg ferry in order to move east. Houston raced for theferry crossing.

On April 19, Houston left almost 250 sick or wounded soldiers in Harrisburgand marched his remaining army northeast on the Lynchburg road, crossingVince’s Bridge along the route. On the morning of April 20, aboutnine hundred Texans moved onto the plain at San Jacinto, about fifteen milesfrom Harrisburg. They established their camp on high ground in a grove ofoak trees near the confluence of Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto River.Santa Anna learned of the Texas troop movements, burned New Washington, andafter marching northwest about eight miles, established camp in front ofthe Texans—about 1,200 yards away. Because of high grass and a smallrise in the San Jacinto plain between the two forces, neither army couldsee the other’s encampment. The Texas forces had water to their back(Buffalo Bayou), water to their left (the San Jacinto River), hundreds ofMexican troops in front of them, and General Cos and his troops coming ontheir right. The Mexicans had the river to their right, swamps and a laketo their back, and the Texans in front. They also had a long plain headingoff toward the coast on their left back to New Washington, and the bridgeto Harrisburg to the southwest.

There was a short cavalry skirmish on the afternoon of April 20. The maineffect of this parry was the demotion of Sidney Sherman back to command ofthe Second Texas Infantry (240 men) and the elevation of private MirabeauB. Lamar (1798–1859) to commander of the cavalry (50 men) the nextday. Sherman wanted to fight the Mexicans so much that his cavalry movementsthreatened to start a full battle.

April 21, 3:30 p.m.

On April 21, Texans heard reveille at 4 a.m. The sleepof the previous night was their first good rest in days. On the Mexican side,there was little to no sleep. During the night, Santa Anna had his soldiersthrowing together hastily built breastworks (above-ground trenches) of boxes,luggage, saddles, and other items. At about 9 a.m., GeneralCos arrived via Vince’s Bridge, not with 600 battle-hardened soldiersas Santa Anna had ordered, but with about 540 new recruits. Santa Anna nowhad approximately 1,300 troops. Cos’s men had marched all night andthrough the morning to reach the camp. They were dispersed on the extremeright side of the Mexican lines. To their right was the San Jacinto River;behind them were a series of marshes, a small lake, and more river. Theywere beyond what little protection was afforded by the breastworks to theirleft (which were supported by about 240 men), the single piece of Mexicanartillery in the middle of the defenses, more breastworks and about 340 soldiers,and finally about 50 cavalry completing the left flank. The entire line stretchedmore than 1,000 yards in an arc that bulged slightly towards the Texas camp.

Aware of growing unease in the Texas ranks, Houston called a council ofwar around noon that lasted until 2 p.m. He also ordered DeafSmith to destroy Vince’s Bridge. There would be no more reinforcementsfrom the Harrisburg road, and the Texans’s only way out of San Jacintowould be through the Mexican defenses. At approximately 3:30 p.m.,Houston ordered the officers to parade their commands and advance acrossthe open plain. On the left flank was Sidney Sherman (1805–1873) and260 members of the Second Texas Infantry. To his right was the First TexasInfantry with 220 men commanded by Edward Burleson (1798–1851). Volunteersbrought their own equipment, usually a musket or rifle. On this day, manyalso had two or three loaded pistols and a bowie knife or sword. Next toBurleson were thirty-one soldiers, commanded by George Hockley (1802–1854),manning the artillery, two “six-pounders” (cannons that firedsix-pound balls) known as the “Twin Sisters.” To the rightof the artillery marched Henry Millard (c. 1796–1844) (240 men) andthe Texas Regular Army. Unlike the volunteers, these soldiers were suppliedwith 1818 Harpers Ferry flintlock muskets and bayonets. Some also had morerecently issued U.S. hardware. Millard had been the chief Army recruiterin Nacogdoches. His group had a large concentration of volunteers with recentU.S. military experience. There were several U.S. Army deserters and recentlyreleased soldiers who joined the Texas cause after leaving their posts withthe regular army in nearby Louisiana. Next to Millard was Mirabeau B. Lamarat the lead of about sixty cavalry. The combined forces stretched more thanone thousand yards from left to right in two lines.

Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

At approximately 4:30 p.m., the Texans were within fivehundred yards of the Mexican line when they crested the slope and emergedfrom the tall grass. In a document written after the battle, Santa Anna statedhe ordered sentries posted; on that afternoon, there were no sentries. Heplanned to attack April 22 and did not think the Texans would attack fortifiedpositions across an open plain. Most of the soldiers were resting or asleep.As Santa Anna wrote in his official report, “I yielded to repose.”Bareback cavalry horses were feeding on grass or being led to and from water.A bugler saw the Texans approaching and sounded the alarm. The Twin Sisterswere wheeled within two hundred yards of the Mexican defenses and openedfire. Cannon fire flew through the front lines. Mexican troops got off oneorganized volley, but their aim was high and few attackers fell. Texans waiteduntil they were within pistol range and then opened up with muskets and rifles.The results were devastating. After this exchange, the lines fell apart asindividual clusters of Texans raced to breach the defenses.

Sherman’s infantry hit first. With shouts of “Remember theAlamo!” and “Remember Goliad!” ringing out, the Texanssmashed into Cos’s men, throwing the recruits into disarray. Thosewho were not killed in the initial sweep ran into the wetlands to their rearor fled to the left through the rest of the Mexican army, followed closelyby attacking Texans. This caused more confusion as seasoned veterans triedto form up and fight. For Santa Anna’s army, it was already too late.The Twin Sisters were wheeled within seventy yards of the Mexican lines,fired again, and then fell silent. After these shots, any Texas artillerywould hit Texans, because Texas First fighters were already over the breastworkson the left and Millard’s Texas Regulars seized the Mexican’sonly cannon and more breastworks to the right. Lamar’s cavalry engagedthe far right of the Mexican defenses, against a largely insignificant mountedresponse. Once at and over the lines, Texans continued inflicting injurieswith pistols, swords, knives, captured Mexican weapons, and the butts oftheir long guns.

Active fighting lasted eighteen minutes. Afterward, Texans continued killingMexican troops until nightfall. Most of these deaths occurred in the swampsand lake behind the Mexican encampment. Individual soldiers were killed wherethey stood or were shot in the water.

Aftermath and Prelude

Texas losses were nine killed and thirty injured, including Houston, whowas shot in the ankle. Reports of Mexican losses are inexact, with generallyaccepted figures of more than six hundred killed and almost seven hundredtaken prisoner. Santa Anna was captured the next day and brought before Houston.Rather than kill the self-described “Napoleon of the West,”Houston used Santa Anna to order his remaining forces to fall back to SanAntonio and await further instructions. On May 14, with the public Treatyof Velasco and a secret side agreement signed the same day, Santa Anna agreedto move all Mexican troops south of the Rio Grande, to establish the Texasborder with Mexico at the Rio Grande, and to not invade Texas again. TheMexican government refused to abide by the treaty, the Texans seized SantaAnna as a prisoner of war, and Mexico would not recognize the Rio Grandeas its northern border until it signed the Treaty of Hidalgo in 1848.

Battle of Palo Alto

Though skirmishes between Mexican and U.S. troops occurred before warwas officially declared, the Battle of Palo Alto was the first battle afterward.It was fought before the declaration of war was signed by President JamesK. Polk and is generally considered the first major battle of the war. PresidentPolk had put General Zachary Taylor in charge of bringing about four thousandmembers of the U.S. Army to the Rio Grande River across from the Mexicantown Matamoros. This encampment irritated the Mexicans, who stationed theirown troops in Matamoros.

From Fort Brown (also known as Fort Texas), across the Rio Grande fromMatamoros, Taylor marched about 2,300 of his soldiers on May 1, 1846 to theU.S. supply depot at Port Isabel, about thirty miles away. At the time, Taylorand his men were in dire need of supplies, and they took advantage of thechance to breach Mexican lines in order to reach their supply depot. AfterTaylor arrived at Port Isabel on May 2, he had his troops take everythingthey could transport, including all the cannons that the arsenal could dowithout.

