The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) - Research Paper Example

THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR (1846-1848) The Mexican-American war has emerged as the most morally dubious chapter in the history of America. President James K. Polk and his imperialistic ambitions along with criticisms from the Whig political party the war became a pathway towards fulfilling the American’s dream of expanding beyond the borders of the nation. But the steadily rising numbers of casualties and war-weary soldiers spread opposition in the public. Further, the press coverage of the war that reflected the atrocities of the American soldiers tarnished the image of the war and this led to a nationwide antiwar protests. This paper describes the perspectives of three different articles on the Mexican-American war. Debate over territorial acquisition: Media perspective The Mexican-American war was declared by America on May 13, 1846. The war was generated by the United States’ annexation of Texas whose border was a matter of dispute between the two nations. By the time the war ended on February 2, 1848, the United states owned 500,000 square miles of Mexican territory1. From the start, the subject of acquiring land being the main motive behind the war was a cause of dispute among many political parties of the United States and this caused political divisions in the nation. The Democratic Party members strongly supported the war as they were in favour of rapid territorial expansion beyond the borders of America. The northern parties did not favour such rapid expansion and they strongly opposed the war. These parties were concerned over how much Texan land to acquire because slavery was in practice in southern Mexico and this portion of the land was inhabited by a large number of Mexican population. The Whigs political party opposed the war because they were against such agenda of acquisition of more land; they favored slow territorial expansion and wanted to limit the encouragement of the practice of slavery. They also did not favor Mexicans as part of the United States population. Berhardt in his article focused on the press coverage of such difference of opinions among the political parties and how they shaped the war. J.G. Bennett’s New York Herald supported the views of the Southern Democrats of capturing the entire land of Mexico as it would raise the practice of slavery. M.Y. Beach’s New York Sun preached the views of the Northern Democrats of expanding land across the nation but limiting the land for slavery and minimizing the entry of Mexican population into America. H. Greeley’s New York Tribune supported the Whigs and went ahead in its moral views of unjust robbery of Mexican land. The picture of Mexico published by newspapers made the war seem even more undesirable2. Land acquisition was the main agenda of this war. Mexican government’s grudge over America’s annexation of Texas began when the U.S. army seized the area between the Nueces and Rio Grand Rivers which was claimed by both the nations as their respective property3. The different perspective of media was expressed by the three leading newspapers of America. Greeley in his attempt to discourage the war expressed that Mexico was a wasteland and so should not be captured by the United States. On the contrary, Bennett and Beach justified the war’s agenda by portraying the Mexican people as inferior who cannot put their land to better use. This view was emphasized by the fact that the Mexicans were descendants of inferior races like Native Americans and Africans. Although Mexican land was the common topic of discussion of all the newspapers, their perspective was different on the final outcome of the war4. A new paradigm for the Mexican-American War The United States’ military victory in the Mexican-American war over the enemy’s conventional army did not bring the expected political result. In the subsequent years the United States could provide assistance to the major political and economic parties of Mexico. This could validate the American’s invasion of Mexican land. The war that ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo holds an exemplary positing in the military history of the United States. Levinson in his article has reflected the flawed picture of this paradigm. With the progress of the U.S. Army towards Mexico City, the Mexican military formations were rapidly destroyed thus agitating Mexico’s repressive regime. This disturbed the political and economic status of Mexico. Consequently the rural Mexicans erupted to form rebellions that became a threat to the peace of the nation, thus forcing the Mexican government to request aid from the United States. In 1846, Mexico was caught in a web of violent internal conflicts that had its roots in the country’s colonial past. Mexico was a land where the population of the Indians and their descendants permanently exceeded that of the Europeans and their descendants. With the advent of Spanish conquest, the political, social and economic controls remained in the hands of the Spanish officials. The Indians sought the protection of the Spanish regime to retain their preconquest lands. Thus the colony remained culturally and politically divided (Levinson). When the Mexican-American war started, the U.S. Army entered into an internally divided country. Mexico at that time was already in war with its internal groups. The conflict started when General Winfield Scott progressed towards Mexico City with a small force. He soon realised that U.S. Army for their survival needed the assistance of the Mexican civilians for supply of provisions. To gain the trust of the Mexicans, Scott implemented harsh punishment for U.S. soldiers who would commit crime against the Mexican civilians. Thus from the study of Mexican-American war, a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, the war was set as an example of conflict between two sovereign nations; this view is wrong since there was a third conflict which was the coexisting civil war between Mexicans. Second, millions of Mexican civilians rendered no help to the oppressive national regime which was fighting against the