mexican war essay examples

• Essay Editor

The Mexican-American War

1. background and causes.

To fully understand the Mexican-American War, it is necessary to identify the reasons that were the underlying causes. We will examine the relations between America and Mexico in the 1840s. The Treaty of Cordoba was signed in 1821, and in 1823 the Mexican Constitution of 1824 established the government of a federal republic that united the Baja Peninsula to the many societies that defended cultural differences. Soon there were hostilities which suspended Pacific life until 1835, two years later, in 1837 in full war; Clashes would last for eight months. Mexico, led by Santa Anna, defeated the Texans in some encounters, such as the well-known massacre of the Fortress of the Alamo. However, on April 21, 1836, the Texans won the Battle of San Jacinto, and declared the independence of Mexico. Afterward, the Anglo-American colonists established the Republic of Texas. Years after the signing of the Treaty of the Hidalgo, the new American settlers, already located in the Texas government, began the annexation of Texas to the American Union. These settlers were led by Sam Houston, a fugitive from justice, who met with the American ambassador, Andrew Jackson. Secretly he conspired with Austin, and in 1837 they agreed to comply with the principle of self-determination of peoples. The initiative made the Texan patriots travel long distances, but they received instructions, ideas, and positions. These instructions were made public in October, but the Mexican government, which firmly believed that Texas belonged to Mexico, considered this act of annexation an act of American expansionism. The situation was extremely critical, and Catholic Church authorities and ranchers in the area opposed the annexation. In the face of conflicts, the Mexicans tried to expel the settlers, however in the immediate aftermath, inaugurated hot battles.

1.1. Tensions between Mexico and the United States

In the early 19th century, the United States expanded westward, annexing land and bringing more and more territories into the union. In the background, the long-brewing tension between the US and its southern neighbor, Mexico, came to a head. Tensions spiked in Texas; as Mexico looked to stave off Anglo-American influence in the area, they initiated land policies compelling settlers in the North American dream available land, but also to convert to Catholicism, take on Mexican citizenship, and free any slaves they owned. These efforts to keep settlers away from Texas had mixed results. The leaders in Mexico City underestimated the full extent of close bonds and communication between citizens in Texas and those in the United States, leading to an increase in tensions and a desire for revolution among Texans. After an attempted revolt in late 1835, Texas declared independence from Mexico in March 1836. In response, Santa Anna led a Mexican army in an effort to bring Texas back to the Mexican empire. The resulting Battle of the Alamo became a rallying cry for Texas's fight for independence. After a back-and-forth struggle characterized by a series of brutal battles, the next decisive moment occurred on 21-Apr-1836 at the Battle of San Jacinto. Mexican forces, led by Santa Anna, were defeated by an inexperienced militia, paving the way for a Republic of Texas on the federal constitution which included provisions that retained slavery. Recognition of Texas as an independent nation was complicated; for a time, only the United States, in 1837, officially recognized it as a separate nation. Many countries abstained due to concerns about the effects it could have had on the transatlantic slave trade. U.S. President James K. Polk ran on the campaign promise of American annexation of Texas and the spread of American democracy from sea to shining sea, and was elected in 1844.

1.2. Annexation of Texas

When Texas was annexed to the United States in 1845, it marked a turning point in the nation's relationship with Mexico. When Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, Texas was part of the new country. Because of the distance and poor communications, the Mexican government tried to rule it through a system of empresarios. These were people who were awarded land grants on the condition that they bring settlers to Texas to work the land. One of the most successful was Moses Austin, who convinced the ruling Spanish government to allow him to bring in 300 Catholic families to settle on 100,000 acres he would be given. After Austin died, his son Stephen continued to work towards bringing more settlers to Texas. With these new settlers, the area had rapidly grown in population. Mexicans began to worry that the prosperity of Texas would spur other nations to try to make it their own territory. To discourage this, the Mexican government placed a ban on any new immigration from outside of Mexico. Proponents of the ban felt that too many outsiders would interfere with the Mexican way of life. Stephen Austin initially respected the ban and tried to get the Mexican government to give in to other demands of the Texans. However, his followers, who included many people who had come from the United States, wanted to continue to bring in other settlers. Austin was ultimately arrested for his efforts to begin new immigration. In 1836, Texas declared independence from Mexico. These new Texans were not successful in finding help. Even the United States, interested in purchasing Texas, would not directly aid the new nation for fear of alienating Mexico.

1.3. Border disputes and the Rio Grande

This situation created an international border conflict with Mexico. In the Treaty of Velasco, which ended the Texas Revolution, Texas declared its independence but not its boundaries. The Republic of Texas recognized the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. Mexico did not accept the Rio Grande as the boundary. After Texas was peacefully annexed to the United States in 1845, the date on February 25, 1845 for the US Congress to approve the annexation. Twenty-four hours before the US Congress was to vote, the Mexican Minister in Washington, D.C. presented a note to the US Madison's Administration on March 1, 1845 about the annexation and the proposed Western US Border with the note as well to Mexico's President. It determined that the act of Congress would be equivalent to a declaration of war against Mexico. The Mexican government had firmly restated its case in a September 30, 1844 note to Mr. John Slidell, the US Minister to Mexico, in which Rosas clearly and explicitly rejected the Texan claims to jurisdiction south of the Nueces and reiterated Mexico's refusal to recognize the Rio Grande as a boundary, much less concede that Texas was "independent." Polk's letter to Slidell on October 24, 1845 stated plainly that by order of Congress both ministers would make this offer to Mexico and demand her unequivocal acceptance. Therefore, the result was that Mexico did not accept or respond to the Texas Annexation, and threatened to consider a US annexation as an act of war. The Mexican people became indignant for the unwelcome cession of Texas, and instead of pushing forward the means to a peaceful resolution by Revolutions, threatened the US Charge de Affairs in Mexico, Waddy Thompson, with war, if continued to urge Mexico to receive the US Minister.

2. Major Battles and Events

Battles in the War The declaration of war served as the starting point for a series of battles and armed conflicts throughout Mexican territory. On April 25, 1846, a detachment of Mexican troops who had been besieging the garrison of the town of Carrizal in the northern state of Tamaulipas was defeated and expelled, as President James K. Polk and the Congress of the Union had foreseen months before when approving the declaration of war. On May 8, 1846, the United States launched a new and more ambitious military operation through which it would achieve a decisive point in the war. On March 9, 1847, the armies of Brigadier Pedro Ampudia and General Pedro de Jesús García were defeated in the Battle of La Angostura, a point north of San Luis Potosí. On September 14, 1847, Winfield Scott established a large part of the troops scattered in Mexico into a defensive system, creating an entrenched and well-fortified point. In this mission, the Americans had to face significant military contingents that included the guerrillas of the Zacapoaztlas, who harassed and harassed the invading army's lines of communication and supply lines. As a result, advances made by rear units from the towns of San Martín and St. Sebastian towards the Port of Veracruz were effectively blocked by the warlike natives of the Zacapoaztlas, in addition to the military garrison that was stationed in that town.