Arista’s Offensive

Mexican General Mariano Arista learned of Taylor’s supply tripand wanted to engage the American general and his troops in a battle as theymade their way back to Fort Brown from Point Isabel. To that end, beforethe Americans returned, Arista positioned his six thousand men on Palo Alto,the flat, broad plain between the two locations. Taylor and his army reachedPalo Alto early on May 8, 1846. After the two armies saw each other and formedbattle lines in the early afternoon, fighting began.

The combat started with and consisted primarily of cannons and other artilleryfire. The Americans gained the upper hand within an hour. Mexican cannonsfired low to the ground, and many of their cannonballs landed far in frontof the American soldiers. Because U.S. forces could easily dodge the poor-qualityMexican cannons, gunpowder, shot, and musketry, they were able to hold themoff.

Superior American Firepower

American artillery inflicted heavy damage on the Mexican army. Using siegeguns, howitzers, cannons, and the highly maneuverable “flying artillery”(a light, mounted mobile cannon consisting of a howitzer mounted on caissons,used for the first time in battle), American soldiers bombarded the Mexicanarmy with great success.

During the afternoon, other strategies were tried by the Mexicans andby the Americans. Less successful than bombardment was each side’sattempt at a cavalry charge, though the Mexican horses were of better qualitythan their armaments. The Mexicans also tried an infantry charge, but this,too, was repelled by American artillery. By the end of the afternoon, theMexican army could not gain ground on the Americans.

Fire Ends the Day’s Battle

Near twilight, the high grass of Palo Alto, which had been trampled allday by both sides, caught fire. The fire emitted a large amount of smoke.Though the smoke temporarily stopped fighting, the Americans used it as anadvantageous cover to ambush Mexican soldiers. A truce was later called forthe day, and both armies camped for the night. The next morning, the Americansreturned to the battlefield. They found that the Mexican army had retreatedand was nowhere to be seen. Only 10 Americans were killed and 40 injuredduring the Battle of Palo Alto, while there were 257 to 400 Mexican casualties.

The Americans found the Mexicans at Resaca de la Palma, five miles fromPalo Alto, and again engaged in battle on May 9. The U.S. Army’s infantryand cavalry routed their Mexican counterparts, and the Mexican army continuedto retreat as U.S. forces, led by Taylor, occupied much of the northeasternpart of Mexico.

Battle of Buena Vista

One of the most significant battles of the Mexican-American War, the Battleof Buena Vista, was also the first involving General Antonio Lópezde Santa Anna in a decade. Shortly before the battle, Santa Anna had takenover the Mexican presidency and raised an army of 25,000. Based in San LuisPotoí, Santa Anna ordered about twenty thousand Mexican troops tomarch for three hundred miles to Buena Vista in February 1847. After learningof the American war plan from an intercepted letter, Santa Anna made thejourney in order to engage U.S. forces commanded by General Zachary Taylor.

For much of the Mexican-American War, American troops were headed by GeneralZachary Taylor. Primarily for political reasons, President James K. Polkdecided to split the command of the U.S. forces in Mexico between GeneralTaylor and General Winfield Scott. Polk gave Scott orders to launch an invasionof Mexico City from the port city of Veracruz. The American troops previouslyserving under Taylor were split in half, with Scott taking about five thousandto six thousand men. Nearly all of the regular soldiers, as well as a numberof volunteers, were transferred to Scott as he prepared to invade centralMexico.

Santa Anna’s Plan

Santa Anna learned of the plan for Scott’s invasion and decidedto attack Taylor first, in part because he seemed more vulnerable becauseof the troop division. By February 1847, Taylor was moving his remainingmen—primarily volunteers—westward into the Sierra Madre mountainsof Mexico. Taylor was putting his troops into a defensive position. SantaAnna marched twenty thousand of his troops northward with the intent of interceptingTaylor and pushing the Americans back to the Rio Grande. Over the courseof the journey, five thousand Mexican soldiers deserted or died of diseasebefore reaching the battle site.

On February 22, 1847, Taylor’s men passed through a narrow mountainpass that had mountains on one side and treacherous gullies on the other.(A nearby ranch was called San Juan de Buena Vista and lent its name to thebattle.) Though the pass area was difficult to either defend or attack, theU.S. forces knew of Santa Anna’s nearby army and took up a defensiveposition. Santa Anna’s troops were stationed beyond the pass, lyingin wait for the Americans, who were far fewer in number than their Mexicancounterparts.

Santa Anna sent a message to Taylor on February 23 that formally askedfor the surrender of Taylor and the Americans. Taylor’s response tothe message was harshly negative. The first clashes of the Battle of BuenaVista happened later that afternoon, but these were only minor engagementsbetween the Mexican light infantry and American volunteer soldiers who wereriflemen and unmounted cavalry. During the rainy night that followed, bothsides readied themselves for the primary clash the next day.

The Battle Begins

The next morning, the Battle of Buena Vista began in earnest, primarilyconsisting of gunfire supported by aggressive artillery action. The Americansrelied on cavalrymen and riflemen on nearby heights. Santa Anna repositionedhis soldiers in order to add to the light infantry soldiers stationed onthe mountainside. Artillery was placed in attack position near the pass,ready to strike the Americans. Assault columns and artillery were preparedto hit the American left flank.

The first shots came from the Mexican army as a column traveled up SaltilloRoad, which cut through the area. Their efforts were stymied by a batteryof Americans. Two divisions of the Mexican army on the right flank had moresuccess early on against the second Indiana Regiment and several pieces ofartillery. The regiment’s commander became confused during their exchangeand ordered a retreat, which forced the artillery commander, Captain JohnPaul Jones O’Brien, and the troops on the mountain, to back off aswell. Though the American left flank could have fallen apart, reinforcementsin the form of volunteers from Illinois and Kentucky halted the Mexican advance.

American Momentum

U.S. forces slowly found the battle going their way. Troops at the centerof combat under General John E. Wool (1784–1869) were forced to withdraw,but did so with a fight. General Taylor rallied all his troops and insertedsome fresh soldiers into the battle, including the First Mississippi Regiment.These men, plus the reorganized Second and Third Indiana Regiment, formedthe new left flank. Using a “V” formation, the Americans wereable to rout the Mexicans, who tried to repel the enemy with a lance attack.

The final assault, led by Santa Anna, to the center of the American troopsmet with some success. A few U.S. units of infantry and artillery troopsfrom Illinois and Kentucky mistakenly advanced at the same time as the Mexicanforward thrust. The Americans found themselves surrounded by the larger Mexicanarmy but were saved by the arrival of more U.S. troops.

The battle continued through the afternoon, but at nightfall both sidesagreed to a break and the Mexican Army began retreating. On February 25,the Americans unexpectedly found that the Mexican Army had completely retreated.They could see that Santa Anna’s men were on their way back to SanLuis Potoí, primarily because of heavy troop loss. About 3,400 Mexicantroops were dead, injured, or missing. More Mexicans lost their lives asthey marched away.

The Americans lost 267 men, while 465 were wounded and 23 were missingas a result of the battle. Despite the heavy loss of life, the U.S. forcesconsidered the Battle of Buena Vista to be a victory—and an importantone—because a prime piece of Mexican territory had been secured. SantaAnna also believed that his army won the Battle of Buena Vista, though manyMexicans disagreed with his assessment, and morale was low among his men.

Battle of Veracruz

During the Mexican-American War, the Battle of Veracruz was a crucialAmerican victory that allowed the United States to control important territoryin Mexico and helped lead to the beginning of the end of the conflict. Atthe beginning of the war, the U.S. Navy blockaded the gulf city of Veracruzas well as the rest of Mexico’s port cities. By late 1846, PresidentJames K. Polk believed that occupying Veracruz and then marching to MexicoCity could bring about the war’s end.

Under Polk’s orders, General Scott had spent the first months of1847 preparing for the invasion of Mexico. He had about 14,fourteen thousandtroops at his disposal, including five thousand to six thuosand men who weretransferred from the command of General Zachary Taylor. The rest of Scott’sforce was comprised of new soldiers recruited in the United States.

