What do you think?
Rate this book
Williams-Ford Texas A&M University Military History Series #41
Blood and Treasure: Confederate Empire in the Southwest (Volume 41)
For decades before the Civil War, Southern writers and warriors had been urging the occupation and development of the American Southwest. When the rift between North and South had been finalized in secession, the Confederacy moved to extend their traditions to the west–a long-sought goal that had been frustrated by northern states. It was a common sentiment among Southerners and especially Texans that Mexico must be rescued from indolent inhabitants and granted the benefits of American civilization.
Blood and Treasure, written in a readable narrative style that belies the rigorous research behind it, tells the story of the Confederacy's ambitious plan to extend a Confederate empire across the continent. Led by Lieutenant Colonel John R. Baylor, later a governor of Arizona, and General H. H. Sibley, Texan soldiers trekked from San Antonio to Fort Bliss in El Paso, then north along the Rio Grande to Santa Fe. Fighting both Apaches and Federal troops, the half-trained, undisciplined army met success at the Battle of Val Verde and defeat at the Battle of Apache Canyon. Finally, the Texans won the Battle of Glorieta Pass, only to lose their supply train--and eventually the campaign. Pursued and dispirited, the Confederates abandoned their dream of empire and retreated to El Paso and San Antonio.
Frazier has made use of previously untapped primary sources, allowing him to present new interpretations of the famous Civil War battles in the Southwest. Using narratives of veterans of the campaign and official Confederate and Union documents, the author explains how this seemingly far-fetched fantasy of building a Confederate empire was an essential part of the Confederate strategy. Military historians will be challenged to modify traditional views of Confederate imperial ambitions. Generalists will be drawn into the fascinating saga of the soldiers' fears, despair, and struggles to survive.
Blood and Treasure, written in a readable narrative style that belies the rigorous research behind it, tells the story of the Confederacy's ambitious plan to extend a Confederate empire across the continent. Led by Lieutenant Colonel John R. Baylor, later a governor of Arizona, and General H. H. Sibley, Texan soldiers trekked from San Antonio to Fort Bliss in El Paso, then north along the Rio Grande to Santa Fe. Fighting both Apaches and Federal troops, the half-trained, undisciplined army met success at the Battle of Val Verde and defeat at the Battle of Apache Canyon. Finally, the Texans won the Battle of Glorieta Pass, only to lose their supply train--and eventually the campaign. Pursued and dispirited, the Confederates abandoned their dream of empire and retreated to El Paso and San Antonio.
Frazier has made use of previously untapped primary sources, allowing him to present new interpretations of the famous Civil War battles in the Southwest. Using narratives of veterans of the campaign and official Confederate and Union documents, the author explains how this seemingly far-fetched fantasy of building a Confederate empire was an essential part of the Confederate strategy. Military historians will be challenged to modify traditional views of Confederate imperial ambitions. Generalists will be drawn into the fascinating saga of the soldiers' fears, despair, and struggles to survive.
376 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1995
3 people are currently reading
89 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
January 7, 2022This is a book about the Confederate invasion of New Mexico during the American Civil War. This is the campaign that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was (very loosely) based on, which is part of what stirred my curiosity. That said, I say the Confederate invasion and not the war for the southwest because it is very tightly focused on the Texas army raised and shipped off to New Mexico. Of the Union army we hear very little except when they meet them in combat. This means that this is a rather more limited resource than I had expected it to be.
The basic thesis of the book is that the war for the southwest was a result of that peculiarly American notion of manifest destiny as seen through a Southern lens. Texas was an example of America’s imperial expansion of course, and many within that state had preserved their expansionist ambitions. But Frazier also goes a step further and looks at American imperialism more generally. After the Compromise of 1850, whether a state was free or not depended on its latitude. Since they were ambitious to retain and expand their complete control over the federal government, the slave-owning states determined that America needed to expand south and westwards, into Cuba and parts of Mexico. Carving slave states out of this land would give slavery a new burst of life that could prevent the expanding free states from ever gaining power in America. And the closest of these territories was New Mexico/Arizona. But a much bigger prize was California, a free state south of the supposed dividing line that lay temptingly on the other side of sparsely occupied New Mexico territory.
That section of the book was the most interesting. After that it got bogged down in a narrowly focused campaign history. We follow the raising of the Confederate army (there’s a whole chapter on the origins of the troops who participated), its slow moves westwards, and then follow it through success and retreat. Sibley’s actual orders and his true goals could really have used more explanation. I think it’s generally true to say that this section (the majority of the book) displayed too much description and not enough analysis. I found the descriptions of the battles and overall campaign interesting if very one sided, but it was often just repeating what soldiers said rather than analyzing what was going on. One thing that the book is clear about is that Texan discipline was nonexistent. The “undisciplined, ravenous horde” tore through New Mexico and turned the populace irretrievably against the Confederate cause, even though recruitment and support (while lukewarm) had been a successful policy until that point. The Confederates needed at least tacit acceptance but they stirred up genuine resistance.
