What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War
By focusing on the experiences of ordinary Mexicans and Americans, The Dead March offers a clearer historical picture than we have ever had of the brief, bloody war that redrew the map of North America.
Peter Guardino invites skepticism about the received view that the United States emerged victorious in the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) because its democratic system was more stable and its citizens more loyal. In fact, heading into the war, American forces dramatically underestimated the strength of Mexicans’ patriotism and failed to see how bitterly Mexicans resented America’s claims to national and racial superiority. Having regarded the United States as a sister republic, Mexicans were shocked by the scope of America’s expansionist ambitions, and their fierce resistance surprised U.S. political and military leaders, who had expected a quick victory with few casualties. As the fighting intensified over the course of two years, it claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and at least twice as many Mexicans, including many civilians.
As stark as they were, the misconceptions that the Mexican-American War laid bare on both sides did not determine the final victor. What differentiated the two countries in battle was not some notion of American unity and loyalty to democracy but the United States’ huge advantages in economic power and wealth―advantages its poorer Latin American neighbor could not hope to overcome.
Peter Guardino invites skepticism about the received view that the United States emerged victorious in the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) because its democratic system was more stable and its citizens more loyal. In fact, heading into the war, American forces dramatically underestimated the strength of Mexicans’ patriotism and failed to see how bitterly Mexicans resented America’s claims to national and racial superiority. Having regarded the United States as a sister republic, Mexicans were shocked by the scope of America’s expansionist ambitions, and their fierce resistance surprised U.S. political and military leaders, who had expected a quick victory with few casualties. As the fighting intensified over the course of two years, it claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and at least twice as many Mexicans, including many civilians.
As stark as they were, the misconceptions that the Mexican-American War laid bare on both sides did not determine the final victor. What differentiated the two countries in battle was not some notion of American unity and loyalty to democracy but the United States’ huge advantages in economic power and wealth―advantages its poorer Latin American neighbor could not hope to overcome.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published August 28, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
January 10, 2018
Comprehensive history of the Mexican-American war. Guardino starts with a comparison of the United States and Mexican armies in the 1840s, including motivations for individual soldiers. Chapter 2 includes the standard operational/tactical analysis of battles, but also expands upon the military situation with descriptions of Comanche raids, increased recruitment, and Mexican guerrilla raids on the invading American troops.
Similar to previous scholarship on the war, Guardino claims that the Mexican state was economically disadvantaged compared to the United States - with disorganized finances and a limited ability to mobilize a civilian population on its own. However, he breaks from previous writers in noting the Mexican state and population were much more resilient than previously described - officers could be equal in competence to their northern counterparts, soldiers fought well when they had enough food and weapons, and previous political disputes were papered over in a time of national defense. To list one example, non-Spanish speaking indigenous peoples from Guerrero arrived in Mexico City not to spar with the central government, but to aid its defense.
In comparison, the United States was not as politically united as previously described - there was a significant anti-war faction, and the ongoing dispute between 'free' and 'slaves' states hampered military objectives and attitudes towards territorial expansion. The proximity of the Civil War, of course, bolsters this assertion.
There was not a single reason Mexico lost, more like a serious of rolling disadvantages - poor supply, desertion, United States artillery, a weak centralized state, guerrilla conflict, Comanche raids, etc. The scale was tipped to the United States from the start, although their victory was not certain.
Similar to previous scholarship on the war, Guardino claims that the Mexican state was economically disadvantaged compared to the United States - with disorganized finances and a limited ability to mobilize a civilian population on its own. However, he breaks from previous writers in noting the Mexican state and population were much more resilient than previously described - officers could be equal in competence to their northern counterparts, soldiers fought well when they had enough food and weapons, and previous political disputes were papered over in a time of national defense. To list one example, non-Spanish speaking indigenous peoples from Guerrero arrived in Mexico City not to spar with the central government, but to aid its defense.
In comparison, the United States was not as politically united as previously described - there was a significant anti-war faction, and the ongoing dispute between 'free' and 'slaves' states hampered military objectives and attitudes towards territorial expansion. The proximity of the Civil War, of course, bolsters this assertion.
There was not a single reason Mexico lost, more like a serious of rolling disadvantages - poor supply, desertion, United States artillery, a weak centralized state, guerrilla conflict, Comanche raids, etc. The scale was tipped to the United States from the start, although their victory was not certain.
July 25, 2023
Of all the wars fought over control of North America, arguably the most important of these was the one waged between the United States and Mexico in the 1840s. The clash over the territory in Texas that triggered it not only resulted in a massive transfer of territory between the two countries, it profoundly reshaped both nations in ways that are still being felt today. For the United States, annexation of what became the American Southwest not only vastly expanded the size of their country, but it proved the first step in a chain of events that culminated in the bloodiest war in its history. For Mexico, defeat and the loss of roughly half of their territory triggered political strife that led ultimately to a decade of wars and foreign interventions that ended only with the restoration of the republican system in 1867.
Because of its importance in American history, readers seeking an English-language account of the war have plenty of options from which to choose. Yet for a variety of reasons, these works typically focus on the American side of the conflict, with the Mexicans’ perspective often marginalized or excluded altogether. One of the great merits of Peter Guardino’s book is his rectification of this longstanding imbalance. As a historian of 19th century Mexico, he brings to his book an overdue incorporation of the Mexican experience of the war into an overall account of it, one that in the process corrects many longstanding misconceptions about the factors that shaped the war and its impact upon its participants.
Perhaps the greatest of the misconceptions he addresses is that Mexico’s efforts were hampered fatally by its lack of national unity. While acknowledging the fractious political context in which Mexico responded to the United States’s provocations, he demonstrates conclusively that Mexicans typically set aside their differences and came together in united opposition to their common foe. He sets this further in contrast with the perceptions that Americans were more united as a nation, noting how both the contemporary political opposition and the civil war that followed less than a decade and a half later demonstrate that such claims exaggerate the amount of unity among the populace. While acknowledging the ongoing resistance of many Mexicans to centralization efforts during the war, he makes a convincing argument that greater disunity was not the reason why Mexico lost it.
If disunity was not the cause of Mexico’s defeat, then why did they lose? Guardino’s answer is simple: as he notes, at the start of the war the American economy was three times larger than that of Mexico’s, and far better able to support the extended military campaigns that defined it. This mattered particularly when it came to the most basic provisioning of soldiers in the field. Not only were American troops better supported logistically, they had enough money to supplement or compensate the rations available to the men. By contrast, Mexican soldiers were calorie-deprived, to the extent that desertions took place more out of a need for food rather than an unwillingness to fight. In this respect, the Mexican forces were fighting two enemies, with hunger the more omnipresent one.
Given this, it is remarkable that Mexico was able to put forth the military effort that they did. Guardino gives considerable credit here to the commander of Mexico’s forces for much of the conflict, Antonio López de Santa Anna. Though controversial as a battlefield commander, he possessed an unmatched ability to extract from the Mexican population the resources needed to fight the Americans. This gave the Mexicans a resilience which is even more impressive in the light of their repeated defeats at the hands of the Americans, who despite being outnumbered in battles usually were able to employ their superior weaponry to better effect. For the Americans, the greater challenge came from occupying conquered Mexican territory, as the threat of guerrilla warfare encouraged American commanders to seek as early a resolution to the war as was possible.
