Customer Reviews

Lone Star Nation: How a Ragged Army of Volunteers Won the Battle for Texas Independence - and Changed America

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

 

 

In the modern history profession, awash in tides of retrospective sociology, economic determinism, and "the rediscovered voices of marginalized peoples," the old-fashioned style of history and history-writing is sometimes belittled as "kings and battles." "Lone Star Nation" by H.W. Brands is very much a "kings and battles" book. Heavy on drama and personality and light on sociology, anthropology, and dry statistics, Brands' book is popular history told as an adventure story. It's an exciting adventure, and Brands has done a good job telling it.

The "kings" here are the towering figures in the Texan epic: Austin, Houston, Bowie, Crockett, Travis, plus Santa Anna, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and a host of smaller players. And the battles are epic too: Not only the literal battles of the revolution, but Austin's fight to establish and defend his colony; Santa Anna's for political control in Mexico; the Alamo; Goliad; the battle in the U.S. Congress over annexation; and finally, Governor Sam Houston's losing fight against the secessionist drive in 1861. In many ways, the early sections of this book especially are a series of biographies, tied together by the common theme of the settlement of Texas.

While most of these men come across as heroic, Brands' portrait of them is not unvarnished (the book isn't *that* old-fashioned). In fact, Brands shows how many of them achieved their heroic memory in spite of their failings, inadequacies, or downright unpleasantness. Similarly, I commend the author for his even-handed portrayal of Santa Anna, his unvarnished look at the slaughter that was the "battle" of San Jacinto (168 years ago today!) -- as well, of course, as the slaughters at the Alamo and Goliad -- and the decidedly unheroic influence of racism and nationalism on both sides of the fight.

I've said in other reviews that I agree with the statement that all history is ultimately biography, and "Lone Star Nation" is definitely personality-driven history. More "serious" academic historians may view that as a failing. But the general fan, looking for an exciting true story with larger-than-life characters, could do a lot worse than to settle down in these pages and discover the causes and consequences of the story in which the Alamo played such a memorable part.

We all have heard the story of the Alamo. By now must of us have heard that it's possible that Davy Crockett did not die in the fight but was executed after the battle was over. What H W Brands brings in this new volume of Texas History is just how unlikely the entire revolution was and how close it came to being crushed. A commander-in-cheif that had no real authority and a government in rebellion that would not or could not supply the army they ordered Sam Houston to raise. It really makes one wonder just how the heck they succeeded. It appears with some skill, a lot of luck and the desire to be independent.

H W Brands makes all his subjects interesting and this one is no exception. READ THIS before going to see THE ALAMO!

Texas is sure of itself today, certain and confident of its place in the nation. Native Texans have occupied the White House, and held countless other positions of power, whether direct (Secretary James Baker) or indirect (e.g.,Colonel House under Wilson). That Texas was at once vastly uncertain as to its identity comes through clearly in Professor Brand's sharply written history. Austin came to Texas in fulfillment of his father's dying wish to colonize the state. To do so, he and countless others were willing to pledge allegiance to the Mexican flag. They were supportive of Santa Anna's commitment to federalism at one point (and then fought Santa Anna, and then sent him to Washington on their behalf, and fought him again, and embraced him later; he had, Brands' says, "more lives than a cat"). When the break with Mexico came, Texas experienced a period of independence during which she flirted with both Great Britain and France, and left open the possibility that if she were not annexed to the U.S., she might serve herself well by becomming a pawn in the efforts of both countries to halt U.S. expansion. Brands excells at biographical description -- Austin, Houston, Bowie, Crocket, and the rest are superbly rendered in his text. As to the lot of them, let it suffice to say that the founding fathers of Texas were not men who entered the region to "top off" already successful careers. Perhaps as a result, Texas, until the end of the civil war, seemed to represent, writ large, her anxious, impressionable and undisciplined founders. If the pioneers of Texas agreed on anything, it was that Texas was to be a new beginning. That dream went unfulfilled -- the withered "raisin in the sun" of Langston Hughes' imagery. This is because, try as it might, Texas, and the Texicans and tejanos never quite escaped being drawn into the vortex of larger forces, and the stress of pre-existing conflicts. What a great tale the Lone Star Nation conveys.

