Essay On Manifest Destiny And The Mexican American War

Rachna Shah

“Manifest Destiny and the Mexican-American War”

Mexico emerged as a republic in 1824, after breaking away from Spanish control. The newly formed nation was infested with puro federalists and centralists, extremists of the political spectrum. However, more moderates sought to form alliances with capitalist countries (such as the United States), yet such an alliance was not achieved initially as Mexican politicians could not come to a compromise of the matter. Impatience, the newfound American philosophy of “manifest destiny”, and human nature all played roles in the causation of the Mexican-American War. Thus, as the causes of the war, which were linked to territorial acquisition on the behalf of the Americans, were not justified

Meanwhile, also during his presidential administration, President Polk acquired another package of land (present-day states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming) through peaceful means with the British. If he was able to maintain patience for settling the border dispute peacefully, Polk should have managed his patience better so that if there was a Mexican-American War, it would not have been that of a land grab. Polk’s official justifications for the Mexican-American War relied upon denouncing Mexico for failing to pay American plains. When Mexico refused American commissioner Slidell’s offer to negotiate the Texan border and accrue land for 30 million dollars, Polk took this as a personal insult. At the refusal from Mexican political leaders, Americans were not able to accept the refusal, and not getting their way, resorted to violent means in order to achieve their goals. The rapid land expansion in the United States following the Mexican-American War, along with military and technological advancements, spread Manifest Destiny across the nation. Manifest destiny was linked to territorial expansion. Several individuals, such as those who followed Jeffersonian ideals, believed that American greatness was found in a democracy that was personalized and with a smaller amount of individuals. Upon the admission of more states, each of the other states would have less and less power. The

The decrease in payment by half was unfair; the United States was only proposing such a measly sum of money as they had an advantage over Mexico and were wrongly using the advantage to their own monetary benefit. There were no positive consequences for the Americans besides the tangibility of a larger land mass. This new territory sparked contentious debates in Congress upon whether or not it should be a slave state or a free state, stretching the volatile topic to its ends. In Mexico, the end of the war sparked uprisings throughout the nation, and the constant U.S. interference in Mexican government was a force of aggravation for the Mexicans. Despite legally paying the price for the territorial acquisition, Americans had gone fighting into the war for territorial expansion on their behalf, a reason that does not justify a war wherein heavy casualties and high monetary costs came out as