This eagerness did not stop the Americans from demanding a hefty price for their victory. As Guardino notes, the factors that won them that victory continue to shape U.S. Mexico relations today, giving the war an added relevance that is too often overlooked. It will be difficult to continue doing so thanks to this book, which as a single-volume history of the conflict supersedes its predecessors. By focusing on the social and cultural dimensions of the war, Guardino features important aspects of the conflict too often overlooked in more traditional narratives of the conflict while also demonstrating its broader impact on the nations that fought it. While he tends to belabor some of his points with the repetitiveness of his arguments, it nonetheless is a superb book that even people familiar with the war should read for the balanced coverage it offers and the important insights that the author derives from it.
Because of its importance in American history, readers seeking an English-language account of the war have plenty of options from which to choose. Yet for a variety of reasons, these works typically focus on the American side of the conflict, with the Mexicans’ perspective often marginalized or excluded altogether. One of the great merits of Peter Guardino’s book is his rectification of this longstanding imbalance. As a historian of 19th century Mexico, he brings to his book an overdue incorporation of the Mexican experience of the war into an overall account of it, one that in the process corrects many longstanding misconceptions about the factors that shaped the war and its impact upon its participants.
Perhaps the greatest of the misconceptions he addresses is that Mexico’s efforts were hampered fatally by its lack of national unity. While acknowledging the fractious political context in which Mexico responded to the United States’s provocations, he demonstrates conclusively that Mexicans typically set aside their differences and came together in united opposition to their common foe. He sets this further in contrast with the perceptions that Americans were more united as a nation, noting how both the contemporary political opposition and the civil war that followed less than a decade and a half later demonstrate that such claims exaggerate the amount of unity among the populace. While acknowledging the ongoing resistance of many Mexicans to centralization efforts during the war, he makes a convincing argument that greater disunity was not the reason why Mexico lost it.
If disunity was not the cause of Mexico’s defeat, then why did they lose? Guardino’s answer is simple: as he notes, at the start of the war the American economy was three times larger than that of Mexico’s, and far better able to support the extended military campaigns that defined it. This mattered particularly when it came to the most basic provisioning of soldiers in the field. Not only were American troops better supported logistically, they had enough money to supplement or compensate the rations available to the men. By contrast, Mexican soldiers were calorie-deprived, to the extent that desertions took place more out of a need for food rather than an unwillingness to fight. In this respect, the Mexican forces were fighting two enemies, with hunger the more omnipresent one.
Given this, it is remarkable that Mexico was able to put forth the military effort that they did. Guardino gives considerable credit here to the commander of Mexico’s forces for much of the conflict, Antonio López de Santa Anna. Though controversial as a battlefield commander, he possessed an unmatched ability to extract from the Mexican population the resources needed to fight the Americans. This gave the Mexicans a resilience which is even more impressive in the light of their repeated defeats at the hands of the Americans, who despite being outnumbered in battles usually were able to employ their superior weaponry to better effect. For the Americans, the greater challenge came from occupying conquered Mexican territory, as the threat of guerrilla warfare encouraged American commanders to seek as early a resolution to the war as was possible.
This eagerness did not stop the Americans from demanding a hefty price for their victory. As Guardino notes, the factors that won them that victory continue to shape U.S. Mexico relations today, giving the war an added relevance that is too often overlooked. It will be difficult to continue doing so thanks to this book, which as a single-volume history of the conflict supersedes its predecessors. By focusing on the social and cultural dimensions of the war, Guardino features important aspects of the conflict too often overlooked in more traditional narratives of the conflict while also demonstrating its broader impact on the nations that fought it. While he tends to belabor some of his points with the repetitiveness of his arguments, it nonetheless is a superb book that even people familiar with the war should read for the balanced coverage it offers and the important insights that the author derives from it.
February 29, 2020
Peter Guardino's The Dead March offers an ambitious, multilayered, though lumpen and discursive look at the Mexican-American War. Guardino attempts to integrate academic concerns (sociological assessments of early American and Mexican politics and culture, gender and racial prejudices and economic comparisons) with a more typical narrative account of the war, with a commendable focus on both sides of the conflict. The latter’s the book’s main strength, with Guardino doing an excellent job probing the motivations and minutiae of the war. Both countries used the war, or tried to use it to unite decidedly un-united populations: Mexico from the spiral of coups, civil wars and class tensions in the decades since its independence, America from its escalating sectional tensions over slavery. Alongside accounts of the usual battles (Buena Vista, Cerro Gordo, etc.) and personages (Polk, Taylor, Santa Anna, etc.) Guardino analyzes the motivations and morality of soldiers on both sides, giving ample space to obscure incidents like the Aguanueva Massacre (where Arkansas volunteers murdered Mexican civilians in retaliation for guerrilla attacks) and the Polkos Revolt (a mutiny among Mexican troops that nearly triggered a civil war). While helpful in dispelling common narratives about this conflict - namely, that it was an easy American victory over a hapless, unmotivated Mexican opponent - this broad scope also proves a hindrance, with Guardino often chasing side topics that lead him astray from his main points. His discussions on gender, for instance, would seem more worthwhile if he could demonstrate any significant differences on the subject between the two sides (the closest he comes is demonstrating how Americans used racial and religious stereotypes to demean Mexican manhood). Ultimately, he concludes that America won the war due to better military leadership and superior equipment (especially artillery), that the war was deeply divisive in both countries and that it set the stage for civil war, tragedy and lasting bitterness on each side of the border. Worthwhile but difficult to digest; probably recommended for those seeking a deeper dive, rather than an entry point to Mexican War history.
April 13, 2019
A balanced, well-written and very readable history of the war.
Guardino spends a lot of time on American and Mexican society and the war’s impact on everyday people. He covers such issues as the nations’ military tradition and recruiting challenges, the motives of their soldiers and the dilemmas they faced, the war’s effects on the nations’ economies, and the civilian experience.He also argues that US victory was made possible by US economic strength. There’s also more coverage of the Mexican guerrilla war than in other books I’ve read.
The narrative is broad, strong, thoughtful and flows well. However, Guardino’s discussions of issues like racial, religious and gender issues don’t always seem to add much; they often feel like he just wanted to include them somewhere. Some coverage of how the armies were trained might also have helped, as would some more discussion of how politics affected the armies.
A nuanced, well-researched and comprehensive work overall.
Guardino spends a lot of time on American and Mexican society and the war’s impact on everyday people. He covers such issues as the nations’ military tradition and recruiting challenges, the motives of their soldiers and the dilemmas they faced, the war’s effects on the nations’ economies, and the civilian experience.He also argues that US victory was made possible by US economic strength. There’s also more coverage of the Mexican guerrilla war than in other books I’ve read.
The narrative is broad, strong, thoughtful and flows well. However, Guardino’s discussions of issues like racial, religious and gender issues don’t always seem to add much; they often feel like he just wanted to include them somewhere. Some coverage of how the armies were trained might also have helped, as would some more discussion of how politics affected the armies.
A nuanced, well-researched and comprehensive work overall.
June 3, 2018
3.5 stars. Solid account of the Mexican American War (1846-1848). Focuses on the experiences of ordinary Mexicans and Americans and raises a number of interesting points but seemed kind of repetitive to me at times.
