A Wicked War

Polk, Clay, Lincoln and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico

By: Amy S. Greenberg

Narrated by: Caroline Shaffer

Length: 12 hrs and 46 mins

Publisher's summary

A Wicked War presents the definitive history of the 1846 war between the United States and Mexico - a conflict that turned America into a continental power. Amy Greenberg describes the battles between American and Mexican armies, but also delineates the political battles between Democrats and Whigs - the former led by the ruthless Polk, the latter by the charismatic Henry Clay and a young representative from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln. Greenberg brilliantly recounts this key chapter in the creation of the United States with authority and narrative flair.

©2012 Amy Greenberg. (P)2012 HighBridge Company

Critic reviews

“Greenberg’s probing account of this war reveals its drama - and its very modern complexity.”( Publishers Weekly)

Interesting history, terrible performance

Would you try another book from Amy S. Greenberg and/or Caroline Shaffer?

nothing narrated by Caroline Shaffer her style is terrible

Who was your favorite character and why?

Really did not have a favorite character. Santana was a poor leader.

How did the narrator detract from the book?

voice, tone, theatrical attempts poor. The narration detracted from the enjoyment so much that I quit before the end and read the book.

Did A Wicked War inspire you to do anything?

read the book rather than listen to that woman

A bit protracted, yet nonetheless interesting

The author could have skimmed, in total, a fifth of the book. There were times that specificity could have beneficially been avoided. It is still an effective historical piece; it's informative and well rounded.

Should be taught in American Schools

To say that the United States and Mexico have an ambivilant relationship would be an understatement. This book goes into the sobering history of the United States-under President James Knox Polk-essentially conjures up a war to take what at the time was about one third of Mexico's territory. It goes over some very shameful conduct in the carrying out of this war of aggression. This is a book that should be read to help frame the discussions of our relationship with Mexico and Americans of Mexican descent.

Interesting book - terrible narration

This is an important story but the narrator is so bad it is hard to listen to. Her fake southern accent is painful, and when she tries to voice one of the Mexican characters it is even worse

A war that was unpopular, and unjust,.

The president James k. Polk, unjust war against the Mexican people. A must listen to audible.

The political story of the Mexican American war

This book is really about the politics before and during the Mexican American War. There 3 key figures we follow: President Polk, congressman Lincoln, former congressman Clay, general Taylor, and the American who sealed with the peace treaty (sorry like history afterwards i forgot his name). Through them we see and understand why the war was fought, how the campaign both in the battlefields of Mexico and the political halls of America was fought, and how the war became unpopular and was ended.
There is a lot of good information explaining everyone’s goals and slowly the war fell apart. This war was perhaps the most important event in American history since the revolution up to that point so the rich details are super helpful in seeing why this war is important beyond textbook mentions that just say that the U.S. gained territory.
My only complaint is not with the book but the narrator. She speaks fine until she starts making accents. It doesn’t matter if they are southern, Mexican, western, British, they are all cringe and overall bad. There was even one accent that came from a American that had Mexican heritage but never been to Mexico that got a bad Mexican accent, so you know that the narrator was doing accent on purpose, probably thinking that she was some sort of actor. Cringe.

Not sure who to blame

I find the praise for this book unwarranted. I did not see much that was new to anyone who has done extensive reading on the subject. However the reading is so overwrought it could be that my perception was negatively skewed by the presentation.

A detailed history

A detailed look at the idea of manifest destiny and it's influence on US expansion.

Rubbish Historical Work, Lots of Fake Stuff

First of all, look at my name, it’s Jose. I am not a historian but I do know some Latin American history. The author of this book does not know a thing about Mexico, Latin-American culture, and the Spanish Empire. Lesson #1 for Non-Latins, we Latins are not victims. The Mexican-American War was the culmination of a Tiger vs. Tiger struggle for supremacy in North America. The Mexicans and Spanish got caught in the vortex of Napoleonic/French Revolution Chaos in 1804, the USA had the more organized nation and ambitious land pirates, like Sam Houston. But it was hardly coordinated, the southwest was a total mess that culminated in the more organized nation taking control. This book has so much fake content that I don't know what can be trusted.

Basically, the author is obsessed with one side of the conflict, the USA, This book would not have been written differently if the KGB were asked to describe “Manifest Destiny” and “American Exceptionalism”. At the detail level, what Polk did is not different than Bismark taking pieces of Denmark, Austria, and France; Peter the Great taking Finland; Catherine the Great taking Crimea; and Suleiman taking Constantinople. With few exceptions, these events were true blood baths. The battle of Buena Vista is not even a skirmish when viewed on the scale of Constantinople.

Another thing, the author's obsession with 19th Century slavery is weird. Until the industrial revolution was brought to us by the English and Americans, slavery, feudalism, and serfdom was a part of human life-since day-1. Never before had slavery been unknown. Do we need to re-write history to include that Julius Cesar, Alexander, Peter the Great, Louis XV had a slave/serf body servants? How about the Soviet Gulags and Chinese labor Camps full of unpaid labor, can we re-title Stalin as a slave owner and Mao as an enslaver?

Facts that make the book fake:
(1) The Spanish had a Manifest Destiny slogan too, “The World is Not Enough” and “Further Beyond”, then they ran out of money to fight the world after the 30-Years War.
(2) How did Mexico get so big pre-1840? The answer, the territory was just loose claims from Spanish “New Spain” and they conquered every Indian tribe that had some wealth or choice farm land. But they did not control the Apaches and Comanches.
(3) The "Texans" were allowed entry by Spain not Mexico in the late 1790’s
(4) The "Texans" were allowed entry to fight Apaches and Comanches because Mexican territory south of the Rio Grande was being raided by the Comanches. They were not controlling the North. The life-span of a picnic group in old-time Tucson Arizona would have been Nil.
(5) The Mexican leaders had their own form of slavery, called encomienda and they got peasant labor through feudal right
(6) The Mexican leaders then were largely Mediterranean whites, not the people commonly understood to be Mexican (like me)
(7) Mexico fought Spain for Independence? Nope, it was a civil war of elites because Spain did not survive the Napoleonic War in Europe as an Empire. Little something called battle of Trafalgar had an influence.
(8) Mexico was not and is not a Republic; it was actually founded as the Empire of Mexico under the Emperor Inturbide
(9) The Empire “fell” due to more Civil War (French Revolution Chaos) and they eventually settled under a war lord named Santana during the Texas independence conflict, then had more Civil War afterwards.
(10) What were the Mexican Civil Wars about? Other than to see who is president, nobody truly knows. Nominally, you had liberal elites that favored laws and systems like Revolutionary France and you had conservative elites that favored laws and systems like Imperial Spain. The non-elites caught in the middle were basically the victim of a failed economics was always Statist.
(11) The “Southwest” of 1800 was basically an amorphous region made of French control of Mississippi River Ports, USA farmers and frontiersmen attempting commerce, Native American tribes, and Spanish claims. The USA basically filled the territory with fillibusters, soldiers of fortune, miners, and traders. Some people even carried 3 passports. Highly Amorphous.
(12) In the early 1800's Travel between Natchez and Nashville was extremely dangerous and physically difficult. The French control of St Louis did not exceed far beyond the city center. The Comanches were basically the largest organized force of central North America, Spain called the region "la comancheria"
(13) The Comanches kept Spanish soldiers sheltered in the mission courtyard of the Alamo. Spain and later Mexico exercised Zero Control of Texas relative the Native Americans and the Americans they imported. The only permanent residents in the land were the Native Americans. Mexican civil governments actually paid bounty hunters (many Americans) to hunt and fight the tribes. Literally, paid for scalps, ears, and noses. Horrible and lurid stuff.
(14) The British did have an economic interest in the Southwest. If they wanted the USA out of Texas or California, they would have financed Mexico and given Naval support to stop the US. At the end of the day, they rather do business with the USA, who was and is a more reliable investment partner. Transition of power by election is preferred to transition of power via coup.
(15) Texas cotton was for Export! To the British and USA.
(16) In Mexico, the wealthy consider themselves to be Europeans not Native American
(17) Santana had a massive plantation, the author thinks he paid for the labor on his plantation

The narrator is good when talking in English. She should not attempt Southern or Mexican accents, it sound extremely bad.

Lost opportunity

Would you try another book from Amy S. Greenberg and/or Caroline Shaffer?

From Amy S. Greenberg yes. From Caroline Shaffer no way ever.

What other book might you compare A Wicked War to and why?

Battle Cry of Freedom but not as detailed. It's a good narrative of the Mexican war which is all but forgotten in history.

How could the performance have been better?

Different Narrator. This lady is by far the worst narrator I've listen to in the few years of my membership. Her terrible fake overdone attempt at portraying a Southern accent pierced my spine and I found it rather demeaning to those of Southern heritage. She stands firmly in the way of the message from an informative work. If Ms. Shaffer wishes to be an audio actress then she should do audio drama not narrative reading.

What character would you cut from A Wicked War?

It's a historical perspective I would cut no one.

Any additional comments?

I can't overemphasise what a terrible job Ms. Shaffer did on this narration. Read the book and nix the audio acting. She damaged an otherwise good book.