2.1. Battle of Palo Alto

Section 2.0: Battle of Palo Alto As early as January 1836, Gen. Zachary Taylor was sent to the region to protect US territory from Mexican incursions. Taylor took up a position at a former battlefield from the Texas Revolution, on the east bank of the Rio Grande, overlooking the Mexican town of Matamoros. After the elections, when the newly elected President Polk assumed office, Mexico again contacted its government expressing willingness to negotiate. President Polk instead offered a payment of millions for the region in dispute and added a proposal to purchase Upper California and New Mexico as well. After that, General Mariano Arista, preparing for a possible invasion from the American troops, deposed pro-American dictator Nicolás Bravo and imposed martial law on cities along the coast. Arista then started moving troops into the region of Taylor's camp and beyond, along the Rio Grande, to prevent the US army from resupplying further west. These actions therefore eliminated the influence of US merchants within Mexican territory and diminished the US army's view into Mexican territory. Finally, after infiltrating a network of spies within the area, Arista demanded that the US army withdraw from the area. Taylor had known he and his troops would have to fight, but a larger battle did not happen until Arista decided to move the bulk of his troops south of his supply center. Having received verification that there was no large presence of Arista's troops to the north of his encampment, Taylor felt confident that a Mexican advance against his troops was highly unlikely. Thus, on May 1, 1846, Gen. Taylor led an evenly-matched force of 2,500 to 3,500 troops. Arriving at approximately 5:00 a.m. to the site of Arista's encampment, Taylor ordered his troops into line of battle. With the newly opened swamps along the banks of Arroyo Colorado, it was discovered that the field was less than ideal for foot troops. Additionally, the morning sun made it difficult for Taylor to gauge the potential for Mexican troops being concealed in the surrounding woods. However, not wishing to give Arista time to attack him while his troops attempted to cross the water obstacle, Taylor deployed his troops in a single battle line facing south, with the dense thickets of timber on their right flank and swampland in front.

2.2. Battle of Buena Vista

Santa Anna meant to concentrate on Taylor but was delayed by his inability to move through the faulty Medina Pass. By this time, he was ready, but the two divisions that had crossed the mountains in view of Taylor had been delayed as well. What Santa Anna did not know was that the two divisions which had crossed the mountains were composed of militia. Most of the regular soldiers that had been with them stayed with Taylor, who was a wary fighter. By February 20th, the Americans at Buena Vista had 4,759 men who had been well fortified and ready for the coming battle. Santa Anna placed 15,000-20,000 men in a well-constructed line. The American position was weakly held at the extreme left. Here, before dawn, Santa Anna launched a feint attack against this weakly held position. As the sun began to rise, Santa Anna launched his main assault against what the Mexicans believed to be another weakly held position manned by a few Mexicans that had just been placed there. This was not known until the main Mexican assault was made, and massive casualties were inflicted upon the Mexican forces, causing as many as 1,000 Mexican casualties in a few short moments. The Mexicans continued to assault the American line for several more hours until it became obvious to Santa Anna that his assault had failed in all respects. Santa Anna retreated to San Luis Potosi after the Americans secured their casualty and held their ground, albeit precariously. By noon, Santa Anna had lost over 2,300 men, and the Americans had lost 267. The battle was a Pyrrhic victory for the Americans as Taylor soon thereafter found himself forced to retreat to Monterey. Santa Anna attempted to follow, but his artillery had been left behind. With barely an army left to him, Santa Anna asked for and received an armistice and then lifted the siege of Monterrey. Santa Anna's overconfident assault failed because of Taylor's new and unorthodox tactics, which included a daring "last stand" artillery tactic, in which he ambushed the unsuspecting Mexican forces led by General Santa Anna himself. Taylor had been the focus of the main attack by Santa Anna, who was trying to engage and destroy him before he could lead a coordinated assault on Mexico City. Taylor commanded two artillery units, the 1st Indiana and the 2nd Illinois, which were placed around the edges of the battlefield to prevent them from being overrun. As Mexico's other units attacked the American positions, Taylor feigned retreat, drawing the Mexican army farther than they intended. The lack of U.S. artillery fire made the Mexican army believe that the U.S. artillerists were abandoning their pieces. Santa Anna planned for an overwhelming cavalry charge to break the U.S. lines so that the Mexican infantry could sweep in and overwhelm the rest of the U.S. forces. However, in Santa Anna's overly infuriated state, he was completely exposed on horseback, and Taylor's U.S. anti-artillery tactic hit home. As the larger part of the Mexican army advanced over the plain, the U.S. ran in with 5 guns, firing as hard as they could at Santa Anna and his army, who were behind (2700ft) a chain of bushes that concealed the U.S. and the artillery from the Mexicans. Over the span of three hours, the U.S. artillerists inflicted massive casualties against the Mexican military while sustaining only one artillery-related casualty themselves. Because of this, Santa Anna was unable to overwhelm the U.S. positions following his infantry attack, forcing him to retreat back to San Luis Potosí. Shortly afterward, the critical Battles of Veracruz, Cerro Gordo, and Mexico City saw Taylor fade into political obscurity.