I found the campaign itself interesting, but this book has shot itself in the foot by limiting the account to the Confederate army. If it showed both sides at work, we could get a much clearer impression of the strategic decisions made and the reasons for the Confederate failure. Despite this strict Confederate focus, I never really felt that I understood who the Texans were as a people. This feels like a state history written for people who already live in Texas and are familiar with its history. It’s not without value to outsiders, but it’s not as helpful as it could be either.
The basic thesis of the book is that the war for the southwest was a result of that peculiarly American notion of manifest destiny as seen through a Southern lens. Texas was an example of America’s imperial expansion of course, and many within that state had preserved their expansionist ambitions. But Frazier also goes a step further and looks at American imperialism more generally. After the Compromise of 1850, whether a state was free or not depended on its latitude. Since they were ambitious to retain and expand their complete control over the federal government, the slave-owning states determined that America needed to expand south and westwards, into Cuba and parts of Mexico. Carving slave states out of this land would give slavery a new burst of life that could prevent the expanding free states from ever gaining power in America. And the closest of these territories was New Mexico/Arizona. But a much bigger prize was California, a free state south of the supposed dividing line that lay temptingly on the other side of sparsely occupied New Mexico territory.
That section of the book was the most interesting. After that it got bogged down in a narrowly focused campaign history. We follow the raising of the Confederate army (there’s a whole chapter on the origins of the troops who participated), its slow moves westwards, and then follow it through success and retreat. Sibley’s actual orders and his true goals could really have used more explanation. I think it’s generally true to say that this section (the majority of the book) displayed too much description and not enough analysis. I found the descriptions of the battles and overall campaign interesting if very one sided, but it was often just repeating what soldiers said rather than analyzing what was going on. One thing that the book is clear about is that Texan discipline was nonexistent. The “undisciplined, ravenous horde” tore through New Mexico and turned the populace irretrievably against the Confederate cause, even though recruitment and support (while lukewarm) had been a successful policy until that point. The Confederates needed at least tacit acceptance but they stirred up genuine resistance.
I found the campaign itself interesting, but this book has shot itself in the foot by limiting the account to the Confederate army. If it showed both sides at work, we could get a much clearer impression of the strategic decisions made and the reasons for the Confederate failure. Despite this strict Confederate focus, I never really felt that I understood who the Texans were as a people. This feels like a state history written for people who already live in Texas and are familiar with its history. It’s not without value to outsiders, but it’s not as helpful as it could be either.
August 27, 2017
Blood & Treasure primarily tells the story of the New Mexico campaign of the Civil War, from a Texas/Confederate perspective, but also sets the stage with descriptions of filibustering (expeditions by Southerners into Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America in attempts to set up pro-slavery colonies) and post-independence Texan clashes with Mexico. The author also spends some time on a paramilitary organization called the Knights of the Golden Circle. Much has been made of the KGC, and it's controversial just how important they were, but Frazier thinks that they played a significant role in pushing Texas toward secession, and the upcoming campaign into New Mexico.
A wealth of primary sources populate the narrative, and help relate the thoughts, motivations, and experiences of the Texans involved in the events covered in Blood & Treasure. While the perspective is quite one-sided, and the depth of the narrative suffers in that regard, Frazier does very well at not letting the focus on the Texas/Confederate side bias the story. While expressing admiration for frontier daring, toughness, and ingenuity where applicable, the author makes no bones about relating the often questionable character and decisions of the men he writes about. John Baylor and Henry Sibley (as well as Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate leaders) receive tough, fair analysis and criticism. The Union commander, Edward Canby, also receives due praise and recognition of his conduct during the campaign. While recognizing Union successes, Frazier doesn't fall into the trap that some other authors have of over-glorifying the Colorado or California contingents of the victorious Union army.
The New Mexico campaign was an unmitigated failure for the Confederacy. Although they performed well tactically in most of the battles fought along the way, their leaders quixotic pursuit of a Southwestern Empire was thwarted for a number of reasons. Unrealistic expectations and planning, bad luck, questionable leadership, Native American and Hispanic hostility, and the Union army all contributed to the downfall of Texan imperial dreams, and Frazier does a good job covering all of these points in Blood & Treasure.
A wealth of primary sources populate the narrative, and help relate the thoughts, motivations, and experiences of the Texans involved in the events covered in Blood & Treasure. While the perspective is quite one-sided, and the depth of the narrative suffers in that regard, Frazier does very well at not letting the focus on the Texas/Confederate side bias the story. While expressing admiration for frontier daring, toughness, and ingenuity where applicable, the author makes no bones about relating the often questionable character and decisions of the men he writes about. John Baylor and Henry Sibley (as well as Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate leaders) receive tough, fair analysis and criticism. The Union commander, Edward Canby, also receives due praise and recognition of his conduct during the campaign. While recognizing Union successes, Frazier doesn't fall into the trap that some other authors have of over-glorifying the Colorado or California contingents of the victorious Union army.
