Quote:
Originally Posted by FluffyNinja  After listening to some of the controversy surrounding the recent Absolut Vodka ad that ran in Mexico, I began to reflect on the Mexican War of 1846 and its validity. My question is, was the Mexican War justified? And, if not, do we owe anything (land, reparations, apologies, etc.) to the people of Mexico as a result?
I mean, think about it, the most commonly accepted version of this history says that Sam Houston virtually "tricked" the US Senate into annexing Texas by making public claims that Texas would ally itself with Britain. The US could not "stomach" having our most recent "international enemy" sitting on our back doorstep, so they folded. Sam Houston's bluff payed off. We learn later, from some of Houston's own correspondence, that he never originally had any intent to side with the British. In the end, the US ended up with a pretty sweet deal. We took a pretty valuable "chunk" of land from Mexico for $15 million and by the settlement of a "lopsided" treaty.
There are many other implications from the era, that when taken in context, may have made this more legitimate. I'm really quite divided on this question. Just wondering if any of you have an opinion? |
While I don't think the US have any "real" legitimate justifications, I do think that Mexico wasn't really serving it's northern territory all that well in the first place.
For one thing, it was in the far north, and the distance made it hard to control. The same thing happened to the British and it's 13 colonies. Distance just made things very difficult for the government to do its job. Until of course the advent of mass transportation.
Secondly, and because of the first, the northern territories had a tendency to become autonomous and independant from the state. Mexico is notorious for it's control on the economy and it's manipulation. The far north hated it, and because of the distance, they were able to effectively battle against the policies made in central Mexico.
Thirdly, the far north were in more close proximity to US markets, than Mexican markets to the south. Plus there were more rivers and ports located just to the east (which is souther US at the time). So trade with the US was better than trade with it's own country. Bypassing some export taxes (because of thier establish autonomy) and having low transportation costs for thier exports.
While there are many more factors, I just think that these territories that eventually became part of the US, wanted to become independant in the first place. Though of course, my other opinion is that the US shouldn't have had a hand in any of this because they shouldn't have stuck thier noses into the business (or gov't actually) of a different country; Monroe Doctrine and all.