And the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico

Very few academic historians write narrative history these days; they prefer history as social science. This book shows what such an historian can do if she does write old-fashioned narrative. The book is superb. It covers the Mexican war, its origins, course, and consequences. The author focuses on several particular individuals who were important political actors, such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. And she covers the antiwar movement, too, which was much more significant than I had realized. It is very well written.

There are some negative reviews on the the store site, which say this book is simply modern unpatriotic political correctness. Nonsense. The author says nothing about the Mexican war that was not said by Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant. President Polk lied to Congress about the war's beginning. There were atrocities, including mass murders, rapes, village burnings, and scalping committed by US troops. Most white Americans of the 1840's were bitterly racist, in a way that has thankfully been almost eliminated from our current society. Professor Greenberg must mention these things to correctly discuss this war.

Of course, the world would be a lot different if the Mexican war had never been fought. US expansion might have ended with the Louisiana Purchase. Mexico would have been a greater power with California's gold and Texas's oil. World history would have been very different with a smaller US that did not extend across the continent. I have personally lived in two of the states formed from the Mexican Cession so my life would have been greatly different without the war. But we can note these things and still agree that those who disagreed with President Polk were more morally correct than Polk was.

No matter what we think about these philosophical arguments, Professor Greenberg has written a superb work of history. Anyone who is interested in US history should read it.

I am saddened that a noted professor who should know better has written such a biased and opinionated book. Polk was a president who while he was campaigning promised to be a one-term President and he kept his word. Ms. Greenberg failed to point out the the "Wicked War" was started by the Mexican government or that most of the land that the Polk paid for north of the Rio Grand was largely uninhabited by any other than the Native Americans, who had lived there way before the white-man. Nor did she point out that the provence of Texas became populated by white settlers because the Mexican gov. paid American settlers to move there and form a buffer state in order to shield them for the Indians. After years of Mexican rule and oppressive Mexican taxes the people of Texas fought for and won there independence. Years later, a new Mexican leader decided that they wanted Texas back and invaded Texas. Texas then asked the U.S. A. for help and Polk sent in troops.

As the title suggests this is a biased political and diplomatic history that tells only the darker side of Westward Expansion and by the end is little more than a history of an anti-war movement. But the story, albeit one -sided, is an interesting one as it describes the rich post-Jacksonian world in which the events unfold

The audible edition is marred by a narration that is a bit too high pitched and at times overly dramatic, but also funny when Spanish and German accents end up sounding alike --and vaguely Scottish at that! Some words are mispronounced or even misread ( Colombian Exposition is read " Expedition", etc )

Several reviews I read about this book claimed that it was a hit piece on American imperialism. Let’s be clear: president Polk wanted to acquire territory from Mexico and he engineered a war with Mexico. I think the author presents the facts accurately and without bias. The soldiers sent to fight were doing their duty for the most part just like in Vietnam. The civilians of Mexico were the ones who vote the brunt of the conflict due to less than stellar behavior by the Americans.
It’s definitely a conflict that more Americans should be familiar with. The last five pages about the founding of the daughters of the American revolution was quite interesting. I will have to stop by DAR hall and take a look around.

Worth a look.

At the outset of A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln and the 1846 US Invasion of Mexico, historian Amy Greenberg takes it as a foregone conclusion that the Mexican-American War was an act of unjust aggression, formulated by an expansionist president who was beholden to the proponents of slavery. While it would have been preferable for the author to first present the facts and then reach a conclusion, this book is nonetheless a fresh and interesting analysis of the conflict that became known as "Mr. Polk's War." The author looks at new aspects of this war that have never been so thoroughly canvassed before, such as wartime atrocities, the evolution of anti-war sentiment at home, conscientious objection and the political dilemma faced by many politicians striving to balance competing factors of conscience and electability.

In telling the story of the "wicked war" (a title taken from a description of the conflict contained in the memoirs of Ulysses Grant), the author follows five historical figures who figured prominently in the event. The author has no love for President James Polk, who is portrayed as someone bent on prosecuting an unjust war against a weaker nation in order to take through force what could not be gained through negotiation. While other historians have debated the question of whether or not the southern boundary of Texas was the Rio Grande river (where American troops drew attack from Mexican forces, beginning the conflict), there is no debate in the mind of the author, who is certain that the conflict began with an unjust act of provocation by an invading army. Henry Clay is portrayed as the voice of reason, even though he straddles both sides of the issue in his public oratory. Abraham Lincoln is a young congressman who protests the war and attacks a wartime president, in spite of knowledge that doing so will wound him politically. John Hardin is a politician with a bright future who abandons his rise to power for military glory and becomes a prominent casualty. Nicholas Trist is an unappreciated diplomat who ultimately brokers a peace, to the chagrin of his expansionist president.

