5 comments about Heyday: A Novel.

1. Heyday is a novel about America (and to a much lesser degree Europe) in 1848-1849. It is well-written, with a colorful cast of characters and lots of interesting historical facts. But I found the novel to be less than the sum of the parts. It's a mediocre novel.
   
   Why is this? Despite the quality of the writing, the author never made me care about the characters, who always felt like a means to an end. The historical facts often seemed force-fed, jammed into the novel in ways that did not advance the story. (This was particularly true in the first half of the book.) The plot, and especially the ending, felt contrived. Heyday was an interesting story that didn't go anywhere, emotionally, or intellectually, and it didn't give me anything to think about when I was done.
   
   The author has promise; he writes well, and clearly did his homework. If he can learn to tell a story with emotional resonance, his books will be worth seeking out. But this isn't that book.
   
   If you do want to read it, take a look at the second-hand stores; that's where my copy will be.



2. This book covers a lot of territory and contains several plots, no one plot seeming to be higher in priority than another. The book is BUSY.
   Goes from Paris, London, New York City to the West Coast and a few communities in between.
   Gives a good overview of what was going on in this country in 1848, 1849 and the early 1850's.
   My understanding is it is the second book by Kurt Andersen.



3. The movie Forrest Gump was a huge success, even though Forrest ends up in the White House for Congressional Medal of Honor award, Ping Pong Master, etc. Talk about unbelievable coincidence(s)!
   
   What made the movie "work" is it was enjoyable to watch with plenty of historical stuff, and great period music of the time!
   
   We get to see John Lennon on a late night TV show with Forrest playing the straight guy; the tragedy's of the Vietnam War; Apple Computer making millionaires out of its early stock buyers; Nixon's downfall (Watergate) with Forrest saying to security... the flashlight's are keeping him awake!
   
   This book is Forrest Gump II (movie in the future?), enjoy the history and don't read it with a dead serious attitude that can't accept moocho coincidences or history lessons.



4. Realistic non-fiction is one of my favorite genres and I was expecting great things from this book after reading the reviews. I was sorely disappointed. The author puts his main characters in every major event, as well as knowing or meeting every major person of the times. As a result it comes across as contrived and the plot seems forced and predictable as he tries to weave these events together. I found the book frustrating as it attempted to gather sympathy for prostitutes, arsonists, drug addicts, army deserters and alcoholics, while expressing contempt for religion. Also frustrating was the several historical inaccuracies.
   
   The only character in the book I found the slightly interesting was Drumont. Unfortunately even his character was highly unbelievable. His brother is accidently killed by a stuffed penguin during a riot, which Drumont is partly to blame for starting, and as a result becomes blinded by revenge. As a reader we are asked to believe he is able to learn English and track his brother's "killer" across two continents in just a few months time? The eventual meeting between Knowles and Drumont is predictable and anything but climatic.



5. I started this book. I got about 150 pages into it before I gave it up. It just bored me to death. I prefer an author who can really tell a story. Kurt Andersen can't. At least he's not my type of writer.

1 comments about A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign (Modern War Studies).

1. Timothy Johnson's "A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign" gives a detailed history and analysis of one of the most remarkable campaign's in American military history: when General Winfield Scott's tiny army landed on the coast of Mexico in 1847 and then fought its way across hundreds of miles of hostile territory to capture the enemy capital and end the Mexican War. Scott's army included numerous junior officers who less than two decades later would win fame as generals in the American Civil War, including both Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Scott had to overcome not only the Mexican Army but also tepid cooperation from his own government and obstacles thrown up by some of his subordinate commanders. But in the end he achieved a nearly unparalleled victory, albeit one largely forgotten today, its place in American history overshadowed by the events of the Civil War a decade and a half later. In an epilogue, Johnson discusses the influence of Scott's Mexico City campaign on leaders and operations of the Civil War, citing a number of examples that paralleled Scott's methods and goals. Astoundingly, no fewer than 135 veterans of Scott's small army later served as generals during the Civil War, including such famous names as Grant, Lee, Jackson, McClellan, Hooker, Meade, and Longstreet.
   
