The gist of the Mexican War was a feud between Texas and Mexico's border lines. We talked in class about how the United States of America acquired Texas because they thought that Texas would join the British "Empire." Anyways, the Mexican War was fueled over the dispute of where the boundary lines were that marked the separation of the two lands. Mexico wanted the border between the two lands to be at the Nueces River, while Texas wanted the border to be till the Rio Grande River. The distance between the two desired boundary lines were not close to each other which meant that neither side would settle for the opponents wants. In order to try and acquire the land and push the border to the Rio Grande River, the United States offers monetary compensation for territories in Mexico. The Mexicans took this very badly because the land that was being asked to be bought was sacred and belonged to ancestral families of Mexico. The thing that confused many people was that while the offer for Mexico's holdings were being asked, Polk has already started to make plans about invading Mexico in case of rejection. This led to the belief that Polk created the conflict with Mexico on purpose. Soon this Texas- Mexican border issue flares into full- scale warfare.
The outcome of the war, as we talked about in class, was that the Texas boundary was pushed out to the Rio Grande River. The Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo (Feb. 1848) made this happen. Mexico gave up the area to the Americans and in return, they were promised that the Americans would assume all debts of its citizens to Mexico. In addition, the United States PAID MEXICO 15 million dollars to speed up treaty writing processes.
Some of the political fallout's of this war included antislavery forces fearing that the addition of Texas would add to the slave states in America, and increased sectionalism. Sectionalism pretty much means that people start to dismiss the well- being of the common good and start to focus on their own ideals and wants/ desires. An example of this is the Wilmot Proviso, where a Congress member tried to "pull a fast one" and put an Amendment to an appropriations bill which states that slavery will be banned in any territory gained from Mexico. Questions about slavery rose to the topic when talking about Texas because it was a new state and was being decided on whether it would be a slave or a free state.
Excellent summary and definitions for confusing and difficult terms! I really like how you connected the Wilmot Proviso into the Mexican-America War, and felt it fit in well. Your blog's tone makes it seem as if you are critical of America's response in procuring Mexico. Do you think that the Americans were motivated by long term gains and the potential of a future ally, and this led to the generosity? Personally, I believe that the Americans' action to act so kindly was due to seeking long term benefits, but it contradicts Manifest Destiny at the same time. For more information about the question and the annexation of Texas: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/texas-annexation
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting on how you explained that the Mexican-American war set a transition into the controversial topic of slavery and how it must be addressed. To expand on the topic, how far do you think growth of the ideal of Manifest Destiny pushed the boundaries of compromise within slavery? Do you think that if we did not act on Manifest Destiny and that we did not annex territories such as Texas, we would not have been faced with the conflict of slavery as early?
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting on how you explained that the Mexican-American war set a transition into the controversial topic of slavery and how it must be addressed. To expand on the topic, how far do you think growth of the ideal of Manifest Destiny pushed the boundaries of compromise within slavery? Do you think that if we did not act on Manifest Destiny and that we did not annex territories such as Texas, we would not have been faced with the conflict of slavery as early?
ReplyDelete