text:
APUSH
Period Materials
Period 1 - 1491-1607
Period 7 - 1890-1945 >
New Deal Murals
Response to Economic Crisis
Hitler Documents
WWII Homefront Circles
Holocaust Intervention
Period 9 - 1980-present
APUSH Exam Review
Scored Discussion #1
Use the reading selections, your take away's from the in-class discussion, and your knowledge of history to:
Post one original question or thought provoking statement with references to the reading or outside knowledge related to your post.
Reply with a question or thought provoking statement to at least 3 other original questions.
A reply to other's comments will only receive credit if it EXTENDS the discussion. Any "I agree, now let me say exactly what you just said or repeat what I said in my own original post again..." will not receive credit.
If you were ABSENT you may post EXTRA comments here to make up the in-class portion of the scored discussion. Each EXTRA comment is worth 3 points AS LONG AS IT IS A NEW, ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN YOUR OTHER POSTS. You need to post enough EXTRA comments to earn the 15 points in-class participation.
This board will close at 10:00 pm, Tuesday, 3/17/2020. All comments must be posted before that time!
Mark Lindsay
What do you think that the author's main purpose of writing this is? Why did the author decide to use bias instead of completely staying neutral?
Zoe Wynns
I think that the facts of this situation speak for themselves, in a way, such as the horrible destruction of the hospital in Mexico mentioned and the brutal deaths resulting. The author doesn't clearly state his opinion on the subject, but his highlighting of certain facts shows his bias. The subtle bias might have made the audience more inclined to agree with his opinion.
Sushmita
Most of the document talks more about the American point of view and how the Americans fought the Mexicans more than in the Mexican point of view and how the Mexicans fought the Americans. I think the author was trying to tell how exactly the war started and how Polk wanted the war to start, and wanted to speak in the American point of view because I don't think he had enough information on what the Mexican point of view of the war was. I also think that he wanted to express his opinion on what he thought of the war.
Nicole Crouse
I think that the authors main purpose of this writing was to introduce foriegn point of views that are often overlooked. By including POV's from nearly all social classes and groups, the reader gained a more neutral and reliable idea of the event. I think that it was necessary for the Author to have a more biased tone because the only way to stay truly neutral on any event, is to have no opinion at all.
Spencer Cline
I would say that the reason that the author did not share a neutral opinion towards the subject is because he would argue that there is only one version of the story that is being shared on a widespread scale and that he has to share this side of the story to expose the public to both sides of the story.
Danh Nguyen
I think that the author wrote this to inform the audience that the United States were not as peaceful and filled with freedom that other foreign countries viewed them as. The author helps the audience realize the horrors of war, and how conquest of the Mexicans is just one example of how countries overtake populations .The use of bias, allows the reader to fully understand not only his point of view, but also how the Mexicans felt as well.
tabitha nirmal
I think the author wanted to show the extensive negative effects of the war such as the casualties on both sides, harm done to Mexicans, and the division caused in America. The author wanted to capture content that other historians documenting US history glossed over or didn't find important
Sarah Masters
While I agree with you that the author focused mainly on the negative effects of the war, I think that he focused mainly on the affects to America, not Mexico too. Most of the document is referring to the American point of view of the war, referencing newspaper articles from America, letters and diaries of American military generals and American soldiers, and speculations about the American public's opinions on the war. It doesn't include nearly as much information about the affects on Mexico. While it does talk about how American soldiers treated Mexican civilians after battles, this information is mostly to show the injustice occurring due to American efforts. Not once do we hear about a lasting impact on Mexico or any efforts being done within its own government. The text presents different viewpoints from Americans and shows the divide that developed in America like you mentioned. From reading this, readers get a good idea of what different socioeconomic groups in America thought about the war, but no details about the lasting impacts on Mexico.
Ryley McGaughey
The author's main purpose of writing this was to inform the audience on the opinions American's had about the Mexican-American War, specifically opinions opposing the war. I think the author used some bias in this article to shift the blame of starting the war onto America and President Polk. However, the author addresses a multitude of American's perspectives on the war, therefore making his bias less prominent.
Sid Ravi
I think that the author wrote this in order to show the realities of Manifest Destiny and ultimately to show how there were differing sides to the Mexican War that many history textbooks do not show and is not known by the general American public.
Katheryn Royall
I agree with your comment and add to it that it was mainly the wealthy that wanted the war, a major fact to the story that I had not known before, this text was also very telling in its description of how the want for land by the rich impacted the poor so much.
Tyler Jin
Author Howard Zinn's purpose in writing this passage is to explain that President Polk utilized the expansionist desires of the US to invoke violent conflict in the South, and continued the militaristic campaign, despite the growth of opposition in the war. Zinn chose to use bias in his writing, as he hopes to convey a negative connotation towards Polk, and illustrate the idea that his expansionist desires didn't match with the general public, and was rather focused primarily on his goals.
Benjamin Bramson
I think that the author's main purpose in writing this was to expel the myth that America is a pure freedom fighter who is different from colonial powers. This can be seen in the title "We Take Nothing By Conquest, Thank God". If taken literally, this claim in the title is contradicted by the content of the article, so the title is clearly sarcastic. By contradicting the title and the example in the article of the Mexican War, the author makes the point that America is a conqueror. His main purpose is to spread this message. When it comes to bias I would argue that the author was not biased, he was opinionated. Bias suggests that the author was unfairly in favor of a certain side, but he provided an abundance of evidence in favor of his opinion. He also addressed the counter argument. Furthermore, when writing a persuasive piece such as this, the author needs to be opinionated. If they are not, and instead "neutral", then it is simply an informative piece.
Tony Du
Regardless of the fact that it is technically impossible for a piece of writing to be completely without bias, the fact stands that the author wished to convey a certain feeling through his writing. He wished to convey to the readers the negative effects of the war in order to draw more attention to the events happening during this era.
Ishrant Puri
This writing allowed the author to introduce many different perspectives. The various things withing the text showed the ideas from many more different social classes and groups.
Alex Garofalo
While I do think that their is a clear bias on information provided specifically from the Americans side, it's important to note that descriptions and depictions from past evens are written from the victors perspective so it would be extremely hard to find information relevant to this history from the perspective of the Mexican side. Besides this, I think that the author would have used more information from the Mexican side if more readily available and therefore would have been less biased.
Ireplytoidiots
Arnav Sugavanam
The author Howard Zinn's purpose in writing this passage was to explain how President Polk utilized the expansionist desires of the US occupants to fueld the conflict in the South, and how he progressed the militaristic campaign, despite opposition towards the war. Zinn used bias in his "summary" in order to convey implicate negative feelings towards President Polk and to demonstrate that his ideals did not match with the general public.
Yeah, that's wrong.
Vivek Patel
I believe the authors opinion based way of viewing the Mexican American war allows for one side of perspective or another outlook on the history of the war compared to the almost neutral textbook outlook. I believe the author main purpose was more to explain then inform of the actions of those in the United States at this time. The author tried to shed light on the darker parts of the war while illustrating what was occurring during that period in the United States.
AbhI Kandukuri
I believe the author used bias to tell the truth of this war and the significance. He/She had a strong opinion on this war and the only way for them to express their emotions and opinions was to use bias.
Pahi link
kenaan
I believe the author's main point is not only to inform about the events of the Mexican-American War but also to also persuade readers to see the war from a new perspective.
Ari Ypema
I found it hard to believe that there are no historical documents from the Mexican point of view on the war, especially since it was such a significant war that permanently changed the country and its history. Do you think the author would have included primary sources from the Mexican POV had he been able to find any, or do you think he wanted to tell the story only through the perspective of the Americans? How would it have affected his argument/bias?
I think the author may have included primary sources from the Mexican point of view if he could find them, but primarily focused on the American side of things as this is an American textbook. He did include gory, negative details about the effect of the war on the Mexicans, however (for example, "The surgical hospital, which was situated in the Convent of Santo Domingo, suffered from the fire, and several of the inmates were killed by fragments of bombs bursting at that point.") which makes it seem like he doesn't have a bias towards the American way of thinking, he acknowledges the horrible things the Americans did, and he is simply including primarily American details in an American textbook.
Jonathan Park
I do understand your point that he wanted to focus on American point of view but I disagree that he would leave it out. I feel like looking at different points of view with give readers a better understanding of the war and understand what feelings from the Mexicans could have provoked the Americans even more. I think the author would have included primary sources from Mexican point of view if he had access to any.
Kaetlyn Tate
I don't think that the author would have included the Mexican point of view "If he could find them." If he wanted to include the Mexican perspective he would have dug and found primary sources that supported it. They are our there, he just didn't look for them in order to include them. And this is an argumentative chapter. He wants to show people how unAmerican the Mex-Amer War really was. That means showing the horrible brutality's they committed. Zinn isn't biased towards one group or another, he is using historical evidence to argue his point. If anything, he would have bias against the American view, promoting him to defame this era of history as part of his argument.
Ellie Benner
I think that the author chose not to include documents that talked about the Mexican point of view because this reading was based around American history and the consequences of the Mexican American War pertaining to American history. I the author had included documents that showed the Mexican point of view I think it would have taken away from his goal of focusing on American history and how this historical event impacted the lives or Americans alone.
By the author sharing mostly American first hand accounts it shows a different perspective that is not often shown from the same group of people that we always hear about this period of time from. Giving accounts like excerpts from Hitchcock's journal allows us to see that someone who is famous for fighting for the US in this war was openly against it from the beginning. I think that this is more powerful than to hear from someone who would have bias from a Mexican perspective.
Corinne Drabensott
The author's main bias in telling the story of the Mexican-American War was that it was mainly the President and the American's fault. Telling the side of the Mexicans may have not supported his argument because there is a possibility that maybe the Mexicans had exerted some aggression on their side. However, it fit better with the author's story to say as little as he could about Mexico's story, because he wanted to focus on the faults on the American side.
I wanted to add something to my previous comment. I found a document online called "A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States" by Jesús Velasco-Márquez (http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/w/winter/Winters.nsf/0/dd2d7252bba29965852570b50052c48f/$FILE/Mexico_US_War_PBSDoc.pdf). After skimming though the text I found that the main takeaway was that from the Mexican point of view, the war should have been called "The U.S. Invasion" instead of "The Mexican American War". This idea aligns with the main arguments of the author in our reading. So, I believe that while information on the Mexican POV may have been nice to complete part of the picture, it would not have changed the overall narrative of the story.
Andrew V Mathew
I think Zinn wanted to show the differing opinions of the people within. The reason he hinted only lightly at Mexican opinion was because it seems obvious that Mexico would not be in favor of a war. Not only that, but the Mexican opinion does show the overall divide in opinion that the war caused, which was a main focus of the text.
Throughout the text, the author only shared information from the American point of view, but he was definitely biased towards the idea that the war was caused by Americans. Therefore, if he had access to primary sources from the Mexican point of view, I think the author would have included them. These sources would have supported the author's idea that the war was America's fault, and ultimately the sources would have strengthened his overall argument and made his bias more prominent.
I think that the author's lack of inclusion of Mexican points of view has more to do with the fact that it would not fit in the general context of the article rather than simply just not finding any. There were Mexican people impacted by this war and I think that it goes to the author's general bias.
I believe the author chose to write the story in the perspective of the Americans, as stories are commonly told in the "eyes of the victors". Similarly, there is a lack of information provided in the textbook regarding this war, which illustrates the idea that America doesn't want others to know about its expansionist goals. In addition, as the author is focusing on the impact of the Mexican-American war on US history, thus providing large amounts of context regarding the effect of the war on Mexico would be unnecessary.
Kaela Belingon
I was wondering this too. I strongly believe that the author would have included primary sources from the Mexican side of the conflict, but at the same time, this is a textbook titled "A People's History of the United States." Howard Zinn's focus in this article of text was to give the events of the American side and discuss and explain his view that Americans were responsible for the war. An account for the Mexican side would be helpful, but I believe it is, in a way, unnecessary.
Jonathan Kurian
I believe that the author was indeed able to find documents from the Mexican point of view, because he did include facts about the Mexican president, so there were documents about them. However, I believe he did indeed wanted to tell the story about the American side. The whole time he only discussed how the war affected America, and how America viewed it, and dove deep into that side of it. If he had intended to portray both sides, he wouldn't have dove so deep into the American portion, and including both points of views might have made it less detailed, since it became a broader spectrum. Thus, the author wouldn't have included Mexican point of views, as it would have detracted from his purpose of informing about the American side of the war.
Bridget Mackie
I think that the author was specifically focusing on the American perspective on the issue because that was the premise of his book. I definitely think that there are accounts from a Mexican perspective, they were just left out because that wasn't the author's purpose.
Dhruv Kaushal
I think the author would not include the sources. There are many different types of sources incuding primary and secondary, which he could have included but chose not too. This could be due to the overall structure of the writing. Zinn chose to show the effects of the war on different groups of people but focused on divides between socio economic classes. By including the primary sources, although the author would have added another perspective, it would not have supported his main argument.
Amanda Karrenbauer
What do you ultimately think was the one main purpose for westward expansion? Was it solely economic purposes? Or were multiple contributing factors more influential rather than only one purpose?
I think it was equal parts economic and religious/cultural. Westward expansion did allow for more trade routes, especially with Asia, and provided more land for industry and the collection of resources such as gold. They used the religious part more as a justification, though. They believed they were superior as whites and it was their God-given right to take land, and that this made expansion okay. Expansion was largely for economic purposes, with religious and cultural beliefs as justification/excuses.
Anish K
I feel like there were cultural aspects involved for the South, and do believe that one of their motives was the expansion of slavery into new territory. And they were rightly accused of this by Northerners and Antislavery groups.
I think the main purpose for westward expansion was the greed of the American elite and the economic benefits. Many Americans, whether they had the means to move westward or not, supported the ideas of expansion because of the hope and opportunities it offered. The journalistic community at this time made expansion seem like it was something inevitable and justifiable so Americans wanted to partake in it. Although the middle class workers were more than likely not going to be able to expand they had hope and the elite Americans supported expansion because they knew they would only see financial benefits from the addition of new land to the US's territory. I also think that the government wanted to gain so much land in order to show the country's power and dominance in the Americas so that foreign country's such as European powers wouldn't come encroach on their land again.
I think that the main purpose for westward expansion was the US having the idea of manifest destiny and white supremecy. It was basically a way for them to continue expanding white asserting their dominance to show how superior they were to all of the other cultures.
Chloe Lin
I would argue that although economics was certainly part of it, significant cultural and religious factors also drove westward expansion. Among other things, Americans sought to "civilize" and "better" both the Mexicans and Native Americans, whom they thought to be racially inferior. With the Mexican-American War, Americans believed their Protestant beliefs to be far superior and purer than the Catholicism prevalent in Mexico. Furthermore, the ideology of manifest destiny was that Americans had a divine, God-given right to expand.
I think that is was a combination of many factors. The idea of Manifest Destiny played a big role in the expansion out west. Many Americans thought it was their "destiny" or "right" to take over the land and used it as justification. Slavery also had a big impact as well, which ties into the economic purpose. The idea of racially superiority played a role, in which, Americans disrespected Mexican culture, and believed they were better than them. Overall there were many factors that led to expansion out west.
Preston Spreher
I think that a larger part of it was economic because many slave owning men wanted to expand there land holdings to increase there profits. The best way for this to happen is for the US to gain a larger amount of land which can then be sold to these land owners for them to use for cash crops. There may have ben other reasons but I feel this is the main one.
I don't think the purpose of westward expansion was just for economic purposes. I think the idea of status had a role in it. Their acquisition of land gave them a higher status among other expanding countries and empires. The British idea of "god, gold, and glory" influenced them.
Omar Hafiz
I think the main purpose for westward expansion was solely for economic purpose. Westward expansion was seen as motive for southerners to gain more land for plantations , where they would be run by slaves making them more money. Which would then result in an increase in Mills and industrial factories that process the goods of the south. We see this when Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune, "Who believes that a score of victories over Mexico, the "annexation" of half her provinces, will give us more Liberty, a purer Morality, a more prosperous Industry, than we now have? ... Is not Life miserable enough, comes not Death soon enough, without resort to the hideous enginery of War?" In addition to this Americans thought that the west ward expansion to California would create new opportunity for the United States with Asia with its access to the Pacific ocean. A young Naval officer in his diary wrote "Asia . . . will be brought to our very doors. Population will flow into the fertile regions of California. The resources of the entire country . . . will be developed. . . . The public lands lying along the route [of railroads] will be changed from deserts into gardens, and a large population will be settled. . . ." This comes to show how the United States expansion will greatly impact the economy based of the opportunity from all the land and ocean.
I think the main purpose for westward expansion was American feelings of racial and economic superiority. Many American's saw westward expansion as not only a way to expand American power, but also a way to civilize other people that they saw as inferiors. American's also saw westward expansion as a way to prosper economically. This economic prosperity ultimately relates back to the American desire to be superior to other people by making more money than them. Overall, I think that the American feelings of superiority are the cause of many American's greed and desire for dominance and expansion.
Casey Phelps
I feel that the westward expansion was based off of the principles of both manifest destiny and growing the economy. However, what would make the US search for more riches when they had already considered themselves such a strong power with their triumph over international powers?
Varun Inala
Manifest Destiny was probably the main purpose for Polk's reasoning towards westward expansion. Journalists during the time were supportive of the war, and they even used Manifest Destiny as a way to justify the declaration of the war. In the book, Zinn notes that the journalistic community of the era supported America's aggressive, unethical expansion into the Southwest, even using the phrase "manifest destiny" to suggest that the U.S. had a religious duty to expand across the continent.
Sophia Ponomarenko
While economic purposes were one of the greatest push factors for westward expansion, I don't think it was the only reason. The ideas of Manifest Destiny instilled the ideals that it was America's destiny to expand westward. The Manifest Destiny fed into the white superiority complex that caused Americans to think that they had to conquer any land belonging to another race, and that other races needed to be converted or helped. Another reason for westward expansion was the power. Anyone in control of the west would've controlled major trade routes to and from Asia, giving them ultimate dominance of a huge part of the country. This also ties into economic purposes playing a big role in expansion as trade generated a great income. Overall, I believe that westward expansion was influenced by the Manifest Destiny and need for control and power, which would ultimately mean economic prosperity.
Colin Adkins
Though I do believe that there were most definitely economic purposes of expanding west during this time, I think there were multiple contributing factors for doing this, and I believe that the main purpose of this was Manifest Destiney as John O"Sullivan said, "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."
While I do think that the main purpose of expansion, especially since California allowed for trading with the Pacific, I also think there were other factors. These factors were outlined by Zinn when he wrote, "Accompanying all this aggressiveness was the idea that the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy to more people". Many Americans wanted to expand westward since they viewed themselves as superior and felt it to be their duty to spread "liberty" and "democracy" to the other "uncivilized" populations.
I believe there are many factors that led to westward expansion. The main factor was the economic incentives in my opinion. The discovery of important minerals led to many rushing to the west in order to secure some for themselves. This rush caused many boomtowns that quickly turned into ghost towns. But the main factor in the area of economic incentives was railroad expansion. In order to promote trade and transportation, the government granted land to railroad companies. The new railroads opened the west to settlement, and the ability to ship goods to faraway cities and towns.
I believe the main central purpose was for gaining more new territory for purely economic opportunity, that was twisted to be presented to the public as involved with religion. For many cases, it was different for different groups that were exploring and their purpose.
Grace Cooper
I think the main purpose for westward expansion was economic gain, not just by gaining the new land, but by also increasing slavery. With new territory there would be the possibility of slavery which would also have economic gain itself. However, slavery was still debated, but there were many powerful figure that promoted it, so western expansion was a good opportunity to increase slave states, which would increase economic gain, by slave owners using the land for slaves to make cash crops.
I think that Westward Expansion was a combination of economic factors and social factors. Obviously the enormous amount of land that is between the east and west coast of what is now the United States holds a lot of economic opportunity. I am sure this was a major reason why it was desired so much. I think that the huge economic gains from the territory sparked the idea of "manifest destiny" as a way of justifying to the people of the US the idea of westward expansion. I think the superiority that Americans felt when it came to the west inspired a lot of people to go west and do all the hard work to make the land economically beneficial.
Abhiram ghanta
The main purpose of the westward expansion was economic reasons and the green of the American Elite. even though the many Americans moved the west in hope of economic prosperity, it was the greed of the American elite that powered the movement to acquire the land in the first place.
I think a large part of the westward expansion is the land which travelers would gain. With an increased trade route system through the expansion of the railroad, more people were expanding westward for profit. Primarily fueled by the economic purposes, westward expansion was largely based off of cultural reasons too. For example, moving into inhabited territory was largely due to slavery laws which were established.
The primary factor for moving westward was economic gain for wealthy southern plantation owners. The wealthy used media outlets to incentivize moving westward for common settlers so that they may secure the land before the wealthy established themselves.
Sarah O'Sullivan
Do you think that, through time, the United States and Mexico could've come to a territory agreement or was fighting the only option?
I don't think an agreement was possible. Mexico would've had to cede a huge portion of its land to satisfy the US, which would've lead to the US trying to gain more of Mexico's land later on. No matter what, with any agreement, one side would've been unhappy, either for losing any land, or for not getting all the land it wanted. Ultimately, war was inevitable because both sides were so adamant about getting or keeping what they wanted. An agreement would've only delayed the war.
I think it could have been possible for the US and Mexico to come to a territory agreement, but it definitely wouldn't have been a territory agreement that would have satiated the hunger of much of the USA. I think the expansionist ideas of the president wanting this new territory was what led to the hunger for the land, not necessarily the "inevitable" sprawl of the USA towards California, a sprawl that might have never happened if an opposing-viewpoint President had been elected.
I believed that the Mexican-American war was inevitable and that there was no other way to get land other than fighting. I don't think Mexico was going to give Texas away without a fight, and I also don't think that the Whig's way of "expanding without violence" would've worked either.
Megan Lamb
I agree with this. The American views focused heavily on Manifest Destiny and expansion at the time proved there was no stopping the effort to conquer Texas. There was some attempts for a peaceful agreement; however, it didn't appeal to either sides. Due to the war we can see that Mexico was not willing to give up Texas without a fight to keep it. Therefore, a war was inevitable due to both sides being unable to compromise.
I think that the United States and Mexico definitely could have come to a peaceful agreement, however, it would've taken time. One of the biggest pressures that the U.S. faced that led them to declare war was the idea that the conflict between the two lands would be long lasting. As a result the United States found it easier and faster to turn to violence to take the land.
Katelyn Cashion
I think you have a really good point here, I think that the idea of a long lasting war did scare the U.S. into wanting to fight, however I also think that the greed and the want for more land and more ways to boost economy by the elite groups in the United States played an even bigger role in why we got involved in the war. I think the U.S. did think violence was faster, but I think it was the greed that really led them into this war.
I think that when looking back at history anything is possible because if we look at how the US got a hold of the Louisiana territory, the French were in need of money and that is how the US came to gain this land. If the US hadn't gone to war something like this could've happened where Mexico was in need of financial support and the US could benefit by paying for land. I also think that it was possible for a slower progression of fighting to occur, similar to the land claims that occurred with Native Americans.
This is a very strong point. There is a point in history where you just have to play the waiting game. America was still a new country, fiercely competing for acceptance and resources from powerful European empires. They wanted to get as much land (as land=power) as possible in order to get a jumpstart on trade. It would take so much longer for a peaceful treaty to be developed, with most likely much less land. And other countries would't really take as much notice. But with enacting war and defeating an existing state, it makes the world take notice. Unfortunately for Mexico, the U.S had gained confidence from gaining land in the Northeast and Louisiana Purchase to be able to pus to be the next world power. They no longer had to play the waiting game for a country like France to give them resources.
I don't think that a peaceful agreement could've ever benefitted either country because of previous failed peace efforts. I believe a war was ultimately destined to happen at some point, and Polk was even interested in starting a war purposefully for the sake of war and gaining west territories from Mexico. Polk definitely had intentions to create war from the start of their conflict.
I think that the war was ultimately inevitable. Both sides passionately wanted to have the land, therefore, one side would be unhappy with the result if there were to be a negotiation. This also leads to the fact that Mexico rightfully had the land so they shouldn't be forced to give it up. Also, with the American people constantly invading into Mexico, they did not help the situation progress so that they could come to an agreement. When the Americans found that the Mexicans would ultimately keep the land and were not willing to give it up, they found that their only way to get it was through conquest.
I believe that the war was inevitable. The United States had previously tried to buy the land from Mexico, but Mexico refused. As a result the United States felt the need to go to war to get what they wanted. In addition, peaceful agreements may have left the U.S. unsatisfied and wanting more, so after the agreements made they would still go to war to gain more land.
Ava Marshall
I agree with you. I think that there were too many things between not only the different parties in the Unites States to agree on but also between the Unites States and Mexico. I think that if an agreement was started, the United States would have gotten greedy and taken advantage of Mexico when they started to work together.
Grace Purdy
Unfortunately, I don't think that an agreement was possible without the United States deciding to not infringe on Mexican territory. Although the U.S. initially tried to buy the land from Mexico, the U.S. has a history of resorting to violence when they don't get what they want. For example, the expulsion of the natives was done in a widely violent manner. As long as both countries wanted the land, I do not think that there was a possible peaceful solution.
Joshitha Leo Charles
Because Polk's initial motive was to fuel a war, I don't believe the U.S. and Mexico could've compromise peacefully. Even as Colonel Hitchcock said, " It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war (...)" the government was already too far deep into conquest ideals. Despite failed efforts to peacefully reach an agreement, the U.S. government still pushed for a war, making violence inevitable. This is especially seen in America's will to assert power in terms of "God, Glory, and Gold." In this case, the notion of Glory would apply, where one of the conquest's motivations was to expand West and establish power in this new territory, as well.
I unfortunately don't feel that a territory agreement could have been achieved due to the fact that the US wanted to continue to expand its borders until they "reached the Pacific". Meaning that they would have continued to push the Mexican people out of their land in hopes of gaining more land which would have ended in an eventual conflict.
I believe the US could've gradually come to a territorial agreement with Mexico, however I understand that compromising with Mexico would've resulted in less territory gain. While fighting wasn't the sole option, I believe that Polk understood fighting was the only method to gain the greatest amount of territory.
I feel like the United States and Mexico could have would have been able to reach a territory agreement, as many of the soldiers who took part in the war, especially on the U.S. side, weren't fighting for the main cause of taking over the Mexican land. The U.S. were pretty intent on taking over the land, so it would would have been a while till an agreement.
I don't believe that there could have been agreement for the territory during this time because the ideas of expansion in the America were very prominent during this time and I don't think the US nor Mexico would want to be giving up any portions of land to each other. Going along with that after the first American bodies were found dead at the hands of the Mexican guerrillas, I feel like support for the war had already grown to strong for the Americans to quiet down and that is when I believed there was no chance at an agreement
While agreement would not have resulted in the same amount of land being acquired by the United States, some degree of compromise could have been made which would have prevented the negative effects of the war.
Fighting is the only option because this land was far too valuable, which is why the US wanted it so bad. They would lose a very important center of economic growth if they willingly gave the land to the US, making it impossible to be done without fighting.
I think that the United States and Mexico could have came to an agreement on the territory. However, for this to happen the agreement would be highly beneficial for the United States. I think that if an agreement was made, it would be more beneficial for the United States because when the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed the United States also gained Arizona, California, Western Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada for 15 million dollars. So the United States wouldn't of compromised for anything less than that.
One hundred percent there were other ways that the territory from Mexico could have been acquired by the US. The US was impatient and wanted to get to the land as quickly as possible. Also, I think the idea that the US wasn't going to conquer and colonize meant that the way to get those lands would require a reason other than the desire for the land. If the US had taken a more straightforward path involving treaties and such, that would mean their desire for the land would be obvious and the US would be contradicting the ideas of the Monroe doctrine. The US figured that a war with Mexico would provide a great disguise because it would appear to be a fight over freedom and pride with the added bonus of land.
I believe that if the Whigs party were in power the Americans and the Mexicans could have come to a peaceful agreement on how to settle land disputes. The Whigs preferred to acquire the land in the west in peaceful manners. However, at the same time, I think that Mexico would not give up that large of a part of their land to the Americans.
In the article, the author mentioned that Mexico did win a few battles against the USA. Was the war a crushing victory by the USA like the article insinuated, or was the war more even than the article implied? If so, what do you think would have happened had Mexico defeated the US?
I think that the results of the war were definitely in the United States favor, however, they also had their fair share of misfortunes. Although the United States ended victorious, the ones who actually fought the war were not reimbursed and they faced a fair share of negative impacts. Personally, I think Mexico winning the war would completely change the relationships of countries we know today, the reliance of Mexico on the U.S. would not be as prevalent.
Anish Kompella
The war was easily won by the Americans per say as there were more technically advanced and had by far the bigger and better military. However, the war did cause internal divide between the country as many, especially in the working class, felt like they were being treated unfairly. If Mexico had won the war, there would be chance that many important states of the Southwest would not be apart of the country such as California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. I suspect that the US would have eventually been able to obtain the territory at some point by one way or the other though.
I feel like this textbook was a little biased towards the Americans considering it is a U.S. history textbook. This I think played a factor in talking more about the American victories. The U.S. probably did win more wars but I do think there were more Mexican victories than the textbook states. I don't think we can completely answer a what if question in history because the what if didn't really happen. However, my guess is that the U.S. would've had more land and maybe the U.S. wouldn't have expanded as far west.
I think that mass destruction was seen on both sides. The document talks about how both Mexicans and Americans experienced horrific death and even though the Americans won in the end, there was great loss on both sides of the war.
I think the United States had a crushing victory over Mexico and we see this not only by how they easily intrude into their land and kills thousands, but how they describe them as an easy army to beat. It makes Mexico seem like they lost the before it even started because of Mexico's independence from Spain. Nevertheless, their were a great number of casualties on both sides of the war. If Mexico won the war, this would change how we perceive them as a country because they would own most of current day Texas. Mexico might then be a more powerful country then it is today because it spans over more land.
Sahil Kumar
The word crushing defeat could be used to describe the Mexicans after the war because the United States did have a lot of victories during these battles. However the United States did have immigrants and Native Americans fight in these wars so the soldiers were being taken advantage of. So this victory of the United States doesn't seem to have much meaning or respect behind it in the Mexicans eyes.
I feel that with the information that was provided in the article, it would be difficult to determine the even or unevenness of the war. With this being said, if Mexico would have won the war, it is possible that they could have a stronger economy today due to the access of ports and trades with Asia, leaving the US with more struggles in terms of developing.
I feel as though the war was largely favored towards the USA due to the fact that the American's wrote the history of the war. In large part the victors write the history of what has happened. I feel that had Mexico defeated the USA, the tone of the article would be different.
I find it hard to believe that the war was more even than the article explains. Each war has its losses, for both the losing and winning side. If we were talking about the war itself, the battles and fighting, it was indeed a crushing victory. But if we were looking beyond the losses of battles and fighting and soldiers, and look at the fact that this event further increased North and South tensions, people with differing opinions, and the issues that came about and affected aspects of American life, especially for the soldiers who came out of the war, I think the victory doesn't seem as brilliant as to be described as a crushing victory. If Mexico did defeat the US, it would certainly change our relations today, but I do believe it would have put a dent in American patriotism. In terms of the relationships between the North and South, I think that people would have started blaming others and pointing fingers even more than they did if they lost the war, making tensions after the war even worse. I could consider and would understand how a loss could bring the nation together during that time, but I highly doubt it would have happened if that were the case. It's just easier to point fingers than to make arrangements with people that hold different opinions and views.
From this article alone, it is hard to tell what the war was like for Mexico, but I don't think it was as crushing as it seemed. Mexico had to play a defensive war meaning that they did not have to approach giving them the upper hand. Also, as the war went on, the morale of the soldiers kept getting lower, hurting the performance of the military. If Mexico did defeat the U.S., the idea of manifest destiny could have possibly ended since California would be Mexican territory. America would not be able to stretch from coast to coast.
I think that there could be a little more than that was let on because the author was somewhat biased in what he was putting in the article, but overall I do believe that the US for the most part swept away Mexico during the war. If Mexico had won in the war I do believe a lot would change just because changing an event in the past would dramatically change the present, but overall what I believe would happen is that Americans would continually push onto the Mexicans land as they had done a lot of the time anyways, and I do believe that it would lead into another war.
Nina Song
The reading mentioned that president Polk made immediate decisions, often disregarding the opinions of many people. Although different political and social groups such as the Democrats, Whigs, and antislavery advocates had different views on the war, the reading states evidence that the majority of people were either indifferent or leaned towards not declaring war. How did Polk's decisions impact different groups of people? As a whole, do you think his actions proved to be positive or negative for Americans after the war?
What do you think caused President Polk to be in favor of declaring war even though it seems like the majority did not want to? How do you think his decisions ultimately affected different groups of people?
Polk was a Democrat, from a party that often approved of slavery, and because of this the acquisition of a new slave state could have seemed appealing to him.
While I think this is definitly a part of Polk's motivation, I think it has more to do with this association with the former President Jackson and his beliefs. Jackson completely changed the view of the United States, taking away federal banks, the Indian Removal Act, creating state power in the nullification crisis. Polk had come across a brand new America, and he wanted to expand on it. He had been committed to Jackson's missions of gaining land, and expansion was the next step in that goal. And with this new land came the legacy of manifest destiny. A legacy that would be remembered in Polk's name if he accomplished it. Jackson's name would forever be remembered, and a motivation for Polk was making sure his would too.
I think Polk's actions proved to be negative, since support for him decreased a lot after the war. The textbook includes several quotes of the soldiers' unhappiness and anger at higher ranking officials after the war. Polk rushed to go to war so he could gain land for the US and be credited with the expansion of US territory. Ultimately, I think his decisions had a negative impact on most political groups by increasing the divide between pro and anti slavery activists and accelerating the tensions that fueled the civil war and the conflicts leading up to it.
The document said that abolitionists thought of war as aggression, and churches were outspoken for war, but it also said that there were newspapers that were talking about the need for war. This shows that during the war, Polk's actions proved to split people into people who thought that war was unnecessary and people who needed this war to expand slavery. I think that Polk's actions proved to be positive after the war because I don't think anyone who were split about the war at that time would've thought about how much America progressed since then, but after the war ended, people thought about how different America was. Polk's main objective was to annex California, but he also wanted Texas, and I don't think he thought he would've gotten Texas without a war, so he chose to put Taylor's troops in Rio Grande to try to get Mexico to start a war.
Sai Sanjana Sukhavasi
I believe that Polk's actions were negative in terms of short-term. I cannot tell if Polk's actions were positive or negative in terms of long-term because so many things happened since then to get our country where it is now. But, Polk's actions were negative because they put a bigger divide into the country. This is was the time when the differences between the south and the north were starting to cause an issue. Polk, instead of concentrating on maintaining peace within the country, he decided to get more land. This action made the southern plantation owners very happy but the northern antislavery believers were very unhappy. The nation saw this new land addition as more slave states. After Polk gained the land, the country was even more divided than it started off, setting up the stage for the civil war
I think Polk looked at the big picture- the acquisition of more land- which would benefit the US economically. He saw the end result as a win, no matter what the US lost in the process.
Tiffanie Lee
I think the decision to go to war with Mexico further divided the country between elites and the working class and exacerbated tensions between the North and South, which eventually factored into the Civil War. The declaration was politically motivated--although many sources from the time period, such as newspapers and art, portray the war and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny as a way for Americans to bring democracy to uncivilized lands/people, the decision was a way for politicians to cement their power and protect their positions (win popular vote). Even politicians opposed to the war took no real action against the declaration, citing that the addition of another slave-holding state would upset the balance of power between the North and South. The war had no concrete benefits for common people--many fought not for expansion, rather because they had no other means of supporting their family. The decision to continue fighting despite protests by immigrants and the working class split American society.
While Polk was in office, he wanted to make sure to leave a lasting impact before the next election. In his eyes the Mexican-American war could've been the only way that the United States people could have seen what a big advantage it was to have President Polk. His decision to go to war affected so many people because causing a war always has causalities and in this war there were a lot of those. All in all, Polk wanted to declare war to make sure he was reelected because he helped the US expand so much after that.
Xiye Chen
The group of antislavery people was one of the groups that was impacted by Polk's decision to declare war on Mexico. Because antislavery advocates only saw the war as an opportunity to increase slave states, they strongly opposed the US participation in the war. In response to the Polk's decision, more abolitionists, such as James Russell Lowell, began to write poems that criticized not only the Mexican American war, but also the horror of slavery. Thus, I think that Polk's decision gave abolitionists a chance to argue against slavery, which further divides the North and South relations. Overall, I think Polk's decisions negatively impacted the working class, especially the soldiers who fought in the war. Similar to the soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, the soldiers who fought in the Mexican American war did not promised what they were told by the government, including land and wealth. On the other hand, Ii think the war positively impacted the elite classes because it brought them more opportunities for land.
Why/how do you think the whole country was so easily influenced and taken over by the ideas of a few radical and powerful expansionists?
Katerina Slaughter
The whole country was easily influenced at first by these expansionist because they saw these people as successful. Because much of the country would have wanted to be successful and powerful as radical expansionist, like President Polk, they saw their words and ideas as correct as they were rich and successful therefore they must know what they are talking about. This image that the average American citizen had of those powerful, radical expansionist caused them to trust in their [expansionists] opinions.
Claire Simmons
To add to that, the majority of the American people at the time shared a common sense of racial superiority and hatred for those who were not white. This, with respect for those who were powerful and successful, could have influenced the nation, including those like the Whigs, the majority of whom opposed the nation's approach on expansion.
I believe that the country itself didn't want to go into war with the Mexicans, but had no choice in that matter. The group of people that supported the war were apart of the elites. They were very powerful and had a say in the government. The common people really did not have a say in the government or really any power to overturn the government's decision. So they had to go along with the idea of having a war with Mexico to gain more land and might've justified by saying that the people who were successful will know what is the best course of action for the nation.
Mattie Morris
I completely agree with your statement concerning the power of common people within America. However much we want to believe in the original intent of democracy within the US, the truth is that its foundation from the very beginning was built upon numerous added rules that were put in place to protect the power of American elites in the national government. If we assume that majority of common folk in America disapproved of the war, do you think taking action against national government decisions or protesting in another form would have been seen as treason? Or, would it be seen as a form of free speech, protected under the Bill of Rights?
I agree with this statement, as many people of the working and middle class weren't so fond of the war. Writers and intellectuals such as Garrison, Douglas, and Thoreau were highly against the war as they thought thatches would lead to the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired territory. At the time, around 10% of the country was foreign-born and didn't really buy the arguments of Manifest Destiny as an explanation to the war. Many working-class Americans joined the military and fought in Mexico, but they did so because they believed they stood to make money and earn property.
I think that people were heavily influenced by the idea of Manifest Destiny because there was always a glimpse of hope that their lives might improve if westward expansion was successful. On top of that, most of the people that held passionate views of westward expansion were the social elite, who had the power and influence to persuade the less fortunate to complete their bidding. Also, since many of the less fortunate ones viewed westward expansion as a way to escape poverty with the hopes of many promised things, they felt that proceeding with the war was their only way to make ends meet.
Aidan Joiner
I think the politicians pushed reasoning that would ignite the country to yearn for expansion. One example of this is them using racism to justify their expansion. This not only includes pushing out native american tribes but the Mexican-American war as well.
I believe that this occurred due to the divide of power in the country. Since Polk supported the expansionist movement, the Mexican-American War started as a result. Also, I think that the country as a whole was influenced because they agreed with/trusted Polk, or they felt pressured to at least pretend to agree with his policies.
Eli Bivona
I don't really think the whole country was influenced by these leaders as much as it seemed. Despite the war, there was not a lot of support from the people. The government had to force people into joining the army and there were anti war activists around the country who opposed the war.
I think the whole country was easily influenced not because the expansions ideas were right but because it is what they wanted to believe. I think it's like googling something and looking only for the answer you want. Since their ideas seemed to support the country expanding those reasons sounded good to the citizens of the country. I think they were just looking for the answer that will justify for their actions.
The radical and powerful expansionists, though few in number, had extreme power in the media and in the sphere of influence that most Americans followed. Many of these elitists would pay newspapers and other media outlets at the time to write or put out word of how great their ideas on westward expansion and fighting this war were. Through this their ideas became the public norm, people followed what the media was telling them and the media was telling them these ideas. These elitists basically created this influence and made sure the people had a feeling that all of this was right and as a result so many people were influenced by it.
This was largely due to confirmation bias. Because many Americans already held the belief that they were superior, and that they had the rights to attain wealth and land, the ideas were easily absorbed by them.
I think different Americans were influenced for different reasons. The President constitutionally has the power to command troops, so soldiers engaged in expansion under a sense of duty and because they were paid to do so. Furthermore, the declaration of war was rushed by the Democratic party, which left the Whig party being forced to support the troops as to not seem unpatriotic. On another note, there were many more than a few expansionists. Both the Whig party and the Democratic party were pro-westward expansion, they just disagreed on the means of expansion. So when it comes to expansion, the country was not swayed by the few, the vast majority were in favor of expansion.
Was the idea of Manifest Destiny unconstitutional? Was Congress right to declare war on Mexico in the spirit of Manifest Destiny?
I feel like some ideas of manifest destiny were unconstitutional. Especially because to too many Americans manifest destiny was intertwined with the idea of superiority, and this was held as a belief driving westward expansion. I also felt like Congress was not right to declare war because Polk had intentional sent a small amount of troops into Mexican territory to provoke them, and manipulated them into giving America a reason to declare war on Mexico.
Abhay Kondru
Manifest destiny or westward expansion for that matter weren't even mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution didn't outline anything about foreign policy and served as only a framework for the early American government. Plus, manifest destiny was an extension of European colonial conquest that has less to do with the Constitution that it would with perhaps the Monroe Doctrine. In short, manifest destiny was independent from constitutional law. Personally, I believe that it was wrong for Congress to declare war on Mexico because the cries for war were inspired by a president (Polk) and a group of Americans (slaveholders) that held an unfair amount of power and influence that outweighed that of the American people as a whole. The war was very much incited by individual desires and Congress should've identified that and moved to take a more diplomatic approach to the situation. While this is what I believe to be the appropriate course of action, it would've been highly unlikely for this to occur due to the overwhelming power that the Southern elite and the Polk presidency had at the time.
Nihar Thakkar
The idea of Manifest Destiny was not necessarily unconstitutional, but was debatable on ethical grounds. The United States paid Mexico $15 million for the land it took, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that "we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God." This shows that the American people tried to find excuses/justifications for the expansion of American land. In this case, their excuse/justification for spreading land was Manifest Destiny, the idea that the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy to more people. Congress has the power to declare war according to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify that a reason must be provided for declaring war, so Congress was right to declare war on Mexico in the spirit of Manifest Destiny.
Manasa Tandri
The idea of manifest destiny itself was not unconstitutional, as the government has the power to handle foreign matters as they see fit. However, this idea of following through with Manifest Destiny through war was extremely unethical and can be compared to the Doctrine of Discovery which stated that colonists had the right to conquer anyone who was not Christian. The expansionist principle was fueled by white superiority and greed for land, for which the government did not have due justification to take the lives of the Mexicans living there. In the spirit of the Manifest Destiny at the time, it seemed reasonable for the US to declare war on Mexico to gain the land quickly, but the means by which they went about this war was unethical and caused a lot of devastation and loss.
Yes, many things in American society and culture were hypocritical according to the constitution. With prevalent ideas of white superiority, many people thought that whites were superior to the native Mexicans, saying that America would bring better ideas into their society and would cause for the betterment of the people of Mexico. I think that Polk had the right to declare war on Mexico from the passage. I do think that the ways that Polk managed to compel Mexican soldiers to fire the first shot heavily played into his favor. Although, you could argue that the Mexicans were forced to conflict with the American troops encircling on their position and practically invading their towns, Americans say that they made no threats towards the Mexican people, which i doubt. So, technically, Polk had the right to declare war but without the telling of the initial things he did with American soldiers to compel Mexico make the first move.
I believe that the idea of Manifest Destiny is were some what unconstitutional. It was right of the US to explore west into unclaimed territories however, when encountering Mexico Rio Grande, unjust action were taken by President Polk that made Congress declare war on Mexico. We see this in the article when it says "All that was needed in the spring of 1846 was a military incident to begin the war that Polk wanted." This shows how Polk wants to entice the Mexicans into attack so that they can steal their land by war. This action by a president in unjust because it shows his dishonor toward Mexico because he thinks they are a weak country. Congress was right to declare war only because it was almost forced on by the president. It would be dumb for congress to just not allow a declaration of war if Mexico attacked US soldiers.
Zander Selleseth
I do not believe the idea of Manifest Destiny was specifically unconstitutional because the United States Constitution did not specifically address or prohibit the issue of annexing new territories. Some opponents of the idea may have cited this as a reason for its unconstitutionality, but by this time in American history, the powers of the presidency had expanded to the point where taking actions not specifically mentioned in the Constitution was not necessarily looked upon as wrong. The actions taken under the doctrine of manifest destiny also closely mirrored Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, which was generally looked upon as beneficial to the United States. However, despite the legality of the actions taken in declaring war on Mexico, I do not believe the actions taken by the United States in pushing for war were morally just. In doing so, they intentionally robbed another nation of nearly half of their land, fragmenting Mexico's people and disrupting the lives of many civilians. A more diplomatic approach should and could have been considered that would have allowed for the peaceful transfer of land that did not have such a negative impact upon both Mexican and US civilians.
I think that the idea of Manifest Destiny was incredibly unconstitutional and that as a formal colony it was morally wrong of the United States to believe in the practices of Manifest Destiny for it completely countered the ideas and spirit of America. Furthermore I think it was wrong of Congress to declare war on Mexico when much of the country did not agree with the war in the first place.
I don't believe that the idea of manifest destiny is unconstitutional thought I do believe that some of the events that happened during the war were in fact out of line and may have been cause by manifest destiny. I also don't believe that congress was right to declare war on Mexico in the spirit of Manifest Destiny, but I do believe that the US was right to declare war based on some of the actions taken by Mexico.
I believe the idea of manifest destiny was unconstitutional since it is the belief of expansion of the US was inevitable. I also believe it was not right for congress to declare war on Mexico in the spirt of manifest destiny. Also there were other groups, anti slavery society, that believe that it was not right to declare war through manifest destiny. They specifically said about the war that it, "waged solely for the detestable and horrible purpose of extending and perpetuating American slavery throughout the vast territory of Mexico." This shows how manifest destiny was not only unconstitutional but was debated in society.
How do you think this war shaped the establishment of democratic principles in the early United States? Did the actions taken by the government in this war reflect the democratic ideology in the Constitution, or did it undermine them? Do you think this set a precedent for future wars being similarly democratic or undemocratic?
I think that this war somewhat undermined the democratic principles of the US, but I think a lot of the party politics that were seen during this time period are still present today. The selection outlined how many congressmen voted in support of Polk for fear that voting against the war would cost them political power. The gain and loss of political power is often a driving force that continues today, with practices such as logrolling, where members of congress will trade a vote for a vote in order to get bills passed even if they don't necessarily agree with the bill's contents. This outlines the ides that party politics have played and continue to shape the actions taken by the government. This seemed to set a precedent that the president has far more power in commanding troops than the constitution outlined and the influence of the media and power and government influenced the way that members of the government voice their opinions, making them more diluted and susceptible to change.
The Mexican-American War definitely bolstered the idea of popular sovereignty by allowing citizens the chance to voice their opinions, as the Kansas-Nebraska Act showed in response to ambiguity in the use of new territory. However, the government's actions did undermine the U.S. Constitution because Polk, a Democrat, essentially failed to communicate his war tactic with Congress and pushed Mexico into the war, portraying them as villainous. The War somewhat set a precedent, because in the years prior to the Civil War, the Compromise of 1850 was enacted democratically. However, this didn't last long, as conflicts over constitutional democracy followed the South's secession.
Jacob Fessler
I think that because as the document says, the war was fought to benefit the rich, it undermined the concept of democracy. Though the majority of the population didn't strongly support the war, they were outweighed by the disproportionate representation of wealthy ideals in congress and authority positions. I think that this set a precedent for these wars being less democratic, but overall it's impact was temporary.
This war doesn't seem to represent the democracy outlined in the constitution. Polk's decision went against many of the peoples views even though the president is supposed to a representative of the people. Similarly, many congressmen were forced to vote for war to hold up their power. Also the U.S. attacked civilians and those not connected to the war.
In what ways do the actions of the United States during the Mexican-American war represent a historical continuity in terms of the balance of political power? In what ways do they represent a change?
A historical continuity is represented by the concentration of political power in the southern elite who were plantation owners and slaveholders. They were the group of people who heavily supported the Mexican-American War as they yearned to conquer more territory even west of the Louisiana Territory to develop into slave states for their own economic gain. The US government itself represents a historical continuity as the presidency was passed from a slaveholder and expansionist to another slaveholder and expansionist (John Tyler to James K. Polk), which is reflected through the executive agenda promoting westward expansion during the late 1840s.
The Mexican-American War represented continuity in the very foundation of the expansion of U.S. territory, especially in instances such as the Indian Removal Act. To elaborate, I think conquest has been a fundamental continuity in the U.S.'s call for power. Even in the 1790's, for example, colonizers used violence to drive natives off their land, to make way for the settlers' own wants. Therefore, the territorial expansion of America has been founded on violence, as presented in the Mexican-American war. Politically, the increase of America's political boundaries has been based off conquest. However, the War represented a change in political groups' ideals and further pushed tensions between groups. For example, the Whigs at first despised the war, but, according to the following quote, "As the veterans returned home, speculators immediately showed up to buy the land warrants given by the government… which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that "we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God," this political party quickly changed their views in favor of the War. Furthermore, Democrats supported the War. Despite the change in the Whigs' ideals, tension was still created because they thought the War was unfounded constitutionally.
The actions of the U.S. during the Mexican-American War most prominently displayed a continuity, as almost the same situation occurred with the U.S. and the natives. The U.S. forced both natives and Mexicans off their own land, and both times, it involved violence. Although there were many similarities, I think that the main difference was the Mexican civilization's use of a central government, rather than the natives and their multiple tribal groups. Mexico's centralized government meant that the citizens were more closely unified and that the country as a whole would be somewhat unanimous. This increase in unification meant that it would be more difficult for the U.S. to take their land, which is likely why this conflict was a war, while the conflict with the natives was mainly one-sided.
The American people were not all behind the war, in fact it seems like a majority were against the war, so why do you believe that the war still took place and was won? Especially when the army was basically falling apart with all of the dissenters.
Polk wanted the war to go on, so he ordered General Taylor to place troops in Rio Grande. In the document, it said that Colonel Cross's body was found, and Mexicans attacked, which caused the war to start. The Congress then approved the war message, and the Senate debated, but eventually passed with a vote of 40-2, with Whigs joining the Democrats.
Xander Lewis
The war still took place because once the president was in power the majority opinion did not matter because they couldn't remove him without a proper reason, so he used this to get those who were in positions of power to vote for the war and force it to happen, along with this he used the power of having the majority in congress to pressure people to vote for better things for the military.
Although the majority did not want the war, just like the others have said President Polk wanted the war. But not only that, mostly the wealthy wanted the war and land. They supported the idea of Manifest Destiny and even though they did not fight themselves, they had more political influence since they were wealthy. This might have impacted President Polk's orders and why the soldiers had to fight even though they did not want to be in the war.
Regardless of whether or not the citizens of America supported the war, they had no real power to do anything about it. Those who had power (that is, politically and socially) were part of the American elite, and these were the people who largely supported the war. That being said, they chose what they believed was the right course of action regardless of the opinions of the common person in America. While I acknowledge that there were thousands of deserters of the American army during the war, I think that it is important to acknowledge that the United States had just recently gone through its first industrial revolution, resulting in better technology as well as a population boom, giving the US an advantage over Mexico.
I think that the war was continued mainly because of the realization of what they could get if they were to win. Most people were against the idea of war but not against the idea of expansion, for example the Whigs party. They were strongly against the use of war to annex land from Mexico, however, many of them were expansionists. I feel like once the war effort was starting to win, less people felt the need to join the war effort and did not feel it was necessary to be there.
Tanjida Shamsuddin
Although, a majority of the public was against the war, they didn't really form that opinion until after the war started, and part of the reasons is because of a lack of access to information. The only sources of information that were available to the general public were newspapers and editorials, which were run by the elite and powerful people, so the public got very biased information. I believe it was also one of the reasons that so many people volunteered as soldiers in the beginning, because the newspapers made it seem as though the war was a great economic investment and the general public bought into the support.
I think that the war took place (and was won) because in America, a continuity is and was that a small political elite do and take most of the decisions and that the average American is the one to take the brunt of that cost. Ultimately the US won because many people agreed to fight and that the army was falling apart and managed to won because of the sheer amount of people fighting in the war on the American side.
The war was still going to take place as Polk's presidency essentially depended on the expansion to the west. Polk was intent on expanding west and sought any sort of reason for that. The Mexican military gave Polk his reason to declare war on Mexico, when they decided to attack Taylor and his men near the Rio Grande. Even though some politicians highly opposed of the war, many of them quoted Manifest Destiny and thought in their own self-interest as they would reap the benefits of the land that could be theirs when the war was over.
Kate Langsdorf
First of all, the main issue with the opinion of the American people is that while Zinn makes it seem like most people were against the war, he also acknowledges that it is impossible to accurately judge the public sentiments at the time. Based on voting records, representatives and senators voted overwhelmingly in support of going to war. While there were mixed opinions from what is definitively known, there were probably two main factors that allowed the war to retain enough support to continue.
One factor is that the war was relatively short (only two years) and was fought on land that was foreign at the time, so it did not affect American homes.
The second factor is that during the development of the United States government, citizens were taught that the way they could advocate for change was following the system and working with their representatives. In this period, we are seeing very strong political parties, therefore it was unlikely for the Democratic majority to vote against the Democratic president.
These two factors allowed the war to continue long enough to begin being successful, at which point it garnered much more support.
The war still took place because a few, powerful men wanted war to happen. Polk, the president himself, wanted war, so he was able to convince push for war due to the power he held. In addition to that, the newspaper writers mostly pushed for war, and usually the ones who owned newspapers were rich, so they would benefit from the war and thus encouraged it. Thus, the rich and powerful were able to manipulate the masses for their benefit. There were enough people in the masses who supported the war so that it did seem like there was a majority vote, and thus despite the majority not wanting war, the powerful managed to manipulate them into going to war.
Short answer: forced drafts into the army
Longer answer: wealthy landowners did everything in their power to raise morale for fighting in the Mexican-American war through the media. These wealthy land owners were also in positions of political power most of the time. This means that they have influence on the military as well.
We talked about a wide variety of lasting effects the Mexican war play on the political, cultural, and social relationship between both peoples. In your opinion, out of the multitude of changes, which one plays the biggest role in our present day relationship with Mexico?
The discussion in my class focused heavily on the aspects of the Mexican-American War itself in relation to westward expansion and the varying responses and opinions within Americans at the time. For the purpose of expanding the limited scope of that discussion, I'll pose the following question: What parallels can be drawn between the US government at the time of the Mexican-American War and the US government in the modern day?
For one, the US government at the time was very expansionist-based, in that Americans around the nation had the mindset of gaining more land. Therefore, the war was seen as justifiable in the eyes of many Americans, because expanding land was seen as commonplace during the time. This is a clear example of verstehende, putting oneself in the shoes of someone in the past. I muse, however, that in the modern day, the US government is quite different in that it is not focused on expanding land like it was in the past. Now that the United States is an established, industrialized country, it is more focused on foreign relations, trade, and the well-being of its people more than expanding its boundaries.
I agree with Nihar in the sense that the United States government of today does not share the expansionist views based upon the idea of Manifest Destiny that the government under Polk did, but I believe some parallels could still be drawn. A prime example of such a parallel is the "America First" policy held by our current administration, in which our country's leaders put American issues at the top of their priority lists, making sure we solve domestic problems before tackling foreign ones. This mindset is somewhat similar to the stance taken by our government during the time period of the Mexican-American war in the sense that they too prioritized American economic and territorial gains over the affairs and general well-being of other countries (in this case Mexico).
I do believe hat some parallels definitely can be drawn between the government of the time of the war and modern day. For example I believe the US government today holds strong at establishing their borders, especially between other countries with the wall being built today. I do think some things are much different than that of the past such as I feel like today the US is less trigger happy on who they are going to war with.
How do you guys think the war impacted Americans and Mexicans after the war ended?
I think the American public could have felt a boost of morale and patriotism after the US cession of the Mexican territory. With that, there was also an increase in tension between the slave holding South and the free North over whether to allow slavery in the new territory. The Mexican people were most likely left discouraged and angry that their land had been invaded and taken, regardless of the 15 million they received from the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo that marked the end of the war.
I think that the Mexican-American War impacted the future of both countries. In America, the aftermath of the war lead to increased tensions between the North and the South over the decision of slave states versus free stats. There was also an increased tension between socioeconomic classes, because political leaders during the time took advantage of their position to push for the war even though the majority of common people were against the war. However, I think that greater economical opportunities were created in the aftermath. In Mexico, the people had lost lots of land, and only 15 million in return, which was mainly used to repair what was destroyed in the war and released America of their debt with Mexico. The war led the Mexicans into a period of self-examination, where they examined why their leaders led them into the situation in the first place, which caused lots of political tension in the country.
As seen today (Tex-Mex culture), the war led to the diffusion of both American and Mexican cultures among people in the territory. There may have also been hostility between settlers and native peoples because of their conflicting views over control of the land (entitled bc of victory vs. stolen from).
How did the Mexican American War affect American women?
The Americans were able to fulfill their "manifest destiny" by taking the Mexicans land. The Mexicans on the other hand weren't so lucky, they only lost land in the war and this made the relationship between the two countries not so good.
I honestly believe that the war led to many Mexicans and Americans disliking each other and beginning a culture of mistrust between the two groups. This is evident with the Zimmerman telegram and many other situations that are still prevalent in the political culture of today. The reality is that this portrayal of both groups has led to many people disliking one another all over a land dispute.
alex klevans
I believe that the United States suffered division as a result of the Mexican-American war due to opposing viewpoints on the morality of the war. Mexico would grow to have a disdain for the United States after their annexation of their land
What do you think would have been the consequences if the majority of America did not believe manifest destiny was a justified reason for Westward expansion? Would they have been more positive or negative?
I think it's hard to first define westward expansion as simply good or bad. Any hypothetical outcome would be hard to define as well. As long as the elites of America believed in manifest destiny, I don't think a majority opposition would change that. Since most Americans couldn't even vote and enslaved Black Americans weren't even legally considered people, I don't see how these people would be able to sway the country's actions. It's a different story if the powerful and rich white men of America didn't believe in manifest destiny though.
Maya Westerlund
I believe that the consequences would have been fairly similar. Although Manifest Destiny was used largely as a justification for westward expansion, there were other ulterior motives such as to have more land for growing cotton, being able to have slaves, and making an economic profit. Therefore I believe that even if Americans did not believe that expansion was inevitable and justified, I think that groups would have still slowly branched out and tried to expand as population grew whether they saw it as ethically right or beneficial for the other people or not.
I don't believe there would be any consequences, because the general American population at the time was already represented by the document as not necessarily agreeing with the justifications for the war. The fact that the war happened shows that at the time, those in political positions had the power to outweigh the majority, even if they had extreme political views. I think that there would not have been any consequences.
Personally I think that the majority of the American people didn't really care about manifest destiny nearly as much as the government. The government pushed for more land so that the people could move out west but it wasn't a push by the people.
I think that the consequences would have been worse if the majority of people didn't believe in manifest destiny as a justified reason because then I don't think enough people would be for the war occurring and it wouldn't have ended up occurring. If this happened then I believe that tensions between US and Mexico would have grown even stronger and I think that it would ultimately end in more bloodshed.
Yogesh Koppu
I definitely would believe that without the manifest destiny most people would have a negative reaction towards it because that would simply just mean that the general U.S. public would simply be using unnecessary resources where they could be using it elsewhere. Also considering that it hadn't been too long since the revolutionary war not many people would be interested in actually participating in this war. But we also have to take into account that at the time not all people were given rights specifically black people. People might speak up about it but they won't be able to change any thing and would just sit at home going about their lives.
The conditions of soldiers during the Mexican-American war are something to consider when deliberating the reasons and outcomes of the war. What do you think was more important for the nation at the time: Safe soldier conditions or winning the war regardless? Why?
I think the nation was more concerned with winning the war regardless. The article talks about how the soldiers who fought in the war were denied several essential resources such as food and adequate clothing. They were constantly pushed to continue fighting and often fought battles that many viewed as pointless. I think the nation wanted to do anyting they could to win the war, so they didn't spend much focus on the conditions for their soldiers.
The answer is quite clear here. The United States at the time was devoted to the expansion of the country from coast to coast, no matter the cost. This made victory in the war the primary objective, which is seen through the extensive efforts by the government to generate support for the war, with examples being the widespread recruitment initiatives and lowering of qualifications for prospective soldiers. Once the United States was able to build itself an army for the war, they didn't care about the conditions of the soldiers. They only cared about winning. This is why the first-hand accounts of soldiers in the war made it seem horrendous and intolerable and why the war itself had one of the highest mortality rates in US history.
Although the soldiers were put through extremely harsh circumstances in war, it was ultimately westward expansion and Manifest Destiny that was top priority to America, specifically, to president Polk. There were repeated efforts for more soldiers to participate in war, and even provided them with false promises to get more volunteers. This elaborates on the fact that American officials were primarily focused on getting more soldiers to build their army and expand.
Anum Hafiz
I think the United States would have done anything to win the war, disregarding how the soldiers felt about it. Throughout the reading, the author gives several examples on how soldiers were treated. For instance, Hitchcock wrote about his experiences in the war and how he just wanted to go home, but he still had to fight. I actually think that the United States was well aware of how soldiers felt and their conditions during the war, but they most likely didn't care because of the notion of history repeating itself; if soldier conditions weren't safe in the American Revolution (which is most likely true), then they can go through it again in the Mexican-American War.
Despite the fact that a nation should look after and protect the well-being and health of their troops, I do not believe this was the case during the Mexican American war. The government and military leadership of the United States, fueled by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and desires to expand the practice of slavery, placed a great emphasis upon victory over Mexico, no matter the cost. This resulted in the poor behavior and conditions soldiers faced on the front lines, as was described in the numerous accounts from soldiers describing the true realities of war in "We Take Nothing by Conquest, Thank God". Unfortunately for the US leadership, the poor conditions resulting in their lack of concern for the well-being of their troops resulted in a lower desire among American men to enlist to fight in the war, likely harming the overall war effort in turn.
During the war I think that for the nation the conditions of the soldiers were less important for the nations and that winning was more of a priority. Because of manifest destiny America was primarily focusing on expanding nation west and that it was their god given right to take the land. Because of this America would do anything in order the secure that territory, even if it meant the life of the soldiers.
Gigi Pizzo
In my opinion what was more important for the nation at the time was winning the war regardless of whether or not the soldiers has safe conditions. I think this because the article gave several examples on how the soldiers were promised compensation for going into war but when they asked they received nothing or little to nothing for their services. The nation would do whatever they had to in order to gain the victory on Mexico even though that meant harming/hurting their own people.
President Polk was persistent in continuing with the war efforts even though many American citizens and soldiers were against a war. I'm assuming from this, Americans at the time may have not been in favor of, or happy with Polk. With the US victory and gain of the Mexican territory, do you think the American people changed their views on Polk? Or rather, do you think he would have gained any popularity from the American public?
Even though many people were against the war, I think Polk would've gained popularity. After the US victory, there was a large amount of territory gained from the treaty. During this time, many people wanted to expand and with the new territory it would allow people to trade and make a profit. Additionally, people would be able to build more factories and plantations using the new land. With these benefits of the new land gained by the war, I believe Polk would've gained more popularity
Polk definitely gained popularity from the American public. While there may have been opposition of the war before it started and during the fighting, after the war ended in America's favor, most Americans likely supported the results. With a large addition of land to the United States, most of the John Q. Public probably just accepted it and moved on to new concerns such as if the new territory should be occupied by slaves.
I think some people may have changed their view if they were uncertain of Polk's success. However, I believe that the people who were forced into the war and who had to live with the detrimental effects during as well as afterwards were not happy with Polk. In contrast, I think the elite would have been in more support because they were the ones with the power to take slaves and business to the newly acquired territory, creating an additional victory for themselves in addition to that of the nation.
I think that Polk would have gained popularity with those who were neutral to begin with and those who already supported him, however those against him would see his victory as him being everything they thought he already was, the victory would only reinforce their opinions about him.
I think that something that our class did not touch on a lot was the idea that the Whigs did not support the war. This is a somewhat confusing topic because they did not want to go to war although they still were expansionists and thought that eventually the superior white race of the US would naturally spread out west. Lincoln said, "If to say "the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President" be opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. ... But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving-of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies." This shows how thw Whig party disagreed with Polk's ethics behind starting the war but because we had soldiers already fighting they would vote to support their needs to survive, even though that meant continuing the war.
Rebecca Robinson
In what ways did the Mexican-American war set up for the United States and Mexico's current relationship? Was there any positive outcomes (for their relationship) that came from the war?
Kyra Dalbo
The Mexican-American war definitely set up a more divided relationship between the United States and Mexico. I believe the United States still partially carries the idea of superiority and feeling that Mexico is inferior in many ways. As Mexico seemed to struggle a bit more (economically) due to the war, the lack of exponential industrial improvements created a bit of a barrier between the two countries. The United States is still seen as more of a global powerhouse, while Mexico still has many developing areas and still struggles with some parts of their economy.
After the war ended, Mexicans who lived in the area now claimed by the US were permitted to stay and become citizens, and this could be seen as a positive. While there was heavy discrimination as a result, diversity still increased in the country, and Mexicans were given some small opportunities.
I agree with Kyra, Mexico and the United States became more divided than they already were, but there was already tension between the two countries due to the Texas border dispute. However, there were positive outcomes that came from the war. The 1850s in the United States were already a period of high growth rates and low mortality rates because of the Industrial Revolution, leading to a high overall population growth rate. With more land, the United States and Mexico could accommodate for the population cluster, therefore being a positive in terms of their relationship after the war.
Athough the majority of the people agreed with the idea of manifest destiny, it is hard to say whether or not Americans agreed with the war or not. What do you think if the newspapers that portrayed "the people" would have had a more neutral or negative view towards the war?
I think there was more of a negative aspect of the war portrayed in media at this time. For example, the American Peace Society printed a newspaper, and the Advocate of Peace published poems, speeches, petitions, sermons against the war, and eyewitness accounts of the degradation of army life and the horrors of battle. This comes to show that there was a handful of negative feedback on the war, such as petitions, and other sources of info giving details about the circumstances that soldiers were put through in war.
Lynn Lee
I think that if the newspaper truly portrayed the people, it would have showed a lot more accounts of people that actually opposed the war. The chapter talked about how many were afraid to express their true opinions in fear of being cast out or made fun of for their point of view. But if we could find out how many people had truly opposed the war, I think we would found a lot more people who actually opposed the war and thought that the war was unnecessary.
As long-distance communication was limited at the time, regional newspapers would have played a large role in the diffusion of information regionally. It seems as though most of the published material opposing the war originated from northern states (for instance, Douglass opposed the war in the Rochester newspaper the North Star and working-men protested the annexation in a Manchester, NH newspaper). This would have led to sectionalism as entire regions could have been influenced / swayed in a certain direction based on the information available to them.
Katie Einsmann
I think newspapers had a large influence over the American people and their views were altered based on what the news was saying. If there was an overall negative view on the war, I believe a lot of people would have opposed the war. If there was a neutral view, people would have had a neutral view. The media has a large influence on people and I think they played a large role during this time.
The newspaper publishing's were not a good representation of the American people, but for the most part they leaned for fighting the war. This was seen in the New York Journal of Commerce, which wrote, "Let us go to war. The world has become stale and insipid, the ships ought to be all captured.." Most newspapers were probably sent out to try to fins more people to enlist in the war, and had to show support if they wanted to successfully do so. This shows that for the most part newspapers portrayed the people having a positive view towards the war in order to persuade people reading the newspapers that in order to be patriotic, they should be in support of the war.
If the idea of Manifest Destiny hadn't been created and pushed by the journalistic communities in the United States would Americans have found another way to excuse and explain the countries actions?
I believe that even without the justification of Manifest Destiny, the expansionists would have found other means of justifying their actions. This was seen through the Indian Removal Act, where the Americans justified taking land from natives through the idea of a better use for the land. The Americans and government of the time constantly were seeking more land through the filibusters to expand and promote slave states, so I definitely think that even without the coined term of Manifest Destiny, the Americans would've continued to push their agenda fueled by white supremacy.
I agree with Manasa, I think that the United States would have eventually found a reason to expand out west through other things besides Manifest Destiny, such as accusations of violence or blame. For example, when the Army found one of their soldier's skull crushed, they immediately blamed the Mexicans. They were already looking for a small reason just to spark the movement of expansion out west, and would have eventually found a justification through violence, economic purpose, or belief of racial superiority.
Even without journalists pushing westward expansion, many citizens of the U.S. still resented other races just because they thought they were inferior. The U.S. was founded on the principal to bring liberty and democracy, and this is what the citizens think they are doing.
In short, yes. I think that the United States was looking for and needed an excuse to take more land. Although the country was viewed as the "home of the free" the country was still looking to expand and any excuse possible was taken. This then led to the country creating the concept of Manifest Destiny (which has Christian roots completely going against the idea of separating religion and state) in order to justify taking land that wasn't our own.
The selection stated that, "Still, Hitchcock, the dutiful soldier, wrote for General Scott "a sort of address to the Mexican people" which was then printed in English and Spanish by the tens of thousands saying ". . . we have not a particle of ill-will towards you-we treat you with all civility-we are not in fact your enemies; we do not plunder your people or insult your women or your religion ... we are here for no earthly purpose except the hope of obtaining a peace."
What do you think poor farmers or common people who would not benefit from the war should've done to make their ideas heard more and not be lost among the loud minority of those who supported the war. Was it possible for them to be heard during this time period given their lack of power?
I think that even if the poor or common people rose up, stated their opinion, and rallied together, there was a good chance they would be ignored. I feel as though that if the common people protested the war, the government would've sent in troops to shut down the protest (probably with the army), and then continue with the plans for the war. It was hard to be heard during this time period unless you were rich, power, or influential, and even then people had a hard time speaking up, being heard, and creating change.
The writing includes details about the cruel and violent behaviors of American soldiers after conquering the Mexican lands/cities. What could be the motivation behind such inhuman behaviors of American soldiers?
One reason could be the deep-rooted racism and belief of white supremacy. Religious differences and the hatred of Catholicism could also have contributed to this barbaric behavior. Many Americans at the time viewed Mexicans with disdain, believing that America was both racially and religiously superior to Mexico. This behavior is not at all unique or unprecedented, though, as history has repeatedly shown.
One of the biggest topics that the chapter discussed was the whole topic of Manifest Destiny, which is this belief of white superiority, how whites were entitled to land, and how they were going to make life better for the people who lived there. Manifest Destiny began to be spread around a lot before and during the Mexican-American war, and it was the belief of the majority of citizens that lived in the United States at the time. And this concept led to the United States thinking that, they deserved the land and that they were entitled to it. Another thing was that the "inhuman behaviors" of the soldiers were mostly soldiers simply following orders from their superiors. Most soldiers were simply in the war to get compensation so that they could support and feed their families, and their main source of motivation was their families.
I think that one of the reasons that the Americans thought that it was ok to take the land because of the people they found that had been killed by the Mexican people. I think that the main reason that they found it ok though is because of manifest destiny and that God had destined for the Americans to expand their territory and take the land in Mexico
Do you believe that Polk was right for declaring war against Mexico or do you think there could have been a compromise made to continue spreading west? If you do think a compromise would have been appropriate, what might the compromise have been?
I think that Polk was not right in declaring war against mexico because the concept that we have to expand does not serve as a justifiable reason to try to take someone elses land. I don't think a compromise could have been made because the people of mexico likely would not accept that we want their land for no justifiable reason. Along with this after one compromise we would likely keep pushing and eventually mexico would get fed up with us.
To play devil's advocate, I think there could be an argument that Polk was justified in his actions to declare war on the Mexicans. At the time, there were prevalent ideas of white supremacy in the society and being a slave owner was not looked down upon by his people in the South. Plus, he viewed that any hostile action brought to him was a threat while he did not see the troops that he sent into Mexico was a hostile action. So when the Mexicans fired the first shot, he now had the necessary action to kick start his war actions and get people behind the war effort.
Michael Cao
I do not believe that Polk was right for declaring war against Mexico, but I do not think that any compromise that would allow the US to continue spreading westward could be made, since we know that the US repeatedly attempted to and failed to buy the land that they eventually conquered and then paid for with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Other than their enlistments, how else did immigrants take part in the war? Was the strong national dislike toward immigrants still prevalent, or was this not relevant during and years after the Mexican-American War?
Aditya Bhatia
I think that immigrants played a huge role in the war. Very often, there were a lot of immigrants coming in from European countries, such as England, Sweden, and Germany. Due to mass population growth, Europe was facing overcrowding issues which resulted in working males to immigrate to the United States. Immigration was also resulting from religious disagreements and job loss due to the Industrial Revolution. These immigrants were taken in well by the United States, with little to no dislike, and they played a large role in the Mexican-American war.
Jonathan K. link
To what degree was this source reliable? Did you feel that there was any bias, and how does it compare to that of the class textbook?
Maya Westerlund link
I think this source was reliable in that it included many primary sources with relevant information. However, even being primary sources, they could have been written for purposes other than those of history class, including as propaganda. I do believe there was bias, not necessarily in the words of the writer but rather in the fact that the author included very little to represent viewpoints of people from those who were in the Mexican territory on the other side of the war. I think for bias purposes our textbook is more useful because it includes a variety of sources that support various arguments and viewpoints, and not just those of Americans.
I believe that this source was reliable because the author did directly take sections from primary sources. But, this text was also very heavily biased. The reader can easily tell that the author did not support the ideals of Polk and was against the war. Many of the primary sources that he pulled from people who did not agree with the idea of war. He did not show the other side of the argument (pro war) as well as he should've. He wrote this text trying to sway the reader into thinking that the war was unnecessary. The class textbook generally tries to keep everything neutral. If the class textbook wrote about the war, it probably wouldn't have gone into too much detail. It probably wouldn't have focused on the people who were against the war as in much detail as this text. But, at the same time, it probably would've included more information for the other side.
Torrin Lamb
How did westward expansion and new territory from the Mexican American war shape what we now see as the United States? In what possible ways could the United States had developed differently if there was no Mexican American war?
The land the United States gained during the Mexican-American war had a very large impact in the development of the country as a whole. As California was very sought after due to the gold it contained, the annexation of this land brought wealth to the economy. Many citizens traveled across the country for the riches, and this became a positive economic factor for the United States. The United States would definitely not have been as economically prosperous as it became after the war. Industries may not have blossomed the way they did, and the United States may have stayed a much smaller and less powerful nation.
arjoiner@students.wcpss.net
Similar to the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American war greatly expanded U.S. territory into North America. Without it, we would not have had access to a Pacific market as well as the large cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. We may not have been a world power without it.
The press/newspaper was significant in rallying up the American population for the Mexican-American war. But the abolitionists also had newspapers, which opposed the war, such as the Liberator and the North Star. If the abolitionists also had press, why didn't their opposing views affect the United States as much? If they had done more do you think the war could've been prevented?
A large number of people did not speak out opposing the war. Some people believed that if they spoke out against the war, their voices would not be heard or taken into consideration. One example was Ralph Emerson, who believed that there was no point in protesting. This could be applied to the abolitionists. Abolitionists may not have written a lot about this topic because they could've thought there was no point. Those who did write about this issue could've been ignored or outspoken by other news outlets that wrote for the war.
I think this is an interesting point that you bring up. I think part of the reason that abolitionist/anti-war newspapers did not receive as much attention was because for a long time, powerful and known leaders weren't taking a firm stance against the war. One of the quotes I have to support this is: "No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party...by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or another." Due to fear of accusations of disloyalty, many major politicians, that potentially had the power to help these newspapers gain attention, stayed silent. Another reason is actions speak louder than words. Although anti-war groups argued against the war, majority didn't take any action that could actually impede the war efforts. Overall, I think that if these newspapers had been backed by more known politicians willing to take action, the war we know today may not have happened the same way.
Divya Korategere
This is my full name
How does the Mexican-American war compare to other instances of acquisition of land? Was it more or less justified?
Sriya Machunuri
The Mexican-American war was waged to fulfill 'manifest density' for America. Many acquisition of lands in the past main goal was the need of god, glory, and gold which can be related to what America wanted from Mexico. The war wasn't justified, but it does have the same intentions as past acquisitions of land.
I agree with Sriya that the war was not justified. But like you mentioned in the past God was a reason for land. For example, when they first settled, some groups coverted the Native Americans. These were done out of good intentions to bring them to salvation. However, in this war they just wanted land for themselves with radical views such as the Manifest Destiny. For that reason I think this war is less justified than other times where they obtained land.
How does the title of the chapter (We Take Nothing by Conquest, Thank God) show ignorance of those who would have believed in the statement?
Maddy Chen
I think Zinc does this in an almost sarcastic way to show the irony of the title. This is the same reason he used the quote, "Shall this garden of beauty be suffered to lie dormant in its wild and useless luxuriance?" when referring to California although there were many Native Americans inhabiting the land already. Behind the title, Zinc shows that although some argued the Mexican-American war was a mild conflict, in reality there was tons of bloodshed and chaos during it. After a whole chapter explaining the conquest of Mexico, by concluding with that phrase, this shows the American belief that Mexico being annexed was just a capitalist transaction and deal done through the $15 million dollars; they tried to do this to justify their actions; rather, they saw it as a "blessing from God" which does support the not necessary ignorance, but just the beliefs of certain people at the time.
ZINN SORRY I WAS DOING CHEM AT THE SAME TIME.
The title of this chapter is meant to show the hypocrisy of the American people in this time, and today. This was seen in the ways that people saw how other countries were taking over land and people by conquest, but when they did near to the exact same thing, it wasn't considered being a "conquest." This is meant to prove how the American people were so wrapped up with the idea of manifest destiny that they couldn't see the faults in their ways, especially when it came to comparing themselves with other nations, especially ones considered as their enemies.
Anlin Thachil
The American people of this time believed that they had been appointed by god to bring about liberty to the land they were aiming to conquer. At the end of the text, it says, "The United States paid Mexico $15 million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that "we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God."". By establishing a treaty to peacefully resolve this problem, they had believed the land had been rightfully given to them, instead of taken by conquest. They wanted to see themselves as saviors and to go down in history as people who had earned the western territory through peaceful rather than violent means.
The soldiers and immigrants were obviously suffering and unhappy with the conditions of the war itself, and were confused about why they were even fighting. What do you think were the reasons why they kept on fighting and what were other driving forces?
I believe one of the reasons they kept on fighting was patriotism and money. The country was built on nationalism and patriotism so even though there was poor conditions the soldiers kept on fighting for their country. The other reason may have been money. Throughout the article, the author mentioned that the soldiers were told that they were going to get paid with land and/or money.
For most of the 1840s, many Americans, including soldiers, had the idea of "Manifest Destiny" craved into their heads, which could have been a reason why soldiers continued to fight during the Mexican-American War. The obligation to conform to this concept by dominating the continent drove them to fight for their country, which could also allude to having nationalism. One example of this is Colonel Hitchcock, who said that he is "bound to execute orders" in his diaries. I feel as though soldiers thought this approach to westward expansion was for unethical reasons, but they kept fighting because they wanted westward expansion. The popularity of the war increased dramatically as people, specifically soldiers, started looking at its benefits.
Dain Kim
The text makes a point and says that these soldiers were usually in the lower-class and often did not have a choice to fight or not. The higher ups mostly did not want to fight during the war hoping to be replaced by the poor working class. These people made deals with the poor to help their families. It was not about patriotism but mostly about financial help that these people needed
Based on what Hitchcock explained in the text, do you believe that if he were not a military man, would he would attempt to stop the war and westward expansion with violence and if so, how?
This is a really good question because it takes a complex idea of the 'what ifs' in a situation. As Hitchcock quoted, "My heart is not in this business, but, as a military man, I am bound to execute orders", it's evident that his own morales conflict with that of the job he was assigned to do. He argues that the US government is quite manipulative, however arguably incredibly intelligent to go to war on the premise of self-defense. Yet, even if he weren't a. military man, I doubt he would exert means to actually fully stop the war. As discussed in class, many abolitionists and other group agreed on expanding American soil. Even Abraham Lincoln, although creating the "spot resolutions", like the Whigs, he did not actively try to end the war as he still sponsored funds for men and supplies. So, I think even if Hitchcock weren't a military man, he wouldn't try to prevent the war.
I think you bring up a very interesting point here, I think the internal conflict that Hitchcock had, that was addressed in the reading, was something that many soldiers were facing, it was the internal war between what they were ordered to do and what they wanted to do. I'm not sure Hitchcock would have attempted to stop the war with violence, but I do believe he probably would've tried to fight back and advise a different plan and probably would've put up a resistance to orders or left all together. I think it highlights the fact that many of the soldiers fighting this war really didn't want to or have the head space to want too. I think they were bound to fight through orders, but I don't think that people necessarily wanted to fight this war, they probably would have deserted or rose up against this idea if they weren't military men. I don't think Hitchcock would have ensued violence to stop the war and expansion, but I definitely think that he would've petitioned the government to stop or convinced elites and the American people to not fight the war.
Could the war have been prevented? Were there any measures abolitionists, or Whigs, or anti-war people in general could have taken to stop it from occurring? Or to make it end quicker? If not, what were some immediate short term or long-term results from annexing Texas, and in your opinion, was it worth it?
You've asked several interesting questions here. In regards to your second, I'd like to suggest that perhaps there were measures that could be taken, but given the historical situation of the time, those in power were not willing to risk the negative social backlash that may come from a strong declaration of opinion. While the reading addressed that there were mixed feelings in Congress, the votes for war in both the Senate and the House of Representatives were overwhelmingly in support of the war, implying that the large majority of officials were at least attempting to support the president.
With the idea of Manifest Destiny being publicized by multiple newspapers, the idea of justified westward expansion was carved into the minds of America. They believed they would be "giving the blessings of liberty and democracy to more people" through this expansion, with many rushing to volunteer for the army. The morale of the American people had been boosted by a feeling of nationalism and racial superiority, leading them to further justify westward expansion by viewing themselves as saviors. In the early days of the war, many were enthusiastic about the idea of gaining more territory and making America look stronger than ever in the eyes of other countries, which is why I don't think this war could have been prevented.
I do not think that the war could have been prevented, assuming that the common people of America had the ability to prevent it. Since Polk was in office, he ultimately had the power to make the decision to declare war. This is proven because there were large anti-war efforts, like the anti-war poems and letters, however, because Polk was in office they had little power to prevent it. There was also a huge majority that wanted a war resolution, 174 to 14. So there were efforts to prevent it but they did not have the power to make the final decision. The results of the annexation of Texas led to a long term controversy of slavery, whether or not to have it be a slave or free state.
I do not think the war could've been prevented because the United States was always looking for expansion and you could say Mexico was standing in the way of that. For that reason war was probably not going to be prevented no matter the circumstances. I do not think trying to stop war would've been the best stance for the US because they were trying to expand as well as Mexico.
Why do you think America stopped at Texas if it wanted to expand so much, why not expand further down into mexico afterward if expansion was the main goal.
Arguably, the Mexican-American war left enough damage on both sides to the extent in which people possibly believed it wasn't worth it to continue expansion downwards. With the acquiring of 13 new states as well as the new Texas territory which more than doubled the US ground, most likely, citizens wanted to focus on moving and working on the new territory rather than having to fight the Mexicans. Through the war, it was evident that the Mexicans were going to keep fighting for their land; also, as the US had ended up paying Mexico $15 million for the Texas territory, it can be seen that the Mexicans weren't looking to sell other land any time soon. Towards the end of the war, there was a growing opposition and tension was especially seen regarding slavery in the new states. I think the American government was smart to understand when to back down.
I feel they did not continue down in to Mexico because this would have dragged out the war for many more years and the US solders though they won the battle had taken many casualties and were in no condition to go on fighting. Along with this I feel like many Americans did not really care about land further south but instead cared more about the land to the west. The US claims on California opened the US up to the Pacific Ocean. Many saw this as there long sought after gate way to Asia.
We've spent a lot of time discussing and reading sources that debate whether the Mexican American War was justified or worth it. Regardless of whether the actions are justified, do you think that conflict between Mexico and the United States over land claims was inevitable?
Yes I think it was inevitable because many Americans had the mindset that the US had the wright to expanded and increase its land and wealth. This expansionists mindset was the result of Americans taking Native lands even though they had no legal right to do so. This is why I believe that the war was inevitable because the US would continue to take land little by little leading to retaliation from Mexico.
I think that conflict between Mexico and America over land claims was inevitable. The whole conflict was based upon American greed for expansion westward and this was justified in their minds with the idea of Manifest Destiny. This idea was created upon the mindset that the Americans had an undeniable right to take control of all territory to the west until they would be halted by the Pacific. Because this was their primary goal in what they wanted, the Americans would not have stopped fighting until they obtained their desired outcome. I think that even if they chose to take a similar approach to that of expansion in the Northeast, they would not have stopped fighting until reaching California.
Yes, I believe that claims over the Mexican territory would eventually become inevitable. Even if the Americans were to go around the land to avoid conflict, they would have to later deal with security issues and potential attacks by Mexico. The fact that people would travel into Mexico almost as filibusters did not help the cause to avoid conflict either. So I think that Polk decided to go ahead with the war when America was technological superior to the Mexicans and had the advantage with military support while he could. The first shot by the startled Mexicans was the spark to officially starting the war.
I believe that the war was inevitable due to the land hungry settlers and leaders pushing for greater expansion, like other commenters said, America was in a mindset for growth and one way or another, it was going to happen, either by the outright war that occurred or by the forced treaties that took native American land.
Vishal Shah
I disagree with the position that land conflicts between the United States and Mexico were inevitable on the basis that the Mexican-American war realized war potential at its peak and had war not occured then, the possibility of it occuring in the future would have diminished with time. Expansionist ideals were at a high during the 1840s and the current political situation, regarding Polk's policies and party ideals, only paved the path for the war. As time passed, these charecterisic factors, possibly even prerequisites, would greatly diminish.
During the discussion the topic of history repeating itself came up a lot and how we are taught history so that we do not repeat it. Do you think that some of the wealthy land owners in the us used there knowledge of the past for there personal gain by starting the war.
I definitely feel that some of the elite used past events as reasoning for supporting the war. They saw in the Revolutionary War that the United States came out victorious and managed to gain a lot of land and independence. This came with many positives for the wealthy land owners as they could expand their land or gain more powerful positions in government. While they wanted to gain more land and wealth, I definitely think there were other more prominent factors than simply repeating other events in history that impacted these opinions that they had on the war.
Anuksha Madhan
The American elite during the Mexican-American war definitely used their knowledge of past American wars and treaties to push the incentive of the war and the war itself for personal gain. For instance, American victories in conflicts such as the Revolutionary War and other conflicts, such as with natives, gave the elite confidence that Mexican-American war, if waged, would end positively for the Americans. Additionally, their experiences in gaining western land in events such as the Louisiana purchase only furthered their want for war and expansion because that would enable them to further their personal interests in what was essentially fresh, lawless land where they could establish territory, and profit from that territory.
President Polk had many strong viewpoints throughout his presidency and presidential campaign, including those on American expansion and on racial superiority. Many of these opinions were not widespread to this extent, and some were not very popular. Knowing about many of his radical expansion ideas, how do you think he managed to gain such a large following in order to win the candidacy for President?
Lauren Sheldon
President Polk most likely gained the presidency by keeping his more controversial viewpoints to himself while running for president, and instead "advertising" his more popular views in order to get elected. In fact, in the article it said that after his inauguration, he said in confidence that he was planning on expanding into the west and gaining California. This shows that he still wasn't ready to reveal this to the public. Therefore, Polk, like many presidents, gained his following through appealing to the largest group possible while running and neglecting to share his own, more radical viewpoints.
Polk likely gained his support and gathering to vote him into office by presenting himself as a people's man and by presenting ideals that he likely did not fully support, so as to gain a large enough following to win a seat in office and gain power to assert his true plans and ideologies. His radical expansion ideas and the like were clearly hidden during his campaign and were always something he aimed to achieve during office, as seen in the rushed state of the Mexican-American war and its initiation.
The textbook says that Mexico did not really hate on the Americans until they started riots to take away their land. How do you think that the relationship between Mexico and United States was before the war?
The relationship between America and Mexico was most likely strained due to the fear that America may try to take territory from Mexico. However, Mexico and America most likely interacted cordially and peaceably until calls for taking land from Mexico became incredibly loud and common.
Because each of the countries were relatively new and on rocky territory with the longer lasting world nations, it could be inferred that they had a neutral feeling towards each other. This could be seen because neither had the time or money in their first few decades to bother with the others, leading to a mutual understanding of each others goals as well as land. Of course, the relationship was overturned quickly as the United States began infiltrating Mexico, but before the war the two countries seemed to have a very civil relationship.
I believe that Mexico would have feared American expansion before the war started due to the Louisiana Purchase and the idea of Manifest Destiny prevailing in the United States
With which of the four outside perspectives that we looked at on Friday (Acuna, Graebner, Eysterlid and Hospodor) do you believe would have most strongly sided with Zinn's presentation of the events of the Mexican-American war?
Had Spain retained Mexico, do you think the U.S. would have still gone to war over wanting the territory?
I personally don't think the U.S. would have gone to war because Spain had more power, influence, and resources over the U.S. During the early post independence time in Mexico, under the Constitution of 1824, they organized a weak federal government. The country, overall, was in a weak state and America took advantage of that.
Derek Bereda
The American government would not have declared on war on Spanish Mexico because one of the primary reasons of attack on Mexico was that they were in a time of political dysfunction and instability. These factors left Mexico very vulnerable to American attacks on their outer cities and lesser developed areas. These leads me to the question of, if Polk and a large quantity of American people weren't obsessed with the idea of expansionism during this time would America ever be able to gain this territory? This period was one of the nations most difficult periods as they scrambled to form a stable government and later they managed to become a very stable country but this left a very brief period of time for America to attack which they exploited.
I actually believe that the U.S. would have still gone to war to get the territory simply because the idea of manifest destiny and getting more land for the American public resonated greatly in what President Polk wanted to do during his term and the U.S. probably would've wanted the land anyway and there would have been some altercation to get this land as the spanish wouldn't have given it up easily.
Obviously the soldiers were put through hell and back through their service in the Mexican-American war but what was the reaction towards their service when they got back and how did they fair economically?
My assumption is that they were not treated exceptionally well. They probably got some recognition because they had won the war but this was a war that not a lot of people supported. It is also unlikely that they got monetary compensation as most of them were voluntary. The title also implies that they thanked their success on God rather than the soldiers fighting to conquest.
Gabriel Da Silva
Regarding your question of how soldiers fared economically I believe they fared poorly following the Mexican-American war. In the text it mentioned this, "Many of the soldiers, desperate for money, sold their 160 acres for less than $50." This shows although some soldiers received compensation for their service many had to sell the land they had fought for at a cheap price just to scrape by. This is similar to how many soldiers following the American Revolution also fared poorly economically.
Agreeing with Jonathan, I believe that the soldiers were not treated exceptionally well. During the later parts of the war, the United States had issues finding people to fight in the war, and had to resort to forcing citizens to take up arms and fight for their country. This shows how the country overall did not feel that the war was worth risking their lives for, and so the soldiers were likely not seen as heroes/idols.
holden foster link
From the reading and my prior knowledge I can infer and make the assumption that the soldiers were not treated fairly even after the war. I make this assumption because not all of the soldiers were of American descent and many of them as a matter of fact were immigrants or Native Americans so they didn't receive the same level of respect for their fighting. Economically in society the soldiers were not given the land they were promised and even if they were it was sold immediately in order to make some sort of profit off of it.
I believe that many soldiers suffered economically after the war. In the reading, it says, "Many of the soldiers, desperate for money, sold their 160 acres for less than $50."
How has the legacy of the Mexican-American war shaped the outcome of foreign relations today?
With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded over 525 square miles of territory to the United States in exchange for $15 million
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made it so that in exchange of $15 million, Mexico gave up over 525 square miles of territory, half of their land, to the U.S. Even with Mexico gaining $15 million due to their loss their trust with the U.S. is broken. This war still negatively effects relations between Mexico and the U.S. due to severe loss of trust.
Yutika Aggarwal
The war definitely expanded our country's boundaries immensely, leading to America taking advantage of the California Gold rush. It brought America a lot of fame, money, and economic development. Today, California is one of world's main centers of technological advancements and is home to the headquarters of the largest companies.
One of the topics that we touched on today was how the Mexican-American War has affected the relationship between the United States and Mexico today. In the text, it talked about how in during the war, the U.S. felt that they were a superior population. The was was "a steady advance of a superior race, with superior ideas and a better civilization ... by being better than Mexico, wiser, humaner, more free and manly." I think this ideology is still present today. The United States is seen as a global power, while Mexico is seen as economically dependent on the United States. Relating it back to AP Human Geography terms, the Untied States is seen as the core, and Mexico the semi-periphery. This shows how the Mexican-American war may have been the start of this core/periphery relationship between the two countries.
The Whig Intelligencer said "We take nothing by conquest… thank god,' but America takes away almost half of Mexico's land by conquest, why would they overlook this fact?
Salma Hakam
I would disagree with the idea that they were overlooking the conquest per se. I think that was almost the whole point of saying something like that. Since in the end the US paid $15 million to Mexico they say nothing was taken by conquest to almost justify that the war wasn't what got them the land but rather it was a fair sale of the land and was therefore justifiable and right. The irony of this statement is what made it such a good title for this chapter of the textbook as well.
Joe Danica Inigo
I disagree with you when you say they were overlooking the fact that they conquered Mexico. The idea of just conquering a country or area of land had a negative connotation to it - that is why many nations, during the Age of Exploration, said they colonized the countries instead of conquering them. The same negative connotation carried forward to this time as well. The U.S. didn't want to have a "guilty conscience" with the idea that they conquered land, and decided to pay Mexico $15 million for the land they took, as a compensation or trade, so to say. More than overlooking, I would say this was America's excuse or justification. I also agree with Salma in that the statement's irony is what made the statement so significant.
What were some of the consequences of the idea of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion on conquered territories as well as the American people?
Obviously the ideas of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion brought a lot of new territories for the U.S. This did however come with some repercussions for groups such as the Indians as they were forced to move from new areas conquered by the U.S. and this can mainly be seen with the Cherokee and the Trail Of Tears.
Manifest Destiny greatly impacted the country, it was the push behind America's expansion into the West. Manifest Destiny led to the annexation of Texas, this happened in 1845 when James K. Polk, the U.S. President, favored the idea of annexation, and made it happen by negotiating with Texas, making this the first big expansion for America. In the chapter, Zinn makes clear that the war was one of the most miserable wars in American History as soldiers died of awful diseases, and fought for a cause they barely cared about.
Some of the consequences that came out of the Manifest Destiny and Westward expansion ideals were the fact that slavery was being expanded and becoming a much more prominent part of the economy. For the American people it was bad because in some was they had to assimilate into Mexican culture but also for many they had to move out West and it ultimately led to much chaos and violence between the slave and non-slave territories.
Manifest Destiny shaped the growth of the United States west. Because so many people had such strong convictions in their belief that they deserved the land, the growth was much more rapid and hostile and created regions that are to this day less accepting of people of different races. The conquered territories also created intriguing culture blends within the United States that contribute to regional cultures of today.
There were both positives and negatives to Manifest Destiny and westward expansion. One positive would be new transportation methods such as the transcontinental railroad built by two railroad companies, the central Pacific (started laying track in California) and the Union Pacific (started laying track in Nebraska) which met in Promontory Point, Utah. There were also extreme negative consequences of Manifest Destiny. The idea that it was their destiny to expand caused Americans to disregard the territorial rights of Native Americans, driving out many tribes and therefore, causing a cultural divide, tension, and wars.
Why did Polk and other expansionists stop conquering land from the Mexicans and sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Mexico was already weakened, so what prevented the president from pushing for more land?
Kaviya Sathish
I believe that the US did not conquer all of Mexico because it would've been difficult to assimilate Mexicans into American culture. First, it would mean extending American citizenship to Mexicans. Americans were against 'racial blending,' and at that time, Mexico had a population of people with mixed european, native and african-american blood. Mexico was Roman Catholic, while the US had a huge Protestant population. Another obstacle was that Mexico had already outlawed slavery; it was unlikely that anyone would go back to working at that level of labor in the US's economy. Social, religious, and economic harmony was not likely in the 1840s.
I believe that Polk and other expansionists stopped conquering land from the Mexicans and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo because more conquering would have led to outcries and would have resulted in a bad reputation for the U.S. The U.S. is already conquering this land from Mexico, but paid them $15 million, to make it like a trade, or compensation. Had they taken more land, there would be no treaty or compromise to make, because Mexico would be reduced to almost no land, or even a nonexistent country. Moreover, taking more land would have resulted in more international attention, and possible international intervention. More people would pick up that what the U.S. was doing is incorrect, and this would result in the U.S. losing the land they conquered, and possibly more land, as compensation back to Mexico for their actions.
It was mentioned in the selection that immigrants' "patriotism was not very strong...many of them deserted to the Mexican side, enticed by money". American army officials were willing to take in anyone willing to fight but was the sheer number of unpatriotic immigrants more beneficial to the American army then if they had a lesser quantity of more patriotic soldiers?
Huda Kose
Even though the immigrants patriotism wasn't very strong, I don't think the American army would benefit much from having less soldiers even if they were more patriotic. I believe this because many of the soldiers, immigrant or not, lost motivation to fight the war in the middle of it. Many volunteers to fight for the war starting to lose their motivation after actually experiencing the horrific events involved in war. Therefore, I don't believe the unpatriotic immigrants were necessarily more or less beneficial to the war because many of the soldiers were already not fully in support of the war and that didn't take away from them being able to successfully win the war.
The sheer number of unpatriotic immigrants was not comparable to a well trained, patriotic troop of loyal soldiers. If soldiers deserted from camp, that would have been a waste of resources. Clothes, food, and shelter for a large amount of people would have cost a lot, so if many of these soldiers who received these benefits didn't fight, but instead deserted, it would have been a failed investment on the government's side. They would have fled, leaving the army with far less troops than anticipated, throwing off calculations and strategies that relied on these high numbers. A smaller but loyal army would cost less, would have most of the members stay and fight, so strategies that kept in mind these numbers would fail less, and moral would be kept high, allowing these troops to fight at their best. Thus, the sheer number of unpatriotic immigrants wasn't beneficial to the American army.
While it is observed that the majority, the common people, were not in favor of the war, the media expressed support for the war. Why do you think newspapers, which are supposed to represent the people, did not express the opinion of the majority
I think an important thing to remember when looking at public forums such as newspapers is that, although the first amendment grants the freedom of speech and press, in the past, this amendment was necessarily upheld and people could be persecuted just for disagreeing with the government or military, seen in the sedition acts. However, I also think an important thing to note is that the textbook actually did regard many newspapers that didn't support the war. The Liberator, written by Garrison, described the war with heavily, negatively connoted words. This is important because it shows that there were newspapers and public forums willing to go against the government ideas and be outspoken on the issues at hand.
In what ways do you think both America and Mexico would have been impacted if America had not won the war? Would the prominence of slavery have been as extreme as it was after the war?
If America had not won the war, I think that the tensions between the North and South wouldn't be as high because the expansion of slavery into new states wouldn't be as much of a problem. I think Mexico would most likely have been able to better support themselves economically if they had managed to keep the territory. I think the prominence of slavery would remain as extreme because it was still supported and used by everyone in the South, although fights over slavery would occur less often.
I believe that if America had not won the Mexican-American War, our confidence would've taken a hit. Due to our constant winnings of war, we believed that we could fight our way through anything and still come out successful at the end. After the American Revolution (which we won), the next major war was the War of 1812 (which we also won). If we lost the war to the Mexicans, we might've realized that we cannot get everything we want by fighting our way through. Regarding your second question, I believe that slavery would've still be as extreme as it was if the war didn't happen. The tensions between the North and South would not have gotten so bad as quickly as they did. The South would always manage to have and spread slavery, which would continue to anger the North eventually leading to the Civil War. I believe that America winning this war just expedited those tensions.
I believe the immense casualties that the war resulted in would play a big role in the difference on how the Mexican American war was perceived by Americans. Thousands and thousands of American soldiers died or were traumatized by the experiences they had to go through, and the fact that the Americans won made this more excusable than if they had lost. I believe that if the Americans had lost this fight, they would be receive extreme backlash from American citizens, as they would be angered that their soldiers died just to end up losing in the end. I also believe that this would result in America not being able to gain enough support or manpower to participate in other wars after this loss. This is because American's victory in the Mexican American war played a big role in setting the stage for other wars to come. I don't think slavery would be a huge issue right after the Mexican American war as most Americans were just interested in westward expansion rather than slavery as an issue itself. However, eventually I do believe slavery would become prominent once the doors of any further expansion was closed.
If America had not won the Mexican-American War I believe that America never would have the territory that it has today because if they had lost much of the land in the west would have not belonged to them. If Mexico had won the war I believe that they would have been on constant edge and would have been scared because they thought America would come and conquer them again for their land. I believe that the presence of slavery would have been less extreme because if slavery had not been expanded abolitionist movements would have removed it much more quickly.
What are some similarities that existed between the War with Mexico and the wars against the Indians? In what way did the United States use actions from War of 1812 in the Mexican-American War?
Lili Enseling
When comparing the Mexican American war with conflicts against Native Americans, like the War of 1812, there are many significant similarities such as ideas of white superiority, white America's desire to expand, and much division and debate of ideologies. The belief that white culture, religion, and lifestyle was the better way to do things is prevalent in justifications for taking land from other races. Native Americans were seen as lower class than white Americans, and the Mexican people were also seen as inferior. As seen in this quote, "It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race." the idea of Manifest Destiny and white expansion in America were fueled by underlying racist beliefs. Even though in both these wars the side of the Americans seems very straightforward, there was a lot of debate over politics and morals during both these time periods. In fact, during the Mexican American war, it seemed like most American civilians opposed it. However, the government and military both pushed the war along and in both cases were successful in taking over territory.
The Mexican-American War was the first of many "Wars of Aggression" initiated by the United States throughout history. Despite ethical concerns (and later, International Law), why did America choose to bring on wars?
Is there a "right" reason to declare war?
Regarding your first question, I think the reason America brought on wars was very much influenced by the outcome of the Mexican-American war. While the textbook used in our discussion made a very clear argument against the means of the war, it did result in a favorable outcome for America as they gained the land they wanted. Like you said, the Mexican-American war was one of the first "Wars of Aggression" and it was successful in its goal for the US. The success of this early war, prompted the US to continue such conflicts because they were effective.
Was there another, more humane way, for the US to acquire the land that they eventually got in the Mexican Cession? If so, why don't you think the US used a more peaceful approach rather than inciting war?
How do you think an older, more experienced country/government would've handled the conflict between land differently?
I believe that with time, the Us could've negotiated a peaceful purchase of land, similar to how the President bought Louisiana from the French. However, President Polk wanted the land as soon as possible, and as violent as the war was, it was a quicker solution for him. Negotiations would've taken time. Regardless of how the US acquired the land, the debate over whether or not these new regions would be slave or free states would've lead to the same outcome as it did; tensions splitting the country into a civil war.
I think that because the land claimed by the United States could not have been gained without violence. The Louisiana purchase is different from this situation because of how close and culturally bound the region of the Mexican Cession was to Mexico. I think that because of this, it would be very unlikely for Mexicans to give up the land without a violent struggle.
I don't think there was another way for the US to acquire land from Mexico because Mexico refused to sell the land to the US in the first place. There was no other way for the US to buy the land, so they did what they thought was necessary and fought over it.
I believe that the US could have had negotiations. I believe that they could have worked out a deal if they were patient enough. But it was because of the President's desire for land that made it unable to happen. Wars were just faster. I also think that they didn't because of American superiority. Yes it was violent, and it sounds horrible, but why not show the American superiority through winning a war? Of course there were the people who opposed the war, and it didn't line up with many citizen's beliefs and opinions, but the feeling of American superiority and white superiority gave reasons to fight a war. America was (and still is) a young country, and I do believe an older, more experienced government would have tried to avoid war.
Simar Arora
Why do you think the Whigs ended up settling with the Democratic ideals and stopped fighting and voted in favor of the war even though they didn't agree? Do you think they should have continued protesting
against the war?
I think in a sense, no one in America, notably in the homeland, where the fighting wasn't occurring, wanted to be the person to point out that the war was, in truth, unjustified and pointless, other than to get more land immorally. Eventually, the Whigs likely slowed their resistance efforts (although they were never fully gone) to gain overall support and not lose a good majority of their support and to attempt to remain a united front during wartime. I believe that even if they had continued protesting, the president and the elite in power were too keen on war to ever have truly curbed it, thus, I believe protesting would have served little purpose in the grand scheme of the war.
The Whigs liked the idea of expansion and wanted California. Although the Whigs were not in favor of westward expansion through wars, they were not strongly against the idea of using military tactics that would caused them to act against the US government during the Mexican American war. Thus, I think that main reason that majority of the Whigs decided to join with the Democrats was due to their desire to expand westward and to gain the territory of California. During that time, it seems like the only way to fulfill that desire is to be at war with Mexico.
How much did racism impact the decision to go to war with Mexico? If the people in Mexico had been white, would the Mexican-American War still have occurred?
I believe that people such as Polk deep heartedly believed in white supremacy and it was a major factor in the views of manifest destiny which as we know was a major factor in the Mexican-American war occuring.
Although racism did play a factor in the war, with many justifying the war through race and how Mexicans were viewed as inferior to whites I believe that race was not the factor to go to war. I believe that the decision to go to war was made solely to accelerate the expansion of America westward. Even if people in Mexico were white the Mexican-American war would have occurred in order to help push America into achieving the goal of Manifest Destiny.
I do not believe that racism had a significant impact in the decision to go to war with Mexico. I believe that the people of the United States were very hungry for land and they would stop at nothing to get more land and expand their country. President Polk had promised the American people that he would get that land so he went and got the land, choosing war as the best action to gain control of that land. The people of the United States did believe they were superior to the Mexicans in race, but I don't believe it had a significant impact on the decision to go to war, and I believe the war would have happened regardless.
Racism did not seem a big factor for the United States to go to war. I feel as there were other major reasons in which the US decided to go to war such as wanting to expand and gain more land for the country. Racism may have had a small effect but there were other reasons in which Polk wanted to go to war.
Jon Einsmann
I believe that racism played a factor into the U.S. decision to declare war on Mexico. The consensus in the U.S. at the time, was that the Mexican people were lazy and incapable of defending themselves from an army compromised of white people. The U.S. thought that a war between themselves and Mexico would be a quick victory, because they thought of themselves as racially superior. If the Mexican people were white, then the U.S. would've been more cautious to declare war, owing to their ideas of the superiority of a white military.
Katie Carson
I think that although racism and manifest destiny was used to justify the war I don't think it was the main reason that the US did go to war. "On the night of his inauguration, confided to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California." When the presidents main objective in his presidency was to acquire California I think it would have happened whether they were white or Mexican. President Polk was so greedy that he thought war was the only way to get that land.
It was there, but I would say it wasn't the main reason. This was a time when the US was seeking to expand and want land, which I think was the bigger reason. I would say that racism was a factor, I think it could have easily been used to gain public support and just further support reasons to go to war. I do believe the war would still have occurred, though I think there would have been a possibility it could have been a tiny bit less violent.
Racism did not have a significant impact on the decision to go to war with Mexico. The citizens of America were hungry for land and wealth. President Polk promised the American people land and in order to do so, the war was the best action. Even though the people believed they were superior to the people of Mexico, it did not have an impact on the factors for war.
Nish Mathur
I agree with your statement that racism didn't have much of an impact on the decision to go to war with Mexico. However, one large impact it may have had would be based upon public support. "Historians of the Mexican war have talked easily about "the people" and "public opinion"-like Justin H. Smith, whose two-volume work The War with Mexico has long been a standard account: "Of course, too, all the pressure of warlike sentiment among our people ... had to be recognized, more or less, for such is the nature of popular government.'" According to this, popular rule essentially had a large impact of the effect of going into the Mexico-American war and the war-like sentiments it carried.
During the removal of Indians and colonization of the east coast, there was little resistance to the decision to remove them. Why do you think there was so much opposition to the Mexican-American war, even though there would be similar outcomes as Indian removal? Do you think there was significant opposition to the Indian Removal similar to the Mexican-American war, but it was something that we just didn't learn about?
I believe that there was so much more opposition due to the Mexican-American war due to its scale compare to Indian removal. A majority of land taken from Natives by the U.S. was accomplished through multiple treaties. These treaties led to a gradual acquisition of land while the Mexican-American war was a war that led to many people being drafted to fight and leading to many more American deaths. I believe that this larger scale conflict with heavier losses for the U.S. created more wide-spread opposition than compared to Indian Removal.
I think one of the reasons there was more opposition to the Mexican-American war was because Mexico was a defined nation with borders, while the Indians that inhabited North America were not. I think the idea of a war with a nation was more threatening than removing and culture from American land
Towards the later stages of the Mexican-American war, when anti-war sentiments, movements, and protests began to gain popularity and soldiers began to resist the war or desert their posts, the American army began impressing soldiers to continue the war and see it to the end. This raised united rage and aghast at the fact that the soldiers were being forced to serve against their will and could do little about it without consequences. This raises the question as to why the same population did not react even remotely as upset towards the issue of slavery, especially as it had then persisted for centuries. Was it due to inherent racism, even amongst abolitionists, or was it a result of the alienated feelings white Americans had towards any other groups during the era? If it was neither, what could it have been that led to the rage against the impressment of the soldiers, but not at the immorality of slavery?
I believe that they did not view slavery as bring as bad as forced impressment because they did not view black people as equals. The racist mentality of the time justified slavery as being beneficial for African-Americans as it made them more civil, educated, etc. The soldiers, who viewed themselves of people deserving freedom, found this situation unfair.
It was definitely racism. The concept of racism and slavery was just a normal thing for so long, it remained an issue that took so much time for people to begin to accept its undeniable wrongness. People justified slavery through many means, but there was just no justification of the impressment of soldiers like that. Slaves weren't free, but soldiers were seen as free. Taking away that freedom from them, especially if they were white, could have been easily seen as unjust at the time. It's difficult to explain now the mentality people had back then, it was just that slavery was still a practice, accepted by many, even though during the time slavery began to be seen as a terrible practice and people began to reject it.
I believe the society did not react towards slavery the same way they acted towards their troops because they saw the troops as equals, however, they did not view the slaves the same. Part of society viewed slaves by their race and discriminated them against their race. Also they viewed the slaves and unequals, so there was no reason for them to defend the slaves, since they were in support of slavery and believed it was something that was ethical and okay. However, they viewed the troops as equals, and they were being treated poorly, this started the protests and anti-war sentiments.
Why do you think that this is the first time most of us have heard about this incident? Personally, although I knew that Mexico has originally owned the land that is now Texas, I have never learned about the Mexican-American War. Why do you think this is?
Urmila Shanmugam
I feel like this war is not really talked about because it is completely unjustifiable. There is no real reason for the war to have even started in the first place. America had placed soldiers in disputed territory which was definitely going to provoke Mexico. Additionally, the reason that the war had fueled is because of the belief of white supremacy and manifest destiny. These ugly truths may be why America tries to cover up part of their history. There is also a potential abuse of power by Polk which propelled the Mexican- American war. There was no clear reason/ event as to why the war should have occurred which can explain why it is not talked about since the blame would be placed on America.
Rachel Yao
I think that we have never heard about this war because curriculum for younger students is ultimately biased. This war, that has drawn so much controversy, currently and during its time period, would be difficult to paint in a positive and nationalistic manner and to convey to the students the intricacies and wrongs of this war would be difficult. Past school, it's bound to be a tense subject since it's extremely difficult to justify the US's actions against Mexico.
Gus Lund
I believe that this is pretty much the first time I've heard of this war for many reasons. Firstly, this was not a very pretty war. What I mean by this is that atrocities to innocents and civilians were widespread. Secondly, most soldiers weren't fighting fora country or an ideal, they were fighting for money and food for their families. This war was not about patriotism or fighting for a right cause.
What affect did the immigrants and Native Americans fighting the war have on the popular opinion in the United States?
When the immigrants and Native Americans were fighting in the war for the United States, the people fighting weren't fighting for their home land so it wasn't as significant. As for the popular opinion in the United States, it wasn't affecting the people because they were having other people fight the war for them.
Most were unfazed to due it not affecting them. The immigrants fighting the wars were not fighting only to gain land and gain wealth, compared to the Native American's reason(keeping their ancestral grounds.)
Non-white, soldiering populations had an insignificant impact on popular opinion in the United States. First off, friction of distance caused for the general populous to be detached from the perspective of those who were physically fighting in the war. Secondly, these groups and their opinions were not as respected in the country as seen in the lack of suffrage during that time. However, this question does provoke thought on how did informal classism shape wars throughout American history?
The American people most likely saw it as an non-noble war. A war being fought by lower class people who had to do the dirty work of white slave owners and the American government in order to feed their families and survive. There wasn't a sense of patriotism or loyalty to country, this war was a job.
In the reading the last paragraph describes how after the Mexican American war the US payed Mexico $15 million as a "payment" for the land. Do you think this outcome of the Mexican American war was a fair ending? How else could America have better handled the ending of the war?
The outcome of the Mexican American War was no a fair ending because Mexico had so much of its land removed. It was clear from before that Mexico did not want to sell the land to the United States. After starting the war, they then resolved the war by taking California, New Mexico, and extending Texas' border to the Rio Grande. They then gave Mexico $15 dollars to make it look like they bought the land, when in reality they forced from Mexico. As far as other ways they could have handled the end of the war, I do believe that giving Mexico money for the land was the best option as other options were to take more land from Mexico or take the land they ended up taking without paying them. It still was not a fair ending as it still ended up Mexico giving land to the United States, but at least by giving Mexico money they were given something.
Ashley Habig
I personally feel like this was not at all a fair ending to the Mexican American War. A quote from General Kearny brings about the idea that " From around corners, men with surly countenances and downcast looks regarded us with watchfulness, if not terror..." This quote proposes that the Mexicans were helpless during the war, and that the Americans were using lots of force to get the power and territory they desired. Also, knowing the brutalities and disrespect the American soldiers treated the Mexicans with, I have a hard time considering the idea that a payment was an okay solution to the war ending.There was not much America could have done to handle the end of the war better, after the violence they displayed, as the payment was the only sign of warmth and peace the Americans showed them after forcefully and violently taking the Mexicans' land.
Do you think the soldiers that came home from the war were respected? The reading suggests that many people benefited from their sacrifices, but it doesn't detail how they were treated.
I believe that the soldiers were respected. Soldiers, no matter which time we look at, always were treated with a respected attitude, because the sacrifices and traumas they had to endure in order to protect or fight for our nation, can match nothing of a common person's. I believe that the fact that many soldiers got what they were promised by the government is in itself a form of respect towards them. However, I think it was their bad timing that they each of them, individually, were in a financial crisis, which resulted in the soldiers not being able to enjoy the payments they received, and resulted in them having to sell the land.
I believe that the soldiers were indeed respected however they were treated differently because the majority of the soldiers were either Native Americans or immigrants from European countries. I feel that they were respected in that they were given what they were promised like the acres of land however in the minds of the people they are not truly American so in a way there was still a differentiation between the soldiers who fought and the American people. The main way in which they were treated differently was simply because they either looked different or were from a different place which meant even if they fought the war for you, you will still not be as respected as an American soldier.
I definitely think that the soldiers were respected, they typically are. It's become a nature to us, respecting those who have gone through war. But even though they were able to get what they were promised, it was highlighted many sold their land for money. It doesn't show much on how they were treated, yes, but I do believe they were at least treated as at least equal as a person. Respect can mean many things, as in treating someone like authority or just as a person, and I do believe they were treated at least as an equal person.
Ryley S McGaughey
Why do you think Manifest Destiny resonated with so many Americans before the Mexican-American War? How do the impacts of Manifest Destiny relate to both religious influence in the past and religious influence in the present?
The reading discusses the idea that some Americans saw the Mexican-American war and the annexation of land as the "redemption of souls that infest the human race"(a way to civilize the people of Mexico). The reading goes on to discuss how Americans used Manifest Destiny to justify the Mexican-American war.
During this time period there was a rush of expansion coming from the economic opportunity of the west and industrialization which were both contributors to the belief in manifest destiny. For example, the Louisiana purchase reinforced the idea that America was destined to expand to more of North America. Also, with new technology, like a growing railroad system, it would be easier than ever to settle in new areas. The religious aspect of Manifest Destiny was seen in the article at how the justification of this expansion was "noble" and "benefiting mankind". This is a historical continuity seen also in European colonizers belief in religious superiority over Native Americans.
Daniel Shedrick
The American people were (and still are) a considerably religious group. Therefore, the religious influences within Manifest Destiny appealed greatly to Americans of this time. But this still brings up an important question: for how long did Manifest Destiny influence American imperialism? When was this no longer used as a motiavation?
What was the impact of the war on citizens in less-affected areas such as the Northeast?
I feel like the impact of the war on Northeast citizens wasn't that impact because they were quite far from where the actions were occurring. Nonetheless they were still slightly impacted because resources could have been taken from them and being used to provide the soldiers fighting.
Many Northern citizens who were against the expansion of slavery saw the war as a means to gain southern slave states, so they opposed the war. I think the war sparked a new conflict between proslavery and antislavery groups, creating more tension between the North and South political parties. Overall though the war may not have affected daily lives of people in the North, it exacerbated sectional tensions between different political ideologies and debates over slavery, affecting the election of 1860 and ultimately the Civil War.
What are some similarities/differences of the experiences of American soldiers in the Mexican-American war in comparison to previous wars in the U.S.? (War of 1812, American Revolution)
There was definitely a significant similarity between the Mexican-American War and the American Revolution with regards to the treatment of soldiers. In the American Revolutionary War, soldiers were promised clothing, food, and land after the war ended. However, because the colonies did not have the funding they could not provide adequate clothing and food to the soldiers. We also know from reading '"A Soldier's Narrative" that soldiers were not given the land that they were promised following the war. This also occurred in the Mexican-American War, as men were promised pay for serving. The men were not given what they were promised while their officers were given plenty of pay.
Some similarities can be drawn between the Mexican-American war and the American Revolution when regarding the soldiers' moral. In the passage, it refers to many U.S. soldiers deserting the army, or partaking in mutiny. These circumstance likewise occurred during the winter at Valley Forge in the American Revolution, where many American militiamen deserted the army due to lack of supplies. Differences can be seen in the support for the wars. In the Mexican-American war, opposition to the war effort could be seen in the North, but the South supported the war to gain more land west for slavery. This is contrasted to the American Revolution, where support for the war effort wasn't defined into regions.
Taking into account the racial beliefs, economic interests, and idea of Manifest Destiny, do you believe that American imperialism was inevitable?
Emma Mooney
With the idea of Manifest Destiny and economic interests, I believe imperialism was inevitable. When you have a president who confides that "one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California" on the night of his inauguration, it's incredibly obvious that imperialism was inevitable. Also, with the mindset of the time period, farming of land and gold meant extreme wealth, as well as a solid foundation for future generations. While many did disagree with the war, the government was the driving force supported by the upper/wealthier classes, resulting in the Mexican American war and inevitable imperialism.
During our discussion, the idea of Manifest Destiny came up a lot. Do you think people truly believed in the idea, which made it popular, or it was just used as an excuse/justification for the actions of the U.S. at that time (and times in the future)?
Catherine Huang
I think people believed in Manifest Destiny because there was mass support for the war when it first started. However, once the war started dragging on for a longer period of time, people became less interested in the idea of Manifest Destiny. Although people truly did believe in the idea of Manifest Destiny, the use of Manifest Destiny as a justification of the war is also prominent. Proof of this would be that President Polk was an expansionist whose goal was to take California on the night of his inauguration.
I truly believe that people believed in manifest destiny. It's a crazy idea to think that people believed that they were inherently better and deserved more, but it is still what upholds American ideals today. I think it was a popular belief that was used as an excuse for the actions of the United States and it eventually molded into something less prevalent but still present in the future.
Although many important government officials believed in the idea of manifest destiny. The common people used this phrase as a reason to take over territory that wasn't rightfully theirs. The manifest destiny of the United States became the pure reason for the United States to take over any territory they wanted.
I believe that at the beginning of the war people truly believed in the idea of Manifest Destiny. Back then, people had different ideals and morals compared to the ones we've developed today. The events leading up to the war, such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830, show that those ideals were centered around white supremacy and the want to conquer and expand territory. However, as the war persisted, I think the American public split in their beliefs and many started using Manifest Destiny as a justification for their actions, or felt that they were forced to follow these ideals. An example of this is Colonel Hitchcock's quote, "My heart is not in this business ... but, as a military man, I am bound to execute orders". He felt obligated to continue fighting in the war and following the Manifest Destiny despite his own morals.
I believe that the Manifest Destiny was similar to Paternalism in the way that it justified the actions that Americans wanted to pursue. The expansion into the West was something that the Americans wanted to do at first for more land for plantations or industrialization. However, these people found it hard to find a reason that these actions were justified being it was extremely expensive to start a whole new life in new lands. As more people wanted to move to the west, people started to create justifications such as the Manifest Destiny to move west, saying they are spreading protestantism and making the West more "civilized".
To what degree did past historical precedents impact the Mexican-American War?
Historical precedents impacted the war to a great degree. I believe two of the most important causes of the war are racial superiority and Manifest Destiny. These causes were formulated mainly by events that happened prior to the war. One such event is the "Indian Removal." This type of forced migration was driven towards the goal of acquiring more land for Americans. Even though many tribes such as the Cherokee had already assimilated and blended their cultures with American practices, many Americans used race to justify the need to take their land. In another broader example - slavery - Americans again used race to justify its morality. Furthermore, although many white southerners did not own slaves, they held onto the idea of race to undermine slaves and make themselves comparable to the wealthy elites. Events such as these helped Manifest Destiny and racial superiority grow, allowing Americans to use these concepts frequently to explain their decisions.
I agree that racial superiority played a big part in leading up to the Mexican-American War. As soon as Europeans began colonizing the New World, they were motivated by the ideals that they were superior to other races such as Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, 16 years prior the war, greatly showed the path America was on, one of greed and superiority. Such events contributed to the American public's ideals like Manifest Destiny, and this sense of American pride was extremely significant to the Mexican-American War as it encouraged Americans to believe it was their destiny to conquer land and expand.
Following the Mexican-American war, soldiers faced exploitation from speculators, and a lack of payment from the government. Did these adverse conditions combined with the lack of patriotism mentioned in the document lead to uprisings of ex-soldiers?
Ultimately, the fact that the soldiers had just fought a war and yet were still not receiving respect in society is what truly led to many uprisings within the community of the ex-soldiers. However, this was not just prevalent after the war, even during the war many of the soldiers deserted the fight because either they didn't realize what they were fighting for or had another realization regarding if they would actually get the reward they were promised from the government. Another thing you mentioned was patriotism and I also believe this was important in the build up to the uprisings because when their is a bad environment around the war and people are fighting it they ultimately will turn their back against the cause and this anger held inside by the soldiers is what led to the uprisings you talked about in your question.
Did anyone in the army believe in the war, for instance the higher ups like the generals? Did these people believe in the war effort and manifest destiny?
I am sure somebody has to have believed in the war. However, the reading did say most of the soldiers didn't really want to be there and did not even support the war. They were just following the orders. Many of them did believe in Manifest Destiny but didn't think the war was the best way to do it.
The people that believed in the war were mainly government officials and generals, but there is evidence that many of them were swayed by other influences that made them believe in war. I believe that many generals did not want war at first but were guided towards it. For example, "Taylor had once denounced the idea of the annexation of Texas. But now that he had his marching orders, his attitude seemed to change. His visit to the tent of his aide Hitchcock to discuss the move is described in Hitchcock's diary: He seems to have lost all respect for Mexican rights and is willing to be an instrument of Mr. Polk for pushing our boundary as far west as possible." As seen with the annexation of Texas, I have reason to believe that some generals did not want war but were rather just following the commands and pressure from the president. Although their devotion to the war effort was there, it may not have been at the beginning.
Was racism a big factor for the United States to go to war with Mexico or was their another major reason for what the US did?
While racism was indeed a big factor for the US to go to war with Mexico, there were also other major reasons for the actions of the United States. The idea of conquering new land and gaining wealth was another big idea that motivated the people of the United States. More so, the elites would have gained money at the opportunity of new land especially. Thus, the elites backing the war until the end of the war unlike the common people of the United States shows how the idea of gaining new land plays into the decisions of the United States.
I do think racism was a large reason for the US to go to war with Mexico, but there are definitely bigger reasons for their motivation. One of these is the idea of Manifest Destiny- that American expansion into other lands was both justifiable as well as inevitable. With this idea, President Polk and other war-supporters most likely drove the push to conquer what they saw as their rightful territory. Also with this idea of Manifest Destiny comes another major reason for the US to go to war with Mexico- the institution of slavery in the West. Believing they had the right to enslave people as well as gain new territory in the world, it's no question why the US would ry to obtain the western lands to become slave states as well. So, although racism did play a role in the causes of the Mexican-American War, other factors played a larger motivational role.
I think that racism and the idea of racial superiority was definitely a big factor in why we went to war with Mexico, as it was a major thing at the time and major reason that we got involved in this war in the first place. However I do believe that there were more reasons than this for why the U.S. went to war with Mexico, I believe the idea of economic prosperity by creating more trade ports and getting more natural resources as well as getting more land was a major push for people to fight this war. I also believe the idea of westward expansion for slave states was another major reason the U.S. began fighting this war, the southern states and large plantation owners wanted to expand and create more slave-owning states, Texas became a very easy target and was a major push for them to expand. These southern states wanted more slavery and thought this war and the annexation of Texas would be their chance to push out there, I think this was another one of the major reasons people wanted to fight this war. Overall racism was not the only reason people fought this war.
If the United States did not go to war with Mexico over the territory that was trying to be claimed, what was another way for the US to try and keep the land without violence?
One other way that I could think of that the US could have obtained the land without violence is through the power of negotiation with the Mexican government. They could have settled and discussed over the land like they did with French and the Louisiana Purchase. However, this could still lead to violence because this still pushed native populations off their land. So when I think about it there is no true way to take control of that territory without some violence one war or another. The best option for the US to take would have been ti just not try and control the land but rather stay content with the land that they had given only a fraction of it was actually being settled on.
If the purposes of the Mexican War would be both manifest destiny and growing the US economy, why would the US want to grow their economy when they were happy with the amounts of power they gained from beating international powers?
I think when people gain something they always want more. Even though they gained some power gaining more land probably seemed like a perfect way to gain even more land and power. I think the greedy minds of people led to this extreme decision.
I think that the US has always been a country with an insatiable need for more and I think that if anything Manifest Destiny exemplifies that need. The United States wanted more and wanted to show off the strength that they had. It is disgusting yet true that the United States continued to do this for years.
I think one of the main reasons for wanting this western territory was in hopes of continuing slavery in this new land so close to their home territory. With land close to them, they would have more control and influence on their new territory ensuring that it could be used in he way they had hoped- for the institution of slavery.
Natalie Johnson
I think a big part of wanting this land was the profit off it, and bring slaves to a land where they would be able to benefit. One of the reasons slaves weren't brought over into that area was because they wouldn't be able to thrive in a dry climate. I also think they saw this as a way to gain mroe power, because having more land means you have more power.
I think that the US valued both materialistic possessions (such as money and territory) but most of the Southerns wanted to establish slavery in this new territory in the west. Although they were already well off, they kept wanting to expand because their thirst for such possessions is endless. They lack empathy for the people they were affecting (in this case, the Mexicans) and continue to push for what they want and had a strong sense of nationalism, which was one of the biggest reasons for the Mexican-American war.
During the Mexican American war, the sense of pride that Americans held can still be seen. Americans continued to think of themselves as superior than others and thought it was necessary to "civilize" other people for their country. This is evident when The New York Herald, an American daily newspaper during the war stated that, "The universal Yankee nation can regenerate and disenthrall the people of Mexico in a few years; and we believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country." Thus, given the information from the reading, to what extent did the sense of American superiority contributed to the Mexican American war?
The sense of American superiority contributed greatly to the Mexican American War. The population of Mexico was mixed with natives, mestizos along with other groups of people. In turn, people in America had a sense of superiority against other groups of people, especially colored people. Thus, the idea that Mexico had a population of many groups of people would have drove Americans to be in support of the Mexican and American war. This is shown by the idea of white supremacy in America and how people thought they were doing a favor to slaves for "civilizing" them.
The ideology of American superiority helped denote what side of the war people were on (if they wanted the war to happen or not). The belief of American superiority was paired with manifest destiny and resulted in white people believing it was their duty to conquer the Mexican lands and 'civilize' the people. But American superiority also came into play for people who were against the war. For example, Congressman Delano of Ohio, an antislavery Whig, did not want the war to happen since he did not want a race of mixed persons (Mexican, native, black, with whites) to be produced. He believed this mixed race to be inferior and would downplay white superiority.
American superiority has always been evident in any wars fought by the American people. I also believe that American superiority has been based off of white superiority especially in those times. Colonizers years before this event were white Europeans who saw themselves as superior to other nations. It's no mistake the vision of American superiority was similar. It has evolved greatly during the years, but it has always been present. American superiority drove this war. Americans wanted to "civilize" the people on these lands, just as European colonizers had done years ago. As I think about it longer though, I wonder about the difference between American superiority and white superiority in this context of the war. Was it a matter of race, or a matter of America being the top nation?
American superiority was definitely one of the biggest factors of the Mexican-American war. They had held themselves responsible for bestowing the blessings of liberty in the territories they had gained and put themselves on a pedestal. They felt obligated to somehow civilize Mexico, as shown in the text when it says, "we believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country" because this superiority complex allowed them to believe that they were saviors.
Were the common people more happy about the victory of the war itself or the war ending?
I believe that the common people were more enthusiastic about the war being over rather than the victory. As time had passed, patriotism and support for the war largely dwindled. Even soldiers started deserting the war due to the bloodshed and lack of proper care. The common people did not really gain anything from the war. But to start off with, the common people were not the ones in support of the war. It was rather the President and enslavers who knew they could make profit and gain land by conquering the Western lands. And as the article says, "the glory of the victory was for the President and the generals, not the deserters, the dead, the wounded."
I think it depends on whether the common person resides in the Southern or Northern United States. The common northerner would've been more happy that the war was over, because the North was mostly against the invasion of Mexico. However, the common southerner would've been more happy over the victory, because it meant that there was more land west for slavery to spread over.
I feel like the common people were pretty relieved that the war was over as many were in direct opposition of the war due to their belief that slavery will expand into the new territory. This war was a victory of "presidents and generals," not American soldiers as stated by Zinn. Many of the people who took part in the war effort, did so only for the benefits of money and property not because they cared about the war effort. In the end, the new American territory benefitted the elite, not the working-class people who risked their lives to acquire it.
The phrase "common people" can be divided into smaller subcategories of Northern and Southern common people. This division can decide whether one is happier about the victory or the end of the war. The South wanted the annexation of Texas because then they could have more land to use as slave territory therefore they were more happy about the victory. But the Northerners didn't want to invade Mexico anyways so they were more happy the war was over.
Rishika Baichwal
Based on the article, I believe that the common people were happier with the war ending rather than the victory of the war. Looking at the testaments of the war, the common people suffered during the war since the soldiers were gone and those at home were forced to carry on their businesses by themselves. During the war soldiers were suffering immensely and were put in harsh conditions, and I believe that common people were more likely to side with the soldiers since soldiers were mostly from this group of people. The returning of soldiers back to home was the main point for common people throughout the war, and it wasn't much about winning the war or gaining the land for them.
How important were class divisions in the Mexican war?
I feel that the class divisions were very important, especially in the fact that many of the soldiers and people who didn't support the war were of a lower class, while the upper class pushed for it. As said in the article, the lower class would sign up out of a need for money/income for their families for "$7 to $10 a month" with a "federal bounty of $24 and 160 acres of land," while the upper class was more interested in the possibility of access to more land out west.
I think class divisions were extremely important because, many of the soldiers were in the lower class and fought in the war. "The New York Commercial Advertiser said in June 1847: "It is a well-known fact that immense fortunes were made out of the poor soldiers who shed their blood in the revolutionary war by speculators who preyed upon their distresses. A similar system of depredation was practised upon the soldiers of the last war." This quote is from a Advertisement, and is talking about the divisions, and by stating that is shows how the soldiers were impacted hence why they wouldn't want the war. Thr rich saw this as an oppertuntiy for more land and more money, so they pushed for war. This shows the importance of class divsions.
Most of the elites had wanted to fight in the war because they wanted to expand slavery and gain more territory so they forced people of lower class to fight for their benefit and encouraged the idea of Manifest Destiny to get people to fight for them. It further divided social classes within America because people of lower classes did not want job competition in the west and wanted to restrict slavery.
What do you think Frederick Douglass means by 'real actions' when he says "(he) was scornful of the unwillingness of opponents of the war to take real action (even the abolitionists kept paying their taxes)"? What would Douglass constitute as 'real actions'?
I think Frederick Douglas meant acts that purposely went against the war and harmed the war effort, such as acts like Henry David Thoreau's actions, as 'real actions.' In the chapter, it had mentioned that Henry David Thoreau had openly refused to pay his poll tax, as he disagreed with the war, resulting in him being put in jail. I think that Douglas would've constituted anything that disrupted or harmed war efforts as 'real actions,' such as refusing to enlist, as they would've been able to stop further harm.
Since Frederick Douglass was an abolitionist for slavery, he strongly opposed US involvement in the Mexican American war. In his Rochester newspaper, the North Star, he characterized the war as "disgraceful", "cruel", and "iniquitous". He also viewed that the Mexicans were the "victims" in this war. Thus, in his writing, he wrote "None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other" in which he criticized the the unwillingness of Americans who opposed the war to speak against the President. When Douglass refer to "real actions", I think it represented any forms of protests that the Americans would do to oppose US participation in the war, which may include to stop paying taxes to the government as well as to holding public protests and giving speeches that would criticize the US in the Mexican American war.
After the Mexican-American war, the US gained large amounts of territory in the west, however many of these territories were still occupied with Natives. During Polk's campaign to expand into California, were there any Native revolts that hindered the expansion, or did the US successfully drive the natives westward in each conflict?
Elise Shedrick
I'm sure that there were some Native revolts that did hinder expansion, however according to the text I believe that the fear Americans instilled in the Natives was strong enough to avoid such conflicts. For example, americans taking California state "hope you will alter your habits, and be industrious and frugal, and give up all the low vices which you practice; but if you are lazy and dissipated, you must, before many years, become extinct."| , which most likely takes away any major ideas by Natives of rebellion due to this amount of fear that they have.
I do believe that some natives revolt. From what a written in the text it seems the United States did face so opposition when taking the land but we're able to overcome it quickly. But overall it seems even before polks campaign dating back to the revolutionary war natives were continuously pushed out west until there was no land to move west to.
Throughout the chapter, I'd noticed that a lot of the treatment of the Mexican people reminded me of the stages of genocide, especially in the dehumanizing language used by newspapers. How do you think different aspects of the Mexican American war affected or inspired future events?
I think this war definitely boosted American superiority, though it is hard to say that without considering the different views of the war held by citizens at the time, and the divisions between the North and South. Tensions definitely rose between the two halves, tensions that would lead to the Civil War, though the Mexican-American war wasn't as big of a reason leading to the Civil War compared to other events and reasons. But I do agree with the observation of the treatment of Mexican people. I think that shows the strength of American superiority, and I don't see it too different than views today when you consider modern changes in the world today. Thinking about the treatment of Mexicans and the language used against them reminds me of how Japanese-Americans during WWII were treated.
I believe the treatment and dehumanization of Mexican people during the time of the Mexican American war was greatly influenced by the increasing racial superiority beliefs instilled in Americans. This aspect to the Mexican American war aided in justifying the horrible acts Americans would do to simply expand the U.S. This justification and excuse for their actions, I believe, is what Americans used to continue their expansion westward. As said in the passage, "the steady advance of a superior race, with superior ideas and a better civilization" was used to explain the need and justify U.S. expansion. I believe the inhumane treatment of Mexicans was only one aspect to the increasing racial superiority among Americans. Just like Americans justified western expansion through their so called superiority, they would make the same argument when justifying enslaving Africans.
Some Southern Democrats called for the complete conquest of Mexico. Why did the U.S. stop their invasion of Mexico after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when they could've tried to take the entire Mexican territory?
Zaid Sayeed
20 % of the US soldiers had already died from sickness or from battle and the army had nearly 10 thousand deserters. The war already yielded mass casualties and there was significant opposition from groups within the US. Pursuing a complete invasion of the country would've been too hard to accomplish.
Through casualties of war for the United States Army and opposing side I don't believe they thought it opportunistic enough to continue the war for more territory when they already took enough.
The U.S. stopped their invasion due to the lack of public participation and interest in the war. There were mass numbers of casualties and deserters of war. There was already minimal public approval towards the end of the war especially with the impressment of soldiers and there was little public participation with thousands of men deserting the army and refusing to fight any longer. In addition, they were constantly low on supplies and people to partake in the war. This would have caused the U.S. to realize that war was no longer beneficial and it wasn't a worthy opportunity anymore to continue fighting when the opposition had already ceded the land they wanted.
Why do you think President Polk was anticipating the war so excitedly? As President, shouldn't he have acted to protect the American people, not put them in danger, especially when the majority of people were against going to battle?
I think that President Polk was anticipating the war so excitedly because he was greedy for that land. I think he wanted to be known as the President that took that land and he was going to do it any way possible. He thought that war would be the most efficient way to claim that land during his term.
I think that Polk was anticipating the war since he knew when he was sending the troops into Mexico that it would spark the war. However many people were against the idea of war because they saw it as unconstitutional and manifest destiny was not a good reason to start a war. These people were like the anti slavery society who said the war was, "waged solely for the detestable and horrible purpose of extending and perpetuating American slavery throughout the vast territory of Mexico." However Polk knowingly put his troop into danger by sending his troops into Mexico, to have them be shot at, in order to start the war.
In my opinion, I believe that President Polk had strong expansionist beliefs and although he knew that many Americans were against the war, he believed the end justified the means. He believed that more land would be a better life for the American people in the long run. I also believe that Polk thought that there would be no other way to gain the land other than going to war with the Mexicans. Also, I agree with the statement that majority of the people didn't want to go into battle, but the wealthy elite who owned slaves did, which Polk was most likely a part of.
Natale Johnson
In your opinion, do you think the expansionists were bringing the people in the west freedom and liberty?
I think the expansionists had justified their means of gaining land by claiming it was to bring freedom and liberty to the people of the west, but the idea of racial superiority deeply rooted in their society had encouraged them to see themselves as saviors, despite using violent means to get what they wanted.
I, personally, do not believe the expansionists were bringing the people in the west freedom and liberty as slavery was still in use during that time, bringing liberty to only a specific few. Additionally, with the establishment of white supremacy, people of different races would not be granted the same liberty as white men experienced at that time.
I don't think that expansionists were bringing people freedom and liberty even if they claimed to do so. I think they used it more as a superficial justification to take over the territory especially since their mindsets were so deeply rooted in racial superiority. I think even though they set their ideals as liberty and freedom, it was liberty and freedom for certain people (like it was on the east coast), while others were exploited for the country's financial and territorial gain. This is especially seen when there is conflict over the western territories and the debate on whether to spread slavery to those states or not.
Based on the class textbook and this reading, President Polk's impact on the Mexican War can be debated. In your opinion, to what degree did he affect the causation and outcome of the war? Do you think it would have gone any different without him? If so, by how much?
I believe that this war would not have happened without President Polk. Ultimately, he was the one who ordered American troops to provoke the Mexican troops and rushed the war message through congress. If Polk had not been the president at the time, the stealthy provocation of the Mexican troops most likely would not have occurred and the entire war would have not happened. Without an extremely expansionist president during the Mexican-American war, it would not have occurred and would not have continued on to the lengths it did.
From what I have read, it seems like this war was pushed and argued for in the government solely by Polk and his cabinet. One of the main reasons the war happened in the first place was the disagreement of the border between Texas and Mexico. It had traditionally been the Nueces River, which Mexico and the U.S. recognized. "However, Polk, encouraging the Texans to accept annexation, had assured them he would uphold their claims to the Rio Grande." This shows that President Polk was the leading force in the U.S. claiming the Rio Grande as the new border. This led to the ordering of troops to the Rio Grande to claim the "U.S. territory" even though it had always been inhabited by Mexicans. These actions created large tensions between Mexico and the U.S. and the war would not have happened without them. "All that was needed in the spring of 1846 was a military incident to begin the war that Polk wanted." These rising actions were started by President Polk, so I believe that the war wouldn't have happened if he wasn't president.
Arya Rao
I also believe that President Polk had a significant influence on inciting the war. This can be seen in Hitchcock's diary entry, where he writes about General Taylor: "He seems to have lost all respect for Mexican rights and is willing to be an instrument of Mr. Polk for pushing our boundary as far west as possible. When I told him that, if he suggested a movement (which he told me he intended), Mr. Polk would seize upon it and throw the responsibility on him, he at once said he would take it, and added that if the President instructed him to use his discretion, he would ask no orders, but would go upon the Rio Grande as soon as he could get transportation." This illustrates how General Taylor did what Polk asked of him regardless of what was morally right, and without Polk ordering Taylor to take these actions, the war may not have even occurred.
I believe that President Polk was the first one to cause conflict regarding the land owned by the Mexicans. He was the one to send in troops before the war started in order to rile them up and bring them probable cause to declare war and send in more troops. Based on what Colonel Hitchcock wrote, "I have said from the first that the 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,", the United States, more specifically President Polk, caused the conflict to begin with even though they believe Mexicans drew first blood. The war would have definitely gone much different without him because, in my opinion, there wouldn't have been a war without him.
Do you think the Mexican-American war broke the "American" morals that we held the nation to (at that time and in the present day)?
In the present day, the Mexican-American war definitely broke the American morals that we hold the nation to. Back then though, people still believed in slavery, so manifest destiny was probably easy to believe and was not breaking many Americans morals at the time.
I don't believe the Mexican-American war broke any "American" morals at that time. Americans mistreatment of Mexicans and their belief in being superior to them wasn't a new concept to Americans Mistreatment to those of other races can be seen through their dehumanization and mistreatment of immigrants and natives long before the Mexican American war was held. If Americans had any morals to begin with, they have been broken long before this war.
I don't believe the Mexican-American war broke any "American" morals at that time. Americans mistreatment of Mexicans and their belief in being superior to them wasn't a new concept to Americans. Mistreatment to those of other races can be seen through their dehumanization of immigrants and natives in the past, long before the Mexican American war was held. If Americans had any morals to begin with, they have been broken long before this war. (sorry the past one had some grammatical errors)
Keeping in mind that American morals had drastically changed over time, I think the Mexican-American war would definitely have broken the morals we hold today. In the 1840s, however, the idea of Manifest Destiny had encouraged many Americans to participate in the war for westward expansion and their sense of nationalism had blinded their ability to step back and look at what they had done. Rather, they had utilized this idea to justify the violent means in which they had gained territory and the manipulation involved to start this war.
The war may have gone against typical "American" ideals of liberty and justice, but didn't go against any morals held by Americans at the time or in other parts of US history. This is because, many Americans believed in racial superiority and America has forcibly taken control over many places such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.
The media often played a large role in the ways in which Americans viewed the world at the time of the Mexican-American War. Newspapers, public speakers, and other media outlets played a huge role in the choices made during this war.
In what ways do you think the media impacted the people of this time? Did it make them want to fight this war? How did the media change the way this war ended up being fought? How did the media influence the people of this time?
I think it really is hard to know how much the media impacted the public at this time. The chapter gives examples of both anti and pro war media at the time. The author also explains that "There were no surveys of public opinion at that time." Like today though, depending on what you read you will have different opinions on a topic.
During this period, newspapers were often used by political parties or political movements to express their opinions to be public. Just based on what I read from the chapter, it does not seem like any newspapers were free of biases or influences. Knowing that, I believe that the media did change some people's opinion of the war. The real question is, to what extent?
I think it was the media that was the driving force of the war because it was in many ways a rich mans war won off the backs of the poor. The poor needed to be motivated the war for the rich and the ideals of manifest destiny provided the means for the rich to inspire the poor to fight their war for them. Without this great influence of the media I believe the war could have ended a lot sooner with an American defeat because the poor said no and went home.
One of the questions that was rhetorically mentioned in this chapter was: Were the newspapers reporting a feeling in the public, or creating a feeling in the public?
To this, I would answer that newspapers and other media platforms definitely relayed the opinions of political parties and groups during this time, but it also offered some bias towards specific ideals. This could have evoked specific feelings in people that may have impacted the public opinion at the time. I also think that the media played a role in ensuring some groups' opinions remained in the background and unheard in order to elevate an alternate opinion.
Polyna Uzun
I think that the media was a huge part of the war because it portrayed heavily biased opinions similar of propaganda which would evoke emotion and patriotism for the U.S. as well. It was this way in order to incite people to fight in the war, a war which was not beneficial for common people. It had to be so strong so that it would get people to fight and believe in the war in the very first place. It was later figured out via selling land and such that this may have been overblown. I think that without the biased media, the outcome would have been very different, characterized by less support.
At the end of the text, the author includes the following: "The United States paid Mexico $15 million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that "we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God."" Why do you think the author included this? What is the significance of the Whig Intelligencer's comment? Would you classify the U.S. actions that acquired all of the new Western lands as conquest? Why or why not?
Conquest, defined by the Oxford Dictionary, means the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. I believe that the Mexican Cession was acquired through conquest, or better known as the Mexican War. This is because the primary reason that many American citizens wanted to fight the war was for the sole purpose of gaining land. By paying Mexico it showed that the US still wanted to maintain peace with Mexico. The author most likely added this to their text to show the irony of the whole war. where military was used to gain land at first then America payed Mexico for the land afterwards, saying that it wasn't a conquest.
I agree with the previous comment, in the sense that it was ironic how by saying that America paid Mexico for their land, nothing was taken by conquest, but instead it was a transaction. As the Whig Intelligencer expresses that "we take nothing by conquest," it makes it appear that America's actions were not wrong. The chapter presents many justifications the US gave for declaring war and their actions throughout, so I think it seems fitting that the author ends with another justification as to how the US made it seem that taking the land was reasonable.
How do you think the US would be different if we have never taken that part of Mexico?
Naveen Vridhachalam
I think that the US would be very different if we had never taken that part of the continent from Mexico. An event that had a big impact on our country was the California Gold Rush, which started pretty much right after the war. If we hadn't gotten that area of land from the Mexican-American War before gold was found there, I think that the various effects that this event had on our country would have happened to Mexico (more immigrants, industrialization, etc.). There are many other events like this, albeit not all as impactful, that wouldn't have been possible without the acquisition of this land.
The U.S. would have been different in many ways if we had not taken that part of Mexico. One way in which it would be different is that it would have not expanded slavery into the west and ultimately the civil war would have had a different outcome or it would have not happened at all. Another way in which the U.S. would be different is that we wouldn't have much or any western territory which could have altered the entire history of the United States as we know it today. So really everything would have changed in our society if we had not taken western territory.
Nish Ramananandan
I believe that the United States of America would be very different if we had never acquired the Mexican land. The civil war occurred partly due to conflict over the Mexican-American war, therefore, if the Mexican-American war had never happened, it is possible that the civil war would have never happened. Another possibility is that the California Gold Rush would have occurred differently or not at all.
In what ways did this war affect the relationships between the North and South, in comparison to other wars? Throughout the previous wars fought in addition to this one, were the patterns of opinion and action similar or different to the previous wars?
I think it's safe to say that the Mexican-American war deteriorated the relationship between the North and South, but I believe this deterioration was little in comparison to the other conflicts of 1840's and 50's. Bleeding Kansas, for example, did much more to wider sectional divisons.
This war further strained the relationship between the north and south because they had to deal with the expansion of slavery, an issue that had not been decided prior to taking all the land. After the Mexican Cession, the debate over slavery only rose which is why the Free-Soil party was formed. After this, a chain of events followed which further proves the strained relationship. For example, the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed many conflicts to take place and even formed a new political party. Afterwards, the John Brown violence raged fire-eaters of the south and caused even more tension. I think that the victory of the Mexican American war was what incited all these events from happening in the first place. A previous conflict was the Missouri Crisis. This is similar to the outcome of the Mexican American war because both problems had to do with what would happen if slave states expanded. I think that although the issue of slavery was largely present before the Mexican American war, the war only increased the turmoil ultimately leading to the civil war.
I believe that the Mexican-American War further increased tensions between the North and the South, and it became a prominent issue in the parties' respective campaigns. During the election of 1848, Whigs and Democrats ran their campaigns promising to keep the North free of slavery and promising the protection of slavery in the South. Ultimately, the Compromise of 1850, which hoped to resolve the issues surrounding territory gained from the Mexican-American War, did not hold the peace for long. The Fugitive Slave Act gave way to issues between the North and South, and the boundary between the two did not go away.
Corina Smith
While the lasting effects of this war were not as major as other conflicts during the time period, like Bleeding Kansas, it still had major impacts. However, the division between northern and southern states was deep;y divided by other conflicts rather than the Mexican-American War.
In the chapter, Zinn writes "Where was popular opinion? It is hard to say. After the first rush, enlistments began to dwindle. The 1846 elections showed much anti-Polk sentiment, but who could tell how much of this was due to the war?" To what extent was President Polk's popularity affected due to the Mexican-American War? What other factors could have impacted his popularity?
Zinn made a point in describing white superiority views of the time in that everyone seemed to agree that American ideals should be the dominant ideal of the continent. The idea of expansion was not debated, but how. When we discussed in class when the American Revolution started, one author said the war was just the beginning. And I think this is what that author means. Without building this united identity of a superior mindset, the country would not have become the agressive world power it is today. People of all classes were confident and proud of what American had become and they were passionate about expanding it. Whether the majority wanted other groups to get hurt along the way is another question. But the war did represent a sense of cultural unity among citizens that has lasted for many generations.
When looking at the big picture, do you believe the Mexican-American war was necessary in order for the 50 states of America to be the way they are today? Do you believe the states would be better off if the U.S. didn't take part in this war?
I believe that the Mexican-American war was necessary for the states to be the way they are. If the Mexican-American war never happened, I believe that there would still be tensions across the country over political power. Since it led to a balance in slave holding and non slave holding power, the tensions between political powers of each state were eased, and for the time being it led to low amounts of turmoil throughout the country.
I do think that this war was somewhat necessary for the states to be the way they are today. Much of the territory that we have today is due to this war, and this territory has led to the gain of many valuable resources, so the states needed this war to be the way they are today. However, I believe that the states could have been better off without this war, because it created much political tension that still exists today.
How do you think the American's won the war when many of their soldiers were deserting and rebelling against their military due to harsh conditions?
Ben Coniker
American soldiers were highly motivated in the beginning of the war due to finanical and racial motives. A quote from the text says,"At first there seemed to be enthusiasm in the army, fired by pay and patriotism. Martial spirit was high in New York, where the legislature authorized the governor to call fifty thousand volunteers. Placards read "Mexico or Death." There was a mass meeting of twenty thousand people in Philadelphia. Three thousand volunteered in Ohio." These soldiers were enthusiastic because of the promises of money/land, but I believe that the lasting motivation for the American soldiers was white superiority and racism.
I still believe that the American Army won the war because the army started deserting the country at the very end of the war they have basically almost have won. To go along with that they still had a lot of immigrants on their side who were still to go out with the war because the fact is they still were looking to earn money and grow as a person in that society. Finally another reason for why we won is that we had more technology that benefited us during the war compared to the Mexicans as most of their army were native americans.
Even though American soldiers were deserting and rebelling against the military, this desertion only occurred toward the end of the war. The majority of the war had been fought, and Americans were starting to lose interest in the war as the war came to a close or a state in which the Americans could not do more. In addition, one other benefit is that Americans had a large pool of people to recruit their army from. With incoming irish immigrants, Americans had a larger pool of people to recruit their soldiers from as well.
The author went into depth about Americans' experiences throughout the war and how white supremacy played a significant part in how the relationship of Mexicans and Americans developed. White superiority is one of the foundations of this country, creating the culture and division we see today. How do you think the Mexican-American War created a lasting impact on the relationship between Mexico and America? How has the government of the United States expressed that relationship in positive and/or negative ways?
The majority of Congress supported the war while abolitionists, whigs, and other anti-war groups were the minority in Congress. There hasn't been much clarity regarding whether the American public was majorly for or against the Mexican-American war. Was the war fought for all people of America, or for the elite, slaveholding class?
I believe that the war was both fought for just the elite and slaveholding class and the rest of the American public. However, different reasons for both groups. For the elite, slaveholding class, land was their main reason for fighting. They wanted to expand territory for more profits and power in government. The lower and middle class citizens however, were fighting for financial help that many elite citizens and government promised them.
The war was mainly fought by the elite, slave-holding class because they were the ones with the most power. Since so much of the economy was dependent on slavery, these people had financial and economic power over other parties that were in Congress and public political positions.
Soham Gotkhindikar
In the end, the war affected the entirety of the US popoulation - but at the time it was tailored towards the elite slaveholder class. One of the motives for the expansion West was to acquire new land to have plantations on, which would in turn require slaves. The expansion westward was seen as a way for the elite slaveholders to expand their already overdominant grasp in the American political and economical sphere. After the Mexican Cession, the want to expand slavery west is one of the key tensions that helps to instigate the American Civil War.
Both Americans and Mexicans were originally European colonizers who'd settled in America and fought for independence from their mother nations. Why did Americans view themselves as superior to Mexicans when they both had similar origins, struggles, and both groups were of European descent? Where did this sense of racial and American superiority originate from?
To answer your question of why Americans viewed themselves as superior to Mexicans, your question cannot be answered until we can agree on a reason for a people to be racist against another. There is no justifiable or acceptable reason for a person or people to be racist against another. The whites in America simply felt as though they were superior in every way. There is one view from Reverend Theodore Parker from the text that says, "Yes, the United States should expand, he said, but not by war, rather by the power of her ideas, the pressure of her commerce, by "the steady advance of a superior race, with superior ideas and a better civilization ... by being better than Mexico, wiser, humaner, more free and manly." He also called Mexicans "a wretched people in their origin,,,"
While I do agree that there is no real psychological answer as to why groups of people become racist, I think it's important to note that it is in both human and animal nature to dominate in self benefit. When a group of people becomes unified and strives toward a certain goal, it becomes a matter of them or us. It becomes the groups interest and greed to benefit themselves and their own secluded community over others. If this means that they must put another group of people to reach that goal, they will most likely do just that basing their self interests above all else.
What were the differing impacts of each type of source the author used (ex. diary entry vs. newspaper)? To what degree do you think they supported his argument?
I believe each type of source played a part in giving the article higher reliability as a whole. I also believe it provided the author with less of a biased article as he would use different sources that would relay differing opinions. For example, through his sources he was able to support his argument that the public had differing opinions regarding supporting or not supporting the war. He shared the quotes of a newspaper going against the war effort, "We can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and "annex" their territory; but what then? Have the histories of the ruin of Greek and Roman liberty consequent on such extensions of empire by the sword no lesson for us?" and another supporting the war, "The multitude cry aloud for war." I believe his wide variety of sources gave him the ability to thoroughly support any argument he had to make.
Why do you guys think Polk was so adamant on war to obtain the land towards the west rather than using treaties/money/agreements as an option?
In the end Polk did pay 15 million dollars to Mexico, however, in the beginning he did not use treaties and money as an option. I think he did not use these treaties and money as an option because he saw an opportunity in Mexico. The opportunity he saw was the disagreement already in Mexico. He would be able to take part in the disagreement which would lead to a war, in order to gain Mexico, instead of using treaties. However, I believe Polk never had the intention of having an agreement before he sent the troops. In the end though, he did end up making an agreement for the Mexican land for 15 million dollars.
Ellie Shedrick
I think the reason that Polk was so adamant about taking the land through war was the concept of manifest destiny. Senator H.V johnson says " War has its evils. In all ages it has been the minister of wholesale death and appalling desolation; but however inscrutable to us, it has also been made, by the Allwise Dispenser of events, the instrumentality of accomplishing the great end of human elevation and human happiness. ... It is in this view, that I subscribe to the doctrine of "manifest destiny." I think this shows that the US believed it was their absolute privilege and right to take this land, which is why they took it by conquest, despite paying money in the end of the war.
How much of the Mexican-American war do you think was planned by the government? The author hinted many times at the fact that the government was pushing things extremely quickly and wanted the war to happen really badly. What actions did the president and government do that seemed to force the war?
It seems that the war was instigated by President Polk in the beginning of his presidency. This is supported by this quote from the text. The author says," In the White House now was James Polk, a Democrat, an expansionist, who, on the night of his inauguration, confided to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California."
I think that much of the beginning of the Mexican-American War was planned by the government. Polk himself was a major instigator of the war. Polk ordered General Taylor to move troops to the Rio Grande, which was clearly supposed to provoke the Mexicans. Howard Zinn writes, "Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation." This was a clear action by Polk that seemed to force the war. He seemed to want this war to start a lot, that "On May 9, before news of any battles, Polk was suggesting to his cabinet a declaration of war".
I believe the Mexican- American war was planned by Polk and the government heavily since Polk initiated the war through planing his troops in Mexico. I believe he planted his troops in Mexico because it was already a debated area. This area was debated because Texas believed it was their land and Mexico believed it was their land as well. Polk planned to plant his troops in the middle of this disagreement in order to instigate Mexico and have and have Mexico shoot at his troops, so he could have a reason to start the war and Mexico be the ones to blame. Since he did plant his troop in Mexico and have the intention of Mexico to shoot the troop, I do believe the war was heavily planned by the government.
How many people supported the war, or was it all a result of politicians' motives? I realize that the media was unsure about the accurate public opinion of the war, shown in the quote,"There were no surveys of public opinion at that time." I wonder if propaganda was a significant factor in raising the enthusiasm for the war. It is also a possibility that President Polk did not care much of his public opinion, and was going to instigate the war regardless. This can be supported by the quote, "In the White House now was James Polk, a Democrat, an expansionist, who, on the night of his inauguration, confided to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California."
Do you think that the Whig intelligencer meant "We take nothing by conquest, thank god" satirically, or do you think that he legitimately believed in what he said? In the modern day, we can see the hypocrisy behind this statement. Since the Whigs were against the war, do you think that they saw this hypocrisy as well?
I do think that this was a satirical comment, because when the United States payed Mexico $15 Million and signed this treaty, it was evident to all the United States inhabitants that we look this land through conquest. The soldiers that fought knew this, the president, and all civilians as well. I believe this comment was just highlighting the extent the United States will go to to cover up the fact that a territory is won by conquest, and instead make it look like it was agreed upon fairly.
Several times throughout history "Manifest Destiny" has been used as a motive for exploration, or even war. Besides using this as a motive for beginning the Mexican American War, in your opinion what are other main motives that Polk used to justify his actions to the public?
If you were to place yourself in the 1840s America, would you be in agreement with the war or would you be against the war?
I think that this is a good question, because it is easy for me in the present to not support the Mexican-American War. However, if I were to place myself in that time period, I don't know if I would have felt the same. First of all, I wouldn't have all the information I do now. I wouldn't have known that Polk provoked the Mexicans into firing the first shots of the war, and thus would probably have supported the war in the beginning. There is also the fact that almost everyone in that time period supported an expansion west, although not everyone agreed it should be violent. This is because of the obvious economic benefits more land would bring. However, I think it is safe for me to say that as the war dragged on, I would have been against the war more and more as Howard Zinn states, "As the war went on, opposition grew." More and more people in America expressed anti-war sentiments as the conflict grew on, and I don't think I would be any different.
As Naveen mentioned it is easy to say I would be against the war now, but I am not sure that would have been the truth. I think culture has a huge influence on one's beliefs. I think that if I had grown up with a family and community that emphasized manifest destiny and explained to me that it was the duty of Americans to spread liberty and democracy to people different from us then I may have been in support of the war. If that was the belief I was told to believe by authority figures in my life then it is hard to assume that I would be against the war. I would simply believe that the war would be the right thing to do. Conversely, if I grew up in a family and community that taught anti-war sentiments and was critical of ideas of manifest destiny then I would have been against the war. Family is the number one predictor of someone's future political party identification, so if my family were Democrats I would most likely be in favor of the war and if they were Whigs I would most likely be against it.
Sriman Badhri
This question is difficult to answer because of the fact that it is hard to look at situations with the same mindset that you have today, because if you lived in the time that this war took place, you would almost certainly have a different mindset about political actions that you current have. If I were to look at it with the mindset that I have today, I would say that I am not in favor of the war because the harm caused by the war greatly outweighed the benefits that America gained. However, there is a possibility that I would be in favor of the war if I had the mindset that many Americans had during the time of the war because there was less access to information at the time and I may not be fully informed of the harm that the war caused.
I believe that the author should have focused on how other people, such as government officials, were involved in the beginning of the war. While Polk definitely played a major role, he surely was not the sole person who was trying to instigate conflict. His officials, while they were supposed to follow his rules and orders, were often filled with doubt about how moral and necessary some of his actions were.
While one of the main goals, and the one that was promoted to the public, for the war was to expand land control and gain territory, I believe another reason behind the start of the war was the unwillingness to accept another slave state into the country. With the risk of throwing off the power held between slave holding states and non holding slave states, I am sure that political beliefs and personal intentions to continue the use of slavery also came into play.
The war demonstrated a major disconnect between different parts of the government. For example, several Congressmen voted against the war, for they saw it as merely a way of extending the southern slave state's power and territory. There was constant tension between Polk and his advisory, and this disconnect often was portrayed to the public, which led to doubt about involvement in the war in the first place.
Majority of the time, many soldiers did not share a common reason for fighting. In fact, many soldiers turned to personal reasons to fuel their motivation to fight. While the public did not readily support the war, soldiers still volunteered their time and lives to fight against a cause they did not know much about.
The war was often known as "a war of the American elite against the Mexican elite." This meant that, while the entire public was thought to be participating in and supporting the war, the majority of the fighting, whether that be done financially, economically, or infantry work, I believe that the war was fought by mainly the elite and it shows in how disconnected and split apart the public and government was about it.
Do you feel the war would've stilled occurred if the decision was up to the common people instead of the President because of the time period due to expansionist ideals?
I think that due to expansionist ideals, if the decision was up to the common people and not the president, the acquisition of land to the west would have still happened. However, I don't know if it would've happened by means of war or by means of some sort of agreement. Polk and the government were the main instigators of the war in 1846. If the decision was instead made by the common people, I think that it is possible that a war wouldn't have been waged to gain the new land. This was an idea expressed by the Whig Party, as they were "presumably against the war in Mexico, but not against expansion. The Whigs wanted California, but preferred to do it without war."
No I do not think the war would have occurred. It can be presumed that the opinions of the people were split between the two major parties: the Whigs and the Democrats. Zinn described the Whigs as being pro-expansion, but not pro-war. They wanted to expand commercially. So, while the common people were joint in their opinions of being pro-expansion, they did not agree on war. So if left to the common people it is reasonable to assume that they would not be able to reach a large enough majority to declare war. Furthermore, it was the elite that benefited from the war, while the common people faced the hardships of the war, so it is likely that some may have been reasonable enough to foresee this and be dissuaded from declaring war.
I believe that the war would have occurred nonetheless. Expansion and Manifest Destiny were the most popular ideas going around America at the time. Although I believe there would still have been major criticism and not a civil agreement on the issue, it would have still occurred. These ideas were stronger than any moral views as seen in the Trail of Tears.
I believe that the citizens of America would have wanted to acquire the land due to expansionist ideals. Although, I do not believe they would have decided to go to war. This is due to the fact that the Whig party was not represented by Polk and the Whig party wanted expansion but not war.
Jiaying Li
I think that the war would've still occurred regardless. However, I think that the war would've ended much quicker, since both the citizens and the soldiers did not support the war after a while. In the text, it mentioned that the "initial spirit soon wore off" and people became disillusioned with the war.
Americans often portray ourselves as freedom fighters and align ourselves against the ideas of colonial powers that were seen in the colonial powers. This can be seen in our recordings of the Revolutionary War. The English are often painted as this tyrannical colonial power, while the Americans are viewed as down to earth freedom fighters. It is often told in terms of Good vs Bad. However, Zinn chose the title of this article to be "We Take Nothing By Conquest, Thank God". The title is clearly sarcastic since the article discusses how America took much of the West by "conquest". So...
In what ways is the United States similar and different to the colonial powers of the colonial period? Are we any better or any worse?
Its really ironic to think about this, looking back. The US fought for their independence from Great Britain, because they didn't want to be under a colonial rule anymore. Yet here we are, some 100 years later, going out conquesting Mexico. There are definitely similarities between the US in this time period and the colonial powers of their time period. Both the US and colonial powers had similar motives to expand - God, Gold, and/or Glory - the three G's. The US wanted to expand their nation, while also spreading Christianity to the "savage" Mexicans in order to "civilize" them. This ties into the Manifest Destiny and how Americans felt that it was their divine right to expand.
Why do you think that the title created by the author of this article named the selection "we take nothing by conquest, thank god". I personally thought that the author was referring to manifest destiny and how many of the Americans used it as an excuse or like a god given right to lay claims to the Mexican territory even thought they knew what they were doing was wrong. I think it shows to effect how religion can obscure the motivations of many and play into the people's minds, however this title is very obscure and can be interpreted in many ways. What would you guys say the meaning of the title is.
When I first was reading the passage, the title did confuse me. I only understood it after reading the entire thing and understanding the broader context of it. The title comes up in the last paragraph of the reading, where the author wrote, "The United States paid Mexico $15 million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that "we take nothing by conquest.... Thank God." I felt that the title showed the false view that Americans had on the war, in that the were making it seem more just than it was. The war was won through vicious battle and lots of bloodshed, but in the end because the US payed Mexico 15 million dollars for the Cession, some people were thought to believe that we "bought" it from them. This highlights the fact that sometimes the story we tell ourselves about history is really not always that actually happened, and that we need new perspectives to help us understand the full picture of history.
Montana Merkle
When I first started the article, I believed the title had some sarcasm in it, maybe highlighting the fact that America DID seem to take everything by force and violence. But this wasn't the case, as the article defended that since in the end he use the article title to show how the United States paid Mexico for the land. I was honestly surprised by this because I didn't personally agree with the authors outlook on the Mexican American war since I believe the paying of money did not negate all the violence and lives lost. just because the $15 million were paid for the land, doesn't mean the land wasn't taken by conquest because it was
Howard Zinn, the author, is an American Historian, writing this as someone that grew up in America and in an American Perspective. How would the writing in this chapter differ if written from a Mexican perspective?
I think that if this article was written from a Mexican perspective, it would give greater detail into the minds of those Mexican populations who were having to defend their land in which they already had to fight Spain for. It would truly show the struggle and magnify how cruel the actions taken by American forces were.
If this chapter was written from a Mexican perspective it would completely change the purpose of the chapter. The purpose of the chapter is to reflect on how Americans often view ourselves as much better and "holier" than we truly are. Or at least how we view our history versus the reality of this. If the chapter was in the point of view of the Mexicans, then that would ruin the chapter's ability to compare and contrast American accounts of the war to show how we view history.
I think if this chapter was written from a Mexican perspective it would include more about the feelings and actions leading up to the war, as well as, the treatment the received throughout the war. I feel it would have more accounts by people who were at the receiving end of the Americans' brutality. It would go into more detail regarding how prisoners of war were treated, how civilians were treated, and the struggles everyone involved faced at the hands of the Americans and the effects of the war. It would also focus on how they believe the war started that counters American beliefs and reasons of declaring war. I think they would make clear how Americans were camped out around the territory and were waiting for a moment that they could use as a rational reason to fight. I think they would also discuss more about lesser known choices and moments/events in the war that are not popularly studied.
I think this chapter would be very different if it was written in a Mexican perspective. I think if written in this perspective it would of went more in depth with Texas also believing that the Mexican land was their land. It would of also have show that the Mexicans shot the Americans because they believed they were on their land, however, I think the Mexican author would say how the when the Mexicans shot the Americans, it was not meant to start a War, it was meant to solely remove the American from the land.
Many aspects of the Mexican Point of view would differ, but one aspect which would remain prevalent would be how Mexican soldiers similar to American soldiers were coerced to partake in the war due to economic hardships and untrue rewards / sentiments proclaimed by the Mexican elite. This is because the war was motivated by the economic value of the land which appealed to the rich elite more than anyone. Therefore, in order to convince those of a lower societal class to join the war efforts, both sides aggressively forced many to join the army under false pretenses.
I think that the article would be very different if it was written with a Mexican perspective. I think it would include more documents referring to the feelings of Mexicans before, during, and after the war. It would show more deeply how Americans viewed themselves to be superior to others. Additionally, it would show the cruelty of how the Americans treated the Mexicans, civilians and soldiers/prisoners of war.
I think that if the chapter had been written from a Mexican perspective, the reader would have greater insight about how the Mexicans felt about the war. Currently, most students believe that although Mexico incited the war by attacking US troops, ultimately the US provoked Mexico in numerous ways by encroaching on Mexico's territory. Had this been written from a Mexican standpoint, we would be able to understand how Mexico perceived America's provoking actions and who they think ultimately caused or incited the conflict. We would also be able to figure out if Mexico would have rather had American introduce American culture into Mexico and joining the countries that way rather than waging a war against them.
I feel that if the chapter was written from a Mexican perspective, it would have gone more into detail about how brutality, dysfunctionality, and hypocrisy that the American soldiers and government practiced in this war. However, it would also hinder the article's ability to show the differing points of view that the American people struggled with at the time.
The Mexican-American War was a very large part of history and there were many mixed perspectives on the war itself. Based on the article, how did these perspectives differ among the social groups during the time period? For example, the elite, soldiers, women, men, etc. And did this shape the overall view of the war once it ended?
One thing I wanted to mention was that I found parts of Zinn's argument to hypocritical. He argued that historian Smith relied on newspapers as representations of public opinion. Zinn described these newspapers as not always being an accurate representation of public opinion, and instead are often used to sway public opinion. Zinn however continued to use a number of newspapers as evidence of many people being in opposition of the war. However this allows for his own doubt to be used against him. Couldn't these newspapers also be "claiming to be the voice of the people"? His own argumentation works against him. A stronger argument against the claims of other historians would have been more convincing.
There was a lot of media coverage on the war. Media platforms shared information about impressments and the protests (only those in favor of the war) leading up to the war. To what extent do you think media played a part in peoples' beliefs? To what extent do you think fear or approval played a role in the content published? Do you think the public participation and interest would have been different if the war was not published by the media?
The media may have played a large role in both the spread of information and the spread of beliefs. Through newspapers, people were told about the incentives for joining the armies, leading more people to support the war. On the other hand, newspapers also spread the supposedly "public opinion" that the war was negative and was not justified, leading people to support that belief.
Media has consistently played a large role in all crisis's. People who are more patriotic and nationalist based will tend to support government officials, basing their opinions off of speeches. People who are more focused on how the middle and lower class is effected tend to support news articles, propaganda, speeches from other civilians, etc. What people believe to be true is most always based on their social situation. There will always be multiple opinions and sources but it is the people who choose to listen or not, and what to listen to.
Emma Tyndall
I agree with the perspective that the media had a large role in the beliefs about the war. When you consider the time period that this took place in, you realize that media was completely different than it is now. Citizens probably didn't have many sources of media to compare and therefore couldn't "fact-check" (for lack of a better term). As a result, many people just believed whatever they read in the local paper or heard for other as they didn't have the resources to dispute it.
The American interpretation of the Mexican-American war and its pros and cons would have been vastly different had media not published content regarding the war. Whigs in the south who opposed such inconsciencious land-grabbing and poor white southerners who derived no benefit from the war may have been able to develop various opinions other than those portrayed in the media. It is even possible that opposing groups could have developed such an opposition to the war that it could not continue.
At the time before the Mexican-American war, America was in a transition between a British monarchy and a American republic/democracy. However, during the war, America did not listen to the people and respect this new government being built. What does this say about the beliefs of the Americans and the stability of the new government?
I think this proves that the developing government of the United States was not stable. As we know, the Constitution was not designed for a two party system so the fact that the government was divided at this time meant that the whole situation was a recipe for disaster. When Polk decided to take action, the divided beliefs left the war in adequately supported; war demands that its country either fully support the cause or not support it at all and surrender.
In my opinion it does not say much about the stability of the new government. War time has lead to extensions of government power throughout American history and our government is still relatively stable in the grand scheme of things. This can be seen in Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. Furthermore, the American government not listening to the people doesn't say anything about the beliefs of Americans, other than that it may have resulted in lack of trust in the government.
A man who wrote a history of the New York Volunteers stated, "If it is cruel to drag black men from their homes, how much more cruel it is to drag white men from their homes under false inducements, and compelling them to leave their wives and children, without leaving a cent or any protection, in the coldest season of the year, to the in a foreign and sickly climate." This quote from the chapter discusses and creates a parallel between the idea of racial superiority and the impressment of American soldiers. I think that it was extremely hypocritical of the American people and how they condoned/supported slavery but found the impressment of soldiers immoral and incorrect. They were capable of treating the black men as racially inferior and forced them to complete actions that they didn't want to and never felt as if they did anything wrong. However, when the whites were being treated similarly through impressments, they were being forced to fight in the army, they spoke out against it, openly exclaimed that it was immoral and it wasn't fair that they be treated that way. It was extremely ironic that they felt offended that they were being forced into doing something (in this case fight in the war) when they were doing the exact same thing to an entire race of people simply because they saw them as racially inferior and decided they could.
Mexicans were also living in a state which was controlled by a minority of rich whites whereas the Mexican army was mostly composed of mixed race or indigenous people. Why did the Mexicans fight so fervently against the United States and their racist ideals of westward expansion, when they were also living under the rule of a racist government which held similar ideals?
I believe that the Mexicans still fought really hard to keep their territory because everyone has a sense of nationality and patriotism and if someone wanted to come take their country from them you would fight back too. Also to go along with this because even though there was a racist government they could use this as a motivation for an uprising or rebellion to take out their racist government and replace it. But since there were not many Mexican accounts present within the chapter or at all we may never know what their true intentions are.
I think the reaction by the Mexican army/citizens very clearly demonstrates human nature. One aspect of human nature that we see repeated throughout history is hypocrisy and judgement; we are very quick to point out flaws in other people but slow to realize our own faults. i think this also proves humans' defensive nature. our first instinct is to defend ourselves against danger. In this case, the Mexicans saw the U.S. taking their territory and posing a great threat, so their first response was to defend, not take a step back and examine/fix their own government.
The Mexicans had full control of the land. It was their land and they cherished it. How would it feel if someone came to your house and wanted to take it from you, it's the same concept. They were willing to do whatever it took to keep that land.
I believe that there was likely a great deal of political pressure involved in the decision to fight with such concern. People at the time of this war were pressured to be loyal to their country and fight for their country before having their own opinions and thinking for themselves. This can also be credited to the fact that the Mexican government was not perceptive enough to understand that they could possibly have been making the mistakes that countries around them were making.
I think its important to understand when contemplating the reasons behind the Mexican American war and whether or not it was a necessary war to fight is to look how it all started. Although it is argued by the U.S. that the Mexicans started the war, originally the U.S. attempted to provoke Mexico in order to provide themselves with more justification for a war that they wanted to happen. Evidence to prove this point is seen with this quote from Colonel Hitchcock, "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 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" where it shows that the U.S. were the original provokers of the war despite the Mexicans "firing the first shot".
Were there any secular arguments for manifest destiny? It was definitely a religiously based concept but I wonder how it would appeal to the citizens who weren't Christian.
I believe it is important to thoroughly understand how inhumane and horrifying the life of soldiers were. This quote from the passage, "Although they had volunteered to go to war, and by far the greater number of them honored their commitments by creditably sustaining hardship and battle, and behaved as well as soldiers in a hostile country are apt to behave, they did not like the army, they did not like war, and generally speaking, they did not like Mexico or the Mexicans. This was the majority: disliking the job, resenting the discipline and caste system of the army, and wanting to get out and go home." emphasizes that although they originally were willing to fight in the war, after actually experiencing it, they no longer desired to continue this job. They had no passion or motivation to fight for this cause, as the war was viewed as pointless and brutal in the eyes of many soldiers. The volunteers can now realize and view the war as "extravagant promises and outright lies to build up the volunteer units." This shows how the soldiers' life was nothing like they were promised and many soldiers died doing something they didn't even support or believe in.
I agree with the fact that the soldiers lives were awful and their treatment was unfair. To add upon what you said, "If it is cruel to drag black men from their homes, how much more cruel it is to drag white men from their homes under false inducements, and compelling them to leave their wives and children, without leaving a cent or any protection, in the coldest season of the year, to the in a foreign and sickly climate!" This quote illustrates the idea of racial superiority and the act of impressing soldiers thus making them serve in the army. This also brings up the idea that the american public would never really bat an eye upon slavery, but they saw much wrong in the impressment of soldiers.
I believed this specific quote, "The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party ... by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other." I found this quote to be very important to the overall development of the entire chapter as it gave reason for why many believed that the president's actions are unjust and he is simply just looking out for himself. But I also found it quite interesting how the idea of popularity is still prominent and can make almost anyone do anything.
I would like to add a question to this. Do you believe the author of the chapter tried looking for first hand accounts from the Mexican Perspectives and suppose he found them why didn't he put them in the article?
Although you can argue that Polk's actions were unjust, you can also make the argument about how there were necessary measures that he had to make during his tenure. One argument made in the article was "Polk spoke of the dispatch of American troops to the Rio Grande as a necessary measure of defense." Therefore, although one could argue that his actions were unjust such that "Indeed, the reverse was true; President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans." Not all of his actions were determined by his impulsive decisions.
It was mentioned that the Whigs were in favor of the commercial expansion. Are there any accounts of how these people looked to expand America's territory through the use of commerce?
Suraj Kolli
There was a large movement against the use of violence and force in order to achieve American expansion. The Whig party was one of the stronger groups that severely opposed this. The article states that the Whigs wanted expansion to California, but through war. Eventually, the Whig party joined the Democratic party in voting against the war 174 to 14. "As Sehroeder puts it, 'theirs was a commercially oriented expansionism designed to secure frontage on the Pacific without recourse to war.'" Whigs were very keen on expanding westward without resorting to any violence.
Manifest Destiny seems like a pretty important concept throughout America during this time. Do you believe that People in America during this time would die just for America to expand west and put the concept of manifest destiny before their lives or do you think that they thought their lives were more important?
I do not think people were that invested in laying down their life for the country. Most soldiers were immigrants, mainly Irish, which meant they were not completely committed to the patriotism of the US. Not having well paying jobs, they joined the army in order to provide for the family. They were somewhat reluctant in fighting the war against Mexico. They were not very invested in the idea of the Manifest Destiny, as expansion of American territory did not directly affect them.
The people who were fighting in the war were predominantly immigrants and indigenous people. The rich white southerners were not the ones fighting. They were perfectly content with letting a lower class fight their battle for them. Manifest destiny started the war, but the soldiers involved were not driven by manifest destiny. They were fueled by the need for feeding themselves and their families.
I think people would not die for this expansion. While I was reading the article, it said that men were forced to war. If people really wanted to fight for their country they would volunteer instead of being forced to fight. If people really cared about this war, then everyone would drop what they are doing and fight for their country.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl