San Patricios

[ciaus]

Hee Hee , Intresting little article I came across, now you know why they say never trust an Irish man

SAN PATRICIOS - THE IRISHMEN WHO DIED FOR MEXICO
by John Vincent
An Irish Batallion unique in military history.
Anyone who is Irish or of Irish descent and who has lived or travelled in Mexico will no doubt be familiar with one of the best kept secrets in the colourful world of Irish emigrants. The famous Saint Patrick’s Battalion of the Mexican Army during the US-Mexican War has placed the Irish as a revered race in Mexico; even to this day, an Irish person in Mexico will be told a countless number of times about the famous ‘Irish Martyrs’ who defected from the US Army and gave their lives trying to save Mexico from US aggression from 1846-1848.
The legend of the Saint Patrick’s Battalion, or ‘los San Patricios’ as they are referred to in Spanish, has been widely written about in Mexico over the last 150 years. Articles in historical magazines and journals have appeared in the US, as well as a romanticized play about this famous battalion, but not until the recent publication of Shamrock and Sword: The Saint Patrick’s Battalion in the US-Mexican War, by Robert Ryal Miller, a professor of Mexican history at California State University at Hayward, has a major study of the San Patricios been done in the English language.
Since the Saint Patrick’s Battalion was made up of deserters from the US Army, it only seems natural that they have been erased from American history. Professor Miller spent more than two years researching this story in Mexico, the US and Ireland. First and foremost, his book tells the compelling story of this forgotten band of Irish renegades; however, Miller also provides readers with a thorough history of the US-Mexican War, which traditionally has been considered less significant in American history than the Revolutionary War which preceded it and the Civil War which followed shortly afterward.
On the other hand, in Mexico this war has been taught, in a doctrinaire manner, as the most devastating event in Mexican history. Excluding Texas, which had won independence from Mexico a few years earlier, Mexico lost one-half of its total land, which now accounts for the US states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Montana; this, more than half a million square miles that Mexico was forced to cede to the US, represents an area larger than France, Spain and Italy combined. Small wonder that this war continues to be a sore point for Mexican attitudes towards the US, especially in light of the fact that the subsequent discovery of rich gold and silver deposits in California and Nevada sparked an economic boom and the westward expansion of the US into a bi-coastal nation.
John Riley
The story of this famed group begins with the founder and chief conspirator, John Riley, a Galway native born in 1817. Riley deserted from the British army while stationed in Canada and went to Michigan, where he later enlisted in the US Army in 1845. He was able to defect to the Mexican Army when his commander granted him permission to cross into Mexico to attend mass. It was there, in Matamoros, Riley joined the Mexican Army as a lieutenant, which resulted in his pay rising from seven dollars per month to 57 dollars per month. While desertion from the US armed forces was punishable by death, Riley was not deterred in capitalizing on the dis-satisfaction of many Irish-born US soldiers with their adopted country. Aided by his second-in-command, Patrick Dalton, who was from the parish of Tirawley, near Ballina, County Mayo, Riley at first was successful in persuading 48 Irishmen to defect, and these men made up the original Saint Patrick’s Battalion. In addition to more Irishmen joining, they welcomed other foreign-born US deserters, as well as American-born deserters. Also, some Irish-born civilian residents of Mexico were persuaded to join the struggle. Even when the number of San Patricios rose to more than 200, Irish-born members still represented nearly 50 per cent.
Miller describes in detail the ways that Riley and Dalton collaborated with Mexican generals to distribute handbills urging Irish and other foreign-born Catholic soldiers to defect. For instance, one such handbill read:
Irishmen! Listen to the words of your brothers, hear the accents of Catholic people . . . Is religion no longer the strongest of human bonds? . . . Can you fight by the side of those who set fire to your temples in Boston and Philadelphia? Are Catholic Irishmen to be the destroyers of Catholic temples, the murderers of Catholic priests . . ? Come over to us; you will be received under the laws of that truly Christian hospitality and good faith which Irish guests are entitled to expect and obtain from a Catholic nation . . .May Mexicans and Irishmen, united by the sacred tie of religion and benevolence, form only one people.
Motivation
While it is widely perceived in Mexico that the San Patricios defected solely on the issue of religion, this myth is examined in a later chapter entitled ‘Why they Defected’. The fact that there was rampant anti-Catholic bigotry in the US at that time does not play as great a role in the formation of the unit as is believed in Mexico. Miller posits that the religious bond was not a main reason why many defected. The attractive offer of high pay in the Mexican Army and the promise of land grants to defectors after the war outweighed the fraternal bond over religion, according to Miller.
