How Was The Mexican War An Expansion Of American Imperialism

Expansion of a nation was nothing new in terms of history. The fighting, buying and selling of land in North America was a common event during the 1800s. The United States had started expanding in 1803 with President Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory whose borders where not clearly defined. After the War of 1812 with the British, the northern border of this territory was defined at the 49th parallel. Then in 1819, Spain sold its claim to Florida to the United States. The United States wanted to continue to expand itself westward to the Pacific Ocean, a territory then owned by Mexico. The acquirement of this territory occurred after the Mexican War. How the territory was acquired by the United States is the topic in question.

Rodolfo Acuña and Norman A. Graebner take opposing standpoints on this topic. Acuña takes the standpoint that the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government, which was young and unstable at the time. He argued that the United States waged an unjust war solely for the acquisition of new lands. His excerpt from Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 3rd Edition provided the basis for his argument. On the other hand, Graebner took the standpoint that President James Polk pushed a policy, enforced by a stronger nation, to force Mexico to sell New Mexico and California and recognize the annexation of Texas to the United States without starting a war. His argument was taken from his article “The Mexican War: A Study in Causation”. Both sides of the American Imperialism argument contain their own strengths. However, after the examination of the articles, Graebner proposes a more convincing

He interchanged the words “invasion” and “expansion” throughout the text. Acuña used a very narrow view in explaining the cause of the Mexican War. However, Graebner, recognized the tensions between the two countries and offered an idea in which the war may not have occurred. He stated that neither side acknowledged that there were alternative to the actions they took (Graebner 269). Both parties recognized that the Mexican government was struggling and failing to keep the nation together. Graebner stated, “The more powerful a nation, the more remote its dangers, the greater its options between action and inaction. Often for the weak, unfortunately, the alternative is capitulation or war...” (Graebner 270). That statement being given, the war could have been avoided if each side had chosen a peaceful path. By giving a viewpoint that did not elude directly to war, Graebner opened up another field of