Mexican War, 1846-1848 (Revised)

A workman-like narrative of the Mexican War, evenly divided between military history and the political/diplomatic aspects of the conflict. Although not as engaging as Eisenhower's So Far From God, it is far more comprehensive. Unlike authors who have viewed this war as basically inspired by imperialism and au fond, immoral, Bauer's thesis is that the war was "unavoidable" as it was the conflict with Mexico over a common boundary, which in turn was a result of the "inexorable westward....demands of destiny." Manifest Destiny--not imperialism. (I'm not sure that there is much of a difference to the lay person). Mexican demands for national sovereignty and self-respect prevented Mexico from relinquishing any territory it considered its own except to overwhelming force. Polk, according to Bauer, wanted a negotiated settlement with the Mexican government (which, at the time, was in near-chaos) but chose the path of rough wooing rather than trying to negotiate as with equals. Although high members of the Mexican government were willing to do so, they could not begin as it would appear that they were caving in to gringo pressure. The actual casus bellum was the Mexican crossing of the Rio Grande into territory that Polk claimed, and ordered occupied by American troops before the start of negotiations. The Mexican view was that the border between Texas and Mexico proper was the Nueces River, about 35 miles north of the Rio Grande where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. Along with the conventional account of the campaigns of Taylor, then of Scott, Bauer also devotes several chapters on the US navy's role in the war. The Mexican navy consisted of small craft; it's only significant warships had been transferred to British commercial interests at the start of the fighting. Basically, the job of the US navy was to blockade some six east-coast ports--not an easy task, as the there were only two seasons along the east coast--the rainy season when yellow fever was rampant, and the dry season, which brought vicious northerly gales that could strike without warning. Hence the navy preferred to seize the ports rather than blockading them. By 1848, all but two of the eastern ports had been captured. The western coast of Mexico was also blockaded. Again, seizure of the ports, rather than blockade was the preferred option. It's not clear whether naval operations were intended to complement the land war as part of a single plan. Rather, the navy did its thing without too much coordination with Scott and Taylor. The political fallout of Mr. Polk's war was felt early. Polk had been able to make the Whigs party to the decision to go to war, thereby quieting dissent. When the Congressional session ended, however, strong opposition to the war erupted. Anti-administration Democrats and moderate Whigs contended that the war was unconstitutionally begun by Polk. The Whigs split into radical and conservative camps. The radical Whigs were primarily locate

In the 1960s the Macmillan Company contracted with a large group of military historians to write book-length overviews of the wars of the United States. Although it took decades to complete the series, collectively the more than twenty volumes that appeared in this "Macmillan Wars of the United States" series reinterpreted American military history for a new generation of readers. K. Jack Bauer's volume deals with the origins, evolution, and immediate aftermath of the war with Mexico in 1846-1848. It is a powerful narrative exploring this relatively forgotten chapter in American history. I first read this book in graduate school in 1980, and I recently reread it to refresh my memory and assess its continuing relevance. Although first published more than thirty years ago, upon rereading I would still recommend it as the most authoritative one-volume history of the war, although there are others that are also capable narratives of the same subject. Those others include John S.D. Eisenhower's "So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848" (New York: Anchor Books, 1989) and Otis A. Singletary's "The Mexican War" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). But I recommend this book as both a very useful overview and an insightful study of lessons -learned that might be applied to both the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Bauer's work, like much history of the 1970s, especially military history, was informed by the U.S. debacle in Vietnam. Americans had just suffered a defeat at the hands of a dedicated opposition fighting in its own territory. It represented a dramatic failure of the American Empire. Bauer expends considerable energy investigating the similarities, as well as the discontinuities, in these two episodes. First, like the nation's leadership during the Vietnam era, Bauer argues that the leadership of the United States in the 1840s understood virtually nothing about the Mexican civilization and failed to fathom attitudes and reactions to American ideas and attitudes. National leaders did not appreciate that positions accepted as sui generis in the United States did not persuade those on the other side of the Rio Grande. President James K. Polk, he notes, believed that just a little more pressure would force Mexico's Santa Anna to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution to differences. Second, Bauer believes that much of the history of the war with Mexico, like the Vietnam experience, revolves around a failure to deal with legitimate differences through diplomacy. The failure to communicate brought a devastating result for Mexico, and arguably for the United States as well since the acquisition of the American Southwest brought to the fore the question of the extension of slavery into U.S. territories. This led to the American Civil War of 1861-1865 and the Reconstruction period of 1865-1877. Third, Bauer explores the issue of public perceptions of the war. Some marched off believing that they represented the forces of manifest dest

Bauer is no Shelby Foote and this book no elegant synthesis of art and history. It remains a serviceable addition to the history buff's library, however, with its detailed accounts of the politics and battles of this little known conflict. Through Bauer we can appreciate men such as the unsung Commodore David Conner, the brash Commodore Robert Stockton, the easy-going, slovenly Zachary Taylor, the brilliant Winfield Scott. Civil War buffs will want this volume to appreciate how this conflict shaped the tactics and personalities of the next great confrontation in American history.

Bauer has done a great job here. It might be a little spare on the personalities, but for those who know nothing about this war, and there are multitudes, this is a good start.The only thing I disagree with is Bauer's notion that the United States had nothing to fear from foriegn expansion into the near empty land which was claimed by Mexico. Republican Government had few friends in 1846 and we should put ourselves in the shoes of Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, and James K. Polk when we think of this era. They believed, and probably correctly, that the worst threat to the survival of the U.S. was to continue to try and exist with such a huge open territory on our borders. All that would be needed would be a foreign power with a thirst for empire on our borders and we might cease to exist. Men who thought this way were not imperialists, they were filled with fear for the survival of their decendants. Mexico was not governing much less defending the territories necessary for American survival and something needed to be done about it and fast. I don't recall any of the great Americans of this era ever using the term "manifest destiny." (Bauer doesn't say that either. Revisionists use this newspaper term.) More like manifest survival. This opinion shouldn't of mine shouldn't keep readers from enjoying this book, though. Wonderful job Dr. Bauer!

This is the best of the Mexican War books I have read. The only critical comment I would have is that the actors sometimes get confused as Bauer tries to put their experience in this war in a context with the War Between the States. His careful scholarship, though, shows how closely PBS came with its mini-series and where they failed. Few books, I think, give such insight into the role of fashion in historical research, which, by itself, is valuable to us amateurs. It is the last book on this subject of which I am aware which has not taken political correctness into account and so his critical attitude towards the Mexican government and that country's ruling classes might provide food for thought for some.