Landing at Collado Beach

On March 9, the U.S. troops headed by Scott landed on Collado Beach. Theforces had first sailed from the American-controlled Tampico to Lobos Islandon February 21, and had then arrived at the American naval base at AntónLizardo on March 3. They used surfboats, which had been constructed for thislanding, to transport ten thousand soldiers to Collado Beach, which was aboutthree miles southeast of Veracruz. Naval ships soon moved off the coast aswell in order to support the Army’s effort. When the American menarrived on the beach, they were attacked by Mexican lancers who rode alongnearby sand dunes. The lancers were soon repelled by gunfire from Americanships. The ten thousand American soldiers were able to land without incidentor loss of life.

As the Americans continued to organize their operation and bring moresupplies ashore on March 10, the three thousand Mexican soldiers stationedat Veracruz remained inside the city under the orders of General Juan Morales.Morales was the Mexican military officer in charge of defending Veracruz.His forces watched as the Americans prepared for a siege. Scott had threedivisions of soldiers form a half-moon around Veracruz.

Bombing of Veracruz

Because Veracruz, a vital port for Mexico, was highly fortified with highwalls and protected by heavy guns, General Scott decided that bombing wouldbe a more effective strategy than an infantry attack on the city, which somehad suggested. Scott believed that a bombing siege would result in fewercasualties. As a courtesy, Scott informed General Morales on the day beforethe bombing began that the city’s citizens who were not involved inthe fighting could leave. Scott did not receive a reply.

On March 22, Scott ordered the beginning of the bombing of Veracruz. TheU.S. military used heavy cannons to shell the city. Other forms of artilleryand mortars had been stationed around the city and were also used in theattack. U.S. naval ships contributed to the assault with six heavy cannonslocated off shore. American naval forces also brought some heavy guns ashorethat were operated by naval personnel. Mexican troops responded with theirown armaments, but because of their relatively poor quality, the responsewas ineffective.

U.S. Forces Take the City

The American bombings were extremely effective, however, destroying bothpublic buildings and private homes. U.S. forces also had cut off supplies,including water, to Veracruz, further harming those inside the city. BothMexican soldiers and civilians were killed in the American assault. Overthe course of the attack, 180 Mexicans lost their lives. The United Statesonly suffered one hundred casualties, nineteen dead, and eighty-one wounded.

On March 28, after six days of bombing, General Juan Landero surrenderedVeracruz to the United States. (Landero had replaced General Morales afterhis resignation a few days earlier.) Mexican soldiers then marched out ofthe city and laid down their arms. Mexican authorities in Mexico City werestunned by the loss of Veracruz.

As part of the surrender agreement, American forces specifically statedthat the Mexican citizens who remained in Veracruz would be allowed to practicetheir Roman Catholic faith. Mexicans believed that the Americans were anti-Catholicand would chastise them for their religious beliefs, perhaps even desecratetheir churches and physically harm their religious leaders. This provisionwas expected to improve relations between the American invaders and Mexicansin the land they were conquering. The United States remained in control ofVeracruz until the end of the Mexican-American War and used it as a supplyport in support of its war effort.

March into Mexico City

General Winfield Scott’s ultimate conquest of Mexico City sealedthe American victory in the Mexican-American War. On April 8, 1847, afterhe won the Battle of Veracruz, he began marching his men towards Mexico City.It was 225 miles from Veracruz to Mexico City, and Scott’s men primarilyused the paved National Highway, which ran directly into the city. Scottfirst wanted to reach Jalapa, about seventy-five miles inland, and then preparefor the assault on Mexico City. On their way, the Americans were forced toengage the Mexican Army in a number of minor battles.

Battle of Cerro Gordo

The Mexican forces, led by General Santa Anna, tried to stop the Americansat a narrow mountain pass near Cerro Gordo, which was twelve miles to thewest of Veracruz. In an attempt to surprise the U.S. forces, who were weigheddown by their heavy guns, the Mexicans fortified one large, steep hill, ElTelégrafo, in preparation for an attack on what they hoped would beslow U.S. troops. The Americans were able to evade the Mexicans on April17 and successfully convey their equipment and men.

On April 18, the Battle of Cerro Gordo broke out when the Americans attackedthe Mexicans on three sides. Santa Anna retreated after sustaining heavylosses, about one thousand casualties and three thousand captured as prisonersof war. The Americans lost only 63 men, and 353 were wounded. The U.S. forcesalso gained forty-three cannons as well as other armaments and supplies fromthe Mexicans. The Americans released the Mexican soldiers after taking theirguns and extracting promises that they would cease fighting in the conflict.

Time of Rest

As the Mexican Army retreated to Mexico City, American forces led by GeneralScott continued their march to the city. On April 19, Scott was able to reachhis short-term goal of Jalapa. The U.S. forces were able to occupy Jalapawithout engaging in battle. Within a month, the Americans also controlledtwo additional nearby towns, Perote and Puebla. American troops remainedin these communities for several months because more soldiers were neededto replace the volunteers whose commitment terms had ended. By the beginningof August, Scott’s army had increased to fourteen thousand men dueto the thousands of new arrivals.

This time period was not easy for the Americans. Disease left thousandsof soldiers weak and unable to engage in combat. The supply line came throughVeracruz, but Mexican guerrilla soldiers sometimes successfully interruptedthe arrival of supplies. Scott was able to garner some food supplies fromthe local area, which was heavily agricultural. All of these problems endedwhen Scott’s troops finally began moving again towards Mexico Cityon August 7. They traveled between twelve and fifteen miles per day, marchingby divisions having a one-day interval between one another.

Nearing Mexico City

Mexico City was well protected by its location (in a volcanic crater encircledby lakes, marshes, and villages), by its fortifications, and by thirty thousandMexican troops. When Scott reached the nearby Valley of Mexico and stoppedat San Agustin on August 11, he believed the best way to attack the citywas from the south. Scott noted that the eastern gate to the city was blockedby the Mexican army, and an attack from the north would require a longermarch and increased vulnerability to Mexican attacks on his rear lines. Anattack from the south based in San Agustin allowed the Americans severalpaths into the city that Santa Anna would have to defend.

Using reconnaissance gathered by engineer (and future Confederate leader)Robert E. Lee and others, the Americans began turning an old mule trail Leefound into a wide road that could support artillery movement. This new roadwould give the U.S. forces access on the edge of the Pedregal, a large fieldof rough lava rock. There was much uncertainty if this means of attack wouldwork, but the Americans created the road and crossed the Pedregal with ease.

After traversing the Pedregal, U.S. forces successfully attacked Mexicantroops at Contreras on August 19 and Churubusco on August 20. During thesetwo battles, the Mexican Army saw its casualties reach 4,000, while the UnitedStates saw only 150 men dead and 800 wounded. On August 21, Scott contactedSanta Anna and suggested the beginning of peace negotiations. Though SantaAnna agreed to a truce and to start negotiations, his excessive demands ledto the end of peace talks on September 7.

Scott’s attacks on the Mexican Army continued the next day. OnSeptember 8, 3,400 U.S. forces, led by General William Worth, successfullytook El Molino del Rey and Casa Mata, both only a few miles from Mexico City.The first of these battles was the most costly battle for the United Statesduring the Mexican-American War. About a quarter of all American troops inthe area were casualties in the battle, and there was no cannon factory there,which the Americans expected to find.

Taking Chapultepec Hill

On September 12, American troops led by Scott began bombing both ChapultepecHill, an important symbolic landmark located at the edge of the city, andMexico City itself. The bombing continued for about a day and inflicted deathand destruction on the population. September 13 saw American infantry troops,led by General Worth, General Gideon Pillow, and General John A. Quitman,begin their attack on Chapultepec Hill, which was defended by only eighthundred Mexican troops, including fifty teenaged cadets.

The Americans suffered casualties as they charged the hill and attemptedto climb it using tall ladders. They were shot at by the Mexicans and hadtheir ladders pushed down. The limited amount of Mexican ammunition soonled to hand-to-hand combat with the Americans in a harsh battle. The U.S.forces triumphed, and nearly all the Mexican soldiers were killed. The remainingMexican troops surrendered to the Americans about two hours after the battlebegan.

