Question

You have been reading about the war between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It sprang out of a dispute between two countries over the southern border of Texas. The U.S. claimed the Rio Grande as the border, while Mexico claimed the Nueves River farther north. Each based its claim, in part, on agreements made at the end of the Texas war for independence, which ended in 1836. Each also based its claim on nationalism, or national self-interest, and a desire to expand its territory. For this portfolio project, you will explore different perspectives regarding the Mexican-American War. You will then present your findings in a short essay. Your final product will describe each point of view. It should give historically accurate facts.
write a 5 paragraph essay on this. Also, i think the mexican american war was not justified

Answer 1

The Mexican–American War (1846–1848) grew out of a long-standing dispute over the southern boundary of Texas after its 1836 war for independence. The United States claimed the Rio Grande as the Texas border; Mexico insisted the border remained the Nueces River to the north. Both nations grounded their claims in earlier agreements and national interest: Texans pointed to documents signed by General Antonio López de Santa Anna in 1836 (the Treaties of Velasco) and sought U.S. protection and annexation, while the U.S. government and many citizens saw territorial expansion as part of a providential mission to spread American institutions. By the time President James K. Polk sent diplomats to negotiate and ordered U.S. troops into the disputed zone, tensions made armed conflict increasingly likely.

From the U.S. pro-war perspective, several forces pushed toward war. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed the United States was destined to expand westward, and many Americans wanted access to California and the vast lands of northern Mexico. President Polk, elected in 1844 on an expansionist platform, claimed the Rio Grande was the rightful border and sent General Zachary Taylor’s troops into the disputed area after annexation of Texas (December 1845). When a clash occurred between Mexican forces and an American patrol in April 1846, Polk told Congress that “American blood [had] been shed on American soil,” and asked for a declaration of war. Supporters argued the U.S. was defending its citizens and legitimate territorial claims and that war was necessary to secure national honor and interests.

Mexico’s perspective and that of many Texans differed sharply. Mexico had never formally accepted Texas independence and rejected the Treaty of Velasco as invalid because Santa Anna had signed it while a prisoner and lacked authority to bind the Mexican government. From Mexico’s point of view, annexation of Texas by the United States and the movement of U.S. troops into the contested strip were acts of aggression. Mexican leaders and much of the population regarded the U.S. invasion as a violation of sovereignty and an attempt to seize territory by force. The Mexican military resisted despite internal political instability and resource disadvantages; the war ended with the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which Mexico ceded large areas (present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming) to the United States for $15 million and recognition of the Rio Grande border.

Within the United States there was significant opposition to the war on moral, political, and constitutional grounds. Northern Whigs, prominent politicians such as Henry Clay, and intellectuals like Henry David Thoreau criticized the war as an unjust aggression aimed at expanding slavery and slaking Southern thirst for new slave lands. Congressman Abraham Lincoln challenged President Polk with “spot” questions, demanding to know precisely where blood had been shed and whether the President’s justification was truthful. Thoreau refused to pay a poll tax in protest and wrote “Civil Disobedience” out of his opposition. These critics argued that Polk had provoked hostilities by moving troops into contested territory, that diplomatic options had not been exhausted, and that conquest for territorial gain violated republican principles.

Considering these perspectives, I conclude that the Mexican–American War was not justified. The conflict began amid a disputed border where both sides had plausible claims, and U.S. actions — annexing Texas, pressing for a Rio Grande boundary, dispatching troops into the disputed zone, and pressing for war after the skirmish — fit the pattern of an expansionist policy carried out at Mexico’s expense. The rapid push to acquire vast Mexican territories and the strong connection many pro-war voices had to the spread of slavery create further ethical and political grounds for rejecting the war as legitimate. While the United States gained land and strategic advantage, the methods used and the apparent readiness to use force to obtain territory make the war difficult to justify on moral or legal grounds.