A main reason for their hero status in Mexico is derived from their exemplary performance in the battlefield. The San Patricios ultimately suffered severe casualties at the famous battle at Churubusco, which is considered the Waterloo for the Mexican Army in this war. Mexican President Antonio Lopez Santa Anna, who also commanded the armed forces, stated afterwards that if he had commanded a few hundred more men like the San Patricios, Mexico would have won that ill-famed battle.
Each San Patricio who deserted from the US side was interned after the war in Mexico and subsequently given an individual court-martial trial. Many of the Irish were set free, but some paid the ultimate price. Roughly half of the San Patricio defectors who were executed by the US for desertion were Irish. Those Irish who were released by American authorities did not return to the US; some stayed in Mexico while most returned to Ireland, including John Riley who, surprisingly, was spared execution.
Unique
In addition to the interesting story of how the Saint Patrick’s Battalion was formed and their significant role for Mexico in the war, Miller makes it clear from the beginning how truly unique the San Patricios are in history. He points out that although many famous generals in world history — such as Augustus Caesar, George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte — made use of foreign legions or alien mercenaries, these foreign brigades were not made up of deserters from the enemy army. Similarly, they cannot be compared to other Irish foreign brigades such as the Royal Irlandais, the Irish contingent that fought with the French at the battle of Malplaquet in 1709; nor to the Irish brigade formed in 1803 that fought with Napoleon Bonaparte; nor to the Irish regiments of Irlanda, Waterford and Ultonia that formed a part of the Spanish Army in the eighteenth century; nor to the famed Irish Legion of several thousand men that aided Simon Bolivar in the liberation of South America; unlike the San Patricios, these groups did not consist of deserters from the enemy either.
Furthermore, Miller makes it clear that the Irish deserters of the Saint Patrick’s Battalion were in no way representative of the Irish-born soldiers who made up one-fourth of all enlisted men in the US Army during the US-Mexican War. There were seventeen totally Irish companies who saw action in this war; many were highly decorated units such as the Emmet Guards from Albany, New York; the Jasper Greens of Savannah, Georgia; the Mobile Volunteers of Alabama; the Pittsburgh Hibernian Greens.
Heroes
Robert Miller relates in his book, Shamrock and Sword: The Saint Patrick’s Battalion in the US-Mexican War, the importance of these Irish renegades has not waned in Mexico over the years. In 1959, the Mexican government dedicated a commemorative plaque to the San Patricios across from San Jacinto Plaza in the Mexico City suburb of San Angel; it lists the names of all members of the battalion who lost their lives fighting for Mexico, either in battle or by execution. There are ceremonies there twice a year, on September 12 which is the anniversary of the executions, and on Saint Patrick’s Day. A major celebration was held there in 1983, when the Mexican government authorized a special commemorative medallion honouring the San Patricios. First there was a special mass at a nearby parish, then school children placed floral wreaths at the plaque; the Mexico City Symphony played the national anthems of both Mexico and Ireland; Mexican officials eulogized the Irish Martyrs, and a few words were spoken by Irish Ambassador Tadgh O’Sullivan.
While the brave soldiers of Saint Patrick’s Battalion are not particularly well-known outside Mexico, it is clear in Miller’s book that their god-like status in Mexico is enough to compensate for the attention they failed to receive in other countries. This book is fascinating in content, and for the fact that it has taken so long for a major work to be written about the San Patricios in the English language.
Fr Eugene Mc Namara
During the trials, another significant event occurred when the apprehension and execution of Fr Eugene McNamara was called for. Fr McNamara was named as a principal conspirator. A native of Ireland who began working as an apostolic missionary in Mexico more than two years before the start of the war, McNamara plotted with the Mexican foreign minister on schemes to encourage Irish-born soldiers to defect from the US army. One plan was to offer them land in California after the war if they defected. Apart from his role in the war, Fr McNamara regularly visited California and even before the war was consulting with the Mexican government about a plan to bring ten thousand Irish immigrants to settle in the Sacramento Valley area. The priest’s plan was foiled because of the outbreak of the war and the fact that Mexico lost what is now the state of California to the US. However, had there not been a war and the ten thousand Irish had settled there, Mexico could have rivalled Argentina as the country with the largest Irish population outside of the English-speaking world. The great success that the Irish community in Argentina has had is a strong indication that the Irish settlers would have been successful in Mexico. While Fr Eugene McNamara did not see his plan become a reality, he was fortunate enough to escape execution by eluding the squads of US soldiers looking for him, and returning to Ireland.

