passed, to the views of the government, in regard to the restoration of peace" (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 831). Aiming to further the negotiations with Santa Anna, Scott sent from Puebla to Mexico a 335Memorandum that he would advance and would either defeat the Mexicans in view of the capital (if they would offer battle) or capture a strong position, and then, if able to restrain his troops, would halt and give the Mexicans an opportunity to save the capital by making peace (Sen. 65; 30, 1, p. 524). Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 167-9) endeavors to relate this honorable incident in a way to represent Scott as the dupe of Santa Anna and to compliment Pillow. But the fact that for good and purely American reasons the general-in-chief pursued this very course after the negotiations had ended, refutes Ripley; and it also proves that in offering to make that agreement Scott did not allow his military plans to be influenced by the enemy, as was charged, for by the morning of Aug. 20, as no sign of a disposition to treat had met Scott, he regarded the Memorandum and every other vestige of an understanding as no longer binding upon him "in any degree". (68Scott to court, Apr. 17, 1848, confid.). Scott was ready, in the interest of his country and humanity, to do anything, compatible with his duty, to obtain peace.
Rives (op. cit., ii, 445) states that in consequence of a letter of July 16 from Pacheco, minister of relations, to Congress a committee of Congress reported that the restrictions placed by the law of Apr. 20 on the prerogatives of the Executive had been removed by the recent "Act of Reforms" of the Constitution. This would have been an important point; but the facts are that the committee's report, now lying before the author, was dated July 13 and did not mention the law of Apr. 20, and that Congress was not in session to receive Pacheco's reply of July 16 to its report (52Trist, no. 9, July 23).
13. Pacheco asked Bankhead to use his good offices with Scott to save the city from sack; but as neither the United States nor Mexico had shown favor to the offer of British mediation, he would not act. It is hard to see how, with due regard to Polk's declarations and the real desire of the United States for peace, Scott could have taken the risk of scattering the Mexican government and the elements of peace by refusing to remain outside the city for a time; and remaining outside involved an armistice, because — for one thing — the only large stock of provisions on which he could count lay in town. Hence censure of Scott for making the armistice came from Polk with a very bad grace (52Trist, no. 22; 221Hill, diary).
14. The making of the armistice. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 186, 190, 231-2 (Trist); 189 (Pacheco), 192 (Scott). 52Trist to Buchanan, no. 12, Aug. 22. 52Bankhead to Trist, Aug. 20, 21. Contestaciones Habidas, 3-7, 11-19. Picayune, Sept. 9. Apuntes, 260-3, 268-9. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 314 (Scott); 356-9. Kenly, Md. Vol., 350. 68Scott, statement to court, Apr. 17, 1848, confid. 13Bankhead, nos. 76, Aug. 21; 82, Aug. 29. Raleigh Star, Sept. 22. 221Hill, diary. México á través, iv, 681. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 279-80, 284-6. Davis, Autobiog., 189, 207, 215-6. 224Intercepted letters (Hitchcock, ed.). 259Intercepted letter. Chicago Democrat, Sept. 15, 1857. 61Gates to adj. gen., Aug. 31. Henshaw narrative. S. Anna, Apelación, 61-2. 291Pierce to wife, Aug. 23; to Appleton, Aug. 27. 335Trist, memo., July 29. Semmes, Service, 412, 415-9, 427, 446. N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, Mar. 1, 1848. Sen. 65; 30, 1, pp. 170, 178, 191, 196-8, 204, 281, 288, 460, 465, 543. 80Rela-
