The 1846 Mexican-American War in the Eyes of Justice

In this Executive Unit we went from executive orders to executive actions. We discussed wars that the United States declared and were involved in. We organized a Timeline to see the overlay of Cabinet position development over the decades. I researched the Department of Interior. I had no prior knowledge of it, but now I understand it is responsible for preservation of culture, land, and wildlife in America. We went on a Field Experience to a criminal court house and sat in on a homicide trial. Although the FE related moreso to judicial matters than executive, it was still a very immersive experience. An assignment that made an impression on me was when we read an excerpt from the book The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. I learned about war stories and what makes them 'true'. A quote that I liked was, "True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis. For example: War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can't believe it with my stomach. Nothing turns inside. It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe.”

"How do you evaluate the legality of war policy?" was the question we pondered in the context of a war one of us has chosen to decide just or unjust. I researched the Mexican-American war, and with some primary sources wrote my argument in why I think it is unjust:


The Mexican-American War of 1846 should not have happened. The President at the time, James Polk, had political goals and decisions that were aggressive and inconsiderate of the Mexican Government’s wishes. Congress and the people were consumed by the Manifest Destiny; a desire to colonize all of North America, Canada, and Mexico. The United States was known as Young America, or, White America; a movement of driven expansionists. President Polk disrespected Mexico’s stance in diplomatic negotiations and ignored the voices that argued against his choices. This war exhibited how willing America was to shed blood for the sake of expansion.

President James Polk was a prior slave owner who made a vow to annex Texas as a slave state and take Oregon. He had protestant Democratic Views that can be quoted as the “divine right and duty of white Americans to seize and settle the America west.” He almost caused America to engage in war with two countries at the same time, that being Great Britain and Mexico. His words of defense are in his Declaration of war against Mexico, “it was plainly our duty to extend our protection over her citizens and soil…”. Congress negotiations were in tunnel vision to gaining land. The U.S. foreign Policy had focuses on commercial possibilities in trade and expansion. In the perspective of President Polk's use of policy, Historian David M. Pletcher stated that he “set forth on a foreign policy of strong stands, overstated governments, & menacing public announcements, not because he wanted war but because he felt that this was the only policy which his foreign adversaries would understand.” There were underlying negative perceptions of Mexican people about their ability and Catholic religion. This contributed to the approach and level of aggression in executive actions against Mexico. 

It can be interpreted that Congress was nonchalant, ignorant, or highly agreeable with the establishment of land boundaries. When Texas was annexed in 1845, there was discussion on whether the Southern Border should end at the Rio Grande River or the Nueces River. Mexico insisted that it ended at the Nueces River. Yet U.S. troops were still sent to the Rio Grande River over the Nueces River, meaning they crossed into Mexican territory. As a result, Mexico attacked and killed/injured sixteen troops. It was then that war was declared, as Polk said they “shed American blood on American soil.” The soil was not American in the eyes of Mexico. The anti-slavery faction, Illinois State representative Abraham Lincoln, and other congress members were against this war. This is why they issued the policy “Spot Resolutions”. It was enacted to find the precise spot on U.S. soil where American blood had been spilled. Unfortunately, this policy did not change the direction of the war. Although the intentions of this policy were righteous, it had a degrading quality on the whole matter. The main factor in initiation of war became dependent on whether Mexico’s retaliation was an ‘invasion’ or merely self-defense. 

Overall, Mexico was in debt with America, and their prior dispute with Texas already showed their acknowledgement of losing land. One can argue that Mexico was being difficult and their sever of diplomatic ties with America was ignorant of President Polk's efforts to work together. President James Polk said he’d pay in compensation for land as well as take 3.25 million dollars off of debt. His Declaration shows response to their refusal, “It was formerly highly beneficial to both nations; but our merchants have been deterred from prosecuting it, by the system of outrage and extortion which the Mexican authorities have pursued and, in official proclamations and manifestos, has repeatedly threatened to make war upon us, for the purpose of reconquering Texas. In the meantime, we have tried every effort at reconciliation.” There was a debate in Congress on the Mexican-American war in the House of Representatives on May 13th, 1846. Congressman Joshua Giddings addressed Polk's point, “If it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to compel Mexico to pay those debts, why not say so? The fact that Mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens can have no legitimate connection with taking possession of our own soil.” It was argued that Mexico's debt was a matter that should have been separately handled. However, the President's declaration was organized in deductive reasoning. In the end he was willing to what he could to expand Young, White America.

What Mexico went through to save their land and people was unneeded. Their unwillingness to surrender shows how unwelcome the United State’s intervention was. Despite the majority of Americans that hungered for expansion, a minority of people it. The debates in Congress expresses that. Congressman Joshua Giddings's final statement was that “This war is waged against an unoffending people, without just or adequate cause, for the purposes of conquest; with the design to extend slavery; in violation of the Constitution, against the dictates of justice, of humanity, the sentiments of the age in which we live, and the precepts of the religion we profess.”

The pictures above are a diptych by Army Veteran Gerald Sheffield from the Veteran Arts Museum.  Many people sacrificed their lives to preserve what they originally possessed in the Mexican-American War. I think this diptych resonates with that because I see it portraying an absence of environment the Mexicans were forced to experience.

Works Cited:

Bailey, Tim. “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” The Mexican-American War: Arguments for and against Going to War | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/mexican-american-war-arguments-and-against-going-war.

“The Mexican-American War, 1846–1848.” The Mexican-American War, 1846–1848 · US History, philschatz.com/us-history-book/contents/m50061.html.