Is anyone familiar with the Mexican-American war of 1846 and willing to duscuss what happened there?

Question

It's not discussed in history books in enough detail but was a huge turning point in the development of North America. Are there any historians out there who are well versed on the topic? I'm a complete novice. Thanks.

Answer 1

Its really quite astonishing that pervasive anti-Americanism has gotten to the point where even Americans stand ready to condemn the USA in total disregard of the historical facts.

The fact is that Mexico had never reconciled itself to the loss of Texas brought about by the Texas War of Independence that was itself caused by the coup staged by General Santa Anna that abrogated the Mexican constitution and caused revolutionary outbreaks all over Mexico.

It was only in Texas that the rebels won and the Republic of Texas came into being.

The treaty ending the Texas Revolution and creating the Republic was disavowed by the Mexican government and a campaign launched to regain the territory, which included modern day Texas along with all or part of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

To this end the Mexican government repeatedly violated the borders of the Texas Republic and numerous armed clashes occurred between the Mexican Army and the miniscule armed forces of the fledgling nation. Luckily for Texas even when Texas were outnumbered by several hundred to one they beat back these Mexican attacks.

Fearing that Texas would join the United States the Mexican government repeatedly threatened war against the USA if such an event would take place.

When the USA did agree to allow Texas to join the Union the Mexican government escalated its threats and sent troops across the Rio Grande into Texas and therefore into what was now American territory.

The response of the United States was not reluctant but nonetheless fully justified under prevailing standards of international law. They declared war.

The United States was under no obligation, either legal or moral, to tolerate incursions into its territory or to meekly accede to Mexican demands.

That the Mexicans had made demands and threats and acted aggressively against a country they could not defeat on the field of battle is not a matter of any evil act on the part of the United States but of hubris and stupidity on the part of Mexico for which they paid a price.

Yes, it is true that many Americans felt it was their county's "Manifest Destiny" to rule the continent from one ocean to the other. That does not change the fact that it was the Mexican government that took the actions which provided a rationale for the Manifest Destiny crowd to act on their beliefs.

Perhaps the war might have come under any circumstances but it actually did happen due to a particular set of historical facts that should not be ignored or dismissed.

Answer 2

They started the war by refusing to correctly known the Rio Grande because of the fact the real border with Texas (inspect the river they used, the Nueces--it does not supply a properly defined border the way the Rio Grande does. Then, they lost the war, and contained in the negotiations, ceded some territory and purchased some greater, for a stable fee. The words could have been plenty harsher. Mexico needs to apply its super supplies to create jobs and wealth, quite of exporting its damaging as unlawful extraterrestrial beings. It has the flair to be stable county, quite of the shi*hollow it incredibly is.

Answer 3

I look at the war from the perspective of one who is a student of geopolitics.

It is true that the war was blatant aggression on the part of the US. However, it might be thought a geopolitical imperative for the US to be the dominant nation on the North American continent. Canada was/is not a threat in that regard since its population is so small. Not so with Mexico. And Mexico was a failed state then (and perhaps now). Remember that less than 20 years after the war's end France occupied Mexico with British support. Could a smaller, less powerful nation like the US afford to have them as our neighbors, especially with Britain controlling Canada to the north? This is perhaps analogous to England expanding at the cost of its neighbors (Scotland, Wales, Ireland) to be the dominant power in the British Isles.

Nation-states don't have the same moral imperative as individuals. They play in a much more ruthless game and act to protect their interests as they define it. This is why the US sought control of Alaska, Hawaii and later the Phillipines. Not nice, perhaps, but necessary.

Answer 4

It was a pretty blatant land grab by the US, disguised (as these things so often are) as an effort to protect the American settlers in the area. The vast deposits of gold and silver found shortly afterward in Califonia, Nevada and Colorado, all formerly part of Mexico, was just salt in the wound. At the time, some Americans, including prominent people in the government, were saying it was the destiny of the US to take over the enitre western hemisphere. Now that's nerve!

Answer 5

The US gained a lot more territory from winning that war.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000, half the amount of money that the U.S. had attempted to offer in return for the Mexican provinces of Nuevo México and Alta California three years earlier.

Answer 6

while I LOATH Wikipedia, I'll offer the below cut and paste as a place to start:


"Gone for Soldiers is a 2000 historical novel by Jeffrey Shaara about the Mexican-American War. It was written as a stand-alone novel, but could also be seen as a prequel to the Civil War trilogy written by Shaara and his father, Michael Shaara, introducing some of the key protagonists in the campaigns that first won them fame. The action begins with the Battle of Vera Cruz and follows Scott and his army as they march toward Mexico City, including the Battle of Cerro Gordo and culminating in the Battle of Chapultepec and the fall of Mexico City.

Most of the story is told from the perspective of two men, Winfield Scott, commander of the American forces, and Robert E. Lee, who rose to prominence in the war, though some chapters also introduce the perspectives of other characters as well, notably Mexican leader Antonio López de Santa Anna, James Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, and Ulysses S. Grant. It is critical of certain American commanders, including William J. Worth, Gideon Pillow, and David E. Twiggs, portraying them as mostly incompetent soldiers, who were little more than political appointees, while the true heroes were the lower-ranking graduates of the United States Military Academy. This idealistic portrayal of the younger officers as they rose to prominence gives little indication that with just a few years they would meet again on the battlefield in the Civil War."

from Wikipedia on Jeff Shaara, who writes fair.....not great...historical fiction

Answer 7

I wrote a 35 page paper on James Knox Polk. He was following popular sentiment that America had a Manifest Destiny to take whatever land it wanted so we had a "right" to invade Mexico. Then we gave Mexico money for the Gadsen purchase. It added a lot of land to the United States and when the gold rush occured, allowed the US to develop rapidly.

Answer 8

Well I don't know exactly why it started but I do know that California down to like Arizona was won in the war. Mexico now (or at least some yahoos) demand those states back claiming that the U.S. stole them from Mexico. But my stance is all's fair with love and war. Losing territories happens in war; if you didn't want to lose territories you shouldn't have gone to war.

Answer 9

I know some about it and am willing to discuss.