What do you think?
Rate this book
So Far from God: The U.S. War With Mexico, 1846-1848
The Mexican-American War of the 1840s, precipitated by border disputes and the U.S. annexation of Texas, ended with the military occupation of Mexico City by General Winfield Scott. In the subsequent treaty, the United States gained territory that would become California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. In this highly readable account, John S.D. Eisenhower provides a comprehensive survey of this frequently overlooked war.
498 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1989
74 people are currently reading
863 people want to read
About the author
John S.D. Eisenhower
33 books30 followersJohn Sheldon Doud Eisenhower was a United States Army officer, diplomat, and military historian. He was the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower. His military career spanned from before, during, and after his father's presidency, and he left active duty in 1963 and then retired in 1974. From 1969 to 1971, Eisenhower served as United States Ambassador to Belgium during the administration of President Richard Nixon, who was previously his father's vice president and also his daughter-in-law's father.
As a military historian, Eisenhower wrote several books, including The Bitter Woods, a study of the Battle of the Bulge, So Far from God, a history of the Mexican–American War and Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I .
As a military historian, Eisenhower wrote several books, including The Bitter Woods, a study of the Battle of the Bulge, So Far from God, a history of the Mexican–American War and Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
May 17, 2015
This is good solid conventional history. John Eisenhower was not an edgy,angry and controversial historian. He did competent military history that looked at a conflict from the American perspective (not all historians feel obligated to look at a conflict from all sides). His writing flows and he believes in footnotes - which is a clear indicator of the times that he was educated in. Incidentally that time period is the late 1920's to mid 1940's (West Point, Class of 44).
If you're looking for revisionist history you won't get it from John Eisenhower. Now that isn't saying that he glorifies the United States and war. No he doesn't do that. Mistakes, questionable judgement and the destruction of war is covered in this book and other works by him as well. However Mr. Eisenhower believed that it was enough to examine the events themselves without passing judgment courtesy of hindsight.
A well written piece of military history that has a place in a college freshman or sophomore history class. I liked it and I will hold onto it.
If you're looking for revisionist history you won't get it from John Eisenhower. Now that isn't saying that he glorifies the United States and war. No he doesn't do that. Mistakes, questionable judgement and the destruction of war is covered in this book and other works by him as well. However Mr. Eisenhower believed that it was enough to examine the events themselves without passing judgment courtesy of hindsight.
A well written piece of military history that has a place in a college freshman or sophomore history class. I liked it and I will hold onto it.
December 14, 2012
I'd been meaning to read this for quite some time, and finally finished it. Like most Americans, I knew little about the military aspects of this war, even after reading Robert Merry's more recent A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent (which was excellent, by the way).
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 feuds 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?
The contemporary evaluation is that we were wrong and used pretense to steal one third of Mexico. The fact that we offered to buy the land which was ultimately acquired by arms, and for which we subsequently paid, does not auger well in our defense. But to use today's standards to judge the right or wrong of an event that occurred over 150 years ago, like many historians do today, never produces good history. Simply stated, Mexico's disorganized centrist policies left it unable to govern itself. If the United States had not taken Mexico to task, another nation would have. Mexico was incredibly unstable and corrupt. It was both socially and morally bankrupt, a fact often overlooked today.
John D. Eisenhower leaves the correctness or incorrectness of this war where it belongs, with the reader. He tries to avoid the mistake of judging 19th century events with 21st century standards. Except for his short introduction, he makes no political statements. He neither supports this war as a natural extension of Manifest Destiny nor condemns it as some form of land based buccaneering. He simply reports the facts as they occurred.
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.
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 feuds 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?
The contemporary evaluation is that we were wrong and used pretense to steal one third of Mexico. The fact that we offered to buy the land which was ultimately acquired by arms, and for which we subsequently paid, does not auger well in our defense. But to use today's standards to judge the right or wrong of an event that occurred over 150 years ago, like many historians do today, never produces good history. Simply stated, Mexico's disorganized centrist policies left it unable to govern itself. If the United States had not taken Mexico to task, another nation would have. Mexico was incredibly unstable and corrupt. It was both socially and morally bankrupt, a fact often overlooked today.
John D. Eisenhower leaves the correctness or incorrectness of this war where it belongs, with the reader. He tries to avoid the mistake of judging 19th century events with 21st century standards. Except for his short introduction, he makes no political statements. He neither supports this war as a natural extension of Manifest Destiny nor condemns it as some form of land based buccaneering. He simply reports the facts as they occurred.
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.
March 22, 2009
Because of the importance of the U. S. Civil War, the Mexican War gets little attention. Yet, as this book makes clear, it was an important and pivotal time in our history.
This book is quite detailed and a little dry for the average reader. And the author, General John Einsenhower, is in love with footnotes---found it ditracting to keep breaking my chain of thought to glance down and read the footnotes. A few were really necesary--most were not.
Still, it was a good one volume history and a good start if, like myself, you know little of the Mexican War. It was interesting to see the political maneuvering on BOTH sides. Also, to see the early careeers of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis; Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor and many more.
NOt a qick or easy read, but if you like military history, you will find it interesting.
This book is quite detailed and a little dry for the average reader. And the author, General John Einsenhower, is in love with footnotes---found it ditracting to keep breaking my chain of thought to glance down and read the footnotes. A few were really necesary--most were not.
Still, it was a good one volume history and a good start if, like myself, you know little of the Mexican War. It was interesting to see the political maneuvering on BOTH sides. Also, to see the early careeers of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis; Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor and many more.
NOt a qick or easy read, but if you like military history, you will find it interesting.
September 17, 2010
I chose to read this book for a project in my United States History: Colonization through Reconstruction course. While I am a fan of history and fascinated by the Mexican-American War, I was wary of the book going in, I thought the titled sounded a tad pretentious. However, to the current point of reading at least, I am absolutely in love with this book. Eisenhower's style of writing and depth of research have made this more than worth reading, even if I weren't trying to get a good grade.
May 4, 2023
A pretty good and readable account of the war, mostly from the American perspective. The first half is engaging but I think Eisenhower became tired of his subject as things went on. He goes into a lot of detail with Taylor's battles and the occupation of California but less so with Scott's campaign. Still, this is very good for somebody with only a background knowledge of one of America's most pivotal events. It was the largest territorial conquest in American history.
September 20, 2009
The one-sided nature of the narrative presented here was a little difficult to overcome. Besides Santa Anna no Mexican character is given any sort of recognition and him only grudgingly. I have never read any other volume on the subject so I don't have anything to compare it to, but it was fast paced and fairly enjoyable to read.
January 21, 2020
A good, solid military history that fills in all the gaps in anyone's knowledge of this critical event in our history. In fact, the book's main strength is in showing the importance of the Mexican War in American history. John Eisenhower's books are well-researched and solidly written, straight-ahead military history; this one is no exception. My understanding of just how meddling a commander-in-chief was James K. Polk, how he played politics with principal commanders Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott at the expense of the war effort, has been greatly improved. I also have a clearer picture of how Santa Anna kept returning to power in Mexico despite a quite unimpressive record against American/Texan troops. The book is also a pleasure to read for Western history buffs. A fine if unexceptional read.
April 29, 2024
It may not be the definitive work on the subject, but I sure as he k enjoyed this book. Eisenhower has a enjoyable writing style that made it hard to put down. It isn't a straight chronological narrative, but rather focuses on various aspects (such as the California conquest) to their completion before moving on to another topic.
June 4, 2018
Living in Phoenix Arizona I get a close-up view of relationships between Mexico and the US.
Mexico is Arizona's largest trading partner and with millions of annual visits by workers and tourists in both directions the relationship has has also evolved over the generations into a rich tapestry of family and community networks. An incredibly important familial and economic relationship exists and yet, I knew very little of the 1846-1848 Mexican-American war that colors so much of our history and especially our recent actions as a country.
Several things I learned from this reading include the concept of "Right of Conquest" that was a principle of international law until proscribed after World War II. Prior to WWII if a country could not defend itself, a stronger power was somehow justified in conquering it to introduce a better order. Nonetheless, it appears most historians and notably, Ulysses S Grant was against what Grant referred to as the "most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation".
