main plaza, he could certainly have scattered them and captured a large number, had they attempted to flee with artillery, ammunition and provisions through those narrow streets commanded by low, flat houses; and indeed no road available for artillery crossed the mountains except the one (held by Worth) through Rinconada Pass. Ampudia wrote to his government that even if he could have cut his way out, his forces would have been dispersed and his military material captured (Sept. 25). (Taylor seems to have taken no steps to prevent the Mexicans from escaping during the night of the twenty-fourth, though their protracting the negotiations until late in the day might have suggested a design to do this.)
But, suggested Taylor, magnanimous terms were favorable to peace (Bixby coll., 61). On the other hand the United States had used in vain with Mexico every method except hostilities; our national authorities had now instructed him to try vigorous warfare (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 324); and it was for them to say whether this deliberately adopted policy should — on a political ground — be abandoned. To meet this obvious view the General said that a change of régime had occurred at Mexico since the date of his orders. That was true; but it would be singular indeed if a political change in the enemy's country — of which nothing definite was heard except from an enemy notorious for subterfuges — could authorize a general in the field to violate his instructions. Taylor himself stated (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 360) that his "grand motive" in advancing from the Rio Grande was "to increase the inducements of the Mexican government to negotiate for peace" — i.e. by showing that otherwise it would suffer the rigors of war; how then could he believe that acting gently and indulgently would have the desired effect?
Finally, and upon this aspect of the matter Taylor laid great stress (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 360), Ampudia stated that his government was now favorable to peace. But Ampudia transmitted no official proposition, could present no evidence; and it is impossible to believe that a shrewd American like Taylor can have taken this argument seriously. Taylor seems to have had no respect for the Mexicans, and therefore had no confidence in them; and what he must have heard about Ampudia was calculated to make him distrust that man peculiarly. Besides, Scott's letters of June 12 and 15 had intimated (Hv. 60; 30, 1, pp. 326, 328) that he was not to grant even a short armistice unless met with a definite formal offer of the Mexicans to treat; and on July 27 Marcy instructed Taylor to pursue, under similar circumstances, the course recommended at that time to Conner (Sen. 107; 29, 2, p. 3) — i.e. not to grant an armistice even should the Mexican government consent to negotiate (256to Taylor, confid.). If a knowledge of Mackenzie's negotiations with Santa Anna was enough to justify Taylor for violating such instructions, he should not have attacked Monterey. Moreover, he did not consider the government of Mexico stable enough to treat with (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9). Taylor defended the armistice on the ground also that he needed time to bring up cannon, ammunition and provisions (169to Crittenden, Oct. 9); but had he captured or dispersed the Mexican army he would have had time, cannon, ammunition and provisions enough. Col. Davis and Taylor also argued that the explosion of the cathedral by an American shell would have caused great loss of life (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 359); but if Taylor knew the cathedral was liable to explode, this was a reason for pressing unconditional surrender upon Ampudia, since the Mexicans would have been the principal sufferers.