Mexico City

After securing Chapultepec Hill on September 13, the U.S. forces beganattacking Mexico City. Two divisions attacked fortified city gates, includingSan Cosme. Mexican forces again suffered greater losses than the Americansin the fight, with three thousand casualties, including eight hundred whowere taken prisoner. The United States counted only 850 dead and wounded.On the night of September 13, Santa Anna took his remaining troops and retreatedfrom Mexico City to Guadalupe Hidalgo. He left at the request of city officialswho hoped his retreat would save the city and prevent further loss of life.

General Scott accepted the city’s surrender on September 14, andhis troops officially marched into the city triumphantly. They then beganthe American occupation of what was now a chaotic Mexico City. On September16, 1847, Santa Anna resigned as president of Mexico, though he remainedhead of the army for some time and used what remained of the Mexican forcesto harass the Americans and affect their supply lines. U.S. troops remainedin Mexico until June 1848, when negotiations for the peace treaty were completed.

The Home Front

The Annexation of Texas

In 1836, American settlers in Texas declared their independence from Mexico,and in 1845, the United States annexed Texas, triggering the Mexican War.

Mexican Territory

Since Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the territory of Texashad seen a wave of immigration from the United States. Hundreds of Americanspacked their belongings, hung a sign on the door reading “Gone toTexas” (or simply “GTT”), and moved out. Soon Anglo-Americanssettlers formed the majority of the Mexican Texas’s population.

This led to some friction with the Mexican authorities. Many of the newcomersdefied national laws—squatting on land, smuggling, trading in slaves,and refusing to convert to Catholicism. Sporadic government crackdowns andrebellious outbreaks continued through the early 1830s.

However, the real breach did not come until 1834, when Mexican PresidentAntonio López de Santa Anna got the legislature to approve the SieteLeyes (or Seven Laws), which amended the 1824 constitution. The laws abolishedthe Mexican states, consolidating power in the centralist government. Theyalso lengthened the presidential term of office and severely limited suffrage.

Angry protest against the new regime rose up all across Mexico. SantaAnna brutally suppressed a popular uprising in the state of Zacatecas, killingthousands. In Texas, a disorganized but determined resistance movement began.Texians, ethnically Mexican Texans (Tejanos) and white settlers in the area,joined to form a rag-tag rebel army under Stephen F. Austin.

In October 1835, a Mexican cavalry unit tried to reclaim a cannon froma fort at Gonzales, Texas. The Texians refused. Instead, they raised a flagthat read: “Come and take it.” Hostilities soon began.

In 1836, Santa Anna fitted out an army of 6,000 men and headed north.He was convinced, not unjustly, that the United States had incited thesedifficulties in Texas. Should the Yankees get in his way, he said, he wouldstorm Washington, D.C., and raise the Mexican tricolor flagover the capitol.

Independence

At first, the Texian rebels could not agree on their war aims. Some partiessimply wanted a return to the 1824 Mexican Constitution. However, on March2, 1836, a convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos declared Texan independence.On the same day, Tennessee volunteers slipped through Mexican lines to reinforcethe besieged fort at San Antonio, the Alamo.

Days before the siege of the Alamo started, Lieutenant Colonel WilliamTravis wrote to the provisional Texas council. In the letter, Travis sworethat he “would never surrender or retreat … victory or death.”On March 6, Santa Anna’s army stormed the Alamo. Ordered to take noprisoners, the Mexicans killed all the defenders, including the legendaryDavid (Davy) Crockett.

A few days later, almost four hundred Texians surrendered to Mexican troopsnear Goliad, Texas. The rebels expected to be treated as prisoners of war.Instead, they were declared under Mexican law to be foreign pirates. Theywere all summarily executed.

On April 21, Sam Houston and his army fell on Santa Anna’s mainforce at San Jacinto. Caught by surprise, the Mexicans put up a feeble resistance.The Texians continued the slaughter much longer than was necessary, crying,“Remember the Alamo!” Santa Anna signed the “treaty”of Velasco, which recognized Texan sovereignty. The government in MexicoCity, however, neither recognized Santa Anna’s authority to make suchan agreement nor the treaty itself.

Meanwhile, the Republic of Texas elected Sam Houston as its first president.Despite recognition from most world powers, the new nation faced a precariousfuture. The war had left the government in debt, and the Texas economy wasshaky. Internally, Indians and Tejanos rebelled against Texian rule.

Moreover, the Mexican government never acknowledged Texan independenceand frequently sanctioned border raids. In 1841, the irrepressible SantaAnna returned to power and promptly swore to retake Texas.

Annexation

The American presidential election of 1844 was practically a single-issuecontest. James Polk entered the race as a virtual unknown. He won primarilybecause he supported the annexation of Texas. Nevertheless, he faced determinedopposition, especially from the abolitionist movement. Slave-owning Texaswould tip the balance of power in Washington in favor of the South.

In his last few days in office, John Tyler signed a joint congressionalresolution that offered American statehood to the Republic of Texas and stipulatedthat slavery should be illegal above the Missouri Compromise line. To noone’s surprise, Mexico immediately broke off diplomatic relationswith the United States.

Tyler’s emissary, Andrew Jackson Donelson (1799–1871), wentto Houston with the treaty. Surprisingly, he found that Texan leaders wereat best ambivalent towards statehood. Sam Houston and his successor, AnsonJones (1798–1858), would have preferred to retain Texas sovereignty,which they had fought hard to achieve.

Accordingly, Jones sent a message to Mexican President José Herrera(Santa Anna had been ousted again, in 1844). Jones asked Mexico to recognizethe Republic of Texas. In return, Texas would promise not to be annexed byany other nation. Herrera agreed to this proposition.

Jones then turned the issue over to the Texan people. Would they preferindependence and recognition, or United States statehood? In June of 1845,the Texas Congress voted unanimously for annexation.

Anticipating trouble (or perhaps to instigate it), Polk sent General ZacharyTaylor to Corpus Christi, Texas, and then south to the banks of the Rio GrandeRiver. Americans claimed the Rio Grande as the border of Texas. Mexicansdesignated the border at the Nueces River, to the north. From their pointof view, Taylor’s advance represented an invasion of their countryand a clear act of war.

The American army waited at the Rio Grande for months, glaring at theMexican troops across the water. Meanwhile, Taylor exchanged scarcely veiledthreats with the Mexican commander, General Pedro de Ampudia.

Ampudia had a reputation for incompetence and cruelty (apparently, hehad once fried a man’s head in oil for public display).General MarianoArista took over Ampudia’s command in April of 1846, days after Herreradeclared a “defensive war” against the United States. Aristasent an advance force across the Rio Grande north of the American position.Captain Seth Thornton was to intercept them, but his party of sixty-threedragoons was ambushed. Eleven Americans were killed, and the rest were captured.

A cry went up in the American press. Polk declared that, “Mexicohas … shed American blood on American soil.” On May 12, Congressdeclared war.

The Missouri Compromise

In 1819, the Missouri Territory applied for United States statehood, promptingan explosive debate over slavery and states rights. The furor was quietedfor a time by the adoption of the Missouri Compromise in 1820.

Controversy

Slave-owning French colonists had originally settled Missouri in the eighteenthcentury. By the time Missouri applied for admission into the United States,slaves made up 16 percent of the territory’s population. At the sametime, eleven existing American states prohibited slavery, and eleven statesallowed it. The admission of Missouri would upset the balance of power inthe U.S. Senate and give an advantage to the pro-slavery block.

Still, the statehood measure might have passed easily if Congressman JamesTallmadge (1778–1853) had not proposed an amendment. Under his plan,Missouri would be admitted, but no new slaves would enter the state. Missourianswould retain possession of their existing slaves, but slave children wouldbe freed at the age of twenty-five. In this way, Tallmadge hoped to graduallyabolish slavery in Missouri.

The southern states reacted with outrage. Tallmadge’s amendmentamounted to a moral condemnation of slavery, the first to be presented bythe U.S. government since the Constitutional Convention.

