Due By Tuesday 2/15 @ 11:59
Please agree or disagree with the following statement:
"The United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues"
*You must provide specific examples and support from Zinn (cite page numbers).Also, feel free to use other resources as well (textbook, previous video clips, etc.) to support your argument.
*To receive full credit thoughtfully and succinctly respond to a least one classmates response
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues. First, when Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexicans received New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, and some of Colorado. Around this time, some Americans saw America as a land to exploit. For example, they saw an opportunity to settle in one area and become wealthy. Some just wanted to explore or start businesses. As written, on page 154 of Zinn, the Americans “[longed] for the beautiful lands of New Mexico and California.” They thought about the resources in the area. By wanting land, there came big issues about slavery and land.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, when Andrew Jackson became president, he did not care much about the Indians as he did about land. This involved greed. This was a major issue as people believed that California belonged in the Americans and there should be war for it. In 1845, John O’ Sullivan wrote about Manifest Destiny and how the Americans should spread across the whole continent (151, Zinn). This was written in the “Democratic Review”. As written on page 169 of Zinn, it states that when the war veterans went home, people eagerly bought land warrants from the government. Other people, such as those who wrote the “American Review”, saw that the Americans should “[exterminate] her weaker blood” (155, Zinn). In this case, they were taking about the Mexicans. In addition to taking the lands, they thought it was their “‘destiny to civilize that beautiful country.’” Others were against the war. For example, Reverend Theodore Park, a Unitarian minister in Boston actively resisted in the war in 1847. He saw that the Americans should expand their lands, but not through war (157, Zinn).
In addition, the United States provoked a war with Mexico over major issues: slavery. For example, there were once disputes about whether Missouri should become a slave state or not. The people who were for slavery were afraid that Missouri would become a free state. They did not want slavery to be abolished. As for the war with Mexico, it was very similar in that a lot of antislavery congressmen were against the war because they did not want to “[extend] the southern slave territory.” For example, a speaker named Joshua Giddings thought the war would be unfair. The American Anti-Slavery society believed that the US wanted a war with Mexico to just “‘[perpetuate] American slavery throughout the vast territory of Mexico.’” They saw that they should not support the slaveholders in the war. If the US won the war from Mexico, there would be more slave territory in the south. Some people had meetings about not helping the slave owners win more land. This soon led to tensions between the North and South through the Civil War.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the American Anti-Slavery Society information is written on page 155 of Zinn.
ReplyDeleteThe war with Mexico was not based on major issues, the United States was, at this time, preoccupied with expansion, therefore, at the time it seemed clear that sparking a war was a reasonable price to pay to add California to the US, but in the long run, it was a small territory. There were other reasons for war, of course, like the disputes between Texas’ border and the growing issue of slavery in the US, but long term, the war was a major decision for something that could have been negotiated without conflict.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time before war broke out, Manifest Destiny swept through the US; the ideas of the US taking up the entire continent and gaining more and more land was intoxicating. James Polk ordered General Taylor to settle the border dispute in Texas, although the border had already been recognized by both the US and Mexico as the Nueces River, Polk wanted to extend it to the Rio Grande (pg 150). This was an unnecessary provocation of war – the border had already been decided, so sending troops to the site was simply a ploy to gain more land. A newspaper reported that the troops would “invade, overrun, and occupy Mexico they would enable us not only to take California, but to keep it” (pg 151). Then, to top it all off, American Colonel Cross was killed, providing the spark to “begin the war that Polk wanted” (pg 151). Polk caused the war in order to expand the US, causing the loss of life for a relatively small territory. He was overcome with Manifest Destiny, more preoccupied with expansion than the war he caused.
The issues that caused the war with Mexico were relatively minor – land disputes and territories that could have been peacefully negotiated were used as a source of conflict to spark a war that was really a major decision over minor problems. The war did expand the US, which was good, but the issues that sparked the war were minor details in the history of the US.
In response to Kristina:
Kristina makes a good point about how slavery was a problem to the war: the free states didn’t want to upset the balance and by extending the US there could be more slave states and less free states. Another good point is how this affected the tensions between North and South, providing more and more reason for the Civil War.
The United States has long since wanted a war with Mexico with a variety of reasons. Seeking to provoke such as war, the United States found a very small dispute and turned it into big cause for war.
ReplyDeleteFor a long while, the United States wanted to fight with Mexico. This was primarily due to the desire to gain California (pg. 154). This demonstrated primarily by the American belief in Manifest Destiny. Thus California was needed to achieve it as this would grant access to the Pacific Ocean. The fact that Americans believed they were superior to the Mexicans gave them the moral justification to fight. Newspaper even outright printed that due to Mexican's "weaker blood" (pg. 155) America can and will easily crush Mexico. As a result, the stage was set for a conflict between the two countries.
The trigger for the conflict was General Taylor's marching of troops into a disputed area. For many years, both Mexico and U.S.A. recognized the border at Nueces River (pg. 150). However, Texans believed the border to be at the Rio Grande River. Using this as an excuse, U.S. troops was marched all the way to the Rio Grande, expelling Mexicans the whole way. The Mexicans seeing this as an invasion attempted to expel the U.S. troops. This was then interpreted as an attack by President Polk and the war started. This led to the crushing defeat of Mexico and the death of many soldiers and civilians.
While Kristina was right in specifically stating the background reasons of the war, however that wasn't what actually sparked the war. The U.S. actually choose a very small issue of a border dispute to spark a war. Needless to say, if the border dispute was the real issue, diplomacy could have easily been attempted. However, Polk used it as an excuse to declare war on Mexico
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both Emily and Huawei, they made a great point about Manifest Destiny. People did believe that by getting California, they would have access to the Pacific Ocean. From reading Emily’s first paragraph, I also agree that there were other reasons that caused the war with Mexico such as the disputes with the Texas border. However, I did not see that it was a small territory that the Americans fought for. It was not just California that was being added to the United States, but states like New Mexico, Arizona, and along with a couple of others. This made up a huge chunk of land. In addition, while reading the American Pageant, it states on page 385 that America was increasing about one third of its size and that its “increase is greater than that of the Louisiana Purchase.”
ReplyDeleteI do think America provoked a war with Mexico over minor issues. America has always wanted more and more land. Many Americans have always disrespected the Mexican culture and therefore chose to push the boundary line as far as possible to Americas advantage.
ReplyDeleteOn page 149 in Zinn, it says that even though the Mexicans had taken the first shot, they had done exactly what America had wanted them to do. In resoponse to Kristina's comment, i can see why she believes that America did not start the war over little details, but agreeing with Huawei America started this huge war over just a little insignificant battle.
I completely disagree with the statement that the United States didn’t provoke a war over minor issues. Polk actually forced a war over a simple border dispute; this could have easily been solved diplomatically. But Polk wanted to claim western land, mainly California (pg.154). Since the Mexicans were weak after a civil war, the land was ripe for the taking.
ReplyDeleteThe war was triggered after Polk sent General Taylor to defend the Rio Grand River (pg 148). But traditionally the border between Mexico and Texas was the Nueces River, and was recognized by both the United States and Mexico. But Polk wanted to annex Texas so he assured them their claim to the Rio Grande (pg 149). As a result, Mexicans saw Taylors march into their land as an act of hostility. They therefore responded by retaliating against the American army thus starting the Mexican American war (pg. 150).
In response to Emily:
I agree that Manifest Destiny was one of driving factors behind this whole war. Polk sought to expand American territory, so he went through all means to get it. But this idea also blinded Polk from seeing a much simpler solution to his land hunger. As America approached France for New Orleans, Polk should have approached Mexico peacefully asking if they were willing to sell some land.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do think that America provoked a war over minor issues. As always, it was a land issue—more specifically a border dispute. President Polk was unhappy with just the purchase of Texas, he wanted California too: “A corps of properly organized volunteers would…enable us to not only take California, but keep it.” Polk and the Democratic Party called it their “manifest destiny.” (Zinn 151) And even though Mexicans had fired the first shot, it was the Americans who initiated the war. Colonel Hitchcock wrote in his diary: “it looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war.” (Zinn 151)
ReplyDeleteThe Anti-Slavery Society also saw the war as “waged solely on…the purpose of extending…American slavery throughout…Mexico.” (Zinn 155) They weren’t the only ones. Quite a few people saw the war needless. Even after the war measure passed, there was much resistance to it, as many people regarded it wrong. Of course, they were unopposed to more land, but they believed that a war was unnecessary to achieve California. The American Peace Society published the Advocate of Peace with sermons against the war and many used Garrison’s Liberator to get their point across. (Zinn 157) When the war actually began, New York working men called a meeting to oppose the war, to which many immigrants came, and later on the New England Workingmen’s Association condemned the war.
The war itself wasn’t even fueled by patriotism—what a legitimate war for legitimate reasons would be fueled by. Instead, it was simply a collection of volunteers (including immigrants) lured by money and opportunity for social advancement. Many of them even switched over to the Mexican side when offered more money. (Zinn 160) Clearly, the soldiers did not believe there was a real cause for the war—and there wasn’t. It was plain greed which caused over 500 Mexicans to die and for America to pay Mexico $15 million for 2 future states and a new boundary on the Rio Grande (which could have been done without the war.) (Zinn 169)
I agree with Emily's post. The border disputes could have easily been negotiated without the war, and even though America got more land out of it, they went to unnecessary measures in order to obtain it. On a tangent, I also find it ironic how even though they fought the war, they ended up having to pay Mexico for the territory.
ReplyDeleteThe war for the Texas territory was formed from minor conflicts and America's desire to expand, which can be seen as necessary or trifling. President James Polk's greed for land was the major cause of the war, using the term "Manifest Destiny" to justify his war.
ReplyDeleteManifest Destiny was a term that was on the mind of many Americans in the 1840's. The theory of Manifest Destiny said that America was destined to expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean that was found by Lewis and Clark at the dawn of the century. When Polk ordered General Taylor to claim the Rio Grande river as the border between the US and Mexico, despite it already being settled at the Nueces River (Zinn 150), Americans justified it with this need to expand. Another American General, Jesse Cross was killed in the disputed territories, which only further motivated the US for war (Zinn 151).
The introduction of Manifest Destiny along with the death of an American General, despite being minor in the long run, was enough to begin a war that would result in many deaths. The greed for land in a quickly expanding America played a major role in mid 19th century politics.
Kristina argues that the war for Mexico was mostly about slavery, and while the issue of whether or not the territory would allow slaves once admitted into the US, it was not a major concern leading up to and during the war.