U.S. Army; this was a great contributor towards America’s victory. Third, 1848 has been recorded as the first year when the U.S. army successfully conquered and the stabilized an enemy nation5 (Levinson). The American volunteer colonels The American volunteer colonels played an important role in preparing the country for the Mexican-American war as they produced volunteer soldiers to fight for their country outside its boundaries. Out of the 63 colonels, most were from the Democratic party although 14 were from the Whig party. About three fourth of the colonels were inexperienced in the military field which explained the fact that the country was militarily unprepared during the onset of the war. Although at the end of the war, many of the colonels were given recognition for their successful contribution, but few of them were accepted as exceptional military officers. Moreover, many of the colonels combined their tenure of their wartime service with politics, thus allowing suspicion to creep into their public service before and after the war. Nevertheless, the contribution of the colonels helped the country to be stimulated to achieve their dream of Manifest Destiny as the goal was to capture vast areas of Mexico. In 1846, America was hardly a militaristic nation, judging by the inexperienced and insufficiently equipped military regiments of many states. The army included only 8000 men against the total population of 17 million. Moreover, many military officers gave priority to their political ambitions to their war-related duties. Of the 73,000 volunteers raised for the war, only 11,000 were in service for only six months in Texas. Some 33,000 were enlisted for only duration of the war including many who were never recruited till towards the end of the war. In spite of this the 63 colonels who were responsible for preparing the regiments played a major part towards America’s victory in the war6 (Joseph). The lack of military training among the volunteer colonels reflected the half-hearted approach of America towards professionalism in military. The inconsistency among the colonels regarding their quality was proved by their random appointment. Many of the colonels expected that the regiments that were mostly prepared for a one-year war would be sufficient to get the desired political result. This reflected the civilian attitude of the armies that was actually common through most of American history. Although some of the volunteer units brought victory by capturing Mexican lands, there were others who lacked discipline and integrity7 (Joseph). The Mexican-American war as portrayed by the above study brought a heinous consequence along with it. Advancement of any civilization is necessary for survival of that civilization and that sometimes comes with a price. In this aspect the war has been advocated by some of the biggest historians. Yet, in my opinion, the fact cannot be over-ruled that the war was wedged primarily with the intention of expanding the American territory and conquering the Mexican land that was already suffering from the ailment of internal civil war. It is a situation of utilizing the advantage of a comparatively politically weaker neighbor. It is evident that Mexico had no second choice but to defend itself on the face of an approaching American troop towards itself. As can be understood from the three articles, Mexican soil was not too productive and it appears that such a war came into place to fulfill the imperialist thirst of the Democratic Party. A final result that can be learnt from the Mexican-American war is that success achieved in war does not always ensure the desired political result. The victory of the Americans in the war remains to be of bittersweet taste because it may not have been possible without the cooperation of the millions of Mexican civilians who sought to support the enemy against the oppressive national regime. The concurrent internal conflicts within Mexico played an important role in America’s victory. Conclusion The Mexican-American war is perceived differently by the U.S. historians and the Mexican historians. While the former refer to this as “Mexican war”, for the latter it is invasion by America. When the war was declared, President’s Polk’s reasoning was almost universally accepted. The Mexican government’s standpoint left with American with no option other than defending its national interests and security. The general view was that Mexico was responsible for the war. This argument is a debatable issue for both groups of historians as they try to assess and judge the Mexican policy makers. According to the Mexican historians Mexico was merely defending its territory and if at all it appeared to be belligerent, then because it aimed to defend its national security. Thus, Mexico reacted not because it was irresponsible, but because it was left with the only viable option against the actions of the American government8. The new territories occupied in the war led to sectional conflicts between the Northerners who supported free labour and the Southerners who wanted expansion of slavery. When Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman David Wilmot introduced slavery prohibition in his Proviso, it further split the Democratic Party into northern and southern wings thus paving the way to Civil War9. References Bernhardt, Mark. “Conquering Eden: The Debate over Territory Acquisition in the New York Press Coverage.” Journal of the West, 50, no. 2 (2011): 12-20 Dawson III, Joseph G. “Leaders for Manifest Destiny: American Volunteer Colonels Serving in the U.S. Mexican War.” American Nineteenth Century History, 7, no.2 (June, 2006): 253-279 Levinson, Irving. “A New Paradigm for an Old Conflict: The Mexico-United States War.” Journal of Military History, 73 no. 2 (April, 2009): 393-416 Marquez, Jesus Velasco. “A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States”. PBS. n.d., November 21, 2012 from: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_a_mexican_viewpoint.html VandeCreek, Drew. “The Mexican-American War: Impact”. NIU. 2004, November 21, 2012 from: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/mexicanwar/impact.html Read More