On February 6, 1819, the House voted to prohibit the future importationof slaves into Missouri. It also approved Tallmadge’s gradual emancipationscheme. Both measures failed in the Senate.

Compromise

The case was further complicated by the fact that Maine, formerly partof Massachusetts, had also applied for statehood. Henry Clay (1777–1852)of Kentucky suggested that if Maine entered the Union as a free state, Missourishould be admitted as a slave state.

For white Americans of the early nineteenth century, slavery posed anextremely complex question, and they developed equally complex answers. Clayowned slaves, yet he was a dedicated member of an abolitionist group. Atthe same time, Clay highly valued the union of the states. Perhaps becauseof his own diverse views, he tried to promote solutions that everyone couldaccept. He would later be known as “the Great Compromiser.”

The actual author of the Missouri Compromise, however, was Illinois SenatorJesse Thomas (1777–1853). Thomas did not own slaves, but did not disapproveof those who did. He proposed that Missouri should enter the country as apermanent slave state, and that Maine should come in as a free state. Afterthat, a line would be drawn at Missouri’s southern border—latitude36 degrees, 30 minutes north. North of that line, slavery would be prohibitedin all other American territories.

Debate

The Missouri issue sparked venomous debate in Washington. The press reportedan exchange of angry tirades daily, tirades whose fury caught the countryoff guard. From retirement at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson wrote that theargument, “like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me withterror.”

The issue of slavery had long festered beneath the surface of Americanpolitics, however. But now, for the first time, abolitionists brought theiragenda into the open. Senator Rufus King (1755–1827) delivered anemotional speech that condemned the institution of slavery everywhere, notjust in the new territories. King and his supporters opposed the Thomas compromise.They argued that a showdown over the slavery issue could not be avoided indefinitely.

Southern congressmen responded with equal fervor. In the past, southernpoliticians had admitted the inherent evil of slavery but denied that therewas a practical solution to the problem. Now slavery’s defenders laudedthe institution as a positive good. South Carolina Senator William Smith(1762–1840) made a biblical case for slavery, saying, “TheScriptures teach us that slavery was universally practiced among the holyfathers.” North Carolina Senator Nathaniel Macon (1757–1837)argued that the practice was perfectly morally acceptable.

Prophetically, Georgia Representative Thomas Cobb (1784–1830) warnedthat “we have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannotput out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.”

Resolution

On March 1, 1820, largely because of Clay’s efforts, Congress adoptedthe Missouri Compromise. For a moment, the storm receded.

The accord nearly disintegrated shortly afterward, however, when Missourisubmitted its new state constitution. The draft forbade free blacks fromtraveling into Missouri territory, even though Massachusetts recognized AfricanAmericans as citizens.

Clay managed in 1821 to push through the Second Missouri Compromise. Thislaw declared that Missouri could not pass any laws that violated the rightsof American citizens. Nevertheless, Missouri defied Congress and passed lawsprohibiting black immigration.

The Missouri Compromise maintained the balance of power in the UnitedStates for the next few decades. Whenever a slave state was admitted to thecountry, Congress had to also admit a free state. For example, when Arkansaswas admitted as a slave state in 1836, Michigan, a free state, followed in1837.

The Mexican-American War

Many Americans saw the annexation of Texas as an opportunity for the pro-slaveryfaction to seize power. Indeed, both Texas and Florida were both made statesin 1845, giving the South a two-state advantage.

Abolition and sectarianism motivated much of the opposition to the war.As poet James Russell Lowell (1819–1891) wrote:

They jest want this CalifornySo’s to lug new slave-states inToabuse ye, an’ to scorn yeAnd to plunder ye like sin.

In August 1846, President James K. Polk asked Congress to appropriate$2 million for a peace settlement with the Mexican government. Everyone understoodthat he wanted the money to purchase territory. Representative David Wilmot(1814–1868) of Pennsylvania proposed an amendment that stated thatslavery would be banned in any lands taken from Mexico. The measure—knownas the Wilmot Proviso—narrowly passed the House but was filibusteredand killed in the Senate.

From that point on, sectarian squabbles became more frequent and moreintense. Southern legislators, including South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun,(1782–1850) denied the right of the federal government to outlaw slaveryanywhere in the country.

Disintegration

In 1850, Henry Clay once again tried to calm the waters. Congress passeda series of his compromises: California was admitted as a free state, andNew Mexico and Utah were given the right to choose for themselves. In addition,the Fugitive Slave Act went into effect. By this time, however, the nationaldifferences could no longer be smoothed over.

In 1857, in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled that the Missouri Compromise deprived slave owners of their propertywithout due process and was thus unconstitutional.

International Context

The Irish Potato Famine

In 1845, the potato crop in Ireland suffered a devastating blight. Theresulting famine prompted one of the larges exoduses in world history. Millionsof Irish men and women left their home country, and a majority of them relocatedto the United States.

The Blight

Ireland had never been a particularly wealthy country. In 1729, JonathanSwift (1667–1745) satirically proposed that a cannibalism of starvingIrish babies could kill two birds with one stone: feeding the hungry andreducing their number. By the early nineteenth century, the island’speople eked out only a meager existence. Historian Alexis de Tocqueville(1805–1859) made a tour of Ireland in 1835. “You cannot imagine,”he wrote, “what a complexity of miseries five centuries of oppression,civil disorder, and religious hostility have piled on this poor people.”

Nevertheless, the Irish clung to their country, maintaining their identityby means of their language, their tight communities, and their deep Catholicdevotion. Very little industry developed. For the most part, the people livedoff the land.

In June 1845, the land failed them. A fungus attacked the potato fields,wiping out the remainder of that year’s harvest. The next year’scrop would fail entirely. The potato had been the staple crop of Irelandsince about 1580, when Sir Walter Raleigh (1552–1618) first broughtit from the New World. Potato plants grew well in cool and boggy terrain,and their roots provided far more calories than grain. It was largely dueto potato cultivation that the population had almost tripled since 1700.By 1845, about 8.5 million people lived in Ireland, making it one of Europe’smost densely populated regions. Over the next decade, more than a millionwould die of starvation or disease, and two million would leave.

The British

The prime minister of England, Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850), eventuallybought 100,000 pounds of corn from The United States. This stock was heldin reserve and sold at cost to relief societies. His quick action somewhatreduced the severity of the disaster. Nevertheless, the availability of cheapcorn created some longer-term problems. Thousands of Irishmen left theirfarms and poured into urban slums and poorhouses, relying on soup kitchensfor their survival.

Not everyone approved of the government’s actions. Though the islandwas technically part of the United Kingdom, many English blamed the famineon the Irish, and called Peel’s relief efforts a waste of Britishtime. The Times of London wrote, in 1847: “The Celt is lessenergetic, less independent, less industrious than the Saxon.… [England]can, therefore, afford to look with contemptuous pity on the Celtic cottiersuckled in poverty which he is too callous to feel, and too supine to mend.”

Accordingly, after Peel fell from power, Britain withdrew any materialaid to the stricken island. The chancellor of the exchequer, Sir CharlesWood (1800–1885), justified the action, saying that it would “force[the Irish] into self-government … our song … must be—‘Itis your concern, not ours.’” Furthermore, the legislature amendedthe Irish Poor Law to penalize small Irish landowners. Thousands of farmerswere forced to abandon their land or starve. Entire villages were evicted.

Britain’s stubbornness was to stir Irish hatred, and to haunt Englishconsciences, for years. John Mitchel (1879–1918), an Irish patriot,said later that “the Almighty indeed sent the potato blight, but theEnglish created the Famine.”

The Ships

The potato crop would fail again in 1846, 1848, 1849, and the early 1850s.In addition, Asiatic cholera spread quickly throughout the starving and weakenedpopulation. Mass graves were dug across the country, but many of the deadwere just left by the side of the road. In desperation, one man wrote tohis relatives in the United States: “For the honour of our lord JesusChrist and his Blessed mother, hurry and take us out of this.”

Thousands of Irish poured into the port of Liverpool, trying to flee thecountry. If they could scrape together four pounds, they could procure atransatlantic fare. The ships to the United States were so overcrowded thatthe emigrants, packed in like cargo, hardly had space to breathe. Sickness,starvation, and misery accompanied the Irish across the ocean.

