Historical Analysis: Causes and Arguments of the Mexican-American War

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), focusing on the conflict's origins and the opposing viewpoints. It examines arguments both in favor of and against the war, highlighting key factors such as the annexation of Texas, slavery, and the concept of Manifest Destiny. The essay discusses the stances of prominent figures like Daniel Webster, who opposed the war, and President James K. Polk, who supported it to expand the territory and the expansion of slavery. The essay concludes by arguing that the arguments against the war are more justifiable, emphasizing the importance of peaceful international relations over aggression and violence. It also emphasizes the negative impact of the war on the reputation of the United States and the ethical considerations surrounding territorial expansion and the expansion of slavery.

Running head: HISTORY
History
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HISTORY
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to discuss about the causes of the war between Mexico and
America that went on between 1846 and 1848. The arguments on both in support of war and
those against it will be presented. This war has been considered as te first ever armed conflict
that United States had fought on the foreign soil (Boyer, 2012). The militarily weaker Mexico
was not so powerful in front of the strong army of the United States.
Arguments of the antiwar supporters
The people who were against this kind of military aggression by the United States gave
certain points to defend their views. Some of these points really deserve the attention since the
Annexation of Texas was not that much necessary at all (Boyer, 2012). The critic like Daniel
Webster had pointed out that this aggression against Mexico would create a negative impression
against United States of America in front of the other countries of the world. The countries who
were great friends with United States would point out USA as very much aggressive indeed.
The issues with slavery have been one of the biggest causes against this war. Some would
think that the primary intention of USA was to capture the innocent Mexicans and use them as
the slaves in their country (Boyer, 2012). Daniel Webster was a very significant senator of the
American Congress and he viewed this incident as the one by which the national reputation of
the country would suffer negatively only in the venture of more territory. This would hamper
their international relations in many ways as well. The balance between the Free states and the
slave states would be lost in this scenario as well.

2HISTORY
Arguments in favor of the war supporters
On the contrary to the above stated views, some people have also viewed their views in
favor o the war between Mexico and United States of America (Boyer, 2012). Those critics have
said that t became very much important at that time to conquer Mexico and exercise their
military powers to show the British colonizers that they should fear the USA after being
successful in their freedom struggle. Some people have also viewed this incident in the way that
United States only took the advantage of a newly independent country that were weaker than
USA (Holt, 2005).
This was done only to capture their land and expand their territories. Mexico was not
even able to build up a proper and strong government and United States had utilized this
opportunity (Hernández, 2012). Mexico was not that much developed and their armed forces
were not that much strong as well. The supporters in the side of the President James K. Polk He
wanted to turn the captured lands into the salve states since he was a big supporter of slavery
(Holt, 2005). Their attention was on making the people in that part of the land to make more like
Americans, speak English believe in the same religion and acquire the Manifest Destin (Gómez,
2018)..
Favoring of one position over another
In this scenario it can be said that the first view or the view against the war should be
supported. It is only because the aggression and violence should be should not define the modern
age. The modern age should represent the peaceful attributes among the nations. The peace had
been violated and violence overtook the situation (Holt, 2005). The view of Daniel Webster
should be supported in this context since he viewed this incident as a loss of reputation for the

3HISTORY
United States. The United States had been considered as one of the major countries in the world
but this does not mean that they could capture their lands by using their superior military power
(Holt, 2005).
They could have begun talks with Mexico in this regard. This would have created a sense
of respect in the minds of the Mexican people than the hatred that was created (Gómez, 2018).
The war, bloodshed and forcible occupying of the lands should never be the first choice for a
major country like United States in regards to the international relations (Hernández, 2012).
Conclusion
On a concluding note, it can be said that the devastation of the Mexican American war
was a major instance of the ruthlessness of the United States of America. The capturing of land
of Mexico by USA should have been avoided since the motive of the United States President was
to turn the land into a land of slavery.

4HISTORY
References
Boyer, P. (2012). American History. Oxford University Press INC.
Collier, C., & Collier, J. L. (2012). Hispanic America, Texas, and the Mexican War. Blackstone
Publishing.
Cummings, J. W. (2015). Towards Modern Public Finance: The American War with Mexico,
1846-1848. Routledge.
Gómez, L. E. (2018). Manifest destinies: The making of the Mexican American race. NYU Press.
Hernández, J. A. (2012). Mexican American colonization during the nineteenth century: A
history of the US-Mexico borderlands. Cambridge University Press.
Holt, M. (2005). The fate of their country. New York: Hill and Wang.