eager to take it down. The older men on the council stood stiffly on a practical dilemma that the young monographic enthusiasts found it distinctly awkward to meet. If, said the elder statesmen, this project is to be commercially profitable, it should be left to the regular publishers; if it is not to pay, the association cannot afford to carry it on.

Though this enterprise was abortive, its immediate consequences were highly significant in American historiography. Taken up with some modifications as a private affair, it ended in the appearance of the twenty-seven volumes of The American Nation-that will stand for generations as a faithful index of the notions of history and of historiography that characterized the first decade of the twentieth century.

To go forward to a commentary and judgment on the second decade of that century would require certainly more time and probably more courage than has been allotted to me. It would require an estimate of the value and permanence of contemporary theories and practices in historiography that are highly charged with controversy. We should have to judge the influence and importance of the "real" and "true" school of biography that has ravaged historic reputations from Benjamin Franklin to Woodrow Wilson; of the economic interpretation that has put the hiss in history; of the clash between equally eminent authorities claiming respectively that there is a new history and that there is no new thing under the sun. The mere mention of such problems shows the hopelessness of discussing them here.

To the philosophical observer things historiographic seem, in spite of the interesting formulas that suggest novelty, to be going ahead in pretty much the old familiar way. Adams, McMaster, Rhodes have completed their typical works, Osgood, Channing, and, since only yesterday, Oberholtzer are cheerfully grinding out the sturdy octavos that continue the tradition. Of the monographic and cooperative enterprises that have followed The American Nation, space is wanting to tell. There is undoubtedly manifest in these later histories a general tendency to give political, military, and biographical facts a less prominent part than those of an economic and. impersonal character. I may not in this presence predict-for prophecy is taboo in proper historiography-but as an American citizen I am entitled to guess that the tendency just mentioned will be reversed in the immediate future. If civilization is destined to survive the convulsion that has brought it near extinction today; if the American people shall not be brought by the end of the war to the level of savagery and brutality on which their enemies began it, then historiography in the next generation will find its chief theme in recording the policies of State, the deeds of arms, and the genius of men through which that dreadful doom was averted.

XIV. THIRTEENTH REPORT OF THE HISTORICAL
MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.

LETTERS OF GENERAL ANTONIO LÓPEZ DE SANTA ANNA RELATING TO THE WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 1846-1848.

Edited by JUSTIN H. SMITH.

INTRODUCTION.

Antonio López de Santa Anna, who was born at Jalapa in the State of Vera Cruz, Mexico, in 1795, ranks with Itúrbide, Juárez and Díaz as one of the four remarkable men produced by his country, and in brilliancy he outshone all his compeers. Of what is usually signified by the word education he possessed only the barest rudiments. Intellectually he did not stand high. Though rated as both a statesman and a general, he was neither. But a wonderful combination of imperious will, mental quickness and penetration, unmatched ambition, audacity and unscrupulousness, a thorough knowledge of his fellow-citizens and histrionic ability of no mean order made him an irrepressible leader, while condemning him to the sudden reverses that follow upon a passionate temper and a character that inspires no confidence. Another factor in both making and marring his fortunes was the readiness of men really shrewder and perhaps worse than himself, but wanting in the qualities that make for leadership, to counsel and support him in order to use his talents and power. His enemies almost always committed some blunder that he could turn to account; and finally fortune herself, though fickle and sometimes cruel, frequently threw the most golden of chances in his way.

To give an account of Santa Anna's career prior to the war between Mexico and the United States would be to write the history of his country for more than half a generation, but a few outlines may be sketched. After serving Spain during the Mexican revolution he joined the "Liberator," Itúrbide; and when this bold leader, now an unpopular and imprudent emperor, undertook to discipline him, he obtained a quick revenge by pronouncing for a republic and so bringing ruin upon his former chief. After many intrigues and much revolutionary fighting he seemed in 1834 to have the country in his grasp; but his defeat and capture in Texas two years later and his secret bargain with the Texans apparently ended his public life. In 1838, however, by stepping bravely into the war with France and turning to capital account the loss of a leg, he recovered his prestige; and in a few years he worked his bloody and conscienceless way again to the leading position. Mexico was now his; but greed and arbitrary rule turned all against him, and the general uprising of December, 1844, sent him to Cuba as an exile.

He was succeeded by the well-meaning General José Joaquín de Herrera. But the inefficiency and tactical blunders of the new ad

ministration and its willingness to adjust amicably the pending difficulties with the United States-which grew principally out of the outrages inflicted upon American citizens and our annexation of Texas completely undermined it; and in December, 1845, General Mariano Paredes, who commanded the largest Mexican army, precipitated another revolution. Herrera fell without a struggle; and for a time the new master appeared to do well, for he was laborious and comparatively honest. It soon was commonly understood, however, that he designed to set up a European prince at Mexico, and the nation in general became indignant. Santa Anna, who always posed as the father of republicanism in Mexico, saw his opportunity. Most of the military officers were naturally in favor of this prince of robbers; and, in view of the monarchical danger, the democratic masses, led by Valentín Gómez Farías, came into line.

On the 25th of April, 1846, a Mexican attack upon Captain Thornton's reconnoitering party on the north bank of the Rio Grande brought on the long threatened war against the United States. President Polk, knowing that nobody could be more hostile to us than Paredes, believing that Santa Anna was too intelligent to favor the war, and probably satisfied that his return to Mexico would divide the enemy, even if helpful in no other way, sent Commander Alexander Slidell Mackenzie of the American navy to talk with the exDictator at Havana, and a sort of understanding was reached that, should he regain power, Santa Anna would make peace. Paredes, meanwhile, grew weaker and weaker; and at length General Arista's unsuccessful battles near the Rio Grande, May 8 and 9, 1846, damaged the administration fatally. At the end of July the reins of government were handed over to Vice President Nicolás Bravo and a change of policy was announced. But on the 4th of August General José Mariano Salas, who commanded the garrison at Mexico, ushered in the waiting revolution in favor of Santa Anna and popular government. Twelve days later the exile arrived at Vera Cruz. To his surprise he found the country so determined upon war that his plan to make peace could not be carried into execution, and after hesitating for a time he decided to lead the nation in the direction it wished to take.

The present series of his letters begins almost at the hour he returned to Mexico from Cuba, and it continues until just before he arrived at the capital in May, 1847, to make his final stand against the American troops. As he was now in personal touch with the Minister of War,1 to whom his letters had been written, there was no further occasion for correspondence. The intention has been in general to present only unpublished documents; but on account of their

1 General J. N. Almonte until just before Christmas, 1846; then General Valentín Canalizo until March 23, 1847; and then General J. I. Gutiérrez.