



Produced by Barbara Kosker and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)









  COMPANY "A,"

  CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A.,

  1846-'48,

  IN THE

  MEXICAN WAR.




  BY

  GUSTAVUS W. SMITH,

  FORMERLY LIEUTENANT OF ENGINEERS, AND BVT. CAPTAIN,

  U. S. ARMY.




  THE BATTALION PRESS,
  1896.




PREFACE.


Executive Document, No. 1, United States Senate, December 7, 1847,
contains a Communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting to
Congress the official reports of commanding generals and their
subordinates in the Mexican War.

The Secretary says: "The company of engineer soldiers, authorized by the
act of May 15, 1846, has been more than a year on active duty in Mexico,
and has rendered efficient service. I again submit, with approval, the
proposition of the Chief Engineer for an increase of this description of
force." (Senate-Ex. Doc. No. 1, 1847, p. 67.)




TABLE OF CONTENTS.

                                                               Page

  PREFACE.                                                       3

  CHAP.   I.--Enlistment--Instruction--Detention on
              the Rio Grande--March to Victoria and
              Tampico--Landing at Vera Cruz--Death
              of Captain Swift.                                  7

  CHAP.  II.--Engaged in Operations against Vera Cruz.          21

  CHAP. III.--After the Surrender of Vera Cruz to the
              Occupation of Puebla.                             28

  CHAP.  IV.--From Puebla to Churubusco.                        34

  CHAP.   V.--Capture of the City of Mexico.                    48

  CHAP.  VI.--In the City of Mexico; Return to West Point.      57

  APPENDIX A.--Brief Extracts, from Wilcox's History of the
               Mexican War, 1892.                               66

  APPENDIX B.--Promotions of Enlisted Men of the Company.       69




CHAPTER I.

ENLISTMENT--INSTRUCTION--DETENTION ON THE RIO GRANDE--MARCH TO VICTORIA
AND TAMPICO--LANDING AT VERA CRUZ--DEATH OF CAPTAIN SWIFT.


Previous to the war with Mexico there existed among the people of the
United States a strong prejudice against maintaining even a small
regular army in time of peace. Active opposition to a permanent, regular
military establishment extended to the West Point Academy, in which
cadets were trained and qualified to become commissioned officers of the
army. That Academy was then a component part of the Military Engineer
Corps. For years the chief of the Corps had, in vain, urged upon
Congress, the necessity for having, at least one company of enlisted
engineer soldiers as a part of the regular army.

In the meantime he had, however, succeeded in persuading the Government
at Washington to send--by permission of the Government of France--a
selected Captain of the U. S. Engineer Corps to the French School of
engineer officers at Metz; for the purpose of having in the U. S. Army,
an officer qualified to instruct and command a company of engineer
soldiers in case Congress could be induced to authorize the enlistment
of such a company.

Captain Alexander J. Swift was the officer selected to be sent to Metz.
On his return to the United States, he was assigned to temporary duty at
West Point awaiting the long delayed passage of an act authorizing the
enlistment of a company of U. S. Engineer soldiers.

That act was passed soon after the commencement of hostilities with
Mexico. It provided for the enlistment of an engineer company of 100
men, in the regular army. The company to be composed of 10 sergeants, 10
corporals, 39 artificers, 39 second class privates, and 2 musicians; all
with higher pay than that of enlisted men in the line of the army.

Captain Swift was assigned to the command; and, at his request, I was
ordered to report to him as next officer in rank to himself. At my
suggestion, Brevet Second Lieutenant George B. McClellan, who had just
been graduated from the Military Academy, was assigned as junior officer
of the company.

At that time I had been an officer of engineers for four years; my rank
was that of second lieutenant. All the first lieutenants, and some of
the second lieutenants, of that corps, were then in sole charge of the
construction of separate fortifications, or were engaged in other
important duties. Captain Swift was not disposed to apply for the
assignment of any of those officers to be subalterns under him in a
company of soldiers.

I had taught McClellan during his last year in the Academy, and felt
assured that he would be in full harmony with me in the duties we would
be called upon to perform under Captain Swift. It is safe to say that no
three officers of a company of soldiers ever worked together with less
friction. The understanding between them was complete. There were no
jars--no doubts or cross purposes--and no conflict of opinion or of
action.

In the beginning I was charged with the instruction of the company as an
infantry command, whilst the Captain took control of the recruiting, the
collection of engineer implements--including an India Rubber Ponton
Bridge--and he privately instructed McClellan and myself, at his own
house, in the rudiments of practical military engineering which he had
acquired at Metz. In the meantime we taught him, at the same place, the
manual of arms and Infantry tactics which had been introduced into the
army after he was graduated at the Military Academy. In practical
engineer drills the Captain was always in control.

After the men were passably well drilled in the "Infantry School of the
Company"; the time had come for him to take executive command on the
infantry drill ground. He did this on the first occasion, like a veteran
Captain of Infantry until "at rest" was ordered.

Whilst the men were "at rest", McClellan and myself quietly, but
earnestly, congratulated him upon his successful _debut_ as drill
officer of an Infantry Company. He kindly attributed to our instruction
in his house, whatever proficiency he had acquired in the new tactics
which had then been recently introduced.

But, after the company was again called to "Attention" and the drill was
progressing, whilst marching with full company front across the plain,
the men all well in line, to my surprise the Captain ordered "faster",
and added "the step is much too slow". Of course we went "faster". In a
short time the Captain ordered "faster still, the step is very much too
slow". This order was several times repeated, and before the drill ended
we were virtually "at a run".

After the drill was over and the Company dismissed from the parade
ground, I asked the Captain why he had not given the commands "quick
time" and "double quick", instead of saying "faster" and "still faster".
He said he did not intend the step should be "quick time"--much less
"double quick". He only wanted the rate to be in "common time--90 steps
a minute"; and added: