Custom essays on The Mexican War

Summarizing results of the Mexican War, we could conclude that during the period 1836-1848 Mexico actually lost half its territory: the United States went first Texas, then New Mexico, Alta California, as well as parts of such states as Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Chihuahua and Sonora. The root cause of the conflict must be sought not in Mexico has undergone radical changes, but in the U.S., in the expansionist appeal – with the so-called title “Manifest Destiny”, embodied in the Monroe Doctrine (“America for Americans”). Originally established as the thirteen colonies, the States, through wars and economic pressure had occupied nearby land overlooking the Mexican bay (Louisiana and Florida) and began the infamous conquest to the west.
Analyzing “Manifest Destiny”, we understand that it had its supporters and opponents and according to the Boller situation has the next character: “Many Americans began to believe that it was the nation’s “Manifest Destiny” to expand westward. Manifest Destiny refers to a concept often used to explain or justify American expansion, especially in the decades preceding the Civil War (1861-65) and again in the late 19th century. While debate over expansion goes back to the beginnings of American expansion in the late 18th century, the phrase “Manifest Destiny” did not come into vogue until the 1840s.” (Boller, 1984) There were many arguments against and for “Manifest Destiny” and according to Horton & Horton, we could read several of them:
 “Arguments for Manifest Destiny: Being more advanced and enlightened than other cultures, the U.S. has a God-given right to expand its borders. In fact, the U.S. has an obligation to bring its civilizing influence to the west. Expansion will also strengthen the foundations of the Union, making it invulnerable, and is necessary to accommodate the increasing population of the U.S.
 Arguments against Manifest Destiny: God would not grant any country the right to expand at the expense of the native inhabitants whose land would be taken, and the lives of those who would die in wars over territory. The term “Manifest Destiny” is merely an excuse for the U.S. to take other people’s lands. Furthermore, spreading too far across the country will weaken the country’s vital institutions, making the Union vulnerable.” (Horton & Horton, 2005)
In continuation of our conversation, we see that even before the War of Independence, American colonists occupied a vast territory of Texas, which sought to establish an economic system, which was based on slavery. In 1836, these colonies declared independence and ten years later became part of the American Union. In 1846, the American army invaded the Mexican land, in order to support the Texas Initiative – so Mexico was embroiled in a war that lasted two years. The aggressors claimed the whole north of the Rio Bravo, both California and the Territory of New Mexico (some of the reporters after the representatives of this government favored the annexation of the entire territory of Mexico). It is known that most of the “disputed” territories was virtually uninhabited and had minimal involvement in the destiny of the nation, but as from the time of the Viceroyalty, and after independence, there have been numerous attempts to develop. In some regions, an abundant number of Aboriginal (New Mexico) and metis (Upper California) – this area (regardless of population) were captured by force.
Manifest Destiny took its own place in Polk’s inaugural address and we see that Polk really believe in the ideal of Manifest Destiny. Allard stated that “during his campaign and after he took office, he made it known that his goal was to expand the country’s territory. In his inaugural address, Polk declared: “The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants [pioneers]… The jurisdiction of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes.” (Allard, 2006) Boller added that “in his inaugural address, Polk laid out further benefits: None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent state, or becomes an ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than herself. Is there one among our citizens who would not prefer perpetual peace with Texas to occasional wars, which often occur between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not prefer free intercourse with her, to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter her ports or cross her frontiers? Is there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her citizens, to the frontier obstructions which must occur if she remains out of the Union?”( Boller, 1984)

As we see from the previous words Polk justify the war against Mexico and in his consideration, it was the war that could bring prosperity to America.
Nevertheless, from other point of view we see dual situation. From the one hand, democrats unanimously supported the war. 67 representatives of Whig voted against the war when they discussed the amendments, but in the latest reading, only 14 Whigs voted against fact that the U.S. declared war to Mexico on May 13, 1846, and Mexico had declared war on May 23.
Whig Party in both the north and the south, basically, was against the war, while the Democratic Party mostly supported the war. Whig representative, Abraham Lincoln challenged the grounds for declaring war and wanted to know the exact place where Thornton was attacked and where American blood was shed.
According to Horton & Horton we could read the next information “This war is inexplicable, – said the leader of the Whigs Robert Tumbs from Georgia. – We charge the President with usurping the war… the capture of the country… that has existed for centuries and was then in possession of the Mexicans. Give us the opportunity to stop this lust of dominion. Heaven knows we had enough lands … Contemporaries sometimes called the war a war of Mr. Polk” (Horton & Horton, 2005)
Thus, it is necessary to mention for the conclusion that reason I raise the topic of the U.S.-Mexican relations is very banal: today it is for anyone (including, Americans) it is not a secret that the U.S. is actually a matter of survival since their formation as a nation depends on the exploitation foreign markets and territories. Expansion – in the past, “military-territorial” – has become today, the “military-market” by their nature. Successful implementation of their claims to the territory safely allowed America to become “enfant terrible” of those times and “trouble maker” number one in our time. So as old as States, cause – thirst for land and power – has generated many consequences. The peculiar contact between times and centuries …
In my opinion the Mexican war is a kind of critical point in the US history, because in those times there was nothing else for so-called democracy in the history of its existence was not characteristic, as borne by the bayonets of its ideals, to justify their wars of conquest. Nobody except Democrats cannot understand the true meaning of the values of human existence and life at stake entering the names of such persons in the history of the world famous rulers, who gave the benefit of its people to the detriment of the existence of entire nations and peoples, and all for the sake of ambition.

 
Works cited:
Allard, Phil. Manifest Destiny. Noble Ideal or Excuse for Imperialist Expansion? April 10, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.philwrites.com/H_manifest_destiny.htm
Boller, Paul. Presidential Campaigns. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Horton, James & Horton, Lois. Slavery and the Making of America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Seigenthaler, John. James K. Polk. New York: Times Books, 2003.