"Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism?" Topic

Yes:"Professor of history Rodolfo Acuna argues that Euroamericans took advantage of the young, independent, and unstable government of Mexico and waged unjust and aggressive wars against the Mexican government in the 1830s and 1840s in order to take away half of Mexico's original soil.

NO: Professor of diplomatic history Norman A. Graebner argues that President James Polk pursued an aggressive policy that he believed would force Mexico to sell New Mexico and California to the United States and to recognize the annexation of Texas without starting a war…."
More here
PDF link

Amicalement
Armand

Seems the good professors agree on the goals, just not the chosen methods.

And both seem to overlook the fact that the Mexicans were as hot for the war as the Norteamericanos, with some elements of the Mexican Senate even claiming that the Louisiana Purchase was "stolen" from Mexico (despite the fact that it occurred long before Mexican independence). This, of course, was the same element that kept asserting Mexico's bogus claims to much of Central America.

Of course it was Imperialism! The Americans wanted access to the Pacific. They were pondering a choice of war with Mexico for California or a war with the British Empire (and her Royal Navy) over the Oregon Territories or even a war on two fronts! They wisely chose the weaker party to make war against while cutting a deal in the Pacific Northwest.

rmaker is on the money.

As noted by Patrick Buchanan, the Mexican-American War was indeed a war of conquest, but it was the object of both sides. The Mexicans thought they'd hoist their flag over Washington, D.C., and then help themselves to Texas and parts of the American Southeast.

Don't forget that Mexico threw the first punch, and that the Mexican army was far larger (four times as much?) than the U.S. army when the war began. The rest, as it is said, is history.

So if the United States acted in an imperialistic manner, Mexico acted that way too.

By the way, after the war, Mexico also wanted to sell the U.S. the Baja Peninsula, along with great swathes of territory that Mexico didn't control, but sold to the United States anyway. American diplomats wisely declined to buy the Baja Peninsula.

Considering Mexico's apparent strength at the start of war, I'm not so sure that the U.S. necessarily chose the "the weaker party" to start a fight with, especially considering how the MAW began.

200 years ago I don't believe America was the only one that acted imperialistic? It does seem that was the generally accepted behavior.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

It wasn't imperialism except in a revisionist sense. The Mexican army was considered better by many at the time internationally and it was two nations on a relatively equal footing warring. Was the Franco-Prussian war "Imperialism?" And, don't forget before the Mexican-American War, before the Texas War of Independence, it was the Mexicans who invited American settlers into Texas and the southwest to foist actual Imperialism on the Comanche and other Native American groups that could not be controlled from Mexico City in the sparsely populated region

Careful Tango, the idea that the US was/is an imperialist country is not popular with many US people.

No US imperial ambitions? Then why the westward expansion at all? The US went from 13 east coast colonies to taking the whole territory from coast to coast regardless of who lived there. If that isn't imperialism I don't know what is. No different from any other country at the time and a principle cause of the break from Great Britain and the War of 1812. Sorry if you don't like that, but failing to accept the failings of the past results in continued problems.

Not at all Vigilant, the US was involved in quite a few colonial adventures, but quite a few people have difficulty accepting this.

Of course the US was an imperial nation. It is simply what was done.

yes.

It was, in the sense that the US believed in Manifest Destiny and was bent on expansion. However, what Rmaker and others have stated is also true. Mexico was hot for war and very nationalistic at the time as well. The reason why it looks so bad for the US is because we so overwhelmingly won the war. This made it look like we were picking on Mexico.

Yes. So what?

Mexico was unable to defend its territory against the Comanche. If California had not gone to the US (and the US would have been content with the East), it would probably have fallen to Russia not too much later.

"Careful Tango, the idea that the US was/is an imperialist country is not popular with many US people."

While this is clearly a trolling comment, if you actually bother to read the history leading to the Texas Revolution (who invited American settlers there and why) and the lead up to the Mexican American War, it clearly is not an instance of American Imperialism anymore than The Hundred Years War shows an example of English Imperialism.

You are treating America as it was then (size of army, predictions of victory, etc.) as if it was America with its army of today beating up on Belize (no wait, that was British Imperialism).

If you want to start a topic about American Imperialism (although we paled in comparison to our European cousins) maybe start a topic on the Philippines. The Mexican War was one of two equals in the mid 19th century fighting over territory that was largely vacant (unless you call the native peoples who lived there that the Mexican government invited US citizens to settle by to further their Imperialist designs on the region).

Actually, one can argue that the US is one of the only colonial/imperialist powers left, and certainly has one of the most extensive overseas empires that currently exist.

Bad move posting this, Armand. I have a feeling it is not going to end well.

B

Well, nobody posted for almost ten months. What I'd like to know is why at least some of the Mexicans wouldn't be considered "Euroamericans". Isn't Spain part of Europe?

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Who took it from the Spanish ,who took it from the Indians , who took from other Indians etc……… Blah,blah,blah :)

Of course it was

On this very day, 170 years ago…

Extract from a letter from Major General Winfield Scott, dated ‘HEAD-QUARTERS 0F THE ARMY,
Puebla, June 4, 1847.
"We are still much embarrassed by the want of money. But little can be obtained on draught this side of the capital, and we have not heard of the arrival of a dollar at Vera Cruz for this army. The attempt to subsist it by living at free quarters, or on forced contributions, would be the end of military operations."

link

Thanks!

Amicalement
Armand