   Johnson draws upon official reports, memoirs, and numerous contemporary letters and journals -- mostly American, but some Mexican as well -- to build a strong analytical narrarive illuminated by vivid detail.
   
   I am giving this work only four stars instead of five because of the maps. Johnson himself in the introduction states "Maps are crucial to the reader of military history" but the maps in this volume are too small and quite poorly reproduced. (I photocopied the much clearer maps in John Eisenhower's "So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico 1846-1848" for use as a reference when reading Johnson's otherwise exemplary book.) Photographs of various battle sites are even more wretchedly reproduced.

5 comments about The Year of Decision 1846.

1. A great read. Reading this book provided insight into an era of our history that I was not familiar with while filling in gaps and bringing historical characters to life.



2. DeVoto's skills included writing. What writing!
   The year 1846 is the year of decision because so many choice points were passed in 1846 that the future was largely determined. Whatever happened later would be modifications on what was laid out for the actors in 1846.
   If you know a bit of American history, you may want to argue that some other year was more decisive, 1775, maybe, or 1860. Perhaps DeVoto is being arbitrary. But if you read his book, you will recall that other years, whatever you think of them, were far less fertile. He is right.
   One of the difficulties of putting oneself in the shoes of the people moving west is that we don't know, but only guess, what they went through. Here, we learn. Many of them had no clue, but persevered, or died in the process of persevering.
   His extended treatment of the fate of the Donner Party stands for difficulties faced, to some extent, or avoided, by all who went west. The decisions that had to be made--this pass or the desert, wait and go in the spring, split the train or stay together--were decisions of life and death and made with astonishingly little good information.
   
   Some know a bit, a vague bit, of the forced movement of the Mormons. DeVoto tells us how it went and what it meant.
   In addition to the hard facts of history, DeVoto recalls an earlier society. One of his examples is the Stephen Foster songbook. He says we can't understand the society without--and then he makes up a sort of sentence with well-known phrases from Foster's songs. If you remember some of the songs, from school, for example, this makes sense. If you do not, if you're under fifty-five, say, it makes no sense.
   We can learn the nuts and bolts of traveling west in a wagon train; of being absolutely motionless due to weather; terrified of disease; of Indian fighting; of being more or less itinerant battalions of US troops wandering through the Southwest, fighting, threatening, occupying, covering ground, winning and winning. As the epilogue of one of John Wayne's westerns said of the cavalry, where they rode became America.
   Where DeVoto's characters rode became America but not until they rode. In 1845, it was not at all clear what would happen, in 1847, it was clad in iron.
   The reader learns not only about America in this book, but about Americans.
   
   This book ought to be mandatory for citizens. It can't be made so, of course, so energetic recommendations will have to do. One is poorer, much poorer for not having read it.
   
   And, as a bonus, due to his skill it is a fascinating read.



3. Written in 1942 in a style that is at best outdated, this book is a collection of dis-jointed stories that have no real theme. If you are a reader of recently written history books you will be severly disappointed by this recitation of meaningless characters, distractions and lack of action. How DeVoto has managed to take one of the most interesting times in U.S. history and make it so unengaging is staggering.
   
   The publishers of this book have taken an out of date work, slapped a mimimal introduction from Stephen Ambrose in front of it and are hoping to catch the coat tails of Ambrose and the interest of readers of American history. If this one is a success they will probably bring out the rest of the DeVoto trilogy. Great marketing idea, boring book.
   
   I fell for it. Don't waste your money.
   
   PS. I just read a great book, "Six Frigates" by Ian Toll.



4. This book won the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 and would easily win it again today. There is a reason writers and historians have deified Bernard DeVoto's works and this, the first of his trilogy on the early American West, is the reason why: The man can write.
   
   Focusing on the 2 years, 1846 -1847, DeVoto describes the turning point in American history as it was never explained in school. This work is at once poignant, sweeping, hilarious and introspective. If you already know a fair amount about this period, or if this is an introduction to that time, The Year of Decision will not fail you. The Westward movement of the United States, the War with Mexico, the movement of the Mormons to Utah, the Mountain Men, fur trade, election of President Polk, Santa Fe Trail, the Wilmot Proviso and the acquisition of Oregon, California, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico are only a few of the topics that are explained in such detail and with such completeness as to flabbergast.
   
