Customer Reviews

A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a great read on a topic that is too often ignored by Americans (North Americans, that is!)--the origins of US-Mexican relations. Packed into 191 pages, this book is concise without losing anything necessary to tell the story. Henderson zeroes in on the flip side of Manifest Destiny and discusses the impact of US expansionism on its southern neighbor. He does so without reducing the Mexicans to passive victims of US greed, but active agents in their own destiny...and their own defeat as it turns out. Henderson develops the main Mexican protagonist in this drama, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, as a full-blooded and fatally flawed character in Mexican history. Stephen Austin and his role as Texas empressario and later Texas/US patriot is also fully discussed here.

The book is also a valuable contribution to the debate over immigration from Mexico, and the pervasive hostiliy that has affected it.

Casual readers of American history may be surprised by the less than flattering image of the Lone Star State during this time.

Military buffs beware--this book does not dwell on either the military strategy or tactics used in the war.

An excellent book about how the Mexican-American War took place. The author shows how the politics and evolution of both countries resulted in the war of 1846-1847. Mexico and her politicians knew they were going to lose the war, but because of stubborness and pride, they decided on the confrontation with the Americans. Polk pursued the expansion of the country out of a Manifest Destiny belief. Little of the writing is on the war itself, 95% of the book is the politics that brought about the war. I commend the author on going against the trend of writing about battles, and focusing instead on why both parties found themselves at war.

This is a nice informative read about the war. The author research his topic well and made it very readable. For those interested in this long forgotten war, this is a nice book.

Dr Henderson as a history teacher at AUM (Auburn University at Montgomery AL)is the resident expert on South/Central America. As I read his book, most of it came across as very familiar. He had expounded these same thoughts in several of his classes taught at the University. I have had the fortune to take several of them and can assure readers, he is as good a teacher as he is a writer.

What Dr Henderson does is blow away some very old fables created by both sides. He highlights the simple fact that Santa Anna was not the only individual in Mexico who wanted, for whatever reason, a war with the US. A faction riven Mexico, so brillantly illustrated in detail in this book stumbled into a war for many reasons, not least of course was nationalism. Santa Anna simply rode the wave to power and managed to get killed thousands of Mexican conscripts in a war against a smaller tho much better led and equipped foe.

Another fable is the one of the well equipped/trained Mexican army...no one disputes the Mexican soldiers bravery, especially the US army of the time but no one talks about the quality of the Mexican forces themselves. American regulars far outmatched their opponents in every manner. American militia units also performed better than then Mexican opponents (of course the Americans were all volunteers) The American officers also were generally of better quality and only in the engineers were the Mexicans on par with their enemies. Equipment goes without saying, in every aspect the Americans had at least equal (cavalry wpns/infantry muskets) and in artillery, naval power, logestics-the Americans dominated their enemies.

American politicans too get their comeuppance, Polk is aptly labeled the chief instigator of the actual war. His goal of controlling Texas and northern Mexico was most likely one he had of doing peacefully, but he did not back down when the threat of bloodshed was poised.

Quite rightly, Dr Henderon stays on the political side of the war. The military aspects have been done to death and anyone with even a passing knowledge of the war knows it was an excellent example of a military campaign. For those wanting to know backgrounds of such an event, this book will both indulge and surprise you.

He also has several other books on Mexico including the Mexico Reader. They are all worth the time to find and read!

A GLORIOUS DEFEAT: MEXICO AND ITS WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES is a fine survey of the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 - as told from the Mexican perspective, which sets A GLORIOUS DEFEAT apart from U.S.-centered coverages, which would depict Mexico as the victim of the war. Henderson here emphasizes Mexico's reasons for going to war with the U.S., offering chapters which approach the results from the Mexican perspective and considering why the U.S. did not annex Mexico. An intriguing discussion highly recommended for any collection strong in American or Mexican early history.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

I finished up this book a few weeks ago, and I'd like to say that the storytelling in it was gripping. I had a hard time putting it down. The description of the political situation in Mexico during the first half of the 19th Century was absolutely amazing, as well as the earlier Texas Rebellion.

