This is one of the most delightful, entertaining novels I've read for quite some time. Spanning from the late Victorian to the end of the Edwardian Era in 1910, this novel is richly populated with a variety of people (mainly the working and monied/aristocratic classes) from whom Louisa Trotter (nee Leyton), proprietress and master chef of the Bentinck Hotel, stands out. By dint of hard work and a stroke of luck, Louisa, a spirited, feisty, and determined Cockney, becomes one of the top chefs in Britain and the owner of a successful hotel catering to the tastes of the politician, prosperous businessman, and gentleman-about-town.

For anyone who loves a well-crafted, well-told novel that brings a smile and a chuckle, this one is perfect. hist-fiction-uk-1900-et-beyond mollie-hardwick zz-out-of-residence3 s Paula Dembeck2,074 15

The story of Louise Trotter, a young Cockney woman from a working class background who rose from scullery maid to become the finest cock in London and Edwardian society’s premiere hostess at the Bentinck Hotel on Duke Street.
Louisa is feisty, independent and sharp tongued.
The story includes her ill-fated affair with The Prince of Wales, an unhappy marriage and struggles with bankruptcy and ill health.
There is a motley crew of characters at the hotel: the oldest servant, a butler named Merrima; the doorman Mr Starr and his dog Fred; the Major, an old war horse who lives in the hotel; Mary the wonderful Welsh servant and Charles Tyrel, Lord Hastlemere who becomes Louisa’s lover and returns from the war a broken and blind man.

Originally watched this drama on Masterpiece Theater and then read this book in two volumes over a weekend.

Great story with well wonderful distinctive characters.
A wonderful read.
1 Kara296 5

A novel based on the TV series "The Duchess of Duke Street". The scriptwriters of the TV shows were: David Butler, John Hawkesworth, Jeremy Paul & Jack Rosenthal.

It takes place at the very end of the Victorian era, into the Edwardian and goes for a few years after into the reign of George V.

The main character is Louisa Trotter, nee Layton. Due to family financial misfortune she had been sent out as a domestic at the age of 12. The story involves her maturing into one of London's most celebrated cooks, and her eventual establishment as a successful hotel proprietor.

The period details are okay and they introduce some famous real life characters. Most notably Bertie, the Prince of Wales. This is a 1970s recreation of the Edwardian era and it bears the marks of it's own time, particularly in the stories and outcomes chosen, but it is an entertaining, if light book. Catsalive2,145 21

Louisa a Trotter is a great character. I am going to have to watch the BBC series again some time.

Edwardian England..... An era of opulence and hypocrisy, where those with money and status enjoy and those without, serve... where pampered aristocrats freely indulge in the most scandalous of pleasures. This is Edward VII's world - frock coats and horse-drawn cabs, secret trysts and tête-à-têtes, luxuriant palms and heavy drapes, coal-fired kitchen ranges and hip baths. A world where one woman, with neither education nor money, but with vision, initiative and beauty, rose to become the owner of a famous exclusive hotel, a celebrated chef, and the confidante of the great. Her name was Louisa Trotter, the Duchess of Duke Street.2008 Deb1,123 21

I don't usually read TV or movie novelizations. But I came upon this when browsing the shelves at my local library and thought - why not? It's been 40 years since I saw the program but I can still visualize parts of it clearly, such as old Merriman (who also played the Duke of Omnium in The Pallisers) Starr and Fred, and the hall porter's chair (wish I had one of those!) The TV series was created by John Hawkesworth, who also gave us Upstairs, Downstairs and DANGER: UXB. Those three series, in my estimation, make him one of the greatest TV producers/directors/writers ever - yes, he was a triple threat! Makes Fellowes look trivial in comparison, right? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ha... T.R.Author 5 books30

As much fun as the television series, if not more so! A few typos and inconsistencies in the text (e.g.: in the show, the Louisa character has flaming red hair, whereas in the novel it is once described as dark brown), but I feel that that just gives the book character :) A must-read for fans of The Queen of Cooks! Catherine Yezak41 5

I loved this book. I also enjoyed the tv show. It is nice to see a strong, independent woman be able to support herself in a man's world and know who she is!. She also is proud of who she is and what she became. A great rags to riches story. Danny62

Rather clearly a novelization of a TV series, with all the emphasis on plot that entails. It starts off reasonably well, but it rather quickly gives up on character development in favor of a series of episodic set pieces. Laura6,960 575

The story of Louise Leyton who become famous as a celebrated chef of Edward II, Prince of Wales. Later on, she became the owner of a famous exclusive hotel in Duke Street.bookmooch fiction-20th-century read-2011 Sara8 Read

Love it - have read this book several times Julie461 8

Amy S. Greenberg's A Wicked War provides a narrative chronicle of the Mexican-American War, a crucial incident in American (and Mexican) history that's often reduced to a footnote on the road to Civil War. Greenberg's book focuses more on the war's politics than its military clashes, though she does render vivid accounts of Buena Vista and other decisive battles. Instead, she prefers to examine the United States through its leading political figures and opinion makers. At the narrative's center are James K. Polk, the stubborn, determined president who vows to make the United States a continental power by annexing Texas and California (aided by his wife Sarah, of whom Greenberg has published a biography); his Whig opponent, Henry Clay, who spends the twilight of his career warning that westward expansion will further inflame the country's disputes over race and slavery; John Hardin, an Illinois politician who falls in battle at Buena Vista; and Abraham Lincoln, a one-term congressman who stakes his career on vocally opposing the war. Along with public speeches and backroom politicking, we're also shown how controversial the war was domestically; while some hailed it as a harbinger of America's "Manifest Destiny," others viewed it as America betraying its heritage by attacking a sister republic; others, Clay (an ambivalent slaveowner in the Southern Whig fashion), blamed the war on a "slave power" conspiracy seeking more territory for their "vast southern empire." Greenberg captures the fierce political arguments raging around the "wicked war" better than most popular historians; rather than an arid chronicle of forgotten battles in far-off places, hers is a bracing account of how war can both shape a nation's identity and leave it deeply, and bitterly divided.2020-reads 2021-reads jacksonian-america-1815-186115 s Bill225 62

If Robert Merry’s A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent was meant as a corrective to the popular impression of James K. Polk as an imperialist warmonger, "A Wicked War" is something of a corrective to the corrective. It doesn't necessarily make a unique argument, but it does tell the story of the Mexican-American War in a unique way.

I read this book a couple of years ago, but since I'm currently in the middle of a Polk binge, and after the rah-rah Polk tone of Merry's book left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, I thought I'd read this again as something of a palette cleanser.

The book is not an exhaustive history of the Mexican-American War or its causes, instead telling the story of the war through the experiences of five main characters - Polk, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, peace treaty negotiator Nicholas Trist and Congressman-turned-soldier John Hardin. That four of the five were opposed to or disillusioned by the war means the story is pretty heavily weighted against Polk.

