Arista roused himself from his apathy, and placing himself at the head of the cavalry, attempted to retrieve the day. With that branch of the service the effort was worse than useless. The woods on both sides of the road were now lined with the enemy, who in safety shot down his men, and he turned and fled.
When the news of these disasters spread through Mexico, the outcry was great. The government, unmindful of its own injudicious dispositions, threw the whole blame on Arista. It deprived him of the command and submitted his conduct to court-martial. His trial was protracted for several years, and it was not until May 1850 that the supreme military tribunal pronounced sentence in his favor.[1]
- ↑ For fuller particulars, consult Barasorda, Pedimentos presentados, pp. 35; Brito, Defensa que el Sic. Juan José Baz hizo, etc., pp. 12; Suarez y Navarro, Defensa que ... Garay hizo, etc., p. 61; Bustamante, Mem. Hist. Méx., MS., iv. 16, 37; Id., Méx. en 1848, MS., i.-iv.; Soc. Mex. Geog. Bolet., 2da Ep. i. 927. The principal charges against Arista were: that, on assuming the command, he had suspended the movements and dispositions of Ampudia; that he had withdrawn from Palo Alto the forces under Torrejon and Canales in order to protect the passage of his infantry over the Rio Grande, thereby opening the road for Taylor's retreat; that he had not attacked the rear of Taylor's army on its march to Point Isabel; that he did not charge the enemy at Palo Alto at an opportune time; that at Resaca de la Palma he unloaded his wagons and unharnessed his animals; that he unskilfully placed his men there, and made no effort to prevent the rout; and that he abandoned Matamoros
abound with a still greater number of errors and mistakes when touching on the Mexican policy and measures. In fact, the latter are far better informed on subjects pertaining to the United States than are the American people informed on subjects pertaining to Mexico.' Unfortunately, the colonel was not sufficiently master of the Spanish language to undertake with correctness the translation of so important a work. The consequence is that his edition abounds with wrongly translated passages, some of them of grave importance. In illustration, I shall only notice one, which will suffice for the reader to recognize the magnitude of the errors. The original reads thus: 'El dia 10 acabó de reunirse el ejército, disminuido en solo una quinta parte, cosa que verdaderamente asombra, y que se debió seguramente á que casi todos los dispersos tenian que presentarse precisamente en Matamoros.' p. 47. Ramsey translates it: 'The day of the 10th was sufficient to unite the army, diminished to only one fifth of its original strength — a lamentable fact, which was certainly thought so, and an opinion which all the fugitives entertained who actually reached Matamoros.' p. 56. The true sense of the passage is: 'On the 10th the army was already reunited, diminished by only one fifth part, a really astonishing thing, and which was undoubtedly owing to the fact that nearly all the fugitives had necessarily to make for Matamoros.' In his edition he supplies notes of his own, 'appended purely for illustration, and without which many passages would be only imperfectly understood.' The Mexican edition is amply illustrated with excellent plans of battle-fields and portraits of generals, all of which are faithfully reproduced in the New York edition.
