america was discovered in a search for trade routes, but our country has been in larger part maintained and transmitted to us directly or indirectly as the result of war. almost from the outset there were conflicting claims on the part of spain, france, and england, and also holland. the struggles against hostile native tribes along the atlantic seaboard were followed by war against the aggressions of the french, who would have kept the english-speaking colonies east of the alleghanies. that long period of strife was followed by two conflicts with england, the first gaining america for americans as an independent nation, the second confirming it as an independent nationality. while the great louisiana purchase was a peaceful acquisition, napoleon’s willingness to cede this territory was intermingled with his military plans. california and the extreme southwest came out of conflict with mexico. the civil war preserved the integrity of the country which americans had gained. hawaii was added through a revolution fortunately bloodless. as a result of the war with spain, porto rico and the philippines were included within the limits of our authority.
since war is a last resort, a brutal expression of failure to arrive at an agreement, the series of political events which have preceded war and the manifold aspects of civil life have seemed very justly to modern historians more important than the descriptions of war itself. the older writers were fond of dwelling upon all the pomp and circumstances and all the dramatic accompanimentsxii of battle. modern history is written differently, so differently, in fact, that we are apt to find battles summarized in paragraphs by scientific historians. thus the pendulum has swung from one extreme to another, until it has become a difficult matter to find in the newest shorter histories accounts of significant military events which approach completeness. take, for example, the battle of bunker hill. no name in our own military history is more familiar, and yet in many of the books most readily available for older as well as younger readers this battle appears as a brief summary of facts. as to the mexican war, such remarkable military events as taylor’s victory at buena vista over a force five times as large, or the series of desperate battles which won the city of mexico for scott, are practically little more than obscure names for readers of to-day. it is not strange that mr. charles francis adams once inaugurated his presidency of the american historical association with an earnest plea for military history.
in the present volume, which is a companion to harper & brothers’ new edition of sir edward creasy’s decisive battles of the world, the editor has kept in mind the importance of preserving historical relations and continuity. the concise chronology of leading events in american history which runs through from beginning to end is not entirely limited to the military side of history. the introductory chapter sketches world relations from the fifteenth century. the second chapter affords a broad view of the relations of the early colonists to the indians, and there is also specific reference to champlain’s alliance with the algonquins and the consequent hostility of the iroquois. for the rest, the conditions and causes leading up to conflict are set forth wherever necessary in order to furnish a perspective, and to afford a narrative in some degree consecutive. as to the question of selection, there is obvious justice in creasy’s dictum that the importance of battles is to be measured by their significance,xiii and not by the number of men engaged or by carnage. to new englanders in the seventeenth century the struggles with the pequots and with king philip were for the time being a fight for existence as well as for possession of the country. they were but small affairs, measured by modern standards; but much history would have been written differently had the early new england settlers encountered the fate of the lost colony of roanoke.
the battle on the plains of abraham, which ended french rule on this continent, was fought by englishmen with only slight american aid, but its consequences to americans were assuredly momentous. as compared with gettysburg, or sedan, or mukden, bunker hill was a mere skirmish, yet its fame is well founded, for it was the first formal stand against the british by an organized american soldiery, and in this and in the fact of american initiative in seizing and fortifying breed’s hill, it differed from the hasty gathering of patriots at lexington and from the brief conflict at concord bridge. in the light of modern experience, again, the naval battles of lake erie and lake champlain seem small engagements, but the one safe-guarded our northern frontier and the other repelled an invasion aimed at the very vitals of our country. on the other hand, the dramatic battle of new orleans, fought after peace was made, would have had but slight political consequences had the outcome been different.
as to the war with mexico, a certain chastening of the american conscience has perhaps led us to forget the extraordinary gallantry of a volunteer as well as a regular soldiery in a foreign country, repeatedly pitted against great odds. the story of the more significant battles in those campaigns is entitled to better acquaintance, and taylor’s final victory on the north and the series of desperate attacks by which scott reached the heart of mexico are therefore set forth in some detail.
mention of our civil war calls up a long roll of hard-fought battles, but sir edward creasy’s point may bexiv reiterated that it is not numbers or bloodshed that constitute the significance of a battle. fort sumter was a small affair; antietam, shiloh, fredericksburg, chancellorsville, chickamauga, and other hard-fought battles were great conflicts. yet influential as they were, they were not decisive; while sumter represented the first open attack on the flag and the instant call to arms.
the fight of the monitor brought a revolution in naval warfare. the blockade of the south, which can be only touched upon here, represented that decisive influence of sea power which has been so eloquently expounded by captain mahan. this influence was illustrated more concretely in farragut’s capture of new orleans, which was as necessary as grant’s conquest of vicksburg to clear the mississippi and cut the confederacy in two. in spite of the military importance of sherman’s march to the sea, the fact that, like grant’s ceaseless battering in virginia, it was a campaign rather than an event, renders any adequate description impossible in the limits of a book dealing, for the most part, with crises or facts of immediately significant consequence. on the other hand, gettysburg, which destroyed once and for all the possibility of a successful invasion of the north, is a historical landmark in concrete form. it is described in this volume by a historian who is also a veteran of the civil war.
insignificant as was the war with spain in comparison with the great struggle of 1861–65, it is assuredly of historical consequence that the battles of santiago de cuba destroyed the last vestiges of a spanish rule in the western hemisphere which had lasted nearly four hundred years. out of this came freedom at last for cuba, and its grave responsibilities. earlier in the same year dewey’s guns drove the spanish flag from the pacific, and gave us a not wholly welcome partnership in the vexed questions of the orient.
fortunately, our temple of janus is closed—let us trust, never to be reopened. but there are momentous lessonsxv of patriotism and self-sacrifice to be read in these accounts of deeds which have preserved our country and helped to make it great. the eminent historians whose works have furnished these chapters have been moved by no desire to glorify war in itself—rather the reverse; but they have dealt with phases of history so vital and of such supreme interest that this story of these events will help general readers, old and young, to an ampler knowledge of our history.