But then Greenberg does make her point of view very clear from the get-go - from her title "A Wicked War," the subtitle referencing the "U.S. invasion of Mexico," and her description of the war in the introduction as "an act of expansionist aggression."

The focus on characters over events is a strength in that it allows for compelling and well-written storytelling. It’s something of a weakness in that, oftentimes just as events get going, the narrative shifts its focus to the story of one particular character, and the events driving the narrative fade into the background. And it prevents Greenberg from more fully exploring ideas that are tantalizingly introduced but then dropped.

But better to have introduced those ideas in the first place, than not at all. Greenberg sets the Mexican-American War in the context of the times, occurring as it did right on the heels of decades’ worth of efforts to forcibly or coercively acquire Native American lands. Mexico was a sovereign state, but many Americans at the time thought no differently about Mexicans than they did about Native Americans, believing that "the former were no more deserving of their own land than the latter."

There’s also the influence of slavery to consider - not just the simplistic argument that the war was conducted for the sole purpose of expanding slavery, but that Polk held a slavemaster’s view of the intrinsic inferiority of Mexicans, and was also influenced by his Southern upbringing in pursuing the war to defend America’s honor after being wronged by Mexico.

Greenberg doesn’t delve deeply into these ideas, nor does she spend much time considering Mexico’s role in stirring up pre-war tensions. And she asserts that Mexican land "could have been acquired peacefully through diplomacy and deliberate negotiation of financial recompense," but largely dismisses Polk’s efforts to peaceably obtain California and otherwise conduct pre-war diplomacy as nothing but a ruse.

Overall, though, I found the book to be less stridently anti-war, anti-Polk, than I had remembered after my first reading. It does focus heavily on anti-war sentiment and is pretty Whig-centric in tone. But while it takes a critical view of the Polk presidency, it serves to balance out the heroic “Polk accomplished his every goal” view present in other Polk biographies, Merry’s. "Polk tends to inspire strong reactions among his biographers, many of whom have difficulty remaining objective when considering his leadership style and actions," Greenberg writes.

There are certainly more in-depth studies of Polk, and of the Mexican-American War, but this book is a well-crafted overview that shows how the war, and the dispute over slavery that followed, helped set the stage for the Civil War. And it lays bare the uncomfortable truth that "Western expansion had always come at a cost for someone."
10 s Jay Perkins119 11

"A Wicked War" is an engaging narrative of the political background of the Mexican War. Though not a military history, Greenberg does briefly cover many battles. The book is primarily an examination of the causes and motives that lead the Polk administration and the people of the United States into war. President Polk firmly believed that it was God's plan and America's destiny that she acquire large portions of Mexico, and he literally killed himself to obtain this goal. Even though the war was eagerly supported by the American people (many whom firmly believed in Manifest Destiny), the invasion slowly began to gnaw at the American conscious. As their loved ones fell in battle or to sickness, and as reports of American atrocities came to light, many could not justify war simply for territorial expansion. It seemed to fly in the face of all that American's stood for, no matter what the administration said. The Mexican War is also important because it cracked the division between free northern states and slave southern states. Would slavery be allowed to enter the new territory? It seemed unjust to many northerners to allow slavery into a country that had previously outlawed the institution. Southerners believed they had the right to bring their "property" into the land they had bled and died for. Thus the Mexican War was the first signal of descent into Civil War.history-manifest-destiny10 s Michael33 3

This is, without a close second, the worst and most one-sided account of the Mexican-American War I have ever read. If I could have given it zero stars, I would have. It is sad to me to think that someone could read this book, in the hope of learning about this time period and think this is an accurate accounting of the facts.

Is war a terrible thing? Most definitely.
Did bad things happen during this time period? Without question.
Did the US always make the right decision? Absolutely not.

However, this author would have you believe that one man (President James K. Polk) was able to manipulate an ENTIRE country (the US) into war with a perfectly innocent country (Mexico) who was minding their own business when the US struck without cause. I would never pick-up another book from this author because her's is nothing more than an apologist's cause; this is not history, she is not a historian, she nothing more than someone with the political agenda of painting the US in the worst possible light and giving a VERY one-sided account of this time period. Shame on you Amy Greenberg for cherry picking the facts that suit your cause. This book should be listed under the political section and NOT the history section.8 s Ryan Bach56

Greenberg's thesis is not very original as far as the way the Mexican American War is taught in public high schools today: President Polk was a bad guy who got us into an unnecessary war against a neighboring republic. However, Greenberg aims to get into the minds and thus motives of several key actors in the lead up to war, the war itself, and the response to the war.

This book is useful as an introduction to the historical event, but her contention that the war created the first anti-war movement in U.S. history is hogwash. See: why did the Federalist Party dissolve into nothing? Could it have been their reaction to the War of 1812?6 s Cynda is healing 20241,334 164

Now we often say, "Oh that is wicked good." So we have difficulty--at least I do--understanding that saying something was "wicked" was a polite way of describing something as being "evil."

Being part of a family that settled this part of New Spain in the early 18th century, I have an understanding that the people remain and that governments with their political-military regimes change. That is one way to explain why I can see the wickedness as described by various people cited in this book and in the title.

Once slaveholders and their elected representatives started to feel threatened, the federalist ideal became replaced with a strengthening Monroe Doctrine and with an expansionist drive to claim more land to expand slaveholding and slaveholders' power. Texas would serve well.

This book describes the drive of some to expand into Texas with others calling that expansion "evil". In this book can be found arguments and propaganda & other agents of social, political, and military change. This accessible revisionist history tells and shows how a Mexican borderland served in the slave holders' agenda that would lead to the American Civil War.21-all-about-texas-2021 american-south history ...more5 s Chris1,610 30

A very interesting history of the Mexican War as told through the lives of five men: Lincoln, Clay, Polk, Trist, and Hardin. Nothing to glorify in the American character here. Growing up and reading about manifest destiny I'd never seen it for the arrogant and racist imperialism it was. We took Mexico's land but didn't want their people. Just a very sad chapter in American History that too few Americans know about in detail. A great study in morality too; my country right or wrong. People who opposed the war being called traitors and accused of treason. I'd never realized Trist's noble stand and defiance of Polk as he unilaterally negotiated the peace treaty after being recalled by Polk. Polk was a real piece of work, a true candidate for impeachment. Reading this book you can see why Mexico is the way it is and why they are so sensitive over sovereignty. Polk was a micro-managing tyrant who got what he deserved. He literally worked himself to death so that a few months after leaving his one term rule he was dead. Just a fascinating account of American hubris. hist-misc5 s Colleen Browne324 76

This is, without question, one of the best books on the Mexican American War. Greenberg finds that the Manifest Destiny crowd justified the invasion and Polk carried it out. For the South, it was about adding slave states but it backfired. Only Texas, already a state by then, became a slave state. The expectation that Texas would be carved into several slave states did not happen. A land grab and the invasion of another country, followed by a treaty whose provisions were constantly violated by both individual Americans who were not held accountable, and court decisions that violated the treaty created bad blood that has persisted to this day. This is a sad chapter in our history and one that needs still to be rectified. I highly recommend this book.5 s Jenny506 5

This book tried to present the history of the US was with Mexico through the stories of individuals involved but I think there was too little history and too much extraneous personal information about the people involved. The political connections between Polk, Clay, Hardin and Lincoln were interesting, although I have read enough about Lincoln to know that there was more to his start in politics than depicted here. The background on Nicholas Trist, the reluctant diplomat sent to Mexico to negotiate a peace treaty and then fired on the brink of success, was interesting. But the gee whiz narrative style detracted from the historical narrative.nsuc-book-group5 s Ben400 39

In March 1846, [General Zachary] Taylor marched his four thousand men through the Nueces Strip. It was "dreary, desolate, dry, and barren" countryside, a land better suited for snakes than people. The nearer they got to the Rio Grande, "the more dwarfed and thorny the vegetation -- only the cactus more hideously large." And it was hot. "The sun streamed upon us living fire," one soldier recorded. Despite Taylor's proclamation asserting the "friendly intentions" of the U.S. Army, many of the inhabitants fled when they caught sight of the American troops. By no means did this feel American territory. One American soldier who marched out of Corpus Christi expressed his disorientation in a letter back home to Illinois. Sitting in "the shade of a sort of white thorn," he reflected that "all about me are cactus, God knows how many kinds. It is impossible to describe them. All plants here have thorns, all animals stings or horns and all men carry weapons and all deceive each other and themselves."

Mexican forces, meanwhile, had begun to mass at Matamoros on the southern bank of the Rio Grande, near the mouth of the river. From time to time the U.S. soldiers caught sight of them, marching in the distance. The Americans on the ground grasped better than most what was happening. Colonel Hitchcock wrote in his diary: "We have not one particle of right to be here.... It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much as this country as it chooses."4 s Emily671 25

The problems with this book start with the framing. Between Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the Mexican American War, Clay and Lincoln have absolutely nothing to do with the war (besides expressing their opinions every other politician and citizen).

The book starts with Clay being surprised by Polk's politically popular skulduggery, which he reads about in the newspaper. Clay had just lost an election to Polk and was transitioning from beloved politician to private citizen while dying slowly of consumption. (This book did inspire me to learn more about Henry Clay. Interesting dude.) Then we get into the war's popularity and Polk's sallies towards annexing Mexico, which won him an election (along with being a dark horse candidate against someone about whom everyone already had strong opinions). Greenberg makes the point that, for most Americans, going to war with Mexicans was the same as going to war against Indians, whom America had been fighting successfully for a good while, and which most Americans supported. When the Mexican American War became less attractive because of defeats in battle and the U.S. Army massacring civilians, Americans began to oppose it, which gave Lincoln some press, since he opposed the war before it was cool. But, as a freshman congressman, Lincoln has absolutely nothing to do with the narrative and everything to do with marketing this book, probably.

John Hardin, Lincoln's frenemy and fellow Illinios politician who died in the Battle of Buena Vista, is a fourth biographical narrative in this book and his journey from full on support of the war, to Mexico, to reticence, to death, is a helpful lodestone in the narrative.

Polk sucks, but there still wasn't enough Polk to contextualize events.

Greenberg reads the audiobook herself (don't do that, Highbridge!) and she leans into the accents. Hard. And as much as the Mexican American War was a crime against humanity, if you're going to be a historian, be a historian. This book is biased in a direction that I agree with, but it's still biased, especially the part where every American turns around and agrees that going to war with Mexico was a dumb idea, and the clunky attempts to draw wink-nudge parallels to the Iraq war.3 s1 comment Mark Selby45 2

Got to just more than half way and finally couldn't force myself to continue. Life is too short. Listening to the audio book and the narrator they choose is horid. She constantly uses a southern accent when reading quotes. Don't know if she really is from the south, but the accent is annoying to distraction. Further, she has a 'know-it-all' tone of voice which makes it sound she dissapproves of the actions of the individuals in the book. Did the author intend that?

As for the author, she is critical of U.S. actions from start to finish (at least as far as I could get). She constantly points out that Americans were a racist people, and more than happy to attack Mexicans because they considered them racially inferior. Maybe they did. But, I got it the first time and don't need my nose rubbed in it over and over. ly this gal is from the 'hate America' crowd. Maybe we should hate America if we produce authors that write tripe such as this.abandoned3 s Naomi1,388 291

Well-written history of a grim and brutal unjust war, Greenberg's analysis and attention to race, gender, class, and religion make this history vital to students of American history.history3 s Logan Ledman10 17

Leaving this with lots of new questions, which is perfect for a comprehensive but introductory history. Incredibly engaging.2 s Holly1,051 260 Read

I'm going to leave this history of the lead-up to the Mexican-American War unfinished for now, and sans rating. Perhaps I'll return to it later, but it's just not clicking. It's hard to think about Pres. James K. Polk when I'm becoming obsessed with breaking news of treason and impeachment.2019-reads skimmed2 s Rhuff338 17

This book resurrects an era grown increasingly remote to American consciousness, yet assuring us that the past is always present. Although Ms. Greenberg personalizes the Mexican War through the eyes of certain protagonists - President Polk, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S, Grant, among others - its issues were larger than the personal ambitions of any or all of them. Nor was the "wicked war" any radical departure from the founding values of the Republic: the War of 1812 was fought to grab land from Canada and Spain; the recognition of Texas in 1836 was only step one in U.S. penetration of Mexico's "wasteland."

As Greenberg shows, it was California that was the real prize. though the war ostensibly began as a border dispute between newly-annexed Texas and Mexico. Reinforcing the US claim that the Rio Grande, not Nueces, was the true border, Polk sent in the troops in a move most assuredly designed to provoke that confrontation. President-General Santa Anna desired conflict, too, for reasons of his own; but it was the United States that took it all the way by then attempting to annex all of northern Mexico. In the long run it did, of course, just that.

Opposed in the Northeast by the anti-slavery movement, the war was eagerly sought by the "Slave Power" as an expression of political and economic expansion. The indigestion caused by this absorption into the American Union began eruption at victory, leading directly to the bloody flux of Kansas and on to the cancer of full civil war. The positions of pro- and anti-war, and how these dovetailed into domestic civil rights issues, bears a striking resemblance to the Vietnam Era. Of course, in neither "conflict" did the United States learn any "lesson" very long. Its court historians continue pulling the veil over this less-than-shining history, the major reason the Mexican War is relegated to the American attic.

Although - in my view - mistaken in some of her long-range conclusions, Ms. Greenberg is to be commended for adding to the growing literature analyzing and resurrecting this conveniently-forgotten "episode."2 s Gilda Felt626 8

To say that is war was a disgraceful episode in American history is putting it mildly. And Greenberg does an excellent job of showing why it was called “a wicked war,” (by no less than Ulysses S. Grant,) and bringing to life all the major players.

I wasn’t surprised to find Andrew Jackson, the genocide president, on the side of those who were all for taking the land, but I didn’t know much about his toady, James Polk. That he won the nomination for president by changing convention rules, and then the presidency with slander, seemed par for the course, him being the main instigator of the war. Here, too, he would lie and cheat his way to his goal.

On the other side, was Henry Clay, a complicated man who lost the election because of his rejection of annexing Texas, but who would ultimately be on the right side of history. His later speech against the war would help turn the tide of public opinion. Someone I hadn’t even heard of was Nicholas Trist. Sent with Polk’s demands to Mexico, which was basically for them to hand over the entire country, he would instead broker the fairest peace plan that he could. He would be recalled and hounded by Polk and his minion for most of the rest of his life. It would only be under Grant’s presidency that he would once again be welcomed into the government.

But I supposed even the worst circumstances can have a silver lining. Because of the war, Abraham Lincoln would learn the lessons of melding political and ethical considerations, lessons that, years later, would allow him to save the Union.

This is a book well worth reading by anyone interested in this era, and in how far dishonorable men will go to get what they want. And what honorable men will sacrifice to stop them.
2 s David69

A fast, lively book about a war rarely explored in American popular history. Better still, Greenberg is more interested in the politics and social side of the war than strategic aspects, which keeps the book from being bogged down in the tactical minutiae that make so many war histories a slog. But Greenberg's tendency to overdramatize the book's already dramatic events is off-putting; she needlessly points out again and again the injustice of the war, the duplicity of Polk, the "heroic stands" of his political opponents to bring the war to the end. The title "A Wicked War" is from a quotation, but it's also Greenberg's thesis exactly, and she uses this sort of language excessively in her own narration. It's not that I disagree with her conclusions, but I think in many places she would have been better off letting the historical detail speak for itself. 2 s Brian Eshleman846 112

This work was really engaging. The author took a subject of the Mexican war which is often overshadowed by the Civil War, brought her into that time period, and managed to find there some very old roots of issues we face today. I could argue that anybody making or voting on American foreign policy in the 21st-century should be required to read this book. Ecclesiastes was right. There really is nothing new under the sun.2 s Online-University of-the-Left64 30

An excellent overview of the war from the viewpoint of those critical of it at the time. It puts Lincoln into a context of developing his political views in a major antiwar insurgency, spurred on by Henry Clay. The outcome of the war not only reveals our evolution as a settler-colonial slave republic, but the war also shaped the Civil War to come as a training ground for all its generals2 s AdamAuthor 55 books50

I finished listening to this a couple of weeks ago and have been reluctant to do my usual write up; perhaps because it made me sad and confirmed my worst suspicions about the US. A war driven by racism and toxic ideas of "manhood." I see so many parrellels with our own political situation.

That's all I've got.2020 audio2 s Glen StottAuthor 6 books11

There has been some talk recently about how America stole Texas, New Mexico, and California from Mexico. This massive land transfer came as a result of the United States’ war with Mexico. So, the question revolves around the war. My small knowledge was that when the Republic of Texas was annexed to the United States, Mexico said it was Mexican territory. In addition, Mexico claimed that the border between Texas and Mexico was the Nueces river – a few hundred miles north of the Rio Grande. The United States sent an army to the Rio Grande to establish its claim and the Mexican army attacked. The war was on, and the treaty to end the war involved the transfer of land partly as a payment to the US for the cost of the war and partly as a purchase for fifteen million dollars. In my opinion, that would not constitute theft. However, that is pretty simplified, so I decided to do some studying.

This book focuses on the war and five men who influenced it or tried to. The men were Henry Clay, John Polk, John Hardin, Nicholas Trist, and Zachary Taylor. The point of this book is that the war was a consequence of the concept of Manifest Destiny – the idea that it was the United States’ destiny to occupy all the land from coast to coast. In some people’s minds that meant all of North America, and in a few it was all of North and South America. Greenberg makes the point that Polk intentionally created the war with the express goal of forcing Mexico to cede Texas, New Mexico, and California to The United States. She provides data that indicates Manifest Destiney was driven by racial motives and in the South, it was seen as a way to expand slavery all across the continent.

As portrayed in this book, the war was wicked in every aspect, including being started by a lie Polk perpetrated. In the beginning the war had a great deal of public support, but as reports came back documenting that American volunteers were raping, torturing, and wantonly killing Mexican civilians, casualty reports began to arrive, and the wounded were returning crippled; support for the war began to diminish. Especially in the North, the number of antiwar demonstrations grew.

Greenberg provides a great deal of information about the details of the war and the politics behind it. The basic theme is; the war was fundamentally wicked from its inception, to its prosecution, to the terms of the treaty that ended it. There are parts when it feels to me she is ignoring things that might lead to something less drastic and overplaying things that make it look worse. I withheld this review until I had time to do a bit more studying. The result confirms my suspicion. I am convinced there is a possibility the war could have been avoided and that Polk and the democratic party took advantage of the war to grab all the land to the Pacific Ocean. However, there are a lot of things Greenberg ignored or failed to see which lead to a less harsh judgement about the war.

Rating the book was difficult. It contains a lot of excellent information and it is well written. I d Greenberg’s approach of viewing it through the eyes of the men most involved. It would have been even better if Greenberg had added Santa Anna, though he was on the Mexican side. I am disappointed that the book focused on the spin in the title, “Wicked War” to the extent information making that point was stressed and information showing a different view was downplayed and, in some cases, ignored. I settled on three stars.
Started; 2018.12.21 – finished 2019.01.02
history1 Tad12

This is a part of US history I know little about, and most Americans probably know even less. Part of Greenberg's goal in this history is to explain why that is. This really comes home in the epilogue about the daughter of a key figure in the war, John Hardin, and her work as an historian and founder of the Daughters of the American Revolution. At first I found this odd, a sharp departure from the subject of the book that seemed extraneous and indulgent. But ultimately, it ties the book together in a poignant and pointed manner.

Ellen Hardin Walworth's career illustrates on an individual level how this war, as well other uncomfortable parts of our history (slavery, genocidal acts against indigenous Americans), are dropped down the memory hole in favor of a mythologized story of American exceptionalism and virtue. She became a passionate historian, but left the war in which her father played a key part, largely unexamined. Instead, she focused almost exclusively on another war, the American Revolution. This war is much more amenable to illustrating the United States supposed role as a beacon of liberty and virtuous patriotism. She even founded the Daughters of the American Revolution, seeking to honor and propagate the values she believed the Revolution exemplified. This act of active forgetting created a unifying image for many Americans that still resonates today, but also left difficult questions unanswered, and festering wounds untended, a legacy we still deal with today.

1 Allison ?355 17

I'm not familiar enough with the US war on annexation of Mexico to say how much of this is accurate and how much is political opinion. So yes it does read as a one-sided account because the US was supposedly more powerful than Mexico, and she paints the war as a manipulation by president Polk for a wretched land grab.

That being said, going into this knowing NOTHING, I feel pretty well informed now. I would encourage every American to read this, but I would also encourage you to read something else to compare this to.1 Drew80 5

A well researched look at the people who shaped the war and were shaped by it. Helps to elevate the war to a place of greater importance in history. I particularly enjoyed her treatment of Nicholas Trist, one of my favorite historical figures. She used many of the same quotes from his papers that I did when I researched and wrote on him as a Latin American Studies major - that was gratifying. The only thing keeping it from being five stars are some slow parts. A great book for understanding the importance of an often ignored part of North American history. 1 Ellis HastingsAuthor 4 books6

A very detailed and fascinating cover of an oft-overlooked conflict. The Mexican-American War built on the foundations laid by the Monroe Doctrine to set the U.S. up for becoming a modern super power. It was a REALLY questionable war that gave us a lot of productivity. A classic catch-22: we gained a lot of land (I'm talking several hundred thousand square miles of land) and those territories would become heavy contributors to our economy when achieving statehood. But at what cost? Thousands of innocent lives in a war that was 100% preventable. Mexico did NOT want a war with the U.S. because the U.S. was a formidable foe at the time. Great read for all, not just history majors me. I think even non-history buffs would at least find the stories interesting.favorites1 Ethan Sexton178 1 follower

Stark, original, and well written are only a few of the adjectives I could bestow on this book. The way Amy S. Greenberg rolls through her history is both engaging and informative. If you haven’t ever studied the Mexican-American War I had before reading this, it will change the way you see U.S. history as a whole. This is without a doubt the best history I’ve ever read. contagious-writing favorites1 Celeste2,124

Fascinating look at the Mexican-American war. I’m glad I read it and loved that it was readable history. I wish there was more about what happened to Mexico after the war. 1 Seven Franklin20

This book shows the significance of the Mexican American war and how vital it was in altering the republic forever. It also shows how much Lincoln became who he was because of this period. 1 Aaron219 3

Autor del comentario:
=================================

Amy S. Greenberg's A Wicked War provides a narrative chronicle of the Mexican-American War, a crucial incident in American (and Mexican) history that's often reduced to a footnote on the road to Civil War. Greenberg's book focuses more on the war's politics than its military clashes, though she does render vivid accounts of Buena Vista and other decisive battles. Instead, she prefers to examine the United States through its leading political figures and opinion makers. At the narrative's center are James K. Polk, the stubborn, determined president who vows to make the United States a continental power by annexing Texas and California (aided by his wife Sarah, of whom Greenberg has published a biography); his Whig opponent, Henry Clay, who spends the twilight of his career warning that westward expansion will further inflame the country's disputes over race and slavery; John Hardin, an Illinois politician who falls in battle at Buena Vista; and Abraham Lincoln, a one-term congressman who stakes his career on vocally opposing the war. Along with public speeches and backroom politicking, we're also shown how controversial the war was domestically; while some hailed it as a harbinger of America's "Manifest Destiny," others viewed it as America betraying its heritage by attacking a sister republic; others, Clay (an ambivalent slaveowner in the Southern Whig fashion), blamed the war on a "slave power" conspiracy seeking more territory for their "vast southern empire." Greenberg captures the fierce political arguments raging around the "wicked war" better than most popular historians; rather than an arid chronicle of forgotten battles in far-off places, hers is a bracing account of how war can both shape a nation's identity and leave it deeply, and bitterly divided.2020-reads 2021-reads jacksonian-america-1815-186115 s Bill225 62

If Robert Merry’s A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent was meant as a corrective to the popular impression of James K. Polk as an imperialist warmonger, "A Wicked War" is something of a corrective to the corrective. It doesn't necessarily make a unique argument, but it does tell the story of the Mexican-American War in a unique way.

I read this book a couple of years ago, but since I'm currently in the middle of a Polk binge, and after the rah-rah Polk tone of Merry's book left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, I thought I'd read this again as something of a palette cleanser.

The book is not an exhaustive history of the Mexican-American War or its causes, instead telling the story of the war through the experiences of five main characters - Polk, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, peace treaty negotiator Nicholas Trist and Congressman-turned-soldier John Hardin. That four of the five were opposed to or disillusioned by the war means the story is pretty heavily weighted against Polk.

But then Greenberg does make her point of view very clear from the get-go - from her title "A Wicked War," the subtitle referencing the "U.S. invasion of Mexico," and her description of the war in the introduction as "an act of expansionist aggression."

The focus on characters over events is a strength in that it allows for compelling and well-written storytelling. It’s something of a weakness in that, oftentimes just as events get going, the narrative shifts its focus to the story of one particular character, and the events driving the narrative fade into the background. And it prevents Greenberg from more fully exploring ideas that are tantalizingly introduced but then dropped.

But better to have introduced those ideas in the first place, than not at all. Greenberg sets the Mexican-American War in the context of the times, occurring as it did right on the heels of decades’ worth of efforts to forcibly or coercively acquire Native American lands. Mexico was a sovereign state, but many Americans at the time thought no differently about Mexicans than they did about Native Americans, believing that "the former were no more deserving of their own land than the latter."

There’s also the influence of slavery to consider - not just the simplistic argument that the war was conducted for the sole purpose of expanding slavery, but that Polk held a slavemaster’s view of the intrinsic inferiority of Mexicans, and was also influenced by his Southern upbringing in pursuing the war to defend America’s honor after being wronged by Mexico.

Greenberg doesn’t delve deeply into these ideas, nor does she spend much time considering Mexico’s role in stirring up pre-war tensions. And she asserts that Mexican land "could have been acquired peacefully through diplomacy and deliberate negotiation of financial recompense," but largely dismisses Polk’s efforts to peaceably obtain California and otherwise conduct pre-war diplomacy as nothing but a ruse.

Overall, though, I found the book to be less stridently anti-war, anti-Polk, than I had remembered after my first reading. It does focus heavily on anti-war sentiment and is pretty Whig-centric in tone. But while it takes a critical view of the Polk presidency, it serves to balance out the heroic “Polk accomplished his every goal” view present in other Polk biographies, Merry’s. "Polk tends to inspire strong reactions among his biographers, many of whom have difficulty remaining objective when considering his leadership style and actions," Greenberg writes.

There are certainly more in-depth studies of Polk, and of the Mexican-American War, but this book is a well-crafted overview that shows how the war, and the dispute over slavery that followed, helped set the stage for the Civil War. And it lays bare the uncomfortable truth that "Western expansion had always come at a cost for someone."
10 s Jay Perkins119 11

"A Wicked War" is an engaging narrative of the political background of the Mexican War. Though not a military history, Greenberg does briefly cover many battles. The book is primarily an examination of the causes and motives that lead the Polk administration and the people of the United States into war. President Polk firmly believed that it was God's plan and America's destiny that she acquire large portions of Mexico, and he literally killed himself to obtain this goal. Even though the war was eagerly supported by the American people (many whom firmly believed in Manifest Destiny), the invasion slowly began to gnaw at the American conscious. As their loved ones fell in battle or to sickness, and as reports of American atrocities came to light, many could not justify war simply for territorial expansion. It seemed to fly in the face of all that American's stood for, no matter what the administration said. The Mexican War is also important because it cracked the division between free northern states and slave southern states. Would slavery be allowed to enter the new territory? It seemed unjust to many northerners to allow slavery into a country that had previously outlawed the institution. Southerners believed they had the right to bring their "property" into the land they had bled and died for. Thus the Mexican War was the first signal of descent into Civil War.history-manifest-destiny10 s Michael33 3

This is, without a close second, the worst and most one-sided account of the Mexican-American War I have ever read. If I could have given it zero stars, I would have. It is sad to me to think that someone could read this book, in the hope of learning about this time period and think this is an accurate accounting of the facts.

Is war a terrible thing? Most definitely.
Did bad things happen during this time period? Without question.
Did the US always make the right decision? Absolutely not.

However, this author would have you believe that one man (President James K. Polk) was able to manipulate an ENTIRE country (the US) into war with a perfectly innocent country (Mexico) who was minding their own business when the US struck without cause. I would never pick-up another book from this author because her's is nothing more than an apologist's cause; this is not history, she is not a historian, she nothing more than someone with the political agenda of painting the US in the worst possible light and giving a VERY one-sided account of this time period. Shame on you Amy Greenberg for cherry picking the facts that suit your cause. This book should be listed under the political section and NOT the history section.8 s Ryan Bach56

Greenberg's thesis is not very original as far as the way the Mexican American War is taught in public high schools today: President Polk was a bad guy who got us into an unnecessary war against a neighboring republic. However, Greenberg aims to get into the minds and thus motives of several key actors in the lead up to war, the war itself, and the response to the war.

This book is useful as an introduction to the historical event, but her contention that the war created the first anti-war movement in U.S. history is hogwash. See: why did the Federalist Party dissolve into nothing? Could it have been their reaction to the War of 1812?6 s Cynda is healing 20241,334 164

Now we often say, "Oh that is wicked good." So we have difficulty--at least I do--understanding that saying something was "wicked" was a polite way of describing something as being "evil."

Being part of a family that settled this part of New Spain in the early 18th century, I have an understanding that the people remain and that governments with their political-military regimes change. That is one way to explain why I can see the wickedness as described by various people cited in this book and in the title.

Once slaveholders and their elected representatives started to feel threatened, the federalist ideal became replaced with a strengthening Monroe Doctrine and with an expansionist drive to claim more land to expand slaveholding and slaveholders' power. Texas would serve well.

This book describes the drive of some to expand into Texas with others calling that expansion "evil". In this book can be found arguments and propaganda & other agents of social, political, and military change. This accessible revisionist history tells and shows how a Mexican borderland served in the slave holders' agenda that would lead to the American Civil War.21-all-about-texas-2021 american-south history ...more5 s Chris1,610 30

A very interesting history of the Mexican War as told through the lives of five men: Lincoln, Clay, Polk, Trist, and Hardin. Nothing to glorify in the American character here. Growing up and reading about manifest destiny I'd never seen it for the arrogant and racist imperialism it was. We took Mexico's land but didn't want their people. Just a very sad chapter in American History that too few Americans know about in detail. A great study in morality too; my country right or wrong. People who opposed the war being called traitors and accused of treason. I'd never realized Trist's noble stand and defiance of Polk as he unilaterally negotiated the peace treaty after being recalled by Polk. Polk was a real piece of work, a true candidate for impeachment. Reading this book you can see why Mexico is the way it is and why they are so sensitive over sovereignty. Polk was a micro-managing tyrant who got what he deserved. He literally worked himself to death so that a few months after leaving his one term rule he was dead. Just a fascinating account of American hubris. hist-misc5 s Colleen Browne324 76

This is, without question, one of the best books on the Mexican American War. Greenberg finds that the Manifest Destiny crowd justified the invasion and Polk carried it out. For the South, it was about adding slave states but it backfired. Only Texas, already a state by then, became a slave state. The expectation that Texas would be carved into several slave states did not happen. A land grab and the invasion of another country, followed by a treaty whose provisions were constantly violated by both individual Americans who were not held accountable, and court decisions that violated the treaty created bad blood that has persisted to this day. This is a sad chapter in our history and one that needs still to be rectified. I highly recommend this book.5 s Jenny506 5

This book tried to present the history of the US was with Mexico through the stories of individuals involved but I think there was too little history and too much extraneous personal information about the people involved. The political connections between Polk, Clay, Hardin and Lincoln were interesting, although I have read enough about Lincoln to know that there was more to his start in politics than depicted here. The background on Nicholas Trist, the reluctant diplomat sent to Mexico to negotiate a peace treaty and then fired on the brink of success, was interesting. But the gee whiz narrative style detracted from the historical narrative.nsuc-book-group5 s Ben400 39

In March 1846, [General Zachary] Taylor marched his four thousand men through the Nueces Strip. It was "dreary, desolate, dry, and barren" countryside, a land better suited for snakes than people. The nearer they got to the Rio Grande, "the more dwarfed and thorny the vegetation -- only the cactus more hideously large." And it was hot. "The sun streamed upon us living fire," one soldier recorded. Despite Taylor's proclamation asserting the "friendly intentions" of the U.S. Army, many of the inhabitants fled when they caught sight of the American troops. By no means did this feel American territory. One American soldier who marched out of Corpus Christi expressed his disorientation in a letter back home to Illinois. Sitting in "the shade of a sort of white thorn," he reflected that "all about me are cactus, God knows how many kinds. It is impossible to describe them. All plants here have thorns, all animals stings or horns and all men carry weapons and all deceive each other and themselves."

Mexican forces, meanwhile, had begun to mass at Matamoros on the southern bank of the Rio Grande, near the mouth of the river. From time to time the U.S. soldiers caught sight of them, marching in the distance. The Americans on the ground grasped better than most what was happening. Colonel Hitchcock wrote in his diary: "We have not one particle of right to be here.... It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much as this country as it chooses."4 s Emily671 25

The problems with this book start with the framing. Between Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the Mexican American War, Clay and Lincoln have absolutely nothing to do with the war (besides expressing their opinions every other politician and citizen).

The book starts with Clay being surprised by Polk's politically popular skulduggery, which he reads about in the newspaper. Clay had just lost an election to Polk and was transitioning from beloved politician to private citizen while dying slowly of consumption. (This book did inspire me to learn more about Henry Clay. Interesting dude.) Then we get into the war's popularity and Polk's sallies towards annexing Mexico, which won him an election (along with being a dark horse candidate against someone about whom everyone already had strong opinions). Greenberg makes the point that, for most Americans, going to war with Mexicans was the same as going to war against Indians, whom America had been fighting successfully for a good while, and which most Americans supported. When the Mexican American War became less attractive because of defeats in battle and the U.S. Army massacring civilians, Americans began to oppose it, which gave Lincoln some press, since he opposed the war before it was cool. But, as a freshman congressman, Lincoln has absolutely nothing to do with the narrative and everything to do with marketing this book, probably.

John Hardin, Lincoln's frenemy and fellow Illinios politician who died in the Battle of Buena Vista, is a fourth biographical narrative in this book and his journey from full on support of the war, to Mexico, to reticence, to death, is a helpful lodestone in the narrative.

Polk sucks, but there still wasn't enough Polk to contextualize events.

Greenberg reads the audiobook herself (don't do that, Highbridge!) and she leans into the accents. Hard. And as much as the Mexican American War was a crime against humanity, if you're going to be a historian, be a historian. This book is biased in a direction that I agree with, but it's still biased, especially the part where every American turns around and agrees that going to war with Mexico was a dumb idea, and the clunky attempts to draw wink-nudge parallels to the Iraq war.3 s1 comment Mark Selby45 2

Got to just more than half way and finally couldn't force myself to continue. Life is too short. Listening to the audio book and the narrator they choose is horid. She constantly uses a southern accent when reading quotes. Don't know if she really is from the south, but the accent is annoying to distraction. Further, she has a 'know-it-all' tone of voice which makes it sound she dissapproves of the actions of the individuals in the book. Did the author intend that?

As for the author, she is critical of U.S. actions from start to finish (at least as far as I could get). She constantly points out that Americans were a racist people, and more than happy to attack Mexicans because they considered them racially inferior. Maybe they did. But, I got it the first time and don't need my nose rubbed in it over and over. ly this gal is from the 'hate America' crowd. Maybe we should hate America if we produce authors that write tripe such as this.abandoned3 s Naomi1,388 291

Well-written history of a grim and brutal unjust war, Greenberg's analysis and attention to race, gender, class, and religion make this history vital to students of American history.history3 s Logan Ledman10 17

Leaving this with lots of new questions, which is perfect for a comprehensive but introductory history. Incredibly engaging.2 s Holly1,051 260 Read

I'm going to leave this history of the lead-up to the Mexican-American War unfinished for now, and sans rating. Perhaps I'll return to it later, but it's just not clicking. It's hard to think about Pres. James K. Polk when I'm becoming obsessed with breaking news of treason and impeachment.2019-reads skimmed2 s Rhuff338 17

This book resurrects an era grown increasingly remote to American consciousness, yet assuring us that the past is always present. Although Ms. Greenberg personalizes the Mexican War through the eyes of certain protagonists - President Polk, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S, Grant, among others - its issues were larger than the personal ambitions of any or all of them. Nor was the "wicked war" any radical departure from the founding values of the Republic: the War of 1812 was fought to grab land from Canada and Spain; the recognition of Texas in 1836 was only step one in U.S. penetration of Mexico's "wasteland."

As Greenberg shows, it was California that was the real prize. though the war ostensibly began as a border dispute between newly-annexed Texas and Mexico. Reinforcing the US claim that the Rio Grande, not Nueces, was the true border, Polk sent in the troops in a move most assuredly designed to provoke that confrontation. President-General Santa Anna desired conflict, too, for reasons of his own; but it was the United States that took it all the way by then attempting to annex all of northern Mexico. In the long run it did, of course, just that.

Opposed in the Northeast by the anti-slavery movement, the war was eagerly sought by the "Slave Power" as an expression of political and economic expansion. The indigestion caused by this absorption into the American Union began eruption at victory, leading directly to the bloody flux of Kansas and on to the cancer of full civil war. The positions of pro- and anti-war, and how these dovetailed into domestic civil rights issues, bears a striking resemblance to the Vietnam Era. Of course, in neither "conflict" did the United States learn any "lesson" very long. Its court historians continue pulling the veil over this less-than-shining history, the major reason the Mexican War is relegated to the American attic.

Although - in my view - mistaken in some of her long-range conclusions, Ms. Greenberg is to be commended for adding to the growing literature analyzing and resurrecting this conveniently-forgotten "episode."2 s Gilda Felt626 8

To say that is war was a disgraceful episode in American history is putting it mildly. And Greenberg does an excellent job of showing why it was called “a wicked war,” (by no less than Ulysses S. Grant,) and bringing to life all the major players.

I wasn’t surprised to find Andrew Jackson, the genocide president, on the side of those who were all for taking the land, but I didn’t know much about his toady, James Polk. That he won the nomination for president by changing convention rules, and then the presidency with slander, seemed par for the course, him being the main instigator of the war. Here, too, he would lie and cheat his way to his goal.

On the other side, was Henry Clay, a complicated man who lost the election because of his rejection of annexing Texas, but who would ultimately be on the right side of history. His later speech against the war would help turn the tide of public opinion. Someone I hadn’t even heard of was Nicholas Trist. Sent with Polk’s demands to Mexico, which was basically for them to hand over the entire country, he would instead broker the fairest peace plan that he could. He would be recalled and hounded by Polk and his minion for most of the rest of his life. It would only be under Grant’s presidency that he would once again be welcomed into the government.

But I supposed even the worst circumstances can have a silver lining. Because of the war, Abraham Lincoln would learn the lessons of melding political and ethical considerations, lessons that, years later, would allow him to save the Union.

This is a book well worth reading by anyone interested in this era, and in how far dishonorable men will go to get what they want. And what honorable men will sacrifice to stop them.
2 s David69

A fast, lively book about a war rarely explored in American popular history. Better still, Greenberg is more interested in the politics and social side of the war than strategic aspects, which keeps the book from being bogged down in the tactical minutiae that make so many war histories a slog. But Greenberg's tendency to overdramatize the book's already dramatic events is off-putting; she needlessly points out again and again the injustice of the war, the duplicity of Polk, the "heroic stands" of his political opponents to bring the war to the end. The title "A Wicked War" is from a quotation, but it's also Greenberg's thesis exactly, and she uses this sort of language excessively in her own narration. It's not that I disagree with her conclusions, but I think in many places she would have been better off letting the historical detail speak for itself. 2 s Brian Eshleman846 112

This work was really engaging. The author took a subject of the Mexican war which is often overshadowed by the Civil War, brought her into that time period, and managed to find there some very old roots of issues we face today. I could argue that anybody making or voting on American foreign policy in the 21st-century should be required to read this book. Ecclesiastes was right. There really is nothing new under the sun.2 s Online-University of-the-Left64 30

An excellent overview of the war from the viewpoint of those critical of it at the time. It puts Lincoln into a context of developing his political views in a major antiwar insurgency, spurred on by Henry Clay. The outcome of the war not only reveals our evolution as a settler-colonial slave republic, but the war also shaped the Civil War to come as a training ground for all its generals2 s AdamAuthor 55 books50

I finished listening to this a couple of weeks ago and have been reluctant to do my usual write up; perhaps because it made me sad and confirmed my worst suspicions about the US. A war driven by racism and toxic ideas of "manhood." I see so many parrellels with our own political situation.

That's all I've got.2020 audio2 s Glen StottAuthor 6 books11

There has been some talk recently about how America stole Texas, New Mexico, and California from Mexico. This massive land transfer came as a result of the United States’ war with Mexico. So, the question revolves around the war. My small knowledge was that when the Republic of Texas was annexed to the United States, Mexico said it was Mexican territory. In addition, Mexico claimed that the border between Texas and Mexico was the Nueces river – a few hundred miles north of the Rio Grande. The United States sent an army to the Rio Grande to establish its claim and the Mexican army attacked. The war was on, and the treaty to end the war involved the transfer of land partly as a payment to the US for the cost of the war and partly as a purchase for fifteen million dollars. In my opinion, that would not constitute theft. However, that is pretty simplified, so I decided to do some studying.

This book focuses on the war and five men who influenced it or tried to. The men were Henry Clay, John Polk, John Hardin, Nicholas Trist, and Zachary Taylor. The point of this book is that the war was a consequence of the concept of Manifest Destiny – the idea that it was the United States’ destiny to occupy all the land from coast to coast. In some people’s minds that meant all of North America, and in a few it was all of North and South America. Greenberg makes the point that Polk intentionally created the war with the express goal of forcing Mexico to cede Texas, New Mexico, and California to The United States. She provides data that indicates Manifest Destiney was driven by racial motives and in the South, it was seen as a way to expand slavery all across the continent.

As portrayed in this book, the war was wicked in every aspect, including being started by a lie Polk perpetrated. In the beginning the war had a great deal of public support, but as reports came back documenting that American volunteers were raping, torturing, and wantonly killing Mexican civilians, casualty reports began to arrive, and the wounded were returning crippled; support for the war began to diminish. Especially in the North, the number of antiwar demonstrations grew.

Greenberg provides a great deal of information about the details of the war and the politics behind it. The basic theme is; the war was fundamentally wicked from its inception, to its prosecution, to the terms of the treaty that ended it. There are parts when it feels to me she is ignoring things that might lead to something less drastic and overplaying things that make it look worse. I withheld this review until I had time to do a bit more studying. The result confirms my suspicion. I am convinced there is a possibility the war could have been avoided and that Polk and the democratic party took advantage of the war to grab all the land to the Pacific Ocean. However, there are a lot of things Greenberg ignored or failed to see which lead to a less harsh judgement about the war.

Rating the book was difficult. It contains a lot of excellent information and it is well written. I d Greenberg’s approach of viewing it through the eyes of the men most involved. It would have been even better if Greenberg had added Santa Anna, though he was on the Mexican side. I am disappointed that the book focused on the spin in the title, “Wicked War” to the extent information making that point was stressed and information showing a different view was downplayed and, in some cases, ignored. I settled on three stars.
Started; 2018.12.21 – finished 2019.01.02
history1 Tad12

This is a part of US history I know little about, and most Americans probably know even less. Part of Greenberg's goal in this history is to explain why that is. This really comes home in the epilogue about the daughter of a key figure in the war, John Hardin, and her work as an historian and founder of the Daughters of the American Revolution. At first I found this odd, a sharp departure from the subject of the book that seemed extraneous and indulgent. But ultimately, it ties the book together in a poignant and pointed manner.

Ellen Hardin Walworth's career illustrates on an individual level how this war, as well other uncomfortable parts of our history (slavery, genocidal acts against indigenous Americans), are dropped down the memory hole in favor of a mythologized story of American exceptionalism and virtue. She became a passionate historian, but left the war in which her father played a key part, largely unexamined. Instead, she focused almost exclusively on another war, the American Revolution. This war is much more amenable to illustrating the United States supposed role as a beacon of liberty and virtuous patriotism. She even founded the Daughters of the American Revolution, seeking to honor and propagate the values she believed the Revolution exemplified. This act of active forgetting created a unifying image for many Americans that still resonates today, but also left difficult questions unanswered, and festering wounds untended, a legacy we still deal with today.

1 Allison ?355 17

I'm not familiar enough with the US war on annexation of Mexico to say how much of this is accurate and how much is political opinion. So yes it does read as a one-sided account because the US was supposedly more powerful than Mexico, and she paints the war as a manipulation by president Polk for a wretched land grab.

That being said, going into this knowing NOTHING, I feel pretty well informed now. I would encourage every American to read this, but I would also encourage you to read something else to compare this to.1 Drew80 5

A well researched look at the people who shaped the war and were shaped by it. Helps to elevate the war to a place of greater importance in history. I particularly enjoyed her treatment of Nicholas Trist, one of my favorite historical figures. She used many of the same quotes from his papers that I did when I researched and wrote on him as a Latin American Studies major - that was gratifying. The only thing keeping it from being five stars are some slow parts. A great book for understanding the importance of an often ignored part of North American history. 1 Ellis HastingsAuthor 4 books6

A very detailed and fascinating cover of an oft-overlooked conflict. The Mexican-American War built on the foundations laid by the Monroe Doctrine to set the U.S. up for becoming a modern super power. It was a REALLY questionable war that gave us a lot of productivity. A classic catch-22: we gained a lot of land (I'm talking several hundred thousand square miles of land) and those territories would become heavy contributors to our economy when achieving statehood. But at what cost? Thousands of innocent lives in a war that was 100% preventable. Mexico did NOT want a war with the U.S. because the U.S. was a formidable foe at the time. Great read for all, not just history majors me. I think even non-history buffs would at least find the stories interesting.favorites1 Ethan Sexton178 1 follower

Stark, original, and well written are only a few of the adjectives I could bestow on this book. The way Amy S. Greenberg rolls through her history is both engaging and informative. If you haven’t ever studied the Mexican-American War I had before reading this, it will change the way you see U.S. history as a whole. This is without a doubt the best history I’ve ever read. contagious-writing favorites1 Celeste2,124

Fascinating look at the Mexican-American war. I’m glad I read it and loved that it was readable history. I wish there was more about what happened to Mexico after the war. 1 Seven Franklin20

This book shows the significance of the Mexican American war and how vital it was in altering the republic forever. It also shows how much Lincoln became who he was because of this period. 1 Aaron219 3

Autor del comentario:
=================================