Yet, the book left me with a strange taste in my mouth....

Henderson starts off with describing the very stark differences in which the American Colonies and Mexican Colony were founded, governed, and finally, freed. As well as the differences as far as economic prosperity and political stability between the two young nations. This is important in learning about how historically incredible the American tradition is, but it wasn't quite clear what the author was getting at. Then, at least three times during the book, the author states, and I'm paraphrasing, that the War between the US and Mexico did nothing to resolve the socio and economic differences between the two nations. Nowhere did Henderson state that this was a war aim, or any sort of goal of either nation. So why the political commentary?

I thought the book was great otherwise, very well written and the description was captivating. Just know I got a very La Reconquista-esque "blame America first" vibe from the book that I'm still a little confused about.

Henderson's book gives a new viewpoint to the Mexican American War, looking not only at the decade leading up to war, but long before that, particularly the colonial roots of many of Mexico's problems. His first few chapters are excellent in laying out a framework with which to understand why Mexico lost Texas, why they were unable to stop it, and political issues that plagued them through the war itself. The book gets progressively weaker, however, as Henderson frequently asserts viewpoints without providing evidence or arguments to support them. This is a serious oversight in an otherwise excellent book. His overall thesis is sound, though poorly supported. The history largely speaks for itself, but that is all the more reason for Henderson to provide even a few sentences towards arguing more salient points. The end of the book did little to tie things together, and brought up entirely new assertions regarding the annexation of Texas and the U.S. Civil War which could have been interesting, but again, were not explained or explored, merely asserted.

Overall, I'd say the book is a good as an undergraduate text or good for those wishing to get a different perspective on the war. To more fully explore the assertions made, however, would require more extensive reading.

A Glorious Defeat, by Auburn University historian Timothy Henderson, is a history of the Mexican War of 1846-48 told from the Mexican point of view. This is not to say that the author seeks to support or justify the Mexican side in the war. Indeed, Professor Henderson states in the preface that with regard to blame for the war, the two sides have plenty to share.

This is the third book on the Mexican War that I've read and reviewed on Amazon.com. (The other two were Robert Merry's A Country of Vast Designs and John Eisenhower's So Far from God.) I added Henderson's book to my reading list specifically because it presented the war from the Mexican viewpoint; Merry presented the geopolitical and domestic situations facing President Polk; Eisenhower presented the battlefield history of the war with a focus on the US commanders, Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor. Henderson presents the Mexican side of the war from an internal political and a diplomatic perspective rather than a military history. In this sense, he provided an excellent counter-point to my two previous sources.

Mexico in the early 1800s was divided across many demographic dimensions. Ethnically, it was divided among those of European descent, Indians, and those of mixed parentage, the fastest growing group. Unlike the English settlers to the north, the Spanish settlers brought few European women with them and took Indian wives, resulting in a large population of mixed parentage. Economically, the upper (European) classes were far wealthier than the poorest (Indian) classes. This economic gap was far larger than that between the richest and poorest in English-speaking North America.

Politically, the divide took on two dimensions. Centralizers, who sought a strong, central government at the expense of the individual Mexican states and territories, were opposed by Federalists whose first loyalty was regional. Conservatives, including monarchists, ardent supporters of the Catholic Church, and the economic upper classes, were opposed by Liberals, who included democrats, secularists, and the less wealthy.

In 1846, Mexico had been independent from Spain for only about 25 years. The first Mexican government was an empire that lasted only a year or two. Following that, it was a republic ruled by rapidly changing presidents, none of whom served a complete term. Most presidents were military leaders who were installed in office by military force. Many new presidents brought with them new constitutions which ranged from liberal and inclusive to autocratic and exclusive. In many respects, Mexican politics and government during this era remind me of the last century of the Roman Republic. (See Tom Holland's Rubicon.)

Professor Henderson's conclusions are that that Mexico went to war knowing that it had no chance of victory. The Mexican army was top heavy with generals whose careers were advanced by their political skills and whose military skills were minimal. The common soldiers were largely unwilling conscripts who had no loyalty to their leaders. Support for the war was largely confined to the upper economic / European classes. The political divisions within these classes were so strong that any potential leader who favored a negotiated settlement would be labeled at traitor by his opponents.