[Raghnall]

Montana was part of the luisiania purchase I believe. Its spanish name was given by anglos who thought it sounded nice.

[Gorion]

Western Lousiana was given to Spain by the Treaty of Paris.

Later, the Americans said some parts of La Florida and Texas were included in the Lousiana purchase. (I wonder how they managed to buy Spanish territory from France, but anyway...)
So that was used as an excuse to bully Spain, untill Spain sold La Florida.

Enough Blame to Go Around: Causes of the Mexican-American War

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President James K. Polk, among his campaign promises, vowed to bring Oregon and California under American control. Given a mandate by a slim margin of the electorate, Polk eventually accomplished this feat. But by no means does this mean that Polk bears the heaviest burden of responsibility in causing the war with Mexico due to his extreme expansionist views. In reality, the unrelenting movement of Americans into western North America and the concept of a Manifest Destiny are responsible for the Mexican-American War.
Upon first examination, it appears that President Polk, with his aggressive promises and desire to gain California at all costs, caused the war. However, if one looks back one term to the previous President, one can see the foretelling of the Mexican-American War. Realizing his unpopularity with both major political parties, President Tyler saw the annexation of Texas as a ticket to a second term. If he could make the American people identify the name Tyler with American expansion, maybe he could overcome the disdain of both the Democrats and the Whigs (Combs 88). Unfortunately for Tyler, Polk won the election. Wanting to finish what he started, and perhaps to make a name for himself among America's Presidents, Tyler made use of joint resolution of Congress for the annexation rather than a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds majority that Tyler did not have (Combs 89). Finally, on the last day of his term, Tyler sent messengers to Texas for the purpose of immediate annexation. Mexico was not pleased.

Now, the outcome of the above events could have been easily avoided by the new President. If he would recall the messengers and agree to negotiate a new treaty, Mexico would be placated (Combs 89). Polk did no such thing and Mexico declared that the annexation was an act of war. Premonitions of the Mexican-American War can actually be found in the lame duck days of President Tyler's administration.

The actions of the President of the United States have a profound impact on America's foreign relations. However, in some instances, the actions of the people have an even more profound impact. This was certainly the case with the Mexican-War. The settling of Texas and other western areas played a major role in the war that would be fought between America and Mexico. But why would these settlers knowingly move west of America's present boundaries, and even into foreign territory? The answer is simple: economics. By moving ahead of "official" settlement in the U.S. proper, these Americans were hoping to "get in on the beginning of the price rise" (Lavender 127). In other words, these people wanted to sell the land at high prices when it became part of the United States. There were also plentiful trade opportunities as well as a distressing power vacuum out west. What made these settlers and traders think the land would one day be part of the America? History up to that time showed how America had constantly expanded westward across the continent. America showed no signs of stopping anytime soon. The idealistic concept of Manifest Destiny also convinced people to move West. For them, certain parts of North America were simply "destined" to become part of the United States; the French, English, Spanish, Mexicans, Russians and the Indians be damned (Newhouse 142).

The forward thinking settlers simply presumed that America would eventually assume their new lands. Then they could sell the land at higher prices to farmers, plantation owners, or whomever when the land finally was part of the United States. In effect, these settlers were waiting for America to "catch up" to them (Lavender 127).

What is role of President Polk and Tyler in all of this? Surely, their actions played a large role in the Mexican-American War. This fact cannot be denied. But what was the motivation for these actions? Why did Tyler want Texas so badly? Obviously, he wanted to be the President for four more years. But it goes deeper than that. The question of Texan annexation would not have come up if there had not already been Americans settling and causing problems (from the Mexican perspective) in Texas. These settlers were in Texas due to the reasons mentioned earlier: economics and the arrogant Manifest Destiny. Why did Polk promise California and Oregon to the voters? He did this because Americans were already there and because of the massive economic potential in these areas.

