We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
One of the perplexing problems in the history of the Mexican War has been the account of a body of deserters from the American army which called itself the San Patricio Battalion. Many of these deserters were being tried and executed or severely punished as the troops of General Scott pushed into the heart of Mexico’s capital. The account of the desertion of the San Patricios has been the subject of much debate, a great deal of it bitter, between historians with either a Catholic or Protestant point of view. Many Protestant writers have been prone to use this event as an illustration of placing faith above patriotism, the desertions being laid at the door of the Mexican clergy who are charged with actively attempting to entice Catholic soldiers among the American forces, largely recent German and Irish immigrants, to leave the army of a Protestant power bent on the destruction of a Catholic nation and on the spoliation of the temples of the Catholic faith. Catholic writers have been quick to issue a full denial of such charges. To date most of the charges and countercharges concerning the San Patricio Battalion have been based almost exclusively on secondary evidence. The essential truth of the matter would appear to be obtainable only from the actual records of the deserters in the files of the United States Army. It is on these records that this article is based.
1 The three most important accounts of the San Patricio Battalion are: SisterMcEniry, Blanche Marie, American Catholics in the War with Mexico (Washington, 1937), especially chapter V, “The San Patricio Battalion”;Google Scholar Wallace, Edward S., “Deserters in the Mexican War,” in Hispanic American Historical Review, XV, 374–380;Google Scholar and Hopkins, G. T., “The San Patricio Battalion in the Mexican War,” in Journal of the United States Cavalry Association, September, 1913, 278–290.Google Scholar
2 30 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document No. 60, pp. 303–304.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., p. 133.
4 Niles Register, October 16, 1847, pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
5 Carleton, James Henry, The Battle of Buena Vista (New York, 1848), p. 83.Google Scholar
6 Report dated August 23, 1847, United States Archives, Army of the United States, (hereafter cited as U. S. Arch., AUS), Office of the Adjutant General, 27932–1895.
7 Journal of Henry M. Judah, ms., Library of Congress, Division of Manuscripts, entry for August 21, 1847.
8 Carleton, op. cit., p. 83; 30 Congress, 1 Session, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, pp. 219, 344; Semmes, Raphael, The Campaign of General Scott in the Valley of Mexico (Cincinnati, 1852), p. 316;Google Scholar Mansfield, Edward D., The Mexican War (New York, 1848), p. 280.Google Scholar
9 The records of the trials of the deserters are contained in two bundles of papers, U. S. Arch., AUS, Judge Advocate General’s Office (J. A. G. O.), EE525 (San Patricio Battalion, Tacubaya, Mexico), and EE531 (San Patricio Battalion, San Angel, Mexico).
10 General Order 283, September 11, 1847, U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., Mexican War, Army of Occupation, Miscellaneous Papers, R. G. 94, Box 7. This order concerned only the prisoners tried at Tacubaya. General Order 281 provided for branding on the cheek for the prisoners tried at San Angel, and from contemporary accounts it would appear that all the prisoners suffering the punishment of branding were treated in the latter fashion.
11 The American Star, September 20, 1847.
12 Ibid.; Davis, G. T. M., Autobiography (New York, 1891), pp. 226–229.Google Scholar
13 New Age, October, 1929, p. 608 Google Scholar, as quoted in McEniry, op. cit., p. 75.
14 Christian World, XXIV (1873), 47 Google Scholar, as quoted in Butler, William, Mexico In Transition (New York, 1892), p. 93.Google Scholar
15 Know-Nothing Almanac for 1856, p. 18 Google Scholar, as quoted in McEniry, op. cit., p. 79; Butler, op. cit., pp. 93–94.
16 Several letters of inquiry and the replies thereto are found in U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., 27932–1895. Typical of the statements made is that of Daniel Maloney in a letter to the Adjutant General dated March 1, 1896, in which he stated that the desertion of the San Patricios did not prove the disloyalty of Catholics any more than “the treason of Benedict Arnold proves the disloyalty of Protestants.”
17 Kelley, Case 20, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525; Prefier, Case 41, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525.
18 Thomas Riley, Case 3, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531; William A. Wallace, Case 4, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531.
19 Frederick Fogel, Case 1, and John Klager, Case 2, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525.
20 Auguste Morstadt, Case 16, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525; John A. Myers, Case 8, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531.
21 Frederick Fogel, Case 1, doc. cit.
22 John Riley, Case 27, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531. Also listed as Reily and O’Riley.
23 Charles M. O’Malley to General Scott, n. d., U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., Mexican War, Army of Occupation, Misc. Papers, R. G. 94, Box 7.
24 John Riley, Case 27, doc. cit.
25 The American Star, September 20, 1847.
26 Petition, n. d., U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., Mexican War, Army of Occupation, Misc. Papers, R. G. 94, Box 7.
27 Oswandel, J. Jacob, Notes of the Mexican War (Philadelphia, 1885), pp. 426–427.Google Scholar
28 Memorandum, n. d., U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., 27932–1895.
29 Patrick Dalton, Case 6, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531.
30 Abraham Fitzpatrick, Case 43, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525. Lieutenant James Longstreet spoke in Fitzpatrick’s defense at the trial.
31 Andrew Nolan, Case 22, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531. “Legion of Strangers” was the term most frequently employed during the trial for the battalion of deserters.
32 William Oathouse, Case 18, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531; Edward McHerron, Case 20, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531.
33 Marquis T. Frantiers, Case 6, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525.
34 E. g, Roger Hogan, Case 32, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE525, who stated that he could not go into the streets in American clothing “without being pelted with stones or beaten and at risk of being killed …. “
35 Alexander McKee, Case 26, U. S. Arch., AUS, J. A. G. O., EE531.
36 Judah, , Journal, doc. cit., entry for August 21, 1847.Google Scholar
37 Welden’s name is also given as Wilton in the records, which also indicate that both Welden and O’Connor testified together at the trials at San Angel for a day or so after which Welden appeared at the trials at Tacubaya while O’Connor remained at San Angel.
38 General Order 296, September 22, 1847, U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., Mexican War, Army of Occupation, Misc. Papers, R. G. 94, Box 7.
39 General Order 116, June 1, 1848, U. S. Arch., AUS, Office of the Adj. Gen., Mexican War, Army of Occupation, Misc. Papers, R. G. 94, Box 7.
40 The author has a rather vague recollection of seeing one or two items relating to this matter while doing research in another subject in the Archivo General de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
