Question

In my view the Mexican–American War can be justified on the grounds that the United States acted to secure what it regarded as an annexed territory and to protect its citizens along an asserted border, and that the acquisition of the Pacific coast had lasting strategic and economic significance. At the same time it is important to acknowledge the valid objections: Mexico’s claim to the Nueces border had legal and moral weight, the Polk administration’s motives included expansionist ambitions tied to slavery, and the human costs were severe. A balanced historical judgment recognizes both the American arguments for enforcing a border after annexation and the Mexican perspective of violated sovereignty; given the complexity, one can defend the U.S. decision to go to war while still recognizing the ethical and political controversies that make the conflict a deeply contested episode in both nations’ histories.


can you redo this paragraph? 7th grade level please

Answer 1

Some people say the Mexican–American War can be explained from the American point of view. The United States had just added Texas as a state and wanted to protect its citizens along what it said was the border. Leaders also wanted access to the Pacific Coast, which had big economic and strategic value. But there are strong objections from the Mexican side. Mexico argued that the border should be the Nueces River and that its land and rights were being taken without justice. President Polk and others also wanted more territory, and some of this expansion helped the cause of slavery. The war caused many deaths and a lot of suffering. A fair view admits both sides: you can see why the U.S. acted to defend its claim, but you should also understand Mexico’s complaints and the serious moral questions the war raised.