H.W. Brands' book Lone Star Nation presents an interesting and informative reading experience concerning Texas in the years before and after the war that provided that republic with its independence. Brands seems to take the stance that history is primarily made by the individuals who are living it, so it is the people he concentrates on moreso than the outward events. I liked this book and am glad a Texan friend recommended it to me in 2004.

The only point of criticism I might have with Lone Star Nation and H.W. Brands is that he (as I saw it in my most humble of opinions) presented as unquestioned fact the authenticity of the controversial document some claim to be the diary of Mexican officer Jose Enrique de la Pena. While Brands is more than permitted to be of the opinion that the diary is authentic, I think he was faintly remiss in his duty as an historian by not mentioning the fact that a great many others regard the diary as a forgery or hoax, rather than a first-hand account of the aftermath of the siege of the Alamo. However, this is merely one point of difference and it in no way detracted from my enjoyment of this fine book.

To all history buffs: get this book and read it, you'll be happy you did.

Publication of "Lone Star Nation" is well timed, with the imminent theatrical release of "The Alamo." Brands' book is excellent preparation for seeing the movie.

A gifted storyteller, Brands brings to life the extraordinary tale of the Texans' against-the-odds struggle for independence. All the great, larger-than-life personalities are vividly portrayed -- Santa Anna, Austin, Crockett, Bowie, etc. However, Sam Houston clearly emerges as the most sympathetic character. Brands shows how little control Houston wielded over an ill-discipined, poorly-trained, largely volunteer fighting force. Out-manned and out-gunned, Houston's strategy combined a steady retreat toward the U.S. border with appeals to his mentor, Pres. Andrew Jackson, to intercede. It was the restiveness (and insubordination) of his troops that finally compelled Houston to turn and face Santa Anna, leading to the breathtaking rout of the Mexican regulars at San Jacinto, and the capture of the self-proclaimed "Napoleon of the West."

Brands has written many stellar histories, including biographies of Ben Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt as well as an opus on the California Gold Rush. "Lone Star Nation" is another five-star installment in that pantheon. A compelling story well told.

This readable history tells the story of how Texas got settled, was part of Mexico and became an independent country. It concludes with a short summary of statehood. The author puts the pieces together in an interesting and informative way.

Having lived in San Antonio for 6 months, I marveled at how the colonists could make a go of homesteading. While the land is very flat it is also very dry. It did not look fertile to me. There is little to sustain life while waiting for crops to grow. Heat is a huge factor in any endeavor. Brands refers to plentiful game, which had to be the case or no one would survive, but is hard to imagine with such limited water and plant life.

There are two areas needing more elaboration. The big area is slavery the other, less consequential, but important is the portrait of Sam Houston.

There are many who feel this rebellion was totally about slavery. Brands discusses the turmoil in Mexico, Santa Anna's shredding of the consititution and cultural/religious differences between the "Anglo" north and its Spanish government as the causes of this rebellion. It seemed that the Texans, while frustrated, were working within the system to change it. Brands does not show how these issues trump slavery. While he mentions slavery he does not at all discuss it as a cause. Because this is a common opinion, Brands needs a better discussion of the role of slavery in this fight.

The portrait of Houston is very engrossing but learning towards the end that he had 8 children is a surprise. Fatherhood had hardly been mentioned up to that point. It isn't that the story hangs on this, but it does imply he had roots. In American Legend Levy shows an enabling spouse operating independently of Crockett but not his debts. Was this Houston's life as well? Where were the children and their mother(s?) living? Were they in a town of settlers? Living with a migrating or settled tribe? The backstory is needed to get a full measure of this man.

I wonder how much flack this Texas based author caught for his portraits of William Travis and Jim Bowie. They are considered heroes in Texas. Their lives before the Alamo, as told by Brands, were not the stuff of heroes. While I have toured the Alamo, and read its literature and came away from it knowing that Houston put a low priority on defending the Alamo, I don't remember learning that his strategy (ignored by the Alamo defenders) was to abandon it... in fact they were to blow it up to deprive Santa Anna of its use. This makes the story of the Alamo a story of a renegade operation. Given that Texas needed militias for defense, there was nothing Houston could do about it. I wonder how all this sat (and continues to sit) in Texas that adores its heroes and its Alamo legend.

