After the massacre, Santa Anna felt as though his job in Texas was done but wanted to take one final swipe at the Texicans – a detrimental mistake. Because of San... ... middle of paper ... ... account of Santa Anna’s capture is unclear because it has been described in so many different ways, each with entirely different location and details of the event. When captured, Santa Anna addressed himself as “the Napoleon of the West” (McKeehan, W) Santa Anna was eventually sent home after a man in the council said: "We are at war with Mexico, and it is our duty to do all we can to injure her. Santa Anna has for a number of years tyrannized over his country, and nearly ruined it. Let us release him, he will return thither and in a few years Mexico will be too feeble to give us any trouble."
Aggravated with overcrowding, rising prices and economic depression; many Americans sought to start a new life away from the eastern seaboard. Those looking for new farm land and trade opportunities cast their eyes on the resources that lay in the vast domain to the west. It did not matter to them if the areas lie in a foreign country or was already inhabited by Mexicans or Indians. Americans justified taking land and displacing Mexicans and Indians through their belief of Manifest Destiny and white supremacy. Americans’ hunger for land and resource took a toll on Mexico.
Eventually, though, the public opinions of North American settlers in the territory and in Washington would make him realize that the goal of unity between the two groups was impossible. There were many cultural bricks laid by Spaniards, English, Mexicans, and Americans, which built a wall of cultural difference between the Mexicans and Americans so massive that it would lead to war. The Spanish and the English laid the first bricks during the sixteenth century. The English viewed the Spanish as “heartless and genocidal” (De Leon 4). Ironically, the Spaniards’ cruelty to Indians in Latin America was the primary reason for the English’s characterization.
I believe that even if Mexico would have not disputed the boundary line of Texas America would have looked for another reason to provoke a war to seize all control of the west. The U.S won because of all the disadvantages the Mexicans faced such as a weak central government, a lack in military technology, and were already at war with the Indians. The U.S not only wanted to migrate westward because they felt like it was the United States’ manifest destiny to move westward, but also they wanted to expand agriculture and become more powerful and richer.
Johnson’s outlook on slavery also affected the way his plan for reconstruction would get through by being “an uncompromising racist” and “insist[ing] that the blacks did not deserve citizenship [,]” which shocked moderates [so much that they] voted with the radicals to override the presidential veto[,]… [and they also] refused to acc... ... middle of paper ... ...and should care to stay in power to benefit the people (H.A. Tompkins). Johnson did not do these, so he is worthy of receiving contempt and impeachment. H.A. Tompkins is incorrect about Johnson because he was a bad president, no matter the time, or congressman in charge.
The western expansion broke Mexico from the core, starting with families. The majority of Mexican families became separated when the new border was put in play and as a result to this, families were divided by being placed on opposing... ... middle of paper ... ...e Indian Removal Act was written in a way that suggests a fair “exchange” of lands between natives and Americans, however, it opened the door for the militias of the southern states to drive the Native Americans, like a herd of cattle, from their land by force. The federal government did not care or think about the fact that the Cherokee nation had changed their ways to assimilate the American culture. Instead, the U.S. government forced an entire nation over which it had no jurisdiction to march hundreds of miles at gunpoint like savage barbarians, causing thousands to die. The Cherokee had been abused by white settlers, who burned their towns, occupied Cherokee territory illegally, and stole their livestock.
Americans settled in their anti-slavery soil with slaves of their own. America ignored all of Mexico’s customs and laws when they chose to settle in their lands. (Background Essay) As an example, this quote from an information text states, “It did not take long for these differences to boil in revolt.” America soon rebelled and refused peace. These differences boiled so hot that Mexico was forced to attack to protect their country. Jesus Velasco-Marquez says, “The annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” (Doc
After finally winning their independence from Spain, Mexico was left a poor and unstable country; more so, leaving Mexico an easy target for the United States. Other than profit, they had no admissible reason to invade Mexico. Thus starting our emotional, physical and economically abusive relationship with the U.S. Once the United States secured the Louisiana Purchase, they moved on to the states of Florida, and thereafter, Texas. Many North Americans argued, that Texas already belonged to the U.S., and that it had been part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Mexican government, chose to ignore any and all warning signs behind the actions of the U.S.; instead, opening up its arms, to Euro American colonization.
No, we will become the country that pushed them down when they were already weak enough as it is, and the War will terminate ever having Mexico as an ally/ If we fight Mexico then we are being hypocrites, of what we fought for when we went against England. We are treating them as if they belong to us; they are there own country. We are forcing them to give us something that is rightfully theirs. Mexico is a weak country and we are a strong country. For example, in the Revolutionary War the odds were against us, the British were strong and we were weak.