This book portrays a side of the Mexican War that is ignored by most historians, who generally play up the nationalistic and patriotic fervor and the tales of glory on the battlefield. Greenburg sets out the conditions leading up to the way and describes how and why she believes the war began. Although she says that her book will not contain a technical military account of the major battles, she actually does an excellent job of describing what happened and why smaller US forces were able to emerge victorious in many of the major battles of the war, in a concise but coherent manner. But where this book excels is in its telling of many of the stories of the war that are left out of most other histories: the undisciplined state militias and the atrocities they committed against the Mexican civilian populace, the problems of communication between the war department and the armies in 1846, the rates of desertion and the reasons for it, and how a popular war became an unpopular one. The author superbly describes the transition of the hearts and minds of the American populace as the war goes from one enjoying popular patriotic support to one that has the public questioning why the country went to war and if all of the tragic loss of life is really worth it. Although the author does not expressly make the comparison, it is easy for readers to see historic parallels to Vietnam and Iraq, as the author shows that decline in public support for foreign wars is not a recent phenomenon,

There are times when the author goes too far in projecting her hypothesis. For example, she vilifies not only James Polk, but also first lady Sarah Polk, referring to the war as "Mr. and Mrs. Polk's War", but fails to make a convincing case as to why the first lady is deserving of such scorn. She also presents Henry Clay as the conscience of the anti-war sentiment, especially in reference to a powerful critical speech Clay gave when wartime dissent was at its highest. But while she acknowledges that Clay has also generated pro-war rhetoric when it suited his political purposes or audiences, this hypocrisy is ignored.

Despite its imperfections, this is an excellent history of an important conflict often overlooked by historians. Its consideration of issues often left out of most wartime histories make it an exceptionally good read. My only criticism is that it would have been even more compelling if the author had let her conclusions follow the evidence, rather than the reverse.

The title of this book comes from something Ulysses S. Grant said. Grant had served with distinction as a young lieutenant during the U.S.-Mexican War. In 1879, shortly after he stepped down as President, he told a journalist: "I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign." Then, in his "Memoirs", Grant wrote that the U.S.-Mexican War was "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

Why was it wicked? Author Amy S. Greenberg stresses four points. First, it was a war of aggression, a blatant grab for territory as part of America's self-proclaimed "Manifest Destiny". (Greenberg writes that "historians now acknowledge" that the land gained from Mexico "could have been acquired peacefully through diplomacy and deliberate negotiation of financial recompense.") Second, it was initiated through lies and deception. President Polk sent U.S. Army forces under Zachary Taylor into territory that clearly was Mexican, and when the Mexican army fired on the Americans Polk inflamed American opinion by claiming that Mexicans had bloodied U.S. soldiers on American soil. Then, by misrepresenting the situation he maneuvered Congress into assenting to the War that he had precipitated (hence, many called it "Mr. Polk's War"). A precedent in perfidy for Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Third, as Grant said, it entailed a stronger nation bullying a weaker one. Finally, there were many instances of rapine, murder, and rape committed by U.S. soldiers against Mexican civilians, perhaps the worse being the massacre by Arkansas cavalry of 25 to 30 Mexican men in a cave into which they had fled in terror in February 1847.

In A WICKED WAR, author Greenberg focuses on the chicanery and evil that characterized American initiation and pursuit of the War. The military campaigns and battles are given relatively cursory attention. She tries to tell her story primarily through five men: James K. Polk; Henry Clay, who opposed the War; Nicholas Trist, Polk's secret emissary to Mexico who turned on Polk and, after he had been recalled, negotiated a treaty to end the War that circumstances forced Polk to accept; John J. Hardin, a congressman from Illinois who volunteered to fight in Mexico but became disillusioned with the War before being killed at the Battle of Buena Vista; and Abraham Lincoln, who in his only term as a Congressman vigorously opposed Polk and the War because he valued truth over political expediency.

Greenberg's special angle, I gather, is her presentation of the opposition to the War as "America's first national antiwar movement." In that connection, it is interesting to note the most common response to the war critics. For example, after Lincoln delivered a condemnatory speech in Congress and charged Polk with the "sheerest deception", another congressman immediately responded that a patriot never questions his president. "Whether we are in a war that is right or wrong [wasn't even] a debatable question." Another precursor of Vietnam . . . as well as subsequent American military excursions.

I sense that Greenberg has a good command of American history between 1825 and 1850. I learned a lot. But I can give A WICKED WAR only a lukewarm recommendation. As executed, Greenberg's structuring her tale around five individuals is stilted. It also leads to a somewhat disjointed, herky-jerky presentation. There are too many digressions. While Greenberg's prose is smooth, it is too formulaic for my tastes and on occasion it slips into the melodramatic. More serious reservations are that too often Greenberg engages in rather rank speculation and that she has a propensity for making sweeping generalizations that are not as incontestable as they sound. Finally, she wrongly asserts that the U.S.-Mexican War had "the highest casualty rate of any American war" (over 10 percent of the American soldiers who served in it died, most from disease); in point of fact, the Civil War was more lethal.

Fine account of the Mexican-American war, also known as "Polk's War" as it was largely the brainchild of president James K. Polk acting on behalf of both the tenets of manifest destiny and the interests of southern slaveholders. Southerners were eager to expand their territory and much of america was eager to annex Texas (which had been a free-floating republic since it seceded from Mexico) and the area called alta California, which encompassed California, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada.