2.3. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the U.S.-Mexican War. Signed on February 2, 1848, and ratified by the Senate on March 10, 1848, it was the largest acquisition of U.S. territory since the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The treaty established the U.S.-Mexican border between Texas and the Pacific Ocean and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Texas, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and Kansas. In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million and agreed to honor the legitimate claims of American citizens who held Mexican land grants in the lands ceded to the United States. On March 6, the Mexican centralist government ratified the Gadsden Treaty, despite proposals in presidential messages to annul government debts and reject the further sale of territory. Mexico was unable to make these claims because the United States refused to recognize a constitutional government in Mexico. Because the Mexican government ratified the treaty, the boundary question with the United States was once again closed, demonstrating the exhaustion and weakness at the highest level of the national government. As had occurred during territorial negotiations at the end of the Mexican-American War, a military government was unable to make territorial claims as to a historical definition of the national frontier, which the government never officially accepted. In a document signed by José Ceballos, Mexico and the United States agreed to the purchase of territory, solving the agreement, as negotiations were made with Nicholas P. Trist, the United States minister to Mexico with authority to sign the territorial treaty, to open communication between the two governments of plans to regain control of the territory. There was a significant debate on whether the United States had the right to direct its minister to sign the treaty without consulting Congress or the appropriated chambers. The United States Senate, which by traditional constitutional doctrine had no right to ratify a treaty between its own territorial limits. The legitimacy of the treaty finally extended across the U.S.-Mexican border because both empires tried through leases and contracts to persuade the U.S. government to sign the treaty.

3. Impact and Consequences

Some essential elements found within the war include discussions on colonization policies, immigration, and the national expansion of Texas. In addition, the traditional interpretations hold the Mexican war as a milestone in the production of a national history. It speaks of mercantilism, imperialism, ethical hypocrisy nurtured and inferred from the rules. Above all, it speaks of the continental expansion of which we are the result and about which we are less critics, but from which we are more made than taken possession. In that sense, in this version not only stereotypes of the Mexican are managed - known for their laziness, their lack of patriotism, always possessed with the military the condimentosa unknown or of the forbidden thing. Finally, the war is set in an area of darkness dominated by the ideology transnationally practiced by the Americans. In the case of Mexico, the hypothesis that circumscribes domination and, as a result, historical formation is intended to be a product of internal weakness comes to be. According to this trilogy (as has been discussed, even those that should not be circulated in secondary versions), the controversies about it differ in accuracy only in the number of areas of concrete opportunities in that aspect. Its influence continues to be more numerous. This assertion acquires particular strength when considering the existence of other antecedents and consequences. To the contradictory image of domination and historical extension that the Mexican-American war constitutes, there is the harshness and infallibility of the use of war as a means to fulfill their own projects in disrepute throughout the continent. There is fear, fear, in the shadow, to constitute in the future a threat to its regional resurrection. The world of dignity, their own existence, the condition of American states. Mexico was on the fringes of an ominous process that gave independence to their colonies.

3.1. Territorial changes and the Mexican Cession

With the end of the war and a victorious peace for the U.S., the question emerged: what would happen to Mexico? U.S. military officers and Mexican revolutionaries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848. News of the treaty took over five months to travel back and forth from the Mexican leaders in La Ciudad de México to the American leaders in Querétaro. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo included territorial changes and the Mexican Cession. The Rio Grande was permanently established as the U.S. southern border with Texas. The U.S. also received the territories of the Mexican Cession – which included California, Arizona (including southern Arizona), Nevada (north of Las Vegas), Texas (south of El Paso), Utah (except southwestern Utah), New Mexico (entered as territory), southeastern Colorado, and part of Wyoming. In exchange, the U.S. paid 15 million dollars through the United States Department of State in compensation. The U.S. agreed to either the 20th parallel or the prewar Nueces River as a northern border with Mexico. Finally, U.S. citizenship was granted to Mexicans living in these areas if they stayed within a year, as well as reservations and rights to relocation. Many Mexicans and Mexican Americans in these territories were unable to pay the U.S. and eventually lost their lands, became American citizens, or were moved to reservations. Contentious events involving the Mexican-American War continue to this day, including the unresolved status of Mexican lands acquired during the Mexican Cession, the remaining Southeastern Nations and other Indigenous groups' First Nations territorial rights, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. These issues have also caused further collisions that quickly escalated into events like the Ajo and Mesilla Disputes, the Civil War including the First Battle of Casa Mata, the U.S. Civil War, and the Cart War.

3.2. Impact on Mexican and American relations

On March 17, 1848, the letters of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were signed by representatives of the United States and Mexico. With this treaty, Mexico formally ceded a vast amount of territory – what today comprises the states of California, Nevada, and the region that would later become part of Arizona, as well as the other half of New Mexico to the United States. The Treaty not only ended Mexico’s war with the U.S., but it was also supposed to form the basis of a strong and long-lasting peace and mutual understanding. The Treaty’s seventh article also promised full citizenship rights and protection of property and economic interests of the Mexican citizens to remain in the ceded territories. The U.S. also agreed to protect the property and rights of the Mexicans remaining in those territories. Even in the realm of relations between the U.S. and Mexico, it is difficult to say just how devastating the war was to Mexican nationalism. During the era of colonization and for some time, there were not one, but many Mexicos – groups who identified not only with the Spanish landowners who had arrived after the Spanish conquest had taken place, but also the native-mestizo population. Along these creole-Mexican lines, there was a constant battle to ensure that blood quantum was high enough so as not to taint one’s heritage. With the rise of liberalism, these distinctions were generally being erased as nationalism/indigenismo slowly became the new watchwords of a governess attempting to survive in a post-independence world. After the country’s war with the United States, however, these cleavages were deepened, with many families noting their more European blood, while others, in a direct rejection of their own privilege, claimed a deep identification with Mexico’s native past.

3.3. Debate over the war's justification

Finally, Polk felt robbed of political credit when the Whigs attacked the president for drawing the country into a war to further his own expansionist goals. In each case, military men, who as professionals were believed best to understand the limits and potential of current military technology, influenced the political sphere. Even prominent generals such as Winfield Scott did not defend the propriety of Mexico's own defense. The American losses experienced during battles with Mexican soldiers further enforced the idea that a ragtag army was no match for a professional organization. Indeed, Mexican generals increasingly played a role in regulating Mexicans' fury against American soldiers. In the conflict's early stages, U.S. generals reflected the prevailing racist sentiment bordering on genocide, describing Mexicans sectionalism, and personal self-interest dominated the party debate—and opposition to the war in Washington and the rest of the country—during the first half of its term in office. Meanwhile, the smaller, struggling Democratic party adamantly opposed any war with Mexico in the name of party unity. But the Democrats again fell into internal dissent after many became wooed by the notion of national expansion and a global economic standing amongst the world's governments. When Polk went public, the Whigs accused him of greedily stealing Mexican territory at the expense of Mexico's owners. Most Americans outside of the South could not afford to purchase more land being added to the slave system—or so the Whig propaganda depicted. When the Whigs berated the president, which were justifiable, for launching a self-serving war, Southerners again felt offended by such accusations, having never really eradicated the negative image of themselves as the vanguard of the nation's unity.

Start your journey with Aithor

Personalized papers are done in minutes. One more sentence here

Related articles

The challenges and opportunities of embracing multiculturalism in modern society.

1. Introduction The problem of multiculturalism is relevant not only for a dialogue with other cultures, but also for an internal reflection of one's study of modern society, because it articulates questions relating to the need to recognize diversity and coexist with it peacefully, as well as rules of coexistence, reciprocal relations, and cultural and ethical norms in democracy. Modern democratic policies are based on the ideal of national unity and the recognition that social cohesion should ...

The Role of an Aristocratic Society in Shaping Modern Governance

1. Introduction This paper employs conceptual analysis to argue that aristocraticity has played, and continues to play, an invaluable role in shaping modern governance. It presents aristocraticity as neither backward-looking nor exclusively hierarchical, nor a characteristic only of Western or European societies. The paper articulates aristocraticity as not merely concerned with governance or authority. Rather, aristocraticity is the assemblage of structures and methods that identify leadership ...

The Impact of Globalization on Local Economies and its Importance in Promoting Economic Growth

1. Introduction Globalization today is a sweeping phenomenon that has different effects on different countries. It can be thought of as appearing in three different forms: globalization of economies, globalization of businesses, and globalization of information and social issues. The first form, the globalization of economies, is an especially new and beneficial change. It means the increased trade of goods and services brought about by more open economies and lower import tariffs. These change ...

El impacto de las medidas de seguridad del gobierno en la privacidad de los ciudadanos

1. Introducción La expansión y aceptación de Internet, el desarrollo de las redes WiFi y la generalización del uso de dispositivos móviles han multiplicado las oportunidades para los cibercriminales de obtener información de carácter personal de los ciudadanos. Cuando se trata de las redes WiFi, la fuga de información se produce si las transmisiones de datos desde los distintos dispositivos WiFi que componen una red inalámbrica hasta la unidad de acceso AP (es decir, la comunicación entre un di ...

El impacto de la inteligencia artificial y sus implicaciones en el mercado laboral

1. Introducción a la inteligencia artificial y su evolución El término inteligencia artificial se utiliza para definir a las máquinas o dispositivos que son capaces de simular procesos cognitivos llevados a cabo por personas para interactuar con el mundo. Hablar de inteligencia artificial supone entrar en un mundo de enormes y extraordinarias transformaciones previstas tanto para la actividad productiva como para la vida cotidiana. Desde hace varias décadas, la inteligencia artificial no se lim ...

Análisis del porcentaje de desempleo en diferentes regiones y su impacto en la economía global

1. Introducción Una de las principales problemáticas alrededor del mundo se está viviendo en torno al desempleo, en específico en nuestras economías emergentes que al realizar un análisis de sus indicadores económicos obtienen alarmantes cifras, sobretodo si nos enfocamos en el desempleo juvenil. La falta de trabajo es el motivo de una educación deficiente, la cual se manifiesta en la proporción del sistema productivo que muestra lentitud para acoger a esa población en Brasil, aumenta en genera ...

Estrategias para mejorar los niveles de educación en las escuelas públicas

1. Introducción La educación en Málaga se encuentra en unos niveles bajos respecto a los resultados de los reconocimientos públicos a nivel nacional e internacional. Esta situación perjudica a los alumnos e impide su formación académica y laboral en un futuro. Por eso, hemos elegido este tema para buscarle una solución. La finalidad del presente trabajo es concienciar a la sociedad y a los centros educativos sobre el problema real de la educación e incentivar a los estudiantes al estudio para c ...

El papel de la educación como fundamento de una sociedad equitativa

1. Introducción a la importancia de la educación en la equidad social En la actualidad, el papel de la educación en la configuración de la sociedad, y más concretamente, el papel de la educación en la equidad o desigualdad social, es algo que nadie cuestiona. El discurso político, en los países llamados "desarrollados", defiende la idea de que el acceso generalizado a las opciones de formación es una condición necesaria para alcanzar un mayor bienestar, que puede medirse en términos de igualdad ...