Jefferson Davis, Negotiator of the Surrender of Monterrey, Defends Himself and Taylor Over Terms

In September 1846, after falling back before Gen. Zachary Taylor’s invading army, Mexican forces chose to take a stand at Monterrey. There they received reinforcements and dug in as Taylor determined to assault the city. From September 21-24, U.S. forces attempted to take the city without success. Heavy Mexican resistance caused considerable losses in the U.S. ranks, and the U.S. artillery was incapable of penetrating the walls of the numerous fortresses and fortifications in the area. On the third day the Americans managed to take four hills to the west of the city and placed heavy cannon on them that were used to attack retreating forces fleeing the hill. Then a diversionary tactic allowed American divisions to stream into the city from the west and east.

Heavy hand to hand combat within the city walls followed. The Mexican Army congregated in the city plaza. Trapped in the city plaza and bombarded by cannon, Mexican General Pedro de Ampudia decided to negotiate. Taylor, facing a larger army in enemy territory, negotiated a two month armistice in return for the surrender of the city. The chairman of the American commission that drew up the terms of surrender was Colonel (and future Confederate president) Jefferson Davis. The Mexican Army was allowed to march from the city on the 26th, 27th and 28th of the month, with their arms and one battery of artillery (6 guns). Left behind was some 25 guns. This was the first major victory of the Mexican War.

Not everyone in the United States was satisfied with this result, and Taylor was villified for agreeing to the terms. President Polk, who saw Taylor as a political foe on the domestic front, insisted that the U.S. army had no authority to negotiate truces, only to "kill the enemy". There were speeches in Congress and editorials in newspapers, not merely criticizing Taylor for the armistice, but demanding that he be brought to account – even court martialed. Thomas Ritchie founded the renowned Richmond Enquirer newspaper and in 1845 added the Washington Union in the nation’s capital as a second paper. Davis wrote him in the midst of the swirl of controversy, explaining the situation at Monterrey in detail and defending Taylor.

Autograph Letter Signed in pencil, Tamaulipas, Mexico, January 6, 1847, to Ritchie. “After much speculation and no little misrepresentation about the capitulation of Monterey, I perceive by our recent newspapers, that a discussion has arisen as to who is responsible for that transaction. As one of the commissioners who were entrusted by General Taylor with the arrangement of the terms upon which the city of Monterey and its fortifications should be delivered to our forces, I have had frequent occasion to recur to the course then adopted, and the considerations which led to it. My judgment after the fact has fully sustained my decisions at the date of the occurrence; and feeling myself responsible for the instrument as we prepared and presented it to our commanding general, I have the satisfaction, after all subsequent events, to believe that the terms we offered were expedient, and honorable, and wise. A distinguished gentleman with whom I acted on that commission, Governor Henderson, says, in a recently published letter, “I did not at the time, nor do I still like the terms, but acted as one of the commissioners, together with Gen. Worth and Col. Davis, to carry out Gen. Taylor’s instructions. We ought and could have made them surrender at discretion,” &c. &c.

“From each position taken in the above paragraph I dissent. The instructions given by Gen. Taylor only presented his object, and fixed a limit to the powers of his commissioners; hence, when points were raised which exceeded our discretion, they were referred to the commander; but minor points were acted on, and finally submitted as part of our negotiation. We fixed the time within which the Mexican forces should retire from Monterey. We agreed upon the time we would wait for the decision of the respective governments, which I recollect was less by 34 days than the Mexican commissioners asked– the period adopted being that which, according to our estimate, was required to bring up the rear of our army with the ordnance and supplies necessary for further operations.

“Gen. Taylor’s force was too small to invest the town. It was, therefore, always in the power of the enemy to retreat, bearing his light arms. Our army– poorly provided, and with very insufficient transportation– could not have overtaken, if they had pursued the flying enemy. Hence the conclusion that, as it was not in our power to capture the main body of the Mexican army, it is unreasonable to suppose their General would have surrendered at discretion. The moral effect of retiring under the capitulation was certainly greater than if the enemy had retreated without our consent. By this course we secured the large supply of ammunition he had collected at Monterey– which, had the assault been continued, must have been exploded by our shells, as it was principally stored in “the Cathedral,” which, being supposed to be filled with troops, was the especial aim of our pieces. The destruction which the explosion would have produced must have involved the advance of both divisions of our troops; and I commend this to the consideration of those whose arguments have been drawn from the facts learned since the commissioners closed their negotiations. With these introductory remarks, I send a copy of a manuscript in my possession, which was prepared to meet such necessity as now exists for an explanation of the views which governed the commissioners in arranging the terms of capitulation, to justify the commanding general, should misrepresentation and calumny attempt to tarnish his well–earned reputation, and, for all time to come, to fix the truth of the transaction. Please publish this in your paper…” With some erasures and interliniations, it appears to be a first draft. The letter is published in “The Papers of Jefferson Davis.”

Davis played an important role in the Mexican War; indeed, it made his career. A check of auction records indicates that this is by far the most significant manuscript of his relating to Mexico to reach the market in at least 30 years. And there have been precious few of this quality by any major participant during all that time.