The Settlers

The Irish were not new to American shores. Since the eighteenth century,large numbers of Scotch-Irish Protestants had settled in Canada and the southernpart of the United States. In 1817, many young Irish men had sought workdigging the Erie Canal. Their poverty made them hard workers and cheap labor.As such, they were both sought after and despised by Anglo-Saxon Americans.

Nativist groups wrote increasingly against the Irish settlers, who wereseen as drunken, rowdy, and illiterate. Inventor Samuel Morse (1791–1872)repeatedly warned the public against Catholicism. He and many others believedthat the Irish shantytowns harbored a papist conspiracy, which menaced freesociety. As Irish immigration increased, anti-Catholic violence escalated.A Charleston convent was burned to the ground in 1834. In 1844, a PhiladelphiaNativist riot left about a dozen dead.

Negative reaction only increased when thousands of starving, diseased,poverty-stricken Irish men and women descended upon American ports in 1845.Massachusetts Governor Henry J. Gardner (1819–1892) compared the newcomersto a “horde of foreign barbarians.” Boston and New York passedlaws making it more difficult for immigrants to disembark.

The American Party, formed in 1854, tried to block the entry of foreignersand Catholics into the United States. They also worked to convert immigrantsto Protestantism, especially in schools.

Nevertheless, the new arrivals settled in and eventually grew strong.Working at a variety of menial jobs, the Irish often sent money back to the“old country” to buy their families passage to the United States.The immigrants regrouped around the Catholic Church, which created a networkof social services. After a century and a half, the Irish had been completelyaccepted by American society, to which they had contributed many outstandingmembers.

One Irish immigrant, Herman Melville (1819–1891) wrote this inpraise of his new home: “On this Western Hemisphere all tribes andpeople are forming into one federated whole; and there is a future whichshall see the estranged children of Adam restored as to the old hearth-stonein Eden.”

The Revolutions of 1848

In the fateful year of 1848, a spate of revolutions broke out Europe,beginning in Sicily, exploding in France, and then spreading across the continent.Popular uprisings broke out in Italy, Prussia, Austria, and Poland. The causeswere varied and complex. Working people, suffering from food shortages anddisplaced by new technologies, demanded economic reform. The bourgeoisie(middle class) hounded their aristocratic rulers for political liberalization.In the meantime, nationalists attacked the crumbling empires of central Europe,seeking autonomy and self-determination.

Conservative forces managed to reverse or crush all of the revolts. Evendefeated, however, the bloody struggle inspired a new generation of radicalEuropean thought. Socialism, communism, and anarchism came to maturity behindthe barricades. Nationalist feelings were brought to a flood tide, and theyset the stage for the unification of Germany and Italy twenty-two years later.The revolutions of 1848—sometimes called “the springtime ofnations”—represented a turning point in European history.

France

The French democratic revolution had proved less stable than its Americanequivalent. Since 1787, France had been ruled by a constitutional monarchy,a republic, a committee, an emperor, and had returned to a monarchy in 1814.In 1830, the ultraconservative Charles X (1757–1836) was overthrownin the July Revolution. Louis-Philippe (1773–1850), the so-called“bourgeois monarch,” ascended to the throne in his place.

King Louis-Philippe was popular with the lower classes—he dressedin modest clothes and frequently strolled around Paris talking with workers.Nevertheless, as time went on, his rule became more authoritarian. Criticsbegan to accuse the court of rampant corruption. In order to secure his powerover Parliament, the king resorted to censorship.

Opposition to the monarchy was twofold. Moderate reformists pushed forpolitical reform only. More radical leaders, like socialist Louis Blanc (1811–1882),advocated drastic social and economic change.

In February 1848, the monarchy tried to prevent an opposition banquetin Paris. The workers began to riot in the streets of Paris, and some membersof the National Guard joined them. Violence escalated, until Louis-Philippedismissed François Guizot (1787–1874), his highly unpopular(to liberals) education minister. The king himself stepped down on February24. The moderates formed a provisional government, and shortly afterwarddeclared the Second French Republic.

Parisians had always held more extreme political views than the rest ofFrance, and Paris had a proud tradition of violent insurrection. Bearingthese factors in mind, the new moderate government made some concessionsto radical demands. They created the National Workshops, which offered reliefto the unemployed. They also established the Luxembourg Commission to discussissues relating to workers.

However, the radicals hoped for much more sweeping changes, such as workers’associations, state-provided medical insurance, and old-age pensions. Tothese ends, they staged massive demonstrations in the capital, hoping tostir support. The tactic backfired. Alarmed by Parisian extremism, the Frenchcountryside voted overwhelmingly for a moderate liberal government.

Armed with a popular mandate, the Republic disbanded the National Workshops.On June 23, furious Parisians erected barricades throughout the city. Thearmy put down the revolution after three bloody “June Days.”

The June revolution led to a sweeping conservative victory in the nextelections. However, the Second Republic did not last long. A few years later,Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (1808–1873) seized power and proclaimed himself Napoleon III, Emperor of the French.

Communist Manifesto

A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All thepowers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre:Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Great Britain did not experience any violent revolt in 1848. However,that year the island witnessed the birth of an even more significant revolution.In January 1848, German immigrants Karl Marx (1818–1883) and FriedrichEngels (1820–1895) published the Communist Manifesto in London.

Marx wrote the pamphlet as a the mission statement of his secret society,the “Communist League.” In the tract, he described the Europeanunrest as a class struggle between the workers and the bourgeois. He prophesiedthat capitalism would only cause increasing suffering for the people, andthat the people would inevitably overthrow their oppressors. The new revolutionthat he proclaimed would haunt Europe—and the world—for wellover a century.

Italy

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Italian peninsula was a patchwork ofsmall city-states ruled by feudal princes. The northern part of the country,Venice and Milan, fell under the rule of the Hapsburg Austrian Empire.

Revolution gripped Italy in 1848, beginning with a January revolt in Palermo,Sicily. Ferdinand II (1810–1859), King of the Two Sicilies, accededto pressure to create a constitution in Naples. This sparked liberal rebellionsthroughout the kingdoms of Italy. By March, radicals in Rome, Sardinia, Tuscany,and Piedmont had demanded democratic constitutions and individual freedoms.Venice and Milan threw off Austrian rule, and the king of Sardinia, devotedto the cause of Italian unity, declared war with Austria.

Pope Pius IX (1792–1878) could not bring himself to condone warwith Catholic Austria. He was forced to disguise himself as a common priestand flee to the south. In his absence, radicals declared the new Roman Republic.

By May, Ferdinand II had revoked his reforms and regained absolute controlof the Sicilies. Austria counterattacked and eventually squelched the nationalistmovement. France sent in troops to restore the Pope in 1850.

Germany

In March 1848, inspired by the Paris Revolution, riots also broke outin Berlin, the seat of King Frederick William IV of Prussia. As in Franceand Italy, the king initially bowed before the sudden storm and permittedthe creation of a constitution and legislature. However, when the nationalistFrankfurt Assembly offered him the crown of a united Germany, Frederick Williamflatly refused. He recalled troops to Berlin, dissolved the liberal government,and set up an ultraconservative ministry in its place.

Austria

At the same time, students and workers also staged an uprising in Vienna.Emperor Ferdinand I (1793–1875) complied with many of their demands,including the dismissal of the brilliant arch-reactionary Klemens Metternich(1773–1859). Metternich, as Europe’s preeminent diplomat, hadencouraged the traditional powers to band together against the forces ofchange. He had further advocated that revolutions should be put down by force.“Order alone can produce freedom,” he proclaimed grimly.

Radicals throughout Europe rejoiced at Metternich’s removal. Viennainsurgents were not satisfied, however, and Ferdinand was forced to flee.In October, the Austrian army entered the city, killing thousands and endingthe rebellion.

At the same time, an independence movement flared in Bohemia (part oftoday’s Czech Republic), but it was also quelled by Austrian troops.In Hungary, a republic was declared, but civil war broke out shortly afterwardbetween the various ethnic groups. That conflict continued until czaristRussia helped Austrian forces to reclaim the country.

