I just finished reading Gone For Soldiers, by Jeff Shaara.
I'm a big fan of his work. I love the format of novelized history. The books are as entertaining as any good novel, yet the historical events and characters are real. It's history, with a rich, chocolate coating to help it go down easier.
Gone for Soldiers is the story of the Mexican/American war, about which I knew absolutely nothing. Now I know that it took place roughly fifteen years before the civil war, the Mexican army was lead by Santa Anna, who between exiles, became the dictator of Mexico eleven different times, and that this particular war was basically a land grab which netted us most of the western continent, from Texas to California. Think of all the trouble we could've avoided if we'd taken all the territory south to the equator.
The Mexican war featured many of the men who went on to national prominence during the civil war, including Robert E. Lee and Ulysses Grant. Mexico is where Lee first saw combat and demonstrated his own tactical brilliance. Grant was no slouch on the battlefield, either. One of my favorite scenes in the book is when Lt. Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson wins an artillery duel outside of Chapultapec, then turns to his commanding officer and says "Sir, I believe this is...the most fun I have ever had."
Shaara never makes war seem fun. In all of his books, he details the horror and loss that are an integral part of war. Men die and sometimes they're the lucky ones. But this is how we got to where we are today and I think it's important to know these things. The United States would be a very different country today if we hadn't fought Santa Anna back then. Just think; gold was discovered in California
the year after we took the territory from Mexico.
The Mexican war was fought in the late 1840's. The book was published in 2000. What struck me most about the whole thing was how similar it all was to our current war in Iraq. There were protests against the war back home. Politics got in the way of everything. The Commander of Army, Winfield Scott, tried very hard to make it clear that the fight was with Santa Anna, not the Mexican people. Diplomacy was tried but only succeeded in whetting the appetite of the enemy. The definition of victory was elusive and ambiguous; is it enough to take Mexico city or do we have to take Santa Anna himself? How to finish this thing without having to fight a guerrilla war that could last for years? Once we root out Santa Anna, then what? Who's going to run Mexico?
Two thoughts crossed my mind repeatedly while I read this book; "the more things change, the more they stay the same" and "those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
I didn't say they were original thoughts.
I loved Gone for Soldiers just as much as I loved Rise to Rebellion, The Glorious Cause, (leading up to and during the revolution), Gods and Generals, The Last Full Measure (the civil war, before and after Gettysburg) and The Last Man Standing (WWI). I haven't started the series set in WWII yet.
Michael Shaara, Jeff's father, wrote the Killer Angels, the story of the battle of Gettysburg, first. That book is what gave Jeff the idea to keep going. As good as Jeff is, none of his books are quite as good as The Killer Angels. That book is the only one I've ever read that was so tense and exciting that I actually read alot of it while pacing. I don't know it I can chalk that up to the author or the battle. Gettysburg was pretty darned intense. Three days of fighting left 56,000 dead. Can you imagine? 4000 casualties in five years and we're ready to cut and run these days. How would today's media handle 56,000 in three days?
Pray that we never find out.
