First and foremost, Lincoln is skeptical about Mexicans shedding American blood on American soil. He examined the president’s war message and states that he repeats multiple times throughout the message that the soil on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico was on American territory and claims that Polk is lying to people, so the war can initiate. Furthermore, he argues that the Rio Grande had nothing to do with the present boundary between Mexico and the United States. Moreover, he discusses that the Republic of Texas has not always claimed the Rio Grande as their western boundary and the wrongdoing of Polk’s claim about Santa Anna’s treaty with Texas recognizing Rio Grande as their western boundary. Lincoln argues that it is not a treaty …show more content…
Austin’s title was empresario, which means entrepreneur, a person who has been granted to recruit settlers, issued land titles, enforce the laws and take responsibility for new settlers. Austin learned to speak fluent Spanish, conducted business in Spanish, and was personally acquainted with a host of major Mexican leaders. Moreover, he left his brother with a prominent Tejano citizen Erasmo Seguin of San Antonio, to study and learn the Mexican ways. In addition, he instructed his settlers, “to remember that the Roman Catholic is the religion of this nation” and made the phrase “fidelity to Mexico” his motto. Furthermore, Austin was a very private person, but Navarro, prominent Tejano, was one of his closest friend and allied whom he confided with. Not to mention, Austin stood by the Mexican government in the Fredonian Rebellion of 1826-27 and helped put down the rebellion with minimal difficulty. Austin, demonstrated a lot of loyalty to Mexico, but had to sacrifice his principles to seek reconciliation and national unity with his citizens. He believed that American-style democracy was the best system for everyone and had to give up on Mexico. In other words, Austin did what was necessary to win the revolution, so Texas can have a better government, but his motives where for good intentions and not because he was a prejudice person. He was a person who negotiated for the better and was not hateful towards other people as seen from the previous
Juan Seguin was born into a politically prominent family in 1806 to Juan Jose Maria Erasmo de Jesus and Maria Josefa Becerra. From an early age Seguin was entrusted by his father to handle certain business and political affairs. “During the time his father served as Texas deputy of the Constituent Congress, Juan handled the postmaster’s duties, helped his mother tend to the fields, and to some degree acted as intermediary between Erasmo and Austin.” Seguin’s father, Erasmo, worked with St...
This book by Otis A. Singletary deals with different aspects of the Mexican war. It is a compelling description and concise history of the first successful offensive war in United States military history. The work examines two countries that were unprepared for war. The political intrigues and quarrels in appointing the military commanders, as well as the military operations of the war, are presented and analyzed in detail. The author also analyzes the role that the Mexican War played in bringing on the U.S. Civil War.
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
Flores is a Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the College of Liberal Arts and a Professor of Anthropology and Mexican American Studies at the University of Texas. Flores says that one of the reasons Texans wanted to gain its independence from Mexico was because of the government Santa Anna had. Texans and anyone going against Santa Anna wanted Mexico to go back to a federalist republic they did not want a centralist government. Stephen F. Austin proposed the idea of making Texas an independent Mexican state that had control of its own affairs to Santa Anna, but he refused the idea which then added on to the Texans desires to become independent. The tension grew between the Texans and the Mexican government when Santa Anna got rid of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Flores states that saying the Battle of the Alamo was a battle between Texans and Mexicans is wrong. The “Texans” in fact were not truly Texans, only thirteen native-born Texans fought in the Battle of the Alamo (eleven of those were of Mexican descent), the rest were Europeans, Jews, African Americans, United States Americans and Mexicans. Flores discusses the severe effects of the Texas Modern on the Mexicans. He says that most Mexicans were unemployed, lived in poverty, and had little access to public institutions. He also says the Mexicans were maintained by
In President James Polk’s War Message to Congress, he states that the Congress of Texas had declared the Rio Grande to be the official boundary between Mexico and Texas. James Polk said, “Sixty-three men and officers, were. dispatched from the American camp up the Rio del Norte, on its [North] bank, to ascertain whether the Mexican troops had crossed, or were preparing to cross, the river. [They] became engaged with a large body of these [Mexican] troops, and, after a short affair, in which some sixteen [Americans] were killed and wounded, appear to have been surrounded and compelled to surrender.” The invasion was almost like a ticket to declare war against Mexico for James Polk.
Polk, the new president, made a proposal to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed land. When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States were moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila. These troops were then attacked by Mexican troops, killing 12 American troops and taking 52 prisoners. These same Mexican troops later laid put upon a US fort along the Rio Grande. This would lead to the conflict that resulted in the loss of much of Mexico's northern territory.US forces quickly occupied Mexico and California Territory, then invaded parts of Northeastern Mexico and Northwest Mexico. The Pacific took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast.
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
dictator and with independence for Texas. So a major reason for Texas to be annexed into the United States was that the overwhelming majority of the population was former Americans.
THESIS : “ The United States didn’t want to get involved in the Spanish-American War, but was dragged into it due to yellow journalism, they wanted to control the seas, and wanted complete control over Cuba.”
Assemblies were held in the later months of 1835 and soon the revolution had spread like wildfire. From the interior of Mexico, Stephen Austin returned with news from Santa Anna (the Mexican President) and stated Anna wanted nothing better than Texas’ prosperity and would promote the idea everywhere. Texans felt these words to be hollow, and rallied to the idea of independence and annexation to the United States. Within months, the nation was on the edge of war. With the smallest little spark, enough to explode into chaos.
The U.S requested the also be given the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande was south of Texas and clearly belonged to Mexico (refer to figure 1). The U.S felt that the Rio Grande was part of Texas and should be given to the U.S with Texas. Mexico would not give up the Rio Grande because they were certain that the Rio Grande belonged to them. America's greed is THE major reason this conflict occurred. The U.S also believed the Mexico should have to pay for any of the U.S's debts that were incurred during Mexico's conflicts with Spain. America was in debt 3 million dollars because of the Mexico and Spanish conflicts and America very strongly believed that these debts were Mexico's fault and they should have to pay for them.
"The U.S.-Mexican War . Prelude to War . Bluffs and Boundaries: James K. Polk's Policy of Brinkmanship | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. 14 Mar. 2006. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. .
While thousands of American men fought in the war, not all American’s believed that the war was justified. In his address to the nation, President James Polk stated that the United States would fulfill it’s destiny by bringing peace to the less fortunate. In contrast to this, many in America felt that the war was unjust, realizing that the disputed territory never belonged to the United States. Among those opposing President Polk’s declaration of war was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who refuted the President’s claims by analyzing his speech. Thomas Parker delivered a speech entitled “Sermon on War” in which he criticized the war for the same reasons as Abraham...
The Mexican-American war determined the destiny of the United States of America, it determined whether or not it would become a world power and it established the size of the United States of America. Perhaps the war was inevitable due to the idea of Manifest Destiny - Americans thought they had the divine right to extend their territory. The Mexican-American War started mainly because of the annexation of the Republic of Texas (established in 1836 after breaking away from Mexico). The United States and Mexico still had conflicts on what the borders of Texas was, the United States claimed that the Texas border with Mexico was the Rio Grande, but the Mexicans said that it was the Nueces River, so the land in between were disputed and claimed by both the United States and Mexico.
Around 1832, Anglo Texans were rallied up for a separate statehood from Santa Anna’s and Mexico’s control. They went out of their way to form the Convention of 1832; however, according to “Ramon Muzquiz, the political chief at San Antonio” (Campbell 121) because it was technically illegal, nothing happened at the convention. Stephen F. Austin searched for Tejano support and came across Seguin. Seguin was one of the few that helped draft the pro-reform petition to the state legislature. His petition “attacked in particular the Law of April 6, 1830, for the way it excluded useful ‘capitalists’ from Texas.” (Campbell 121) Not only did he draft the petition, he also fought at San Jacinto on October 22nd as well. Many people described Sequin and other Tejanos as “guides and scouts, giving the Texians “eyes” they could not have had otherwise.” (Campbell 134) Seguin led groups of men to defend the retreat from Gonzales. Although Sam Houston refused for Seguin and the Tejanos to join the Texas for fear of their safety “because of the hatred for Mexicans aroused by Alamo and Goliad” (Campbell 154) however, Seguin managed to convince him to allow his men to fight. Even though there were still tensions between Anglos and Mexicans after the war, Seguin also being one of the victims that dealt with that issue; yet, he was still praised for significantly