August 22, 2021
Before beginning Guardino's history of the Mexican-American War I didn't know much about it at all. I knew U. S. president James K Polk touched off a dispute on the Texas-Mexico border in order to provoke a war that would force Mexico to sell their northern territories--California and New Mexico--to the U. S. I had a sketchy knowledge of the battles, and I knew that some U. S. Army officers later prominent in the Civil War--Robert E Lee and U. S. Grant are a couple--cut their teeth and earned reputations serving in the war. To be sure Guardino's book is a military history. He does give the reader comprehensive accounts and analyses of the campaigns and battles. But his primary purpose is to provide a social and cultural history of the 2 opposing societies. As he outlines in his "Introduction," he tells the story of the war by following 3 themes: gender, race, and religion. He explains how the basic forms of masculinity for Mexican and American men differed in the mid-19th century and how those perceptions affected the conduct of the war. A lot of emphasis is placed on the roles of women in Mexican society and their various influences on the armies. Race was important in 2 ways: because of American attitudes of superiority to Mexicans who they considered a race, and because an expansionist America hoped the territories won in the war would be an extension of the South's slave-holding culture. Finally, the war became a contest between an intensely-bigoted Protestant America and Catholic Mexico. America at the time was in the midst of a Protestant revival known as the Second Great Awakening that butted heads directly with a nation believing Catholicism was the only route to salvation, a nation which justified its formation by the need to bring such Catholic salvation to its indigenous population. During the war churches were the focal points for many important events.
But all this barely scratches the surface of this exhaustive social record of 1840s Mexico and America. Guardino also explains the social and economic conditions for the opponents, concluding that first and foremost Mexico lost the war because they were poor and were attacked by an extraordinarily wealthy neighbor. What was it like to be a soldier in the war becomes clear through thorough analysis of the opposing armies. How much did American expansionism really contribute to the nation's attitudes toward the war? What part did the war and its results play in leading to the later Civil War in the U. S.? What is meant by nationalism and how were such ideas promoted in the 2 countries? These questions and more, questions I'd never before known to ask, are answered in this fascinating panoramic snapshot of 2 societies at war. I feel like I'll look back on this fine history as one of the most memorable and thought-provoking reads of this summer.
But all this barely scratches the surface of this exhaustive social record of 1840s Mexico and America. Guardino also explains the social and economic conditions for the opponents, concluding that first and foremost Mexico lost the war because they were poor and were attacked by an extraordinarily wealthy neighbor. What was it like to be a soldier in the war becomes clear through thorough analysis of the opposing armies. How much did American expansionism really contribute to the nation's attitudes toward the war? What part did the war and its results play in leading to the later Civil War in the U. S.? What is meant by nationalism and how were such ideas promoted in the 2 countries? These questions and more, questions I'd never before known to ask, are answered in this fascinating panoramic snapshot of 2 societies at war. I feel like I'll look back on this fine history as one of the most memorable and thought-provoking reads of this summer.
December 22, 2018
This is a model of how "new military history"--considering the war and society context of the participants, can yield valuable new insights into conflict. Guardino examines how the cleavages between the US standing army and volunteers colored their use and behavior in the conflict, while the conscription practices of the Mexican government determined the ability of commanders to deploy their soldiers. Useful discussions of the anti-Catholicism baked into US propaganda (and the odd attempt by Catholic German and Irish immigrant groups to use enlistment as a way into assimilation), and how while Mexico was attempting to be a federal democracy built on inclusion of all Mexicans, the US was rolling out a slave-based exclusionary democracy of white expansionists. The writing is endlessly quote worthy, including pg. 109's "Assaults on Mexicans were often carried out when Americans were drunk, but, as we have seen, that stipulation seems to have covered a remarkable portion of the hours the volunteers spent in the army."
November 17, 2021
The Dead March es un trabajo de un enorme valor histórico. Peter Guardino hace un esfuerzo por narrar la historia de la Guerra México-Americana de 1846-1848 desde el punto de vista de los que pelearon en la guerra. El libro nos muestra que el soldado americano y el mexicano eran muy parecidos y que el gran factor detrás de la derrota mexicana era la incapacidad del gobierno mexicano de alimentar a sus soldados.
La penuria de la hacienda publica fue un obstáculo insuperable para México. Lejos de las interpretaciones que sugieren que el problema era la falta de identidad nacional, fue la economía el factor más importante para explicar el resultado de la guerra. Un libro muy recomendable para entender la formación de la identidad nacional en México y en Estados Unidos y esa parte del siglo XIX que fue un antecedente de la guerra Civil en USA y de la Guerra de Reforma en México.
La penuria de la hacienda publica fue un obstáculo insuperable para México. Lejos de las interpretaciones que sugieren que el problema era la falta de identidad nacional, fue la economía el factor más importante para explicar el resultado de la guerra. Un libro muy recomendable para entender la formación de la identidad nacional en México y en Estados Unidos y esa parte del siglo XIX que fue un antecedente de la guerra Civil en USA y de la Guerra de Reforma en México.
January 6, 2022
Una buena lectura para los que desean entender un poco más sobre el contexto de ambos países, durante el conflicto bélico, pero sobre todo para tratar de reflexionar más sobre los principales actores que muchas veces pasan anónimos ante los libros de historia, los ciudadanos de una y otra parte, quienes sin tener monumentos en su honor, dieron todo por defender la causa más justa desde su punto de vista. Increíble libro
June 6, 2021
La guerra México-EEUU es de esos pasajes misteriosos en la historia de ambos países en el que parece que ambos gobiernos han coincido en ignorar, quizás ambos por vergüenza, pero también, por procesos internos más relevantes que desvanecieron la importancia de esta guerra frente a eventos que, para los discursos oficiales, fueron de mayor relevancia.
Y sin embargo, pocas guerras modernas han tenido efectos territoriales tan drásticos como esta: con la pérdida de la mitad del territorio Mexicano, las formas casi definitivas de ambos países se delineaban. Y estas formas territoriales se acompañaban de formas mentales: a cuarenta años de la independencia de los EEUU y a veinte años de la independencia mexicana, ambos países eran entidades jóvenes que sin embargo estaban en momentos diametralmente opuestos.
Habitualmente, es la oposición en estos momentos lo que ha servido para justificar, para bien o para mal, la victoria de los estadounidenses en esta guerra. Desde discursos raciales, morales, nacionalistas hasta económicos, enfatizan las diferencias de ambos países, dejando habitualmente a México muy mal parado y derrotado. Peter Guardino toma una posición distinta y decide enfatizar a lo largo del libro en las similitudes que ambos países tenían. Hace un examen que se preocupa menos por las minucias de las batallas y más por la composición social de los ejércitos y sus efectos en las comunidades (tanto de las que venían esos ejércitos como en las que llegaban). Esta es la única forma en la que se pueden comprender las guerras: al fin y al cabo, injustas o no, están basadas en un paradigma cultural que justifica por qué ir a matar a una persona con la que no tenemos relación está bien.