Additional takeaways from Eisenhower's writing reminded me of how we are doomed to repeat history if we do not understand it. The Mexican-American war was referred to as "Polk's War" as he, several cabinet members, and Senate legislators maneuvered the US into a war to grab land from a disorganized Mexico. Interestingly, Polk is referred to as a man who cannot see things in a "great way" and he surrounded himself with a cabinet made of "little fellows". The Generals were directed by and often undermined by the politicians yet they performed admirably. Men such as Generals Zachery Taylor and Winfield Scott were among many who sacrificed to support the US objectives of pacifying Mexican territory desired by the US as well as forcing Mexico to submit through conquest and occupation. Scott, who against overwhelming numbers occupied Mexico's main port of Veracruz and Mexico City itself led US forces to an improbable victory forcing a negotiated settlement and handing over vast amounts of pacified territory to the US.
Aside from the horrible demonization of Hispanic people that exists to this day, and the calling upon God's plan of Manifest Destiny that white settlers would inhabit the continent from sea to sea, and the hope of many that the annexed land would expand slavery across the Southern US there was a reference by Polk that brought me a sense of déjà vu relative to today's political speeches demanding that Mexico pay for a wall on our borders. It was Polk's declaration and forced collection of compensation as the extended war became unpopular was that Mexico would pay for the occupation of US forces in their land.
A footnote: in terms of proportional casualties, the Mexican-American war was our costliest war and yet it seems lost in the national discussion of our history. 13,768 American men died between 1846-1848 in support of the war out of 104,556 men that served as regulars or volunteers during that time period. Tragically, many of the men who survived the Mexican-American war went on to fight each other in the US Civil War that started in 1861.
Mexico is Arizona's largest trading partner and with millions of annual visits by workers and tourists in both directions the relationship has has also evolved over the generations into a rich tapestry of family and community networks. An incredibly important familial and economic relationship exists and yet, I knew very little of the 1846-1848 Mexican-American war that colors so much of our history and especially our recent actions as a country.
Several things I learned from this reading include the concept of "Right of Conquest" that was a principle of international law until proscribed after World War II. Prior to WWII if a country could not defend itself, a stronger power was somehow justified in conquering it to introduce a better order. Nonetheless, it appears most historians and notably, Ulysses S Grant was against what Grant referred to as the "most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation".
Additional takeaways from Eisenhower's writing reminded me of how we are doomed to repeat history if we do not understand it. The Mexican-American war was referred to as "Polk's War" as he, several cabinet members, and Senate legislators maneuvered the US into a war to grab land from a disorganized Mexico. Interestingly, Polk is referred to as a man who cannot see things in a "great way" and he surrounded himself with a cabinet made of "little fellows". The Generals were directed by and often undermined by the politicians yet they performed admirably. Men such as Generals Zachery Taylor and Winfield Scott were among many who sacrificed to support the US objectives of pacifying Mexican territory desired by the US as well as forcing Mexico to submit through conquest and occupation. Scott, who against overwhelming numbers occupied Mexico's main port of Veracruz and Mexico City itself led US forces to an improbable victory forcing a negotiated settlement and handing over vast amounts of pacified territory to the US.
Aside from the horrible demonization of Hispanic people that exists to this day, and the calling upon God's plan of Manifest Destiny that white settlers would inhabit the continent from sea to sea, and the hope of many that the annexed land would expand slavery across the Southern US there was a reference by Polk that brought me a sense of déjà vu relative to today's political speeches demanding that Mexico pay for a wall on our borders. It was Polk's declaration and forced collection of compensation as the extended war became unpopular was that Mexico would pay for the occupation of US forces in their land.
A footnote: in terms of proportional casualties, the Mexican-American war was our costliest war and yet it seems lost in the national discussion of our history. 13,768 American men died between 1846-1848 in support of the war out of 104,556 men that served as regulars or volunteers during that time period. Tragically, many of the men who survived the Mexican-American war went on to fight each other in the US Civil War that started in 1861.
November 10, 2012
A outstanding history of the Mexican American war by John Eisenhower. No war in American history changed the face of our country as much as this little known war, happening a generation before the Civil war it has been overlooked by most Americans. Well written and researched this book is easy to read and since many of the American Army are well known to readers for their parts in the Civil war.
February 16, 2008
Complete history of the Mexican American War. All the details for Military history buffs interested in this subject.
May 21, 2012
A bit too military history-oriented for me.
January 22, 2022
I read “So Far from God” in preparation for a class on the Mexican War and am very please with it. I found a thoroughly researched study of the War, primarily from the military perspective. It is one of the best histories of extensive military operations that I have found. Though little remembered today, readers learn that the Mexican War had America’s highest death rate, saw the largest amphibious landing to its time and, true to many wars, had a higher death rate from disease than from combat. Though relatively small in numbers of troops engaged, the War’s impact on both of its belligerents was enormous. The names that keep popping up: Scott, Lee, Grant, Pickett, Longstreet, Bragg, Pillow, Semmes and others establish its reputation as the training ground for the Civil War.
This tome begins with the background of the 1844 election, in which the annexation of Texas was a crucial issue, and the combined territorial challenges of the Oregon Territory, then shared with Great Britain, and Texas and the Southwest, which involved Mexico. It then chronicles the initial and northern battles of Zachary Taylor followed by the overland campaign from Vera Cruz to Mexico City of Winfield Scott. Appropriate attention is paid to the political motivations of James Polk, the Mexican milieu and the tangled negotiations that brought an end to the fighting and fulfilled America’s Manifest Destiny to reach to the Pacific.
Author John S. D. Eisenhower has crafted an engaging and detailed account of the Mexican War from beginning to end. The maps place the action in geographical context and the pictures put faces to names and scenes to localities. It is extensively researched and footnoted. The bibliography provides a guide to further reading. At times the text became a bit over detailed, but the author always manages to draw the reader back into the narrative. For a broad understanding of the War, I recommend “So Far from God” for the military tale and “A Wicked War” by Amy Greenburg (see my review) for the political and social aspects.
This tome begins with the background of the 1844 election, in which the annexation of Texas was a crucial issue, and the combined territorial challenges of the Oregon Territory, then shared with Great Britain, and Texas and the Southwest, which involved Mexico. It then chronicles the initial and northern battles of Zachary Taylor followed by the overland campaign from Vera Cruz to Mexico City of Winfield Scott. Appropriate attention is paid to the political motivations of James Polk, the Mexican milieu and the tangled negotiations that brought an end to the fighting and fulfilled America’s Manifest Destiny to reach to the Pacific.
Author John S. D. Eisenhower has crafted an engaging and detailed account of the Mexican War from beginning to end. The maps place the action in geographical context and the pictures put faces to names and scenes to localities. It is extensively researched and footnoted. The bibliography provides a guide to further reading. At times the text became a bit over detailed, but the author always manages to draw the reader back into the narrative. For a broad understanding of the War, I recommend “So Far from God” for the military tale and “A Wicked War” by Amy Greenburg (see my review) for the political and social aspects.
July 10, 2025
This was a well-written and balanced look at a much lesser known war. Oftentimes overshadowed by the Civil War, the US-Mexican war is largely the reason most of today’s western US is part of the US.
Eisenhower keeps the narrative moving while providing enough background and details without getting bogged down in the minutiae. This book is mostly confined to the military aspects of the war while providing just enough of the politics for the reader to contextualize the military campaigns. I found Eisenhower’s treatment of the California campaign to be especially interesting.
Overall, Eisenhower praises those who deserve praise when they deserve it and admonishes those who deserve admonishment when they deserve it. I think he does a very good job of remaining objective and not viewing everything through an American lens which helps explain the rationale of Santa Anna and other Mexican figures during the war.
I highly recommend for anyone looking for a good look at this war.
Eisenhower keeps the narrative moving while providing enough background and details without getting bogged down in the minutiae. This book is mostly confined to the military aspects of the war while providing just enough of the politics for the reader to contextualize the military campaigns. I found Eisenhower’s treatment of the California campaign to be especially interesting.
Overall, Eisenhower praises those who deserve praise when they deserve it and admonishes those who deserve admonishment when they deserve it. I think he does a very good job of remaining objective and not viewing everything through an American lens which helps explain the rationale of Santa Anna and other Mexican figures during the war.
I highly recommend for anyone looking for a good look at this war.
October 2, 2021
A very good over view of the war with Mexico. Detailed enough for someone with a keen interest in the war, yet readable for those that just want to good overview. The accounts of the battles are good, with decent maps. They lack some detail, but that is expected given the scope of the book. The book is essentially in three parts.
Its starts with Zachary Taylors expedition and the battles of Palo Alto, Resaca de las Palmas, Monterey, and Buena Vista
The second section covers Kearny's expedition to California and the activities there.
Lastly it follows the final drive by Winfield Scott from Veracruz to Mexico City
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone looking to learn the basics about the War with Mexico
Its starts with Zachary Taylors expedition and the battles of Palo Alto, Resaca de las Palmas, Monterey, and Buena Vista
The second section covers Kearny's expedition to California and the activities there.
Lastly it follows the final drive by Winfield Scott from Veracruz to Mexico City
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone looking to learn the basics about the War with Mexico
June 30, 2020
This account of a little known American war makes a distant event much more current in terms of how it connects us to our past. Many of the heroes of the Mexican War became the leaders of both the Confederate and Union armies in the Civil War. Some ran for president, and at least 3 became president (Zachary Taylor; U.S. Grant; Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy). While many claim it was an unjust or evil war on a defenseless neighbor, Mexico shares as much blame for the war as America.
An eye-opening account of this important event in American and Mexican history.
An eye-opening account of this important event in American and Mexican history.
October 24, 2020
A reasonably thorough, very readable, well-researched narrative account of the Mexican War. Primarily military in its focus, though touch on enough politics to make that context understandable. Fails to meet current standards of deploring every action by the general, soldiers and politicians of the United States, so particularly recommended if you have an interest in learning more about what actually happened in the conflict, as opposed to stroking your moral superiority. For that, look to A Wicked War, by some chick who's just so much more evolved than most Americans.
February 10, 2021
I found this a difficult read; it focuses more on troop movements and skirmishes than on the bigger picture. It is also written totally from the American point of view and doesn’t present a balanced view. Having spent some time in the area of some of the battles in the 1970s, I now understand the reasons for the loathing that the Mexicans have for Americans (I am British).
The book serves well as a textbook on military operations but I have to admit I found it so boring that I couldn’t get past the first hundred pages.
The book serves well as a textbook on military operations but I have to admit I found it so boring that I couldn’t get past the first hundred pages.
February 12, 2018
Excellent telling of an unfortunately obscure part of American history. Not only did this war add vast territory to the US and poison relations with our neighbor to the South, but it served as training ground for most of the major participants in our Civil War that consumed us only 15 years later.
This book is well worth reading.
This book is well worth reading.
July 24, 2021
Excellent book, well footnoted. Moves very quickly. I would have liked the maps to be a little more detailed for each battle, but, on-the-whole, extremely informative. So many future Civil War personalities, does a good job of detailing some of their work. Lee's work was exceptional. Highly recommend this read.
February 16, 2022
Good solid history of the Mexican War. As others have mentioned he covers the controversy around the start of the war but does not offer any real opinions. Has a high opInion of Winfield Scott which was something new for me but makes a sound argument that he should be included in the Great Captains of the US military.
March 22, 2021
This is one of the few books I was able to find on the Mexican-American war but it didn’t really provide any political perspective or highlight the Mexican side of the war. It was also full of problematic comments.
June 19, 2023
Pretty good history but there are better newer ones on this subject. Amazing that small American armies under Z. Taylor and W. Scott and others could do so much. Many later Civil War generals on both sides got a start with this war. I hope to read more.
September 1, 2025
As I continue to read about the pre Civil War era, I continue to realize how much I truly do not know. So Far From God goes through the men, the causes, and the battles. This is a very good account of how President Polk and his Generals handles this part of our history.
