This book by Otis A. Singletary deals with different aspects of the Mexican war. It is a compelling description and concise history of the first successful offensive war in United States military history. The work examines two countries that were unprepared for war. The political intrigues and quarrels in appointing the military commanders, as well as the military operations of the war, are presented and analyzed in detail. The author also analyzes the role that the Mexican War played in bringing on the U.S. Civil War. The Mexican-American War of the 1840s, precipitated by border disputes and the U.S. annexation of Texas, ended with the military occupation of Mexico City by General Winfield Scott. In the subsequent treaty, the United States gained territory that would become California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Mr. Singletary has been remarkably successful, despite the brevity of his book, in describing with important details the Mexican War. The book can be break into two main parts. The first part gives background which explains different reasons that played a decisive role for the break out of the war, and it relates the different campaigns that allowed the invasion of northern Mexico and the city of Mexico. The second half of the book deals with the way politician and generals behave during the war, and the book ends touching the role played by diplomacy in this war. The book has been organized in chronological order, which g...
the land and yet it had such a weak economy and could use the money
Dyal, Donald H.. Historical Dictionary of the Spanish American War. Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1996.
Gamboa, Erasmo, and Kevin Leonard. Mexican Labor and World War II: Braceros in the Pacific Northwest, 1942-1947. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Austin: U of Texas, 1990. Print.
Vanderwood, Paul, and John Mason Hart. The Oxford History of Mexico. Edited by Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
In February 2, 1848, the final armistice treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, through which the United States government got the access to entire area of California, Nevada, Utah plus some territory in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. As a compensation, the United States government paid 18.25 million dollars to Mexico.( Pecquet, Gary M., and C. F. Thies. 2010) However, apart from the death of people, Mexico lost half of its territory in this war, which initiate Mexican’s hostile towards American. In addition, after the Mexican-American war, there was an absence of national sense in Mexican, which had a negative effect on the unity and development of the country.
President James K. Polk once stated ,” No president who performs his duties faithfully and conscientiously can have any leisure.” This definitely was true during the war between the United States and Mexico. Also known as the Mexican war. This war mainly happened because of Texas. After Texas won its independence from Mexico Texas wanted to be part of the U.S. Two times Texas wanted to annex itself to the union. Except twice they were rejected. The main reason why the United States said no, was that the Mexican officials still regarded Texas as part of their country and, so the United States did not want to be part of the blame. The United States was justified in going to war with Mexico because it was the United States manifest destiny, Mexico
First and foremost, Lincoln is skeptical about Mexicans shedding American blood on American soil. He examined the president’s war message and states that he repeats multiple times throughout the message that the soil on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico was on American territory and claims that Polk is lying to people, so the war can initiate. Furthermore, he argues that the Rio Grande had nothing to do with the present boundary between Mexico and the United States. Moreover, he discusses that the Republic of Texas has not always claimed the Rio Grande as their western boundary and the wrongdoing of Polk’s claim about Santa Anna’s treaty with Texas recognizing Rio Grande as their western boundary. Lincoln argues that it is not a treaty
The Mexican Revolution was brought on by, among other factors, tremendous disagreements among the Mexican people over the dictatorship of President Porfirio Diaz. During his span of reign, power was only concentrated in the hands of selected few. 95 percent of the rural population owned no land, while about one thousand families owned almost all of Mexico. Injustice was everywhere, in the cities and the countryside alive the underdogs follows the rise and fall of Demetrio Macias and his band of rebels during the Mexican Revolution of the early nineteen hundreds. This novel informs and offers us the history of the Mexican Revolution and the impact it had on the people of Mexico protesting against Federal officials, the people living in low standards
Francisco “Pancho” Villa, a former common bandit with no education, rose to power because of his fame of a hero to the Mexican Revolution, his military genius, and his “brutality in the face of betrayal” (Biography, 6). His career in the military began when he was inspired by Francisco Madero, and grew in between 1910 and 1911, when he attacked Ciudad Juarez against Madero’s
Preston, Paul. The Spanish Civil War: Reaction, Revolution and Revenge. 2006. Reprint, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007.
After the end of the US-Mexican War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 1848. One of the effects of this Treaty was that Mexico was obliged to cede more than one third of its original territory, including what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas and parts of other states.
This week’s reading covered the topic of Guzmán’s conquest of western Mexico. Included were two accounts that showed the conquest in starkly contrasting lights. The first was an account of the expedition written by Cristóbal Flores for the audiencia in Mexico City. The second was a letter written by Guzmán for his majesty while on the expedition. The accounts written by the two men differ sharply in how they portray the events that occurred during the expedition. An example of this can be seen in how they describe the execution of Cazonci, the lord of Michoacán. However, the authors did agree on a few points, including the nature of the indigenous allies’ actions. In order to better understand the nature of this expedition it is important to both examine the contradictions within the accounts and examine where they were in agreement.
The General and The Jaguar published in 2006 and authored by Eileen Welsome is a tightly packed case study of obsession and revenge covering a rather odd incident in the international relations between the United States and Mexico. Subtitled Pershing’s hunt for Pancho Villa, the title is an accurate description of the contents-a long slog through General Pershing’s attempt to capture Pancho Villa in Mexico foreshadowed by the tale of the revolution that lead to Villa banditry. It is the story of the 1916 American invasion of Mexico to capture Villa and to disperse his followers. The general if John J. Pershing and the jaguar is Pancho Villa. Illuminating this overlooked bit of history, this is not simply a story of the chase to bring Villa
The relationship between the United States and Mexico has made a remarkable impact on society throughout our history. Did you know that the Mexican-American War cost more than $75 million dollars in 1848 (Miller, 2006)? One question that gets brought up when talking about the Mexican-American War is if the war was just or an unjust war? Regardless if the war was just or not, the war between the two countries has greatly impacted the regions of land and the close ties we still have with Mexico today.
The conventional histories of the Texas Revolution set the clash between Anglo-American pioneers and Mexicans inside the setting of a flexibility toting, Democracy-cherishing individuals and the incorporating thoughts of a tyrannical country illsuited to the administration of a plentiful area. Later elucidations consolidated the battles for the Southwest in ethnic or social terms, making full utilization of the idea of Manifest Destiny and the inescapability of American expansionism. Most as of late, researchers of the Texas Revolution and the Mexican-American War have added to the understanding of the clashes on Mexico's far north by showing the Texas Revolution as an expansion of American vote based system which impacted the Mexican government's