Especially since there was a clear "misunderstanding" as to where the border between Mexico and Texas was located. Was this "Manifest Destiny" or just an excuse to seize Mexican lands?
2007-07-05 19:13:25 · 9 answers · asked by Help! 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
~Before it got reported and removed, I'd have voted for bcptm's answer. Eloquent, direct, to the point and accurate. So who got mad, the welfare folks, the wetbacks, the "christian" warmongers, the blind hubristic "patriots" or Greenpeace? I thought there was a little something for everyone there. Keep up the good work, bcptm, and may Goobleskeera watch over you.
However, when Uncle Sam rattles his sabre it is never a misunderstanding. Uncle often misunderstands the facts of life, the wisdom, legality, justice and feasiblity of an invasion (witness Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq), but the motives (kicking the snot out of an "inferior" foe) and actions are always well defined and understood.
2007-07-08 13:36:10 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Certainly by the standards of the times there was sufficient justification for the war although there were, in fact, many Americans who regarded the war as an unjustified land grab.
Their position however, was probably more motivated by the fear that the lands which were seized would wind up on the "wrong" side of slave state/ free state controversy.
While history is often written and misrepresented by the victors it often happens these days that history is re-written to elevate the losers for the purpose of denigrating the winner.
One should remember that (as I doubt you have ever been told) that Mexico made frequent bellicose threats over the issue of the accession of the Republic of Texas to the United States. Given Mexico's posturing it would have been easy to believe the worst about any border incidents. A nation that threatens war should not be surprised when the subject of its threats takes them at face value.
Further, there was no real misunderstanding of the Texas/Mexico border but only an attempt by the Mexicans to effect a partial reversal of the outcome of Texas' War of Independence. The Treaties of Velasco signed at Velasco, Texas, on 14 May 1836 by Antonio López de Santa Anna, Dictator of Mexico and Interim President David G. Burnet of the Republic of Texas defined the border as being on the Rio Grande.
One hates to bring up actual facts that don't fit the currently fashionable anti-American view but there they are.
2007-07-05 21:07:35 · answer #2 · answered by Rillifane 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree, far be it from anyone to let truth intervene in their quest for dishonoring and hating of America, but Santa Anna declared that if Texas ever joined the United States, it would be a de facto declaration of War, so there was no need for the "so-called" excuse to go to war with Mexico.
whale
2007-07-06 06:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by WilliamH10 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All wars are results of misunderstandings, and some parties are itching to misunderstand so that they can wage war!
I am not discussing specific issues since right or wrong, wars are a part of human history.
2007-07-05 19:22:28 · answer #4 · answered by Swamy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thinkyou recommend "exchange into" no longer "is", did no longer you study from President Clinton, what the excellent suited which potential of the interest "is" is? back to you question. which conflict with Mexico? we fought one respectable one in 1851, and we intervened for the time of one in each of there many fiasco civil wars in 1919, in view that raiders stored coming over the boarder and tearing issues up on the US facet. Gen Black Jack Pershiing, marched all the way into Mexico city, flags flying and truly mentioned "shop it on you facet of therio grande comprendo?!" and after that there the place not greater raids on US facet. Justified? specific, choose no documents for public historic information, and writing it in a three to 5 paragraph essay, does not make it greater bonefide or superb suited. data is data. And in case you the place attempting to foolishly recommend a conflict is at present occurring, thats purely idealistic lack of wisdom of lots greater desirable than what you permit directly to.
2016-10-01 00:13:48 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - -- -- it was clearly a land grab but to their credit America did give the Mexicans a few token dollars and they didn't seize the entire nation as certain Southerners wished imagining all of Mexico would be excellent for slave labor.
Joy ---------------
2007-07-05 20:36:56 · answer #6 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the misunderstanding WAS the justification for going to war. see, mexico said the border was north of the rio grande, America said it was the rio grande, you gotta settle misunderstandings somehow.
p.s. manifest destiny and an excuse to take land is the same thing, after all, most of America was stolen from the Indians, but hey we had guns and immunity to disease and they didn't so what can you do
2007-07-05 19:20:33 · answer #7 · answered by yo-han 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
an excuse the us purposely went into mexico territory and opened fire on mexice then retreated back and sent word to the president that mexico was attacking so then the president declared war. it was in the planning prior to this a us soldier sailed into california thinking that the us had already started war and won the territory he found out he was mistaken and had to apologize to the mexican government
2007-07-05 19:19:43 · answer #8 · answered by xoxo x 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It was a land grab, plain and simple.
2007-07-06 17:34:58 · answer #9 · answered by Thom Thumb 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