September 30, 2025
A well-researched book about the US-initiated war with Mexico in 1846. The author weaves together multiple intersecting themes: President Polk's goals; US political intrigues; US military command conflicts; Mexican politics and related military readiness issues, and other topics. A very good read.
November 19, 2021
Thorough account of the political and military history of the war.
December 6, 2021
Good history if you have a hole in your education about this part of American history and American-Mexican relations.
July 20, 2012
This was a good book, though not a great book. This review will be a short one as, honestly I do not know that much about our War with Mexico but I will do my best to write a fair review.
I can't give this book 5 stars as it seemed more like a primer on the subject. Not enough detail and Eisenhower did try to touch on the political and a few of the social issues as well as the Military events so this accounts for the lack of strong detail in any given sector. Still it was a good read but having read Timothy D. Johnston's very good: 'A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign.' I was hoping for a little more. That said it is a good book.
I find myself agreeing with General (like his father John Eisenhower was a General in the US Army) Eisenhower's thesis: that the war was a war of naked aggression and Imperialistic expansionism against Mexico. I also definitely agree with both Eisenhower and Johnston that (possibly) one way to help heal the rift that still exists between our two countries is to better understand what caused said rift: the Mexican War. Certainly other historians have disagreed, I've seen documentaries on the History Channel back when that channel actually resembled it's name who argued otherwise. But I stand by Eisenhower's thesis for now at least as to what the war was all about.
Having said that from the military side of things there is no more brilliant chapter in American arms save for some of the Civil War exploits of Lee, Stonewall, Grant and Sheridan. Zachary Taylor's campaign in northern Mexico including a viscous urban battle at the city of Monterrey is a story of a vastly outnumbered but better trained and led army making its way through an opponents territory. Taylor, however, was not without his flaws. He allowed his army after Monterrey to be exposed in a dangerous position leading up to the Battle of Buena Vista and Santa Anna took advantage of this; falling on Taylor's small 4-6,000 man force with roughly 20-22,000 men Santa Anna had the opportunity to turn the war around in Mexico's favor and possibly even to win it. Instead the battle ended (barely) in a bloody US victory although you could also get away with calling it a draw. Taylor would remain stationary for the rest of the war.
Winfield Scott's march on Mexico City is perhaps the supreme example of operational brilliance in the annals of the US Military. Outnumbered by a wide margin Scott, through the deft use of outflanking maneuvers, the avoidance of unnecessary battles and the deft employment of skilled subordinates like Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston, George Meade and George McClellan (yes, the Mexican War reads like a who's who of future War Between the States notables. In Taylor's Army you had Ulysses S. Grant as well as Braxton Bragg and Jefferson Davis.) Scott was able to time and again best a superior force. Scott also used a policy of allowing the Mexican political authorities the opportunity to sue for peace after every engagement as well as ordering strict punishments on his soldiers who committed pillaging, rapes and murders. (Which at some points were rampant. Many US soldiers, especially volunteers, were hanged or shot by firing squad for infractions.) Scott would not see a political peace brought about by military action until the seizure of Mexico City itself.
A few words must be said for the Mexicans. One cannot help but feel that had their army had better leadership that their bravery and tenacity would have been better rewarded. Santa Anna was the best of the Mexican generals and he was unable to win any battles. Santa Anna was a common commander of the late 17th though late 19th centuries: a man who confused military ability solely with the ability to lead a field command. He was not up to the task. Santa Anna was however a supreme example of a brilliant administrator and organizer, time and again he rebuilt an army from the ground up, equipped it, uniformed it and although they may have lacked proper training, this does not detract from the fact that this was a remarkable gift of his.
Also Mexico should not feel any shame in having lost. (I know I am a gringo so what the hell do I know...) There is nothing more immoral for a state to do than to lose a war as this brings hardship and suffering to the civilian population, except in not resisting aggression. Had Mexico NOT resisted the US aggression then they would have sinned far worse. As it was she retained her honor and her nobility by resisting and doing so fiercely. After reading about the Mexican War no one should ever be able to accuse the Mexican people of cowardice.
