Volume 38, No. 2 – February 2025
Website: www.CivilWarRoundTablePalmBeach.org

The President’s Message:

February 12, 2025 Program:

We have an exciting program on February 12, 2025.  I will speak about the history and origin of Taps.  Only twenty-three notes which are memorable and familiar to most people.  These notes can evoke so many different emotions.

I am so pleased to have Brian Wysong play Taps on the bugle as Civil War soldiers would have heard it.  Brian will also discuss the role of the bugle and its importance during the War.

See you at the meeting.

Gerridine LaRovere

The March speaker will be a great friend of the Round Table, Patrick Falci.  His topic will be Fighting Joe Wheeler - Once a General Always a General.  Patrick is sure to present a great fact-filled and interesting program as he always does.  Friends and family are invited to join us at this meeting.

The April speaker will Dr. Robert Watson, professor at Lynn University.

January 8, 2025 Program:

How the Mexican War Influenced Generals during the Civil War was the topic of Robert Krasner’s presentation.  It was an interesting series of 26 vignettes about how an incident in the war with Mexico led to a similar outcome years later in the Civil War.  Half of the stories involved Union men and a second half focused on Confederate officers.  There is not enough room in this recap to discuss all 26.

Robert began with the rhetorical question asking if we knew the geography of Mexico in the 1840s.  “Now if I said Veracruz, which you know, it's on the east coast, and then if I said Pacific Coast, then you can picture in your mind the coast of Mexico.”  You have an idea where the capital is?   You know how California's laid out.  You're familiar with Texas and its borders, like the Rio Grande River.  I couldn't fit it all in tonight because I just wanted this talk to be 45 minutes to 50 minutes.  I will need to present more on this topic in some future presentation.

Now, before I talk about my topic, let me discuss some of the conditions beginning with the election of 1844.  I would say that unless you understand this election briefly, you will not understand the Mexican War, and the Civil War.  The Democrats put up James Polk of Tennessee for president, and his vice president is a fellow named George Dallas from Pennsylvania.  This is the classic concept of a “balanced ticket.”  However, Senator Dallas is very concerned with tariffs.  The Whigs ran Henery Clay from Kentucky with Theodore Frelinghuysen from New York.  The country is going through a change.  Immigrants are starting to come in.  Western expansion is a factor and with it the concept of “manifest destiny” which helped Polk win the Democrat nomination.

Polk won both the electoral and the popular vote.  He was committed to expansion, and even before he leaves office, John Tyler, was committed to Texas, which was a part of Mexico.  After 1845, Polk's in office, he sends an envoy, William Parrott, to Mexico.  It appears that the Mexicans want to make a deal.  We want to buy the territory from them.  Shortly thereafter, Polk sends a congressman from Louisiana, John Slidell, who offers 25 million dollars, 778 million today.  Mexico turns it down.  After a number of incidents in April 1846 the Congress of the United States declares war.  The Americans sent 73,532 soldiers and Mexico engaged 82,000.  The US lost (killed, wounded, or missing) 6,600 men while Mexico lost 35,000.  It should be noted that disease took 11,550 American lives, quite a bit more than the battles did.

By February 2, 1848 it is all over.  The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives the United States California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.  Now we need to understand what experience the soldiers took and how that effected the American Civil War.  Many Mexican war veterans left the war with different lessons.  Let us cite a few examples of them to illustrate cause and effect.  This will explain the different lessons that were learned.  There are three different factors.  First is the commander under whom the individual served.  Second, the individual's personal experience with success or failure.  And third, the individual's ability to apply what he learned in one situation and apply it to another.

As a young lieutenant in Mexico, George McClellan would have two formative experiences.  First, he would witness Winfield Scott's magnificent turning movement, and successfully siege Vera Cruz.  McClellan would replicate this maneuver as commander of the Army of the Potomac during the Peninsula Campaign.  But, unfortunately for McClellan, his siege of Yorktown would not get the positive results Scott enjoyed in Mexico.  Second, McClellan would observe, what he considered the political mistreatment of Winfield Scott by President James Polk.  From this experience McClellan would gain a contempt for politicians that would negatively affect his relationship with President Abraham Lincoln through the Civil War.

Although Ulysses S. Grant was unnoticed in the Mexican War, he watched his fellow warriors carefully.  During the war Grant served as the quartermaster and commissary of the 4^th Infantry Regiment.  Grant literally opposed the posting because he feared it would rob him of combat experience, but it ultimately proved to be useful.  Much of Grant's quartermaster experience in Mexico dealt with routine issues of supply.  But he also observed the coordination of maneuver and logistics in General Winfield Scott's decision to operate independent of a fixed and fortified line of supply.  It was a maneuver Grant himself would repeat during the Vicksburg campaign.

