Essay On Manifest Destiny And The Mexican American War

Rachna Shah

“Manifest Destiny and the Mexican-American War”

Mexico emerged as a republic in 1824, after breaking away from Spanish control. The newly formed nation was infested with puro federalists and centralists, extremists of the political spectrum. However, more moderates sought to form alliances with capitalist countries (such as the United States), yet such an alliance was not achieved initially as Mexican politicians could not come to a compromise of the matter. Impatience, the newfound American philosophy of “manifest destiny”, and human nature all played roles in the causation of the Mexican-American War. Thus, as the causes of the war, which were linked to territorial acquisition on the behalf of the Americans, were not justified

to cause a conflict of belligerent nature, the war can be rightly described as a land grab.
The Mexican-American War, a war for land control, was driven by the man-made philosophy of manifest destiny, which is used to excuse American expansionism by stating that it was inevitable by the force of destiny. According to Billington, “War with Mexico followed America’s expansionist spree”, because at the time, a large number of Americans had been migrating westward (in hopes, eventually, of populating the entire continent), mercilessly driving out the indigenous population, and their endless greed drove them to yearn for more land. President James K. Polk, like his fellow Americans, held that vision of American expansion, believing that it was the American right to expand and grow from sea to sea. Upon the beginning of his presidential term, President James K. Polk strived to draft an agreement with Mexico in terms of American acquisition of the Northern Californian territory. He set offers up with Mexican political leaders to purchase the land, but when met with refusals to land alieniation, set aside reason and constitutionality to acquire the land via military means.In his haste for territorial acquisition, Polk commanded a division of the U.S. Army which advanced to the demarcated Rio Grande border. This was viewed by the Mexican government as an act of war.
This war was not solely limited to the Californian expansion.

Meanwhile, also during his presidential administration, President Polk acquired another package of land (present-day states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming) through peaceful means with the British. If he was able to maintain patience for settling the border dispute peacefully, Polk should have managed his patience better so that if there was a Mexican-American War, it would not have been that of a land grab. Polk’s official justifications for the Mexican-American War relied upon denouncing Mexico for failing to pay American plains. When Mexico refused American commissioner Slidell’s offer to negotiate the Texan border and accrue land for 30 million dollars, Polk took this as a personal insult. At the refusal from Mexican political leaders, Americans were not able to accept the refusal, and not getting their way, resorted to violent means in order to achieve their goals. The rapid land expansion in the United States following the Mexican-American War, along with military and technological advancements, spread Manifest Destiny across the nation. Manifest destiny was linked to territorial expansion. Several individuals, such as those who followed Jeffersonian ideals, believed that American greatness was found in a democracy that was personalized and with a smaller amount of individuals. Upon the admission of more states, each of the other states would have less and less power. The

Mexican-American War is rightfully described as a land grab as the indigenous population was better off living under Mexican rule than under American rule, in social terms. Despite being promised equal citizenship rights, the Mexicans in the newly acquired American territory, were treated as second-class citizens, facing discrimination from both Americans and immigrants.
Despite the tension caused by the Mexican and American conflict, a majority of the American population favored the war. American principles seemed to support territorial acquisition, yet the expansion remained a contentious issue. The minority, mainly the Whig Party and Jeffersonians, maintained the belief that the United States had no claim to unnecessary expansion. Nevertheless, the majority of the American population supported the War and its treaty, thus the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was ratified. However, the majority agreeing on something does not necessarily mean that is right. According to de Tocqueville, this is the principle of “tyranny of the majority”, where the majority vehemently defend a cause to the extreme.
In the Mexican-American War, there was no radical cause to be fought, no oppressed people to be given the opportunity of sovereignty, but instead, Americans justifying a land grab (after occupying Mexico City for three days, the Americans coerced Mexicans into a piece agreement wherein they would pay for expropriating the territories of modern-day California and New Mexico, and set the Texan border at the Rio Grande river) through the payment of 15 million dollars, a large decrease from the 30 million they had offered before the war.

The decrease in payment by half was unfair; the United States was only proposing such a measly sum of money as they had an advantage over Mexico and were wrongly using the advantage to their own monetary benefit. There were no positive consequences for the Americans besides the tangibility of a larger land mass. This new territory sparked contentious debates in Congress upon whether or not it should be a slave state or a free state, stretching the volatile topic to its ends. In Mexico, the end of the war sparked uprisings throughout the nation, and the constant U.S. interference in Mexican government was a force of aggravation for the Mexicans. Despite legally paying the price for the territorial acquisition, Americans had gone fighting into the war for territorial expansion on their behalf, a reason that does not justify a war wherein heavy casualties and high monetary costs came out as

consequences.