Yesterday in class we began discussing the Mexican American war. Although this war ended in just a few months, it was still a very controversial event in the history of the USA. This war may have been unnecessary if different actions were taken by the government, and the 13,000 united states soldiers who died in the fighting may have been saved. When President James K. Polk was elected to office, the united states people essentially endorsed the idea of expansion by electing Polk over the conservative candidate Clay. With Polk in control of the executive power of the nation, the United States began its journey towards war with mexico. Polk initiated contact with mexico by sending an envoy, John Slidell, to negotiate with mexico and become a permanent minister. Mexico still had not recognized texas as independant and also disputed the border with texas, but Polk instructed Slidell to ignore this and instead initiate a negotiation on how the United States could acquire California from Mexico. Polk believed if the USA did not make a move to acquire California, the British would claim the land instead and use it as a stronghold in the pacific. The Mexican president, Jose Herrera, could not accept Slidell because sacrificing texas to the USA would make him appear weak and insult the pride of his nation. This caused the tensions between the two nations to escalate. When Polk deployed soldiers in the Rio Grande Region of Texas, the same region that mexico claimed was their land, the conflict exploded and war broke out between the neighboring countries. So what do you think? Is Polk to blame for the war? Should Mexico have accepted the loss of Texas and negotiated with the USA regarding California, or were they right to stand their ground and fight the Mexican American War?
If you want to research this topic further, I found this website useful http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/jp_jp_and_the_mexican_war.html
I think that it was mainly an issue of communication and collaboration. The Americans thought the American-Mexican border was the Rio Grande, while the Mexicans thought it was the Nueces. They could have easily communicated and come to a compromise, and the fact that they failed to do so shows a failure on both sides. This means that Polk should take some of the blame, but the conflict was certainly not all his fault.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anneliese. It was a failure of communication of both sides, which I believe is the reason a compromise wan't made. Had both sides agreed to talk it out, the war may have been prevented. However, Polk should take some of the blame. He sent the forces past the Nueces fully aware that Mexico thought of that as the border of Texas. Additionally, Polk and the Democrats immediately moved forward with expansion because they thought the majority agreed with them when Polk only won the popular vote by 40000.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was a bit more than just a failure of communication. Polk was very pro-expansionist and wanted the territory in dispute. When congress said that they did not want to go to war unless Mexico fired the first shot, Polk made that happen by sending his troops to the Rio Grande, knowing that this would be considered an invasion based on Mexico's accepted border of the Nueces.
ReplyDeleteCommunication issues definitely played a part in the Mexican-American War, but overall the fault lies with President Polk. Polk was elected in part for his support of westward expansion and was thus very ambitious about securing more territory for America. Even though his opponents were highly against war with Mexico and its subsequent high costs, Polk went ahead and attacked. As was stated above, Polk knew very well that crossing the border would mean a declaration of war. Consequently, the majority of the blame should be on Polk's shoulders.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk#Election_of_1844
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Designs_on_California