Eagles and Empire: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle for a Continent

by David A. Clary

A war that started under questionable pretexts. A president who is convinced of his country’s might and right. A military and political stalemate with United States troops occupying a foreign land against a stubborn and deadly insurgency.

The time is the 1840s. The enemy is Mexico. And the war is one of the least known and most important in both Mexican and United States history—a war that really began much earlier and whose consequences still echo today. Acclaimed historian David A. Clary presents this epic struggle for a continent for the first time from both sides, using original Mexican and North American sources.


To Mexico, the yanqui illegals pouring into her territories of Texas and California threatened Mexican sovereignty and security. To North Americans, they manifested their destiny to rule the continent. Two nations, each raising an eagle as her standard, blustered and blundered into a war because no one on either side was brave enough to resist the march into it.

In Eagles and Empire , Clary draws vivid portraits of the period’s most fascinating characters, from the cold-eyed, stubborn United States president James K. Polk to Mexico’s flamboyant and corrupt general-president-dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna; from the legendary and ruthless explorer John Charles Frémont and his guide Kit Carson to the “Angel of Monterey” and the “Boy Heroes” of Chapultepec; from future presidents such as Benito Juárez and Zachary Taylor to soldiers who became famous in both the Mexican and North American civil wars that soon followed. Here also are the Irish Soldiers of Mexico and the Yankee sailors of two squadrons, hero-bandits and fighting Indians of both nations, guerrilleros and Texas Rangers, and some amazing women soldiers.

From the fall of the Alamo and harrowing marches of thousands of miles in the wilderness to the bloody, dramatic conquest of Mexico City and the insurgency that continued to resist, this is a riveting narrative history that weaves together events on the front lines—where Indian raids, guerrilla attacks, and atrocities were matched by stunning acts of heroism and sacrifice—with battles on two home fronts—political backstabbing, civil uprisings, and battle lines between Union and Confederacy and Mexican Federalists and Centralists already being drawn. The definitive account of a defining war, Eagles and Empire is page-turning history—a book not to be missed.

Genres: History, American History, Military History, Nonfiction, War, Military Fiction, American

624 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Jerome Otte · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very comprehensive history of the Mexican-American War.Impartial in its presentation. Clary’s style is brisk and engaging.

Sweeping in scope and lively in prose, the book covers a broad range of subject matter, but never bogs down or gets dull. Clary highlights many of the colorful characters of the war, among them President Polk, General Scott, and presidential envoy Nicholas Trist, all of whom disliked and distrusted each other.

Both James Polk and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in the opinion of the author behaved rather badly in their approach to this conflict. Polk was impatient, wanting to leave a political legacy and thus he wanted to acquire more territory while Santa Anna was vainglorious and itched for a fight to add to his bloated vanity.

Clary contends that this war was totally unnecessary. He stated in his conclusion in the book that Anglo immigration into Texas, New Mexico Territory and California would have made that part of North America subject to absorption by the United States peacefully in the not so distant future. Polk’s impatience led to provoking Mexico into a fight by sending forces led by General Zachary Taylor into the disputed Nueces Strip to draw the Mexicans into a battle. The Battle of Palo Alto set into motion Congress' declaration of war and so afterward, major fighting began. As in most wars atrocities were committed and this one was no exception. Clary chronicles the horrid behavior of the volunteer regiments among the Mexican people. While the regulars behaved decently to a certain extent, the volunteers penchant of raping, pillaging and looting of the countryside led to bitter resentment by the mexicanos and led to guerrilla warfare which was still going strong even after General Winfield Scott captured Mexico City.

One of the more shameful episodes of the war was at Querétaro, where US soldiers, to avenge the death of Major Samuel Walker (killed in a cavalry charge) were given orders by their superiors to sack the town, resulting in widespread gang rapes of the locals. This shoddy episode isn’t even mentioned in John Eisenhower’s history of the war.

Every book has its annoying tidbits, and “Eagles and Empire” is no exception. For example, Clary draws up a biography of General Winfield Scott, naming characteristics, personality trait, etc. Among these, Clary feels it necessary to state that Scott is a “brilliant conversationalist” (wow, a brilliant one? I’m so jealous), and an “expert cook” (wow, an expert cook, no wonder this guy made General-in-Chief).

In all, a must-read for anyone interested in the Mexican-American War.

[Moises Cordova · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't recommend this book, particularly if you are not very familiar with the Mexican-American War.

In chapter 2, the book says that pulque and mescal are the same beverage, this is a mistake, pulque is a fermented beverage and mescal is a distilled beverage. It would be like confusing beer with Whisky.

In the same chapter the book mentions that the mexican constitution of 1824 banned slavery but this is not true, you can search for the full text online and there is no mention of slavery.

In the illustrations section there is a drawing depicting a hero bandit by late 19th century, however if you are familiar with mexican history you can see that the drawing is a copy of a portrait of Emiliano Zapata, a leader of the Mexican Revolution, Zapata was born 30 years after the end of the Mexican War and the photo was taken in 1911. The use of this image is completely anachronistic.

In a very short time you have the impression that you can't trust the book.

There are other statements in the book that seem very questionable.

In chapter 1 the book describes the terms "indio" and "indigena" as two different groups however both terms are synonyms in spanish.

In the same chapter, the lyrics of the famous mexican song La cucaracha are described as "La cucaracha ya no puede cambiar" (the cockroach cannot change anymore) the actual lyrics should be "La cucaracha ya no puede caminar" (the cockroach cannot walk anymore) I wonder if this is an issue with the original source, for a non-spanish speaker "caminar" can be confused with "cambiar"

I dare to say that there is an anti-mexican bias in the book,

In Chapter 2, Vicente Guerrero, one of the heroes of the mexican war of independence is described by the author as "really an illiterate peasant dressed up in a dazzling uniform." and the mexican beverage pulque is described "it tasted like rotten meat," The final chapter 25 seems like a veiled apology of the war.

There are more things I could mention about the book (i.e. the strange use of spanish words across all the book: "soldado" instead of soldier and "Presidente" instead of President) however I hope that the issues with the book are clear.

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This took a long time to read, but it was worth it. The author spent a considerable time with the "messy" elements of the war, which are usually missing. Stuff like the fighting among classes in Mexican states, fighting with the tribes in New Mexico were some of them. One of the greater themes was the ill-discipline of the (North) American volunteer troops, "behavior... matched that of the mercenary armies of the late Middle Ages more than what was expected of a modern army in the 1840s." Confusion over fighting with irregulars led to some of this, but a lot starts with the Volunteers. I think one of the reasons I took so long to read it, taking breaks with other things, was the continual appearance of murders and pillage.

American and Mexican domestic politics appear, too, so that was a plus for me.

There's a really fat bibliography, so this would seem a good starting place for a serious study of the war.

[Jaybird Rex · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm surprised there aren't more reviews/fans of this wonderful history. Clary's got a concise (yet humanistic) prose, and satisfyingly scientific balance, and a depth of understanding of the subject that's both immediately obvious and inspiring. I read a lot of history and this one's quite a bit above par.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A time of war notable for the incompetence, greed, brutality and ego on both sides.

I recommend this book mostly for students of military history. As for me, I found myself lost in the frequent discussion of troop movements, supply lines and defense build ups. I was more interested in Clary's drawing of the personalities of the principals--mostly a sad and regrettable crew.

[Nate Gingrich · Rating 2 out of 5]

So far so good... though very biased

[Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very informative history of the relationship between Mexico and the United States during the USA’s expansion period of Manifest Destiny. The main focus of the book is the War with Mexico, 1846 to 1848; but, is not limited to that subject. It reviews how each nation came to the point in time and then especially what happened to Mexico after the War. Neither nation comes across particularly well in this history. Mexico had been a mess with chaotic and rapid turnovers in national government leadership since its Independence from Spain in 1810. Their army’s generals used their positions to conduct coups and countercoups throughout the 19th century. Even though Mexico lost their province or state of Texas in 1836, they refused to acknowledge that fact. The border between Texas and Mexico was in dispute. Was it the Rio Grande as America wanted to believe or the Nueces River as Mexico believed. The American President, James Polk, wanted certain territories owned by Mexico. He was primarily interested in acquiring California. He tried several times to buy California from Mexico, but they were not willing to sell. Polk used the Texas border dispute to create provocations for war, not really wanting war, but; hoping this would cause Mexico to see the danger of a war and come to terms diplomatically about California and other issues. However, Mexico believed they could win a war with America, so they never saw things Polk’s way. Once War came about, the USA had many difficulties due to poor communications because of the distance between Washington D.C. and the War zone. Plus, the generals of the USA’s two primary armies, Generals Taylor and Scott, were members of the Whig political party, whereas Polk was a Democrat. Polk feared the generals would become too successful and popular and challenge him in the 1848 Presidential election. So, that working relationship was always poor and led to many missteps in the war effort. The campaigns were difficult due to the environment and small size of the USA’s regular army. The USA volunteers were never very reliable in battle, but they were brutal to the Mexican population. Reprisals and counter reprisals led to much bloodshed and civilian death. Plus, after the war technically ended, guerilla campaigns and counter insurgencies ruled the day. So, there is much to learn about the relationship between the countries and to the how and why of this war. This author does a thorough job as he provides the information needed to better understand that period of time and even how that war continues to impact relations with Mexico up until the present day.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great read! Not only does it provide the multisided context for the war, but a wonderful summary of how it impacts the 21st century.

[G Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

welldone, exhaustive book.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Poor Mexico! So far from god, so close to the United States,” a former president of Mexico is claimed to have said.

Yes, poor Mexico. Spain’s legacy was a ruling class more interested in maintaining its power and wealth than in the well-being of its people and nation. Its Spanish-European elite and the church (both with immense state-sized land holdings covering most of the country) confounded every attempt to share power and thus the majority of the population lived in abject poverty as serfs.

The result was decades of unending strife and civil war. (Thus the dangers of a hereditary ruling elite, extreme income disparities, a centralized religion and poverty.) The irony of it all is that Spain was booted out of Mexico when it proposed a more liberal constitution that gave the Mexican poor more rights.

And then there was this growing behemoth north of them. The United States, blessed with a more reasonable colonial structure (but not necessarily smarter or more moral leader), was bursting at its borders. Homesteaders were streaming into Texas, California and Oregon – lands owned by Mexico and England.

Then mix in this recipe the quirky, sadly comical, unfocused Santa Ana, and thus came the Mexican American War.

Eagles and Empire is both an excellent book and a frustrating book. It provides an excellent telling the Mexican side of the Mexican American War and the decades leading up to it – which is something I was very curious about.

However, it goes to such great pains to present both sides of the story and it suffers from a “he said she said” lack of conviction. While rich in facts and anecdotes, it doesn't provide a lot of interpretation.

For example, the book points out that Polk wanted California and Texas as part of what he perceived to be the country’s Manifest Destiny. Everyone agrees on that. At the time, some like John Quincy Adams and Ulysses Grant said the war was intentionally provoked as a pretext for a land grab to expand slavery. Is that true? What was Polk’s position on the slavery issue? It’s hard to know by reading this book. It really doesn’t take a clear position.

Also, was the war as the result of ham-handed foreign policy, or was it provoked? Taylor’s provocative crossing of the Nueces River, entering what was considered by American treaties to be Mexico, goes by without a note of the significance.

The problem with this wonderfully detailed book, it appears to me, is that the author presents all events equally. This was a war that in many respects started the Civil War, and while the author acknowledges this, he didn’t unravel it for us. As a result, the book does a wonderful job with the tactical details, but he leaves it to the reader to sort out the big strategic and historical issues of the war.

Despite these flaws, this is a long but engaging, lively history that (North) Americans know little about, and the author tells it in a very entertaining fashion. He digs into the sources and pulls out nuggets that help create the characters and the times. The Mexican side of the story was a revelation to me.

It’s a very wide-ranging, very detailed book, and if you have a deep interest in North American history, this is a great book that I strongly recommend, though I'd also add that it comes up one chapter short.

Additional Note:
At about page 380 of this book, I went to the book index to look up references to “rape.” It wasn’t listed. However, the book is full of stories of the American soldiers (mostly the volunteers) raping, killing, maiming, looting and vandalizing the Mexican population. Hardly a page goes by without stories of horrific conduct. A mixture of racism and religious bigotry, fueled by years of bloody border wars, alcohol and the indifference/impotence of army leaders made this war a truly embarrassing, shameful episode in American history.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I would have liked this better if I had sat down and read it through. The chronology got a bit muddled for me at times and I forgot which American General was who and where. I didn't have that problem with the Mexican generals, because while Clary listed them, he didn't refer to them much.

Whether this was a source limitation, or a deliberate choice, I don't know, but I feel that this would have been truer to the title if he had more information on the Mexican side. The pithy summation chapter was a waste of time and not really relevant to the argument at hand. Still, it was interesting enough to hold my attention during breaks at work.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a very exhaustive history of the disputes over Texas and the Mexican-American War. The war was easily preventable by either nation. The leadership on both sides was often atrocious. The war is fascinating as the infighting on both sides showed the political divisions of each nation which would throw both nations into chaos and civil war later on in the 19th Century. It also shows the start of American interference in Latin America, and the resulting distrust of los norteamericanos.

This book is excellently sourced and noted!

[Rick Hautala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great for detailed and balanced information and analysis, but it reads more like a text book that involving history ... (and now I know why we celebrate Cinco de Maio ...) Jumped right into W H Brands LONE STAR NATION, which is a smoother read ...

[Eric Mccann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a period of time I'm honestly all that up on, but as far as US and Mexican history, fairly important.

The book's not small by any means, but it's extremely well presented and very readable.

Recommended reading? Absolutely.

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed look at the war with Mexico, including viewpoints from both sides and showing the events that led to the war and the aftermath. The author did a very competent job of presenting the facts in a manner that was readable.