The New Mexico campaign was an unmitigated failure for the Confederacy. Although they performed well tactically in most of the battles fought along the way, their leaders quixotic pursuit of a Southwestern Empire was thwarted for a number of reasons. Unrealistic expectations and planning, bad luck, questionable leadership, Native American and Hispanic hostility, and the Union army all contributed to the downfall of Texan imperial dreams, and Frazier does a good job covering all of these points in Blood & Treasure.
August 26, 2017
Donald S. Frazier's Blood and Treasure: Confederate Empire in the Southwest takes a comparatively obscure Civil War campaign (Henry Hopkins Sibley's invasion of New Mexico in early 1862) and tries blowing it into a decisive conflict of marked importance. Frazier views Confederate schemes of adding New Mexico, Arizona and even California to their slave empire were merely a logical extension of Southern expansionism before the war, noting that many filibusters and freebooters who made their names attacking Latin American countries attached themselves to Sibley's expedition. Sibley, a hapless, harried professional soldier given a near-impossible task, receives sympathetic treatment, but the more interesting character is John Baylor, a Texan fanatic who established the Confederate Arizona Territory with a private army and violent dreams of empire, and who never gave it up even after Sibley's expedition collapsed and Richmond withdrew support for his scheme.
Frazier recounts all of this with crisp prose and blood-and-thunder excitement, providing blow-by-blow accounts of the Battles of Valverde, Glorieta Pass and Peralta. He also illuminates the hellish experience of Sibley's men (and those of his Union counterpart, E.R.S. Canby) hostile Apaches and Hispanics, sparse supplies, disease and desert climate. What he doesn't sell us on is that Sibley's expedition was anything more than a mad, fleeting dream. It's true, as he posits, that a Confederate New Mexico and secessionist California would have drastically complicated the Union war effort; but that's a major "if," when Sibley possessed fewer than 3,000 men and only lukewarm backing from the Rebel government. How ephemeral the whole escapade is becomes clear when we learn that Union troops reconquered New Mexico in summer 1862 almost without firing a shot, how Baylor and Sibley were reassigned and their troops scattered to larger, more important theaters. At best, it's an implausible, if tantalizing might-have-been; at least, in Frazier's hands, it makes for a fascinating book.
Frazier recounts all of this with crisp prose and blood-and-thunder excitement, providing blow-by-blow accounts of the Battles of Valverde, Glorieta Pass and Peralta. He also illuminates the hellish experience of Sibley's men (and those of his Union counterpart, E.R.S. Canby) hostile Apaches and Hispanics, sparse supplies, disease and desert climate. What he doesn't sell us on is that Sibley's expedition was anything more than a mad, fleeting dream. It's true, as he posits, that a Confederate New Mexico and secessionist California would have drastically complicated the Union war effort; but that's a major "if," when Sibley possessed fewer than 3,000 men and only lukewarm backing from the Rebel government. How ephemeral the whole escapade is becomes clear when we learn that Union troops reconquered New Mexico in summer 1862 almost without firing a shot, how Baylor and Sibley were reassigned and their troops scattered to larger, more important theaters. At best, it's an implausible, if tantalizing might-have-been; at least, in Frazier's hands, it makes for a fascinating book.
November 23, 2014
Dr. Donald S. Frazier's book "Blood and Treasure" is, by far, the best account of the Confederate campaigns in New Mexico and Arizona that has thus far been written. While other studies are devoted singly to General Henry Hopkins Sibley's campaign along the Rio Grande in 1862, Frazier's book places that campaign in the larger context of Confederate actions in the Southwest between 1861 and the end of 1862. This book also places the Confederate attempt to detach the territories of the American Southwest within the context of previous attempts by the Republic of Texas to claim those lands.
Frazier's books goes into great detail about the initial Confederate invasion of New Mexico and Arizona by Lt. Colonel John R. Baylor's battalion of the 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles. Usually, this part of the Confederate efforts against New Mexico are treated as a mere footnote to the campaign, but Frazier treats those events as the foundation upon which Sibley conducted his own campaign. Confederate interactions with Native-American tribes are also described better than in any other secondary source. Furthermore, Frazier includes detailed descriptions of the campaigns close, including the disorganized retreat to San Antonio and the fate of Texan prisoners taken throughout the campaign. The author's command of the primary sources for this campaign are unparalleled.
