Located in Plaza San Jacinto in San Angel, a suburb of Mexico City, a war memorial honors the San Patricios, which translates to St. Patrick’s Battalion. This battalion of Irish-born and Irish-American soldiers fought for Mexico during the Mexican-American War between 1846 and 1848.
There are a couple different reasons for the battalion’s defection to Mexico. One theory reasons that the Irish Americans felt an affinity with the invaded Mexico as England had invaded Ireland. Another theory suggests that anti-Catholic attitudes within the Protestant dominated U.S. army convinced them to fight with fellow Catholics in Mexico. A simpler explanation argues that the Mexicans offered them land and better pay.
The Mexican-American War brought many Irish far from their native land. Influenced by Manifest Destiny, the idea America should extend from coast to coast, President James K. Polk had encouraged American settlers to move to the recently annexed Texas, which many Mexicans still considered part of Texas. Polk sent American forces under Zachary Taylor to defend the area and when the Mexican army ambushed this force, Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. The American army won many battles in Mexico throughout 1846 and 1847. Mexicans continued guerilla warfare until 1848.
John Riley, 2nd lieutenant who had come from Galway, led the battalion to switch sides in 1846. The battalion included Germans, Scottish and American Catholics and they often entered battle under an emerald flag featuring the words “Erin Go Bragh.” Riley’s knowledge of artillery and infantry warfare helped the Mexican army, but the Americans defeated San Patricios at the Battle of Churubusco on August 20, 1847. Battle survivors were found guilty of treachery by military court martial and 48 were sentenced to death by hanging and others serve long prison sentences.
The soldiers of San Patricios were just a few of Irish-born soldiers fighting in the war. Michael G. Connaughton quoted military historian Brian McGinn in his article “Beneath an Emerald Green Flag: The Story of Irish Soldiers in Mexico,” “[Irish Americans] could argue, and convincingly, that the overwhelming majority of the 4,811 Irish-born soldiers who served in the U.S. army during the Mexican-American War did not desert. Even if all the San Patricios soldiers were Irish- and they were not- Irish-born deserters would represent less than four percent of Irish soldiers.” Thousands of Irish-born soldiers served America as their adopted country honorably and gave the ultimate sacrifice.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War ended on February 2, 1848. The U.S. acquired Texas, New Mexico, and California, which increased the U.S.’s territory by one third.
Mexico remembers the soldiers of San Patricios as heroic martyrs and their sacrifices are still honored today. Dignities from the Mexican government and the Irish embassy attend a commemoration each year in the Plaza San Jacinto. Both the Mexican and the Irish national anthems are played and an honor guard of elite Mexican soldiers salutes the deceased.
42 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Smyrnian | Feb 28, 2013, 10:32 AM EST
Since there is no agreed standard definition of what constitutes an indigenous people, one is free to adopt an extremist view to suit whatever agenda is prevailing. Anglophile is taking that view. This would not stand up to much scrutiny, however, as a matter if practicality. After all, there was a time when no one lived anywhere so people arrived from other places and moved/migrated. The passage of thousands of years, a genetically similar people with homogenous culture and language can easily be argued as an indigenous people whether or not it inconveniences certain agendas, political views or racist ideology.
curtisjohnson | Feb 27, 2013, 09:28 PM EST
@anglo-nutzi“No such thing as an indigenous population on the Island of Ireland ever...” By whose definition – some anglo-troll’s? Ireland was homogenous culturally, genetically, and politically (albeit although not a single entity) for millennia. I can understand how you anglos hate the concept given that you’re not even indigenous to england.
Smyrnian | Feb 27, 2013, 08:56 PM EST
There us no such thing as an indigenous population anywhere.
anglo-norman | Feb 27, 2013, 05:11 PM EST
No such thing as an indigenous population on the Island of Ireland ever...
curtisjohnson | Feb 26, 2013, 09:20 PM EST
@anglo-nutzi – “98% of famous Irish people in all spheres of Irish Life were anglo-norman,scottish & welsh stock.” Uh, because the indigenous population had been disenfranchised for centuries to the point where it was illegal to receive an education or own property, dumbass. The behavior of your disgusting ancestors is particularly appalling considering Spenser’s observation that “it is certain that Ireland hath had the use of letters very anciently and long before England; that they had letters anciently is nothing doubtful, for the Saxons of England are said to have their letters and learning, and learned men, from the Irish.” Look at the diaspora who went to Europe – unparalleled in their accomplishment at the highest levels of European society.
Smyrnian | Feb 26, 2013, 07:54 PM EST
So???? Your point is?
anglo-norman | Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM EST
Yeats was an Irish Protestant. 98% of famous Irish people in all spheres of Irish Life were anglo-norman,scottish & welsh stock.
Traveler1916 | Feb 26, 2013, 05:09 PM EST
Regarding that comment against "Wounded Knee".What is that blueshirt party propaganda? The Native Americans donated money to Irish famine relief. As to that republican Irish remark: Yeats was Irish Catholic? Can you write like him?
Traveler1916 | Feb 26, 2013, 05:04 PM EST
"Woundedbrain"is it? Come now. De Valera was a "Yank" and I suppose Markiewicz was an Irish surname. Theobold Wolf Tone, Silken Thomas Fitzgerald. These typical Gael names? The fight for freedom is universal. Stop playing the ultranationalist card and losing. "Wounded Knee" makes valid points.
Stiofain | Feb 26, 2013, 03:41 PM EST
eirimach, you're right.When I lived Mexico it seemed like everyone told me about them,with red hair I guess they had me pegged. Some soldiers,because they deserted before war was declared, received 50 lashes(near death amount) and branded with a "D"on the cheek and served a short term in jail. With O'Reilly they "accidently" branded the "D"upside down his cheek, so of course they had do it over again on his other cheek. The reasons were for desertion was varied. For more there is an excellent book: "The Rogue's March" by Peter F. Stevens.
roryobrien | Feb 26, 2013, 02:23 PM EST
THE SUBBING IS AWFUL
Smyrnian | Feb 26, 2013, 06:55 AM EST
Spending too much time with the Wallaby's! ;)
eiriamach | Feb 26, 2013, 01:09 AM EST
Mexican school children learn about the San Patricios. I've had conversations with several young Mexicans and have been surprised at how much they know about the San Patricios and how much they honor their memory. Some even pray to them, and one gave me a card, like a prayer card for the dead, with the story of the Irish who fought against the Americans for Mexico. They understand the difference between fighting for freedom and the political patter about fighting for "freedom," which really means cheap foreign oil or a small nation's land or resources.
anglo-norman | Feb 25, 2013, 09:42 PM EST
AussieSean goes off on one again lol
Smyrnian | Feb 25, 2013, 07:47 PM EST
SeanO - keep your insults to yourself.
seanomelb | Feb 25, 2013, 07:33 PM EST
Woundedbrain as an Irish republican I must protest. As a proud Irishman ( you are not) pray tell me where I condone the colonisation of IrelandA cheap shot by a no nothiing yank.
Smyrnian | Feb 25, 2013, 05:40 PM EST
WoundedKnee - Good point. Maelwyn - I agree totally. It's all matter of perspective and I would not second guess them. I was not there.
WoundedKnee | Feb 25, 2013, 03:06 PM EST
What an empty-headed hypocrite is seanomel. He regularly posts here in favor of the settlement of Ireland by colonists from a hundred different nations, yet now he tells us that the colonization of Mexico was wrong. If it was wrong in the case of Mexico, why is colonization right for Ireland, you dope?
Maelwyn | Feb 25, 2013, 01:52 PM EST
The San Patricios did not betray "their country". Their country was Ireland not the states. Their adopted land betrayed them. What was supposed to set the states apart was the promise that "all men are created equal", "liberty and justice for all" and "e pluribus unum". If these promises were violated then of course their actions were no less justified than the actions of John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson.The Irish were treated as second class citizens as they were througout the 19th century.The defection was little different in catalyst to the Molly McGuire rebellion and the New York Draft riots. Saying the San Patricios betrayed "their country" is like saying George Washington betrayed "his country" by rebeling. The San Patricios were true freedom fighters fighting a war against terror.
TomSwinford | Feb 25, 2013, 11:30 AM EST
......and Sam Houston's first action on becoming President of Texas was to ..... legalize slavery. Texas would later join the Confederacy in rebellion against the United States.
TomSwinford | Feb 25, 2013, 11:20 AM EST
While the San Patricios did betray their country - or with respect to Irish-born U.S. soldiers - their adopted country, their action was not altogether 'beyond the pale.' The so-called Mexican-American War was a pure and simple land grab by Uncle Sam against a weak neighbor in order to realize the goal of Manifest Destiny. A similar assault on British Canada in 1846 would have been the sheerest folly. It is also worth noting that the narrative of the Texians' struggle for independence from Mexico in the 1830s - and the heroic last-stand at the Alamo in 1836 - generally omits perhaps the single most critical cause for the Texians unhappinness with Mexico. Slavery was outlawed in Mexico and its sovereign territory of Texas. This was unacceptable to the American settlers - who had mostly come from the U.S. slave states. As these settlers did well under Mexico's extraordinary generosity, they made trips back home to the auction blocks of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., to buy themselves some free labor to work their growing spreads in Texas. Mexico said no way Jose - and revolt became imminent.
johnshiel | Feb 25, 2013, 10:52 AM EST
The Chieftains released a disc several years back titled The San Patricios, I believe. Pretty enjoyable music, evocative of the massive pathos attaching to that time for those young men from Ireland. Many good guest artists (Ry Cooder!) and all original songs, some in Spanish. Stunning cover art, too...
WoundedKnee | Feb 25, 2013, 10:29 AM EST
You make a good point, Smyrnian. The Aztecs were only recent arrivals into central mexico. I think they had been scarcely a century there, having arrived from what is now the US border region and displaced the tribes living previously on the central Mexico plateau. And of course the Aztecs were hated by the other Mexican peoples. Why did Cortez manage to take over mexico with a Spanish Army of only aboujt 200, many of who were killed on the "Sad Night" as it called.The answer is that he was able to forge a great alliance of anti-Aztecs, drawing from peoples whom the Aztecs had subjugated and enslaved. Cotez should be remembered for his diplomatic skills, not his military prowess.
Smyrnian | Feb 25, 2013, 07:21 AM EST
And before the Americans the Spanish took it from the natives and they took it from their native predecessors and so on back into time immemorial. This article is just an excuse for haters and historical revisionists of all stripes to fly their true coulours.
EphraimKibbey | Feb 25, 2013, 12:30 AM EST
1999 MGM "One Man's Hero" with Tom Berenger as John Riley - IMDb lists the cast and has a video and some stills. I watched it on TV a couple of years back and thought it was pretty good and Berenger did a great job. At the time, I did not know the story of the San Patricios and the movie kept me totally engaged all 121 minutes not counting the interminable commercials. From what I have learned since then, the movie sticks pretty close to the facts as they are known showing the intense punishments doled out to the catholics by the US protestant soldiers both before they switched sides and after their capture. I have not checked YouTube yet but I would bet that Ebay would have a DVD up for auction. It is amazing that the media stores make a profit with all the "New/Old Stock" being sold there.
CitizenWhy | Feb 24, 2013, 11:36 PM EST
Silling, the version of the saying I learned from my Irish parents: "There's nothing an Irishman likes more than a fight he can't win."
anglo-norman | Feb 24, 2013, 09:09 PM EST
seanomelb- Yet you are a citizen of a country guilty of the same yet you are quite happy to live there.
89west | Feb 24, 2013, 08:54 PM EST
Try not to be so subjective, think of it as Pro-American not as Anti-Irish.
seanomelb | Feb 24, 2013, 06:14 PM EST
We have an anti Irish brigade below quoting ignorance and trying to sell it as facts. The U.S. were the oppressors stealin what was not theirs from oppressors (Mexians) who stole the land from its rightful owners. Typical of the britsh values of the USA at the time and Spanish values in the case of Mexico. European arrogance at its best by both sides.
anglo-norman | Feb 24, 2013, 03:46 PM EST
Typical
WoundedKnee | Feb 24, 2013, 03:38 PM EST
CitizenWhy--Santa Ana was responsible for the loss of half the territory of Mexico, both in the Texican Rebellion and thru the later Gadsden Purchase (he sold off huge tracts of his country). He was a disaster. PhutiePhan's reference to Bishop England reminds me of the ironic fact that Bishop England was Irish and also an Irish speaker. There was extensive Irish immigration into Charleston and Savannah GA in the decades before the Civil War. I recommend folks who are visiting Charleston to take a stroll thru St Mary's cemetery downtown. Fascinating to read all the tombstones of Irish people, often stating place of birth in Ireland. Very well preserved and legible stones.
89west | Feb 24, 2013, 03:22 PM EST
Phlutie...fair winds and following seas...it appears your ship never got underway. These traitors and deserters were from another war and the port was Vera Cruz.
CitizenWhy | Feb 24, 2013, 02:39 PM EST
Of course they fought for Mexico. That war was widely seen as falsely based and immoral, a mere land grab for slave holders, and Abraham Lincoln, among other, vigorously opposed it. Never mentioned in America's imperialist narrative is the mercy/temperance of Mexican Gen. Santa Ana in dealing with the rebel survivors. Well, I take that back, all this was taught in my Irish immigrant parish school.
milesbeacom | Feb 24, 2013, 12:55 PM EST
Good The Irish Soldiers of Mexico was reprinted in 2010. It is now available in paperback and on Kindle.,
PhlutiePhan | Feb 24, 2013, 12:19 PM EST
@89west: Charleston, SC, was the seat of the start of the Civil War. Bishop England High School commemorates Bishop John England and the Irish community of Charleston. There were plenty of troops who fought for the Confederacy. This issue is a lot more complex for a Navy vet who served on board ship in Charleston for four years than just a "bunch of deserters".
89west | Feb 24, 2013, 11:52 AM EST
Much ado about a bunch of deserters who went to the highest bidder. They did it for better pay, a promise of citizenship and a piece of land. Hardly, something to be proud about! Wonder how many of their ancestors had to sneak back over the border to earn a living.
irishfree1916 | Feb 24, 2013, 11:28 AM EST
With a name like Smith, it makes me wonder if you were short changing the Irish view of why the fought! It is a CHEAP SHOT to say they fought for Land and Money and not the other reasons you listed! If you write another article MS for an Irish outlet, I think you should be fair to the Irish View!! Jerry O'Keefe Cork Born - raised in Anaheim, California
WARDY09 | Feb 24, 2013, 11:03 AM EST
That's funny,I was only telling the mexican plumbers this story on friday while we were having lunch.
merefalow | Feb 24, 2013, 10:53 AM EST
for whatever reason they fought ,it was for the right reason.to repel invaders whose only aim was ILLEGAL RAPINE THEFT, PILLAGE AND DESTRUCTION.A MANIFEST DESTINY TO TAKE WHAT WAS NOT THEIRS BY ANY RIGHT OR JUSTICE.The same as the invasion of ireland.
Silling | Feb 24, 2013, 10:51 AM EST
it has been said that the Irish are always on the wrong side of every battle. Perhaps it should read " The Loosing Side ". Now why would that be?
joan1954 | Feb 24, 2013, 10:46 AM EST
Agree with Milesbeacon on Hogan's and it is too bad it is long out of print. Michael Hogan is still alive and perhaps could be persuaded to reprint the book. Any takers as "The Irish Soldiers of Mexico" is an excellent historical reference. Lt. O'Reilly was honored several years back in his native town of Tuam, Co. Galway.
milesbeacom | Feb 24, 2013, 10:17 AM EST
Great article on an undermentioned event in History. There is an exellent book on the subject, " The Irish Soldiers of Mexico" by Michael Hogan. There is not much room for theory after reading this well documented account of bravery and adherence to principles on the part of the "St. Patricks Brigade"