March 15, 2004

WHO HATE THEM NOW ONCE FOUGHT BY THEIR SIDE:

The Irish Soldiers of Mexico (Michael Hogan, March 2004, The Crisis)

One of the least-known stories of the Irish who came to America in the 1840s is that of the Irish battalion that fought on the Mexican side in the U.S.-Mexico War of 1846-1848. They came to Mexico and died, some gloriously in combat, others ignominiously on the gallows. United under a green banner, they participated in all the major battles of the war and were cited for bravery by General López de Santa Anna, the Mexican commander in chief and president. At the penultimate battle of the war, these Irishmen fought until their ammunition was exhausted and even then tore down the white flag that was raised by their Mexican comrades in arms, preferring to struggle on with bayonets until finally being overwhelmed by the Yankees. Despite their brave resistance, however, 85 of the Irish battalion were captured and sentenced to bizarre tortures and deaths at the hands of the Americans, resulting in what is considered even today as the “largest hanging affair in North America.” [...]

Before the declaration of war by the United States, a group of Irish Catholics headed by a crack artilleryman named John Riley deserted from the American forces and joined the Mexicans. Born in Clifden, County Galway, Riley was an expert on artillery, and it was widely believed that he had served in the British army as an officer or a non-com in Canada before enlisting in the American army. Riley’s charge was to turn this new unit into a crack artillery arm of the Mexican defense. He is credited with changing the name of the group from the Legion of Foreigners and designing their distinctive flag.

Within a year, the ranks of Riley’s men would be swelled by Catholic foreign residents in Mexico City, and Irish and German Catholics who deserted once the war broke out, into a battalion known as Los San Patricios, or “Those of Saint Patrick.”

The San Patricios fought under a green silk flag emblazoned with the Mexican coat of arms, an image of St. Patrick, and the words “Erin Go Braugh” (sic). The battalion was made up of artillery and was observed in key positions during every major battle. Their aid was critical because the Mexican had poor cannon with a range of 400 meters less than the Americans. In addition, Mexican cannoneers were inexperienced and poorly trained. The addition of veteran gunners to the Mexican side would result in at least two major battles being fought to a draw. At the Battle of Buena Vista, for example, the San Patricios held the high ground and enfiladed the Americans. At one point they even wrested a cannon from the Yanks and led General Taylor’s advisers to believe that the battle had been lost. Several Irishmen were awarded the Cross of Honor by the Mexican government for their bravery in that battle, and many received field promotions.

At the Battle of Churubusco, holed up in a Catholic monastery and surrounded by a superior force of American cavalry, artillery, and infantry, the San Patricios withstood three major assaults and inflicted heavy losses on the Yanks. Eventually, however, a shell struck their stored gunpowder, the ammunition park blew up, and the Irishmen, after a gallant counteroffensive with bayonets, were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. They were tried by a military court-martial and then scourged, branded, and hanged in a manner so brutal that it is still remembered in Mexico today.

In almost every Mexican account of the war, the San Patricios are considered heroes who fought for the noble ideals of religion and a just cause against a Protestant invader of a peaceful nation. In U.S. histories, however, they are often portrayed as turncoats, traitors, and malcontents who joined the other side for land or money.

It seems odd that anyone would defect from a superior force sure of victory to join an obviously inferior one certain to be defeated, even if, as most U.S. accounts assert, there were offers of money and land from the Mexicans. There was plenty of free land to the west, much easier to come by than risking one’s life in combat against a Yankee army. Simple desertion and refuge in the rich valleys of California would have accomplished that purpose. To determine the true causes of the defection of these men, it is necessary to reflect on the temper of the times.

The potato blight that began in 1845 (roughly coinciding with the Mexican War and lasting for its duration) brought a devastation to Europe more horrible than the Black Death. For the Irish, it was the beginning of massive evictions, starvation, sickness, and death. Of the many fortunate enough to afford the fare for an escape to the New World, tens of thousands would die en route as a result of the inhuman conditions aboard Great Britain’s vessels.

Victims of oppression in the Old World, they were to experience it again in the New. Confronted by enormous numbers of Irish-Catholic immigrants in the 1840s, American nativism reared its ugly head. “All the world knows,” wrote historian Thomas Gallagher, “that Yankee hates Paddy.” And so it seemed to those who had survived the perilous journey to America only to be labeled inferior by demagogic politicians and feared by Anglo-American workmen. Victims of prejudice in the New World, it should not be considered strange that they would shortly find themselves becoming sympathetic to the Mexicans. Here was another Catholic people being invaded by Protestant foreigners. According to a contemporary account, “On reaching Mexico they discovered they had been hired by heretics to slaughter brethren of their own church. On top of this they were confronted with the hatred of their fellow soldiers.”


Looked at through the lens of today's efforts by good Catholics, like Pat Buchanan, to keep Mexicans out of the country, this whole episode is so steeped in irony that at times it is laugh-out-loud funny.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 15, 2004 11:22 PM
Comments

It was by no means obvious which side was going to win that war until most of it had been fought.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 16, 2004 3:35 AM

Actually, Harry has a point. Before the war, most experienced military observers rated the Mexican army as being better than the U.S. army. It wasn't the first time the experts had been proven wrong, but it wasn't apparent before the shooting started.

Posted by: Joe at March 16, 2004 5:20 AM

Didn't matter--we'd just have come back in a few years. Our destiny was manifest.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2004 7:35 AM

Harry: My only riposte to that is that Mexico had been rather impotent against just little ol' Texas. How anyone could've thought Santa Ana stood a chance is beyond me.

Posted by: Chris at March 16, 2004 8:52 AM

It wasn't just a question of which army was better on paper. The logistics involved in sending two separate armies to Mexico and one towards California with supply lines of thousands of miles away was enormous. The US victory was simply astounding.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at March 16, 2004 10:54 AM

The lesson of history seems to be that the US military has never been defeated in any war that it wishes to win. At worst, the US has lost battles and campaigns, but never wars.

Seems to me that the weight of history is on our side. And has been ever since Plymouth Rock.

Posted by: fred at March 16, 2004 11:31 AM

Look at a map. The two countries were about the same size in those days, and Mexico kept a largish army, while the U.S. hardly had any.

I agree, looking backward, we can see why the Mexicans lost. It wasn't so apparent going in, though.

The Texans didn't have it all their own way, either. My great grand uncle, Waddy Thompson, had to negotiate the release of the American prisoners with Santa Ana.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 16, 2004 1:55 PM

Mr. Eager;

Clearly the Texans didn't enjoy a cakewalk over the Mexicans, but in the war in question we had Texas plus the rest of the US. If I eke out a victory in brawl with you, and then come back next year with 10 of my friends, what would you expect the outcome to be?

I suppose the counter argument would be that it was supply lines that defeated Mexico in the Texas War of Independence, which favored the Texans but favored Mexico in the US-Mexican War.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 16, 2004 2:56 PM

"Didn't matter--we'd just have come back in a few years. Our destiny was manifest."

Yeah, well, every time I hear Tim Robbins or Barbra Streisand bloviate, I get an atavistic urge to tell Mexico City it can have the flippin' thing back. If Mexico even WANTS it back.

Posted by: Joe at March 16, 2004 5:52 PM

Joe:

More likely we end up with Mexico.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2004 5:56 PM

Mexico had a large, battle-tested army. The U.S. had no army to speak of.

Ordinarily, you might expect the side with the professional army to win.

That it didn't was, indeed, remarkable.

The Mexican elite were patriotic to death, but probably the Mexicans masses didn't care much.

All this is interesting and even possibly relevant to events in our own lifetime. Vietnam, for example.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 16, 2004 7:52 PM

No doubt the South Vietnamese masses learned the perils of apathy once the Communists took over.

Somehow it always can get worse, except perhaps for most Cambodians under Pol Pot.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 17, 2004 1:46 AM

I bet they did.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 17, 2004 2:13 PM
« THEIR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY (via Tom Corcoran): | Main | TELL OLD PHAROAH... (via Mike Daley): »