Mexican American War. Land Grab? - Page 3

May 18th, 2005  
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Originally Posted by airmanpatroler
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Well in a way that hits pretty close to what some people in Mexico think. Certain factions in Mexico and in the US see the Mexican War as stealing of the Southwest by a US goverment bent on manifest destiny. However these people seldom take into account General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana's saber rattling over Texas and illegal incursions into Texas.

On the other side people tend to forget that the US baited Mexico into confrontation by troop movements and diplomatoc means.
hey now santa anna invaded TEXAS not the USA the USA eventually annexed Texas and declared war on mexico. Why? because The United States felt they had an obligation after The Alamo when the volunteers came from all over the USA; however; the Texan forces still defeated santa anna. Then Old Fuss and Feathers swept down and took a tour of the halls of montezuma.
Okay lets go back and reread our American and Texas Histories. You are lumping the Texas Revolution in with the Mexican American War like it's the same conflict.

Texas Revolution 1836

Mexican American War- 1846-1848

The annexation of Texas had nothing to do with the Alamo nor it's defenders nationality. US filabusters were in every Texan Contingent from Gonzalzes to Goliad to San Jacinto. But what everyone forgets is the Tejano Contingents attached to the Alamo and Houstons Forces both lead by Capt. Juan Seguin (ordered out of Bexar by Travis to brief Houston).
The annexation of Texas to the Nueces River had everything to do with manifest destiny. The Mexican War was a continuation of this.
correct I had my histroy mixed up Thanks for the correction
May 19th, 2005  
The Mexican-American War is one of several examples of the USA trying to follow the European fashion and do some empire building of its own. Truth be told, Mexico wasn't really using the lands taken from them for much. That doesn't excuse intentionally drawing them into a fight. Its just what everybody else was doing to prove themselves as powerful nations on this planet.

Consider that the War begins over a dispute about where the border between Texas (new addition to the USA) and Mexico was supposed to be, yet the USA made a much bigger grab for new lands. After all, New Mexico, Arizona, most of Utah and Colorado, California, and Nevada ... wouldn't have had anything to do with an argument over the border between Texas and Mexico (which the USA insisted was the Rio Grande.) We went reaching WAY beyond the Rio Grande. Yeah, guilty as charged, but lets not forget that this was exactly what just about every nation in Europe was doing at the same time.

On the other hand, it is well worth noting that everything that the USA did grab away is currently doing far better that it would have done under Mexican control. Nothing against Mexico of course, but I doubt that any of those areas would have prospered to nearly the same extent, and if the truth be told, Mexico barely even bothered with most of the lands north of its current borders. Exceptions: California and Texas ... a small few others. It was the USA that made those States really boom. So even though the motivation and reasoning behind grabbing up all that land was greedy and wrong, the end result was for the best.
July 23rd, 2005  
Not only was the Mexican war a land grab so was the war of 1812, America knowing that we where busy with Napoleon at the time thought it would be a push over to invade Canada, and may be if they had not been so ham fisted with the Canadians they might just have got away with it.
August 15th, 2005  
Just read Jeff Shahara's "Gone for Soldiers" about the 1846-1848 war between Mexico and the US. Fiction but based on the events, diaries and accounts of the people in it - and a good read.

Anyway, the book asserts that the loss of Texas was a huge blow to Mexican pride. 1845 Texas becomes a state and Manifest Destiny is in full bloom. The Texans consider their border goes to the Rio Grande where as the Mexicans begrudgingly feel the border stops at Nueces River. Both sides start making moves into land they feel they control. Polk sends a force of three thousand under Zachary Taylor to protect US settlers. This only acts to further enrage the Mexicans resulting in a declaration of "defensive war" with the US. Of course, the battles begin in the disputed territory.

What happens next is the most interesting. Polk talks to a representative of the then exiled Santa Anna who promises to negotiate a peace. Santa Anna is allowed to proceed through an American blockade of Mexican ports where he immediately gets control of the Mexican military again.
Instead of peace, Santa Anna goes on the offensive against the US.
Ultimately, this would lead to Polk sending the expeditionary force under Windfield Scott and the ultimate capture of Mexico City.

I also learnt that Robert E Lee, Pierre Beauregard, Perry (later Commodore), Ulysses S. Grant, James Longstreet, and Thoms "Stonewall" Jackson all fought under Scott in the campaign - incredible.

So in summary, land grab- yes, initially at least, but i think the US did a lot to try and stop the war from progressing. Santa Anna's duplicity (and Polk's naivety) played a huge part in the final result.

Apologies for the long post...
August 15th, 2005  
America was born with about 13 States, the rest of the States were obtained under force of arms.
August 15th, 2005  
Huh no not unless your going to delve into the Indian Wars, which were ongoing even with the European powers in control of North American Territories.

A great majority of the midwest and southeast was purchased. You know the Lousiana Purchase.
July 18th, 2012  
Originally Posted by 03USMC
The opinion was voiced in another thread that the Mexican American War was fought by the United States solely for the aquisition of New Territories.

Any thoughts?
Ulysses S. Grant:

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

July 18th, 2012  
When Britain purchased overseas land America shouted Colonism when they do it is purchase. Now what about Hawaii didn't America invade that country and take it by force of Arms after another American uprising went wrong and they caught and sentanced to death.