John Pope was influenced by Zachary Taylor.  General Taylor's campaign would lead him from Texas into northern Mexico.  Taylor saw war as a little more than marching and fighting.  He preferred to throw his troops against a strong enemy rather than take the time to do reconnaissance.  Many officers were exposed to two different leadership styles.  Others who served only under Taylor didn't get the benefit of more professionalism from the way Scott was a general.  Pope only saw one side of the American High Command in Mexico.  He was a topographical engineer.  Taylor fails to discipline his troops and he creates a negative climate amongst the civilians in northern Mexico.  Pope learns the same from Taylor.

Like Pope, George Meade served as General Taylor's topographical engineer.  Meade was with Taylor at Monterey, an American victory, to be sure, but not a decisive one.  The Mexican Army, under Pedro Ampudia made a hasty retreat and was prepared to fight another day.  Meade criticized Taylor for not inflicting more damage on the Mexicans.  In the Civil War Mead would win a great victory at Gettysburg, but his opponent, Robert E. Lee, would also escape to fight another day.  Like Taylor, Meade would have to face severe criticism for not exploiting his victory.  Perhaps he was just following the example he had seen in Mexico.

Joe Hooker saw his share of combat in Mexico.  His most formative experience was to serve on the staff of six different generals.  Hooker would have an excellent opportunity in Mexico to learn the administrative and organizational aspects of the Army.  Hooker had acquired a knowledge of the problems associated handling 2,500 to 3,000 soldiers under battle conditions.  All this is new.  This is the first time the Americans are on foreign soil and they're dealing with big numbers.  Numbers that almost form basically a division, let alone a corps.  It was experience that would serve him well when he assumed command of the Army of the Potomac.  We all know January 1863.  Hooker's administrative reforms was a contribution to the Army of the Potomac much more so than the fighting he did as a division or corps commander.

While we're dealing with administrative experience, the name of Henry Halleck comes up.  He was a military executive.  Halleck's Mexican war experience would be in California.  There, Halleck held such high political and military administrative positions as Secretary of State, Chief of Staff, and Lieutenant Governor.  His service in California was demonstrating great energy, high administrative qualities, and the ability to adapt to varied and difficult duties.  Halleck developed the skill of being able to communicate civilian ideas to soldiers and military ideas to civilians.  Both of them understand what he was talking about. 

In California, William Sherman too learns the art of communication in California.  He's far away from the real fighting.  He served with future generals Edward Otho Cresap Ord frequently referred to as E. O. C. Ord and Henry Halleck.  Sherman's an exception.  Why?  Sherman grew into positions of greater responsibility.  Others courted them before they were ready, or they were thrusted into them.  The U.S. Army roles included virtually no general officers that were really fit for field duty.  We don't want to look back and criticize, but this is just the way the times were.  They all did the best they could.  Appointments were done for political or surface qualifications.  Casualties did take their toll.  Junior officers, of course, were promoted before they were ready, but apparently that was the best we could do.  We saw incompetence, yes, but why was Sherman different?  One, he assessed himself.  Two, California was not Mexico.  He started slow, but he was smart enough to recognize what he had not learned. 

Next Robert looked at Henry Hunt and the organization of artillery.  Napoleon taught us that it's with artillery that war is made.  But, a series of forward-looking U.S. Secretaries of War, from Tyler before and others, had ensured that at the time of the Mexican War, the U.S. Army had the finest artillery in the world.  Artillery was a key factor in Mexico.  It single-handedly accounted for victories.  One of the most known was the battle at Palo Alto.  Lieutenant Henry Hunt contributed to this role of artillery in Mexico and he would apply what he had learned as Chief of Artillery for the Army of the Potomac.

George Thomas was called “The Rock.”  What does this mean?  George Thomas did have three very important experiences in Mexico and can account for certain aspects of his generalship.  First, is the need for secure lines of supply.  Thomas had a close brush with disaster under Zachary Taylor, but it's in sharp contrast with Ulysses Grant's positive experiences with Winfield Scott.  Second, Thomas developed a rugged persistence in Mexico.  He would earn the nickname, “Old Reliable,” for his determination at Monterey.  He applies this in the Civil War at Chickamauga where he became known as “The Rock of Chickamauga.”  Third, Thomas learned that the key to stability to stand fast and to site your artillery effectively.  Thomas would learn this at Buena Vista, Mexico and apply it at Murfreesboro and Chickamauga in the Civil War.

Let us now investigate Confederate leaders starting with Robert E. Lee.  One of the key lessons he learned in Mexico was the turning movement based on reconnaissance.  As an engineer Lee developed his true genius, for intelligence, reconnaissance, understanding the terrain, and turning the enemy.  That marked his generalship as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War.  The Mexican War created an informal unwritten tactical doctrine.  So, what was it?  To turn the enemy and Lee was influenced by this development.  Whether in Mexico or in Virginia, Lee always found a route to the vulnerable flank of the enemy.  It was in Mexico that Lee learned to act upon accurate, again, reconnaissance.  And it was there that Lee disclosed a special aptitude.

These lessons played out in the Civil War.  Lee's offensive strategy rested upon a thorough study of the terrain.  It was a skill he learned as an engineer in Mexico.  How do we apply this to the Civil War?  Let me tell you an example.  At Chancellorsville in Stonewall Jackson's famous Point March, he had the land reconnoitered by Major Jedediah Hotchkiss.  When Lee lacked reconnaissance, as at Gettysburg, it was a problem.  Lee was deprived of the services of Jeb Stuart.  Without Stuart, no information on enemy positions and plans in the form of military intelligence, it was a disaster.

Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was going to be an exception that proves the rule.  How's he going to do that?  As an engineer lieutenant in Mexico, Beauregard is very opinionated.  He believed in frontal attacks and anything else that entailed unnecessary risk.  Beauregard fears the turning movements.  Dividing the army, cautioned the enemy from attacking positions against which to concentrate against one another.  In other words, you break them up.  You hit one side; the other side is vulnerable.  So, what happens at Shiloh?  The battle begins with Albert Sidney Johnson in command and he wants to attack the federal left.  He's trying to draw the army away from their supply line.  It's that famous Pittsburgh landing near the river.  But Johnson is killed.  And then who takes command?  Beauregard.  He deviates from the flank.  What does he do?  He's going to go frontal.  Piece meal, piece meal, piece meal.  Beauregard’s style, that worked for raids, is to use rigid rules.  Unlike Scott in Mexico, he could not depart from the “rules” so Shiloh did not go well for him.

Jefferson Davis is an example of misplaced confidence.  At the Battle of Buena Vista Davis is commanding the Mississippians volunteer regiment.  The Mexican army attacks the center line.  Then they attack the eastern flank.  Davis forms an inverted V formation.  It's on a ridge overlooking the Mexican army.  He has the advantage, even though he's outnumbered.  The enemy closes in several yards away, and Davis fires at once.  Santa Ana withdraws.  Very important turning point.  Part of General Taylor's strategy was individual command, but they avoided collective staffing; not too much delegation.

So, when Davis becomes president, he takes many tasks upon himself.  In the War Office he had six Secretaries of War.  He becomes his own Chief of Staff and the defacto Secretary of War.  Perhaps he's over reliving the glory of Buena Vista.  Perhaps this is all he needed.  His role model, Zachary Taylor.  Taylor did not use much of the intelligent reports.  Perhaps Davis was too confident in his own abilities and that worked against the Confederacy. 

With Jefferson Davis at Buena Vista, Braxton Bragg is commanding a battalion of artillery.  Bragg would become a full general commanding the Army of Tennessee.  In the battle Bragg’s artillery is facing the Mexican assault.  Davis’ the infantry joins Bragg’s artillery in their part of that inverted V-line.  It's because of this incident that it forms a positive, lifelong, trust in the mind of Jefferson Davis.  He's my lifelong friend.  One of Jefferson Davis's tragic flaws was that he could not see the faults of his friends.  But in the end, Bragg requested to be relieved.

John Slidell is an example of doomed diplomacy.  Well, it's not really doomed.  Maybe it's just a matter of coincidence.  Slidell would land at Veracruz on November 29, 1845 as a minister delegate.  He's going to again seek peace by offering four alternative boundary adjustments and some monetary reparations.  The U.S. definitely did negotiate before they declared war with alternatives.  On May 8, 1846, he returns to the United States.  His mission failed.  Coincidence, during the Civil War, he's ministered to France.  But... The Emancipation Proclamation made British support of the Confederacy untenable.  The mission to France would almost be impossible.

