Justification for the Mexican-American War

The Mexican-American War was mainly caused by high tensions between the two countries over land disputes. The United States wanted Texas and a few other territories including California. They were willing to take it by any means necessary. The United States believed it was their god given right to move westwards. Even if Mexico stood in their way.



Mexico had encouraged Americans to move to Texas. They bribed them with cheap land and tax exempts. Americans couldn't turn that offer down, so many decided to move there. Soon there were about 30,000 Americans living in Texas. They had to abide by Mexican law and therefore felt very misrepresented. By 1830, Mexico decided that American immigration had to be stopped so they banned immigration to Texas. When Polk publicly annexed Texas, Mexico wasn't happy. After that, the American government decided they wanted Texas in the Union. Mexico still considered Texas theirs even though it became a republic. The American government had secret instructions to purchase New Mexico and California. Somehow the secret leaked to the Mexican government and they didn't take it well. War was eminent at this point. While both sides were stationed at the Texas border, American soldiers were captured and killed by Mexican bandits. This gave Polk enough cause to declare war on Mexico.



Gregory Hospodor argues that the United States didn't have a legitimate claim over the territory owned by Mexico. Hospodor states that Mexico had a claim to Texas not the United States. There were two factors that supported that. They are, first that the US recognized the territorial boundaries of Mexico before the issue was clouded by the Texas Revolution; and second that the main cause of the Mexican-American War was American hunger for Mexican land. So, in Hospodor's argument, the war would have never happened if America wasn't so pushy and that we never had a right to it in the first place. Another reason why America didn't have a legitimate claim over Texas was Article Three of the Adam-Onis Treaty. This stated that the United States relinquished any claim to Texas. The US double-crossed Spain and broke the details of the treaty. From this treaty, Mexico inherited both the boundary and claim to Texas. The United States ripped that away from them in their selfish want of Manifest Destiny. "Land hunger had trumped republican sympathy and respect for the border in American hearts and minds." Mexicans felt that Americans kind of threw them off to the side and forgot their existence in their want for land. America disregarded everything for some land. Even though Mexico and the United States had a lot in common in the way they gained their independence, the US broke that common bond.

Lee Eysturlid opposes Hospodor by claiming that the United States didn't have a right to Mexican land. He believed that even though taking the land was wrong, Manifest Destiny was fulfilled so the action was justified. "But the United States' ideological vision of time, and its strategic realities, came to outweigh the niceties of treaty restrictions." Eysturlid stated that to limit the land was to limit freedom, which was what the United States was about. So it was the obvious choice for the United States to ferociously take the land right out from the Mexican citizens. He thought that not fulfilling Manifest Destiny would limit the greatness of the newborn country. He also argued that American citizens already inhabited Texas so it was rightfully theirs anyways. Eysturlid's basic argument it that because the US wanted the land, it was theirs.

I believe that Gregory Hospodor was right in saying that the United States did not have a legitimate claim to the Mexican territories. Just because we wanted land doesn't mean we can just take it. The same principal goes to a little kid in a toy store. Just because they want a toy doesn't mean they can just take it off the shelf and walk out of the store with it. That's stealing. Taking the land from Mexico is stealing as well, except on a much bigger level. Eysturlid's argument seems like a lot of junk. It's not logical at all. No one in their right mind could look at his argument and be persuaded to side with the United States and say Mexico was just overreacting. The land was owned by Mexico, the United States wanted it and took it, plain and simple. The United States stole land for their selfish want. The United States was unjust in their actions.

America believed it was their god-given right to take land from a newly independent country. They saw no problem with it as long as they were happy. Mexico wanted to fight for their land, but they were weak and couldn't win. It was taken and they had no choice but to watch it happen. Maybe the tensions between Mexico and the United States then has stayed and is still there today. Tensions with Mexico may have been passed down for generations. Now we are mad at Mexico for reasons we might not even understand. Do you think Mexico and the United States still have tensions because of the war?