Among the things that I most liked about this book are that the author writes about Confederate dreams of empire as though they were somewhat realistic and attainable. Whereas some sources that I have read treat these ambitions lightly, Frazier supports his arguments with plenty of evidence, among which are the benefits which a Confederate empire would likely have brought to the new nation in terms of foreign policy, ports on the West Coast - though access to those by the rest of the Confederate nation would have been difficult, and the mineral wealth of the West. The latter significantly aided the Union in its war effort, and so it stands to reason that it would have similarly benefitted the Confederacy.
In the way of criticism, I would have liked to see a bit more attention given to the Union forces involved in the campaign; however, I fully recognize that the scope and topic of the book must necessarily maintain a Confederate focus.
The Confederate attempt to conquer the American Southwest was a significant part of the Civil War, though it has generally been neglected by most scholars of the conflict. Frazier's book gives that effort by the South its due attention. If you are at all interested in this part of the Civil War, you should begin by reading Dr. Frazier's book!
Frazier's books goes into great detail about the initial Confederate invasion of New Mexico and Arizona by Lt. Colonel John R. Baylor's battalion of the 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles. Usually, this part of the Confederate efforts against New Mexico are treated as a mere footnote to the campaign, but Frazier treats those events as the foundation upon which Sibley conducted his own campaign. Confederate interactions with Native-American tribes are also described better than in any other secondary source. Furthermore, Frazier includes detailed descriptions of the campaigns close, including the disorganized retreat to San Antonio and the fate of Texan prisoners taken throughout the campaign. The author's command of the primary sources for this campaign are unparalleled.
Among the things that I most liked about this book are that the author writes about Confederate dreams of empire as though they were somewhat realistic and attainable. Whereas some sources that I have read treat these ambitions lightly, Frazier supports his arguments with plenty of evidence, among which are the benefits which a Confederate empire would likely have brought to the new nation in terms of foreign policy, ports on the West Coast - though access to those by the rest of the Confederate nation would have been difficult, and the mineral wealth of the West. The latter significantly aided the Union in its war effort, and so it stands to reason that it would have similarly benefitted the Confederacy.
In the way of criticism, I would have liked to see a bit more attention given to the Union forces involved in the campaign; however, I fully recognize that the scope and topic of the book must necessarily maintain a Confederate focus.
The Confederate attempt to conquer the American Southwest was a significant part of the Civil War, though it has generally been neglected by most scholars of the conflict. Frazier's book gives that effort by the South its due attention. If you are at all interested in this part of the Civil War, you should begin by reading Dr. Frazier's book!
August 28, 2017
More academic than dramatic, Blood and Treasure is overflowing with careful research on an underreported corner of American history. I had a similar response to Erik Larson's Dead Wake: it struggles to find the thread in all the detail, but even still you will find yourself seduced by deft character sketches and moments of high drama.
In these turbulent times, reading this book feels like scrying over a cursed codex or something, as if the words should be forbidden because they unlock some origin to the core sensitivity of the undereducated southerner. It's genuinely startling how familiar some of these attitudes and ignorances feel.
In these turbulent times, reading this book feels like scrying over a cursed codex or something, as if the words should be forbidden because they unlock some origin to the core sensitivity of the undereducated southerner. It's genuinely startling how familiar some of these attitudes and ignorances feel.
June 21, 2024
Excellently researched and an intriguing tale of the seemingly long forgotten battles fought way out west in the South's war for independence. Like so many "what ifs" of the Confederacy, this book details the plan of action by a small group of Texans to extend the Southern Empire all the way to California. Many would be shocked to know that a Confederate flag once flew over Tucson, Arizona. As was the case in so many other ultimately failed campaigns, lack of manpower and supplies sealed the fate of the Confederate Western Empire, leaving the reader wondering what could have been. Highly recommend for any Civil War student.
September 1, 2017
A short book, but one of the better American Civil War campaign books that I've read; it even has good maps. The little known Confederate invasion of New Mexico fascinates and appalls.
November 22, 2020
Pretty good book about the New Mexico Campaign, especially when covering Confederate activities (the attempts at organizing a territorial government for Confederate Arizona, raising and forming Henry Sibley's Army of New Mexico, etc.).
Unfortunately, the author failed to give as much attention to the Union side of the campaign; for example, the book merely notes that New Mexico volunteer regiments were raised, without going into any detail concerning the origin and background of the officers and enlisted men, as the author did with Sibley's regiments.
Unfortunately, the author failed to give as much attention to the Union side of the campaign; for example, the book merely notes that New Mexico volunteer regiments were raised, without going into any detail concerning the origin and background of the officers and enlisted men, as the author did with Sibley's regiments.
October 23, 2014
The Confederate States of America tried to gain control of the American Southwest for several reasons. Among these were the the mineral wealth of the region and the opportunity to gain seaports on the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the military action in the region took place in New Mexico.
January 24, 2013
What could have been for Texas. Very entertaining.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews