Rating: 
Summary: Half a Loaf
Review: A model for this book might have been Donald R. Hickey's "The War of 1812: A Short History." In "The War of 1812," Hickey summarizes both the political and military battles of the War of 1812 concisely and elegantly, leaving the reader with a clear view of the issues. Eisenhower's book fails in this regard. Neither an in-depth look at the battles, nor a political history of the war, the book is an uncomfortable blend that never quite makes it on any level. There are some surprising omissions here (Where exactly were the borders of Texas at the beginning of the war? Why did Polk allow Santa Anna back into Mexico?), and "continuity" often seems amiss. Detailed descriptions end suddenly and awkward three sentence paragraphs appear, as if the editors were uncertain how to proceed. The book is "half a loaf" and readers interested in specific topics (the politics, cultural impacts or the battles) would be better off looking elswhere.
Rating:
Summary: An Adequate Introduction
Review: An adequate introduction to Justin H. Smith's immensely more comprehensive "The War With Mexico".
Rating: 
Summary: One of Today's Best Writers of Military History
Review: I had purchased this book quite some time before I actually began to read it. The subject of the Mexican War was one of only moderate interest to me and I put off beginning it several times. When I finally did begin, I couldn't put it down. In large part, this was because of Gen. Eisenhower's (like many sons of great men, he seems reluctant to exploit his family connections) remarkable skills as a writer and narrator. Indeed, I would rank him as perhaps the best writer of military history working today in light of his efforts in a number of different areas. I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in this underdiscussed part of American history, but also to any aspiring writer, just to see how it ought to be done. The excellence is not merely in style, but also in the fair and reasonable interpretation of both sides of a conflict that is normally viewed either through the lens of chauvinism or else with a masochistic level of anti-Americanism. If you are impressed with this splendid work, as I was, the next logical step is to buy a copy of Eisenhower's related work, Agent of Destiny on Winfield Scott.
Rating:
Summary: One of Today's Best Writers of Military History
Review: I had purchased this book quite some time before I actually began to read it. The subject of the Mexican War was one of only moderate interest to me and I put off beginning it several times. When I finally did begin, I couldn't put it down. In large part, this was because of Gen. Eisenhower's (like many sons of great men, he seems reluctant to exploit his family connections) remarkable skills as a writer and narrator. Indeed, I would rank him as perhaps the best writer of military history working today in light of his efforts in a number of different areas. I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in this underdiscussed part of American history, but also to any aspiring writer, just to see how it ought to be done. The excellence is not merely in style, but also in the fair and reasonable interpretation of both sides of a conflict that is normally viewed either through the lens of chauvinism or else with a masochistic level of anti-Americanism. If you are impressed with this splendid work, as I was, the next logical step is to buy a copy of Eisenhower's related work, Agent of Destiny on Winfield Scott.
Rating:
Summary: Commonly diluted story resurrected to it's orignal drama!
Review: I have just finished reading "So Far from God" and must say that this has been a very readable and interesting historical narrative. Without losing attention to detail, and loaded with references, this account of the Mexican American War was suspenseful to say the least. Eisenhower does a great job in bringing the context of the period to understanding of the conflict. Most interesting to me was the impact the division of the American North and South had on the perceptions of the war within the United States.
Eisenhour does a great job portraying the conflict as a struggle between two third world countries, as the U.S. and Mexico were perceived to be at the time. He brings to life issues such as the threats that England, France, Spain and Russia posed to the fledging republics and how decision making was affected on both sides. Especially interesting were the divisions that existed in Mexico and the amount of support in Mexico for and against the war and those who were apathetic and those who wanted Mexico to lose...
Overall, an absolutely excellent book that provides a great read!
Rating:
Summary: Best History of Mexican-American War
Review: I like it that nowhere in this book is it mentioned that the author is the son of President Eisenhower. The book is presented on its own merits -- and it's a good book, the best I have found about our fascinating and momentous war with Mexico in 1846-1847. Eisenhower lacks flash and dash as an author. The virtues of the book are reliability, thoroughness, lack of obvious bias, good maps, and illustrations. Mexico could have won this war. They outnumbered the Americans two in one in nearly every battle. American artillery and aggressiveness combined with abysmal Mexican leadership won the war. President Polk impresses as a man I wouldn't want to play poker with. Zachary Taylor-- a future President -- was a good, no-nonsense general. Winfield Scott was something of a military genius. His expedition from Veracuz on the coast to capture Mexico City (remember the line? "in the halls of Montezuma.") duplicated the feat of Cortes three centuries earlier. In covering the whole war in one volume, Eisenhower misses some of the drama of this bold and brilliant expedition. Among the Mexicans, alas, are no admirable characters -- except for the long-suffering, misled common soldiers who fought bravely. Santa Anna dominates and he was a charlatan.
One of the most interesting features of the Mexican war is the participation as junior officers of soldiers who would become famous in the Civil war. Captain Robert E. Lee was a hero in this war as an engineer and scout. Grant, Meade, McClellan, Stonewall Jackson, Beauregard and a host of others appear in cameo roles. The timeless lament of the Mexicans is "Poor Mexico: so far from God and so close to the United States." But then again, Mexico is the "colossus of the north" when you look at it from the point of view of the countries in Central America.
Rating: 
Summary: Woeful, Wonderful and Wrong?
Review: If anyone undertakes even a cursory study of the concept of Manifest Destiny, he or she will sooner or later be forced to deal with the facts surrounding the US war with Mexico. 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. And report the facts he does! What the American military accomplished over such a vast theater of operations with little more than 100,000 men in less than one year of active campaigning is almost incomprehensible. Mexico was no easy conquest. This became the bloodiest war the United States ever fought: 13% of those engaged died. But it was also a string of the most amazing, lightening fast victories, fought by officers who would face each as protagonists in the subsequent American Civil War. In a very real sense, this war with Mexico was a training ground for the holocaust that was to follow 13 years later. This is a study in operational efficiency. American armies executed their war plans with impunity in four separate theaters of war and over thousands and thousands of miles. Fought from today's Brownsville, Texas to Monterrey and Buena Vista, from Veracruz to Mexico City, from Missouri to Chihuahua, and from El Paso to Los Angeles and San Francisco, this war spanned the continent. Fought at a time when communication really did not exist, when wagon trains and pack mules were the only forms of logistical support, this kind of coordinated effort was truly a spectacular feat of arms.
Rating:
Summary: A Many Faceted War in One Book
Review: The US government hypes up a war with a smaller, ill-governed country, for questionable purposes. The US wins, but it doesn't solve any of the ostensible problems that were cited as reasons for the war, and we get saddled with trying to administer a large, unruly, impoverished territory: in this case, Texas. Reading this book will make you want to go to war with Mexico again, just to make them take Texas back. Seriously, read this for a look at the events that formed many subsequent Civil War generals.
Rating: 
Summary: Something Missing
Review: This book gets two stars from me because it is too short and because it, like so many other studies of the Mexican War, fails to attempt to understand the thinking of America's leading men of the time. Somehow the great military power the United States has today seems to blur the thinking of historians of today who write of this conflict. The fact is that in the late 1840s the United States was not a military power worth considering and, most important, it was the first and only democracy in the world and was feared, hated and despised by those in power in almost every other government in the world. Because these governments had every interest in democracy's undoing, America's leaders believed the United States had to get to the Pacific shore of the continent or probably perish along with government of by and for the people. Mexico, unfortunately, was in the way of what America's leaders saw as a battle for the survival of democracy. ("Manifest Destiny" was not a term used by Sam Houston or James K. Polk or their collegues; it was a term used by hack reporters to describe their own jingoistic beliefs.) It is interesting that the title of the book contains part of a quotation from a Mexican leader of the early 20th century when the U. S. WAS a great power and not from the era written about. Great writing by the general, however, and an enjoyable book even though it seems, like so many others, to flirt slightly with today's leftist mantras. (New York editors maybe? Not an Eisenhower!)
Rating:
Summary: one of the best books on the subject
Review: This book proves to be well written, well researched and quite readable even to a casual reader. The author present his material with certain level of clarity and insights that make this book a sure fire winner. Luckily, the author does not malingered over the political correctness of the war as we see it today. The Mexican War cost Mexico any chance she had in becoming a dominate power in North America. That role went to the United States for better or for worst. As an American, I would say, for the better!! The author also wrote with amazing sense of objectively regarding many of the major characters of the war, from Winfield Scott to Santa Anna. If there was one book to read on the subject, I would recommended this one.
|
