The American/Mexican War- Was it Justified?

**Ice** · 09-30-2006, 18:18

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** · 09-30-2006, 18:28

Originally Posted by Ice

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** · 09-30-2006, 18:29

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** · 09-30-2006, 18:40

Originally Posted by 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. 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** · 09-30-2006, 18:46

Originally Posted by BigTex

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** · 09-30-2006, 18:52

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** · 09-30-2006, 19:08

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** · 09-30-2006, 19:35

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

**yesdachi** · 10-02-2006, 14:58

It starts when Mexico was originally a Spanish territory. 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.

Seems like Mexico had an issue from the very beginning with the US pioneers that were encouraged to move there by its previous “owners”.

Any discussion about it now is just academic and has no practical application because the only way Texas is going anywhere is if the people of Texas want to, and they don’t seem to want to very badly and if they did they definitely don’t want to be part of Mexico.

**Xiahou** · 10-02-2006, 17:14

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

What makes it "THE BETTER HALF"? Modern day Mexico has many natural resources.

As for Santa Anna he was President 11 times:
* May 16 1833 / Jun 1 1833
* Jun 18 1833 / Jul 5 1833
* Oct 28 1833 / Dec 4 1833
* Apr 24 1834 / Jan 27 1835
* Mar 18 1839 / Jul 9 1839
* Oct 9 1841 / Oct 25 1842
* Mar 5 1843 / Oct 3 1843
* Jun 4 1844 / Sep 11 1844
* Mar 21 1847 / Mar 31 1847
* May 20 1847 / Sep 15 1847
* Apr 20 1853 / Aug 9 1855
This includes numerous presidencies after he made his treaty with the Texans- during one of which, he tried and failed to recapture Texas which succeeded only in forcing Texas into the arms to the USA. It seems to me that the view of Santa Anna is quite duplicitous. He's elected president, tries to put down a rebellion in Texas, fails and grants Texas sovereignty- at which point he suddenly doesnt speak for Mexico. I'd wager if he had won they wouldnt have complained much. None the less, Mexico later (numerous times) brought Santa Anna back to power when they felt he was needed. It seems to me that he spoke for Mexico only when it was convenient.

His treaty with Texas was as legitimate as any and his subsequent attempt at reconquest forced Texas to join the US... after which point the US was within its rights to build forts to protect it.

**Major Robert Dump** · 10-02-2006, 17:24

Mexico was violating UN resolutions. Also, the spirit on the Incas manifested themsleves into Texans and brought revenge upon the Mexicans, which still explains why so many Texans smell like fried onions.