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?

__________________
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask, "Where's my government handout?"

Lightdemon

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.

__________________
Democrats are thieves
Republicans are thieves too,
Where's my liberty?
- by Ethereal

FluffyNinja

I agree with almost all of your points, but would you go as far as to say that this war was "concocted" by Pres. Polk and the US Senate as a form of Imperialism, under the "justification" of Manifest Destiny? Or do you believe the US Senate was, in fact, so easily duped by Sam Houston?

Korimyr the Rat

We won, and winning that war benefitted us.

Far as I'm concerned, that's the only justification any war can ever have-- and the only justification it needs.

__________________

John1234

So your basically saying that murder is fine so long as you can profit from it?

Note that i am not against the Mexican War, i just could not understand your attitude towards war.

Korimyr the Rat

More or less, as long as the victims aren't part of your tribe-- and your tribe does not suffer for your aggression. I have no problem with aggressive war for resources, as the vast majority of wars have followed that pattern even during the last century.

I just don't need as much propaganda to justify my desire for my country to be dominant.

John1234

Well, at least your honest about it. I respect that.
But i still find it to be terrible.

We all want our country to be dominant to an extent.
How we handle the moral boundaries is the real defining factor on who we are as a people.

I view things quite the opposite.
I believe a man is defined by how he treats others outside of his tribe or sphere of concern.

Lightdemon

No, Sam Houston probably played a smaller role as compared to the entire economical benefits of attaining the south west. Santa Fe trail. More territory to asuage men with ambitions in becoming a successful farm/plantation owner.

All in all, in all things considered, I firmly believe that the acquiring the South West was economically motivated, on a social level, meaning that people needed more land, and also at a political level, meaning that our government was looking to expand (like you mentioned Manifest Destiny).

As evidence, in the Mexican-American War, we did not only protect the independant state of Texas, but we also marched all the way to Mexico City, and even occupied for a while as well. Unfortunately, the guerilla tactics thwarted us and we could not establish a strong hold on Mexico's captial. IF we had...we probably would have annexed the entirety of Mexico, if not for their use of guerilla tactics.

Because of this move, it shows us what the motivation of the US was at the time. We weren't "defending" an independant and soveriegn nation; Texas. We were actually invading another country.


In short, I believe economics had more to do with it, than political influence.

Bodhisattva

How can you respect a person that brags about and justifies being immoral?

We don't have to fight wars to be dominant, and any person that thinks otherwise knows little of economics.

The Mexican War can only be justified if the people of Texas felt that they were truly being oppressed and that our involvement liberated them from such.

__________________

Korimyr the Rat

So, if our citizens emigrate into another country, complain about how that country is treating them, and then declare sovereignty, we are morally justified in declaring war on the country they invaded in the first place?

Hmm. What does that say about Mexicans living in the Southwestern United States today?