Mexican American War - Essay Example

1 In the middle of the 1800s the United s engaged in a war that changed the political boundaries of the North American continent forever - The Mexican American war of 1846-1848. Many view the reasons and strategies used in the Mexican American war as stemming from "Manifest Destiny". Manifest Destiny is an expansionist view where one country or people expands by pushing the other out of the way - "elbowing owners of property rudely to one side" while "making away with their possessions."1 This paper will examine the writing, theories and evidence presented by three authors - John S. D. Eisenhower, Frederick Merk, and David M. Pletcher in three important works on the Mexican American war. These works are, respectively: So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History, and The Diplomacy of Annexation. The paper begins by discussing each author's thesis, arguments and evidence provided to support the thesis one at a time. It then discusses the works in a comparative fashion. While this author agrees most strongly with Merk's argument that U.S. expansionism-Manifest Destiny was not some unique strategy that was only pursued by Americans, there are merits to the arguments presented in the two other works. The paper ends with a conclusion summarizing the major points covered. 1.0 So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico by John S.D. Eisenhower John S. D. Eisenhower's book, So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico is a narrative history of the Mexican American war. Eisenhower has a distinctly "top down" militaristic, traditional historgraphy approach. It is one that emphasizes the VIPs of the war such as presidents and generals - essentially a "great men" view of history. The book is peppered with military details such as battle actions and tactics. One of Eisenhower's contentions is that the great military man, Santa Anna y Perez de Lebron (Santa Anna), who fought for Mexican independence from Spain was just an indiscreet popular figure. Eisenhower argues that these indiscretions in his pleasures and private life of Santa Anna's effectively barred him from belonging to the elite of Mexican society.2 However, Eisenhower doesn't discuss the possibility of a person being able to be both a populist and a member of this elite at the same time. Eisenhower used primarily books as his sources, though some of the books contain collections of primary resources such as letters and official government documents of the day.3 He also used newspapers and periodicals, though again, the majority of these are not primary or contemporary sources4. This is perhaps a reflection of his preference for traditional, "great men" history, in respecting the opinions of other already published historic works. First hand anecdotes are frequently used when Eisenhower discusses the details of events from the battlefields. There are maps included both assist the reader in following and understanding the text, as well as serve to emphasize the author's "headquarter's history" approach.5 The full title of the book So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico 1846-1848 suggests that the book is from the U.S. Side of the war. Substantial sections are written based on earlier writing by North American historians. The breath of research is limited to English sources and, with the exception of three sources, all of non-Mexican origin.6 One of the 'non-Mexican sources is of Fanny Caldern de la Barca's memoirs and de la Barca was born in Scotland7. Eisenhower attempts to be unbiased towards Mexico and Mexicans. This is especially evident in his references to Mexican soldiers who, he concludes, had to fight an unbalanced war just to maintain their national pride. Eisenhower frequently draws attention to their courage as well, especially in reference to the poor, rough leadership they were under. It is rare that a work is completely unbiased, however, and that is the case for So Far From God. Eisenhower's biasis is revealed through the language he uses to refer to the various individuals and groups. General Pedro de Ampudia is called cruel8, while the Governor de Armijo was "shrewd, greedy and cruel"9. 2.0 Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History by Frederick Merk Manifest Destiny was "a policy of imperialism rationalized as inevitable (as if granted by God)"10. It's proponents saw the expansion of the United States as an obvious destiny, though it was a concept not followed by all Americans. Merk argues that the concept of Manifest Destiny reached its peak in 1845 during the end of Tyler's days as president. Polk, Tyler's successor, had just two options - one slow, one fast. Either he could apply Manifest Destiny in a slow diplomatic way, or in a faster way by going to war and Polk chose war. Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History, is essential to an understanding of the period because he explains the origins and course of Manifest Destiny and the American sense of mission. Merk disagrees with the imperialistic use of Manifest Destiny in the Mexican American relations in the 1800s. It is this author's opinion, that Manifest Destiny and Mission are so intertwined that it is impossible to speak of one and not the other. Both have that sense that American actions were preordained or divinely 'ordained. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that the US was supposed to conquer and/or occupy the North American continent in whole or part because the US was a special and beneficent case in human affairs. How does this differ from Mission, except that Mission did not necessarily include territorial annexation Merk emphasises the difference between American actions and that of European colonial powers in that the United States was expanding into sparsley populated and unpopulated land. Merk views the population characteristics of the South-West as justification for American application of Manifest Destiny. Whereas European colonial powers were taking land from people already living there, and imposing European culture and government on them. In 1836, the population of Texas included approximately fifty-thousand American-Mexicans. Except for the Native Americans there were few other people living on the Great Plains. The population of New Mexico was similar to that of the present - populated only in towns. Merk succeeds in showing that in 1846, when the United States declared war on Mexico it was really California that was the goal. America's ambition was to expand via annexation into both Texas and California. When Texans revolted against the Mexican government they had already violated the agreements made with it. There was not much that Mexico City could do, given the substantial distance between the two. When the Texans revolted it seemed almost inevitable that the new republic would be annexed by the United States - an action that would provoke a war with Mexico, but further the American adjenda of Manifest Destiny. 3.0 The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon and the Mexican war by David M. Pletcher David M. Pletcher's book The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon and the Mexican War covers the period of American expandionism in the middle of the 19th Century. By discussing all the major directions of expansion and not just the Mexican American war, Pletcher gives both breath and depth to that topic. Pletcher's thesis sits directly in the middle of modern American historigraphy. He contends that President Polk initiated the war with Mexico, that the war was probably not necessary, then continues on to evaluate the resulting gains and losses from the conflict. The addition of land area, the resources existing on that land, and the change of the power balance on the continent to American over British power. The costs of the war were great, many lives were lost, the financial cost was large, the negative feelings of Americans towards Latin Americans increased. Tensions between different parts of the United States also increased. Pletcher holds the opinion that President J. Polk blundered into a war that wasn't needed to secure the land and other gains that resulted from it. He holds that diplomacy would have been just as effective, and quite likely less costly (especially in human lives) than the Mexican American war. Pletcher concludes that "Polk achieved his goals, but . . . he served his country ill by paying an unnecessarily high price in money, in lives, and in national disunity"11. It is possible that Pletcher has the great benefit of hindsight, and that has affected his opinion of what would have been possible - though not the lower costs of that possibility. Pletcher's uses three arguments to support his thesis that the expansion of America during the 1800s was a result of Manifest Destiny. Firstly, Pletcher argues that the annexation of Texas was more than an acquisition of land for expansion, but it was also necessary for the United States to be truly protected from the dictatorship to the south. Secondly, Pletcher argues that annexation of Texas was fueled by racism. The irony of a country founded on the concept of equality, but economically and socially sustained by enslaving thousands of Africans and those of African decent is not lost on the author. Pletcher emphasizes the hatred of Mexicans by Americans as a key motivating factor in the annexation of Texas. Specifically, he referes to both racism and jealousy of Americans of the vibrant culture to the south - one that America was lacking at that time. Essentially, Pletcher argues that Americans sought to annex Texas because they were jealous that a supposedly inferior people had a more developed culture than their own. Finally, Pletcher contends that the desire to expand the business of slavery - for it was indeed a very lucrative business - was a motivating factor in the American annexation of Texas and for waging the Mexican American war. The Diplomacy of Annexation is strongly based on a wide range of primary sources. These include: diplomatic correspondence from Britian, Mexico and America, as well as private correspondence and newspapers. The majority of this information was gathered from multiple archives, adding to both the breath and depth of his research. Pletcher also uses both unpublished and published secondary literature. 4.0 Comparision of the Three Works While Pletcher arguably has the best researched work, and Eisenhower has the most traditional, the view point of Merk is one that is most viable. Pletcher's extensive use of archival and primary sources does give a high degree of credibility to his work, but is is perhaps clouded by hindsight. Eisenhower's coverage of the war from an American military history perspective is detailed and well supported by the works of other prominent historians. Merk's thesis is, however, the one this author believes to be the best of the three works. Merk focuses on the key concept of the era - that of Manifest Destiny and explains events of the mid-19th Century in this light. He demonstrates the strong connection between Manifest Destiny and Mission - that it is impossible to discuss one without discussing the other. Merk explores the application of the belief that the occupying of new territories was preordained - that the United States was a special and beneficent case in human affairs. These facts and arguments are key to understanding the major events of the mid-19th Century in North America, especially the Mexican American war. 5.0 Conclusion In the middle of the 1800s, from 1846-1848 the Mexican American war changed the political boundaries of the North American continent forever. The actions of the American side of the war were guided by a concept known as Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is an expansionist view where one country or people expands by pushing the other out of the way - "elbowing owners of property rudely to one side" while "making away with their possessions."12 This paper has examined and discussed the writing, theories and evidence surrounding the Mexican American war presented by three authors - John S. D. Eisenhower, Frederick Merk, and David M. Pletcher in three important works on the Mexican American war - So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History, and The Diplomacy of Annexation respectively. Each of Eisenhower's, Merk's and Pletcher's thesis, arguments and evidence is credible. Eisenhower is best for those researchers and students looking for a traditional military history based on the works of prominent historians. Pletcher's strength is the vast array of multi-archival research, but is perhaps based too much on the 20/20 clarity of hindsight. Merk's moderate, well supported thesis that the key to understanding the Mexican American civil war is indeed one that should be given a great deal of credit by scholars and student alike. Bibliography Eisenhower, John S.D. So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico 1846-1848. (New York, NY: Random House, 1989). Merk, Frederick, Lois Bannister Merk, and John Mack Faragher . Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995) Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon and the Mexican war. (Missouri: Missouri Univesity Press, 1973). Read More