All in all I give it 4 stars. It was good, I agreed with the authors thesis (not a criteria for starring however...) and it was well written and an easy read. I will need to read more on the topic to be able to form a more solid opinion but for a primer I do recommend the Generals book.
I can't give this book 5 stars as it seemed more like a primer on the subject. Not enough detail and Eisenhower did try to touch on the political and a few of the social issues as well as the Military events so this accounts for the lack of strong detail in any given sector. Still it was a good read but having read Timothy D. Johnston's very good: 'A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign.' I was hoping for a little more. That said it is a good book.
I find myself agreeing with General (like his father John Eisenhower was a General in the US Army) Eisenhower's thesis: that the war was a war of naked aggression and Imperialistic expansionism against Mexico. I also definitely agree with both Eisenhower and Johnston that (possibly) one way to help heal the rift that still exists between our two countries is to better understand what caused said rift: the Mexican War. Certainly other historians have disagreed, I've seen documentaries on the History Channel back when that channel actually resembled it's name who argued otherwise. But I stand by Eisenhower's thesis for now at least as to what the war was all about.
Having said that from the military side of things there is no more brilliant chapter in American arms save for some of the Civil War exploits of Lee, Stonewall, Grant and Sheridan. Zachary Taylor's campaign in northern Mexico including a viscous urban battle at the city of Monterrey is a story of a vastly outnumbered but better trained and led army making its way through an opponents territory. Taylor, however, was not without his flaws. He allowed his army after Monterrey to be exposed in a dangerous position leading up to the Battle of Buena Vista and Santa Anna took advantage of this; falling on Taylor's small 4-6,000 man force with roughly 20-22,000 men Santa Anna had the opportunity to turn the war around in Mexico's favor and possibly even to win it. Instead the battle ended (barely) in a bloody US victory although you could also get away with calling it a draw. Taylor would remain stationary for the rest of the war.
Winfield Scott's march on Mexico City is perhaps the supreme example of operational brilliance in the annals of the US Military. Outnumbered by a wide margin Scott, through the deft use of outflanking maneuvers, the avoidance of unnecessary battles and the deft employment of skilled subordinates like Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston, George Meade and George McClellan (yes, the Mexican War reads like a who's who of future War Between the States notables. In Taylor's Army you had Ulysses S. Grant as well as Braxton Bragg and Jefferson Davis.) Scott was able to time and again best a superior force. Scott also used a policy of allowing the Mexican political authorities the opportunity to sue for peace after every engagement as well as ordering strict punishments on his soldiers who committed pillaging, rapes and murders. (Which at some points were rampant. Many US soldiers, especially volunteers, were hanged or shot by firing squad for infractions.) Scott would not see a political peace brought about by military action until the seizure of Mexico City itself.
A few words must be said for the Mexicans. One cannot help but feel that had their army had better leadership that their bravery and tenacity would have been better rewarded. Santa Anna was the best of the Mexican generals and he was unable to win any battles. Santa Anna was a common commander of the late 17th though late 19th centuries: a man who confused military ability solely with the ability to lead a field command. He was not up to the task. Santa Anna was however a supreme example of a brilliant administrator and organizer, time and again he rebuilt an army from the ground up, equipped it, uniformed it and although they may have lacked proper training, this does not detract from the fact that this was a remarkable gift of his.
Also Mexico should not feel any shame in having lost. (I know I am a gringo so what the hell do I know...) There is nothing more immoral for a state to do than to lose a war as this brings hardship and suffering to the civilian population, except in not resisting aggression. Had Mexico NOT resisted the US aggression then they would have sinned far worse. As it was she retained her honor and her nobility by resisting and doing so fiercely. After reading about the Mexican War no one should ever be able to accuse the Mexican people of cowardice.
All in all I give it 4 stars. It was good, I agreed with the authors thesis (not a criteria for starring however...) and it was well written and an easy read. I will need to read more on the topic to be able to form a more solid opinion but for a primer I do recommend the Generals book.