The westward movement of Americans and Manifest Destiny have been established as the overall causes for the Mexican-War. However, it is important to examine, and perhaps refute, some other possible causes of the war.

During and after the war, many in the United States placed the majority of the blame for the Mexican-American War squarely on the shoulders of Mexico. There may be a grain of truth in this ultra-patriotic view (Combs 99). President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil (Lavender 130). When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil" (Richardson 442). With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington (Quaife 386). Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos (Garraty and Gay 811). Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians.

The Mexicans can not be totally blamed for this war. The attack that many patriots were so fond of using as justification for the war was simply an attempt by Mexico to defend land that it believed belonged to Mexico. Of course, Mexico could have responded in a more peaceful manner to the idea of Texas annexation. And Mexico could have responded better to American desires to purchase California and other areas of the Southwest (Lavender 130). If only it could be as easy as the Louisiana Purchase had been, Polk must have thought.

Another suspected cause of the war is the desire of the southern states to gain more slave states, thereby increasing their political power. Those in the free states to the north tended to hold this view of the war. Many of the Americans that had moved into Texas ignored the slavery restriction. Northerners feared that Texas would join the Union as a slave state, since there were obviously already slaves in Texas. It was this very fear that Calhoun had used to ensure that President Tyler's annexation treaty with Texas would not get the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate for approval (Combs 88). But if the southern states wanted Texas so badly, they had a strange way of expressing it. When the call went out for volunteers to join the military in the fight against Mexico, most came from the western states and even the territories (Lavender 130). If the south was so interested in gaining Texas as a slave state, one would think that they would have sent more troops than they did (Newhouse 142).

Many probable causes of the Mexican-American War have been posed throughout our nation's history. These range from the obvious (Mexico) to the subtle (southern "slave power"). The two causes that make the most sense, however, are the constant westward movement of Americans and the concept of Manifest Destiny.

[Deaghaidh]

I thought I was the only one who'd heard of these hardy dudes in America

Ask the average american about the Mexican-American War. Film the result, and you have a homemade version of Jay Leno's 'Jaywalking'

[Raghnall]

Originally posted by Gorion
Western Lousiana was given to Spain by the Treaty of Paris.

Later, the Americans said some parts of La Florida and Texas were included in the Lousiana purchase. (I wonder how they managed to buy Spanish territory from France, but anyway...)
So that was used as an excuse to bully Spain, untill Spain sold La Florida.

When the French conquered Spain they took control of Spanish Terrioity, Napolean sold off Lousiana purchase lands because France needed the money. Spain sold us Florida because we sent Americans down there to live and they eventually created the The Patriot Republic and the Bourban Republic, and rather deal with rebels a weak Spain sold us the pirate and crime infested land of Florida.

[Gorion]

When the French conquered Spain they took control of Spanish Terrioity

No they didn't. The Spanish colonies didn't recognize Joseph Bonaparte as king.

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Raghnall
When the French conquered Spain they took control of Spanish Terrioity

The Louisiania territory was obtained by Napoleon from Spain years before his invasion (maybe 1802). After the expedition to reconquer Haiti proved a failure, he sold it to the US.

[Raghnall]

Then why did Mexico win its independence from France hmmm....

[Gorion]

Then why did Mexico win its independence from France hmmm....

What are you talking about?

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Raghnall
Then why did Mexico win its independence from France hmmm....

Mexico became independent from Spain in, I believe, 1821. Maybe you're referring to Emperor Maximilian who was a French puppet?

[Raghnall]

well I looked on internet to see what really happened and if anyone is interested here is a link
www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/mexicanrev.htm

I was partly right in a way, Napoleon's brother was on the throne of Spain at the time the revolution movement started. But they declared their indenpendence later when Ferdinand was on the throne (funny enough he was made the King of the Mexican Empire). I must have been thinking about the Maximilian affair that happened in the after Mexican independence when Napoleon(the 3rd?)sent French troops into Mexico and captured Mexico City.