Eagles and Empire

[Herb]

My to read stack has gotten to large and I just recently pulled David Clary's Eagles and Empire off the bottom and started it. I'm about 90 pages into it, and haven't developed a very warm and fuzzy feeling about it. I was wondering if anybody has read it and if I'm selling it short?

I just finished Johnson's A Gallant Little Army (I told you my to read stack had gotten out of hand). I thought it was a great read, though I didn' find anything earth shattering in it. One thing that I did find interesting is how large a role Beauregard actually played, according to Johnson, and how he was ignored in Scott's official reports.

[Kevin Young]

Have not read Eagles, but did read Gallent Little Armyi]. Nice read, but I have to agree, not alot that is new, except for the elevation of Beauregard.

[TRK]

I've been thinking of getting Gallant Little Army, but I'd probably be disappointed. Guess I'll be happy with what I've already got on Scott's Mexico City Campaign (which is a pretty tidy pile).

[Kevin Young]

I think it is a good history of the campaign, so it will remain on the shelf. It is nice to see someone writing on the subject.

[Herb]

I finally finished this book, and I'm afraid my initial feelings turned out to be well justified.

Like any well researched book, there are some nuggets of value, one of its best features is that the Mexican perspective is excellently presented. This includes presenting the War in the more traditional Mexican way as the Texas War (1835 -1846) and the War of 1847, in fact the book's main body is divided into two books with these titles. It is one of the most thorough acounts of the whole war that I have read.

However its chief purpose is in presenting the American Army and its senior leadership as incompetent and immoral, while this is certainly the case with some generals (Pillow easily comes to mind) and some units most notably certain volunteer regiments this has been told better and with less bias than this author. The bashing of Winfield Scott is, imo. certainly unjustified.

For instance, he claims that Scott acted immorally and violated the Law of War when besieging Vera Cruz, when he didn't accept the Mexican request for an armistice to evacuate the noncombatants. He neglects to mention that Scott offered an armistice for exactly that purpose before beginning the cannonade that was rejected by the Mexican Commander, General Morales (of the Alamo). He also fails to mention the time pressure Scott was under to capture the city and move his army to the healthy uplands before the vomito season began. Something that Morales was trying to prevent. As far as the Law of War, nothing at the time (and even now) truly applied and neglects the contrary evidence the Napoleonic Wars' seiges provided (see especially the British siege of Copenhagen).

As for as the atrocities committed by US units, as I mentioned above, other authors have covered this well documented subject in much better detail telling the story of reprisal and counter reprisal in a much better balanced manner.

Another example of the authors bias, is his telling the well known story of Santa Anna travelling under passport to exit the country passing through Jack Hays' Regiment of Texas Rangers. According to the author it was only the presence of a handful of Mexican lancers and American dragoons escorting Santa Anna that prevented his murder (as if such a small escort could have prevented that). No where does the author mention Jack Hays and his officers appeal to their men and their effective efforts to maintain good order and discipline in this particualr case.

Such selective bias is shown throught out the volume. The author finally lets us in on his reasoning in his final chapter when he compares the Mexican War with the modern War in Iraq, prior to the surge.

While this may be a volume of some value to those with an intense interest in thee Mexican War, I would not recommend it for those with only a casual interest.

[Jim Boylston]

I just got this book, and it's on deck in my "to read" stack. I'm finishing up Merry's book on Polk, which should dovetail nicely with this one.
Thanks for the review!
jim

[Herb]

Polk certainly does not come off very well in this volume. But, in this case, I think the evidence justifies the author's conclusions.

However, somewhat in justification, I would say Polk is one of the few presidents that actually accomplished his major objectives (no matter how ineptly) while in office!

One of the things, I didn't mention, that I found interesting was the discussion on the resolution of the Texas-New Mexico boundary and all the subtext that was going on. While the larger Compormise of 1850 doesn't get all that much discussion, he goes into a lot more detail on the boundary question than most authors.

[Kevin Young]

Feb 28, 2010 16:22:19 GMT -5 Jim Boylston said:

I just got this book, and it's on deck in my "to read" stack. I'm finishing up Merry's book on Polk, which should dovetail nicely with this one.
Thanks for the review!
jim

Thanks for the review-I think I will save my money on this one. Still reading the Polk book