Taylor should not have withdrawn his troops on Wednesday, etc. (Campaigns, 27). Officer: Garland's charge a fatal mistake (Balt. Sun, Nov. 6). Officer: The eastern attack very injudicious (Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 20). Lieut. Hamilton (West Pointer): The officers who fell at the cast end were "a sacrifice to the blind folly and ignorance of our general-in-chief" (Metrop. Mag., Dec., 1907, p. 321). C. M. Wilcox, who arrived at Monterey not long after the battle: "Harsh and unfavorable criticism" of the operations at the east end was "universal" there (Mex. War, 120). Robertson: The lack of a siege train was due to Taylor's misunderstanding the intentions of the enemy; the cannon could easily have been transported (Remins., 129, 160). Smith: Only Ampudia's personal unfitness saved Taylor from deserved ruin (Remins., 18). Monterey letter, Oct. 11: 6-pounders were sent to batter down fortifications that 24-pounders would not have affected. Gen. Requena, probably the best Mexican officer: Worth made the real attack; Taylor blundered (Observador Zacatecano, Dee. 27, supplem.). G. Ferry: Prudence forbade Taylor, in view of the too evident discouragement of his army, to press his advantage; by negotiating he changed almost certain defeat into victory (Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1, 1847,'410). An editorial in Niles' Register of July 18, 1846, is curiously interesting: "Owing to an error in estimating the capacities of the enemy" Taylor "made a narrow escape from almost utter annihilation" in May. "One lesson of this kind, we venture to predict, will be a sufficient admonition to" Taylor. "He will be cautious to keep his troops within reach of supplies, and to have at hand the means of transportation."' The editor proved to be mistaken in every point.
One of Taylor's excuses for the terms was consideration for the noncombatants (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9), and it may have counted for something; but he had just refused these non-combatants permission to leave the town (Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 78). Another (ibid.) was the propinquity of the citadel, and the impossibility of taking it without a siege of twenty or thirty days or else a large expenditure of life; but the citadel had not been able to injure the Americans materially while they were fighting in the town, and could not injure them at all in Walnut Grove; and, as Taylor admitted that he would hardly be able to advance for six weeks (Bixby coll., 62), there was no lack of time. In point of fact, as could easily have been surmised, the citadel had neither water nor provisions enough to stand a siege (Balbontín, Invasión, 46).
The gallant defence of the city was another excuse (Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 79; Bixby coll., 61); but while that is a just reason for doing honor to a garrison, it is none for relinquishing the substantial fruits of a dearly bought victory. It would have cost the lives of fifty or one hundred soldiers, besides the wounded, to take the city by storm, said Taylor (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9). But this would have been a low price for the elimination of an army that he said was rated at 7200 besides 2000 irregulars (Bixby coll., 61) — the only army possessed by Mexico — with its arms, accoutrements, artillery and horses. The moral effect of such a victory would probably, in the unanimous opinion of Polk and his Cabinet (Polk, Diary, Oct. 12), have ended the war; and the desperate fury displayed by Santa Anna when he supposed that such had been the outcome (52Black, Sept. 26; 76S. Anna, Sept. 29) tends to support this view. The Mexicans could have escaped, "done what we might," Taylor urged (cf. Ho. 60; 30, 1, 359). But if he could have captured the city so easily, entrenched as the garrison were in the strong buildings near the