Para los estadounidenses, es su fantasía del destino manifiesto. Hay quienes acusan a ciertos grupos marginados de resentidos y fantasiosos al acusar a los EEUU de ser culpables de todo. Cierto es que no lo son y más importante, que la gente de a pie en los EEUU no puede ser metida en una bolsa genérica y denostada. Pero la filosofía del destino manifiesto (que todavía hoy envenena su discurso con estas pretensiones de superioridad moral que les da el derecho de meterse donde no se les llama) ha hecho tanto daño a ciertas regiones que es imposible no reconocer que a) su política exterior ha dado forma al mundo reciente y b) muchos de los problemas sociales en regiones que al final dejaron abandonadas sólo pueden explicarse por su intervención insensata. En este siglo, Medio Oriente ha sido víctima de esta fantasía de moralidad superior y justicia en lo que ya para todos es un evidente tablero de ajedrez donde gringos, rusos, franceses y alemanes mueven a placer piezas políticas para su conveniencia, sin importarles las condiciones que construyen para el futuro. La América Latina moderna (en particular, el cono sur) no puede explicarse sin el entrometimiento estadounidense y apoyo económico y a veces militar a gobiernos cuestionables del siglo XX que dejaron heridas que aun sangran en nuestros países. En el siglo XIX, la expansión territorial, el anhelo imperialista (compartido, sin duda, por otros tantos en Europa) sentó las bases del país: Guardino se esfuerza en demostrarnos que las víctimas de esos anhelos no sólo fueron los mexicanos, sino la misma población estadounidense que terminaría pronto enfrentándose en una guerra civil sangrienta- sólo para enfatizar: se estima que en 4 años murieron alrededor de un millón de estadounidenses. En los 15 años que se redondea la duración de la llamada Revolución Mexicana, menos de 2 millones murieron- pero, y a mucho más largo plazo, soportando un racismo que aun ahora fragmenta su sociedad.
No existe propiedad sobre los territorios. Las fronteras son líneas imaginarias que en épocas modernas ni siquiera están dibujadas por límites geográficos consistentes. La discusión de si un territorio era mexicano o estadounidense o indígena es vacía (en un sentido trascendente). No puede haber justicia en ninguna reclamación de un territorio en tanto que esta reclamación esté acompañada de desplazamiento y violencia. Por tanto, discutir si el territorio anexado por los EEUU le pertenecía a México es una leguleya considerando que la mayoría de esos territorios estaban deshabitados o poblados por comunidades indígenas a los que ambos Estados enfrentaban o al menos no consideraban gente de su nación. Sin embargo, no todo ese territorio estaba vacío y las ciudades de California, Santa Fe y entre otras sumaban alrededor de 100 mil habitantes (un 4% de la población mexicana entonces). Abandonadas a su suerte por las dificultades económicas que el Estado (además centralista) tenía, sus lazos económicos eran estrechos con la sociedad estadounidense, que sin embargo, no tuvo reparos en intentar conquistar las ciudades de manera violenta aun antes de la guerra que nos ocupa. Menciono esto pues se olvida que Texas fue la excepción en una lista de incursiones gringas cuya ambición no se limitaba a los territorios desocupados, así que reducir la guerra a los reclamos sobre terrenos baldíos es cuando menos injusto.
Pero es lo que marca esta guerra: su injusticia. Y de nuevo, uno puede argüir lo que quiera sobre las otras víctimas (comunidades indígenas arrasadas por parte de ambas naciones en los territorios anexados), pero ésta fue una guerra injusta aun para los estándares de los Estados modernos. Basada en una ambición (la expansión de EEUU), se justificó mediante una mentira (el ataque a tropas gringas en territorio gringo, un territorio que sólo fue estadounidense HASTA DESPUÉS DE LA GUERRA) y con la esperanza de que la superioridad económica y militar se tradujera en una guerra breve. Uno también podría argüir que los mexicanos cometieron el error de prolongar una derrota pero ¿qué otra solución habría sino el rechazo? Porque esta no fue una guerra en la que simplemente se fueran a perder territorios, sino estaba profundamente marcada por el racismo y el anticatolicismo gringo que se sintió como una amenaza para la forma de vida en los territorios mexicanos. Si el expansionismo gringo no se frenaba, ¿ansiarían anexar a todo el país? En cuyo caso, ¿los valores con los que se identificaba la sociedad mexicana serían arrasados?
Y de nuevo, la gente mexicana en los territorios perdidos nos da la respuesta: sí. Racismo, violencia, represión que violarían repetidamente el mismo tratado que entregó esos territorios y que encuentra una de sus expresiones más ofensivas en el término "greaser" (checar la "greaser act" para disfrutar de tan exquisito término). Por tanto, la reacción defensiva de los mexicanos es más que justificada, aunque las verdaderas razones de la derrota pronto se harían presente, llevando a una serie de fracaso tras fracaso que culminaría en el alarmante hecho de que los estadounidenses tomaron la ciudad de México.
¿Y cuáles son estas razones? La inestabilidad política de la incipiente nación mexicana y que tardaría al menos 30 años en estabilizarse un poco de la mano de Porfirio y que no volvería a encontrarse sino hasta 1940 con el dominio casi hegemónico del PRI. Pero esta inestabilidad política (a la que podemos analizar hasta el hartazgo) no significaba que las diferentes facciones no creyeran en la defensa de la misma manera, sino en cómo se manejaban unos ejércitos que por lo demás eran difíciles de mantener unidos. Y esta dificultad se explica por la mayor razón de la derrota: la pobreza de México que tras salir de su independencia, no había logrado encontrar paz a sus guerras. Contra España, contra Francia, entre sus habitantes y ahora los estadounidenses, poco dinero quedaba y era más bien la inteligencia política y carisma de un general como Santa Anna lo que podía formar un ejército más o menos decente, pero al final el hambre, la diferencia en la artillería y la falta de munición marcarían cada batalla como una derrota.
Guardino desmonta muy bien el mito de que eran las diferencias entre la unidad nacional lo que ganó la guerra. Guardino demuestra que entre ambas sociedades americanas, pese a sus diferencias culturales, su humanidad las hace coincidir en más de un punto. Su mayor pecado es que a veces, en un afán de nivelar el terreno, peca de ingenuo. Algunas veces parece creer demasiado los discursos oficiales del gobierno de México en una época donde las dos facciones más importantes manipulaban a la prensa a placer. Otras veces, intenta pintar de mucha nobleza a los soldados regulares de ambos ejércitos. La frase final muestra mucho esta ingenuidad: "Las tragedias similares seguirán adelante hasta que todos insistamos que lo que nos une es más importante que lo que nos divide y en que nuestra esperanza es más poderosa que nuestro miedo" (si bien coincido con la primera parte, esperanza y miedo son, por otro lado, expresiones de un mismo sentir: las reacciones a un futuro incierto, por lo que son iguales de poderosas y por tanto la posibilidad de actos horribles justifica la existencia de actos increíbles, pero también lo contrario).
Sin embargo, su análisis me parece relevante no sólo por establecer los paralelismos entre nuestras sociedades, sino que además da pie a entender como su mezcla ha creado el occidente de los Estados Unidos en los que la herencia de esos 100 mil mexicanos absorbidos se puede sentir. Baste ver como si pintáramos los estados de EEUU que tienen un régimen de sociedades conyugales de rojo, nos encontraríamos con que de rojo se pintan casi exclusivamente los viejos territorios mexicanos. Y con la inmigración y el racismo, una identidad basada en una cultura de raíces hispánicas ha bañado la zona, haciendo la sociedad de esa tierra una muy compleja. Los gringos tienen mucho que estudiar sobre las intersecciones culturales para comprenderse a sí mismos en esa región del mundo y considerando que en México el problema de la inmigración sigue siendo uno muy grande, nos concierne a ambos para que la gente, que ya está ahí, la que se mueve allá o la que regresa a sus comunidades, tenga las posibilidades para una vida digna.