Aftermath

Abolitionism

Before the Civil War, American antislavery sentiment took a number offorms. Some people merely wanted to make slavery more humane; others wishedto limit its spread into new territories. Abolitionism was a radical movementcalling for the total elimination of slavery. Many of those who opposed theMexican-American War did so for antislavery or abolitionist reasons.

Origins of Abolitionism

Many of the founding fathers condemned the practice of slavery, even those,like Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves themselves. Enlightenment philosophygenerally described slavery as an affront to natural law and human liberty.

Most antislavery activism, however, came from the religious establishment,especially from the Quakers (also known as the Society of Friends). Quakerswere primarily responsible for the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society (PAS),founded in 1775, and the New York Manumission Society, founded in 1785. Inthe northern states, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian ministers alsoeventually declared slavery to be incompatible with Christianity.

In the beginning, northern abolitionists mainly tried to abolish the Africanslave trade. They believed that if blacks were no longer brought into thecountry, slavery would die a natural death. Congress banned the importationof slaves in 1808, but antislavery advocates could not agree on how abolitionshould be brought about.

Most advocated a gradual emancipation scheme, in which slaves would befreed at a certain age. Others advocated “colonization”—sendingfreed slaves back to Africa or to the Caribbean. Yet others, such as WilliamLloyd Garrison (1805–1879), wrote numerous tracts insisting on animmediate and complete end to slavery. The Liberator, Garrison’snewspaper, circulated widely in the North and gained a number of convertsto his cause.

The Turner Rebellion

In 1831, Nat Turner (1800–1831), believing himself chosen by Christ,led a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia. He and six fellow-conspiratorsset out early in the morning of August 22, murdering his owner and his familyand taking the house’s weapons. Gathering support as they went along,the insurgents killed every white family they came across, including womenand children in their beds. The uprising was quelled by white militia troopsthe same day. Turner was captured and tried, and was executed a few monthslater.

The incident shook Virginia whites; they made sweeping reprisals. Legislationclamped down on slaves’s religious observances. Many southerners grewincreasingly suspicious and hostile towards northern activists. Abolitionists,they claimed, incited violence.

Revival

In the early nineteenth century, abolitionism represented a fringe politicalgroup. However, the movement witnessed a revival in the 1830s. Reorganizedabolitionists distributed tracts and newspapers to spread their message.They also used the techniques of the Great Awakening, the eighteenth-centuryreligious revivalist movement. Young men and women were appointed as missionaries.They spoke at meetings around the country, founding small antislavery societiesas they went. Some of the most famous of these were Theodore Dwight Weld(1803–1895), James G. Birney (1792–1857), and the sisters AngelinaGrimké (1805–1879) and Sarah Moore Grimké (1792–1873).

Possibly the most influential voices were those of black Americans. In1841, former slave Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) spoke at the MassachusettsAntislavery Society, describing his life enslaved. Though he began by stuttering,his impassioned speech was roundly cheered at the conclusion. Douglass becamea world-famous orator, touring England and Ireland with his message of universalfreedom.

Sojourner Truth (c.1797–1883) spoke with more humor and gentlenessthat did Douglass, but her message was the same: God loves his children,and his children should love each other. She preached women’s rightsand an end to slavery throughout the North.

Their efforts met with strong opposition. Starting in 1836, Congress imposeda gag rule, forbidding all congressional debates about slavery. Church authoritiesoften condemned abolitionist meetings as divisive and improper. In the south,riots broke out at antislavery rallies. Many blacks and some white abolitionistswere killed.

These incidents helped garner sympathy for the antislavery movement, whichclaimed that their freedom of expression was under attack. In addition, from1839 to 1841, legal furor over the slave ships Amistad and Creolebrought attention to the international plight of African slaves.

Free Soil

Many politicians did not believe that it would be possible, or even desirable,for the federal government to outlaw slavery in the southern states. Theysaw the religiously motivated emancipation movement as hysterical and impractical.Instead, they concentrated their efforts on preventing the spread of slaveryinto the western territories. The Free Soil Movement, as it was called, gainedwidespread support. A growing American middle class viewed slavery as a threatto white labor in the territories. Politically, northern states opposed thecreation of pro-slavery states, which would increase the South’s representationin Congress.

Benjamin Lundy (1789–1839), a prominent Quaker abolitionist writerand publisher, believed that the southern states had orchestrated the entiremovement for Texas independence. In 1836, Lundy published War in Texas,in which he argued that the American-backed Texas Revolution was nothingbut a plot to extend the slave-trading empire.

James K. Polk and other Democrats blasted the opposition as traitors,who were giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.” His criticsreacted with scorn, arguing that they had a patriotic duty to oppose injustice.Stephen S. Foster (1809–1881) went so far as to say, “Everytrue friend of the country … will be found fighting in defense offreedom—under the banners of Mexico.” Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)refused to pay taxesto support the war in protest. His essay “CivilDisobedience” would inspire antiwar movements to this day.

The anti-annexation forces failed, however, with Polk’s electionas president in 1844. Despite the efforts of John Quincy Adams, Horace Greeley,and Daniel Webster, they also failed to stop the Mexican-American War. Abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–1892) bitterly described the conflictin these terms: “Christian America, thanking God that she is not likeother nations … goes out, Bible in hand, to enslave the world.”Disillusioned, some abolitionists began advocating a total break with thesouthern states. “My motto is, ‘No union with the slaveholder,’” Frederick Douglass said, “because, I believe there can be no unionbetween light and darkness.”

Indeed, union within the United States was impossible, and the abolitionistmovement grew in fervor and influence over the next twenty years—asdid its opposition.

The Gold Rush

Immediately after the Mexican-American War, gold was discovered in thehills of California, prompting the Gold Rush of 1849. A mass immigrationbegan; prospectors and miners filled the territory, and the “GoldenState” of California was born.

Discovery

In March 1848, Congressman Daniel Webster (1782–1852) staunchlyopposed the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War, and the acquisitionof new territories. An abolitionist and a powerful orator, he stormed atthe Senate:

I have never heard of any thing …, more ridiculous in itself, moreabsurd, and more affrontive …, than the cry that we are getting indemnityby the acquisition of New Mexico and California. I hold they are not wortha dollar.

Webster did not know it, but his words had already been proven wrong.In January of that same year, James Marshall (1810–1885) found somesoft yellow flakes along the American River, near the sawmill in northernCalifornia where he worked. He took the gold to his employer, John Sutter(1803–1880). Sutter received the news with excitement, but also withalarm. He had procured his land grants from the Mexican government some tenyears before and did not think he could protect the find from greedy speculators.

Sure enough, despite his best attempts at secrecy, word leaked out. Californiaprospectors, squatters, and thieves poured onto his land. “They lefthonesty and honor at home,” Marshall said bitterly. Neither Marshallnor Sutter would profit much from their historic discovery. Sutter wouldlater comment sadly on his new neighbors: “There is a saying thatmen will steal everything but a milestone and a millstone. They stole mymillstones.”

Gold Fever

The news traveled slowly across the United States. The New York Heralddid not print the news until August. President Polk confirmed the news inhis second inaugural address, and pandemonium seized the country.

Thousands of men made their travel plans. Some went alone; others formedcompanies to defray the cost. The wealthy boarded ships that would take themaround the southern tip of South America. Others sailed to Panama, crossedthe isthmus by train, and then continued to San Francisco. Most took overlandroutes, often following paths that the U.S. Army had so recently tread.

All of the roads to California were long and difficult. The travelersrisked storms around Cape Horn, Chile, and tropical disease across Panama.By land, they had to deal with harsh conditions, poorly charted trails, andhostile Native Americans. So many people suffered in one desert, on the doorstepof southern California, that the place was named Death Valley.

The Forty-Niners, as they were called, crowded into hastily constructedcamps around San Francisco, Sacramento, and other small cities. New townswith colorful names like Poker Flat, Hell’s Delight, and Whiskey Barsprang up almost overnight. Within one year, the population of Californiajumped from less than 20,000 to over 100,000. San Francisco changed froma sleepy port village to a bustling metropolis.

