ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of The Mexican-American War

2207 Words9 Pages

The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico that occurred during the American presidency of James K. Polk. The war officially began on May 13, 1846, when the United States Congress declared war on Mexico at the request of Polk. Throughout the conflict, the United States possessed several advantages over Mexico due to its superior firepower, preferable quality of junior officers, and excellent logistics command. Additionally, Mexico experienced a series of lawlessness throughout the country as its government lacked control of its territory and was chronically indebted due to its inability to extract resources from the population (Levin and Miller, 2011). This led to Mexico experiencing difficulties …show more content…

As a result, “states in the international system aim to maximize their relative power positions over other states” (Hamilton and Rathburn, 2013). Offensive realism is representative of Polk’s desire for territorial expansion because increased territory and resources are typically associated with power. When states compete to expand their territory, they often do so with the intention of expanding their sphere of influence within the globe. With the increased wealth, resources, and trade opportunities that accompany the acquisition of territories, states will be better equipped to increase their security by developing innovative technologies and expanding and improving their militaries. Additionally, with the increased populations that accompany land acquisition, there will be more workers present to stimulate the economy, creating a cycle of wealth and granting states a greater potential to become regional hegemons. Therefore, Polk’s expansionistic ideals are supported by offensive realism. Between defensive realism, constructivism, and offensive realism, offensive realism offers the greatest explanation of why Polk decided to declare war on

Show More
Related
1367 Words | 6 Pages

The United States is a pinnacle of hope and justice throughout the world, but its method of justice is flawed. Throughout the years the USA has used its power and influence to keep peace around the world but in doing so it also imposed its ideals and pressured these countries to be like itself to keep order and peace. Through the imposing of its ideals, the USA has become drunk with power and has lost sight of what its true goal is. The United States became a world power by enforcing its views onto other nations by engaging in different wars which granted them new land, more wealth, increased independence, and in all put them on top. The US benefited by expanding towards the Pacific by gaining the Philippines.

Read More
438 Words | 2 Pages

Polk at this time looking at mexico with no opposition turn to congress to declare war. congress did not want to because of the reasons Polk wanted war were invalid, but congress did say if they shot at us we would have no choice than to go to war with mexico. So frustrated Polk now forced a showdown, and on Jan. 1846, he ordered men under Zachary Taylor to march from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande, provocatively near Mexican troops. As events would have it, on April 1846, news of Mexican troops crossing the Rio Grande and killing of wounding 16 Americans came to Washington, and Polk pushed for a declaration of war. so with the Push by Polk, Congress declared war, and so began the Mexican-American War which mexico was trapped in fighting.

Read More
1155 Words | 5 Pages

James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse by Sam W. Haynes Haynes’ biography of James K. Polk is a little bit different from the traditional biographical book with enumeration of important dates from life of historical figure. Instead the author takes different approach: while recounting development of Polk’s career, he looks at the Polk’s presidency through the lens of expansionism. Though he frames the 11th President as a strong adherent of aggressive territorial expansionism, Haynes also emphasises that Polk’s decisions cannot be separated from the political and social climate of his time. The author renders Polk from one side as the initiator of expansionists political moves, and from the other, as a product of contemporary social beliefs,

Read More
1014 Words | 5 Pages

The Mexican American War of 1846 was a dispute over the border between Mexico and Texas which became a part of the U.S, but was the United States justified in starting this war with Mexico? No, the U.S. was not justified in starting this war against Mexico. Because the U.S. never had a reason to support this war, it was only for the land, power, and continued “Manifest Destiny” expanding the U.S. Some of the ways politicians and many others used to start a war to expand to the west to “Manifest Destiny” a belief for the expansion of the United States and the use of racism another belief of thinking a race is lower than another race. This is supported by an entry in the document “Annexation” by John L. O’Sullivan, he wrote “(O)ther nations have

Read More
503 Words | 3 Pages

The Mexican War was a violent and devastating event between United States and Mexico that lasted from 1846-1848. President Polk had to lie to congress, to make United States declare war on Mexico. Lincoln considered President Polk provoked as a vote-fixing device and hoped the arguments against the war would cause his reputation in the United States House of Representative. Lincoln claims President Polk misrepresented the whole thing that the Presidents Polk evidence was not true by any means. Lincoln lays out evidence that president Polk gave is either incorrect or irrelevant reasons to gain support from congress.

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Polk’s flowery language and fake solemn tone, after he started a fight, and did not believe in manifest destiny. Polk made a beautiful speech assuaging America of any guilt in the matter and blaming Mexico for everything, but people like Charles Sumner in Document D were not taken in and did not agree with this forcible theft of land and the noncompliance to Mexican laws that eventually led to the first hostilities. In Document D he rebukes Polk’s war address that denies American guilt and states, “...defiance of the Mexican ordinance… [and]...the lust of territorial robbery...in seeking extension of slavery, (our own citizens denied) the great truths of American freedom…” (Document D).

Read More
1170 Words | 5 Pages

The United States fought with vigor, but they were no match for the Mexican soldiers, the shot that killed Davy Crockett was heard around the village. The Mexican-American war was from 1846-1848 but problems started to arouses before that. The Mexicans and the Americans both thought that the land was theirs. The Mexican claimed it but the Americans believed in Manifest destiny which means that the land was a gift from God. Although the United States war against Mexico resulted in the gaining of American’s most valuable land, the war itself was unjust because the Texas was wrong from the beginning, the war was based on false pretenses, and the expanding of slavery was the goal.

Read More
1199 Words | 5 Pages

When Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, a string of ruthless dictators and weak presidents made Mexico an easy target for its powerful neighbor, the United States. The US swooped in to expand its territory and its popular institution of slavery. By doing so, the US started a war with Mexico that was justified for illegitimate reasons. The Mexican-American War was not justified because the US took Mexico’s land for the expansion of slavery, and justified their taking advantage of Mexico when it was politically weak by hiding behind Manifest Destiny.

Read More
1312 Words | 6 Pages

Mexican War The Mexican-American War took place in the time period of 1846 to 1848. This was the first U.S. armed war that was mostly fought on foreign land. It was fought between two neighboring countries. One was a politically divided and militarily unprepared Mexico and the other was the expansionist-minded United States.

Read More
889 Words | 4 Pages

The Mexican-American War changed the Unites States of America in a monumental way. This war changed The U.S.A.’s relationship with foreign powers and the economic standpoint of the nation. The Mexican- American war, and its strong ties to manifest destiny, shaped the nation in a country bordered by two seas with a chance for common folk and foreigners to have a sustainable life due to the gold rush. The war can also be accounted for the downfall leading to the Civil War over the conflict of slavery due to the land purchased in the wars treaty. Conflict between Mexico and the United States began when Texas, previously part of Mexico, became part of the United States.

Read More
1171 Words | 5 Pages

and Mexican forces had taken place in U.S. territory.” “Further, legislators were at odds over whether Polk had the right to unilaterally declare that a state of war

Read More
2260 Words | 10 Pages

Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument

Read More
2260 Words | 10 Pages

Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument put

Read More
1835 Words | 8 Pages

The reason why realism can only really be used as an explanation for war is that the growth of another state’s power can only be perceived as threatening, even if it is done so defensively. States in this international system bound by the constructs of realism are unable to take a passive approach towards the balance of power, and are therefore encouraged to seize opportunistically what they can when the opportunity arises. Moreover, in the climate of the Cold War this system created powerful incentives for aggression . In 1951 Morgenthau stated that the United States and Russia were at a point where they “Can advance and meet in what is likely to be combat, or they can retreat and allow the other side to advance into what to them is precious ground.” Indeed this is what happened in Europe during the Cold War, deadlock and a status quo maintained a peace whereby war was avoided at all costs.

Read More
704 Words | 3 Pages

Rather than focusing only on state’s selfishness and competitiveness, structural realists (neorealists) believe that states enter into alliances with other states (diplomacy) to regulate and keep a check on the power of other alliances and more powerful states. Although the school of structural realism (neorealism) is developed from the classical realist school, there are key differences between these two types of realism. According to Ferguson (2011) and the lectures and other materials of week 1-3, classical realists primarily focus on explaining the nature of man; that is, human nature is aggressive and human aggregates (states) are thus aggressive too. They argue that behaviors of states derive heavily from human nature, and self-centeredness and self-interestedness are presumed to be the fundamental principles of realism. In contrast to this, structural realists (neorealists)

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Mexican-American War

Open Document