The book delineates a war that was short, brutal, and stunningly unpopular, quite possibly the most unpopular war in U.S. history. It only lasted a year, which in itself is remarkable. The cruelties inflicted upon the country of Mexico cannot be ignored, although they have largely been swept under the rug over time. The war expanded America to nearly twice its size, yet the conflict is rarely discussed, likely because it was an imperialist atrocity.

An anti-war movement arose as embedded journalists gung-ho with expansionist ambitions returned traumatized by the violence they witnessed. A young politician from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln spoke out passionately (and controversially) against the US invasion of Mexico, which nearly cost him his career. All of this further inflamed antagonism between slaveholders and non-slaveholders, which would eventually result in the civil war.

A fascinating aspect is that while slavery was still legal below the Mason Dixon line it was illegal in Mexico. Many people took slaves with them when they went to fight (many upper middle class and upper class southerners considered the war an "adventure" and eagerly volunteered) only to have their slaves disappear when they crossed the border.

This is a rigorously researched and skillfully written novel focused on a war that has gotten little coverage in standard history books on U.S. history. The book gives the reader a detailed description of the key actors Polk, Lincoln, and Clay and their antebellum nation. Many parallels with more recent wars the U.S. has been involved in came to mind as I read this book. For example, the U.S.-Mexican War, like the Vietnam War divided the nation and gave rise to a powerful anti-movement. President Polk pushed the U.S. into war with Mexico based on a
lie, just as a recent president pushed the U.S. into the war with Iraq based on a lie. Another parallel involved the new congressman Abraham Lincoln, who rose from obscurity to the national spotlight due his stand against the war that helped propel him to the presidency. Newly elected Senator Barrack Obama, similarly, took a stand against U.S. involvement in Iraq and that later helped him get elected President. It is mainly a story of Manifest Destiny, the justification used by President Polk for his hostile appropriation of land that belonged to the another republic, Mexico. Polk believed in the idea of Manifest Destiny, i.e., that the U.S. should occupy all the land between the Atlantic and the Pacific regardless of whomever lived on it. The territory taken from Mexico that became the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. For anyone interested in Manifest Destiny and how it shaped the U.S., this is a must read.

Amy Greenberg, a professor at Penn State University who specializes in antebellum America, has here written, if not quite a history of the Mexican War, then a narrative reflection of it through the intersecting biographies of five significant men and their families: James Polk, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, John J. Hardin, and Nicholas Trist. Greenberg has good narrative skills and a gift for the apt illustration. (She begins, for instance, with a brief history of the Valentine card.) Also unusually well selected and captioned are the three dozen illustrations she has chosen.

While I learned much from the book, I was frequently put off by Greenberg’s presentism and refusal to take historical characters on their own terms. To my mind, the Mexican-American War was no more wicked than any other of the period and incomparably less so than World War II (the “Good War”) in which more people died on average per day than died on either side during the whole Mexican-American conflict. Greenberg swings so far from the old jingoist maxim, “My country, right or wrong,” that she almost endorses “My country, always wrong.” The book could have used more nuance. Mexican leaders were by far greater scoundrels than their counterparts in the United States; and while imperialism and racism were certainly rife among the Americans, those evils often checked one another.

Amy Greenberg’s account of the 1846 war between the U.S. and Mexico is brilliant history – engagingly written and thoroughly interesting as it plumbs the somewhat obscure presidency of James K. Polk and a war that is all but forgotten by the average American. Greenberg, though, gives the conflict -- that led to the formation of states from Texas to California – it’s due and rather powerfully portrays the Mexican war as a bitter prologue to the bloody American Civil War.

And, while Greenberg digs deep into the preeminent political issues of the day – from slavery to manifest destiny, A Wicked War is no stodgy tome of theoretics. Instead, Greenberg wisely tells the story of the war through the eyes of a virtual who’s who of key American statesmen – Polk, Henry Clay, and a budding Abraham Lincoln among them – in a charming narrative that unfolds like a well-plotted historical novel. Greenberg’s portraits of her key protagonists (and their families) are incredibility balanced as she gives credit to both their strengths and failings while deftly adding a peppering of historical Easter eggs – from the origins of Valentine’s Day to the tragedy of the warship Princeton – to add further zest and color to the time period.

Admittedly, I generally prefer military history to political … so my enthusiasm sank a bit as I read the author’s introduction which promised not a sequence of battle, but a more socio-political story. But any trepidation I felt evaporated with Greenberg’s wonderful depiction of statesman Henry Clary (page seven) and from there I was hooked until the final page. And, to be fair, Greenberg is no slouch in the military history department either. Her depictions of the battles of Buena Vista and Veracruz and the taking of Mexico City will satisfy even the most ardent military history buff.

This is a book I highly recommend.

P.S. It will not a take a particularly astute reader to draw parallels between Polk’s War and more modern U.S. conflicts, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There plenty of hay to be made there – if that’s the sort of thing you’re into. Greenberg, however, doesn’t go there and, to her credit, remains strictly objective to the last page, never drawing the comparison. But if you are a believer in the axiom that 'history tends to repeats itself', you might get yourself a tingle.