PD. A la historiografía mexicana del siglo XX le dio esta enfermedad mitológica donde las historias sólo se pueden explicar a través de mitos y se inventó a los niños héroes. Guardino los menciona en una línea como un mito mexicano aunque más atrás reconoció la existencia de algunos cadetes que lucharon en el colegio; él lo tacha de conmovedor. A mí no me queda claro que su lucha haya sido del todo voluntaria. Es muy gracioso que, de todos los mitos que pudieron haberse alzado, el de los niños héroes sea el que más prevalezca. Quizás la juventud de esos niños en medio de una guerra injusta que terminaría por definir una nacionalidad marcada por la muerte les recordaba mucho al país en ese momento. Como quiera que sea, valdría la pena empezar a olvidar ese mito, considerando lo poco relevante que es para el mexicano promedio, y empezar a explicar esta guerra de una manera menos patética.
Y sin embargo, pocas guerras modernas han tenido efectos territoriales tan drásticos como esta: con la pérdida de la mitad del territorio Mexicano, las formas casi definitivas de ambos países se delineaban. Y estas formas territoriales se acompañaban de formas mentales: a cuarenta años de la independencia de los EEUU y a veinte años de la independencia mexicana, ambos países eran entidades jóvenes que sin embargo estaban en momentos diametralmente opuestos.
Habitualmente, es la oposición en estos momentos lo que ha servido para justificar, para bien o para mal, la victoria de los estadounidenses en esta guerra. Desde discursos raciales, morales, nacionalistas hasta económicos, enfatizan las diferencias de ambos países, dejando habitualmente a México muy mal parado y derrotado. Peter Guardino toma una posición distinta y decide enfatizar a lo largo del libro en las similitudes que ambos países tenían. Hace un examen que se preocupa menos por las minucias de las batallas y más por la composición social de los ejércitos y sus efectos en las comunidades (tanto de las que venían esos ejércitos como en las que llegaban). Esta es la única forma en la que se pueden comprender las guerras: al fin y al cabo, injustas o no, están basadas en un paradigma cultural que justifica por qué ir a matar a una persona con la que no tenemos relación está bien.
Para los estadounidenses, es su fantasía del destino manifiesto. Hay quienes acusan a ciertos grupos marginados de resentidos y fantasiosos al acusar a los EEUU de ser culpables de todo. Cierto es que no lo son y más importante, que la gente de a pie en los EEUU no puede ser metida en una bolsa genérica y denostada. Pero la filosofía del destino manifiesto (que todavía hoy envenena su discurso con estas pretensiones de superioridad moral que les da el derecho de meterse donde no se les llama) ha hecho tanto daño a ciertas regiones que es imposible no reconocer que a) su política exterior ha dado forma al mundo reciente y b) muchos de los problemas sociales en regiones que al final dejaron abandonadas sólo pueden explicarse por su intervención insensata. En este siglo, Medio Oriente ha sido víctima de esta fantasía de moralidad superior y justicia en lo que ya para todos es un evidente tablero de ajedrez donde gringos, rusos, franceses y alemanes mueven a placer piezas políticas para su conveniencia, sin importarles las condiciones que construyen para el futuro. La América Latina moderna (en particular, el cono sur) no puede explicarse sin el entrometimiento estadounidense y apoyo económico y a veces militar a gobiernos cuestionables del siglo XX que dejaron heridas que aun sangran en nuestros países. En el siglo XIX, la expansión territorial, el anhelo imperialista (compartido, sin duda, por otros tantos en Europa) sentó las bases del país: Guardino se esfuerza en demostrarnos que las víctimas de esos anhelos no sólo fueron los mexicanos, sino la misma población estadounidense que terminaría pronto enfrentándose en una guerra civil sangrienta- sólo para enfatizar: se estima que en 4 años murieron alrededor de un millón de estadounidenses. En los 15 años que se redondea la duración de la llamada Revolución Mexicana, menos de 2 millones murieron- pero, y a mucho más largo plazo, soportando un racismo que aun ahora fragmenta su sociedad.
No existe propiedad sobre los territorios. Las fronteras son líneas imaginarias que en épocas modernas ni siquiera están dibujadas por límites geográficos consistentes. La discusión de si un territorio era mexicano o estadounidense o indígena es vacía (en un sentido trascendente). No puede haber justicia en ninguna reclamación de un territorio en tanto que esta reclamación esté acompañada de desplazamiento y violencia. Por tanto, discutir si el territorio anexado por los EEUU le pertenecía a México es una leguleya considerando que la mayoría de esos territorios estaban deshabitados o poblados por comunidades indígenas a los que ambos Estados enfrentaban o al menos no consideraban gente de su nación. Sin embargo, no todo ese territorio estaba vacío y las ciudades de California, Santa Fe y entre otras sumaban alrededor de 100 mil habitantes (un 4% de la población mexicana entonces). Abandonadas a su suerte por las dificultades económicas que el Estado (además centralista) tenía, sus lazos económicos eran estrechos con la sociedad estadounidense, que sin embargo, no tuvo reparos en intentar conquistar las ciudades de manera violenta aun antes de la guerra que nos ocupa. Menciono esto pues se olvida que Texas fue la excepción en una lista de incursiones gringas cuya ambición no se limitaba a los territorios desocupados, así que reducir la guerra a los reclamos sobre terrenos baldíos es cuando menos injusto.
Pero es lo que marca esta guerra: su injusticia. Y de nuevo, uno puede argüir lo que quiera sobre las otras víctimas (comunidades indígenas arrasadas por parte de ambas naciones en los territorios anexados), pero ésta fue una guerra injusta aun para los estándares de los Estados modernos. Basada en una ambición (la expansión de EEUU), se justificó mediante una mentira (el ataque a tropas gringas en territorio gringo, un territorio que sólo fue estadounidense HASTA DESPUÉS DE LA GUERRA) y con la esperanza de que la superioridad económica y militar se tradujera en una guerra breve. Uno también podría argüir que los mexicanos cometieron el error de prolongar una derrota pero ¿qué otra solución habría sino el rechazo? Porque esta no fue una guerra en la que simplemente se fueran a perder territorios, sino estaba profundamente marcada por el racismo y el anticatolicismo gringo que se sintió como una amenaza para la forma de vida en los territorios mexicanos. Si el expansionismo gringo no se frenaba, ¿ansiarían anexar a todo el país? En cuyo caso, ¿los valores con los que se identificaba la sociedad mexicana serían arrasados?
Y de nuevo, la gente mexicana en los territorios perdidos nos da la respuesta: sí. Racismo, violencia, represión que violarían repetidamente el mismo tratado que entregó esos territorios y que encuentra una de sus expresiones más ofensivas en el término "greaser" (checar la "greaser act" para disfrutar de tan exquisito término). Por tanto, la reacción defensiva de los mexicanos es más que justificada, aunque las verdaderas razones de la derrota pronto se harían presente, llevando a una serie de fracaso tras fracaso que culminaría en el alarmante hecho de que los estadounidenses tomaron la ciudad de México.
¿Y cuáles son estas razones? La inestabilidad política de la incipiente nación mexicana y que tardaría al menos 30 años en estabilizarse un poco de la mano de Porfirio y que no volvería a encontrarse sino hasta 1940 con el dominio casi hegemónico del PRI. Pero esta inestabilidad política (a la que podemos analizar hasta el hartazgo) no significaba que las diferentes facciones no creyeran en la defensa de la misma manera, sino en cómo se manejaban unos ejércitos que por lo demás eran difíciles de mantener unidos. Y esta dificultad se explica por la mayor razón de la derrota: la pobreza de México que tras salir de su independencia, no había logrado encontrar paz a sus guerras. Contra España, contra Francia, entre sus habitantes y ahora los estadounidenses, poco dinero quedaba y era más bien la inteligencia política y carisma de un general como Santa Anna lo que podía formar un ejército más o menos decente, pero al final el hambre, la diferencia en la artillería y la falta de munición marcarían cada batalla como una derrota.
Guardino desmonta muy bien el mito de que eran las diferencias entre la unidad nacional lo que ganó la guerra. Guardino demuestra que entre ambas sociedades americanas, pese a sus diferencias culturales, su humanidad las hace coincidir en más de un punto. Su mayor pecado es que a veces, en un afán de nivelar el terreno, peca de ingenuo. Algunas veces parece creer demasiado los discursos oficiales del gobierno de México en una época donde las dos facciones más importantes manipulaban a la prensa a placer. Otras veces, intenta pintar de mucha nobleza a los soldados regulares de ambos ejércitos. La frase final muestra mucho esta ingenuidad: "Las tragedias similares seguirán adelante hasta que todos insistamos que lo que nos une es más importante que lo que nos divide y en que nuestra esperanza es más poderosa que nuestro miedo" (si bien coincido con la primera parte, esperanza y miedo son, por otro lado, expresiones de un mismo sentir: las reacciones a un futuro incierto, por lo que son iguales de poderosas y por tanto la posibilidad de actos horribles justifica la existencia de actos increíbles, pero también lo contrario).
Sin embargo, su análisis me parece relevante no sólo por establecer los paralelismos entre nuestras sociedades, sino que además da pie a entender como su mezcla ha creado el occidente de los Estados Unidos en los que la herencia de esos 100 mil mexicanos absorbidos se puede sentir. Baste ver como si pintáramos los estados de EEUU que tienen un régimen de sociedades conyugales de rojo, nos encontraríamos con que de rojo se pintan casi exclusivamente los viejos territorios mexicanos. Y con la inmigración y el racismo, una identidad basada en una cultura de raíces hispánicas ha bañado la zona, haciendo la sociedad de esa tierra una muy compleja. Los gringos tienen mucho que estudiar sobre las intersecciones culturales para comprenderse a sí mismos en esa región del mundo y considerando que en México el problema de la inmigración sigue siendo uno muy grande, nos concierne a ambos para que la gente, que ya está ahí, la que se mueve allá o la que regresa a sus comunidades, tenga las posibilidades para una vida digna.
PD. A la historiografía mexicana del siglo XX le dio esta enfermedad mitológica donde las historias sólo se pueden explicar a través de mitos y se inventó a los niños héroes. Guardino los menciona en una línea como un mito mexicano aunque más atrás reconoció la existencia de algunos cadetes que lucharon en el colegio; él lo tacha de conmovedor. A mí no me queda claro que su lucha haya sido del todo voluntaria. Es muy gracioso que, de todos los mitos que pudieron haberse alzado, el de los niños héroes sea el que más prevalezca. Quizás la juventud de esos niños en medio de una guerra injusta que terminaría por definir una nacionalidad marcada por la muerte les recordaba mucho al país en ese momento. Como quiera que sea, valdría la pena empezar a olvidar ese mito, considerando lo poco relevante que es para el mexicano promedio, y empezar a explicar esta guerra de una manera menos patética.
January 12, 2018
Unusual take on 19th Century war in general, and specifically, this war. I found it useful to know how military members were recruited and what led to drafting of "regulars," decisions to volunteer, and desertions. I found it particularly interesting to understand the social and political motivations behind the assembly of groups affiliated with particular states, e.g., the "3rd Illinois," vs. ordinary line troops.
Guardino's thesis is that the relative economic status of the two countries resulted in Mexico's defeat. The Mexican troops had the same surge of patriotism, the same view of themselves as contributing to a national cause; the U.S. troops sprang from a nation with the same level of tenuous political unity. Both countries segued almost immediately into a civil war. So, he contends, the common understanding of the reasons for Mexico's defeat rest on faulty data. It was all down to the "Economic Theory of History!"
I particularly enjoyed the analysis of several key wartime personalities, like Winfield Scott, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, López de Santa Anna, and Mexican President Gómez Farías. Also, insightful to read of the role of the San Patricios - Americans who had deserted and joined the Mexican side, many of them because of mistreatment, but others because they felt disrespected as Catholic immigrants to the U.S. A huge factor in American attitudes towards the war was the racism they felt towards the Mexicans as "others" - a timely discussion in today's politics.
I was able to think back on my previous reading about the attitudes of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass; the discussion of the role of the Whigs in this book was less fulsome, but there were reminders of that more detailed perspective in the earlier books. One interesting point: the Mexicans generally found it surprising that the political debate in the U.S. didn't lead to open rebellion or violence until 1860; they thought it would come sooner and erode our ability to prosecute the war. But our political system was flexible enough to accommodate the aggressive debate. Also important was yellow fever. If Scott hadn't successfully moved his men from Veracruz to Puebla before the season set in, he would have lost many more to death and desertion than he otherwise did.
Finally, how interesting to think that the Mexican history course I took back in ITESO in 1971 would not be wasted so many years later! That sarcastic professor was often in my mind's eye as I heard Guardino refer again to the return of Santa Anna! Good book.
Guardino's thesis is that the relative economic status of the two countries resulted in Mexico's defeat. The Mexican troops had the same surge of patriotism, the same view of themselves as contributing to a national cause; the U.S. troops sprang from a nation with the same level of tenuous political unity. Both countries segued almost immediately into a civil war. So, he contends, the common understanding of the reasons for Mexico's defeat rest on faulty data. It was all down to the "Economic Theory of History!"
I particularly enjoyed the analysis of several key wartime personalities, like Winfield Scott, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, López de Santa Anna, and Mexican President Gómez Farías. Also, insightful to read of the role of the San Patricios - Americans who had deserted and joined the Mexican side, many of them because of mistreatment, but others because they felt disrespected as Catholic immigrants to the U.S. A huge factor in American attitudes towards the war was the racism they felt towards the Mexicans as "others" - a timely discussion in today's politics.
I was able to think back on my previous reading about the attitudes of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass; the discussion of the role of the Whigs in this book was less fulsome, but there were reminders of that more detailed perspective in the earlier books. One interesting point: the Mexicans generally found it surprising that the political debate in the U.S. didn't lead to open rebellion or violence until 1860; they thought it would come sooner and erode our ability to prosecute the war. But our political system was flexible enough to accommodate the aggressive debate. Also important was yellow fever. If Scott hadn't successfully moved his men from Veracruz to Puebla before the season set in, he would have lost many more to death and desertion than he otherwise did.
Finally, how interesting to think that the Mexican history course I took back in ITESO in 1971 would not be wasted so many years later! That sarcastic professor was often in my mind's eye as I heard Guardino refer again to the return of Santa Anna! Good book.
April 2, 2024
First the good: Incredible amount of detail and background regarding the war and its causes. Really great insight on the relationship between Mexico and the US. Wonderful descriptions of the battles and strategies of the armies. Now the other side: This book reads like a textbook. Not surprisingly since it is written by a history professor and published by a university press. It needs to be edited to be half its size and rewritten to make it reach a wider audience.
February 27, 2022
An amazing overview of the war, which correctly favors the Mexican side, and seeks to dispel many of the myths of Mexicans lacking national conceptions
May 29, 2023
Un libro de historia sobre la guerra de México y estados Unidos en 1846 y 1848 que es objetivo, claro y que además de los aspectos militares abarca los aspectos socioeconómicos de ambos países contendientes. El autor se valió de una bien nutrida bibliografía que además sirve de referencia para buscar otros libros a leer.
durante el proceso de escritura de su libro el autor visito los sitios de las batallas como Resaca de la palma, Monterrey, la angostura y Cerro Gordo además de la ciudad de México. hace hincapié en algunos aspectos muy interesantes que ocurrieron durante esta invasion y por supuesto que habla de los San Patricios, tan discutidos y muchas veces olvidados y/o vilipendiados.
Finalmente es importante destacar la Editorial Grano de Sal que se tomó en serio la traducción y publicación del libro en idioma español. Aprendí mucho de este libro.
durante el proceso de escritura de su libro el autor visito los sitios de las batallas como Resaca de la palma, Monterrey, la angostura y Cerro Gordo además de la ciudad de México. hace hincapié en algunos aspectos muy interesantes que ocurrieron durante esta invasion y por supuesto que habla de los San Patricios, tan discutidos y muchas veces olvidados y/o vilipendiados.
Finalmente es importante destacar la Editorial Grano de Sal que se tomó en serio la traducción y publicación del libro en idioma español. Aprendí mucho de este libro.
January 28, 2021
Una guerra tan importante para la formación de ambas naciones tal como las conocemos hoy. Una guerra tan olvidada, incluso en los Estados Unidos. Y una guerra en la que las casualidades y los entuertos, tan evidentes hoy en día, dejan mucho que pensar.
Una guerra de conquista por la que los Estados Unidos «pagaron» con la afamada Guerra Civil. Que, evidentemente, eclipso todo lo acontecido en su guerra contra México. Siendo los Estados Unidos una nación forjada con el racismo y la segregación, lo tiene en vena. Y dudo mucho que alguna vez cambie.
Una guerra de conquista por la que los Estados Unidos «pagaron» con la afamada Guerra Civil. Que, evidentemente, eclipso todo lo acontecido en su guerra contra México. Siendo los Estados Unidos una nación forjada con el racismo y la segregación, lo tiene en vena. Y dudo mucho que alguna vez cambie.
March 4, 2018
Een interesant boek over een wat onbekende oorlog tussen de VS en Mexico. Vooral omdat Guardino niet sec de oorlogshandelingen beschrijft, maar ook veel achtergrondinformatie geeft over beide landen in die periode (1846 - 1848), over de politiek, de wijze waarop die legers samengesteld en betaald werden en nog veel meer. Soms wat droog, maa rover het algemeenheel leesbaar. Een verre echo van hoe de Amerikanen en vooral hun president nu over Mexico en de Mexicanen praten.
January 22, 2022
Somewhat generous 3 stars for this book about a war many today know nothing about. This book covers the main battles between the two sides. Much time was spent learning about the soldiers, where they came from, and the general cultural and political milieu of each side. So if you want to learn about the war, this will certainly fit the bill. It captures many sources from the Mexican side. We get great descriptions of the American occupation of Mexico City and what it was like for each side.
A great point was made that captures much of the difference between the two countries. When Mexicans would hear about dissension in the American legislature about the war, many assumed there would be a coup attempt to dislodge Polk and install a President that would leave Mexico alone. That's just how things went in Mexico. While the political situation in Mexico certainly contributed to Mexico losing the war, ultimately it was much poorer than America. They could not keep their armies fed and paid, and their weapons were of much poorer quality and reliability.
The writing was subpar, at times annoying. I get really annoyed when authors ask rhetorical questions and then answer them. It's a sign of your limited ability to develop a well written narrative. Guardino does this a lot. In setting the tone for this war, it would have made sense to me to discuss the Texas war of independence a decade or so prior, at least to some extent, but there was no mention. There was very little written about the peace treaty that ended the war. I thought this should have been fleshed out much more. So ultimately this is an imperfect but useful look at the Mexican-American War.
A great point was made that captures much of the difference between the two countries. When Mexicans would hear about dissension in the American legislature about the war, many assumed there would be a coup attempt to dislodge Polk and install a President that would leave Mexico alone. That's just how things went in Mexico. While the political situation in Mexico certainly contributed to Mexico losing the war, ultimately it was much poorer than America. They could not keep their armies fed and paid, and their weapons were of much poorer quality and reliability.
The writing was subpar, at times annoying. I get really annoyed when authors ask rhetorical questions and then answer them. It's a sign of your limited ability to develop a well written narrative. Guardino does this a lot. In setting the tone for this war, it would have made sense to me to discuss the Texas war of independence a decade or so prior, at least to some extent, but there was no mention. There was very little written about the peace treaty that ended the war. I thought this should have been fleshed out much more. So ultimately this is an imperfect but useful look at the Mexican-American War.
April 10, 2018
4.5 stars
I honestly couldn't recall anything about the Mexican-American War when I started this book. That's relevant because I went into reading this without any preconceptions or half remembered high school history lessons.
Guardino does an excellent job of not just reporting the battles and other events that normally make up history books but covers the roles of patriotism and the perception of its lack in Mexico (which wasn't true; Mexicans were just as invested in Mexico as a distinct nation with its own culture, heritage, people, and ideas of how to govern and be governed), the role poverty and economics of both countries especially in regards to military service, the role of racist and anti-Catholic ideology/beliefs, and the nature of regular army versus volunteer army units in both countries.
This is not a history that buys into the idea that USA is the best and that is why they won. "Winning" a war is more than fighting battles and in the end both sides lose because of the loss of life. Both sides committed atrocities but many of the American volunteer units were the most egregious perpetrators. These are not parts of history that get covered in a high school history class.
Guardino does an excellent job of covering social aspects of the war and the war itself while maintaining a nearly unbiased approach. He doesn't glorify the winners and doesn't excoriate the losers. In war, everyone loses.
I honestly couldn't recall anything about the Mexican-American War when I started this book. That's relevant because I went into reading this without any preconceptions or half remembered high school history lessons.
Guardino does an excellent job of not just reporting the battles and other events that normally make up history books but covers the roles of patriotism and the perception of its lack in Mexico (which wasn't true; Mexicans were just as invested in Mexico as a distinct nation with its own culture, heritage, people, and ideas of how to govern and be governed), the role poverty and economics of both countries especially in regards to military service, the role of racist and anti-Catholic ideology/beliefs, and the nature of regular army versus volunteer army units in both countries.
This is not a history that buys into the idea that USA is the best and that is why they won. "Winning" a war is more than fighting battles and in the end both sides lose because of the loss of life. Both sides committed atrocities but many of the American volunteer units were the most egregious perpetrators. These are not parts of history that get covered in a high school history class.
Guardino does an excellent job of covering social aspects of the war and the war itself while maintaining a nearly unbiased approach. He doesn't glorify the winners and doesn't excoriate the losers. In war, everyone loses.
August 13, 2022
Until I read The Dead March, my reading about the Mexican-American War was limited to the “War Against Mexico” chapter in Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought survey of US history, 1815-1848. Howe’s brief coverage of the conflict is excellent and a useful introduction to the subject. My recollection is that he emphasizes events in California (the most valuable prize of the war) more than Guardino, who concentrates on the territory within today’s Mexican borders, where most of the war’s blood was shed.
The Dead March seeks to rehabilitate Mexico’s reputation by highlighting the impressive resistance Mexicans were able to mount despite having inadequate food, vastly inferior weaponry and a national government which was essentially bankrupt. The quick war Polk and his supporters expected turned into a series of bloody confrontations that lasted almost two years. This was due to a level of army and civilian resistance that the author sees as evidence of a strong national identity just a generation after independence. Mexico lost more than half its territory to the US, but this was in very sparsely settled areas. The territory where most Mexicans lived remained independent in no small measure because Mexicans’ resistance convinced US leadership that a takeover of the entire country would not be sustainable.
