quence of Duncan's report (68charges). Extreme secrecy and all possible mystification of the enemy were necessary, and on account of Worth's unfriendliness Scott had special reasons for not opening his mind fully to him. Other generals have purposely kept their subordinates in the dark (see Henderson, Jackson, i, 421, 441; Id., Science of War, 42). Instead of proving that Worth was the better general, Worth and Duncan proved the opposite, for they showed that Worth committed himself to the Chalco route on very incomplete data, whereas Scott studied three routes and reserved his decision until, as far as was possible, he had full information before him. As usual, when Worth's relations with Scott were concerned, we find Semmes inaccurate and biassed here. Ripley uses the incident against Scott at great length and very unfairly. Facts regarding the Mexicaltzingo route are brought forward, though not known to the Americans at the time (Ripley, War with Mexico, 194). We are told (p. 191) that Scott ordered Duncan to study the Chalco route after Duncan had proposed to do so, as if Scott had not previously ordered Worth, Duncan's commander, to investigate the route. It is alleged that the case did not warrant "a departure from the rules of the [military] art to so great a degree" [as was proposed by the Mexicaltzingo plan]; yet Ripley shows that the Texcoco route was impracticable (pp. 179, 186), that El Peñón was virtually "impregnable" (p. 188), and that the Chalco route was considered out of the question (p. 190). This was a situation clearly warranting extraordinary measures. On p. 202 Ripley seems to argue that the orders to attack Mexicaltzingo cannot have been given to conceal the movement that Scott actually made, since any movement against that point would have caused Santa Anna to place troops in that vicinity, detect promptly Scott's real intention, and defend the southern line, and so the ruse would have defeated itself. But (1) the question concerns orders, not — as Ripley assumes — an actual movement toward Mexicaltzingo; (2) Santa Anna had troops in the vicinity of Mexicaltzingo, but the results anticipated by Ripley did not follow; (3) indeed, though Ripley was not aware of the fact, Santa Anna concluded Aug. 14 (76to Valencia) that Scott was going to S. Agustin, and merely had the reserves at S. Antonio garita go with five 4-pounders to S. Antonio hacienda (76to Valencia, Aug. 14), for he was relying on his fortified points; and (4) since the same troops could not defend at the same time the works near Mexicaltzingo and also the road to 8. Agustin, orders involving a threat against the former would have tended, without costing Scott anything, to keep the latter clear.
The vulnerable point of El Peñón Viejo was that owing to its steepness the cannon could have little action on the slopes (66Stevens to Smith, Aug. 26). A particular disadvantage in attacking Mexicaltzingo would have been that (Santa Anna said) such a movement could have been detected in good season, and reinforcements could have been placed there promptly (76to Bravo, Aug. 13). As the American generals needed information that could only be obtained from Mexicans, they were peculiarly exposed to the artifices of spies, and some of these gained a confidential footing with Worth and even with Scott.
18. To S. Agustín. 218Henshaw narrative. S. Anna, Apelación, 47, 50; app., 146-51. Id., Detall, 12. Ballentine, Eng. Soldier, ii, 195. Davis, Autobiog., 192-5. 217Henshaw to wife, Aug. 21. 221Hill, diary. 159Collins papers. Latrobe, Rambler, 121. Lawton, Artill. Officer, 290, 293. Sen. 34; 34, 3, p. 37. Sen. 11; 31, 1 (map). Sen. 19; 30, 2
