Gone For Soldiers by Jeff Shaara

Gone For Soldiers Reviews

• 
  Lyn

  Fascinating detail, especially keen on an inside look at a very young, but already brilliant Captain Robert E. Lee.
  
  Shaara's 2000 historic novel about the Mexican-American War is a fascinating book by itself and can also be seen as a precursor to Shaara's later work on the American Civil War.
  
  Providing a depth of characterization that will be worthwhile to readers and students of this era in American history, the reader gets to know about many historical personages, most notably Lee and General Winfield Scott.
  
  
• 
  Philip

  Wow, what a surprise! This was just an excellent book, far more enjoyable than Gods and Generals, which was the only previous Jeff Shaara book I read, and which paled in comparison to his father's The Killer Angels. However, Shaara Jr. has become a better writer, and in taking on the Mexico City Campaign of the Mexican-American War, he found a new conflict that hasn't been overworked before, but which proves to be a brilliant prequel to the "Civil War Trilogy," introducing many of the same characters who will lead both the North and the South 15 years later.
  
  The book focuses almost completely on two characters, Captain Robert E. Lee and General Winfield Scott, telling their story in alternating chapters, (although I really liked how at the very end, he includes individual chapters told from Grant's, Longstreet's and Jackson's perspectives). Lee comes off as a bit prim-and-proper and holier-than-thou, and while that makes him an at-times annoying protagonist, that may well be an accurate portrayal. However, the character of Scott is a revelation. I knew nothing of the man going into the story other than how he is presented in the beginning of Gods and Generals, as an out-of-touch old man who naps away his afternoons. But here he is a real force of nature who embodies both leadership and wisdom. I really want to learn more about the true man now, as well as the Mex-Am War in general -- and isn't that a key goal of historical fiction?
  
  That said, I do have two niggling complaints. The book has almost as many endings as "Return of the King," and Shaara continues to over-abuse the sentence structure his father created for Killer Angels and used to such better effect: "Lee watched them disappear into the brush, thought, He was alive, but...he was waiting to die;" or "Lee felt a rising heat in his chest, thought, My God...they will never come back." Apparently, Lee thought and...paused a lot, because he does this on nearly every page. But otherwise, this is a real page-turner, and I highly recommend it to anyone with even a superficial interest in the Civil War, American history or military history in general.
• 
  Barry Medlin

  Jeff Shaara weaves a fine historical fiction storyline that keeps you intrigued! It’s interesting to read about the future leaders in the Civil War working together as one in the Mexican-American War. I’m a fan of both Jeff and his father Michael (Killer Angels is one of my favorite books), so I knew this would be a good one!
• 
  Simon Mee

  The Mexican-American War.
  
  A dispute over which river was the border resolved by the United States making it the Pacific Ocean. Gone for Soldiers is a campaign diary of all the people Shaara thought were the good guys. Maybe they removed Indians via the Trail of Tears. Maybe they were slaveholders. No matter, because didn’t men like Winfield Scott and Robert E Lee look goddamn good in army blue.
  
  Good ol boys
  
  Gone for Soldiers takes a perspective that the professional soldier class that would make up the higher echelons of the Confederate States’ army were morally indistinguishable from the Unionists such as Scott or Grant. Lee, Johnston, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, Pickett are heroic duty-bound soldiers, while slimy politicians in Washington deny the United States army essential support.
  
  Characterisation isn’t about creating people that appeal to me. Nor does Shaara have to hold slavishly to history in his portrayals. But the characters are pretty interchangeable as slightly different shades of “our boys in blue”. There’s no appeal to a wider context and you can sense the stirrings of the “Lost Cause” in the depictions of the future Confederates.
  
  Shaara’s one concession to a different viewpoint, the Mexican leader Santa Anna, is that of a moustache twirling villain. Shaara’s caricature of Santa Anna’s ironically draws attention to the shallowness of the rendering of the protagonists.
  
  Shaara also leans heavily on the contrasts between the free United States and the dictatorial minded Mexico. Sure, you can take that viewpoint, and I don’t doubt a number of Americans at the time did. But writing unironically:
  
  Mexico has difficulty governing itself in the best of times.
  
  …when the US Civil War is due within 15 years of the events of the book with plenty of nigh ungovernable tension well before then is, frankly, taking the piss. A historical novel can change events. Shaara changes the historical account of the hanging of Irish Catholic deserters to better fit the theme of duty which, in itself, is fine. But Gone for Soldiers is very very narrow in its theme, in that being a troop is good and makes you a good person.
  
  Show, Don’t Tell
  
  Gone for Soldiers isn’t terribly written. Shaara knows the old tricks, such as Scott crediting his subordinate Twigg for not being so stupid to launch a frontal assault when that was exactly what Twigg planned to do. Lee’s discomfort lying for hours under a tree trunk is another good scene. There’s an intelligent structure to the book, where each battle is a tactical problem to be unpicked with brains and courage and a clear build-up of stakes.
  
  However, Gone for Soldiers leans heavily, way too heavily, on internal monologue. It’s line after line pregnant with analysis:
  
  He looked at the hot glow of the copper ball, thought, God is here! God is watching! That one was meant for me!
  
  In isolation, perhaps not so bad, but wading through a book of it feels like the monkey’s paw of being granted the ability to read minds. It is also pretty tensionless stuff, leading me to query whether you can describe the characters as “richly drawn.” Writing a 1000 different variations on the theme of duty is still one theme.
  
  When Shaara ventures into a third person descriptions, it varies between dull and disastrous. Shaara glitches out on purple prose trying to describe an attack on US supply carts during an armistice. I didn’t have a clue as to what happened until Shaara told me by way of dialogue after.
  
  The dialogue varies in quality. The aforementioned exchange between Scott and Twigg is good. The first meeting between Scott and the lawyer Nicholas Trist is not, as each party trips over the exposition they have to deliver. The final exchange between Scott and Lee is Shaara furiously (and cringeworthily) paddling them away from associations with territorial aggrandizement.
  
  When reading Gone for Soldiers, I wondered how you could turn a book about incredibly insular people with no chat into a movie. As I later found out, another one of Shaara’s has been - Gods and Generals. There is a cut that runs for over four hours. It rates at about 8% on Rotten Tomatoes.
  
  Gone for Soldiers isn’t an 8% book. I even wavered a promoting it to three stars. But it doesn’t offer anything special. Instead it’s a competently written paint by numbers, if each character was telling you what number they were painting and how they felt about it.
  
• 
  Steven Peterson

  In this work, Jeff Shaara explores the development of America's officer cadre in the Mexican War. Many Civil War generals got their first major wartime experience in this event. Indeed, Jefferson Davis, future President of the Confederate States of America, gained some renown for his use of a particular formation in battle.
  
  The two major protagonists in this story are "Old Fuss and Feathers," General Winfield Scott, and a trusted engineering officer, the redoubtable Captain Robert E. Lee. Over and over, Lee's excellent scouting allowed Scott to befuddle the Mexican leader, General Santa Anna.
  
  Other figures whom we meet who will play a role in the Civil War: Ulysses Grant, James Longstreet. Thomas (later "Stonewall") Jackson, George Pickett, and so on). We also learn of superannuated warriors such as General Wool.
  
  All in all, the format developed by his father, in "The Killer Angels," taking a handful of key characters and using them to serve as "informants" in the development of the plotline and events, works well.
  
  All in all, another good read and worthy of its place in the Shaara stable of war novels.
• 
  Donna Davis

  I was teaching history, but I always skipped the war between the US and Mexico. There was more curriculum than I could rightfully cover during the school year, and this was my favorite war to skip. It seemed dull as dirt, and there was no real righteousness behind it, as there had been with the American Revolution and the American Civil War. I left it out until large numbers of Latino students moved into my district. Suddenly, instead of mostly Asian kids, I had mostly Latino kids...and the English Language Learners' instructor promised them (and THEN told me) that I was going to teach them about the war between the USA and Mexico. He had a point; kids need to know their own history. I had to make some changes.
  
  Thank heavens for Shaara. While I didn't incorporate his fictional account into my curriculum (the reading level being far beyond what my students could read), it made it feel more real to me, and infused me with greater enthusiasm. Hey, if the war was essentially a land grab on the part of the USA, let's go ahead and teach it as one. Meanwhile, everyone will know whence the saying "Remember the Alamo!" comes.
  
  It seems to me that whenever some general thread regarding historical fiction comes up on Goodreads.com, someone, completely out of left field, finds it necessary to disavow Jeff Shaara. I wonder whether that is because he has set the standard for recently-written historical fiction. I love his work, and I always say so. He can take the most incredibly dead material come alive and seem vital and interesting, and though he takes some literary license (which is what makes it fiction), he tries to stay true to his subject material. He knows his stuff and doesn't abuse it.
  
  So this is my ringing endorsement. I am retired now, but I will continue to read this man's work as long as he can find topics to write about. I can't wait to read the new one; it's on my wish list!
• 
  Richard

  is a novel of the Mexican War. It is based on the facts and the people of the war, but Shaara reports conversations that probably didn’t happen but could have. He reports thoughts of the main characters which he wouldn't know, but they could have happened. So he takes some literary license to write the book but he does a good job of it. I know a lot more about the Mexican War and the battles that took place as well as the men involved. The two main characters are Robert E. Lee, a young captain. And, Winfield Scott, a crusty old general. There are other characters in the book who were actually in the war and became players in the civil war 14 years later. Several southern military men were involved in the Mexican war and then were prominent in the Civil War. Shaara uses the facts of the Mexican War that are readily available: people, places, times and weaves them into a very entertaining story. It is a war story so there are descriptions of the terrible battles that were held. There are many bumbling generals in the war who have risen to their ranks because of politics. They seem to have no sense. Robert E Lee is portrayed as a very bright, caring, sensitive man who doesn’t want recognition but just wants to do his job the best way he can. It makes me want to read a biography about Lee.
  
  
• 
  Chrisl

  Haven't been able to catch Jeff's frequency ... not a fan ... with exception of Gone for Soldiers.
  Appreciated his interpretation. It combined well with Zollinger's Chapultepec.
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
  
• 
  Sean Murphy

  Read this because of interest in Mexican history. This is a very specific story about the military actions that won the U.S. - Mexican war starting with the naval siege at Vera Cruz and through the taking of Mexico City and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It is very interesting and well-written. Many of the men in the story later became famous figures on both sides of the U.S. Civil War. Does give some insight into the Mexican experience but mostly focuses on the American military figures involved.
• 
  Benjamin Thomas

  Ever since I read
  The Killer Angels by
  Michael Shaara many years ago, I’ve been enthralled with the work of his son as well. I’m not one of those people who constantly says the son just ain’t as good as his dad. I believe he does indeed have the right stuff, and his numerous awards for writing would seem to bear that out.
  
  I’ve read many of Jeff’s books and enjoyed them all but somehow I missed this one along the way, only his third published book. Now that I think about it, I suppose that is analogous to the subject of the book itself. The Mexican-American War, taking place 13 years prior to the Civil War, is often an overlooked war, remembered most often as a sort of training ground for many of the future military leaders of the Civil War.
  
  I certainly learned a lot from reading this book. I knew some of the basics but to witness first hand the major events of the war through the eyes of key participants was both fun and educational. Turns out it was much more than just a training ground, with all the complex political and military conundrums that plague most wars. The actual results and the what-might-have-been’s are indeed profound, with major impacts on both countries.
  
  Most of the novel is told from the perspectives of two individuals: 1) Winfield Scott, the overall commanding general who probably never received as much credit as he deserves, and 2) the 40-year old Captain Robert E. Lee, the engineer who would win numerous accolades for his brilliant and workmanlike performance. Others also get a chapter perspective, especially during the culminating battle for Mexico City, including US Grant, Lt Jackson (eventually to be dubbed “Stonewall” Jackson), Lt Longstreet, Lt Pickett, as well as General Worth. In addition, many others whose names would become famous in the Civil War are present as well. Interestingly, there are also several chapters from the perspective of Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, a man who was truly an incredible larger-than-life historical character.
  
  I love reading these sorts of historical novels where I can enjoy the story as well as learn from a trusted source. Looking froward to my next Jeff Shaara book.
• 
  Glen Stott

  I have recently read other books about the Mexican War. I was interested in this one because it focuses on the many U.S. military leaders in this war that became famous in the Civil War, fighting on both sides and therefore against each other in the Civil War. It added many details about the actual battles than were covered by the other books I read. This story follows Winthrop Scott as he leads the U.S. Army from Vera Cruz to Mexico City and describes the successes and failures as the Army marches on. That writing was interesting and informative; unfortunately, there was more.
  
  The other writing is painfully boring in places. For instance, Lee must hide for most of the day at a water hole when he was scouting for the Army. Page after page after page after page after page (bored yet?), Shaara takes us into Lee’s mind as he thinks about the most boring parts of his life and describes in minute detail how his legs are beginning to get numb, and what his dreams are and on and on about stuff that was so boring, I forgot it as soon as my eyes moved to the next boring thing. That was the longest day in the history of the United States, maybe the world. And I read it all, just in case something important might be buried in it. That was the worst, but not the only example by a long shot. It was so grotesque that I marked the book from five to three stars.
  Started: 2019.04.11 — finished: 2019.05.21
• 
  Gilda Felt

  Perhaps because this war was so much shorter than those Shaara has previously written about, the action seemed too drawn out. At one point it takes a chapter for someone to get up a hill. Also, there were less characters involved, so each had to carry more of the plot.
  
  I did come to appreciate Scott, who comes across as a difficult man, though a gifted commander. As for Lee, knowing his future history, it was hard for me to care all that much about him. It lessened my enjoyment of the book as Lee is really the pivotal character here. Besides, how heroic is a land grab?
  
  What the book has done is made me more curious about the war in general, and its effect on the region.
  
• 
  Kevin Symmons

  Somehow as has happened in the past with my reviews I hit the wrong key and lost 30 minutes worth of work so as my patience evaporates I'll summarize my thoughts. I found Michael Shaara's work exceptional. But it's difficult to argue with a Pulitzer Prize winner. I have read several of his son novels and fail to find it as inspiring. The younger Shaara has a tendency to slide into endless internal monologue to advance the plot... problem is we have no idea as to the accuracy of what Robert E. Lee, General Winfield Scott, or Antonio de Lopez de Santa Anna thought at any one point in time. And of course these flights of fancy and imaginings tear us from main story line. For a seasoned novelist the younger Shaara also has a tendency to literally throw a new point of view when it suits his fancy... using it as a convenient and frankly lazy way to expose facts or develop his plot.
  Without dwelling on negativity I always admire what must seem like endless research. Suffice it to say that while I have read several of Shaara's novels, as a fan of American military history I have yet to be engaged by his work. I will give this novel 3 stars out of deference to the research that undoubtedly occurred in its development... and the fact that I did learn about an obscure slice of American history. You may find it engaging... sadly I did not!
• 
  James

  This interesting study of the expedition led by General Winfield Scott into Mexico from Veracruz to Mexico City highlights the role played by Captain Robert E. Lee as an engineer and strategist working under the careful, prudent command of General Scott. The string of victories by Scott's army from Veracruz to Mexico City during March to September 1847 would seem in general history books to be little more than an effortless march into the interior of Mexico and gain of immense lands comprising much of the western United States today. But this extremely well written and detailed work of fiction is based on fact, and the dangers, risks and casualties were anything but inconsequential. The contributions of Robert E. Lee to the strategic and tactical successes is evident, but notice of contributions of famous combatants from the Civil War --- Beauregard, Jackson, Joseph Johnston, Longstreet, Pickett and Grant --- are also included. The Mexican War was a proving ground for many of the notable leaders who would distinguish themselves in the Civil War some 14 years later. This is an interesting study of an important, but lesser known war.
• 
  Ann Chenhall

  This was an important American war I knew nothing about, although many of the soldiers play a significant role in the Civil War. This war was 1846-1848 and basically involved a land grab of California, New Mexico and part of Texas. The Americans make it all the way to the gates of Mexico City, due to some heroics of U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee as young men. I do love historical fiction since this genre brings the past alive through characters and dialogue. The details of the war are encased in political struggles taking place in our U.S. capital. I began to understand more of the tension between professional soldiers and the politicians who set the stage for conflicts.
• 
  Jim

  One of the best and most simple books on the Mexican American war. Written in the same style as "Killer Angels" and other definitive novels of the civil war, Jeff Sharra brings this conflict to life while also showing the tight and close relationships of many of the officers who ultimately stood across the battlefields from each other during the civil war.
  
  Particularly good on the development of "Stonewall" Jackson and General Robert E. Lee.
• 
  Tom Darrow

  Solid historical fiction on a little-known or written-about war in US history. Two slight drawbacks... 1) it is in Shaara's formulaic writing style (which isn't, in itself, a bad thing... but it can get stale when you read it a lot), 2) Because he'd written two books about the Civil War, it seems like he's trying a little too hard to fit some of those charcters into the narative.
• 
  Brian Eshleman

  Excellent book. It takes many of the Civil War characters we have gotten to know as larger-that-life and gives a glimpse of them earlier in their development. In some ways, it does the same with the country they served.
• 
  Paul Callister

  Nice historical novel and account of how Robert E. Lee first proved himself, with many other figures who would be come prominent in the Civil War.
• 
  Joshua Emil

  “I’m gonna build a wall. A big wall built by me Donald Trump. It’s gonna be yuge. It’s gonna be fantastic.”—Donald Trump, 2017 (or so he says)
  
  Before the abovementioned attributed quote from the incumbent US President Donald Trump, there was “Let’s take the Western plains from Mexico because it is what? OUR MANIFEST DESTINY.” This one came from James K. Polk in 1846. That’s right. it’s the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 or Mr. Polk’s War.
  
  When I read the introduction, it discussed Manifest Density, the comparisons of the Mexican War to the Vietnam War, and the relationship between then Captain Robert E. Lee and General Winfield Scott. Let’s go over them point by point.
  
  Manifest Destiny. What we all know about is that it is the theory for American expansionism and early imperialism. From the original thirteen colonies of the East Coast US, settlers moved westward to occupy Indian territories and former foreign possessions like Louisiana and Florida. Second, the rebellion in Texas and the annexation and admission to the Union brought more justification of moving towards the West. Of course, the Mexican-American War also gave more territories like California, New Mexico, and Arizona. It was temporary halted during the American Civil War and rekindled in 1898 during the Spanish-American War and in 1899 during the Philippine-American War. What’s the point? Well, Mexico and other former Spanish possessions like my country, the Philippines, fell victim to Manifest Destiny and in doing so, others questioned if conquest was necessary. On to the second point.
  
  The Mexican-American War and the Vietnam War comparison. Two words morality and necessity. Was the war just and was it necessary? Here, the lead character Captain Robert E. Lee was a typical officer, ready and able to do his duty for the country. In between, he sometimes becomes privy to dispatches from Washington to General Scott. General Scott, on the other hand, has to juggle command and control and political directives from Washington D.C. Just like in Vietnam, the policy shifts from varying administrations, resulted to defective combat strategies. The Mexican War lasted for two years whereas Vietnam lasted ten years. It is evident that they are a century apart but some things do not change like unnecessary interference of the civil government to military strategy. In one instance in the book, General Scott has this to say:
  
  “The President may still believe we should purchase our way into Mexico City, but it is apparent that we will not conclude this affair with currency, So, we will conclude it with the gun. This is still a war…. The President certainly should be notified that his plan was a failure, however, our avenues of communication are long way behind us. Some of you may still believe bribery is a productive policy. Certainly the Mexicans appreciate it. But I will not be played for a fool. The only gift Santa Anna will receive from us now will come at the point of a bayonet.”
  
  Indeed, civil oversight is necessary to prevent abuses from the military but sometimes restraint should be exercised on both sides.
  
  Finally, the relationship between Captain Robert E. Lee and General Winfield Scott. Since this is a historical fiction, some interactions are left to the imagination of the author. I can say that this portrayal is between a student and a mentor, the young and the old. I saw the differences between them. Lee possessed the quality of the young, ready and able and eager to do his duty. Moreover, he is a product of the US Military Academy in West Point, something novel at the time. Scott is the tired veteran of the War of 1812 with a handful of experiences and enemies. It’s a transition. Lee would deploy further on and Scott would slowly fade away becoming part of history.
  In the end, we all know what happened. Mexico lost and the US gained territory. Despite the politics, Shaara does not fail to give tribute to the fighting men. In one instance where General Scott receives the journalists, he challenges them to tell the story of the troops who did their duty and fought and died for their brothers. He highlights them as the true heroes of the war.
  
  Though the story is focused on Lee and Scott, interesting names like J. Longstreet, T. Jackson, U. Grant, G. McClellan, F. Pierce, M. Perry, Z. Taylor would be mentioned. Consider it, who were they before they became prominent later on.
  
  
  All premises considered. The story was good and it could be adapted to a mini-series.
  
• 
  Tim O'Leary

  My introduction to Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize-winning (1975) "Killer Angels" was late in coming after years of seeking out National Military Parks, acquiring maps, walking the barely-visible, hand-dug revetments and studying the strategic scenarios in whose deliberation so much epic, bloody conflict took place. Sharra passed away tragically at the young age of 59, but his son, Jeff, continued his legacy rounding out what would become their famous father-and-son trilogy. Jeff Shaara's "Gods and Generals" covers the period leading up to Gettysburg as told by his father in "Killer Angels" and "The Last Full Measure" covers the following engagements up until the siege of Petersburg, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia's failed breakout to rejoin forces and its final surrender by Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox. It would be the only other time they'd meet since fighting together and defeating Santa Anna's Mexican army nearly two decades before. Having read the trilogy, "Gone for Soldiers" is yet another masterpiece of military historical fiction by Jeff Shaara that documents the little-known and much-forgotten Mexican-American War from 1846-1848. Critics of the time, in Europe and in Washington, who were against the Democratic Party's fervor for expansionism called it a "Bully's War" and, indeed, given the repeated successes in battle after battle by the American Army, the impression of unmatched military superiority, however apparent, would be deeply mistaken. Shaara delves methodically into the most-obscure elements of strategic conflict (not the least of which includes political in-fighting between embattled commanders in an unholy heirarchy of egos, among them, supremely so, the President's). Particularly, the criticality of failure for these players had the outcome of key uncertain battles been otherwise. Major-General Winfield Scott's army was outnumbered by more than three-to-one; was geographically disadvantaged not being afforded the high ground and having to take heavily fortified defensive positions; and, moreover, was cut-off from resupply by sea from landings at Vera Cruz. Each subsequent battle, then, in the march to take Mexico City, became a critical choke-point that potentially undermined President James K. Polk's unpopular prosecution of The Monroe Doctrine and the Republic's claim to Manifest Destiny. Had the army failed, plagued with illness, desertion and volunteers by the thousands mustering out, the geopolitical ramifications would have been enormous, including contraction of disputed territorial borders and the possible impeachment of Polk himself. More than just the strategic paradigm of marshalling assets and seizing every opportunity to outflank an enemy in superior force, Shaara understands, best, the dynamic mindset of leadership where character faults and conflicts between personality-types and ego become manifest obstacles--especially threatening to undo an effective chain of command. As such, there are agendas, lines being drawn and crossed, trivial scores to be settled, and grudges that will endure because of self-promotional ambitions for political office in the future competitively at odds with one another. The pure soldier, of which there are few, is held up by example to be one that does what he is told, seeking not glory, but rather the unheralded self-satisfaction that he's successfully done his duty. Robert E. Lee, a 40 year-old lieutenant in the Engineer Corps and graduate from West Point, even more with his constant reckoning with God, best exemplifies this measure and earns, therefore, the rarest respect by his old school commanding general whose strictest and curmudgeonly leadership, makes Lee and Scott the key protagonists of the story. And so it is. A worthwhile read to be sure. Of a war worthy of remembrance, and a time that would be eclipsed 13 years later when many who served as comrades in arms in Mexico would meet each other, most-terribly again, at opposite ends of cannon, rifle and bayonet.
• 
  James Martin

  USA!!! USA!!! USA!! I doubt if there has been as one sided account of the Mexican War since the 19th Century. There is absolutely no look at at the country of Mexico, Mexican culture, what was going on with leadership, how the Mexican army was assembled, how Mexico saw the war-nothing. The only look at the Mexican side was his completely dismissive presentation of Santa Anna, reducing him to a vain glorious buffoon and a cartoon character. A man had to have more to him than that to have returned again a again to leadership. But there was no insight into Mexican politics and history. It's all, "they're the bad guys, let's go get them for the glory of America!" He is so blind to Mexico that he never even mentions the Niños Heros, even though every city in Mexico has a street named after them. It would give some insight into the Mexican people.
  
  This author is so verbose you could cut a full third of this book and never miss a thing, In particular his endless creations of the inner thoughts of Scott and Lee is tedious and self congratulatory. All unnecessary. And incidentally who knew the Robert E Lee practically single handedly won the Mexican War?
  
  And any look at how this war served the same purpose as the Spanish Civil War served for the Nazis, a practice exercise for training the future army? No.
  
  By presenting real insight into both sides of the struggle this book could have had a real impact instead of just being a jingoistic glorification of the American Military. It left the field the same as our soldiers leaving no thought to what went on in Mexico following the withdrawal. Surely this is elemental to finishing the history of the conflict.
  
  Hoping for some real knowledge of this was I was more than sadly given only a single focused broadsheet story shallow and empty.