   It takes about 200 pages for the reader to become familiar with, comfortable with, what at first might be seen and a rambling, somewhat esoteric writing style, but hang in there. This is quite a remarkable work, conversationally written and eloquently crafted, which touches more historically significant events in detail than you can ever find anywhere else. This really is DeVoto at his reputation's well deserved best.



5. DeVoto is often entertaining, frequently insulting, but always informative as he takes the reader through one of the most transformational moments in US history.
   
   From President Polk to Pathfinder Fremont to Colonizer Young, DeVoto delights in describing the motivations and context behind the actions that reshaped the United States into a nation with a continental reach. The war with Mexico, the diplomatic wrangling with Britain over Oregon, and the comic-opera "revolution" in California are all described in the context of a single year that defined the shape of the 48 contiguous United States.
   
   This is not an easy book to read; the author demands the attention of the reader as the scene of the action shifts from Washington DC to the Rio Grande to Truckee Lake in a narrative that becomes surprisingly integrated. The journey is well worth the trouble. This is far and away the best history book I have read on this period in history.

4 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. Magoffin was a name familiar to the Mexicans who had trading relations with Susan's husband for years before he married her and took her with him from the states on an expedition to Chihuahua, Mexico. She kept a diary from which she drew her information for the only book I know written by a woman, young and pregnant, whose fate it was to die in her 26th year, at home. Accounts from her perspective at such a crucial time in relations between the United States and Mexico, in a venacular peculiarly her own, make her work one of considerable importance to the serious student of the time. Revealing also are individual encounters with men, some from her own country, and her opinion of Gen. Stephen Watts Kearny, commander of the U.S. Army of the West stationed in Sante Fe. Susan was a young lady of class the exercise of which makes the reader proud, and whose elegance charmed all who came to know her.



2. 
   Many journals of travelers along the Santa Fe (and Oregon and California) Trail have been published, but Susan Magoffin's ranks among the best of them. Susan Magoffin was born of a wealthy family in Kentucky and had recently married the successful Santa Fe trader Samuel Magoffin. They had spent six months on a honeymoon trip to New York and Philadelphia (about which Susan also kept a journal, though to my knowledge it has not been published), and now, two months after their return to Independence, Missouri, she was to accompany her husband on a caravan transporting goods along the Santa Fe Trail to northern Mexico. She was 18 years old.
   
   Magoffin is as charming as any 18 year old could be, and it's a joy for the reader to share her sense of adventure. She is obviously having the time of her life, despite the inconveniences of broken wagon bows and stormy weather. We also get a view of what life was like for typical travelers on the trail. There is also intrigue to a degree: Samuel's older brother James was on a mission for President Polk preceding Stephen Kearny's troops during the initial stages of the Mexican War, and news about James enters the journal at certain points, including once where he was robbed by the Apaches but somehow escaped with his life. After the trading caravan reached Santa Fe, the Magoffins contined on into Mexico, spending time at Chihuahua. The journal ends on September 8, 1847, and does not include her contracting yellow fever at Matamoras where she also gave birth to a son (he died a few days later). The couple then sailed across the Gulf of Mexico to the Mississippi River and to Susan's family in Kentucky. (Susan would live only another eight years, dying of childbirth at age 27.)
   
   It's a wonderful first-hand account. My only complaint is that I wish editor Stella Drumm had identified locations (camping sites, geographic sites, etc.) mentioned by Magoffin in the journal. Other than that, it's a chronicle that can be read often and always seem fresh and exciting. A must-read record of an important and lively adventure.



3. I am an author. I am writing a novel based on my grandmother's life. I'm using this book as a guide to writing her story. She was born in 1863 in Clinton, Iowa and traveled west. The route she took is not know but this book gives a vivid account of the trail and its tribulations and high points.



4. 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.

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

1. Tenia que ser alquien como este reconocido historiador, una persona bien nacida, descendiente nada menos que del legendario Ike, quien les empieza a revelar a los norteamericanos la penosa historia de como se robaron, no encuentro otra palabra peor, la mitad del territorio que en ese entonces era propiedad de la republica mexicana, la cual siendo presa de desordenes internos, atizados por su perfido vecino del norte a traves del alevoso Joel. R. Poinsett, el que hasta el nombre de la flor de nochebuena se robo, fue facil presa del ave de presa que como vecino tenia al norte, yo quiero a los actuales ciudadanos de los estados unidos de norteamerica, me duele en el alma cuando los hieren a los matan,ya sea en Irak o en otro lado, me encantan los Bush, padre e hijo, Reagan, Kennedy y por supuesto, I like Ike, pero aquello que nos hicieron de 1821 a 1847 y en Veracruz con el lunatico de Woodrow Wilson, no tiene perdon de Dios.



2. I had read other reviews about how this book is such a concise and accurate portrait of the US-Mexican American War but I thought it lopsided. He does describe in great detail the movements, strategies and people surrounding the U.S. Army but beyond this there is not much information. There is not much account of the Mexican side and for the most part the Mexican Army comes across as incompetent. Mexican victories in the war are barely examined. US Army conduct seems to be very civil when in fact there was much contempt for the Mexicans by some and many atrocities and civilian casualties. The US soldiers seem to develop a respect for the Mexicans and their cutlture if one judges from this book, enjoying the many "fandangos" along the way to the next battle. Motivations for the war are only shallowly examined. There is no mention of the valuable ports to be won in California, which Polk had set his eyes on. There is one sentence that refers casually to the San Patricio battalion of deserters who fought for the Mexican Army but there is no discussion as to why they deserted or a look at Army moral. He discusses occasionally lack of discipline in the troops but never the causes, except perhaps weariness. Apaches are described as "killing" and "raiding" but Eisenhower seems to show a great deal of compassion on the next page when a US officer must "subdue" the Apaches and manages to have them "brought to the point where they are willing to sign a peace treaty" as if the Apaches only reservation to peace were their beligerence (Andrew Jackson broke between 80-90 treaties with the Native Americans during his presidency.) In this same passage Eisenhower describes how the US soldiers could only "shudder to think" what the fate of captured women might have been, but upon bringing the Apaches out of the mountains he never tells what their actual fate was. We are left shuddering in our imaginations. And the list goes on. The problem is not so much what Eisenhower tells but what he doesn't tell. He gives a famous quote of Ulysses Grant describing the war as " the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker" but we never see the war Grant saw. The worst fatalities encountered in this book are the ones suffered by soldiers during battle. There is no record of the inhumanity that this war brought out in both countries. In the end it is simply a matter of a strong country pitted against an unfortunate weaker country, and the U.S. of course is fortunate enough to be the stronger. Injustice is not in this picture and if it is it is glossed over. If half the detail exercised in describing the geography of battle was given to the examination of politics, or to Mexico's understanding of the war and its battles then this would be a wonderful book. If you are interested in precisely where certain battalions and infantries of the US Army where and when then this is a super book. The physical description is detailed (although not particularly interesting) but the deeper issues that describe the real nature and character of war are virtually untouched and only lightly treated.



3. This book is a must for anyone trying to understand US and Mexican relations today. It is very well reserched yet readable. This period in US history was not one of our finer moments. We are doomed to regret and pay for the actions of our imperialism, in the name of Manifest Destiny, for generations to come.This book helps us understand why we still have a price to pay in 2006.



4. I think that this is a good book about the yankee-mexican war. It shows the political and military problems in both sides, USA and Mexican, and also writes about personal histories, always interesting. It shows clearly also evident, that it's bad business to be neighbour of United States if your are not strong. The different ways of conduct of United States with England ( in Canada and Oregon problem) and with Mexico shows it clearly. Some things are difficult to believe , by example , that in a fight hand to hand only a yankee died and almost three hundred mexican did. but in general, I think that it's a good book for a first sight of that conquest war.
   I remember a film of John Wayne which when he travels to mexican lands and a mexican in a horse come to give him wellcome, John Wayne shoot him and kill. That's the way the yankees ( not americans, because all habitants of America are americans, mexicans too ) did with every country that they can do it, Mexico, Spain ( Puerto Rico, Cuba , Filipinas, etc ), Colombia with Panama Channel, etc.
   And it's very curious how this war is hide of United States films . If one see westerns films and about California, it seems a empty land and nobody knows that it was stealed to mexicans. Fortunately the time is changing and every year more and more mexican people live in that States and, who knows ? When United Stated would be not so strong, another countries made him like he did with others.
   Anyway a good book that respect both fighters, only I miss a complete map with all the land stealed to Mexico ( almost a third of the country ) that reach Canada.



5. 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."

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

1. In "Slaughter at Goliad", Jay Stout recounts the horrific tale of the single largest loss of American warriors until the Civil War. Goliad, Texas, is located only 80 miles from the most famous site of the Texas Revolution, the Alamo. Why is it that many of us have never heard of this place?
   
   Stout begins the book with an abbreviated course on Mexican history, including the rise of the militaristic despot, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. While not directly related to this battle, Santa Anna definitely influenced the massacre. He issued the Tornel Decree declaring anyone who took up arms against Mexico to be a pirate. At the time, the Mexican penalty for piracy was death. The commanding officer, General Jose Urrea, used this document and a letter from Santa Anna to the officer responsible for the slaughter, to justify the actions of his men.
   
   Stout reviews both the strategic context of the 1836 Mexican-Texas relationship and the incentives offered to bands of volunteers, such as the New Orleans Greys, and the Red Rovers from Alabama, who came to the Texas frontier. With the motivations of both sides clearly described, Stout delivers a factual accounting of the final days of these 400 volunteers, including James Walker Fannin's aborted attempt to send a relief column to the Alamo, which was under siege only weeks before these men met their murderous end.
   
   After 120 men held off a Mexican army during the battle of Matamoros, and the 270-person contingent held off a second Mexican army at the Battle of Coleto creek, General Urrea accepted the conditional surrender of Fannin's men. At the end of the Battle of Coleto Creek, scores of Mexicans lay dead or wounded, at an American cost of only 9 dead and a few dozen wounded. Urrea understood the Americans would have continued to inflict grievous harm on his army, so he accepted the conditional surrender terms of the Americans. With these honorable surrender terms in mind, the American prisoners marched back to Goliad under the impression they were to be paroled to return to the United States. At this point, General Urrea's least capable commander received a letter from Santa Anna, setting into motion events that would forever change Texas history.
   
   At the Alamo, 182 Americans gave their lives in pursuit of an independent Texas; almost 400 volunteers paid that same price at Goliad. At the Battle of San Jacinto, less than a month later, the Texan volunteers rallied to the battle cry of "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!" At this battle, General Sam Houston finally defeated Santa Anna, leading to the birth of the Republic of Texas. As time went by, the battle cry was halved to only "Remember the Alamo!" Stout's analysis offers very compelling arguments as to why this event was selectively forgotten from American history.
   
   Stout used many original references, such as diaries of the survivors, for his vividly detailed descriptions of the events. There are also numerous maps and charts to perfectly complement the book's text.
   
   Stout brings to life this horrific event, bringing credit to the brave men who fought and died for Texan Independence. He does these men a great justice by keeping their stories alive. Stout certainly knows how to tell a tale - I couldn't put the book down after I started it. I hope you enjoy this book as much as I did.

5 comments about Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848.

1. The author reports that the Duke of Wellington avidly followed the progress of the Mexican War on a map on his library wall. It would have been useful if the author included this map. For a war that stretched from Kansas to California, from to New Orleans to Mexico City, from Santa Fe to San Diego, only a few inadequate and pitiful maps are included. Although I am reasonably familiar with the Southwest, I was constantly referring to an atlas trying to follow the narrative and almost gave up in frustration half-way through the book. I suggest you acquire a good atlas of the Southwest and Mexico if you buy this book.



2. While there are countless books on the civil war, not many that I have found cover the mexican war quite like this one. It's a page turner, you finish the book knowing more then you did before. Since the victors offten write the history this shows a little of the mexican point of view, not a lot but a bit. I am sure the Mexican point of view would be interesting to read. And what really happed somewhere in the middle. But this book does give insight that was lost in my history classes



3. This is a terrifically interesting history of the US-Mexican War, with the political background to the conflict and the sequence of campaigns brilliantly illuminated by the testimony of participants in the conflict.
   
   However, it is a major drawback -- as mentioned by other reviewers -- that so few maps are included to help the reader better visualize the continental scope of the war, and that what maps do exist are quite general in nature. Only one battle -- Buena Vista -- is mapped, and there isn't even a single map showing the entire area of operations, much less maps of California or the Southwest. I might have rated the book 5 stars except for this problem, although there are other shortcomings.
   
   Whelan offers a fascinating narrative about the competing politicians and generals whose ideological differences and personal jealousies played out amidst the unfolding conflict. For example, I've read several other good histories of this war, but none of them so clearly defined how the Democrat/Whig rivalry permeated the relationships between generals in the field and their civilian superiors in Washington, or how tensions between West Point-educated Whig officers and Democrat volunteer officers spilled over into the conduct of operations.
   
   Some subjects could have been explored in more detail. Wheelan provides very little background on the Mexican political context leading up to the war, and in fact the whole is told largely from an American viewpoint. More material on U.S. political dissenters would have been useful. The influence of the Mexican War on trends and events leading to the Civl War is frequently mentioned, but not discussed at all thoroughly.
   
   In recent years, James K. Polk has emerged from relative obscurity to secure a high reputation as one of America's most successful presidents. In "Invading Mexico," Polk is a rather sinister figure whose greed for rich Mexican territories and dishonest manipulation of the facts leading up to war leave a very bad impression of his moral character. And, of course, the author's intentions are rather clear in offering many precise (if not often stated) parallels between Polk and G. W. Bush in this regard. Wheelan mentions that Polk's late 19th century reputation was much lower than now precisely because of the Mexican War, but provides no contemporary documentation.
   
   It was fascinating to learn that Ulysses Grant believed the Civil War was a "karmic" punishment for US aggression against Mexico.
   
   And a quote from Lt. Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock, "Our people ought to be damned for their impudent arrogance and domineering presumption!" neatly sums up how much of the rest of the world feels about today's only superpower. How little we have changed since 1846...



4. This book is well researched and covers an ignored but fascinating time in American history, but the writing style is simple and lacks a certain sense of authority.



5. If you want to learn indepth material about the Mexican War, get this book. Mr. Wheelen is an excellent writer and the entire book flows together nicely to the point that you will not want to put it down because you will want to know what happens next. Very enjoyable and highly recommended

5 comments about Gone for Soldiers: A Novel of the Mexican War.

1. In this novel, Jeff Shaara takes us back a dozen or more years to the period when US forces invaded Mexico. Many of the main military leaders in the Civil War underwent their individual and collective baptism of fire in the Mexican-American war. Lee and Grant first show the promise that they would later legitimately claim, on a much more bloody battlefield, in this largely forgotten war. Shaara continues to tell a good story well and doesn't seem to have become "bored" (as happens with many writers) with the niche that he seems to have developed so nicely.



2. Jeff Shaara combines history and story telling to bring a remarkable tale of the 1847 Mexican War. Gen Winfield Scott leads an assault at Vera Cruz to crush Santa Anna's uprising and finally put an end to his power in Mexico. The battle scenes are vidily written and explode across the page. What is so fascinating are the combining of Civil War generals Lee, Johnston, Grant and Jackson into this pre-civil war epic. Gen WInfield Scott, of course, was the leader of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War. A mere shell of the great general in this book.



3. Jeff Sharra's "Gone for Soldiers" concerns the Mexican-American War, and could be seen as a prequel for the Civil War trilogy that he and his father wrote, as it deals with some of the Civil War generals earlier in their career (Generals Longstreet, Grant, Jackson, ect.). But this story belongs to Major-General Winfield Scott and his favorite subordinate, engineering captain Robert E. Lee. Scott takes Lee under his wing and teaches Lee all the positive points of inspiring and leading an army, all the lessons that Lee will take with him into the next conflict thirteen years in the future. But for now the Army is in Mexico, and it is expressing America's Manifest Destiny, a series of laws and policies that allowed the U.S. to expand west, often just outright conquering Mexican territories. Scott is dubious at the policy, but carries it out as best as he can, he is after all a great soldier. He is constantly fighting not only the charismatic tyrant Santa Ana (here portrayed as paranoid) but also with his power mad and politically ambitious senior officers. This is a good fictional account (thought I think as close as real as possible) of the little known incident in American history. "Gone For Soldiers" has many rousing action scenes like the Siege of Veracruz, the battle at Cerro Gordo, and the Battle of Chapultepec, and the conquiring of Mexico City. (Some of Zachary Taylor's skermishes are discussed, but this was Scott's show). A thrilling adventure story that should entertain anyone and provide insight to the future Civil War leaders not often seen.



4. .....we were all on the same side. This fine book looks at the Mexican War thru the eyes of, primarily, Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee. Of course, we meet the same characters, again, 15 years later. [By then, Scott was too old for much of an active part, though the strategy he developed was quite valuable to the Union]. In some chapters, we get glimpses of others who would be heard from later, and, of course, the character was already evident; the intellegence, decency, and fundamental goodness of Joe Johnston; the brilliance [and lack of reticence] of PGT Beauregard; the tenacity and courage of Grant and Longstreet; the single-minded devotion of Jackson. One does get the hint that Stonewall, for all his greatness as a fighting officer, may not have been playing with a full deck....Gideon Pillow was a political General, though he did better here than he was to in Kentucky...Pickett was Pickett, a better soldier than the public gives him credit for.
   
   Parallels have been drawn to our current situation, and there are some. BUT, we have to be careful. The current war in Iraq is about our own national survival; giving aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists is equivalent to state sponsored terrorism, and state sponsored terrorism is an act of war. The Mexican War was fought for lebensraum, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you would understand why we won, and why Mexico is still a third world country, look at the choice of leaders....Winfield Scott had his faults; he was gruff, vain, difficult...he was also brilliant, brave, fundamentally decent, and absolutely devoted to his country. Santa Anna was intelligent and brave; he was also an egocentric madman, totally devoted to himself. Winfield Scott saw himself as a servant of his nation; Santa Anna saw himself AS his nation...one can not read of him without thinking of the late, unlamented, leader of Iraq.
   
   Particularly disturbing is the episode of the San Patricios...these were Irish Catholic American soldiers who deserted, and fought for the other side. Eventually, they were caught; Scott had the ringleaders shot, without hestiation. The rest were mostly hung, though Scott did spare some who repented. Those allowed to live were branded on the face with a large "D", and sent home, to what fate we can imagine. The motive of the San Patricios remains unknown...Irish Catholics have been some of America's greatest soldiers. There were brave Irish regiments on both sides of the Civil War, fighting under nearly identical flags. Confederate Chaplain Emmeran Bliemel was the first Priest ever killed in an American war. Conversly, Muslims fought with great honor in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. But...The presence of Muslim Chaplains in our Armed Forces, especially at Gitmo, in an invitation to problems. Indeed, there have been some. [Madison and, to a lesser extent, Jefferson, felt that the presence of any commissioned Chaplain violated the Constitution...but, no, that's off the track...].
   
   Robert E. Lee should need no introduction to anyone reading this...General Scott proclaimed him the greatest soldier he ever saw. The next generation was to find out how right Scott was. Of course, others have written massively of General Lee [especially Dr. Freeman], but the essential greatness of the man is evident right here. [Indeed, the later war was to provide material for at least one full biography of many of these characters].
   
   One could wish we had gotten to meet other characters from the Mexican War who were were heard from again...Jefferson Davis, Edmund Kirby Smith, Braxton Bragg...but this is a novel, and you can't include everything. All in all, a superb book about a little known war.



5. Gone for Soldiers is a historical novel of a war most Americans know little or nothing about. Thirteen years before America's tragic Civil War, men who would soon be enemies fought side by side as brothers in arms. Gone for Soldiers follows the exploits of General Winfield Scott and his right hand man and engineer, Robert E. Lee. As in all of his historical novels, weaves historically accurate information along with deeply personal characterizations to create a page turning novel. It never ceases to amaze me how Jeff Shaara picked up the mantle of his father.

No comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

No comments about The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War, 1846-1848.