As Andrew Jackson's anointed, James Polk rose from political obscurity to ascend to the position of Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the auspicious year of 1844. Matched against Whig standard-bearer Henry Clay, Polk squeaks out a victory hinged on such marginal local circumstances as a third party candidate who drew just enough votes from Clay to deliver New York's electoral votes to Polk. The consequences of the Polk presidency was precisely what Clay and others had warned against: an American annexation of Texas that would lead to a war with Mexico.

Many of the ensuing events are familiar from my recollection of the American history course that I took in high school in the late 1960's--especially the positioning of American troops in disputed territory claimed by both Mexico and Texas just north of the Rio Grande--and the resulting altercation that supplied the justification for war. This book includes other events and themes that fall outside what I learned in high school--as well as outside what I had gleaned from subsequent reading--especially the obsessive nature of Polk's quest. Polk micromanaged the war throughout his tenure as President, working 14 hour days without relief. In the end, Polk was not even satisfied with the huge chunk of territory that Mexico surrendered. Polk and other members of the Democratic Party expected to incorporate all of Mexico North of the southernmost point of Texas at the mouth of the Rio Grand, including Baja California. Many of Polk's allies even desired to annex the whole of Mexico as part of a new promised land based on slave-holding.

The author also focuses on the fortunes of American politicians other than Polk and Clay. Abraham Lincoln's ascent in American politics is seen to have been aided by circumstances associated with the war, including the death of Whig political opponent John Hardin (the father of the woman who founded the Daughters of the American Revolution--D.A.R.) due to an ill-considered frontal assault at the Battle of Buena Vista. The excesses and horrors of the war also gave Lincoln a ready issue to exploit during his first term in Congress. Ironically, the fortunes of another young capable man, Nicholas Trist (the onetime private secretary and grandson-in-law of Thomas Jefferson), were dashed by his capable negotiations which ran counter to the inflated territorial dreams of President Polk. In addition to the disappointment in what Polk regarded as the meager lands gleaned by his war, the wartime achievements of Whig General Zachary Taylor secured the next term of the Presidency for the opposition party. Three months after his fours years in office, Polk died from a combination of exhaustion and frustration.

The author also presents the Mexican War and Polk's machinations as the template for future ill-considered American military adventures where the chief executive bullies Congress into swallowing the flimsiest justification for war--by painting any opponent to the war as unpatriotic and in league with the enemy. Then, as now, this often successful tactic was used to mask gross incompetence an immorality associated with the conduct of the war in question. In the Mexican War civilians were subject to looting, murder, and rape--much of it practiced by volunteers who based such conduct on practices common in Indian wars in the United States.

One further comment that I will make is to recommend additional books on topics related to this volume. For an amusing take on the events of the Texas war for independence I would recommend Jeff Long's Duel of Eagles: The Mexican and U.S. Fight for the Alamo. For the world of Henry Clay in Bluegrass Kentucky I enjoyed reading How the West Was Lost: The Transformation of Kentucky From Daniel Boone to Henry Clay.

The war between the United States and Mexico, in the years 1846-48, is less well known than other major events in U.S. history. And yet its outcome, in which half the territory of Mexico was taken by the United States, was of the greatest importance in forming the nation we have today. Amy Greenberg has written an excellent, clear, and readable history of this war. A well-written book on an essential historical subject: what more could one want?

Well, a few things, perhaps. Ms. Greenberg has chosen to form her history around five principal figures: Henry Clay, James Knox Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Nicholas Trist, and John J. Hardin. This approach mostly works quite well, providing interesting background knowledge about people we are glad to know (Clay, Lincoln, and Trist) as well as those you might not want to invite to dinner (such as Polk.) But why is so much attention devoted to John J. Hardin, about whom even Ms. Greenberg says "...few historians have thought his life worth exploring..."? Yet a great deal of this book, including the entire Epilogue, is devoted to Hardin and his family. This dilutes and distorts the book's trajectory, and the unpleasant word "padding" comes to mind.

More serious than being discursive, however, is Ms. Greenberg's failure to be a dispassionate historian. This author has a view, one which favors honesty, fair-dealing, and justice, and believes that the U.S. should live up to its ideals; and who can argue with that? Ah, but in this case, one could argue. Ms. Greenberg may be right that Polk was dishonest and that his war on Mexico was immoral, but think of the result. Without the Mexican War, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Texas would belong to Mexico today. Would the world then be a better place? Or could this be a rare instance in which the End really does justify the Means? This question seems far more important than Mr. Hardin's family life, but here it is completely ignored. Perhaps the author feels it belongs not to history but to philosophy. And perhaps it does.

At any rate, taken for what it is--a highly readable introduction to the Mexican War--this book really does the job. It offers acquaintance with some great historical figures--people of whom we know the names, and often little else--and describes little-known events of the greatest importance. Everyone who is not already familiar with the Mexican War and its period really should read this book, and I'm sure it will be enjoyed.