The prime representative of this class of leaders was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, self-styled Napoleon of the Western Hemisphere, who served as president or military dictator eleven separate times interspersed with several internal and foreign exiles. His most successful campaign was the defeat of a French force which landed at Veracruz in 1838 to enforce financial claims. In the ensuing battle, Santa Anna was severely wounded in the leg which was amputated. At the victorious commander's decree, the severed leg was buried with full military honors in a specially constructed mausoleum in Mexico City.

Timothy Henderson's new book A GLORIOUS DEFEAT: MEXICO AND ITS WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES provides a brief but useful overview of the causes and consequences of our war with Mexico almost entirely from the Mexican perspective. From that point of view the U.S. is, of course, portrayed as the aggressor.

Here are some basic facts about the Mexican-American conflict of 1836 to 1848 that you are not likely to find in this book; and certainly will not learn in the typical politically correct history course as taught at today's typical politically correct university.

On the Texas Revolution of 1836

1. Having achieved its independence from Spain in 1821 Mexico quickly became one of the most ill-governed countries in the world: corrupt, disorganized, tyrannical, faction ridden, continually on the verge of civil war, arrogant and utterly inept in its dealings with other nations.

2. By 1836 the majority of the inhabitants of the Mexican state of Texas were Anglo-American settlers, rather than Hispanics.

3. The Texans revolted in 1836 against the corrupt and tyrannical regime of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with the support of most of the native born Hispanic inhabitants of Texas.

4. Texas was not the only Mexican province to revolt against the central government in Mexico City during the 1830s. So did California (repeatedly), Oaxaca, Jalisco, Zacatecas, Michoacan, San Luis Potosi, Queretaro, Durango, Guanajuato and Yucatan. Revolts broke out across the entire country, not only in Texas, and they were led by Hispanics as well as Anglos. The Texan revolt, however, was the only one that succeeded.

5. The U.S. government provided no assistance to the revolutionaries in Texas, and refused to annex the province once it achieved its independence from Mexico. The only assistance the Texans received was from individual volunteers such as Davy Crockett and his Tennesseans.

6. After his defeat by Sam Houston, Mexican President Santa Anna signed the Treaty of San Jacinto conceding Texas' independence and recognizing the Rio Grande as the boundary between the new Republic of Texas and Mexico. He also pledged to secure ratification of the treaty by the Mexican legislature; a promise he failed to keep.

7. For the next ten years the government of Mexico refused to recognize the existence of the independent Republic of Texas, claiming that it remained Mexican territory - a claim that it was unable to make good. At the same time Mexico made the contradictory claim that the southern border of Texas was at the Nueces River, rather than the Rio Grande - another claim that it failed to make good. By its inability to make good these claims Mexico conceded the de facto existence of the Republic of Texas with its southern border at the Rio Grande.

8. The fact that Mexico refused to ratify the treaty of San Jacinto or that the border of the former Mexican state of Texas had been at the Nueces River is immaterial. A nation's independence is established by its ability to defend its independence against attempts by another nation to extinguish it - which Texas did from 1836 to 1845. The right to territory is not established by a treaty only, but by occupancy, and the ability to hold the territory claimed against attempts by others to seize it - as Texas did from 1836 to 1845.

Mexico made at least two attempts to reoccupy the land between the Rio Grande and the Nueces and was driven back across the Rio Grande on each occasion, thus confirming Texas' de facto right to the area. For ten years Mexico failed to enforce its claims either to the territory between the Rio Grande and the Nueces rivers or to the whole of Texas.

On the Mexican-American War of 1846

9. In 1845 Mexico had the largest army on the North American continent - 30,000 plus professional soldiers commanded by the "Napoleon of the West" and a cadre of professionally trained officers, including a number of expatriate European commanders.

The U.S. army in 1845 consisted of approximately 5,000 professional soldiers, plus state militias, commanded by self taught generals (many left over from the War of 1812); with a small cadre of untested graduates from the recently established Military Academy at West Point. Throughout the Mexican War these West Pointers served as junior officers, often under the command of political generals. (It was not until the Civil War that they rose to command the armies of the North and South.)

