You will be writing a short essay for your final product. In order to evaluate whether the Mexican-American War was justified, you need to consider the perspective of each side. In establishing the perspective of each side, you will need to use the actions, words, and circumstances of each side and how the sides interacted with one another in order to build your logical argument.

Question

Short essay = 5 paragraphs 3-5 sentences each

List basic facts about the root of the conflict—include who, what, when, where, and why.
Who: Mexico- US/Texas
What:Dispute over Mexico-US/Texas Border
When: April 25, 1846- February 2, 1848
Where: Mexico-US Border
Why: Mexico claimed the Nueces River as its northeastern border, while the U.S./Texas claimed the Rio Grande River, and the day that both troops met at the Rio Grande and the Mexican army opened fire the Mexican American War began.
Describe the Texans’ actions—how Texas came to exist.
The region of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas declared its independence from Mexico during the Texas Revolution in 1835–1836, when the Centralist Republic of Mexico abolished autonomy from states of the Mexican federal republic. The Republic of Texas was a sovereign state that existed from March 2, 1836, to February 19, 1846, although Mexico considered it a rebellious province during its entire existence. Texas was annexed by the United States on December 29, 1845 and was admitted to the Union as the 28th state on that day, with the transfer of power from the Republic to the new state of Texas formally taking place on February 19, 1846.
List some differences between the Texan and Mexican perspectives.
See Chart Below
Describe the beginnings of the conflict.
Mexico claimed the Nueces River as its northeastern border, while the U.S./Texas claimed the Rio Grande River. At that time about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande.
Describe the course of the war and its results.
Course of war: After the initial battle, Mexico laid siege to an American fort along the Rio Grande. Taylor called in reinforcements, and–with the help of superior rifles and artillery–was able to defeat the Mexicans at the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.

Results: Mexico had lost about one-third of its territory, including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

Perspectives:

US/Texas
Mexico
US calls it the Mexican-American War
Mexico calls it the American Invasion
President Polk blamed the Mexicans for causing the war because the Mexican governments left the United States with no other choice for defending its national security and interest
The annexation of Texas to the United States was unacceptable for both legal and security reasons from Mexico’s point of view. Mexico stated that the annexation of Texas to the United States was a violation of the 1828 border treaty, which had acknowledged Mexico’s sovereignty over that territory.
During that period of time, the United States was experiencing high population growth rate from increasing in birth rate and immigration. Therefore there was a need to expand into new territories to accommodate this huge population growth.
Mexico never declared a war against the United States but rather the need to defend the country’s territorial integrity and fending off the United State’s invasion.
The United States suffered from two economic depressions in 1818 and 1839, therefore driving people to seek living in frontier areas since frontier land was inexpensive or free.
When the US demanded the territories of New Mexico and California Mexico did not want to show to the world that Mexico would always be a “slave” to the United States and that the Mexican government would not surrender to such degradation and resort to war.
Expansion into frontier areas provided new opportunities for commerce and individual self advancement thus promoting economic growth.
The Annexation of Texas to the United States was a violation of the 1828 border treaty, which had acknowledged Mexico’s sovereignty over that territory and was a violation of international law. Mexico considered the annexation of Texas as an act of war.
Mexican American War was purely driven by economical, social and political pressures to expand U.S territories.
The war was not a result of greed or arrogance but a consequence to defend Mexico’s territory from U.S invasion.
On May 14,1836 Santa Anna signed a peace treaty. The treaty provided that hostilities would cease and that Santa Anna would withdraw his forces below the Rio Grande and not take up arms again against Texas. In addition, he also pledged to restore property that had been confiscated by the Mexicans. The Texas border would be the Rio Grande.
BUT... However, the Texas army blocked Santa Anna’s release by the Texas government. Moreover, the Mexican government refused to accept the treaties on the grounds that Santa Anna had signed them as a captive. Since the treaties had now been violated by both sides, they never took effect
Following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the doubling of U.S. territory, many Americans had looked at the region controlled first by Spain and, after 1821, by Mexico as a logical area for U.S. expansion. After the territory’s experimentation with independence, the United States annexed Texas in 1845.The editor of the Democratic Review, John O’Sullivan, in 1845 wrote that it was “our manifest destiny to overspread the continent.”
To acquire this territory the United States needed to provoke a crisis that would necessitate military intervention. In the late spring 1845 the U.S. army under General Zachary Taylor received orders to establish a camp on the eastern border of the Rio Grande River. This action deliberately challenged the traditionally recognized border between Mexico and Texas—the Nueces River, which flowed into the Gulf of Mexico about 150 miles north of where the Rio Grande entered the Gulf. Now the U.S. military encampment openly challenged Mexico’s border claim. As Colonel Ethan Allen Hitchcock noted in his diary, “it looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war.”
The U.S. interest in expansion is very plain. Texas we wanted simply for its fine agricultural production, cotton in particular, which turned out to be the major commodity. California was the real goal in the far west—to have harbors on the Pacific and make ourselves a continental empire. We were not terribly interested in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, all of which belonged to Mexico as well, but those territories needed to be conquered if we were eventually to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific by railroad, which was already a dream.
From the point of view of Mexico, these lands were not of any great value, but they belonged to Mexico. The lands were theirs and had potential value in the future. They were not of immediate economic value, but Mexicans knew full well that Texas was a wonderful place for agriculture. The reports that came back suggested that Texas and California were potentially very rich provinces.

MANIFEST DESTINY
Mexico recognized that it needed to hold its northern frontier if for no other reason than to stop the U.S. from moving even closer to Mexico, then taking the next inevitable step of moving into Mexico City itself. In 1821, when Mexico became independent of Spain, California was sparsely populated with something like 3,200 Mexicans. New Mexico, on the other hand, had a population of about 40,000 and was the dynamo of the northern frontier. Texas was also sparsely populated with about 2,500 Mexicans.

Example Formatting of Essay:
Paragraph 1: Intro/ Who, what, where, when, why?
Paragraph 2: Perspective of US
Paragraph 3: Perspective of Mexico
Paragraph 4: Was the Mexican-American war justified? Why or Why not?
Paragraph 5 : Conclusion

Answer 1

The Justification of the Mexican-American War: A Conflict of Perspectives

The Mexican-American War, lasting from April 25, 1846, to February 2, 1848, emerged from a tumultuous struggle between Mexico and the United States over territorial boundaries, particularly concerning Texas. The conflict was rooted in a disagreement over the border; while Mexico claimed the Nueces River as its northeastern limit, the U.S., bolstered by its annexation of Texas in 1845, asserted that the Rio Grande marked the true boundary. The clash of military forces at the Rio Grande, where Mexican troops opened fire on American soldiers, marked the official beginning of hostilities, setting in motion a war that would significantly alter the map of North America.

From the perspective of the United States, the war was framed as a necessary pursuit of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Americans were destined to expand across the continent. President James K. Polk argued that the Mexican government forced the U.S. into a defensive posture, claiming that Mexico's actions jeopardized American national security and interests. The U.S. government viewed expansion as an imperative response to its population growth and economic pressures, allowing for new opportunities in agriculture and commerce. The prevailing sentiment among many Americans was that acquiring new territories, including California and New Mexico, was not only justified but essential for the nation's future.

In stark contrast, Mexico viewed the war as an unjust invasion by the United States, one that violated international norms and its sovereignty. Mexico had not declared war, but rather sought to protect its territorial integrity against what it perceived as American aggression. Mexican leaders argued that the annexation of Texas was illegal, citing the 1828 border treaty that recognized Mexico’s claim to the territory. Furthermore, Mexico's perspective was influenced by a sense of national pride; the loss of territory to the U.S. was not just a matter of land but also a question of national dignity and resistance against perceived subjugation.

Determining whether the Mexican-American War was justified requires a nuanced consideration of these competing viewpoints. From the U.S. viewpoint, the war appeared to be a necessary carnal pursuit of expansion and economic opportunity in a rapidly growing nation. However, this justification heavily relied on a belief in Manifest Destiny that dismissed the sovereignty and rights of the Mexican people. Conversely, Mexico’s resistance to the annexation of Texas and its disdain for being coerced into war positions the conflict as an illegitimate act of aggression by the United States, thus diminishing the justification for war.

In conclusion, the Mexican-American War reveals the complexities of national expansion in the 19th century and the differing perspectives that colored interpretations of justice and righteousness. While the U.S. justified its actions through economic and ideological imperatives, Mexico’s viewpoint underscored a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ultimately, the war cannot be deemed wholly justified as it stemmed from expansionist ambitions that undermined another nation's rights, signaling a fraught encounter between aspirations for growth and the principles of justice.

Answer 2

How many sentences are in this essay

Answer 3

The essay contains a total of ten sentences. Here’s the breakdown of the sentences per paragraph:

1. Introduction: 5 sentences
2. Perspective of the US: 3 sentences
3. Perspective of Mexico: 3 sentences
4. Justification of the war: 4 sentences
5. Conclusion: 3 sentences

If you need a different structure or more sentences in any part, please let me know!

Answer 4

good now make it sound as an 8th grader

Answer 5

Was the Mexican-American War Justified? A Look at Both Sides

The Mexican-American War happened from April 25, 1846, to February 2, 1848, and was about a disagreement between Mexico and the United States over land, especially Texas. Mexico believed the border between them was at the Nueces River, while the U.S. thought it should be at the Rio Grande after Texas joined the Union in 1845. Things got heated when Mexican troops fired on American soldiers at the Rio Grande, leading to the start of the war. This conflict changed the borders of North America forever.

From the United States' point of view, the war was seen as part of a larger idea called Manifest Destiny. This idea meant that Americans believed they were meant to expand across the continent and spread their way of life. President James K. Polk claimed that Mexico's actions were putting the U.S. at risk, and therefore, they had no choice but to defend themselves. Many Americans thought that gaining new land was necessary for their growing population and economy, especially in places like California and New Mexico, which were seen as important for farming and trade.

However, Mexico viewed the war very differently. They saw it as an invasion by the United States that violated their rights as a country. Mexican leaders argued that the annexation of Texas was illegal because it went against a treaty that recognized Mexico’s control over that land. For Mexico, this war was about protecting their country’s honor and stopping the U.S. from taking more of their land. They felt that without a declaration of war, they were just trying to defend themselves from American aggression.

To decide whether the Mexican-American War was justified, we need to think about both sides. From the U.S. perspective, the war made sense as a way to expand and provide for a growing nation. But this way of thinking often ignored Mexico's rights and sovereignty. On the other hand, Mexico's fight against U.S. expansion was about protecting their territory and dignity, making the war feel unfair to them. So, while the U.S. had reasons for going to war, it doesn't completely justify their actions because it overlooked the rights of another country.

In conclusion, the Mexican-American War shows us how complicated and messy expansion can be. While the U.S. justified their actions based on growth and opportunity, Mexico felt their nation was being attacked and disrespected. It’s clear that the war had serious consequences, and calling it justified is not easy. Understanding both perspectives helps us see that the motivations for war are often tangled and can lead to significant changes in history.

Answer 6

now How many sentences are in this essay

Answer 7

The revised essay contains a total of 13 sentences. Here’s the breakdown of the sentences per paragraph:

1. Introduction: 5 sentences
2. Perspective of the US: 4 sentences
3. Perspective of Mexico: 4 sentences
4. Justification of the war: 4 sentences
5. Conclusion: 3 sentences

If you would like adjustments to the structure or content, feel free to let me know!