As many reviewers have pointed out, this is a first-rate account of the Mexican War. I agree absolutely. I strongly recommend it. Excellent on the causes, the consequences, the conduct, the context. I couldn't give it five stars for a purely personal reason, but I am including it here because other potential readers might feel the same way. The author devoted a bit too much attention to the private lives of her leading characters, especially Hardin, but also Lincoln, Clay, and Polk. Lincoln's ambition, Hardin's death (and his wife's life after), Clay's grief at the loss of his son, and Polk's work habits could all have been explained in a few sentences. That Hardin's widow helped found the DAR, and that Polk's wife was intelligent and assertive were interesting, but, again, a few sentences would have satisfied me. I suspect I am in the minority here, since Goodwin's book about Lincoln's cabinet had the same effect on me and yet sold in the jillions. I'm just saying. Read the book, and skip the soap opera. You will learn a lot about that war.

Do not expect this history of American expansionism to be a classic battle strategy and tactic discussion of the 1847 war with Mexico but do expect a lively and well documented statement of the political impetus and changing public opinion of that unenviable period in American history.
Dr. Greenberg's extremely well written, lively book is a valuable addition to any library. I knew very little about that period in our past but after hours of entertaining myself with this book, I feel that I have a comfortable knowledge of the dynamics of the political climate in play in America and how those politics shaped this war of Manifest Destiny.
Even when the author digresses into a lengthy discussion of the Hardin family of Illinois she informs the reader of an important and I suspect not well known facet of how the fledgling "Woman's Movement" was born.
Once I understood the author's goal and line of argument this book was an absolute pleasure for an amateur historian like myself.
This book was not a waste of time and the writing is so strong and delightful that the reader feels like applauding at the end of some sections. This book is very definitely worth the time and money! Enjoy.

The historian Greenberg presents a very candid and objective view of one of America's earlier wars that somehow got lost in the historical swing of things because of its close proximity to the Civil War of 1861 and the settling of the west. The time was 1844 and America was looking west across the Mississippi for new lands to settle. The hawkish Polk and the Democrats had just beaten Clay and the Whigs for the White House on the promise of settling old territorial scores with Mexico and consolidating the West including the Oregon territory. Polk is profiled as a warhawk who, based on earlier experience as the congressional mastermind behind the War of 1812, who took the country into a controversial two-year war with Mexico and came out a winner even though it cost him his life in the end. The US esablished itself as a dominant continental and hemispheric power by humiliating Santa Ana and the Mexican army. The prize was a treaty that expanded its southern borders to the Rio Grande and granted it control of California. In those two years of vicious campaign in a truly nasty war where carnage and rapine were standard fare, Polk managed to both unite and divide the nation along ideological lines. One, many Whigs(forerunner to the Republican Party), with Henry Clay, took the position that a war with another country at this time was costly in terms of human life and money. As the Iraq invasion of 2003 would prove again, the country got swept up in what turned out to be a patriotic invasion where might spoke right. As Greenberg shows in very precise detail, Polk won the day on the historical justification for this war because it ultimately achieved everything a country could look for out of a military conflict of this size. Borders were expanded, military careers launched, national heroes created, and the nation was ready to move west and also deal with slavery issue to the south. Those who tried to compromise this mission, like Clay and Commissioner Trist, paid dearly for being offside. However, one Whig who pragmatically avoided backing the wrong horse was the congressman from Illinois, the leading war state, Abraham Lincoln who switched his allegiance from Clay to the victorious general Zachery Taylor in the 1848 presidentia election in the interest of unifying the nation and furthering his career.

I found this book not especially interesting to read. The verse is loaded with dead wood and too much informal writing style. Can't believe this book was written by a history professor - my college professors would have had red marks all over the sentence structure which often lacks objective. Too many paragraphs loaded with "it was" and "because of this". The book is basically an eighth grade reader which contains way too much historically unimportant factoids like the style of clothing from the period and which people were in or out of fashion. The book drones on for some periods without reference to the war of the title subject. I always wanted to read a good book on this part of American history but this was not it.

I just finished reading this book and it broke my heart that one of our Presidents and the American people would allow this to happen. To invade a country for the sole purpose of enlarging our boundaries is a wicked blight on our country. We had no right to do this. This was our first time to invade another country under false pretense and it wasn't the last. I seems we never seem to learn from the past.

The James McPherson blurb on the cover states "if one can read only a single book about the Mexican-American War, this is the one." This is ironic to me, as McPherson in his excellent single volume history of the Civil War (Battle Cry of Freedom) states in his prologue that his book will need to address a certain high level of military procedural detail as he is after all writing about a war. This book by Amy Greenberg takes an antithetical approach, and instead focuses on all the details of the War -- except the actual military operations!

We hear a lot about the origins of the war, much about political maneuverings of the Whigs and Democrats, more and more about dissent, and only the vaguest details of battles and strategies. The death of John Hardin (a main character) is particularly absurd in this context, as the battle he was killed in and the tactics which led to his demise are painted in such broad strokes as to be meaningless. If one of your main characters is a soldier fighting in the war, you might want to go into a bit of detail about what he's up to!

I understand Ms. Greenberg may not like this military stuff, but if that's the case, writing about a war is probably not a good matching of skills to theme. Nor are lack of military experience and / or political sentiments to the left of center an excuse for glossing over military history. McPherson and Richard Slotkin are not exactly retired generals or right wing neo-cons, yet both have written excellent balanced works that went into great detail over the relevant subjects, McPherson on the entire Civil War, and Slotkin in two generally excellent books on the Battle of the Crater in Petersburg and the Antietam Campaign. Greenberg should read any of those books to see how intelligent "progressive" history narrative can be integrated with campaign studies in a way that offers the widest appeal to readers.

So once you realize this book with the word "War" in the title does not really tell the story of the War in question, what's left? Well, Greenberg does write well, and her info about Hardin and his family was fascinating as I knew little about him. She also starts off being reasonably sympathetic to Polk, and the details about his "modern marriage" and surprisingly engaged First Lady was interesting. Her final interpretation of Polk does not surprise though, and she ends up castigating him for his warmongering racist ways, etc etc. The Nicholas Trist story was also told well. The Lincoln stuff was overdone, and Greenberg spends too much time on him just because he is the most familiar character in the book to most readers.

Conversely, we learn nothing about two of the more interesting US characters: Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, I guess because they are typical military industrial specimens to the author and hence lack appeal. We also learn little about Mexican politics or history, and Santa Anna is also under-featured.

The various atrocities described as being committed by US troops are also rather cavalierly mentioned, and we hear little of documentation, investigations, etc. Considering the numerous cases in history when false atrocities were claimed and later refuted by investigation (the Rape of Belgium, Spanish "atrocities" in Cuba), I would have liked some more attention to actual historical outcomes instead of simple mention of the vague claims made by sources of widely varying credibility as if these proved the case. If one does not like mean old soldiers, I guess it is all too easy to believe the worst of them, but history should be written with a tad more rigor and objectivity.

I would suggest if you only wanted to read one book about the Mexican War that you read Eisenhower's "So Far From God" instead. There is less political and social flavor perhaps, but the actual events of the War are chronicled carefully and engagingly, and Eisenhower makes no attempt to white wash the war or its conduct, yet is also more scrupulous and objective in his assessments.

Professor Greenberg's "A Wicked War" is the most enjoyable history book I have read in many years. The easy to read narrative I believe will be enjoyable for those who are knowledgable about the Mexican America War and those who are new to the topic. It is a book that is hard to put down. Professor Greenberg provides fresh new perspectives on well known figures like Lincoln, Clay, and Polk but also fills you in on other figures like Mrs. Polk, John Hardin, and Nicholas Trist. If you are new to the topic this is a great starting point. You will want to continue to explore the topics and the historical figures after reading it. If you have expertise on the topic get ready for a fresh new perspective that will challenge your ideas.

An interesting read about a time in history that I knew little about. Many of the participants in the Mexican war went on to be principal players in the Civil War--Lee--Grant-etc. I was surprised at the savageness of the battles and the poor behavior of the American forces regarding the Mexican civilian population. A little slow to get started but it held my attention after I got into it.

And that wicked something was us, playing bully boy with our Mexican neighbors for an odd mix of reasons. This author shows how this largely forgotten episode in US history set the stage for the Civil War. An enjoyable and educational read that should deepen one's understanding of nineteenth century politics.

An entertaining story and a quick read. Seems to be a level of historical license taken, but definitely a perspective on this oft forgotten period of American history. I would, however recommend reading a broader range of pieces on this topic for a more holistic understanding.

A timely study of a war most Americans would like to forget. Seen through the eyes of the famous and forgotten the author recreates a time of breathtaking insensitivity for a modern reader. One cannot finish this book without questioning our present wars and foreign relations.

Learned things about our history I had no idea had occurred. Talk about a war that was swept under the table in the history books. Even learned somethings about Lincoln that we don't often hear about. If you are a history buff, I highly recommend this book.

Part military history, part political thriller, part biography, part travelogue, "The Wicked War. . . " by Amy S. Greenberg makes the events of 1840's America seem timely and relevant. In biographical vignettes of Henry Clay and James K. Polk, we get a flavor for how personal and political fortunes turned on a dime to make Polk the unlikely President of the United States during a critical period. We learn the real story of "Manifest Destiny" in its proper context with all of the necessary background and scholarship, including how Texas joined the union. Was it annexed? No, not exactly. The Mexican-American War was the inevitable result. And how the upheaval and tragedy of the war turned public opinion and influenced the career of Lincoln is truly remarkable. The book is scholarly, but eminently readable.

The war between Mexico and the United States is one that is often forgotten, bookmarked between two more important conflicts, the War of 1812 and the Civil War. It is the 19th Century version of the Korean War. In this book Amy Greenberg attempts to bring to focus a period of dynamic change, sectional crisis, and an existential crisis of what direction the young country should go. Exploring the roles that Henry Clay, President Polk, and a young Congressman Lincoln played in attempting to control the direction of the country. President Polk, a micromanaging believer in Manifest Destiny, whose entire administration would rest on the outcome of the war. Henry Clay who wanted to be president, but could not overcome the South; and a young Lincoln who was just starting off in politics. America was changing, but they were divided which way to go, with the issue of slavery hanging over every decision.

This book had potential, but it just could not find its focus. Attempting to focus on the war, President Polk, and Henry Clay would have been enough. Looking at the sectional differences, and how people viewed Manifest Destiny would have been enough. But the route she went just did not work. Lincoln was an unknown and this much attention on him is unwarranted. The book would have been much better if it had a focus.

Part military history, part political thriller, part biography, part travelogue, "The Wicked War. . . " by Amy S. Greenberg makes the events of 1840's America seem timely and relevant. In biographical vignettes of Henry Clay and James K. Polk, we get a flavor for how personal and political fortunes turned on a dime to make Polk the unlikely President of the United States during a critical period. We learn the real story of "Manifest Destiny" in its proper context with all of the necessary background and scholarship, including how Texas joined the union. Was it annexed? No, not exactly. The Mexican-American War was the inevitable result. And how the upheaval and tragedy of the war turned public opinion and influenced the career of Lincoln is truly remarkable. The book is scholarly, but eminently readable.

The war between Mexico and the United States is one that is often forgotten, bookmarked between two more important conflicts, the War of 1812 and the Civil War. It is the 19th Century version of the Korean War. In this book Amy Greenberg attempts to bring to focus a period of dynamic change, sectional crisis, and an existential crisis of what direction the young country should go. Exploring the roles that Henry Clay, President Polk, and a young Congressman Lincoln played in attempting to control the direction of the country. President Polk, a micromanaging believer in Manifest Destiny, whose entire administration would rest on the outcome of the war. Henry Clay who wanted to be president, but could not overcome the South; and a young Lincoln who was just starting off in politics. America was changing, but they were divided which way to go, with the issue of slavery hanging over every decision.

This book had potential, but it just could not find its focus. Attempting to focus on the war, President Polk, and Henry Clay would have been enough. Looking at the sectional differences, and how people viewed Manifest Destiny would have been enough. But the route she went just did not work. Lincoln was an unknown and this much attention on him is unwarranted. The book would have been much better if it had a focus.

As one Pulitzer Prize-winning historian notes in his praise of Professor Greenberg's thoroughly engrossing work, this book is narrative history writing at its finest. I read it like I once read before entering academia---at night before sleep, and thoroughly, but at a leisurely pace, something that I frankly can't do with most scholarly works because of the dryness of the prose. But this book is ingenious. The way Dr. Greenberg finds the threads that tie the disparate lives of Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and several others together makes it read like a novel of the first order, and yet it is all so sadly true; as a previous reviewer noted, the events chronicled by Dr. Greenberg were largely known and accepted as the unfortunate truth by Americans of that day. Granted, what Professor Greenberg details about the nature of much of America's war with Mexico---attitudes about the war at home, the behavior of American soldiers, etc---is perhaps new and certainly thought-provoking for some readers today, but that is what makes the book so important. Be it America's history or that of any other nation, the past is often messy. It does no good, and in fact does real harm, to pretend otherwise. If we are to learn from our collective national past, let us at least know that past in its full measure. In other words, the inconvenience of a truth at present or its distortion in the past does not render that truth somehow less true. Dr. Greenberg's work is well-researched, her arguments sound, and her notes and references more than thorough. The claims of those who accuse her of being overly "PC" or revisionist simply do not stand muster. She is a leading scholar on the antebellum age, and many of the nation's best historians have already sounded the praises of this, her latest effort. Like the world-renowned historians (including two Pulitzer Prize winners) who celebrate the book on the back dust jacket and the national literary and historical publications that have already identified this book as among the best works of non-fiction of late, I cannot endorse this book more enthusiastically.

Quite free of historical context. Greenberg's snideness would make some sense
IF
citizens of the US would risk life and limb to sneak into today's Mexico to sweep floors and wash dishes there.
But since the oppsite is the case, what's the point of this book?

The ascendency of James Polk and the absolutely astonishing expansion of the national map during his 4 years in office is a wholly worthy subject. Although the US Mexican War led to an America that stretched from coast to coast and served as a proving ground for many of the military men who would be central to the Civil War, most Americans are not well-versed in the period. Unfortunately, from the Title through the last page, "A Wicked War" is filled with Professor Goldstein's personal bias against Polk, the war, and the widespread popular belief of manifest destiny. Polk is repeatedly described as a "liar," his agenda depicted as nakedly imperialistic, his cabinet called "mediocre" and his Democratic party gratuitously assailed for their pro-annexation platform. It is curious that Polk, a seven-time Congressman, former Speaker of the House, and former Governor of Tennessee is denigraded as a neophyte without accompishments while, for example, Abe Lincoln, a one-term Illinois congressman who opposed annexation of Texas, is exhalted. Professor Goldstein, we get the message loud and clear: the nasty US government used it's new-found military might to steal Texas and California from Mexico and bullied mighty England into relinquishing the Oregon territory. The book is too much of a position paper and not enough of a history.

Even so, the time fame is absolutely fascinating and to any reader interested in the exapnsion of the US in the 1840s, it is interesting, if frustrating.

There is also a curious and detracting aspect of this book whre the author tries, without success, to attribute a great role to Mrs. Polk in the US Mexican War. While readers will no doubt be fascinated to learn that, on one dinner histed at the White House, Mrs. Polk forgot to set napkins on her table (I kid you not, that is in the book), I failed to grasp how that proved the author's strained attempt to argue that the war was "Mr. and Mrs. Polk's War."

Suppose you started a war by claiming the other side attacked you without provocation. And then your nation invaded that other country. And suppose that the nation was enthusiastically behind the government until it found the casualties were high and your troops were committing murders and atrocities. And people got war fatigue. The army became disillusioned. Then suppose an anti-war movement led by the opposition party came into being and held demonstrations. Members of congress got up and denounced the president for deceiving the people and invading an innocent country just for its resources. Those who supported the administration then call the anti-war demonstrators traitors and insist that no criticisms of the war or the troops should be allowed while the war is in progress. And suppose the anti-war demonstrators say the administration and president are war criminals. What would you think? Vietnam? Afghanistan? No, this is the Mexican War. That the story seems to consciously mimic modern times seems to suggest the author wanted it to be viewed just that way, even though, to her credit, she doesn't directly make the comparison. So the question becomes, is the story she tells one sided? Certainly, as a professor of feminist studies it's virtually certain that she's on the far left. Other authors on the Mexican War take a more balanced approach, indicating, for example, that there was good reason to view the border with Mexico as at the Rio Grande, or that the vast regions of what is now United States territory were then practically devoid of Mexicans. Imagine the population of a small town spread over territory stretching from California to Texas. I think this is a well-written book and she makes clear her viewpoint, even if she doesn't express it directly. But I'd recommend reading other books on the war to get a more balanced perspective.

After hearing Amy Greenfield discuss her book on C-Span on 12/16/2012, I immediatly ordered her book. Her discussion was very interesting and as a Mexican-American from New Mexico I look forward to reading her book. Amy was most compelling and informative. After I read the book I will write my comments. A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of MexicoArturo Valdez

Greenberg's thesis is the USA is a terrible, evil country, and that all Americans are in possession of "stolen goods". Greenberg, through magical thinking perhaps, somehow excludes herself from this den of thieves. Despite Greenberg's deeply held belief that Americans are criminals, she doesn't renounce her citizenship and move to another country. The hypocrisy of the author is truly amazing. Don't waste your money on her books.

This is a highly readable account of the Mexican-American War's origins and start. It's written at a level that anyone with a general college-level understanding of U.S. history will not struggle with it.

It brings to light a fascinating narrative with equally fascinating characters. Lincoln in his earlier years is especially illuminating. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the period and/or the politics of war.

I regret buying this book in the Seattle airport. It's theme is that the US-Mexican war was a colonial war and the wicked Polk wanted to expand slavery into the West via his Manifest Destiny "lebensraum" doctrine.
Alas, this was not the case and there are dozens of made up facts in this book to fit this "Amercians are wicked colonialists" thesis. It is Orwellian rewritten history- sometimes subtle, sometimes- not so much.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the War was a morally good thing, nor that "Manifest Destiny" was a wonderful doctrine,nor that the US treated Mexico fairly. But this book is filled with made up facts, incidents and highly subjective interpretations. For example- Polk wasn't a slavery advocate and neither were the men in his cabinet. The war wasn't manufactured in the halls of DC, "Like Bush did"...it started in a border clash because the Texas Republic claimed the border at the Rio Grande and the Mexican army crossed the river, soundly beat the Americans on the other side and then withdrew (perhaps foolishly, as they were in a solid defensive position).
The book isn't written well either- but that's probably also the fault of the editor.

This book is a compilation of everything that was bad about the Mexican American War. If you believe that EVERYTHING America, its President, its generals, its soldiers, and its people did, during this time period, was evil and wrong, you will find this book enjoyable and suited to your cause. The author makes no effort to tell the entire (hi)story; it is a one-sided attempt to paint the United States in the most "Wicked" possible light. I will never read another book by this author and I will discourage my friends from reading anything she has written. I will find books written by historians and NOT apologists.

The main reason history has paid little attention to the Mexican War was due to it insignificance. Even here, Greenberg's exceptionally bigotted and biased speculation is motivated by her politics, not from any love of history, which this
is not. A more fertile subject would be the most evil war in our history - the Civil War, an unconstitutional land grab by the same hypocrite (Lincoln) who criticized the Mexican War! Polk obtained a constitutional declaration of war from
the public, something Lincoln never even attempted. Lincoln provoked and was totally responsible for his Civil War, which created 10,000 times the death and destruction of Polk's small conflict, plus a hundred years of racial an regional hatred. If any
war's etiology deserves a critical look, it's Lincoln's illegal war, not something as insignificant as the (completely legal and constitutional) Mexican War. But don't expect Miss Greenberg to tackle anything significant - she produces morality plays like this book, and twists and distorts events and manufactures conversations to fit her preconceived righteous beliefs.
Folks, this ain't history. A good historian is an unbiased historian, without an axe to grind. There's no other way to get at the truth.

I get the distinct impression that the author started and finished with the primary goal of placing the US in a bad light -- not to produce a truly scholarly historical resource. Having an ancestor who participated in the war as an infantry private, I believe that the war with Mexico probably had weak moral justification. I also believe the war was probably more about imperialistic expansion than for any other reason. Nevertheless, the author clearly cherry-picked her sources with the objective of discrediting the US and the men who fought in that war. The book was so slanted that I expected her to conclude the book by demanding the US turn all the conquered land back to Mexico. This is not scholarly history. It is leftist propaganda.