Gideon Pillow was a political general.  He was a criminal lawyer before the Civil War, and his law partner was James Polk.  The expansion of federal and confederate troops had impact on both Lincoln and Davis.  They had to appoint lots and lots of generals.  Lincoln commissioned 126 and Davis 89.  Lincoln’s picks were 65% professional, and Davis’ were 50%.  In Mexico Pillow becomes Polk's secret informant.  In the Civil War Pillow was without a sponsor like Polk.  After Fort Donaldson Pillow was reprimanded and suspended.  He's done with command.

The role of artillery can be demonstrated with a little discussion about Stonewall Jackson.  At the battle of Chapultepec there was a 200-foot-high wall.  It's an obstacle between Scott and Mexico City.  The Americans could not advance or retreat.  The division commander Worth told him to withdraw.  But Jackson says it's more dangerous to retire than to stay in place.  He fires at the Mexican forts and he knocks out the Mexican artillery.  This enables the American infantry to assault the breastworks.  This is an aggressive use of artillery.

Now we'll look at an incident in the Civil War.  Jackson's artillery catches the Federals by surprise at White Oak Swamp.  Jackson brings up the lone gun to drive off the Federal sharpshooters.  He wants to send the 2^nd Virginia cavalry right across the swamp.  But they are repulsed by Federal infantry and artillery.  The Federals had relocated to a new position.  They were sheltered and couldn't be hit.  The Federals had rifled artillery and it could outrange the inferior Confederate smoothbore.  Now the combination of different technology and different terrain that Jackson had experienced in Mexico changed the equation.  But his experience also illustrates a larger trend in the Civil War.  His experience to replicate the Mexican War of concentrated artillery fire to create a breach for the infantry assault failed.  It was a goal that would largely also elude his fellow Civil War commanders.  It is a caution to always consider the impact of technology and terrain on tactics when transferring lessons from one war to another.

James Longstreet illustrates the changed mind.  His experience in Mexico was in small unit battles.  But at the battle of Chapultepec, he would lead the way when a musket ball hit him in the thigh.  He was wounded.  At the battles of Chiro Busco, Molino del Rey, and Casa Mesa there were strong buildings.  Many Americans got slaughtered and routed because of these fortified positions.  Longstreet observes offensive tactics could come at a price. Because of this he adopted a great predilection for his defensive mind and actions in the Civil War.  Between Mexico and the Civil War, technology changed, greatly enhancing the strength of defense at the expense of offense.  Longstreet recognized this change and many of his colleagues did not.

George Pickett is an example of the quest for glory.  At Chapultepec Longstreet and Pickett are fighting together.  Longstreet is hit with a musket ball and falls.  Now Pickett continues the fight.  He goes over the ramparts and he takes down the Mexican flag.  An American flag goes up.  The attack takes an hour and Mexico City falls.

Now let's look at the Civil War. July 3, 1863.  Instead of getting the flag from Longstreet, he gets something else.  He gets orders from him to lead a charge against the federal center.  Perhaps Pickett's reliving his glory in Mexico.  But Gettysburg was not a Chapultepec.  Unfortunately, it would be a slaughter.  On Seminary Ridge Pickett rode, to Longstreet and asks, “shall I advance?”  Longstreet learned the cost of offensive operation in Mexico.  Pickett learned about glory.

Now we come to A.P. Hill and his tendency to criticize.  During the War with Mexico, he became sharply critical of some of his superiors.  For example, with Brigadier General William Worth he says Worth was weak headed, vain glorious, but a brave man.  He's perfectly reckless of the lives of his soldiers.  What does he think of Major General Gideon Pillow?  He claims he's as soft as his name and will no doubt be dismissed from the Army.  He said, this guy's just a barefaced liar.  He's willing to direct his caustic tongue at his superiors.  It reappears again in the Civil War where he has disagreements with Longstreet and Jackson.

Lewis Armistead is typical of how comrades and friends, become enemies.  Both Winfield Scott Hancock and Lewis Armistead served together as lieutenants in Mexico.  They were close friends.  Armistead fights at Chapultepec and he's immediately wounded.  Armistead would be wounded 16 years later at Gettysburg.  It was serious such that he died the same night in a hospital under Corps Commander Major General Winfield Scott Hancock.  A dying Armistead ask for a message to be sent to Hancock saying: “Tell General Hancock, for me, that I have done him and done you all injury, which I shall regret the longest day I live.”  Such a rendering is certainly the exception of a war that found so many comrades from Mexico on opposite sides.