July 25, 2011
A great book about an under-regarded topic. Eisenhower's (the son of the general/president, and a general himself) work on the Mexican War takes its title from the lament of a Mexican leader ("Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States...") and is unexpectedly relevant, with issues of immigration (though in this case, from the US to Mexico), a popular war that becomes unpopular, political control of the military, and quite a few other points that will resonate with readers of today's headlines, even though this book was written in 1989.
From a military standpoint, I was impressed with the leadership of generals Zachary Taylor (who seems to be under-estimated in US military history) and Winfield Scott (who won kudos from no less than the Duke of Wellington for his operations) and Commodore David Conner (also quite under-estimated and overshadowed by his successor, Matthew C. Perry). But the men who, for better or worse, influence nearly every page are the dueling leaders, President James K. Polk and sometime-General, sometime-President, sometime-Dictator, sometime-exile Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (who, in a plot twist worthy of a political thriller is actually assisted in his return to Mexico at Polk's direction). Neither national leader shines-- Polk in particular seems more fascinated by political maneuvering than nearly anything else, and Santa Anna fruitlessly scatters his not-inconsiderable talents too widely to be truly effective-- but both emerge as fascinating (if tarnished) individuals.
The book has a few (minor) errors and seems to end a bit abruptly, but it's well worth the read.
From a military standpoint, I was impressed with the leadership of generals Zachary Taylor (who seems to be under-estimated in US military history) and Winfield Scott (who won kudos from no less than the Duke of Wellington for his operations) and Commodore David Conner (also quite under-estimated and overshadowed by his successor, Matthew C. Perry). But the men who, for better or worse, influence nearly every page are the dueling leaders, President James K. Polk and sometime-General, sometime-President, sometime-Dictator, sometime-exile Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (who, in a plot twist worthy of a political thriller is actually assisted in his return to Mexico at Polk's direction). Neither national leader shines-- Polk in particular seems more fascinated by political maneuvering than nearly anything else, and Santa Anna fruitlessly scatters his not-inconsiderable talents too widely to be truly effective-- but both emerge as fascinating (if tarnished) individuals.
The book has a few (minor) errors and seems to end a bit abruptly, but it's well worth the read.
November 1, 2021
John S.D. Eisenhower writes clearly and concisely. This book is well done.
Ulysses S Grant wrote that the the Mexican War was “the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.… an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies.…”. Having just read biographies of John Tyler and James Polk I was familiar with the maneuvers that led to the war.
This book was informative about the politics and backstabbing between the American Generals and their relationship to various politicians. Make sure you read yhe appendixes and epilogue - they give more insight. This was a brutal war, due as much to the climate, the lack of adequate supplies and the lack of preparedness of some troops. 13% of all the troops deployed died - a n astounding number.
I wasn't as engaged in the details of the campaign - but he does a good job describing them.
I'm not very "politically correct," but one of Eisenhower's comments took me aback:
"Some five thousand of the others were “semicivilized” Indians, who had been baptized by the
missions, and another ten thousand were complete savages." (Book was written 31 years ago)
I'd highly recommend Eisenhower's
book:Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott|2683748 ] which covers Scott from the War of 1812 through the Civil War
Ulysses S Grant wrote that the the Mexican War was “the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.… an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies.…”. Having just read biographies of John Tyler and James Polk I was familiar with the maneuvers that led to the war.
This book was informative about the politics and backstabbing between the American Generals and their relationship to various politicians. Make sure you read yhe appendixes and epilogue - they give more insight. This was a brutal war, due as much to the climate, the lack of adequate supplies and the lack of preparedness of some troops. 13% of all the troops deployed died - a n astounding number.
I wasn't as engaged in the details of the campaign - but he does a good job describing them.
I'm not very "politically correct," but one of Eisenhower's comments took me aback:
"Some five thousand of the others were “semicivilized” Indians, who had been baptized by the
missions, and another ten thousand were complete savages." (Book was written 31 years ago)
I'd highly recommend Eisenhower's
book:Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott|2683748 ] which covers Scott from the War of 1812 through the Civil WarDisplaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews