The Causes Of The Mexican-American War

The United States was, at the time, led by the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk, who believed the United States had the God given right to spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean, this term was called “Manifest Destiny.” Many say that the United States basically invaded Mexico and illegally took their land. The two countries have two different views on the war that still believed in today. This war

“it was God’s plan that America extend its territory.” (Roden 317) God wants America to take Texas. The Mexicans are “limiting our greatness checking the fulfillment of our Manifest Destiny” (O’Sullivan 323) People are wrongly stopping God’s plan. Later America got Texas, California, and Oregon Territory. (Roden 317) The Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Polk was a strong supporter of the Manifest Destiny.

Who’s the bad guy in the Mexican- American war? In the United States everyone focuses on the war as something Mexico started; that’s why there’s two different names for the war, the Unites States; “The Mexican war” and Mexico’s; “Invasion de los Estados Unidos” which translates to “the invasion of the United States”, both countries blame each other for the war but whose fault is it? It all started in 1846 to later end two years later, this conflict had many reasons, the first reason is because President James K. Polk thought about this type of exploration of foreign soil to expand the U.S. which is called the Manifest Destiny; Polk tried to come to an agreement with the Mexicans politicians about the land he wanted for America, he tried

Polk sent 1,000 troops with John Slidell to try and bargain with Mexico for California. The Mexican government was angered that America would attempt to force them into selling their land and asked them to leave. Polk, upset because Mexico declined the offer, set up camps in Texas, however, Mexico still thought of Texas as their land so the establishment

The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) marked the primary U.S. armed conflict in the main fought on foreign soil. It emptied a politically divided, militarily unprepared, all around unprepared Mexico against the expansionist-minded administration of U.S. President James K. Polk, World Health Organization believed the U.S. had a “manifest destiny” to unfold across the continent to the Pacific. A border encounter on the river started off the fighting and was followed by a series of U.S. victories. Once the mud cleared, United Mexican States had lost due to simple fraction of its territory, together with nearly all of current Golden State, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New

“ Thus, when the Mexican government learned of the treaty signed between Texas and the United States in April 1844, it...would consider such an act “a declaration of war.”... (Marquez, 327). In other words, Mexico thought that Texas being annexed without proper permission was considered a reason to go to war for. It is understandable why the opposition believes that Texas should have asked for consent before signing a treaty to be annexed.Though it is a valid point, Texas should have been able to not get authorization from Mexico, as long as Texas got the US’s permission. Manifest Destiny was the will of God for the US to take over California. “Other nations checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence (God) for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” (O’sullivan,

The Annexation of Texas in 1844 was the climax of the Mexican-American War. In 1836, Mexico threatened war and President Martin Van Buren refrained from annexing Texas (Office of the Historian). It wasn’t until 1844 that President John Tyler negotiated with the Republic of Texas. The Treaty of Annexation was the tipping point, which caused Mexico to diplomat relations with the United States. However, Tyler fell short of collecting enough Senate votes to ratify the treaty.

Was the Mexican War Justified? When does America have the right to go to war? America had every right to go to war with Mexico because they were farming the land and wanted to do it the way they wanted. Mexico wanted to control their religion, the use of slaves and wanted them to follow their rules. In a way, they just wanted their freedom like in the rest of America.

When President James K. Polk arrived in office in 1845, his ideal was determined to acquire the additional territory from Mexico. Polk believed that obtaining the lightly inhabited Mexican land that stretched from Texas to California was vital to the future of the United States. After the trouble that occurred while trying to buy the land from Mexico, Polk ordered American troops under Zachary Taylor to march to the Rio Grande River. When fighting erupted, Polk, claiming that Mexico fired first, went to congress to declare war on Mexico. Numerous Americans, as well as at the time Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln, opposed the war and questioned whether the fight began on American soil and was provoked by Polk’s men.

O’Sullivan was an American columnist whom was known for his use of the term, “manifest destiny,” which promoted the annexation of Texas to the United States. He argues that the adverse attitude toward Texas’ independence from Mexico needs to end. In this article, O’Sullivan also expands on the importance of the growth of the country throughout the continent. It further acknowledges the freedom of Texas as not a rebellion, but by abandonment from Mexico. John O’Sullivan sees the future of America expanding into California and Mexico becoming a country without a real government.

At that time, only about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande. As a result, U.S. forces led by Stephen W. Kearny and Robert F. Stockton were able to conquer those lands. Taylor advancing, and captured Monterrey in September. With the losses adding up, Mexico turned to old standby General Antonio López de Santa Anna, the strongman who had been living in exile in Cuba. Santa Anna convinced Polk that, if allowed to return to Mexico, he would end the war on terms positive to the United States.

Not surprisingly powerful people and governments still try to dictate where people can and cannot settle. This is evident in the case of the Texas Mexico border. After the United States acquired a large swath of land from France in the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican government encouraged thousands of citizens to settle in north Mexico. The thinking was that this would create a buffer zone in the event that the United States would try to settle in the region. However, this backfired as the settlers, in what is now Texas, declared independence in 1836.

How the Mexicans looked at it is that the United States just took the invaded the land and took it from them. The “Mexican government learned of the treaty signed between Texas and the United States in April 1844” (Velasco-Marquez). President Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande across from the city of Matamoros. The Mexicans thought that the U.S was planning on attacking them so Mexico “reaffirmed the instruction to protect the border” (Velasco-Marquez). “Mexico, on achieving her independence of the Spanish Crown… decreed the abolition of human slavery within her dominions, embracing the provents of Texas” (Summers).