Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


View Poll Results: Who would you have supported in the Mexican-American War?
The U.S. 24 57.14%
Mexico 18 42.86%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 14th, 2018, 11:20 AM   #1

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8
Who would you have supported in the Mexican-American War?


I don't think that I have ever asked this question. Thus, here goes:

Who would you have supported in the Mexican-American War?

As for me, I would have supported the United States of America. After all, while I am generally supportive of national self-determination, I also have a soft spot for countries who want to conquer sparsely populated territories so that they can extensively settle these territories. Indeed, while I am generally not very fond of conquests not done based on national self-determination, I tend to make an exception for conquests of sparsely populated territories if the goal of this conquest is to engage in extensive settlement of these territories.

Since the U.S. had a rapidly growing population which needed more living space during this time, since the territories which the U.S. conquered from Mexico were sparsely populated, and since the U.S. ended up making much better use of these territories than Mexico did, I would have certainly supported the U.S. in the Mexican-American War.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Futurist is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 14th, 2018, 12:27 PM   #2
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: Various places
Posts: 103

Neither, I would support the various indigenous nations who'd had to put up with Spanish rule in places like California and were about to get majorly screwed over by the US...
Komi is offline  
Old April 14th, 2018, 04:06 PM   #3

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komi View Post
Neither, I would support the various indigenous nations who'd had to put up with Spanish rule in places like California and were about to get majorly screwed over by the US...
So, you think that these indigenous groups should have had their own independent states?
Futurist is offline  
Old April 14th, 2018, 04:21 PM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,593

Tough because I have no love for the Santa Ana regime and this war was vital for America becoming the country it is today, almost as if not more vital than the Louisiana Purchase. This war's expansion also was largely responsible for forcing the US to have a conversation on slavery and to be honest without it we might have retained the institution longer than the Brazilians did, before the land we acquired in this war slavery(along with the annexation of Texas the dispute over which led to this war) had been a dead issue for quite some time.

Then on the other hand in terms of who was in the right and who was in the wrong we were certainly in the wrong as we basically put troops in disputed territory that the Mexicans would see as being on our territory and did so intentionally with predictable results. Abraham Lincoln in his brief congressional career was very critical of this and it's hard not to agree this war was fought on false pretexts. That being said unlike modern era wars fought under false prextexts that cost the US blood and treasure that was clearly not worth it, here I think it's hard to argue the ends didn't justify the means. Another negative is that the borders that the war has created has also led to Mexicans being seen as outsiders on land they'd controlled since the 16th/17th centuries and that is a negative consequence of the war that we feel today far more than any ethical question over false pretext or aggression. But yeah the positives of this war for the USA were so great, that I can't vote for Mexico even though they were unquestionably in the right. Call this American nationalism but California would not be what it is today under Mexican rule,and the American gold rush is what led to the rapid development and population of the state into what it is today, also leading to Las Vegas and the development of quite a few population centres in the region that developed far faster than the Louisiana purchase did without said heavy early migration. Under Spain and Mexico the territory we took was sparsely populated farm land. I'm going to vote USA fully aware we are the antagonists in this story.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; April 14th, 2018 at 04:24 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old April 14th, 2018, 05:27 PM   #5

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 View Post
Tough because I have no love for the Santa Ana regime and this war was vital for America becoming the country it is today, almost as if not more vital than the Louisiana Purchase. This war's expansion also was largely responsible for forcing the US to have a conversation on slavery and to be honest without it we might have retained the institution longer than the Brazilians did, before the land we acquired in this war slavery(along with the annexation of Texas the dispute over which led to this war) had been a dead issue for quite some time.

Then on the other hand in terms of who was in the right and who was in the wrong we were certainly in the wrong as we basically put troops in disputed territory that the Mexicans would see as being on our territory and did so intentionally with predictable results. Abraham Lincoln in his brief congressional career was very critical of this and it's hard not to agree this war was fought on false pretexts. That being said unlike modern era wars fought under false prextexts that cost the US blood and treasure that was clearly not worth it, here I think it's hard to argue the ends didn't justify the means. Another negative is that the borders that the war has created has also led to Mexicans being seen as outsiders on land they'd controlled since the 16th/17th centuries and that is a negative consequence of the war that we feel today far more than any ethical question over false pretext or aggression. But yeah the positives of this war for the USA were so great, that I can't vote for Mexico even though they were unquestionably in the right. Call this American nationalism but California would not be what it is today under Mexican rule,and the American gold rush is what led to the rapid development and population of the state into what it is today, also leading to Las Vegas and the development of quite a few population centres in the region that developed far faster than the Louisiana purchase did without said heavy early migration. Under Spain and Mexico the territory we took was sparsely populated farm land. I'm going to vote USA fully aware we are the antagonists in this story.
Excellent and very well-written post! Nice job!

Also, I think that, in an ideal world, we should have been honest about our intentions and simply said that we are going to war with Mexico in order to acquire more living space.

As for Mexicans feeling like strangers in their own country, please keep in mind that the Mexicans who lived in these territories in 1848 were granted U.S. citizenship and that, even with these territories being under U.S. rule, a lot of Mexicans nevertheless managed to move to these territories--either legally or illegally. Thus, even for Mexicans themselves, it wasn't a total loss. After all, the Mexicans who ended up moving to these territories also ended up moving to a developed country which is much better off than Mexico.

Indeed, for what it's worth, the demographics of the Southwestern U.S. have already partially reverted to what they were back in 1848:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_border.png

Click the image to open in full size.

The Hispanic and Latino American proportion of population in the United States in 2010 over laid with the Mexican–American border of 1836.
Futurist is offline  
Old April 14th, 2018, 09:04 PM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Excellent and very well-written post! Nice job!

Also, I think that, in an ideal world, we should have been honest about our intentions and simply said that we are going to war with Mexico in order to acquire more living space.

As for Mexicans feeling like strangers in their own country, please keep in mind that the Mexicans who lived in these territories in 1848 were granted U.S. citizenship and that, even with these territories being under U.S. rule, a lot of Mexicans nevertheless managed to move to these territories--either legally or illegally. Thus, even for Mexicans themselves, it wasn't a total loss. After all, the Mexicans who ended up moving to these territories also ended up moving to a developed country which is much better off than Mexico.

Indeed, for what it's worth, the demographics of the Southwestern U.S. have already partially reverted to what they were back in 1848:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...can_border.png

Click the image to open in full size.

The Hispanic and Latino American proportion of population in the United States in 2010 over laid with the Mexican–American border of 1836.
Yeah that makes it seem more positive for sure.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old April 14th, 2018, 09:42 PM   #7
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: USA
Posts: 322

To understand the War with Mexico a little more, one should study the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.
Greg G is offline  
Old April 15th, 2018, 02:11 AM   #8
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: Various places
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
So, you think that these indigenous groups should have had their own independent states?
I think they should have been left alone to decide their own future. Whether that means they would have eventually formed 'states' in the Old World sense or continued living as collections of independent tribes/bands isn't too important to me.

Last edited by Komi; April 15th, 2018 at 02:19 AM. Reason: typo
Komi is offline  
Old April 15th, 2018, 07:25 PM   #9

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 View Post
Yeah that makes it seem more positive for sure.
You mean the fact that many Mexicans were able to immigrate here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg G View Post
To understand the War with Mexico a little more, one should study the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.
Yep.

Of course, I wish that the conquest of these territories would have been less brutal for the Native Americans who lived there. Indeed, this is the problem that I see with the U.S.'s expansion--it was great for us, but it shouldn't have resulted in the mistreatment of Native Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komi View Post
I think they should have been left alone to decide their own future. Whether that means they would have eventually formed 'states' in the Old World sense or continued living as collections of independent tribes/bands isn't too important to me.
OK.
Futurist is offline  
Old April 16th, 2018, 01:23 AM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
You mean the fact that many Mexicans were able to immigrate here?


Yep.

Of course, I wish that the conquest of these territories would have been less brutal for the Native Americans who lived there. Indeed, this is the problem that I see with the U.S.'s expansion--it was great for us, but it shouldn't have resulted in the mistreatment of Native Americans.



OK.
Yeah, fewer lasting negative effects of the war such as the previous inhabitants of the land being worse off make the unsavory means of the expansion more worth the ends. If everyone's better off as a result because of the way the land was developed,hard IMO to have a problem with the unsavory way we entered conflict. I'd apply this same logic to Vietnam and more modern examples of this if I thought the same was true of those conflicts and while entering a war under false pretenses/for unsavory reasons is unethical, IMO how immoral/worth it these deceptions are defined by the consequences both positive and negative.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
mexicanamerican, supported, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How was the Mexican-American war fought? Yekkelle War and Military History 1 August 5th, 2013 09:15 AM
The Mexican-American War (video) EmperorTigerstar Learning History 0 June 26th, 2013 01:20 PM
The Mexican-American War Firsts CFScott American History 51 June 4th, 2013 10:02 AM
Mexican-American War Irish Yankee American History 5 January 31st, 2013 08:37 AM
Mexican-American War dimmit American History 23 February 28th, 2012 05:18 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.