Contrary to the author's assertions, it was widely anticipated in both Latin America and Europe that Mexico's professional army would easily defeat the Americans.

10. The author claims that the Mexican army was ill equipped, ill trained and lacked discipline and morale; all of which (except for morale) was equally true of the militia who constituted the bulk of the American army.

11. The territory between the Rio Grande and the Nueces rivers was at best disputed territory. As I have argued above, the Republic of Texas had successfully established its de facto authority over the area - a claim which was inherited by the U.S. when it annexed Texas in 1845.

12. Both Mexican and American troops entered the disputed territory in 1846. The presence of U.S. forces in the area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande did not constitute an "invasion of Mexico" or a violation of Mexican sovereignty, which Mexico had failed to re-establish in the area for more than ten years.

The presence of Mexican troops north of the Rio Grande could just as easily be considered an invasion of American territory by right of inheritance from the former Republic of Texas which had controlled the area for the past decade.

13. Following the annexation of Texas by the U.S., General Mariano Parades seized power in Mexico City, declared his intention of driving the Americans out of Texas, mobilized the Mexican army and ordered an attack on American troops along the Rio Grande. On April 23, 1846 he issued a Declaration of War against the United States. The U. S. did not declare war on Mexico until May 13, after Mexican forces had attacked American troops north of the Rio Grande.

14. A superior body of Mexican troops did in fact ambush a much smaller patrol of American cavalry within the disputed territory on April 25, thereby firing the first shot and initiating the war.

The war was thus declared and precipitated by Mexico, just as President Polk claimed.

15. In less than eighteen months the U.S. Army (largely an army of amateur soldiers) defeated a numerically superior Mexican army led by a body of professionally trained officers.

16. Many of the Hispanic inhabitants of New Mexico and California (urged by some of their leaders, including the Governor of California, General Mariano Vallejo) openly supported the Americans during the war.

17. In 1845 the U.S. had annexed the Republic of Texas at its (Texas') request --as it had every right to do. The Polk administration had also sought to purchase California and New Mexico prior to the outbreak of hostilities on the Rio Grande. Mexico refused to sell -- as it had every right to do.

18. Having initiated the war and suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Americans, Mexico ceded New Mexico and California to the U.S. in return for $15 million, plus the cancellation of $3.25 million in debts owed by Mexico to U.S. citizens. By the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the U.S. in effect purchased these territories even after it had already conquered them (which it did not have to do). In accordance with the common practices of the day, the U.S. could have simply annexed the lands it chose by right of conquest and required Mexico to pay an indemnity as well (as the Germans did to France at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War of 1871).

Under the treaty Mexican citizens living in the ceded territories could return to Mexico, remain where they were and retain their Mexican citizenship, or become American citizens - which is what most of them eventually did.

The above points are, of course, generally overlooked by today's politically correct historians.

I think I chose well. The book may appear short, but powerful and objective in every phrase and paragragh. I have read some of Latin America's history of those years, and this book simply state the points as I think it was. The author clearly explain the chaotic situation in Mexico Affairs, a typical state of most hispanic countries, inherited from the spaniards, with a dominant Catholic Church, racial diversity, most people poor and uneducated, with different factions trying to take power and an economy struggling to survive. Totally different was the situation of the United States: politically stable, they knew what they want for their country and people and with a more balanced society in almost every sense. Despite the later, this is a war that the United States, until this day, have not good memories because it aggresively pursued its self-interest and took advantage of the pathetic condition of Mexico...but it was evident too that Mexico was screaming for this to happen, they just harvest its misfortune. A good book, an interesting story with peculiar personalities like Santa Anna and interesting places to know like the Chapultepec Castle.

How too see and compregend the history two great nations, that were in the begining of they independence to their war in the middle of the 19 century. The political, cultural and economical pats that bout nations took, were the sense of how the present of this contryes are now day's. (Sorry for mi spelling).

Carlos Méndez
Monterrey, México.