Tensions built up between the United States and Mexico, ultimately causing war between the countries. Beforehand, Mexico declared independence from Spain in 1821, and Texas declared Independence from Mexico in 1836. After nine years of it being an independent nation, in 1846 the United States annexed Texas, angering Mexico who didn’t recognize Texas as its own nation. In 1846, did the United States have a fair reason for going to war with Mexico? It was in fact fair because it was important for manifest destiny, Mexico didn’t acknowledge the U.S. Citizens’ rights, and Mexico attacked the United States.
A powerful hope given to people about the west was manifest destiny. John L. O’Sullivan in his article called “Annexation” states “hostile interference against us… hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent” (Doc. A). In this he calls Mexico a hostile interference that is trying to weaken us and stop us from reaching our goal of manifest destiny. The only problem being he is not Mexican and created manifest destiny, so of course he decides to promote it. He also says “California will, probably, next fall away from Mexico” (Doc. A), and “all this [will happen] in the natural flow of events…” (Doc. A). Meaning he expects California to be taken from Mexico as well, as Texas is already ours, and it will happen no matter what most likely because manifest destiny is ordained of God. Even though he is slightly biased, it doesn’t mean he is wrong, manifest destiny was a good reason to go to war because the possibilities of winning land was high. It was challenging for Mexico to regulate rules on Americans in Texas but they denied many rights after Texas gained independence. Document C written by Jesus Velasco – Marquez in 2006 wrote from a Mexican viewpoint on the war stating “thus, when the Mexican government learned of the treaty signed between Texas and the United States in April 1844, it… would consider such an act ‘a declaration of war’.” He is stating how the U.S. shouldn’t have annexed Texas like neither the U.S. nor Texas had the right. His opinion being biased by the time after the events took place, he couldn’t of known if Mexico actually would of declared such an act “a declaration of war” (Doc. C). Also, Charles Sumner, a white legislature from Massachusetts, a state that had already banned slavery was mad about the U.S. bringing slaves into Texas and then annexing it as a slave state. “Certainly Mexico]… might justly charge …show more content…
Jesus says “The U.S. Army was an outright attack on Mexico…” (Doc. C), but he is wrong. The U.S. Army led by General Zachary Taylor was above what “… The congress of Texas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte to be the boundary of that republic…” (Doc. B). After that Polk tells “in which some sixteen [Americans were killed and wounded,” (Doc. B) which taking into consideration the boundaries “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” (Doc. C). It all adds up to Mexico attacking us on our land since Texas should have belonged to the United States. The president had been justified to go to
A powerful hope given to people about the west was manifest destiny. John L. O’Sullivan in his article called “Annexation” states “hostile interference against us… hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent” (Doc. A). In this he calls Mexico a hostile interference that is trying to weaken us and stop us from reaching our goal of manifest destiny. The only problem being he is not Mexican and created manifest destiny, so of course he decides to promote it. He also says “California will, probably, next fall away from Mexico” (Doc. A), and “all this [will happen] in the natural flow of events…” (Doc. A). Meaning he expects California to be taken from Mexico as well, as Texas is already ours, and it will happen no matter what most likely because manifest destiny is ordained of God. Even though he is slightly biased, it doesn’t mean he is wrong, manifest destiny was a good reason to go to war because the possibilities of winning land was high. It was challenging for Mexico to regulate rules on Americans in Texas but they denied many rights after Texas gained independence. Document C written by Jesus Velasco – Marquez in 2006 wrote from a Mexican viewpoint on the war stating “thus, when the Mexican government learned of the treaty signed between Texas and the United States in April 1844, it… would consider such an act ‘a declaration of war’.” He is stating how the U.S. shouldn’t have annexed Texas like neither the U.S. nor Texas had the right. His opinion being biased by the time after the events took place, he couldn’t of known if Mexico actually would of declared such an act “a declaration of war” (Doc. C). Also, Charles Sumner, a white legislature from Massachusetts, a state that had already banned slavery was mad about the U.S. bringing slaves into Texas and then annexing it as a slave state. “Certainly Mexico]… might justly charge …show more content…
Jesus says “The U.S. Army was an outright attack on Mexico…” (Doc. C), but he is wrong. The U.S. Army led by General Zachary Taylor was above what “… The congress of Texas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte to be the boundary of that republic…” (Doc. B). After that Polk tells “in which some sixteen [Americans were killed and wounded,” (Doc. B) which taking into consideration the boundaries “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” (Doc. C). It all adds up to Mexico attacking us on our land since Texas should have belonged to the United States. The president had been justified to go to