Asserting that, “America is the country of the future,” philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson‘s stance embodied the popular opinion that America stood alone as the vanguard for civilization in the mid nineteenth century (Haynes, 98). Sure that the nation served as an example for democracy worldwide, hyperbole of greatness permeated discussion surrounding the country’s status. With this surge of nationalism, also came the desire to bolster the strength of the nation through expansion of her borders and trade. Justified by the notion of manifest destiny and divine providence, many looked to the Pacific to fulfill this right. Winning the presidential election on the platform to reannex Texas and reoccupy Oregon, James K. Polk entered the White House
…show more content…
Finding a “total absence of all government in California,” the president now took an active role in the crisis (Haynes, 123). Tightening its grasp on the Californian port cities, the Polk administration began to form a contingency plan for war while trying to compel Mexico to bend to its will. In an attempt to peacefully address the Texas question, Mexico requested a U.S. commissioner to negotiate the terms of it losing its province, a necessary step before normal diplomatic relations could resume (Haynes, 124). To this, Polk responded by sending the expansionist John Mason Slidell as a minister to settle the border dispute and offer to purchase California and New Mexico. The distinction between defiantly sending Slidell as a minister instead of a commissioner is crucial as it forced Mexico, if they chose to receive him, to implicitly relinquish its claim to any compensation for Texas and signal restored relations with the United States. Polk, through Slidell, blatantly redefined the terms of the summit. Understanding that Mexico suffered from a deteriorating economy, Polk planned to leverage the three and one quarter million dollar debt that Mexico had failed to make payments on for the trans-Nueces region and offer an additional thirty million dollars for California and New Mexico. Of course, these terms were an unthinkable “dismemberment of (Mexico’s) national domain (Haynes, 128),” but taking advantage of Mexico’s dire economic situation, the Polk administration contended that Mexico had little choice but to concede to its
Finding a “total absence of all government in California,” the president now took an active role in the crisis (Haynes, 123). Tightening its grasp on the Californian port cities, the Polk administration began to form a contingency plan for war while trying to compel Mexico to bend to its will. In an attempt to peacefully address the Texas question, Mexico requested a U.S. commissioner to negotiate the terms of it losing its province, a necessary step before normal diplomatic relations could resume (Haynes, 124). To this, Polk responded by sending the expansionist John Mason Slidell as a minister to settle the border dispute and offer to purchase California and New Mexico. The distinction between defiantly sending Slidell as a minister instead of a commissioner is crucial as it forced Mexico, if they chose to receive him, to implicitly relinquish its claim to any compensation for Texas and signal restored relations with the United States. Polk, through Slidell, blatantly redefined the terms of the summit. Understanding that Mexico suffered from a deteriorating economy, Polk planned to leverage the three and one quarter million dollar debt that Mexico had failed to make payments on for the trans-Nueces region and offer an additional thirty million dollars for California and New Mexico. Of course, these terms were an unthinkable “dismemberment of (Mexico’s) national domain (Haynes, 128),” but taking advantage of Mexico’s dire economic situation, the Polk administration contended that Mexico had little choice but to concede to its