5 comments about Slaughter at Goliad: The Mexican Massacre of 400 Texas Volunteers.

1. While every American and Mexican schoolchild knows the story of the Alamo, few "Norteamericanos" know the story of the massacre that followed it, that of killing 250 unarmed Texan prisoners at Goliad.
   
   Author Jay Stout's latest book "Slaughter at Goliad" brings this blot on the Mexican military into the harsh light of day. Exceptionally well-written, he brings his experience as a Marine combat aviator into the battle as he explains the fight in terms that every reader can understand.
   Superficially, this is a simple story; after a one-sided battle won by the Mexican Army over a bunch of rag-tag Texan-American volunteers, some 250 prisoners were marched to Goliad. After 200 more prisoners were brought to the compound, where they were all massacred on Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836. It was one of the single largest losses of life in the history of the young United States, and the repercussions affected Texas, America, and Mexico virtually immediately.
   
   Of special importantance to the battle and to the book is Stout's examination of the personalities and politics involved. Stout portrays James Walker Fannin, the commander of the doomed unit, as an ineffective leader who misjudged his adversary, Mexico's infamous General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. As author Stout explains, rather than courage, it was Fannin's incompetence as a battlefield commander that put his men into a position where they had to either surrender or be killed - and it was equally Santa Anna's ego and short-sightedness that led him to execute Fannin and his troops.
   
   Fully understanding Clausewitz's dictum that `war is merely politics by another means', Stout goes on to explain how this massacre was integral into galvanizing American public opinion in favor of a war against Mexico.
   Not to be forgotten is Stout's description of the boots-on-the-ground stories of Fannin's men. They came to Texas for various reasons, and with equally various and vague backgrounds, yet were integral to the Texan drive for independence. "Manifest destiny" started here, with men like those under Fannin's command, and Stout does an excellent job documenting it.
   
   Neither pro-nor-con Mexico or America, Jay Stout has written an interesting and sophisticated battle history of a long-forgotten incident that helped Texas win their war of independence. This is well worth reading for both the casual and educational reader of both military and North American history. ! Ole !



2. The author has done American Historians a notable service in writing the definitive work on this usually overlooked episode in American history. The research is thorough, and his writing is excellent.
   
   The center of his story is the massacre of approximately 400 American volunteers from mostly Southern states who went to Texas to assist the Anglo settlers there in winning independence from Mexico. To put this inexcusable event into context, author Stout briefly covers Mexico's history concentrating on the period from Mexico's independence from Spain in 1821 until the Santa Anna dictatorship. Unfortunately, the insurmountable problems faced by people raised in an authoritarian social structure when attempting to form a democracy without any concept of its workings is ignored. On the American side Stout describes the Americans using De Tocqueville's depiction as "freewheeling, free traveling, and hardly constrained by circumstances, class, or borders."
   
   The Spanish and later Mexicans were simply unable to colonize Texas and what later became the American Southwest due to the harshness of the land and the indigenous Indians. Catholicism, being based on authority emanating from an emperor/priest, failed miserably in obtaining converts from non-hierarchial Indian societies, and Spanish and Mexican colonists were unable to conquer the Apaches and Comanches sufficiently to achieve a modicum of security. In this vacuum, Americans settlers began to arrive in large numbers, often in agreement with the Mexican government (like Austin's colony), and by 1836 the population of Texas stood at less than 4,000 Mexicans, and 40,000 Americans including their 4-5,000 slaves. Like it or not, the Americans were probably the world's most deadly predators at the time, and they took over the "Indian problem" and solved it. And as always, population was power, and the immigrant Americans had seized it from a hopelessly corrupt Mexican government.
   
   Author Stout rather accurately describes the main player in the Goliad drama, James Fannin, as incompetent and self-important along with many of the other empresarios who came to Texas to win their fortunes. The same cannot be said for the young volunteers from Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and other states who would pay for their youthful wanderlust with their lives.
   
   Cutting to the quick, Fannin commanded about 250 men at Goliad and was faced by the Mexican General Urrea with a force of approximately 1,000 men including 300 heavy cavalry outfitted like French cuirassiers. Fannin's total army of almost 500 men was spread out in multiple detachments, and the southerly ones under Grant and Johnson were rapidly destroyed by Urrea. He sent a third of his army to Refugio under King and Ward, and this detachment was overrun and eventually captured. Fannin dithered, decided not to go to the Alamo, and after a senseless skirmish, decided to leave Goliad to join Houston. Unfortunately he took with him nine cannon and his rate of march was slowed to two miles per hour. It did not take Urrea long to catch Fannin in the open and surround him. After an afternoon of fighting in which the Americans acquitted themselves honorably and a miserable night, Fannin surrendered his command believing he and his men would be spared. Certainly the foreign officers in Urrea's army thought they would be spared and Urrea made statements to that effect, but the surrender document left the terms up to the Mexican Government -- in essence to Santa Anna.
   
   The Mexican Government, at Santa Anna's bidding, had enacted the Decree of Tornel, stating essentially that all foreign invaders on Mexican soil were to be treated as pirates (e.g. subject to execution.) When Urrea contacted Santa Anna as to the disposition of the prisoners, Santa Anna's reply was to execute Fannin and his men.
   
   The following day, Fannin's survivors of the Battle of Coleto and the prisoners from the other detachments comprising about 400 men were shot down or otherwise dispatched in four groups including the officers who were killed separately. The only men spared were those useful to the Mexican Army, namely doctors, nurses and some carpenters. Notably, there was no hesitation on the part of the Mexican soldiers to murder the prisoners. Only a very few prisoners escaped by feigning death or running away when the slaughter began.
   
   The author presents both sides in a fair and impartial manner, carefully documenting Fannin's fecklessness and Santa Anna's mendacity. The cries of "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" propelled Houston's force to victory at San Jacinto, but revisionists have carefully deleted the Goliad cry as not wanting to draw attention to Fannin's incompetence and Mexican brutality. This book brings the story home in an scholarly fashion to the benefit of all.



3. Stout has penned a well written book about an important but often overlooked part of the Texas Revolution. The Slaughter at Goliad is as important, or more so, as what happened at Alamo in explaining the type of characters who were leading revolution in Texas.
   
   The title is quite fair; it was a slaughter by the Mexican forces ordered by the shame of Mexico, Santa Anna. Even today, Mexican school textbooks teach the history of Santa Anna as largely an embarrassment and betrayal of the national history.



4. Coming from a surprising source, the Naval Institute Press, a non-profit arm of the U. S. Naval Institute primarily dedicated to publishing books about modern naval and aircraft history, Jay Stout's study of the Goliad massacre of 1836 is a balanced and well-written work, one that advances our understanding of the historical roots of Texas. While the massacre of Texan revolutionaries and American volunteers at Goliad occurred just a short time after the Mexican defeat of the Texans at the Alamo, it is the latter that is well-remembered, and is an icon and the former that is little-known and far less remembered, even in Texas. Who hears "Remember Goliad," although some Texans shouted it at the Battle of San Jacinto, and while Bowie, Crockett and Travis are revered names, Fannin is forgotten.
   
   The words in the book's title are carefully selected, from "slaughter" to "massacre" to the number of victims at 400, to "volunteers." At Goliad on March 26, 1836, nearly three weeks after the fall of the Alamo, 400 unarmed captives were slaughtered under the orders of the notorious Mexican commander and dictator Santa Anna. The rebels had been fighting for Texas independence from Mexico, and regarded by the Mexican leader as pirates, and as such deserved no quarter. Stout tells the story in a narrative manner, sparing no criticism for the mismanagement and terrible leadership on the Texas side. Much historical background, analysis and evaluation is interspersed along the way, something Stout must have learned to do during his time as a defense industry analyst and Marine Corps fighter pilot, experiences clearly in play in the narrative.
   
   The steps leading to the Goliad massacre are a typical military tale of overwhelming force, better led, defeating a ragtag army much more poorly commanded. The professional Mexican Army under Gen. Jose de Urrea, after some initial losses, rather easily defeated the mixed bag of volunteers at Coleto Creek near the presidio at La Bahia. The volunteers who had come to Texas from the United States were fighting under the uninspired and sometimes inept leadership of West Point dropout Col. James Fannin, a man who bragged his way into Texas leadership, possibly after fleeing bad debts in the Georgia. On the part of Fannin and his captives, there was reason to believe from the terms of surrender that they would be paroled out of Texas. About 200 more captive soldiers eventually joined Fannin's forces. On direct orders from Antonio López de Santa Anna, they were virtually all massacred on March 27, 1836. Only a handful of protected doctors treating Mexican wounded, and a few lucky escapees, managed to survive.
   
   Despite leadership on the Texas side found wanting, from the provisional government to Col. Fannin, it is clear from this study that the true stain of inhumanity belongs on the side of Mexico. The effect on Sam Houston and his forces, leading to the eventual defeat of the Mexican troops and the capture of Santa Anna is also examined. Stout addresses the rationales given for justifying such barbarism against fellow human beings, and finds them wanting. The author also minutely examines the doomed American leader, Fannin, whose errors in tactics and strategy, and lack of leadership, in short, his incompetence, caused him to be placed in the surrender or die position. Despite such incompetence, Fannin died bravely, and it is the author's conclusion that his memory deserves better.
   
   There are terrific vignettes about the survivors of the massacre, their harrowing escapes, and their later lives. In fact, one gets a good picture of the soldiers and what brought them to then godforsaken Texas to fight in the first place. The cruelty of Santa Anna, who had nine lives if anyone ever did, is clearly drawn in his monumental corruption, egotistical behavior, and ultimate miscalculation, even though he is not present for the direct action that dominates the book. The author shows how his later attempts to deny responsibility for the massacre fails in the cold light of history. As well, the legendary "angel" of Goliad, the camp follower who contributed to the saving of several soldiers' lives is an important lesson in how condemnation should never apply to all members of a nation for the villainous actions of some. This reviewer found the Epilogue section challenging his assumptions in its examination of the notion that revenge for the Goliad massacre was the catalyst for the ultimate defeat of Santa Anna's forces, of what might have happened had Fannin's forces survived, and why, through shame, Texas chose to virtually ignore the sacrifice of the men at Goliad for virtually a century (it wasn't until 1938 that a monument was built on the site).
   
   This book contains useful maps, photos of re-enactors at Goliad, extensive endnotes, a complete bibliography and a useful index. Those interested in an in-depth study and those interested in a good introduction to this book will find it valuable, and it should be the standard reference work on the subject for some time. Remember Goliad!



5. As every Texas school child who takes the obligatory Texas history course in junior high school knows, "Remember the Alamo; remember Goliad!" was the battle cry of the victorious Texas army at the decisive battle of San Jacinto in which Texas won its independence from Mexico. The massacres committed by the Mexican troops at the Alamo and Goliad became rallying points for the Texas rebels in their improbable victory over Santa Anna's army. Of course, everyone knows about the battle of the Alamo, at least the romanticized version. Goliad has always been more of an afterthought -- present, but less well known. For those who are not satisfied with regarding Goliad as a historical footnote and want to know more, Jay Stout has written what will almost certainly be regarded as the last word on the subject. The book is so dense with descriptions of events, biographical sketches, and historical details that there simply can't be much left to say. Not only does Lt. Col. Stout cover the battle itself, along with the run-up to it and its aftermath, but also he sets the stage with an indepth analysis of the historical forces at work in Texas, the rest of Mexico, and the United States to place the events at Goliad in context. Finally, with his keen miltary historian's analytical insight, Lt. Col. Stout focuses on the stunning incompetence of the military leadership on both sides. That is something that certainly gets short shrift in the conventional wisdom of the Texas revolution and is the book's major revelation.
   
   This book is probably not for the casual reader, however. It is clearly the product of prodigious research, which is reflected in the unusually high density of factual content. Absorbing all of this information requires a commitment on the part of the reader that may exceed the level of interest of some potential audiences. Fortunately, Stout's lively writing style, which comes through in at least parts of the text, prevents the manuscript from becoming dreary. (Interestingly, there seem to be different voices in various parts of the text. One suspects that the author's natural style was at times stifled by the intrusion of an overly zealous editor. Such can be the lot of wordsmiths.)
   
   In summary, the book is a remarkable achievement, and readers who invest the necessary energy will be amply rewarded.

2 comments about Loving in the War Years: Lo Que Nunca Paso por Sus Labios (South End Press Classics Series) (English and Spanish Edition).

1. This is a classic text in Chicana Feminist literature and in Gender Studies. In the early 1980's, Moraga was at the forefront of feminist theory by U.S. Women of Color which attempted to put issues of racial and ethnic identity in dialogue with issues of feminism and sexuality. Moraga not only critiques the racial and ethnic oppression practiced by mainstrem society, but she bravely critiques the gender opression practiced within Chicano/a communities as well. A "must" for anyone interested in the intesection of race, gender, sexuality and culture. Her moving and brutally honest work brings together essays, stories and poems, both personal and analytical, in a collage that breaks down the barriers between genres as well as between political ideologies. A very powerful book.



2. Moraga's LOVING IN THE WAR YEARS is a classic in Chicana literature indeed. However, the new edition just doesn't cut it. The new essays are interesting to read, but they are not as compelling as the original text. Definitely worth buying, but certainly disappointing as far as "updating" the book.

5 comments about Down the Santa Fe Trail and into Mexico: The Diary of Susan Shelby Magoffin, 1846-1847 (Yale Western Americana Paperbound, Yw-3.).

1. It is with some awe in my own breast that I write a review for this remarkable little book, which is a "Historical Diary" and therefore of importance to those who would study history from the human element rather than strictly through footnotes. I offer a quote taken from her that struck me as one of the most unique I have heard uttered - flowing from the mind through the pen and on to posterity from of one of the Pioneers; the raw honesty springing from the personal epic she never designed for others other than family to ever see:
   
   "There is such Independence, so much free, uncontaminated air, which impregnates the mind, the feelings, nay, every thought, with purity. I breathe free without that oppression and uneasiness felt in the gossiping circles felt in the settled home."
   
   The writer is not polished; but her work was never intended to be published. What makes it so intriguing is that she managed to capture the moment, the time, complete with names, descriptions of the country and the peoples as she was thoughtfully living it, something most of us would either not think of doing, or be distracted in the monumental tasks of everyday work in such an environment. Which brings me to the crux of the matter in a hurry: this woman, though very young, was educated, had married a mature, much older man man who had a thriving, though fraught with danger Trade business established on the fringes of the frontiers. She was pampered throughout the journey; yet never seemed to take it for granted. As a result, she could write enthusiastically of events and gather wildflowers at will, almost as a scientific mode arising unintentioned from the moment; this free, unencumbered freedom from heavy responsibility obviously was one of the things that allowed her to devote her time, energy and full attention to matters of the day that were happening around her, while her servants did the mundane work. This alertness is felt throughout the book, even in the midst of the terror of Mexican and Indian attacks that came within miles of their supply train. I don't know how much of this she went back and wrote with a steadier hand, but it appears that she was in full self-control at all times, even during these times of high stress.
   
   Her devotion to her husband is genuine, and is felt in a way much different than many diaries I have read. It seems as though their union was one of love, companionship; yet comprised of a strong sense of individualism, another idea that was rare within that era of female domination. She describes the grass, the cold, sweet limestone water, the suffering of the animals when lack of feed and water arose - it made no difference - the wagons must travel on.
   
   In short, she wrote what is possibly one of the most accurate, historical accountings, unembellished of the Santa Fe Trail at that time simply because she didn't know she was doing it.
   
   If you love old Southwest history, American Frontier History of any kind, you will enjoy this book.



2. Rarely, even a dedicated bookworm, who has imbibed innumerable books on a plethora of subjects, encounters a story where a narrator's voice becomes alive, distinct and unique. Susan Shelby Magoffin's diary, from 1846-1847, reveals a young American woman wise beyond her years, a delightful encounter between author and reader. The hardships of the journey down the Santa Fe Trail and into Mexico exacted a severe toll on Susan's health - she died at 28. But what a richly lived life this intelligent, finely observant individual had. Her diary expands beyond the confines of its subject matter, to a larger relevance of what a gift it is to look through another's eyes, into their consciousness from long ago, share for awhile their intimate world.
   
   There is one drawback to this memoir: the totally heavy-handed editing of Susan's diary in the 1920's by the prudish and racist librarian and amateur historian Stella M. Drumm. One can be thankful that Drumm convinced Susan's daughter to allow publication of the diary, but at what cost! At least what remains has not been lost to history, as appears the case with the rest of Susan's personal journals. Drumm's stilted footnotes, added to the narrative in 1927, are quite detailed, but are outdated compared to the early original diary, and contain several historic inaccuracies. The extensive footnotes intrude on the flow of Susan's voice, and Drumm chose to exclude later writings, so that the diary ends with shocking abruptness. Susan loved her little dog Ring, and constantly mentions him through the early narrative. Suddenly, he is gone from the text, exhibiting yet more of Drumm's censorious editing decisions. It is surprising that as much of Susan's original voice remains, despite chopping by Drumm.
   
   There is room for misunderstanding when scholars attempt to box Susan into a PC corner, but that approach is irrelevant. Susan's comparison of her miscarriage to the birth of an Indian baby in Fort Bent just underlines her sadness that for all her care and an attentive physician, she still lost her baby. The love and grief of her husband and herself are beautifully described, but this is a resilient young woman, proud of her family's pioneer heritage. This and her faith give her the strength to express her curiosity about the world she and her husband explore. There is a wonderful, dry self-irony, Susan mocks herself time and again, though some may misunderstand this, when she is expressing amusement at herself and the "human condition." Encounters between herself and other cultures are not PC, but no one is spared, least of all herself. It is important to keep in mind the historic context in which this personal journal was written; given this, Susan is remarkably open and curious about other cultures, many times comparing Spanish society as being more civilized than what she was familiar with back home. The things she is critical of, she notes honestly, but without the sweeping prejudice typical of her time period. Susan learns to speak Spanish and goes on to attend Mass is southern New Mexico and Mexico, writing respectfully of her host's culture, gardens, faith, and food, to the point of stating in pure Kentucky vernacular of 1847, "I shall make me a recipe book" (p 209).
   
   More importantly, there is a hidden narrative in these pages that Drumm did not succeed in concealing. Susan and her husband were deeply in love, his respect and cherishing of his young bride is apparent, and her delight in this clear. But Susan's voice changes tone after an encounter in Santa Fe with Dona Juliana, who intrudes upon her hospitality, coming into her home and calling her a little girl, rather than the respectful term Senora. This lady was a great "friend" of the Magoffin brothers. Samuel was 45 years old to Susan's 18 when they married months before this journey. He and his older brother James made the trip to Santa Fe many times as prosperous traders, and maintained a house near the plaza. Dona Juliana is like the snake in the grass trying to steal the joy of the couple, deriding the young bride in the guise of compliments to her husband, in a language Susan is later to become fluent in. After this woman from Sam's past shows up one more time, never to visit again, an elderly Spanish lady comes to visit, and informs Susan that she would have to teach her how to handle men better. The ebullient, effervescent lightness departs from Susan's voice after this. Then, William Magoffin, Samuel's much younger brother, arrives in Santa Fe to join their wagon train. After they depart Santa Fe, for weeks on end Susan cares for William while he is sick, not mentioning her husband at all. Susan suffers torments of guilt, stating her flesh is weak and sinful. Was she attracted to William? After one of Susan's tormented entries, there is a blank spot, where only the date remains (perhaps another instance of Drumm's editing). In El Paso, while Sam is attending business, another older woman asks Susan if she is worried that her husband might be with his other senorita. Susan states that she could have "cried her eyes out" (p 212). Although she knows her husband is loyal, it's clear he engaged in other relationships before marrying. In Mexico, Susan suffers through another pregnancy, stating that, "this thing of marrying is not what it is cracked up to be" (p 245). The diary ends soon after this. Susan gets sick and loses another child. Thankfully, she and her husband seem reconciled before the diary's abrupt end, her tone regained some of its earlier delight.
   
   After all his young wife's suffering, Sam sells their wagons and never works in the trade again, though he could have made a fortune. William too never pursues the family business, instead, he becomes a doctor. James, the older brother who helped Americans and Mexicans negotiate the territory of New Mexico, remained in the trade, based in El Paso, and made a fortune. Howard R. Lamar's introduction provides an excellent historic context for the mysterious role of James, and the profitable business of the Santa Fe traders. Lamar mentions that Susan wrote an earlier diary as well, that "filled an entire volume," about her marriage and an "initial honeymoon trip of six months to New York and Philadelphia" (p xi). One can assume that Susan, such a wonderfully communicative and observant person, continued to document her life after the Mexican sojourn. I wish that someone would unearth Susan Hart Shelby Magoffin's earlier volume and publish it, along with any additional diaries.
   
   Superb read (not a mystery) and evocative account of NM history: Death Comes for the Archbishop (Vintage Classics)
   
   Another original and almost lost Western (Montana) voice: The Story Of Mary MacLane & Other Writings
   
   Spanish Perspective: Romance of a Little Village Girl (Paso Por Aqui : Series on the Nuevomexicano Literary Heritage)



3. I found this book communicated very well a sense of actually traveling on the Santa Fe Trail and into Mexico in 1846 and the period of the Mexican American War.
   
   I've seen the book criticized as not scholarly enough and, at the same time, not entertaining enough. While both might apply, the book offers what I found a unique perspective worthy of the relatively quick read.
   
   It would also make the basis of a great movie in the hands of a talented screenwriter. : - )



4. Hampton Sides, author of the well received Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West, writes about this fine diary:
   
   "Susan Shelby Magoffin was a very dedicated, disciplined diarist. [She] and her husband, a veteran Santa Fe Trail merchant, had just married and were on the Santa Fe Trail when they were overtaken and engulfed by nearly 2,000 troops on their way to conquer New Mexico during the Mexican-American War.... She writes about all of this with considerable amounts of wit and charm ...."
   
   The other reviews here have described some of the strengths and weaknesses of this diary and in particular the decisions made by the original editor of the diary, Stell M. Drumm. But for me like Sides, simply reading this diary by an enthusiastic teenager was a great joy.
   
   You can read this diary simply as an adventure story told from a domestic point of view: details of camplife, the road, the prairies, the wildlife, the buffalo, antelope and fierce birds, terrible storms, toilsome mountain passes, "slippy" river passages, and people: traders, soldiers, teamsters, Native Americans from the plains and the pueblos,
   
   Here are a few of my favorite passages:
   
   Magoffin and her husband came from wealthy and religious Kentucky families, both of which had a history of moving west into frontier communities. She had moved from Pennsylvania to Tennessee to Kentucky before her marriage, but was still somewhat sheltered: "It is disagreeable to hear so much swearing, the animals are unruly 'tis true and worries the patience of their drivers, but I scarcely think they need to be so profane."
   
   in 1846, Samuel Magoffin and his brother James had been involved in the Santa Fe trade, which linked the United States (through Missouri) and Mexico (through Santa Fe), for almost two decades. The Magoffins had economic ties that spread northeast to New York, where Samuel and Susan honeymooned, and south to Chihuahua and Saltillo, where the couple planned to travel.
   
   Magoffin wrote her diary to share with her family back home; she clearly adored her husband and called him "mi alma" throughout. "My journal tells a story tonight different from what it has ever done before" she writes in her first entry: she recognizes the benefits of their wealth, her tent was "a grand affair indeed," and she calls herself a "wandering princess". She clearly appreciated her servants, and Ring, her dog.
   
   To an extent her diary is based on the format of Gregg's Commerce of the Prairies, or, The Journal of a Santa Fé trader, 1831-1839, which she clearly had read: "Passed a great many buffalo (some thousands) ... very ugly, ill-shapen things with their long shaggy hair over their heads and the great hump on their backs...."
   
   Her party catches up with the US Army at Bent's Fort in southeastern Colorado. She was impressed with the prevalence of gambling by the soldiers and other male denizens of the Fort, including the presence of "a regular race track," "the cackling of chickens" for cock-fighting, and "a regularly established billiard room!"
   
   She miscarries at the Fort: "In a few short months I should have been a happy mother and made the heart of a father glad. [The miscarriage is "the ruling hand of a mighty Providence" but "he does not leave us comfortless!" She notes that an Indian woman at the fort "gave birth to a fine healthy baby." The woman "went to the River and bathed herself and it [the baby soon after it was born]. No doubt many ladies in civilized life are ruined by too careful treatments during childbirth, for this custom of the hethen is not known to be disadvantageous, but it is a 'hethenish custom.'"
   
   At Mora, she tempers her original negative opinion of Mexican: "I did think the Mexicans were as void of refinement, judgement & c.[ulture] as the dumb animals till I heard one of them say "bonita muchachita" [pretty little girl]! And now I have reason and certainly a good one for changing my opinion; they are certainly a very quick and intelligent people."
   
   At Santa Fe she meets Barcelo, aka Doña Tules: "the principal monte-bank keeper in Santa Fé, a stately dame of a certain age, the possessor of a portion of that shrewd sense and fascinating manner necessary to allure the wayward, inexperienced youth to the hall of final ruin." She also critiques a priest: [he] "neither preached nor prayed, leaving each one to pray for himself; he repeated some Latin neither understood by himself or his hearers."
   
   The Magoffins left Santa Fe a few days after the Army and meets "the Pueblos or descendants of the original inhabitants - the principal cultivators of the soil...." As a traders wife, she notes: "We can buy in the States the filled bottles for three or four dollars a dozen, drink the liquor, and then sell the empty bottles for six dollars per doz."
   
   The war continued around them and in January, 1847 she writes: the population of New Mexico was "rising between us and Santa Fe...and in truth we are flying before them." On February 1, 1847, she wonders if she would "ever get home again?"
   
   On the lower Rio Grande, she writes: "I'll be rather careful walking out. The Indian is a wily man and one cannot be too precausious when in his territory."
   
   These short extracts give a flavor of a very human and very intersting young woman on an adventure of her lifetime.
   
   Robert C. Ross 2009
   
   Addendum: The New Mexico State Historian has put together a timeline of her life; link in first Comment.
   
   Chronology
   
   July 30, 1827: Susan Shelby born near Danville, Kentucky.
   November 25, 1845: Susan Shelby and Samuel Magoffin marry.
   June 10, 1846: Magoffins leave Independence, Missouri, to travel "Down the Santa Fe Trail and into Mexico."
   July 26, 1846: Magoffins arrive at Bent's Fort.
   July 31, 1846: Susan Magoffin suffers miscarriage.
   August 7, 1846: Magoffins leave Bent's Fort.
   August 31, 1846: Magoffins arrive in Santa Fe.
   October 7, 1846: Magoffins leave Santa Fe.
   Mid to late October, 1846: Magoffins arrive in San Gabriel.
   Late January, 1847: Magoffins leave San Gabriel.
   September 8, 1847: Susan Shelby Magoffin's journal ends.
   1855: Susan Shelby Magoffin dies.
   
   B.



5. This is a journal of real American history, written by a young and insightful woman. It is short and fun to live vicariously the adventurous journey of Susan Magoffin. Unfortunatly, she contracted malaria on her journey and there are gaps in her journal due to her illness. Also, she was fearful that her diary would fall into the hands of the enemy, and so left out real significant information. I would recommend this reading to anyone who is interested in American History, especially of the South West.

5 comments about Edge of Battle.

1. Edge of Battle CD: A Novel
   
   This was my seventh Dale Brown audiobook, and in all fairness to the author, my single star rating has nothing to do with the book content. In fact, I never completed even one CD. Anyone listening to this book through a headset will go nuts adjusting the volume control to keep up with the constant changing in voice level from screaming loud commands in Spanish to a low whisper.
   
   Dale, next time don't let your hard work crash on takeoff because of a poor reader like Michael McShane, or at least spend a little money editing the audio volume.



2. This is a typical story by Dale Brown. You can depend on lots of action. Even some of the bad guys get eliminated.



3. Dale has written some good books like, Battle Born, Silver Tower, Angels and Demons, and Deception Point.
   This was not very good.



4. I'm about to give up on the audiobook version of "Edge of Battle." What keeps me hanging in there is the relevant and important topic of border control and the fact that the story is set in a location that fascinates me--the Southeast California/Southwest Arizona desert. But the story is so, so, so...implausible and there is/are no central characters about whom you come to care about and whose fate you want to watch unfold. In addition, listening to the audiobook, some of the characters' voices are so grating and unpleasant to listen to. I like Dale Brown's stories, usually, but this one, for me, is one to suffer through, if that.



5. Just finished listening to the Unabridged Audio book Edge of Battle by Dale Brown. Generally, I like Dale Brown's works, but, this book was simply too long with tooooooo little action. Many many long long long dialogs (a radio DJ making speeches) that hammer the same point over and over.
   
   Very little action, lots of talking. This would have been much better if it had been abridged from the current 12 CDs down to about 4 CDs. Obviously, not one of my favorite books.

5 comments about A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States.

1. Dr Henderson as a history teacher at AUM (Auburn University at Montgomery AL)is the resident expert on South/Central America. As I read his book, most of it came across as very familiar. He had expounded these same thoughts in several of his classes taught at the University. I have had the fortune to take several of them and can assure readers, he is as good a teacher as he is a writer.
   
   What Dr Henderson does is blow away some very old fables created by both sides. He highlights the simple fact that Santa Anna was not the only individual in Mexico who wanted, for whatever reason, a war with the US. A faction riven Mexico, so brillantly illustrated in detail in this book stumbled into a war for many reasons, not least of course was nationalism. Santa Anna simply rode the wave to power and managed to get killed thousands of Mexican conscripts in a war against a smaller tho much better led and equipped foe.
   
   Another fable is the one of the well equipped/trained Mexican army...no one disputes the Mexican soldiers bravery, especially the US army of the time but no one talks about the quality of the Mexican forces themselves. American regulars far outmatched their opponents in every manner. American militia units also performed better than then Mexican opponents (of course the Americans were all volunteers) The American officers also were generally of better quality and only in the engineers were the Mexicans on par with their enemies. Equipment goes without saying, in every aspect the Americans had at least equal (cavalry wpns/infantry muskets) and in artillery, naval power, logestics-the Americans dominated their enemies.
   
   American politicans too get their comeuppance, Polk is aptly labeled the chief instigator of the actual war. His goal of controlling Texas and northern Mexico was most likely one he had of doing peacefully, but he did not back down when the threat of bloodshed was poised.
   
   Quite rightly, Dr Henderon stays on the political side of the war. The military aspects have been done to death and anyone with even a passing knowledge of the war knows it was an excellent example of a military campaign. For those wanting to know backgrounds of such an event, this book will both indulge and surprise you.
   
   He also has several other books on Mexico including the Mexico Reader. They are all worth the time to find and read!



2. An excellent book about how the Mexican-American War took place. The author shows how the politics and evolution of both countries resulted in the war of 1846-1847. Mexico and her politicians knew they were going to lose the war, but because of stubborness and pride, they decided on the confrontation with the Americans. Polk pursued the expansion of the country out of a Manifest Destiny belief. Little of the writing is on the war itself, 95% of the book is the politics that brought about the war. I commend the author on going against the trend of writing about battles, and focusing instead on why both parties found themselves at war.
   
   This is a nice informative read about the war. The author research his topic well and made it very readable. For those interested in this long forgotten war, this is a nice book.



3. How too see and compregend the history two great nations, that were in the begining of they independence to their war in the middle of the 19 century. The political, cultural and economical pats that bout nations took, were the sense of how the present of this contryes are now day's. (Sorry for mi spelling).
   
   Carlos Méndez
   Monterrey, México.



4. I think I chose well. The book may appear short, but powerful and objective in every phrase and paragragh. I have read some of Latin America's history of those years, and this book simply state the points as I think it was. The author clearly explain the chaotic situation in Mexico Affairs, a typical state of most hispanic countries, inherited from the spaniards, with a dominant Catholic Church, racial diversity, most people poor and uneducated, with different factions trying to take power and an economy struggling to survive. Totally different was the situation of the United States: politically stable, they knew what they want for their country and people and with a more balanced society in almost every sense. Despite the later, this is a war that the United States, until this day, have not good memories because it aggresively pursued its self-interest and took advantage of the pathetic condition of Mexico...but it was evident too that Mexico was screaming for this to happen, they just harvest its misfortune. A good book, an interesting story with peculiar personalities like Santa Anna and interesting places to know like the Chapultepec Castle.



5. Henderson's book gives a new viewpoint to the Mexican American War, looking not only at the decade leading up to war, but long before that, particularly the colonial roots of many of Mexico's problems. His first few chapters are excellent in laying out a framework with which to understand why Mexico lost Texas, why they were unable to stop it, and political issues that plagued them through the war itself. The book gets progressively weaker, however, as Henderson frequently asserts viewpoints without providing evidence or arguments to support them. This is a serious oversight in an otherwise excellent book. His overall thesis is sound, though poorly supported. The history largely speaks for itself, but that is all the more reason for Henderson to provide even a few sentences towards arguing more salient points. The end of the book did little to tie things together, and brought up entirely new assertions regarding the annexation of Texas and the U.S. Civil War which could have been interesting, but again, were not explained or explored, merely asserted.
   
   Overall, I'd say the book is a good as an undergraduate text or good for those wishing to get a different perspective on the war. To more fully explore the assertions made, however, would require more extensive reading.

5 comments about So Far from God: The U.S. War With Mexico, 1846-1848.

1. There have been many war crimes committed by the United States throughout its history, but the war with Mexico in the mid 1840's has been one that is almost completely unknown. It is not mentioned in debates on the ethics of pre-emptive war, nor discussed much at all in the history books (but thankfully this is changing). This book gives the reader a view of the U.S.-Mexico war from the standpoint of a military historian, and does so in a manner that is free from the jingoism that is present in much of contemporary historical analysis of U.S. foreign policy. If one is not an expert in the history of the time, as is the case for this reviewer, one cannot attest to the accuracy of the author's account. However, the author gives references for those readers who need more in-depth coverage. The historical analysis of the U.S.-Mexico war, as is the case for all such analysis of U.S. foreign policy, has become the most important issue of the time. This importance has as its root the need for accurate information, and the dire need for authors who are honest and objective in their analysis. This does not mean that historians must be free from bias, for this is both impossible and in fact deleterious for any kind of analysis. But it does mean that authors must not suppress facts that conflict with their worldviews.
   
   Whatever its historical accuracy, this book is captivating reading, due mostly to the author's writing style and his ability to make the important battles come alive in the reader's imagination. Warfare was more "in your face" at this time, in spite of the use of artillery that at the present time makes conflict more anonymous and therefore the pricking of conscience more rare. And as the author notes, information traveled a lot more slowly from the battlefield to the White House at the time. One can conclude that this gave commanders much more leeway in making battlefield decisions and more freedom in indulging themselves in their own strategic idiosyncrasies.
   
   There are many fascinating facts in this book that may surprise readers new to this time in history. One of these concerns the tension between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon territory. Another is that the death rate in this war was the greatest of any war in U.S. history. Still another was the actual occupation of Mexico City, and this being done with a surprisingly small number of troops. The jingoism and false patriotism of the time though was similar to what we are now experiencing with the war with Iraq. The Hobsonian "passion of the spectator, the inciter, the backer, but not of the fighter" was in play then as much as it is now, unfortunately.
   
   Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, and other commanders who participated in the war are fixtures in history books, to be remembered forever, but the names of the soldiers who served under them are not. The occupation of Mexico City is still celebrated with the Aztec Club, the origin of which is discussed in the book, and whose members still proudly celebrate the heritage and history of the carnage against the citizens of Mexico City. Ulysses S. Grant can be remembered as one of the few leaders of notoriety who opposed the war, and as brought out in the book, he referred to it as "the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" as "instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies." The historical parallels with today are striking, giving one more reason, beyond pure curiosity, for making this book, and others like it that discuss the U.S.-Mexico war, as being one that should be studied in detail. The author is correct when he says in the introduction that this time should not be "relegated to the attic of memory."



2. Interest in the war with Mexico fluctuates from low to none. Most authors simply do not consider this war as anything but a precursor to the American Civil War. These histories focus not on this war but on the junior officers that were important in the next one. This book focuses on the War with Mexico as a stand-alone event and as part of America's history. In doing so, the book is both unique and important. John S. D. Eisenhower is an excellent writer and a respected historian with a number of excellent books to his credit. This is one of his better ones and could be the best overview of this war. It is readable, intelligent and accurate with the right amount of looking forward to 1861.



3. Any war is a complicated equation, requiring multiple authors and perspectives. In this case, reviewing the Mexican colonial period and revolution and early American Republic history are all worthwhile in order to better understand where the Mexican War fits within the bigger picture of North American development in the early to mid-1800s.
   
   Within the parameters of the subject matter covered in this book, the author does an excellent job of helping us understand the American political environment as it affects the instigation and prosecution of the war. This provides an excellent background against which the war itself plays out. The author colors in this background with stories of the main players, each army's expedition, and the major outcomes of each battle. Battle descriptions are tasteful and concise with no hint of jingoism or derogation of Mexico, its military leaders, or its people.
   
   In conclusion, this book is well-written and the author makes history come alive, which is a rare skill for an historian. The book should be a must-read for anybody interested in studying 19th Century American history.



4. This is a very readable summary history of the war, told in a straightforward style. I do have my usual criticism of such histories: inadequate maps.



5. This book is a good introduction to the Mexican War for those who are relatively new to the subject matter, as I was. You will come away feeling you know about the events of the war. I was a little dissapointed, however, in the relative lack of political context around the war. The author injects little snippets here and there of the political context, but it is very limited and fragmented. And, what there is tends to focus more on the personal fueds between and among generals and politicians, which is mostly unnecessary and distracting.
   
   There are some very interesting political and cultural questions surrounding this "small" war that have enormous implications. For example, the clear connection between expansionism and the growing slavery dispute between north and south. What about the extraordinary fact that it was at heart a war of conquer and conquest of territory? What of the political debate between Democrats who wanted to annex all of Mexico to the U.S. and Whigs who were against the acquisition of any new territory at all?
   
   Eisenhower gets fairly detailed on individual military battles and the lead-up to those battles, and he is quite good at this. But, he could have removed most of the unnecessary information on personal squabbles and replaced it with more substantive political context.
   
   My other main criticism is that he seems to miss some great opportunities to delve into the ground-level conditions of the war. He makes the very interesting statement that the casualty rate of this war was greater than any other U.S. war before or since, including the Civil War. That's a profound fact. But, he fails to expand on that and really give the reader a sense of this collective experience on the troops. In this book the brutality and hardship of the war seem trivial. There's no hard-hitting prose to make it really hit home.
   
   Aside from my significant gripes with the book, it still is a good overview of the war itself. It was entertaining and interesting enough keep the pages turning, and by the end of the book I was glad to have read it. Three Stars.

2 comments about War of a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the U.S.-Mexican War (The Lamar Series in Western History).

1. When I was taking a course on U.S. Military History for my masters degree, there was one war for which a book was conspicuously absent from the syllabus: The U.S.-Mexico War. When I asked my professor about it, he informed me that he hadn't found a good book that covered some unusual aspect of the war to fit in with the other readings for the class.
   
   That book is now here.
   
   In War of a Thousand Deserts, Brian DeLay takes on a little known subject from an often neglected period in American history--the effect that Indian raids in northern Mexico had on the U.S. War with that nation. His conclusions about such topics as whether Comanche raids were conducted simply for material gain or also vengeance, or that such raids were as essential a component in the lead-up to the war as any political or expansionist motivations, are backed up by extensive research and pages of data. Professor DeLay is obviously a very careful and conscientious investigator, as evidenced by the outstanding material presented in the appendix.
   
   But just as impressive is DeLay's writing style, which avoids the dryness of many scholarly works at this level and makes the story as enjoyable to read as it is informative. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in U.S., Indian, Mexican, or military history, as well as anyone simply looking for a good read.



2. The description above is from a Mexican official, Jose Maria Sanchez, writing in 1830 about the North Americans flooding into Texas (then a Mexican state). Manuel Mier y Teran also noted the North Americans' contempt for Mexican laws and refusal to learn the language. The Mexicans clearly saw the threat to their sovereignty, and outlawed immigration from the north.
   
   However, the Mexicans were unable to stop the eventuality they clearly foresaw. The Mexican North was a "thousand deserts", laid waste by Comanche raids, terrifying attacks of up to 1,000 warriors who could travel 100 miles a day. Roiling internal politics and a poor economy meant that Mexico did not protect its north from the norteamericano or Indian menaces. American and Mexican willingness to turn a blind eye to buying branded animals created a ready market for stolen livestock.
   
   The next time I hear someone extolling Indian simplicity and virtue, I will grit my teeth. The Comanches were renowned for their gratuitous cruelty and devotion to vengeance and retribution, leaving behind "bellowing farm animals dragging their guts behind them",slaughtered noncombatants, some burned alive, and wholesale destruction of grain stocks and wells poisoned with corpses. Because Texans appear to have matched Comanches for ferocity, most of these raids were directed into the Mexico, even as far south as San Luis Potosi and Tamaulipas, victimizing people who were no conceivable threat. Warriors would engage in a scorched earth campaign (as opposed to merely efficiently stealing animals) even when this put them in danger by giving defenders time to organize. There was plenty to seek vengeance for. For instance, in 1846, James Kirker, an American, led a party which slaughtered and scalped 130 unarmed Chiricahua Apaches in Galeana, Chihuahua, to general acclaim from the Mexican populace, an incident which discredited Apache voices advocating peace. All the while, of course, American politicians (especially those looking to expand slave territories)were observing these events with interest, realizing that the Indian raids helped create the opportunity for the United States to acquire northern Mexico, by purchase or conquest.
   
   Professor DeLay's gripping book is full of these telling insights. I read this based on a recommendation from Larry McMurtry in The New York Review of Books. Who better to recommend readings on the American Southwest during this period?

5 comments about Zachary Taylor: The American Presidents Series: The 12th President, 1849-1850.

1. John S. D. Eisenhower's biography of Zachary Taylor is the latest in Arthur Schlesinger's "The American Presidents Series." With some good research, Eisenhower presents us with a solid biography of America's twelfth president. As Taylor served only 16 months, he is often ignored when discussing the pantheon of American Presidents. Nonetheless, Eisenhower states that Taylor's presidency was a successful one (i.e. during his term, the Compromise of 1850 was brokered). Had Taylor lived, Eisenhower claims, the Civil War might have been averted. While I disagree with many of his premises (the Compromise of 1850 was brokered primarily by an ancient Henry Clay, and the Civil War, by 1850, was something of an inevitability), the short biography makes a good read.
   
   But while Eisenhower's portrayal of Taylor is solid, his description of Polk leaves something to be desired. As a military man (John S. D. Eisenhower is the son of the famous World War II general, and attained the rank of brigadier general himself), one would naturally expect Eisenhower to have some animosity towards politicians. However, he takes it above and beyond in his characterization of President Polk. As Polk was a career politician, Eisenhower dismisses out of hand the idea that Polk would have any idea of how to manage or handle the war with Mexico. While certainly Polk was not a tactical genius, to simply dismiss him out of hand is beneath Eisenhower's profession as a historian. In addition, he makes absurd and absolutist claims regarding Polk's position on issues of the day. For example, on page 61, Eisenhower states that Taylor's victory at Monterrey "would induce the Mexican government to settle for a negotiated peace, conceding all the Mexican territory that Polk coveted." Eisenhower should know Polk did not covet all the Mexican territory. While certainly some men in the president's party did want all of Mexico, President Polk did not. This is just one small example of numerous other denigrations of Polk. All in all, such impugnments are below Eisenhower.
   
   For a truly excellent biography of the 11th American President, I recommend Walter R. Borneman's Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America.
   
   In the end, if you are looking for a quick biography of Taylor or to brush up on your history, you can't go wrong with this book. However, if you want a more detailed and fairer description of Zachary Taylor and the era, there are plenty of other excellent biographies out there.



2. You can not find a lot of books about Taylor. This is a good one. The question it leaves one with is how would have Taylor handled the Slave issue. He was from the South but I think he would have worked to do away with slavely. We will never know.



3. Usually the presidents between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln are all lumped together as failures. While some just before the Civil War were, there were some very interesting stories that sadly never came to fruition. Zachary Taylor is one of those presidents. A strong leader and a national here, he died just as the country was hitting that vital cross roads between reconciliation and War. Taylor's military career was equally impressive and again he was a key player in one of our lesser known events, the Mexican/American War
   
   John Eisenhower is a sharp and crisp writer who does a wonderful job evoking the era and the passions that drove on not only a professional and political level, but also on a personal level. A book well worth reading!



4. "Zachary Taylor" by John Eisenhower is a good introduction for anyone who wants to learn more about Zachary Taylor, US President from 1849-1850.
   
   The book covers areas of Taylor's life, including:
   
   1. Birth in Virginia and move to Kentucky while still a very young child.
   2. Military career that included important service in the Mexican War.
   3. Happy home life and tragic loss of a daughter.
   4. Encouragements from politicians to run for president.
   5. Presidential campaign and election.
   6. Brief term and premature death.
   7. Analysis of life (family, military, business, politics).
   
   The author comes up with an interesting point - if Taylor were re-elected, the Civil War could have been avoided. Whether or not you agree with the point, one cannot help but wonder.
   
   The book flows freely and is an easy read. The book is a good introduction to President Taylor. However, I am sure there are more comprehensive biographies for readers who wish to learn more.
   
   Recommended.



5. Zachary Taylor served less than a full term in the White House - 16 months. But this brief time belies the full life Zachary Taylor - Old Rough and Ready - spent in the field as a soldier. The book accordingly spends more time detailing his life in the military.
   
   He was born in gentility in Virginia, but his parents shortly afterward moved to Kentucky with a land grant. He entered the military as a first lieutenant. He distinguished himself in two Indian wars in Indiana and Florida, and had to contend with an elusive enemy, and earned the nickname that would follow him all the way to the White House.
   
   What I took from the book: Taylor was widely popular with his troops and public. He actually hated wearing his uniform, and usually appeared rumpled and informal. Underneath, he had a knack for organizing, and whipped his army into shape. Taylor often led by example, disdaining pampered treatment in spite of the fact he was entitled to it.
   
   Taylor's weakness lay in his strength. Because of his insistence on being above party loyalty, no prominent Whigs were appointed to his cabinet. Instead, he had to rely on the advice of men who were second-tier candidates. In his inaugural address, Taylor stated a deference toward Congress in regard to domestic affairs, a notion contrary to his immediate predecessor and his way of handling the legislature.
   
   All in all, our twelfth president comes off rather well.

4 comments about Drug War Zone: Frontline Dispatches from the Streets of El Paso and Juárez.

1. The US Mexico Border is one of the most unique among anthropological spaces. Apart from being bi-national, it is enormously complex in the variety and interplay of cultures and social classes. The area, now affected by a drug war in Mexico, remains "safe" on the US side and anarchic on the Mexcian side. Yet the communities of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez are deeply intertwined and inextricable. In this context, the author delves into the sub-cultures and groups that are part of the drug war. He interviews police officers, drug dealers, border patrol agents and a host of social actors who play out this complex and dangerous drama. The author spends a great deal of time framing the border context and then lets his subjects tell their stories. For those who want to see good anthropology in action, this is a great example. For others, who just want to try to understand what is going on in the trenches of the drug war, the book is indispensible.



2. Campbell, Howard. Drug War Zone: Frontline Dispatches from the Streets of El Paso and Juárez. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009. vi, 310.
   
   Howard Campbell's Drug War Zone: Frontline Dispatches from the Streets of El Paso and Juárez is an ethnographic study which offers multiple points of view that elucidate the complexity of America's "War on Drugs" in relation to narcotics trafficking and violence on the U.S.-Mexico border. Presenting an eclectic array of voices, Campbell illustrates and connects the experiences and agendas of narcotics traffickers and addicts, law enforcement and military officials, and civil participants in various segments of society. Revealing the convergences and divergences between these diverse social groups, Campbell defines the Drug War Zone (DWZ) as a space of collusion and contestation in which drug traffickers and law enforcement conflict, connect, intersect, and interact globally and economically. He writes that the DWZ "is the transnational, fluid cultural space in which contending forces battle over the meaning, value, and control of drugs"(6). Within this space, Campbell brings out the hybridity within the "drug-antidrug" dichotomy by illuminating government officials' complicity with narcotics traffickers, revealing the DWZ as a space in which the two polar opposites merge and become the other through economically motivated negotiation and resistance at both the global and regional-El Paso-Juárez-levels.
   
   Drug War Zone evidences the fallacy of the "War on Drugs" by investigating the complicity between capitalism and narcotics trafficking. Using pseudonyms to represent his subjects, Campbell deconstructs the paradigms that justify U.S. drug policy and verifies how those policies are paradoxically reinforced by the perpetuation of illegality in reference to narcotics and individual choices in which supply and demand necessitate involvement by multiple social actors through various economic determinants. Connecting the local with the global, Campbell offers an excellent post-structuralist view of the global-narcotics economy and its interactions with drug policy enforcement on the border. He writes that
   
   "The Cultural dynamics of border law enforcement operate in relation to both Mexican narco-culture and the larger structures of the Mexican state and civil society (and their U.S. counterparts). Border law enforcement culture thus must be understood as embedded in an overarching political economy, one that reinforces global inequalities and enforces U.S. political and cultural power in relation to Mexico, but that also confronts opposition, resistance, and counterhegemony." (176)
   
   Within this framework Campbell describes the power struggle between the Juárez, Gulf, and Sinaloa cartels of Mexico, and the various law enforcement agencies of both Mexico and the United States. Defining the El Paso- Juárez region as a plaza, or place of contestation over economic access to consumers of narcotics, Campbell's work explains the recent violence in Juarez and exemplifies its roots through interviews, as well as other primary and secondary sources.
   
   Theoretically, Campbell's work connects with Homi K. Bhabha's The Location of Culture in that it reveals the U.S.-Mexico borderlands as a peripheral space in which polemical opposites and hierarchical extremes merge, diverge and simultaneously challenge and conspire with one another for access to and control of power and wealth. Hegemony, counterhegemony, and ambivalent cultural dynamics all interact at the global and local scale within this dynamic. Thus, Campbell's DWZ parallels Bhabha's "third space" of hybridity in that the plaza becomes a space in which the metaphysical borders of constructed legal and cultural meanings are blurred by the economic realities that are created by globalization and neoliberalism themselves. In this vein Campbell's Drug War Zone allows not only for a clear interpretation of the nuances behind the recent violence that plagues Juárez, Mexico, but also allows for a rearticulation of U.S. drug policy, and an introspection into the reasons why the "War on Drugs" is not a realistic solution for the dilemmas posed by the sale and transport of narcotics in North America today.
   
   
   The University of Texas at El Paso Scott C. Comar



3. DRUG WAR ZONE: FRONTLINE DISPATCHES FROM THE STREETS OF EL PASO AND JUAREZ is based on access to the drug smuggling world of the border and studies the drug war through the lives of direct participants. Half the book consists of oral histories from drug traffickers, the other from law enforcement officials. The detail and personal 'insider' viewpoints from both sides make this a 'must' for any library at the college level studying border issues in general and drug law enforcement in particular.



4. A very detailed, gritty look at the ongoing "war" against drugs that takes place primarily on the U.S. Mexico border. The strength of this book most certainly lies in its ability to tell the story from multiple points of view that come from a myriad of players in the drug trafficking realm. Each individual story helps to shed light on the war on drugs in a different way, but in the end, the whole picture is illuminated and presented to the reader in astounding clarity. Every individual involved offers a different perspective or opinion; and when they come together, they offer one of the most comprehensive, complete descriptions available. This book is required reading to anyone, such as myself, who has an insatiable curiosity about the political, criminal, and personal aspects of drug trafficking. Well done Dr. Campbell!

5 comments about A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent.

1. A Country of Vast Designs
   James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent
   By
   Robert W. Merry
   
   James K. Polk was a frail man of diminutive stature who avoided confrontation, however, he was also driven, possessed an all-consuming sense of duty, had comprehensive analytical skills, and was convinced he was a man of destiny. As our 11th president, he has, in many cases, not been remembered as a man of significance, but in reality, he truly was.
   
   Under Mr. Polk's watch, we achieved our westward expansion (later known as "Manifest Destiny"), a dream of many Americans. This was accomplished by completing the annexation of Texas, negotiations with the British over the Oregon Territory, and winning a war with Mexico. The States of Texas, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma became territories of the United States during Mr. Polk's administration. This represents approximately 1/3 (approximately 1.3 million square miles) of today's continental United States (approximately 3.6 million square miles). This also gave us major shorelines and ports on 2 oceans, which played major parts in the historical growth of The United States. It should also be added that before serving, Mr. Polk committed to serving just 1 term and lived up to that commitment. Less than 4 months after he left office, Mr. Polk succumbed to cholera.
   
   Critics of Mr. Polk fault his entry into the Mexican War as contrived and not necessary. According to them, he was overreaching and aggressive in seizing lands from Mexico. It is interesting that they seem to have conveniently forgotten how we obtained our lands from the Indians in the first place.
   
   In "A Country of Vast Designs", Robert W. Merry provides an in depth view of the weaknesses and strengths of this president, his unlikely trip to the Whitehouse and the machinations involved in acquiring this territory. Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Buchanan, John Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, and Santa Anna all play key roles in "A Country of Vast Designs".
   
   From my own perspective, as someone who is a self professed "history nut", I did not know anything about James K. Polk. He first came to my attention when I read "Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West" by Hampton Sides which is a history of Kit Carson. Carson was Mr. Polk's main man in the West rounding up the Indians. During the reading of that book, I began to realize the impact of the Polk presidency. Coincidentally, Robert W. Merry published his book afterward and I knew I had to take a look at it. I'm glad I did.
   
   Polk's legacy is best summed up in the words of Harry Truman "a great president. Said what he intended to do and did it." [1]
   
   I heartily recommend this book.
   
   Sources
   [1] Truman, Harry S. and Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, Letter to Dean Acheson (unsent), August 26, 1960 (University of Missouri Press, 1997), p. 390.
   
   [2] Merry, Robert W., A Country of Vast Designs, James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent (Simon & Schuster, 2009)
   
   [3] [...]: Presidents_of_the_United_States_(1789_1860)



2. I have an avid interest in all American presidents, so I was excited to receive this book as a gift. I knew of James K. Polk, but did not know much about him. He truly was a fascinating president as all four of his presidential goals were put into place, including expanding the US to the Pacific. The focus of the book is the Mexican War, which even today is a controversial subject. Each facet of the war is explored thoroughly and all of the players are well sketched out. The author, Robert Merry, did a fantastic job of researching and describing a subject he admits he knew nothing about before he started the project. The one caveat, well actually two that diminished my enjoyment somewhat were the fact that there is a taint of American arrogance in the writing, as if it were no surprise that the US took over the continent. For me this is too much of reading too much into something that happened in a different time. The other caveat is the unfortunately poor editing at many points. For a history book, it is inexusable that dates are mixed up, even one page to the other. However, overall I recommend the book as a comprehensive look at a president often overlooked.



3. i buy lots of Kindle books but i don't pay more than $9.99 for a hardback or more than 80% of the discounted paperback price for a Kindle edition. Unfortunately therefore my copy of this book has to remain on the Amazon shelf.



4. far too tedious! The reader really does not need to know about EVERY detailed diplomatic aspect of Polk's presidency, or all of the negotiating at the 1843 Balt., MD Dem Convention, etc. Highly detailed, story drags.



5. How many heads of state are responsible for adding over 500,000 square miles to their countries? Polk accomplished this in three different initiatives (Texas, Oregon and California + from the Mexican War.) The expansion is only one of his four main accomplishments in only one term.
   
   Merry describes the difficulties. Polk was beset with people problems. Prominent in his administration were those who aspired to his job. He had friends like Giddeon Pillow who caused him embarrassment. It was a time of adventurers such as John Fremont and Nicholas Trist who, when they were far from Washington, took policy into their own hands. The issue of slavery, on which there was no middle ground, hung over everything.
   
   Why is it that this President with four big accomplishments is so little known? Is it because in dying (not as a martyr) soon after his presidency his rivals were able to seize the conversation and define him early on? Is it because he does not have a legacy of schools, libraries or hospitals bearing his name? In the same vein, is it because he was childless with no descendants to attend meetings, write books or generally keep the flame? Is it that crediting the expansion opens a discussion the Mexican War and its dubious origins? Polk was a (absentee) slave owner. (Merry only mentions this in saying he made a visit to his plantation.) Does extolling Polk open up this national wound?
   
   I was waiting for this very book. Last year I read Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency. Merry's book provides more dimension. While the Borneman is very good, but if you were to chose between the two, this one is a tad longer, but much richer.