Mexican-American War: Unpacking Manifest Destiny and Slavery Debate

This essay examines the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) to determine whether it was an expression of Manifest Destiny or a strategic maneuver to expand slavery. It begins by outlining the causes of the war, including Texas' independence, border disputes, and President Polk's expansionist ambitions. The paper then details the advances of the U.S. army into Mexico, highlighting key battles and figures. It delves into the arguments made by politicians like Abraham Lincoln, who viewed the war as a ploy to extend slavery by acquiring new territories. The essay discusses the Missouri Compromise and the potential for new states carved out of Mexican territory to become slave-holding states, upsetting the balance of power between the North and South. It also addresses the Wilmot Proviso and its failure to restrict slavery in acquired territories. The essay concludes that the war was more likely a ploy to expand slavery, despite Polk's claims of Manifest Destiny, as evidenced by the political pressures and outcomes of the conflict.

History 1
History

History 2
Topic- Mexican-American War: Manifest Destiny or Slavery ploy?
Introduction
The Mexican-American war (1846-1848) was considered as first U.S. armed dispute which was
fought on the foreign land. This war rutted the politically divided and militarily unprepared
Mexico against the well-prepared administration of U.S. president James K. Polk, who
personally believed that U.S. holds the obvious destiny to spread their power across the continent
to the Pacific Ocean.
At the time when war initiated against the Mexico in the year 1846, there were 8000 men in the
armed forces of U.S but soon 60,000 men joined the armed forces for participating in the war.
Navy of America dominated the sea areas and this happen because of the stable and capable
leadership of the American government (Foos 2003).
This topic is important to understand the advances of U.S. army in the Mexican-American war
and whether this war was the manifest destiny or reality was different. This war was considered
as dark chapter of American history but it also reflected the power and strength of the American
troops.
Beginning & Causes of War
Independence was gained by the Texas in the year 1836 from the Mexico. At the initial stage,
offer to incorporate the state into the union was declined by the U.S. and this happen because
northern political interest were against the addition of the new slave sate. Raids on border were
also encouraged by the Mexican government, and warning was also issued by the Mexican
government that any attempt of takeover would result in war. Regardless of this warning,
takeover process was quickly started by the U.S. after the year 1844 election of Polk who
focused on the re-annexation of the Texas and re-occupied of the Oregon territory. Polk also
tried to occupy the California and New Mexico, and some other areas also.
He gives offer to purchase these lands, and when these offers were rejected, he initiate the fight
by moving the troops into the disputed areas of the Rio Grande and Nueces River. On 25th April
1846, Mexican troops attacked the U.S. soldiers groups in the area which was disputed, and this
attack result in the mass execution of dozen soldiers. After that they attacked the American Fort
along the Rio Grande. Taylor seeks for reinforcements, and after getting the help of superior
rifles and artillery, they were able to defeat the Mexicans at the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca
de la Palma (Henry 1950.
In follow up of these battles, it was told by Polk to the U.S. congress that Mexicans were
crossing their boundaries, killed their people, and invaded their territories. On 13th May, war

History 3
against Mexico was declared by the Congress, but no official declaration of war ever came from
Mexico.
Army Advances into Mexico
Only 75000 Mexican Citizens resided in the North of the Rio Grande, and because of these
forces directed by Col. Stephen W. Kearny and Commodore Robert F. Stockton conquered those
lands with minimum confrontation. In advanced stages, Taylor faced little trouble but anyhow
captured the Monterrey in the month of September. With the additional losses, Mexico turned to
old by General Antonio López de Santa Anna, he was the compelling men with strong senses
who had been resides exile in Cuba. Anna successfully convinced the Polk that if they allowed
him to return to Mexico then he took steps to end the war on such terms and conditions which
were favorable to the United States.
Later, after the arrival of Anna in Mexico, he ditched the Polk by taking control of the armed
forces of Mexico and result in in the battle. At the time of war of Buena Vista in February 1847,
heavy casualties and loss was suffered by the Santa Anna and results in withdraw of forces.
Instead of this loss and casualties, Mexican presidency assumed that they were able to fight with
the American troops in the following month.
During this time, American troops guarded by Gen. Winfield Scott reached to Veracruz and
takeover the possession of the city. After that they march towards the Mexico City and they
followed the similar route which was followed by the Hernán Cortés while invaded the empire of
Aztec. The Mexicans resided at Cerro Gordo and other places were suffered the consequences of
war and each and every time their condition get worsened (Eisenhower 2000).
Manifest Destiny or Reality
Although maximum number of politicians of U.S. which support this war, but some of them
spoken against this war and Abraham Lincoln was one of them. Lincoln does not support this
war and consider this war as the plan to expand the slavery by acquisition of the new territories
of Mexico by the government of U.S. He further stated that this war with Mexico was
unconstitutionally and unnecessary initiated by the James K Polk.
At the time of the Mexican war, the southern states lost number of things in comparison of the
power hold by the North states. North states hold the power because of the greater population
and industrialization of the North states. This loss to the southern States was also occurred in
terms of national politics, which means, northern states in congress hold more number of seats in
congress. As per the Missouri compromise held in 1820, there were number of new states in
south of the 36th parallel which allowed the slavery provisions. At the time when annexation of
Texas was discussed, delegates of southern states give their support completely. Deceptively, the
ploy was to shape the four states of slavery out of Texas (Valerio 2016. This would further

History 4
allowed the south to maintain the control of senate, although north maintained the control of the
house. The territories that were occupied after the war with Mexico and for this purpose all the
states of Mexico were south of the 36th parallel. Any new states engraved out of Mexican
territory ultimately becomes the slave-holding states as well, it further tips the balance on the
side of southern states. This happens even in case when, Mexico restricts the slavery in the late
years of 1820s and all the related lands of Mexico were considered as free territories. The extent
up to which political pressure from the states of south would determines the diplomacy of U.S.
can easily be considered in these remarks made by the commissioner of US during the treaty of
negotiations. At the time of negotiation progress, Mexico begged for the insertion of an article
which states that slavery was not permitted in any of the stated territory (Guardino 2017).
There were number of historians who made the arguments that there was no such southern plot in
terms of creating the additional slave-holding states. They further stated that few politicians of
south were completely against the Mexican territories, because maximum of them was not
suitable with this. However, these politicians might be in minority because they failed to include
the Wilmot provision in the final peace treaty. A minor democrat from the Pennsylvania, David
Wilmot proposed the amendment that slavery must be restricted in any of the territory which was
acquired from Mexico. This amended bill was passed by the maximum number of Whigs and
Northern democrats, and this bill was adjourned by congress without any other notice. This
provision proposed by the Wilmot was blocked by the south politicians (History no date).
The related territories become the slave holding states because of the blocked Wilmot provision.
However, maximum number of territories becomes the state after the eruption of civil war in
1861. The only one territory that becomes the state after the war and that was California, which
created its own laws against the slavery when they entered into the Union. These laws were
framed because of the worry of gold miners, as they can face heavy competition from the owners
of slaves. In case it was not about the gold rush and civil war, then also envision of the new
states resulted from the related territories of Mexico which becomes the states that allow the
slavery (Bauer 1992).
Conclusion
After considering the facts of above paper, it can be said that this war was not the manifest
destiny but the ploy of U.S. government to expand the slavery by acquiring new territories. Polk
stated this war as the manifest destiny of America, but in actual he wants to expand the slavery
states for U.S. A minor democrat from the Pennsylvania, David Wilmot proposed the
amendment that slavery must be restricted in any of the territory which was acquired from
Mexico. This amended bill was passed by the maximum number of Whigs and Northern
democrats, and this bill was adjourned by congress without any other notice. This provision
proposed by the Wilmot was blocked by the south politicians. The related territories become the
slave holding states because of the blocked Wilmot provision. In case it was not about the gold

History 5
rush and civil war, then also envision of the new states resulted from the related territories of
Mexico which becomes the states that allow the slavery.
References
Bauer, Karl Jack. The Mexican War, 1846-1848. U of Nebraska Press, 1992.
Eisenhower, John SD. So Far from God: The US War with Mexico, 1846-1848. University of
Oklahoma Press, 2000.
Foos, Paul. A short, offhand, killing affair: Soldiers and social conflict during the Mexican-
American War. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Guardino, Peter. The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War. Harvard University
Press, 2017.
Henry, Robert Selph. The story of the Mexican war. Bobbs-Merrill, 1950.
History. Mexican-American War.
https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/mexican-american-war.
Valerio-Jiménez, Omar. “The U.S.–Mexico War.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American
History (2016): n. pag. Crossref. Web.