I came to this from having finished the Brands' Pulitzer Prize nominated Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which is clearly the better book. Lone Star Nation is good, and if you're interested in this ten year or so window, it is a must read, otherwise, read the FDR.

H.W. Brands does a really great job of combinding fantastic storytelling with historical fact in a way that is both entertaining and will provide the reader with a good grasp of how Texas became both a nation and eventually a state.

What this book does is trace the origins of both the anglo and hispanic populations of Texas beginning with folks like Moses Austin and later Stephen F. Austin, profiles the greats of Texas history such as Sam Houston, William Travis, and Davy Crockett as well as those on the other side of the conflict: Santa Anna and Martin de Cos.

The main argument of this book is that the revolutionary war in Texas was a disorganized shamble that blundered it's way to freedom. Such disasters as the Alamo and Gonzales could have been avoided or were not really necessary in retrospect, but what they provided were key events that a lot of settlers could draw motivation from. The eventual victory at San Jacinto is told from a different standpoint that you won't find in traditional Texas history books.

What Brands is trying to do is both dispel the myths of the Texas revolution while trying to shed a little light on what actually happened. He does so in a very good way while still giving credit where credit was due. All in all, I highly recommend this book. It's a good general overview and is told in such a way as to keep you turning the pages.

Texas was once part of the Mexican empire (once Mexico achieved it's independence from Spain), but this story details how Texas became it's own nation and, eventually, part of the United States.

H.W. Brands has given us a tale worthy of remembering, and one that provides the reader with an exicting picture of this place called Texas. Brands starts with the American "colonization" of Texas, including the major player of Moses Austin (father of Stephen F. Austin).

The revolution, in which the Texans, much like Americans of only a few generations before, try to break free from the country that politically rules them, covers the majority of the book. Brands descirbes, in vivid terms, the people that were critical in achieving Texan independence, such as Bowie, Houston, Travis, and Fannin. Brands devotes a significant amount of the book to Sam Houston (the first President of Texas), and not nearly enough (in my opinion) to the war of independence, especially the seminal battle at San Jacinto.

I found the book to be very interesting, and well worth reading. The story drew many parallels between the actions of the early Americans fighting for their independence against the British and the Texans fighting against the Mexicans. This time, however, rather than the French and Spanish being the saviors of the rebellious, it was the Americans who came to their aid and helped them to achieve their goal.

In this wonderful story of the birth of Texas, the reader does not read about history. He experiences it. We regard events through the eyes of Austin, Houston, Santa Anna, Bowie, Travis, and the people of the Mexican Province of Texas, who rise from the page as decidedly real, complex characters, acting within the circumstances of their own lives and times.

For Brands, history is the product of people, not abstract forces, and we turn the last page of "Lone Star Nation" a little sad that we must leave the company we've come to know and the country in which we have lived for the duration of the book.

I am not a historian, but I read history. I picked up this book because I wanted a clearer understanding of the ante-bellum period in America. I knew the general role Texas played in that period, but I didn't know much about Texas itself in this era. And from his biography of Andrew Jackson, I knew Brands would give me not merely dates and places, but an understanding of that complex world that so affected the course of American history. I was not disappointed.

The way that Tacitus made me understand the Germanic tribes of northern Europe who eventually laid down the base of the English nation and Churchill left me with an enduring appreciation for the way the Normans transformed and elevated the character of that nation, Brands gave me an insider's personal look at what it felt like to live in provincial Texas and how the state of Texas came into existence. .

In other words, Brands treats history concretely, just as a novelist treats the actions of his characters. We read letters, hear speeches, see notes scribbled by Travis at the Alamo. We experience the place through the descriptions of early settlers and travelers entranced by the climate and the soil and understand why so many were drawn to what was then a province of Mexico.

If you want a history in which blood pulses, read "Lone Star Nation." I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Brand's has a great style with a smart wit and feel for the times as well as anecdotal material that gives great depth to his writing. His use of Ehrenburg is the first I have seen as source material.