The American/Mexican War- Was it Justified?

[Ice]

I recently view a show on the history channel on this topic. It seemed to paint my country in an extremely bad light. We pretty much invaded a sister republic and annexed half of its land. With the recent immigration debates raging, I decided to do a little research on this war.

(BTW, all this information is obtained either from wikipedia and/or the show I viewed last night)

It starts when Mexico was orginally a Spanish terrority. The United States government and the Spanish government encouraged pioneers to settle, in what is now current day Texas. After Mexico won its war of independence, it became uneasy with the vast amount of foreign settlers occupying their land. The reason being was that Mexico was a mainly Roman Catholic country compared to the Protestants settlers, Mexico attempted centeralize power in Mexico City, and Mexico abolised slavery in 1829. Mexico found it extremely hard to govern its vast northern terrorities often facing rebellions.

After the Texas Revolution, in exchange for his life, Santa Anna agreed to grant Texas soverignty. This is where it gets sticky. Most say in Mexico City that Santa Anna did not have the authority to grant such a request. That is why Mexico never formally recognized Texas. It gets even more sticker when Texas became our 28th state and now has the backing of the entire United States federal government.

The United States wanted Mexico's New Mexico and California terrorities. They offered $30 million dollars and the option to forget Mexico's 4.5 million dollar debt to the US. The Mexicans swiftly rejected this offer.

Mexico was openly hostile with the new state, denying its land claims. In response President Polk began constructing a make shift fort at the banks of the Rio Grande. Seeing this as an act of agreesion, the Mexicans sent a 2000 strong calvery force to attack a 63 man American detachment. 11 Americans were killed and the rest were forced to retreat. The Mexicans then proceeded to surround and lay siege to Fort Brown. They were eventually driven back when American reinforcements arrived.

Hearing this, Polk declared war on Mexicao. Mexico declared war back. At this time, rebellions were occuring in California. The Mexican government was having a hard time holding onto the land. In response the Americans marched to California and annexed it. At the same time, they marched into Santa Fe and annexed it also. The Americans then proceeded to push the Mexicans further down into Mexico eventually capturing Mexico City. For a peace settlement, $15 million dollars were given California and New Mexico terrorities. The new Mexico/US boundry was established at the Rio Grande.

This just doesn't seem right to me. We pretty much coerced a weaker, Sister Republic into war. We then decide to take half their country (THE BETTER HALF) and give them the shaft. I honestly feel guilty now for the awful conditions of Mexico today. Maybe if we hadn't taken so much of their good land, their country might be in a better shape. It's ironic that we whine so much about illegals today when in reality we were the illegals there 160 years ago.

[Scurvy]

This just doesn't seem right to me. We pretty much coerced a weaker, Sister Republic into war. We then decide to take half their country (THE BETTER HALF) and give them the shaft. I honestly feel guilty now for the awful conditions of Mexico today. Maybe if we hadn't taken so much of their good land, their country might be in a better shape. It's ironic that we whine so much about illegals today when in reality we were the illegals there 160 years ago.

thats key , maybe people shouldnt be so critical of mexican immigrants,

however:

No war is really justified, wars happen, and in many cases neither side really want it, in this case both the Americans and Mexicans performed acts of aggression, i would also claim all wars are caused by economic, or land expansive reasons (in UK's case i would call this imperialism) both mexico and America wanted Texas, so they fought over it, and this then lead to Mexico losing a lot of its land. The fact that Mexico was smaller doesnt really effect the justification (war is very rarely fair) Overall i dont really know (having basically typed out that whole train of though) i think theres a case for both sides really

[Reenk Roink]

Well, we have to remember that it has only been a "taboo" to embark on wars of conquest for 50 years or so. Before that it was "glorious" if a nation had the means.

Also, at the start of the Mexican-American War, we were just entering our expansionist phase.

[BigTex]

I recently view a show on the history channel on this topic. It seemed to paint my country in an extremely bad light. We pretty much invaded a sister republic and annexed half of its land. With the recent immigration debates raging, I decided to do a little research on this war.

(BTW, all this information is obtained either from wikipedia and/or the show I viewed last night)

It starts when Mexico was orginally a Spanish terrority. The United States government and the Spanish government encouraged pioneers to settle, in what is now current day Texas. After Mexico won its war of independence, it became uneasy with the vast amount of foreign settlers occupying their land. The reason being was that Mexico was a mainly Roman Catholic country compared to the Protestants settlers, Mexico attempted centeralize power in Mexico City, and Mexico abolised slavery in 1829. Mexico found it extremely hard to govern its vast northern terrorities often facing rebellions.

After the Texas Revolution, in exchange for his life, Santa Anna agreed to grant Texas soverignty. This is where it gets sticky. Most say in Mexico City that Santa Anna did not have the authority to grant such a request. That is why Mexico never formally recognized Texas. It gets even more sticker when Texas became our 28th state and now has the backing of the entire United States federal government.

The United States wanted Mexico's New Mexico and California terrorities. They offered $30 million dollars and the option to forget Mexico's 4.5 million dollar debt to the US. The Mexicans swiftly rejected this offer.

Mexico was openly hostile with the new state, denying its land claims. In response President Polk began constructing a make shift fort at the banks of the Rio Grande. Seeing this as an act of agreesion, the Mexicans sent a 2000 strong calvery force to attack a 63 man American detachment. 11 Americans were killed and the rest were forced to retreat. The Mexicans then proceeded to surround and lay siege to Fort Brown. They were eventually driven back when American reinforcements arrived.

Hearing this, Polk declared war on Mexicao. Mexico declared war back. At this time, rebellions were occuring in California. The Mexican government was having a hard time holding onto the land. In response the Americans marched to California and annexed it. At the same time, they marched into Santa Fe and annexed it also. The Americans then proceeded to push the Mexicans further down into Mexico eventually capturing Mexico. For a peace settlement, $15 million dollars were given California and New Mexico terrorities. The new Mexico/US boundry was established at the Rio Grande.

This just doesn't seem right to me. We pretty much coerced a weaker, Sister Republic into war. We then decide to take half their country (THE BETTER HALF) and give them the shaft. I honestly feel guilty now for the awful conditions of Mexico today. Maybe if we hadn't taken so much of their good land, their country might be in a better shape. It's ironic that we whine so much about illegals today when in reality we were the illegals there 160 years ago.

Firstly you need to find the name of the group who made the documentary, becuase my bets are their one of the radical groups that want to sucede the western portions of the US to MExico. That movie was biased if it was. Secondly as for the Texas Revolution Santa Anna was the dictator at the time, one of the reasons for the Texas Revolution. Being the sole head of the states government means in exchange for his life (ironically most of mexico at the time would have prefered we killed him.) he gave Texas its freedom. Something to note, Texas included parts of new mexico, and Nevada. Also it was a time period of expansion, and war's for territory were not taboo. Mexico declared war on the USA if they werent prepared to deal with the eventuality of fighting a superior force while being stretched thin then declaring war was their own fualt and the results of the war are their own fualt. The idea that illegals becuase of these war's are in fact legal is wrong, the illegals have come over from mexico in the past 50 years mainly. Not becuase it was once part of Mecxico but because it is the USA and provided better economic gain. The Mexicans with the exception of california (they were payed to leave) were not forced from their lands, and in Texas were active participants in the war for indipendence, due to things I'm sure that movie didn't even bother to touch on. That program is a load of bull, countries expand, others shrink it is a fact of history neither illegal nor legal.
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Ice]

Firstly you need to find the name of the group who made the documentary, becuase my bets are their one of the radical groups that want to sucede the western portions of the US to MExico. That movie was biased if it was. Secondly as for the Texas Revolution Santa Anna was the dictator at the time, one of the reasons for the Texas Revolution. Being the sole head of the states government means in exchange for his life (ironically most of mexico at the time would have prefered we killed him.) he gave Texas its freedom. Something to note, Texas included parts of new mexico, and Nevada. Also it was a time period of expansion, and war's for territory were not taboo. Mexico declared war on the USA if they werent prepared to deal with the eventuality of fighting a superior force while being stretched thin then declaring war was their own fualt and the results of the war are their own fualt. The idea that illegals becuase of these war's are in fact legal is wrong, the illegals have come over from mexico in the past 50 years mainly. Not becuase it was once part of Mecxico but because it is the USA and provided better economic gain. The Mexicans with the exception of california (they were payed to leave) were not forced from their lands, and in Texas were active participants in the war for indipendence, due to things I'm sure that movie didn't even bother to touch on. That program is a load of bull, countries expand, others shrink it is a fact of history neither illegal nor legal.

Woah, easy there bigtex. First of all the documentary was from the History Channel, not some radical group.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=187006

Your post is jumbled. Santa Anna might have been head of the government, but he did not control the entire thing. It was a turblent time in Mexican History with leaders changing power very often.

You are pretty much also saying that, since the US was superior, that the Mexicans should have just let them take their land no questions asked. "Here take my land, but just don't hurt me." Wow that a real great approach for a country that stands up for liberty and freedom.

Finally, I never stated that the illegal immigrants were coming to the US using that as their reason. I just find it really ironic that we can yell at them for doing what we pretty much did.

[sharrukin]

Well, are Americans supposed to give back the United States to the Native Indians? And they of course should surrender the land to the descendent of Kennewick Man if they can be found. And as for Mexico, those wicked occupiers of the lands of the Kennewick people, no guilt should be felt for them. You are simply holding the land until the day comes when Kennewick Man returns to claim his rightful heritage!

[AntiochusIII]

Viewing from the historical point of view, the American-Mexican war was not "justified," per se, but entirely a move of expansionism; of course, many consider expansionism and force to be a justification in and of itself. Not surprisingly, the country was in the dawn of Manifest Destiny at the time. There were groups trying to push further towards Mexico City, to make Cuba a state, and, earlier even, to take over Canada (though that increasingly became a remote possibility as time went by. The only real effort to take over Canada was during the War of 1812, and that was a half-hearted effort). The United States, or at least quite a significant part of it, honestly believed it was destined to rule the continent--"from sea to sea."

When Polk signed the peace treaty that he did many in the South was clamoring with anger. They believed all of Mexico was in their grasp, and Polk "betrayed" them. In a way, they were right. The Americans had the force to take over all of Mexico (though unlikely to hold it long, or hold it easy, since there was a vast difference between the well-populated Central Valley and the sparsely-populated "Northern Mexico," where American settlers quickly superceded the natives and the Mexicans before them), and Polk's reasons seemed to be dictated also by a concern that the North would be very angry if a few more slave states were admitted to the Senate, changing the balance.

However, to equate that to the political issues of today is not entirely wise. Historical irony is good fun and all, but it serves no purpose in modern debate. What's more significant actually is the way Americans treat Mexicans after the war ended. You see, BigTex was right in that Mexicans fought side-by-side with their new American neighbors against Santa Ana. He just forgot to mention that the Americans then betrayed their comrades-in-arms after the war ended and essentially oppressed, bullied, and thrown them off the area. A certain Mexican-Texan war hero lamented as he was bullied out of his lands by unscrupulous American politicians and lawyers...

This should be more of a Monastery topic, though. As I've said, nothing is served by drawing historical parallels in this case. The illegal Mexican immigrants did not come to the United States with the intention of "taking back their land" or any of such crap as brought up occasionally, but entirely for the economic benefits that the richer neighbor provides.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Considering we had completely conquered them, and we paid them for the land we conquered, and they started the war, I consider it completely fair. After all, Mexico took it from the natives.

Also, the people coming from Mexico today illegally have no blood ties or relation to the people in the southwest US. They are not returning home or any such nonsense.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

Considering we had completely conquered them, and we paid them for the land we conquered, and they started the war, I consider it completely fair. After all, Mexico took it from the natives.

Also, the people coming from Mexico today illegally have no blood ties or relation to the people in the southwest US. They are not returning home or any such nonsense.

Crazed Rabbit

You the missed the point. I know conquered them. That is quite obvious, CR. The fact is us, a stronger country, bullied a weaker country. Does that sound very American to you? These also weren't natives. This was a soviergn, democratic republic like us. They also necesarily did not start the war. They did not recoginiz Texas as being as US State. In reality, one could say they were simply defending their country.

For the last time, I'm just saying it's ironic about the current immigrant situation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ice, you said in your first post that they started the war. Any notions of 'bullying' should be thrown out with that.
And Santa Anna was an illegal ruler and dictator.

CR

[Ice]

Ice, you said in your first post that they started the war. Any notions of 'bullying' should be thrown out with that.
And Santa Anna was an illegal ruler and dictator.

CR

No I didn't. I said they attacked the Americans. To the Mexicans, they were in Mexican terrority.

Any notions of 'bullying' should be thrown out with that.
And Santa Anna was an illegal ruler and dictator.

I agree. Thus, the deal in which he gave Texas to the Texans was illegal. Texas was the property of Mexico.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree. Thus, the deal in which he gave Texas to the Texans was illegal. Texas was the property of Mexico.

I meant he came to power through illegal means. He was still the acknowledged leader of Mexico. They just tried to get out of the deal he made by claiming he didn't have the authority or some nonsense. Texas gained its independence status by Santa Anna's deal and by virtue of the fact that Mexico had no real power over Texas and could not enforce any power. Also, Texas was accepted as a state by the USA. The Mexicans may have claimed Texas, now a state of a different soveriegn nation, was part of their country, but that does not make it so in reality or legally.

Santa Anna was also a dictator during the Mexican-American war, making your cliam of them being a democratic republic during the war a bit thin.

No I didn't. I said they attacked the Americans.

Generally, attacking first is regarded as starting the war.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

I meant he came to power through illegal means. He was still the acknowledged leader of Mexico. They just tried to get out of the deal he made by claiming he didn't have the authority or some nonsense. Texas gained its independence status by Santa Anna's deal and by virtue of the fact that Mexico had no real power over Texas and could not enforce any power. Also, Texas was accepted as a state by the USA. The Mexicans may have claimed Texas, now a state of a different soveriegn nation, was part of their country, but that does not make it so in reality or legally.



Santa Anna was also a dictator during the Mexican-American war, making your cliam of them being a democratic republic during the war a bit thin.

He was not the legal ruler of Mexico. Mexico was in fact a democratic, he just seized power. Thus any treaties or deals made are null in void.

Generally, attacking first is regarded as starting the war.

Not if you believe the enemy is in your terrority. By building a fort in Mexican terrority, the Americans themselves were declaring war.

[Crazed Rabbit]

He was not the legal ruler of Mexico. Mexico was in fact a democratic, he just seized power. Thus any treaties or deals made are null in void.

[QUOTE]

He was acknowledged ruler and was initially elected.

Not if you believe the enemy is in your terrority.

It doesn't matter what they thought. Texas rebelled and won, thus the terrority of Texas was no longer that of Mexico. Mexico could not impose its will on Texas and so could not be said to have ruled it after the Texas Revolution.

By building a fort in Mexican terrority

They did not.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

[QUOTE=Crazed Rabbit]

He was acknowledged ruler and was initially elected.



It doesn't matter what they thought. Texas rebelled and won, thus the terrority of Texas was no longer that of Mexico. Mexico could not impose its will on Texas and so could not be said to have ruled it after the Texas Revolution.



They did not.

Crazed Rabbit

Unless we agree on the first point of debate, the other ones aren't debateable.

[lancelot]

The fact is us, a stronger country, bullied a weaker country. Does that sound very American to you? These also weren't natives. This was a soviergn, democratic republic like us.

For the last time, I'm just saying it's ironic about the current immigrant situation.

It does seem odd to me that America often portrays itself as a defender of freedom and the sleeping giant that only fights when attacked but as you have come to see the USA has been as agressive as many other 'imperial' powers...ironically more agressive and expansionist than some of those horrible non-democratic nations in old europe...but giving it a nice name like 'manifest destiny' seems to make it ok.

You never know...perhaps in 50 years or so there will be a wave of Afghani and Iraqis into the USA!

[lars573]

I think that the US could have avoided many current problems if all of Mexico had been annexed nin 1848. A bit harsh to the Mexicans but if all Mexicans were US citizens....

[King Henry V]

If you want an example of US imperialism, look no further than the Philipinne American War Not a pretty conflict.

[AntiochusIII]

I think that the US could have avoided many current problems if all of Mexico had been annexed nin 1848. A bit harsh to the Mexicans but if all Mexicans were US citizens....

It appears that my post has been entirely ignored.

I doubt America will had an easy time if it annexed Mexico. First and foremost, as I've said, there is a vast difference between the sparsely populated areas that the United States historically annexed from Mexico and the actual heart of Mexico itself. In the annexed lands--California, Texas, and all that--the immigrating Americans actually surpassed the Mexicans and the natives who were there before them in numbers, which means the population was more friendly to the US government than that of Mexico City's. Whereas the actual heart of Mexico itself was well-populated with "Mexicans," and very few Americans; which means that the occupation would have to take the form of oppression. The wounds would likely be quite deep.

Remember also the context of the time in which the war was fought. That was about five or six years before the Great Compromise of 1850. Slavery was everything to everyone, a burning issue that was threatening to tear America apart. I suspect the North would not take too well the inclusion of even more slave states--anything directly south of Texas had a chance to be considered such--considering the uproar that they gave against something like the Fugitive Slave law, and the political branches would not be so accommodating towards a potential expansion of "slave power."

There were a lot more things going on in America at the time than the swift rise of expansionism. Some would say there were also a lot more things going on in Mexico than countering American expansionism, as well. Which might lay some of the blame of Mexico's constant pain and political "revolutions" (a misnomer, but still) throughout its history on American shoulders. Or not.

Generally, attacking first is regarded as starting the war.

So is violation of territorial sovereignty. I don't particularly care to start a Crusade to scorch America with all the guilts of expansionism, but this attempt to place the blame on Mexico is equally ridiculous.

Might makes right?

The believers of Manifest Destiny don't exactly take that "realist" (ha!) position. They honestly believed they were expanding Freedom and Democracy for more. Of course, that's usually the idea of many colonialist powers...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Remember also the context of the time in which the war was fought. That was about five or six years before the Great Compromise of 1850. Slavery was everything to everyone, a burning issue that was threatening to tear America apart. I suspect the North would not take too well the inclusion of even more slave states--anything directly south of Texas had a chance to be considered such--considering the uproar that they gave against something like the Fugitive Slave law, and the political branches would not be so accommodating towards a potential expansion of "slave power."

Also, given the historically documented anti-catholicism attitudes of many (most?) US citizens of that era, the idea of adding so many Catholics -- enough to be an electoral majority in only 1 generation -- was deeply frightening. Their was a crowd that favored annexing all of Mexico, but they were pretty soundly out-voted.

Somebody mentioned the attempt by the USA to acquire Canada. Two significant attempts were made: early in our rebellion from England and the noted attempt during the conflict of 1812. Both efforts were half-arsed and rather soundly repulsed.

[lars573]

That was mostly because both times they expected the locals to want their "liberating" them. When that wasn't the case things went badly.

[Divinus Arma]

Who cares. It's ours now and we intend to keep it. So nya nya nya.

Did the U.S. have a right to rebel against the United Kingdom? Did Lincoln have a right to force member states to stay within the Union against the will of the southern people? Did the colonies have the right to enslave untold africans against their will, with the aid and encouragment of the British Empire? Do all ethnicities have a right to self-governance?

[Ice]

Who cares. It's ours now and we intend to keep it. So nya nya nya.

::rolls eyes::

Did Lincoln have a right to force member states to stay within the Union against the will of the southern people?

No.

Did the colonies have the right to enslave untold africans against their will, with the aid and encouragment of the British Empire?

No

Do all ethnicities have a right to self-governance?

No

[Justiciar]

To add.

Did the U.S. have a right to rebel against the United Kingdom?

No.

Patience pays off. America would have been given full autonamy eventually.. Granted you'd have had to put up with our aristocracy toffing around and ordering you to your deaths for a few more centuries - but that's just a minor detail!

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, Slave TRADE. The bulk of the slaves were rounded up by Africans who were more than happy to sell off their fellows for goods.

DA, how do you reconcide Christianity with your general attitude towards the rest of the world? Less love they fellow man than stamp on his face and sneer.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Generally, attacking first is regarded as starting the war.

So is violation of territorial sovereignty. I don't particularly care to start a Crusade to scorch America with all the guilts of expansionism, but this attempt to place the blame on Mexico is equally ridiculous.

There was no violation that is the problem with your statement. The Great Republic of Texas gained it's indepence from Mexico by sparing the life of the then leader of Mexican dictatorship. Santa Anna was an elected official first, then became the dictator of Mexico, that is one of the main cause of the Texas Revolution in the first place. Claiming that Texas still belonged to Mexico is exactly that a claim. It would be the same as the USA claiming the UK to be part of the Union. Would the UK's government then be a treasons gang of rebels. Becuase obviously if it works as you say it does, then any claim means that current government is in violation of territorial sovereignty. Claims though are truly just that claims, with no reality needed to back them up. The truth is, the fort was built on US soil and was invaded and attacked which is a clear declaration of war by Mexico to the US.

A few other things havent been mentioned, first of all US settlers were offered very good deals on land if they migrated west. They actively encouraged citizenship to the new settlers also. Another point is, during the Mexican American war the USA at the end of it not only payed for the territory but also alloted money for the hardships the Mexican citizens endured, and they were also payed for their land. While many were still forced to leave in some parts, the terms of their departure are about as kind as they get in wars.

The fact of the matter is war's happen and their results are often the increase in landsize of the victor and to the defeated a great loss in territory. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must.
___________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[rory_20_uk]

The fact of the matter is war's happen and their results are often the increase in landsize of the victor and to the defeated a great loss in territory. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must.

Realpolitik. The bigger thug gets what he wants at expense of the rest. We just dress them up in suits and get others to do the killing and call it diplomacy.

[Kralizec]

The key issue to me is the duration. If Texas had been annexed into the US months after their rebellion I could understand the Mexican reaction. However Texas stayed indepedent for 10 years during wich Mexico was never able to make good her claims or threats, and after wich Texas voluntarily was annexed into the USA.

[Strike For The South]

Who cares. It's ours now and we intend to keep it. So nya nya nya.

[Csargo]

Who cares. It's ours now and we intend to keep it. So nya nya nya.

What he said^^^^^^