K. Jack Bauer, The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1974)
Biography: Karl Jack Bauer (1926–1987) earned his PhD from Indiana in 1953. was a renowned historian who was a founder of the North American Society for Oceanic History. He worked at the national archives and for the marine corps and navy in the 1950s. He also worked on Samuel Eliot Morison’s History of US Naval Operations in World War II. He is especially known for his works on naval history but has published widely on other 19th century topics, including a biography of Zachary Taylor.
Overview: A sweeping narrative history on the political and military pieces aspects of the Mexican War. It is a very well researched, detailed work, if a bit of a slog at times. The war, to Bauer was unavoidable as he states that “The Conflict with Mexico was the product of the conjunction of American and Mexican national aspirations brought together by the miscalculations of the leaders of both countries.” (399)
Central Thesis: Manifest Destiny and notion that American democratic egalitarianism was superior to Mexican system of government fueled the war. The United States went to war with Mexico because the Mexicans could not give up territory without a military defeat.
Scope of Book: A narrative history of the War with Mexico
- Because it was published in 1974, this book compares the Mexican War with the recent American adventure in Vietnam. He argues that both conflicts suffered from similar misapplication of graduated pressure (xix). Miscalculations about the ebemy and
- Bauer argues that Polk’s program of graduated pressure defeated forced Mexico into a position where its leaders believed there was no retreat, thus Mexican leaders bear a share of responsibility for the war.
- Slavery was a secondary issue, as the Missouri Compromise left only present day Oklahoma below its line, hence “the possibility of acquisition on the Lone Star Republic and its division into three or four states had an obvious appeal to many southern.” (3)
- The belief in the North by abolitionists and others that the whole intent of the war was to enlarge the slave-holding area of the country meant that it played a direct role in the path to the Civil War.
- The primary reason, of course, was Manifest Destiny and the need to control the continent all the way to the pacific in order to frustrate foreign intrusions into the continent.
- Argues that the peace terms were much less harsh than could have been based on the decisive victory.
- The war had similar effects on both the United States and Mexico, serving to hasten divisions and plunging both countries into civil war within 15 years.
- Polk’s leadership resembled Hamiltonian concept of unity of the executive power. Polk also allowed the war effort to become “as involved in domestic politics as did Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.” (394)
- Polk, ultimately, failed to understand his enemy and their thought process. As a result, his limited war in northern Mexico was ineffectual and none of his efforts worked until finally Winfield Scott moved on Mexico City.
- Of course the war did serve as fertile training ground for a veritable who’s who of ACW commanders: Sherman, McDowell, Halleck, Hooker, Carleton, Prince, McClellan, Meade, Mansfield, Emory, Lee, Thomas (Lorenzo and George). Also Bragg, Grant, and Jackson (stonewall type, 1, ea.).
- Technology: The first use of the electric telegraph in war, however unreliable it was it nonetheless allowed information flow between Washington and NYC. This was also the first use of ether as anesthetic. Railroads and steamboats played a major role for the first time, as well.
- Statistics: KIAs represent only 1.5% of all personnel. 10% to disease and other non-combat causes. 8% discharged for disability and almost as many deserted.
- Finances: The war cost the US about $58 million. Acquired 529,017 square miles of land by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo–$0.48/acre
Commentary: This is as comprehensive of a history of the war as I’ve seen. I think it deserves to be right up there with Justin Smith’s 1919 two volume treatment of the war. The arguments and conclusions of the book are easily found in the first chapter and epilogue, whereas the rest of the book is a compelling if boring chronicle of the lead up, prosecution, and end of the war.