I disagree with the statement "The United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues"
ReplyDeleteThe United States always wanted the Mexican Territory. James K.Polk was an expansionist, who, on the night of his inauguration, talked to his secretary of the Navy that one of his objectives was the acquisition of California (Zinn pg 150). His order to General Taylor to move troops to the Rio Grande was a challenge to the Mexicans. It was not at all clear that the Rio Grande was the southern boundary of Texas, although Texas had forced the defeated Mexican general Santa Anna to say so when he was a prisoner. (Zinn pg 150) Polk wanted the Texans to accept annexation because that will open up their claim to the border along the Rio Grande. (Zinn pg 150)
Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans was clearly a provaction. (Zinn pg 150). It was shortly after that, in the summer of 1845, that John O'Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review, used the phrase that became famous, saying it was "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent alloted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." Yes, manifest destiny. (Zinn pg 151)
All that was needed in the spring of 1846 was a military incident to begin the war that Polk wanted. It came in April, when General Taylor's quartermaster, Colonel Cross, while riding up the Rio Grande, disappeared. His body was found dead. The next day, a patrol of Taylor's soldiers was surrounded and attacked by Mexicans, and wiped out: sixteen dead, others wounded, the rest captured. Taylor sent a message to the governors of Texas and Louisiana asking them to recruit five thousand volunteers; he had been authorized to do this by the White House before he left for Texas. And he dispatched a message to Polk: "Hostilities may now be considered as comemmenced." (Zinn pg 151)
The mexicans had fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted, according to Colonel Hitchcock, who wrote in his diary, even before those first incidents:
I have said from the first that the United States are aggressors. we have not one particle of right to be here. It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses, for, whatever becomes of this army, there is no doubt of a war between the United States and Mexico. My heart is not in this business, but as military man, I am bound to execute orders." (Zinn page 151)
I agree with Ryan Martin. He talked well about how the United States planned to get the Mexican territory. I thought he summed up basically what President Polk wanted to do all this time. I thought he hit all the main points and described what Taylor did to provoke the Mexicans.
The United States provoked a war with Mexico over minor issues, but major amounts of land. The war was fought for no other reason than for more land and to satisfy the nation’s “manifest destiny”. Mexico had stayed out of the disputed area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. It was James Polk that provoked the war. America had not been agitated by Mexico and no issues were going on between them. Mexico did nothing to irk America except simply exist.
ReplyDeletePage 150 of Zinn says that James Polk’s orders to General Taylor “was a challenge to the Mexicans” and “clearly a provocation”. Some historians may argue that Polk did not know that Mexico would view this as an act of aggression, but the troops were sent out with no goal. They were moved in the area between the Nueces and Rio Grande and ordered to simply wait. Taylor’s army was not setting out to settle a dispute or solve anything, but to take Mexican land. If the country had been on board with James Polk’s desire to expand, not having Mexican land the country wanted would have been an issue at least for them. However, this was not the case.
On May 9, 1846 James Polk made a small speech to the cabinet suggesting a declaration of war and wrote it in his diary afterwards. He wrote, “I could remain silent no longer… the country was excited and impatient on the subject.” (pg. 152, Zinn) Expansion was a hot button issue during these times but the dragged on arguments and somewhat 50/50 split on the issue showed that, even among the most expansion-loving, they were capable of waiting.
I disagree with Kristina Mai's opinion that one of the issues that led to the war was slavery. Whether or not slavery would be allowed in new expanded areas was a major issue, but not really tangible until the war was fought and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed. I do agree with her, however, that some people did oppose the war because they did not want to give slave-owners more land. However, this did not cause the war, it was only a reason people opposed it. Slave-owners and slave-owners-to-be wanted to expand to gain more money from the production of cotton and other crops, but this still falls into an issue with greed and not an issue with slavery. The only "issue" that caused the war was America's issue with greed and desire for land.
The United States' war with Mexico was waged on the basis of President James K. Polk's desire to gain vast tracts of land for the United States. In the scope of world politics, this is indeed a minor issue. In the years following the War of 1812 and the Louisiana Purchase, a wave of fervent nationalism swept the nation as the American population flooded westward. Thus began the American tradition of westward expansion, which was one of Polk's key motivators in making his Texas and California decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe dispute between the United States and Mexico stemmed largely from the United States' disregard for the Mexicans' traditional Texas-Mexico border at the Nueces River. For Mexico, "The traditional border between Texas and Mexico had been the Nueces River, about 150 miles to the north [of the Rio Grande] and both Mexico and the United States recognized that as the border." (Zinn 150) Before the war, the United States had agreed to the border between Texas and Mexico at the Nueces River. However, "Polk, encouraging the Texans to accept annexation, had assured them that he would uphold their claims to the Rio Grande." (Zinn 150) Thus, Polk ordered troops to the Rio Grande, and the hostilities commenced from there. The American combat with Mexico was not borne out of a serious dispute, but a border conflict staged by President Polk in order to win the favor of his Texans and possibly gain new territory. Indeed, the gains that Polk caused so much trouble over only consisted of a downright tiny 150 mile difference; simply a continuance of the Jacksonian cycle of land conquest. In Jackson's presidency, the territorial dispute was with the Indians, in Polk's administration, the dispute was with Mexico.
The United States provoked a war with Mexico over minor issues; Polk's main fighting point was a 150 mile difference in territory between the Rio Grande and Nueces River. The war with Mexico was simply a continuance of the tradition of Manifest Destiny as established by previous Presidents such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.
Dasha raises a valid point, that the war was raised over minor issues and was met with a dismal show of support. The war was fought by immigrants and volunteers; it lacked the sense of rousing nationalism that accompanied the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. Instead of simply paying for land from Mexico, Polk staged a violent war by craftily testing the boundaries of Mexico.
Though on the surface, the Mexican War appeared nothing more than a border dispute spun wildly out of control, the underlying causes and political motivations for declaring war prove that this statement is true, the United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues.
ReplyDeleteJames K. Polk believed in manifest destiny. He bought into the idea that it was his duty, his calling to expand America "from sea to shining sea". When Texas declared it's independence from Mexican rule, Polk saw it as a shining opportunity to further the expansion of America. Though the Texas-Mexico border was recognized as the Nueces River, Polk launched a full scale attack on Mexico to extend the border a measly 150 miles south to the Rio Grande (Zinn 159). This seems like an exceedingly minor issue that very easily could have been solved diplomatically, but Polk did not just declare war to sort out a border dispute; his goal was to annex Texas as a territory of the United States, the only way to ensure their cooperation was war.
The question of whether or not 26 thousand miles of land would become 26 thousand miles of American land was the main, major issue surrounding the Mexican War.
Emily brings up the idea that the war could have been easily avoided, had we solved things diplomatically. Though this is true, the peaceful acquisition of land was not part of Polk's plan. Polk desired Texas and even California, two territories that would have cost him millions to gain diplomatically. He saw the opportunity to extend American borders, and took it regardless of the cost of human lives.
United States was separated in whether or not they should go to war with Mexico, but one thing was for sure, almost everyone was ready to travel to the west and fulfill their manifest destiny. Though there may have been major issues underlying the war with Mexico, United States definitely went to war because of minor issues. Mexico may have fired the first shots and committed the first fatalities, but as stated by Colonel Hitchcock, “United States are the aggressors… We have not one particle of right to be here… It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses.” (p151) This quote shows how even military men who worked as patriots for the United States saw how there was no real reason to go to war, even if we wanted land, but because President Polk saw a chance to take hold of the California area, he sent troops to sacrifice themselves so that it would look as if the Mexicans had attacked innocent American troops, even though they were on disputed lands that were already settled by Mexicans.
ReplyDeleteThough Polk pushed for war, Congress has to declare war before the US goes to war. The Whig party, which opposed the war, but didn’t want to be known as the party that put American soldiers at risk by denying them resources, sided with the Democrats and overwhelmingly voted for a war. Along with the grab for western lands and manifest destiny, some Americans had the sense that they were superior. They had already enslaved the blacks, so they also felt that they were racially superior. Some Americans felt that America should expand by ideas and that we would better Mexico with our superior thinking and we would make the country wiser, humane, more free and manly (p157). The war with Mexico built up with feelings of major issues at hand such as expansion to the west and manifest destiny, but the sparks that ignited the war were minor and were blown up unproportionately to start the war that would cost American and Mexican deaths.
Before in the blog, Sam talks about how Polk started the war to gain the territories of California and Texas, the ideas that had started after the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. This is true because before the Louisiana Purchase, the Americans had not directly dared to travel deep into the western lands because it was French territory inhabited by the French and Indian allies. After the sale, the Americans were able to coax the Indians into signing treaties, or in the cases such as the Shawnee and Tecumseh, they fought the Indians to get them to get off the lands and give them the lands. After the purchase, manifest destiny started to sink in to the minds of the Americans (p150) and even Polk stated to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main goals was to acquire California. With this mindset, Polk and the United States set out to acquire the Mexican lands, no matter the costs.
The Mexican-American War was not prompted for anything but "manifest destiny" and the expansionist ideologies of President James Polk. There was no challenge by the Mexicans -- they did not want to encroach upon the territory of the Americans. However, Americans did not feel this way about the Mexican territory. The United States challenged the Mexicans over the border, and then claimed that Mexico provoked the war; thus, the Mexican-American war sprouted from a minor issue between the Mexicans and Americans.
ReplyDeleteOn the night of James Polk's inauguration, he had already decided to take California from the Mexicans (Zinn 150). Actually, it was his main goal during his presidency. Acquiring California would lead Americans to even more economic prosperity. Because of this predisposition on Polk's part, he provoked a war with Mexico for little reason. Mexicans were not threatening lives of Americans until American soldiers moved to the Nueces River -- the unclear boundary between Mexico and the United States – and then causing the Mexicans to desert their homes. However, Americans clearly challenged the Mexicans by setting up a fort on their side of the river. This fort was also supplied with cannons (Zinn 150).
In response, the Mexicans attacked General Taylor's army on April 25. This event was all Polk needed to declare a war on the Mexicans, despite the fact that Americans had wanted the war. Colonel Hitchcock wrote before the war that the United States had no right to be in Mexico -- the Mexicans had done nothing to them before American's provocations -- and that Americans sent an army for the purpose of starting a war (Zinn 151).
However, the fact that the United States had lured the Mexicans into a war was ignored by Polk. Simply put, the Americans focused on Mexico attacking their soldiers out of defense because "Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans" (Zinn 152). There was no reason for the Mexican-American war, other than selfish American expansionism and "manifest destiny" -- the belief that Americans were to own the land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean for economic benefit. This belief supposedly justified the Mexican-American war for the Democratic Party. Still, none of this had to do with Mexico -- other than that they owned land that the United States lusted after.
Kristina does illustrate a good point by saying that the United States started a war with Mexico over the major issue of slavery. Still, slavery was more of an internal issue than an external one, and the war was started because of Mexicans firing at Americans during a territory dispute. This could have been solved diplomatically, as Ryan said. The slavery issue, although a large issue in the United States, did not directly provoke the war with Mexico like the border dispute did.
Although the accumulation of land seemed like a valid point when expanding westward and eventually the reason for entering war with Mexico, but in the large scheme of a newly adopted nation the importance of land accumulation was low compared to that of regulating the economic system or other more crucial aspects of a new nation.
ReplyDeleteThe more ironic concept of the time was the overwhelming support of James K. Polk for expansionism and ultimately he was the main initiator in the war against Mexico. At the time not many Americans were fully committed to the war efforts, but Polk enacted the first move by forcing American lines towards the Rio Grande River. Because the traditional border was the Nueces River the encroachment of the American militia was a challenge to the Mexican government. General Taylor had once even denounced the annexation of Texas but was forced it create the first provocation in the war against Mexico. Even General Hancock mentions that Polk lost all regard for Mexican rights and the motivation behind the encroachment was the possible addition of California to the United States. Although Polk was the main instigator in the war and the goal of acquiring more land, the press assisted his position which also spread to the common people. (Page 150)
Although the Mexicans had fired the first shot, ultimately Polk and the United States were the main instigators. Even American Generals believed that America had no right to be on Mexican soil but regardless of their own views, the generals were forced under executive orders. (Page 151) Before the Mexicans had fired the first shot however, Polk had begun to scheme the idea of a declaration of war with Congress. Polk’s main argument was the Mexican’s rejection of the negotiator, John Sidell but once the shot had been fired almost all of Congress had agreed with the idea of war. Polk had claimed the nation was “excited and impatient” to go to war but in reality the necessity to go to war was very low when comparing the desire of independence during the Revolutionary War. False rumors circulated about Mexicans shedding American blood when in reality American troops had encroached on Mexico’s land and invaded their own nation. (Page 152)
The arguments presented for the continuation of war with Mexico was to gain land and continue the American’s Manifest Destiny but also to “civilize” Mexico. (Page 155) Churches were either outspokenly for the war or timidly silent and transcendentalists like Thoreau and Emerson gravely opposed the idea of war and preferred a peaceful aversion to war. (Page 156)
America had many reasons and possibilities for going to war with Mexico but the most important thing to understand is the war was a way to gain more land but did not really possess a motive more important other than expansion. The matter of going into war was a minor issue on the new nation’s plate.
Sam makes a worthy assertion when regarding that Polk was more concerned in acquiring the California and Texas territories but when looking at the conclusion of the war. Polk ended up paying 15 million for the New Mexico, California and Texas. So ultimately Polk was paying either diplomatically without lives lost but instead went to war, lost lives and supplies while ending with a concluding payment of 15 million to Mexico.
The Mexican-American War was fought for foolish reasons that could have been settled through a simple treaty or organized discussion. The war was fought purely because President James Polk wanted more land and was willing to use force to obtain it. The lives lost and money spent on this war was unnecessary and based off of simple disputes.
ReplyDeleteThe incident that officially started the war was based solely on presumption that Mexican guerrillas killed Colonel Cross, when in reality, we never will truly know who it was that killed him. (Zinn, 149) America needed a reason to go to war, and however small or petty this incident was, it was enough to cause two nations to declare war.
The reasons and disputes between Mexico and the United States were not sufficient enough to declare war. What could have been a simple treaty, turned into a full fledged war.
I agree with Emily Weissgerber in arguing that the land acquired from the Mexican-American War was relatively small compared to what the country was risking by entering the war. The nation could have handled the dispute in safer, easier ways rather then initiating a history of tension between the United States and Mexico over land that was not absolutely vital to the success of the country.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the statement “The United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues.” The United States used simple and minor reasons to go to war with Mexico, for example wanting other territories that were in Mexico like California. Instead of using peaceful means to take over California, Polk decided to invade, and to overrun Mexico, as well as taking over it in the process. (Zinn pg 151) Although some opposed the war, many others were with it. Poet Walt Whitman wrote that although America is “not forward for a quarrel” America is still capable of ruining and crushing others and also is able to expand the country. (Zinn 154) This shows that the US had no major issues with Mexico. Instead they wanted to prove themselves, and wanted to expand the US. They thought that attaining the lands of New Mexico, and California would allow the US to expand. (Zinn pg 154)
ReplyDeleteThe dispute over the Texas border was also taken by US as a perfectly justified reason to go to war with Mexico. Polk sent General Taylor and his troops to Rio Grande to provoke Mexico (Zinn pg150), and with satisfaction got a response from Mexico. (Zinn pg152)
I agree with Kristina in that many saw opportunities in expanding the territory of the US. I also think that another reason to expand was greed. People wanted to show others that they could expand their territory, and that they were capable of taking California, and New Mexico from Mexico.
Looking back on some of the reason why the war started i disagree with it.several reason why they claim the war was started was because of dispute over Texas border but also the current president of the united states wanted the territory of California and land east of it to Texas.
ReplyDeletethe president of the united states at the time was looking for on thing and that was Texas and California to become part of the union. America did not start the war because of huge issue like Mexico was invading America it was out of its own greed and the wanting to push west part of its so called manifest destiny. on page 150 of zinn it confirms how the U.S. started to antagonize Mexico by crossing the established border at the nueces river. zinn says, "The traditional border between Texas and Mexico had been the Nueces River, about 150 miles to the north, and both Mexico and the United States had recognized that as the border. However, Polk, encouraging the Texans to accept annexation, had assured them he would uphold their claims to the Rio Grande. Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation." As you can see the border dispute before was no issue and they were getting a long somewhat well. another example is Polk's agenda as president on page 379 of American pageant says, " third and fourth points on Polk's 'must list" were the acquisitions of California...." even on Polk's agenda was showing his petty things of expansion.
In response to freese's i agree with her. She makes a great point how we had no idea who shot the colonel. in reality it was just an excuse fro us to attack Mexico to gain the territories that it had possessed. Plus we could have made a treaty with hem and down a more civilized way then with war.
I also disagree with the statement: "The United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues." Just like many other students that wrote, the Mexican War was a dispute over land and borders. On page 150 of Zinn, James Polk was a Democrat and an expansionist. During the night of his inauguration he told his Secretary of Navy, one of his main intention was the possession of California. Both Mexico and the United States accepted the Nueces River as the border. Polk, however, persuaded the Texans to accept annexation and told the people he would uphold their claims to the Rio Grande. (Zinn pg. 150) The war did not break out only because of land disputes but also on money claims. Polk suggested to his cabinet a declaration of war, based on certain money claims against Mexico. (Zinn pg. 152) When the dispatches arrived from General Taylor telling of casualties from the Mexican attack, Polk summoned the cabinet to hear the news and they agreed he should ask for a declaration of war. (Zinn pg. 152)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily that major decisions were made over minor problems. Also, on agreeing with other people mentioning the Manifest Destiny. Many people believed that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent to the Pacific Ocean. Wanting California was one of the reasons for the Mexican War.
As America grew as a nation, so did its need for land. With the country growing in population and in curiosity, west was the direction many people were headed and would do almost anything to get there, even start a war with Mexico. The causes of the Mexican War would be seen today as minor issues, but back then, land was a valuable part of gaining prosperity in the U.S. and was seen as a major issue.
ReplyDeleteAfter the annexation of Texas, America's people were split when deciding what to do next. The Democrats, including President James K. Polk, believed in Manifest Destiny and wanted to expand the U.S. Territory all the way to the West coast. But the Whigs in the North and South, who also opposed slavery, wanted their nation to be based more on industrialization, so they did not care as much about gaining land. In order for Manifest Destiny to follow through, the Americans had to get past the Mexicans, but they knew they wouldn't get anywhere without declaring war on the Mexicans. So, Polk found an excuse to declare war. After a U.S. colonel had disappeared, Polk blamed the Mexican guerillas for murdering the colonel. (Zinn 151) This began the stream of small incidents that started the tremendous Mexican War. Skirmishes began between the Mexicans and Americans, officially starting the war. (Zinn 151)
Even though land was an important part of prosperity in the U.S. in the 1800s, the fact that Polk declared war on Mexico for one small incident leads to the fact that the war was provoked by minor issues. Expansion west was not extremely necessary for the U.S. and did not call for a war with Mexico to gain it.
To reply to this you need to answer the question of whether or not expansion is a minor or major issue. Expansion was turned into a major issue. “Manifest destiny to overspread the continent” (Zinn 151) was what pushed the United States to head westward. All the country needed was a trigger to take land from an innocent country.
ReplyDeleteIn April of 1846, the trigger came. Colonel Cross was killed while riding on the Rio Grande and The US automatically accused Mexican guerillas. As the war started and went on, others had different opinions on the war. The Liberator called it a war of “aggression, of invasion, of conquest”. (Zinn 157) The war was seen as a war to get land not to protect the country. In some cases Americans even wanted General Scott and his troops to fail in order to see their faults. They wished no harm to them but they wanted the government to learn their lesson and see that this was over a minor issue made a priority.(Zinn 157)
The US used manifest destiny, their lust for more land and westward expansion to excuse a war that wasn’t needed. And to make it even worse it was even the opinion of the whole country to force this war onto the Mexicans. The war was over minor issues disguised as a major issue of a trigger of an assumed murder.
I agree with Rachel Lahr when she said that expansion was not completely necessary for the United States. Polk did declare war over a very minor issue and the war with Mexico was completely unneeded.
Ashu makes a valid point when he states that even the U.S. soldiers did not see a major reason to go to war with Mexico. Polk used any excuse he could find to declare war on Mexico. After a U.S. colonel went missing, he blamed the Mexicans for killing him, raising tensions between the U.S. and Mexico and giving Polk a good reason to start a war. Whether the Mexicans killed the colonel or not, it was not necessary to declare war over the loss of one soldier, especially when the U.S. had bigger issues to worry about in its existing territories, like the debate over slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican-American war was provoked by Americans over large issues.
ReplyDeleteThe year was 1845, and Manifest Destiny James Polk was in the White House. James Polk wanted nothing more than the entire continent of North America. But there was one problem, a good portion of the territory was taken up by Mexicans. So Polk decided to send troops into Texas to provoke the Mexicans into war. Polk ordered General Taylor down the Rio Grande.
This was significant because one of the disputes that started the Mexican- American war was the border between Texas and Mexico. "It was not at all clear that the Rio Grande was the southern boundary of Texas, although Texas had forced the defeated Mexican General Santa Anna to say so when he was a prisoner". And Polk knew this. He also knew that if he provoked the Mexicans enough, Santa Anna would order an attack. He was right. "The Mexicans had fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted". And President James Polk capitalized on this. He held a meeting with his cabinet who unamimously decided that Polk should go to congress and ask for a declaration of war.
The Mexican- American war was by no means started with minor issues, nor was it provoked by Mexicans. The United States military and Pres. Polk knew that they could provoke Mexico into a war. Therefore the "first" real shot belongs to the Americans, because they shot at Mexico's pride rather than its people.
I agree that the United States didn't provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues. Minor is a broad term, but I'm assuming that minor in the sense of international and intranational affairs would not include expansionism and warfare. Thus, major issues=expansionism and warfare.
ReplyDeletePresident Polk was likely looking for complete dominance of areas coast to coast of the North American continent. The transportation of goods across America would be costly. Having to pay the newly independent Mexico a fee to have American goods transported across California would have added to the already high cost. With America's prowess in battle, combined with her extensive supply lines, a war on the continent would easily go in the United States' favor. But in order to acquire California, there had to be an excuse to fight. President Polk, aspiring to gain California, ordered General Zachary Taylor to move troops to the Rio Grande. (Zinn pg. 150) There the minor events occurred that allowed major issues to be resolved.
War with Mexico spawned from "skirmish and retaliation" events over the Rio Grande. First, Colonel Cross was found dead, killed by a heavy blow. Then, an American patrol was surrounded and killed. In response, America began to recruit soldiers for the eventually fight with Mexico. (Zinn pg. 151)
It's not like America didn't want war with Mexico. Manifest Destiny was the mindset of most Americans. With the exception of some abolitionists, religious institutions, and congressmen, (Zinn pg. 154-156) people participated in rallies and joined the war effort. (Zinn pg. 154) California was a very enticing prize for Americans. It had resources that would make the country rich. Fertile land, unused and in volumes. Area for industry and settlement. (Zinn. Pg. 156) This, combined with the fever of Manifest Destiny, America went ahead and commenced warfare.
Looking at what people wrote, I feel that the statement is confusing some students. Remember, disagreeing with the statement actually creates a double negative. So disagreeing means," The United States did provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues." On the other hand, agreeing with the statement is agreeing with what it says, "The United States did not provoke a war with Mexico over minor issues." So on that note, some of y'all might want to copy and paste your previous answer in a word document, change it around to how you wish to take a stand, copy and paste the corrected statement into the comment box, repost, and delete your previous post. Also, please set a more specific definition for minor. What issues are considered minor? Slavery? Border Disputes? If each one of us ain't defining what we call "minor", agreeing or disagreeing with another's opinion is going to be difficult.
Anyway, to respond, I am in agreement with pretty much everybody's words so far. There's a common themes in each response. Manifest Destiny, President Polk, California, and Border Disputes. Manifest Destiny grips the country. President Polk desires war as an excuse to expand. California looks like a sweet tract of land. Border Disputes causes a war. The only differences are the side that people choose, Agreeing or Disagreeing, and that's directly choosen by what we interpret "minor" as.
In Response to Ryan:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan when he states that the border dispute could've been solved diplomatically. And the United States did try to solve it diplomatically, but they did it in such a way, that it degraded the Mexicans. Polk had sent a diplomat by the name of John Slidell to Mexico city to negotiate a deal to purchase New Mexico and California for 30 million dollars. However, the Mexican officials refused to speak to him. This refusal by Mexico to allow America to buy what it wanted upset Polk because up to this point, America had gotten what it wanted by buying it. And being so upset, Polk began "his" war,(pg. 152) by sending Gen. Taylor down the Rio Grande to camp their in full view of a dispatch of the Mexican Army. The Mexican Army warned Gen. Taylor to leave, but he stayed and war broke out. Thus giving Pres. Polk the excuse he needed to send the country into an unneccesary war.
If you look at only the issues between the United States and Mexico before the war then there is no clear reason for outright war. Although, if you look at the one big reason hidden underneath all the said reasoning for war then it becomes clear that the United States started the war with Mexico for no small issues. James K. Polk pushed the war with Mexico for one thing and one thing only, land. The true reason behind the war was America’s desperate westward movement and its strong belief in Manifest Destiny. The large shove that finally sent Polk over the edge seeking war was the false rumor of British eyes closing in on California. The fear that England would buy California right out from under his nose scared Polk into provoking war with Mexico. Polk tried to pretend that the war was over the small issues of Mexico’s debt to America and the rejection of our minister who was to propose a deal for California land and the territories east of it.
ReplyDeleteIf the war had truly been provoked for the reasons it said it was, then yes it would have been a war over small issues. In truth there was no issue we had with Mexico that could have, in any sensible, way have led to war. This war was not about disputes or international issues it was a conquest. We tried to smooth it over by paying off the Mexican government for the land, but in fact we had truly conquest the west. “The United States paid Mexico $15 million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that ‘we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God.’” We took advantage of Mexico’s position of weakness at the end of the war to steal half of Mexico.
Sam brings up the good point that the dispute between Texas and Mexico over whether the Nueces River or the Rio Grande, 150 miles south of the Nueces River, was the Sothern border of Texas. This and the hopes for more slave land were largely the fervor in the South for the war, but it wasn’t the reason Polk wanted the war. Polk didn’t truly care too much over such a small land dispute. What he really cared about was the land leading to the pacific coast. Polk didn’t start this war to get 150 more miles added on to America. He started the war to get half of Mexico in any way he could.
Throughout history, the United States has not always been the “kindest” neighbor. The Monroe Doctrine supposedly “helped” the Latin countries to the south, yet the true ambition behind it was to stop Russia from becoming a colonial power in North America. For newly formed countries, land is never a minor issue, and it was the struggle for land that initially provoked the war with Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThis manifest destiny drove the Americans to push west and to knowingly provoke Mexico. Zinn states, “Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into a territory inhabited by Mexicans. Was clearly a provocation.” (150) This eventually led to the military action in 1846 that began the war. (151) If America had not fulfilled it’s Manifest Destiny, then there would have been no war, but the major issues (land) drove them to strive for this new destiny, maybe not purposely, but knowingly starting a war.
This war drew many sentiments in the war, approval from Congress, the Whigs were for moving west, and the senate eventually passed the measure. Many northerners were also afraid that this move westward would increase the amount of slave states, and create an unbalance. All of these issues were not minor, they reverberated through every household of American life, especially the slave-owning South. When Mexico surrendered in 1848, there were calls upon Americans to take all of Mexico. (169)
I agree with Ryan Martin in that Polk had forced a war, but it was not over a simple border dispute, Polk wanted California, and he knew that forcing troops westward would provoke a war whether the border had been disputed or not. And also I disagree with Sam Florence in that the land was a minor issue. If we had not pushed westward and taken California, we would be taking a Mexican History class instead of United States History.
The chapter is titled: We take nothing by conquest, Thank god. Although the reality of the irony is that we did take half of mexico by force. The only difference is that we paid $15 million dollars after having a war with them (page 169). There were many major reasons why America did provoke a war with mexico, and i agree with the statement above. First of all if you think killing thousands of human lives over a small tax to pay to transport materials across inland is nothing, then what is the price of a human life? America's standing army was clearly much larger than Mexico's army. Also with Mexico already having problems with Texas who declared themselves independent from Mexico, there was certainly other political problems occuring in the nation and they probably were more focused on that than having a war with the United States.Seeing this as an opportunity for an easy time to strike with a 100% gurantee to win unless some supernatural force took them out first. Such as stated on page 159, "we can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and annex them." One of the other reasons why this was not a minor issue because it caused unrest in the working class of America. Masses of worksmen formed up to oppose the war such as the New York workingmen on page 159. America had long since wanted California and Texas and saw it as part of their manifest destiny, and what is part of destiny is theirs for the taking. As stated by John O'Sullivan on page 151, "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent." So seeing it as destiny, and an easy target they forced Mexico into a war. Such as on page 150, "Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ceril in that "assuming that minor in the sense of international and intranational affairs would not include expansionism and warfare." If we were already going to pay Mexico $15 million for land, why didn't we propose so in the first place? Killing is not a minor issue, and if it were then there wouldn't be such a controversey over it; especially proclaiming to be a free and peaceful country. We could have discussed land issues politically, but we chose the opposite and forced ourselves much into a war like Iraq. Being so, we don't want obvious reasons that we were going to war for self needs, and tried to find a loop hole and paid Mexico into a treaty that determined we were not killing for the sake of our interests. Obviously action speak louder than words, and America took it right there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States provoked a war with Mexico over minor issues. The US desired land, money, and to fulfill its “Manifest Destiny”. We didn’t care to negotiate with Mexico, which could have solved the problem, but only to fight Mexico.
ReplyDeletePolk first decided to provoke Mexico by ordering General Taylor to send troops into Texas (Zinn 150). Polk wanted to annex Texas but the land wasn’t a part of the United States but a part of Mexico. Instead of discussing an alternate solution to war troops invaded Texas with an overwhelming need for land. The border of the United States and Mexico was disputed upon and although the countries had agreed to the Nueces River however the United States couldn’t accept this, seeing the previous agreement of the Rio Grande River as the actual border line.
Americans were moving westward in search of their destiny and their fortunes. They needed the land Mexico owned and wouldn’t accept the fact that it wasn’t theirs. America wanted the land and wouldn’t take no as an answer, moving into the Mexican territory, baiting them and provoking the war (Zinn 150).
The citizens were not enthusiastic and Polk needed to make them enthusiastic and thought the best was to give him a reason to fight the Mexicans and support the war. Polk blamed the Mexicans for the loss of their colonel and not questioning their involvement, only desiring the beginning of a war (Zinn 151).
All the components of the war add up to something large but the start as small pieces, proving that the United States provoked the war with Mexico.
I see validity in Ceril’s argument. I can understand how the land expansion could have been seen as a major issue because of the time period. He has factual evidence to back up his claims and although it isn’t what I believe it is persuasive and brings up points I hadn’t considered before.
NOOOO!!! Dina broke my wanting to be the last one to post everytime!
ReplyDelete