In September 1849, a California constitutional convention met and appliedfor U.S. statehood. Its petition was accepted in 1850.

The New Culture

At first, “placer” gold—gold on the surface—couldbe found throughout California, especially in the streams and rivers. Asthese deposits were snatched up, individual panning gave way to larger miningoperations. Everyone tried to tap the Mother Lode, a belt of quartz-encasedgold almost two miles across and 120 miles long.

Mine temperatures could reach 150 degrees, and the mines were cramped,poorly ventilated, and dangerous. Nevertheless, a miner could make good money.At a time when the average American farm laborer made about ten dollars amonth, a skilled or lucky miner could make sixteen dollars a day for an ounceof gold.

Many of the new arrivals set up businesses to exploit the new fortunes.By 1850, Sacramento housekeepers could make $150 a month. One woman made$100 a week by doing laundry. At the same time, the cost of living soaredout of control. The average daily wage may have been ten dollars, but expensescould reach eighteen dollars a day. It is true that some vast fortunes weremade in the gold rush, but most miners barely managed to survive.

Mining communities constituted a new, strangely egalitarian society. Almostexclusively male, this ragged band of adventurers lived on the edge of civilization.There was no way to distinguish between the newly wealthy and the newly destitute.The mayor of Monterey wrote of receiving a wild mountain man who looked likehe had just crawled out of an animal lair and who held $15,000 of gold dustin his fist.

This equality did not extend to non-whites, however. The new settlersharassed Native Americans and Mexican-Californians (Californios), chasingthem from their land. Later, miners would riot against Chinese laborers whowere brought to work on the transcontinental railroad.

The miners’s camps were rough places, filled with rampant theftand vigilantism. One immigrant’s wife, Louise Clapp (1819–1906),wrote letters (later published) to her sister in New England under the pseudonymDame Shirley that described “murders, fearful accidents, bloody deaths,a mob, whippings, a hanging, an attempt at suicide, and a fatal duel.”Yet California exerted its own kind of charm. As Clapp wrote to her sister,“I like this wild and barbarous life.”

Feminist Movement

The hard life on the frontier stripped Americans of many artificial socialniceties, not the least of which was the attitude that women were dependent.Women had to work hard to survive in the West, and they learned to valuetheir abilities and their independence. Recognition of those abilities ona personal level led to demand for similar recognition on a public level.

In 1848, a group of women met at Seneca Falls, New York, for the firstAmerican convention on women’s rights. Radical feminists, includingLucretia Mott (1793–1880) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902),demanded women’s equal rights to education, property, and the vote.Stanton compared the feminist movement to the European revolutions of thatyear, saying, “Most cunningly [man] entraps [woman], and then takesfrom her all those rights which are dearer to him than life itself—rightswhich have been baptized in blood.”

Some western states granted women the vote before the twentieth century,but American women did not win that right as a group until the NineteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1920. Since then, movementsfor women’s social, economic, professional, and personal freedomshave continued.

Metal Madness

The California Gold Rush slowly died down. Mines went deeper, and it becamemore and more expensive to extract the ore. But smaller migrations for preciousmetals cropped up periodically over the next decade. Between 1858 and 1859,almost 100,000 people rushed to Colorado, founding a shantytown called Denver.Another California rush happened in 1859, with the discovery of the ComstockLode in the Sierra Nevada.

Bibliography

Books

Chidsey, Donald Barr. The War With Mexico. New York: Crown Publishers:Harper Perennial, 1968.

Davis, William C. Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunesof David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis. New York:Harper Perennial, 1999.

Eisenhower, S. D. So Far From God: The U.S. War with Mexico 1846–1848.New York: Random House, 1989.

Meed, Douglas V. The Mexican War 1846–1848. London: Routledge,2003.

Quinn, John F. Father Matthew’s Crusade: Temperance in Nineteenth-centuryIreland and Irish America. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press,2002, p. 10.

Truth, Sojourner. “Ain’t I A Woman?”, Inquiry:Questioning, Reading, Writing, 2d ed., edited by Lynn Z. Bloom and EdwardM. White. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Prentice Hall, 2004, p. 369.

Wheelan, Joseph. America’s Continental Dream and the MexicanWar, 1846–1848. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2007.

Periodicals

Anderson, Bonnie S. “The Lid Come Off: International Radical Feminismand the Revolutions of 1848.” NWSA Journal (Summer 1998): vol.10, p. 1.

Etcheson, Nicole. “Mistress of Manifest Destiny: A Biography ofJane McManus Storm Cazneau, 1807–1878.” Journal of SouthernHistory (November, 2002): vol. 68, p. 943.

Farrell, David R. “Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse ofManifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War.” Canadian Journalof History (August, 2001) vol. 36, p. 383.

Gordon, Walter I. “The Capture and Trial of Nat Turner: An Excerptfrom the Book: A Mystic Chord Resonates Today: The Nat Turner InsurrectionTrials.” Black Renaissance/Renaissance Noire (Spring–Summer2006) vol. 6, p.132.

Hodgson, Godfrey. “Storm over Mexico” History Today(March 2005): vol. 55, p. 34.

Holden, William. “The Rise and Fall of ‘Captain’John Sutter.” American History (February 1998): Vol. 32, p.30.

Jeffrey, Julie Roy. “The Transformation of American Abolitionism:Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic. (Book review)” The Historian(Fall 2005): vol. 67, p. 532.

Kinealy, Christine. “The Great Irish Potato Famine & Famine,Land and Culture in Ireland (Book Reviews).” Victorian Studies(Spring 2002): vol. 44, p. 527.

Mandelbaum, Michael. “In Europe, History Repeats Itself.” Time Magazine (December 25, 1989).

Quinn, Peter. “The Tragedy of Bridget Such-a-one.” AmericanHeritage (December 1997): vol. 48, p. 36.

Rolston, Bill. “Frederick Douglass: A Black Abolitionist in Ireland:Bill Rolston Describes the Impact of an Erstwhile Slave, Who Toured the EmeraldIsle Speaking Out Against Slavery in 1845.” History Today (June2003): vol. 53, p. 45.

Silvester-Carr, Denise. “Ireland’s Famine Museum.” History Today (December 1996): vol. 46, p. 30.

Web Sites

Jefferson, Thomas. “Second Inaugural Address.” The AvalonProject at Yale Law School. <www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/jefinau2.htm> (accessed April 9, 2007).

Lincoln, Abraham. “Speech at Worcester, Massachusetts, September12, 1848.” Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. <quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=fences;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A2>(accessed April 9, 2007).

Lowell, James Russell. “War.” The Complete Poetical Worksof James Russell Lowell. < www.gutenberg.org/etext/13310>(accessed April 9, 2007).

“Mexican Colonization Laws.” The Handbook of Texas Online.The University of Texas at Austin. <www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/MM/ugm1.html>(Accessed April 4, 2007).

Polk, James K. “Polk’s War Message Washington, May 11, 1846.” Berkeley Law School Foreign Relations Law. <www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/Polk1.htm>(accessed April 30, 2007).

“Rufus King and the Missouri Controversy.” The GilderLehrman Institute of American History. <www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/docs_archive/docs_archive_rufus.html>(accessed April 9, 2007).

Tallmadge, James, Jr. “Tallmadge’s Speech to Congress, 1819.” Wadsworth Learning American Passages. <www.wadsworth.com/history_d/templates/student_resources/0030724791_ayers/sources/ch09/9.3.tallmadge.html>(accessed April 9, 2007).

“Texas Declaration of Independence.” Texas A&MUniversity. <www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/decindepen36.htm>(accessed April 30, 2007).

Travis, William Barret. “Letter from the Alamo, February 24, 1836.” The History of the Alamo & the Texas Revolution. Texas A&MUniversity. < www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/bios/travis/travtext.html> (accessed April 30, 2007).

Webster, Daniel. “Speech to the Senate, 1848.” The GreatSpeeches and Orations of Daniel Webster. <www.gutenberg.org/etext/12606>(accessed April 14, 2007).