Guardino goes into considerable detail about the composition of each country’s army and how soldiers were recruited. This is the basis for ongoing comparisons of Mexican and American attitudes about race, religion, family, and notions of masculinity and femininity. This is a sociological analysis disguised as military history. Or vice versa. Some readers may find this a bit “woke.” I appreciated the fresh perspective.
The Dead March seeks to rehabilitate Mexico’s reputation by highlighting the impressive resistance Mexicans were able to mount despite having inadequate food, vastly inferior weaponry and a national government which was essentially bankrupt. The quick war Polk and his supporters expected turned into a series of bloody confrontations that lasted almost two years. This was due to a level of army and civilian resistance that the author sees as evidence of a strong national identity just a generation after independence. Mexico lost more than half its territory to the US, but this was in very sparsely settled areas. The territory where most Mexicans lived remained independent in no small measure because Mexicans’ resistance convinced US leadership that a takeover of the entire country would not be sustainable.
Guardino goes into considerable detail about the composition of each country’s army and how soldiers were recruited. This is the basis for ongoing comparisons of Mexican and American attitudes about race, religion, family, and notions of masculinity and femininity. This is a sociological analysis disguised as military history. Or vice versa. Some readers may find this a bit “woke.” I appreciated the fresh perspective.
January 16, 2022
This war, a land grab justified by a Gulf of Tonkin/WMD style lie that Mexico had crossed into territory, is fought as if it were a punitive expedition with all manner of regrettable behavior on the part of many U.S soldiers. This book reminds me in style of the great Diego Rivera murals such as Glorious Victory that capture all the levels of society, conflicts, machinations by the powerful, broken dreams, and endurance of the unendurable in one tableau. Battles, hunger, propaganda, political decisions, religious convictions, and so much more come together in this book to support the author's ultimate thesis that Mexico lost the war not due to an absence of national identity, patriotism, or failing military. Instead, the deciding factor was Mexico's poverty in the face of the United States' army's relative wealth. While political and class divisions did hamper the Mexican's war effort in significant ways, these divisions were not without their mirrored images on the U.S. side. With blockades in place, the U.S. army was ultimately able to overwhelm a starving Mexican one despite much resistance by the Mexican army, guerrillas, and civilians. Beautiful book. A worthy investment of time to be sure!
April 2, 2024
When I chose this book I was looking for some information on the Mexican American war after having read about the Comanche tribes in the 1800’s and the Texas/Mexico dispute. While Guardino does go through the chronological steps of the M.A. war, he does so by trying to prove some surrounding thesis points that he continuously makes reference to (yes, we get it, Mexicans in 1848 had a national identity). My biggest issue is the way Guardino keeps repeatedly hitting the same points over and over while using the same verbage which, contrary to the authors goals I imagine, makes his arguments more and more stale each time I have to re-read them. Honestly, this book feels like a college paper I wrote, trying to satisfy my professor by stating a clear thesis and supporting my arguments in both the introduction and conclusion of each section. I’m also disappointed by his lack of directly quoting source material from the time period, instead leaving the reader to take his astute observations at face value. If you are looking for a book about the history of the Mexican American war, I would recommend you try somewhere else…
May 11, 2021
Well, if you are looking for a book about the military aspects of the war, this is clearly not the book for you. This book does a deep dive into the socioeconomic way of life of the period and how that impacted both sides before, during and after the conflict.
There is also a lot of research that is referenced about how the war was waged and know now that you will learn that it wasn’t a gallant or heroic means in which the war was prosecuted. That is actually the best part of the book. It tells the true horror of war and how it was waged in the 19th century.
The politics of the war is a major focus of the book. This is told from both sides which is critical to understand if you plan to read the book. It helps set the stage for later chapters that explain the mindset of both sides and just how awful warfare can be for the population as they endure it.
I would recommend this book to anyone that wants to have a full understanding of the geopolitical environment of the time and grasp the story of both sides.
There is also a lot of research that is referenced about how the war was waged and know now that you will learn that it wasn’t a gallant or heroic means in which the war was prosecuted. That is actually the best part of the book. It tells the true horror of war and how it was waged in the 19th century.
The politics of the war is a major focus of the book. This is told from both sides which is critical to understand if you plan to read the book. It helps set the stage for later chapters that explain the mindset of both sides and just how awful warfare can be for the population as they endure it.
I would recommend this book to anyone that wants to have a full understanding of the geopolitical environment of the time and grasp the story of both sides.
March 11, 2024
I loved this piece, a brilliant example of "new military history". Especially loved the comparisons between the two republics and how their relationship changed to hostility with the push for Jacksonian expansionist policies. Coupled with Blood Meridian, My confession, war of a thousand deserts and this I get a decent sense of the attitudes of peoples in the borderlands area at the time. Interesting also is how the profession of soldiering now considered a generally honourable position in the 20th century onwards was then regarded with a lot of disdain. Both societies formed units that were drawn from what were the social outcasts of society, american regular troops that out of poverty registered for service usually comprised of a lot of newly arrived immigrants too. The crimes of the volunteer units are also detailed and are very gory to say the least. Such a wild period with providential justifications for race warfare that gets glossed over a lot in american history.
April 6, 2019
If you can get over the Leftist slant, it’s an interesting book as it’s very well written and looks to be well researched. Referencing Amy Greenberg took it down a notch for me, however. Also wish there was a bibliography. If you miss the first full mention of a source, you’re stuck with an abbreviation the rest of the way. This gets very annoying when the same source is referenced many times and you need to search for the initial footnote.
January 24, 2021
The Mexican-American War is a topic that is resurfacing in American history books. Dr. Guardino explains the differences in economy, political landscape, resources, etc that benefited the U.S. Army against the Army of the Mexican Republic. The U.S. Mexican War is the first war the United States waged against a sister republic. I look forward to reading more books on this glanced over chapter in American history.
May 23, 2018
A great study of the Mexican American War with a balanced focus on both the Mexican and United States sides of the conflict. Guardino does a great job addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the Mexican government, military, and civilian efforts in the war. He clearly demonstrates that this was not simply a conflict of a strong United States easily beating a backwards Mexican state.
October 21, 2018
I only got about half-way through this book. Not that it wasn't good, I'm just not in a frame of mind to read about war right now. It's also more detailed than I really needed. Very interesting, gendered (as in male gender) interpretation/explication of the motivations and actions of soldiers on both sides of the war. Worth going back to when I'm up for it.
May 19, 2019
Greatly appreciated the narrative portions, which gave a clearer understanding of the Mexican American War than I'd previously acquired. While I appreciate socially aware history and its ability to provide deep contextual understanding, Guardino gives it so much emphasis that the underlying story suffers.
July 19, 2022
A concise but informative single volume book that charts the causes and events of the Mexican American War. What I find most informative about this book was how the author dispelled some of the myths that had developed over time about why the United States won the war.
March 19, 2023
Refreshing view of a controversial war
Peter Guardino provides a glimpse of this infamous war background and development, and more importantly, a glimpse into the lives of the common soldiers and civilians who were affected by it.
Peter Guardino provides a glimpse of this infamous war background and development, and more importantly, a glimpse into the lives of the common soldiers and civilians who were affected by it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews