The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War by Peter Guardino

This broad overview of the war between Mexico and the United States differs significantly from many of its predecessors. This is not a military account that emphasizes strategies of generals and blow-by-blow details of each and every battle. Instead, Guardino approaches the war from the perspective of "ordinary'' people, to reveal how their backgrounds, motivations, and perspectives influenced actions and results. The definition of the word "ordinary'' may be open to debate, but the author certainly examines a broad cross-section of the populations of both countries, including men and women, native born and immigrants, and all classes of people ranging from wealthy and influential leaders down to the most impoverished or impotent members of society. Guardino skillfully interweaves his revelations about the organization and inner workings of U.S. and Mexican society into a streamlined narrative of military action to produce an account that thoroughly covers the events of the conflict and offers valuable new insights as to why they unfolded as they did.

At the heart of his presentation is the idea that Mexico had more in common with the United States of this time period than often has been portrayed. Both counties initially relied on armies filled with outcasts and men from the margins of society. Each subsequently turned to militia regiments composed of men with deeply-held beliefs about their rights and responsibilities as citizens of their respective republics. While the role of U.S. volunteers has long been documented for this conflict, Guardino demonstrates that Mexicans of all regions, classes, and ideologies were equally willing to set aside differences, join the ranks, and fight side-by-side in common cause. He even suggests that Mexico had its own sense of divine mission and countered the U.S. Protestant ideal of Manifest Destiny with a determination to protect and preserve the Catholic faith (210–214). In short, the Mexican people, like their counterparts in United States, came together and waged this war as a nation.

From this foundation, Guardino challenges those who question Mexico's level of national identity and assert that political differences, regionalism, and a lack of unity played a lead role in that country's military misfortunes. He acknowledges that divisions occasionally hampered the war effort, but he sees them as another point of equivalence with the United States, which also experienced internal conflict and protest. In his view, economic woes and disparity with the United States were the real cause of Mexico's troubled war effort. Without adequate finances, the government struggled to provide weapons to its soldiers, to feed the troops, and to adequately respond to the well-funded, well-armed, and well-fed invading force. Economic issues also forced many individuals to make difficult choices between serving the national government or protecting their families from starvation and ruin. Those who chose the latter course, Guardino suggests, are often unfairly portrayed as agents of discord and disunity (353–356).

Guardino makes a strong case for avoiding an overemphasis of Mexico's internal divisions in the war, but in doing so he tends to dismiss them altogether. At the most basic level, he portrays political discord and economic challenges as dichotomous issues, and never really addresses whether a lack of unity in Mexico might have contributed to the country's financial struggles. He also glosses over instances when divisiveness affected the nation's defense. For example, he concedes that the Polkos Rebellion of 1847 had a negative impact on military preparations, but minimizes its importance by explaining that those involved had previously voiced approval and provided substantial financial support for the war (175–186). Most confounding, however, is his attempt to equate the uprisings and coup d'etats that occurred in Mexico under invasion with the wartime protests that took place concurrently in the United States. Guardino suggests that the dissent in the U.S. reveals the diversity of opinion and limits to patriotism to be expected in a fledgling nation and that discord in Mexico should be viewed in a similar light (359–361). It's a fair point, but downplays the significant distinction between someone like Henry David Thoreau refusing to support the conflict with his taxes and General Mariano Paredes opting to overthrow his country's government. At one point, Guardino recounts an exchange in which U.S. Senator Thomas Corwin denounced U.S. President Polk as a liar, spurring expectations in Mexico that the Senator would rise up in revolt against the executive. "What the Mexicans did not understand,'' Guardino writes, "was that American institutions were still strong enough and elastic enough to contain such strong dissent'' (208). It is a brief glimpse at a huge difference between the two countries. In an otherwise excellent analysis of Mexican society, it is regrettable that Guardino did not explore this distinction in more detail.

Nevertheless, the detail he does provide is impressive. By drawing together a broad range of published sources from both countries and supplementing it with a significant amount of original research, Guardino has provided a fresh, important, and very readable perspective on the conflict. His introduction of material from a number of Mexican state repositories is especially valuable for revealing the views and motives of regional politicians and soldiers. The conclusions about Mexican society drawn from these documents may be open to debate, but it vastly expands on previous overviews and provides a much clearer understanding of how that nation functioned in the years from 1846–1848.