Polk's Request for War with Mexico (1846)
In this message to the U.S. Congress, President Polk explained why he believed that war with Mexico was necessary.
Topic: The Mexican War
Please study this document and answer the following questions.
In May 1846 President Polk sent to Congress the following message recounting the problems with Mexico and asking for war on the basis of what he described as Mexico's aggresive action. As you read the excerpts of the message below, look for eveidence that Mexico is guilty of aggression. See also if you can find any indication that Polk is not giving the full facts of the situation.
Washington, May 11, 1846
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
The existing state of the relations between the United States and Mexico renders it proper that I should bring the subject to the consideration of Congress. In my message at the commencement of your present session th estate of these relations, the causes which led to the suspension of diplomatic intercourse between the two countries in march, 1845, and the long-continued and unredressed wrongs and injuries committed by the Mexican Government on the citizens of the United States in their persons and property were briefly set forth.
The strong desire to establish peace with Mexico on liberal and honorable terms, and the readiness of this Government to regulate and adjust our boundary and other causes of difference with that power on such fair and equitable principles as would lead to permanent relations of the most friendly nature, induced me in September last to seek the reopening of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Every measure adopted on our part had for its object the furtherance of the desired results. In communicating to Congress a succinct statement of the injuries which we had suffered from Mexico, and which have been accumulating during a period of more than twenty years, every expression that could tend to inflame the people of Mexico or defeat or delay a pacific result was carefully avoided. An envoy of the United States repaired to Mexico with full powers to adjust every existing difference. But though present on the Mexican soil by agreement between the two governments, invested with full powers, and bearing evidence of the most friendly dispositions, his mission has been unavailing. The Mexican government not only refused to receive him or listen to his propositions, but after a long-continued series of menaces have at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.
It now becomes my duty to state more in detail the origin, progress, and failure of that mission . . . . Mr. Slidell arrived at Vera Cruz on the 30th of November, and was courteously received by the authorities of that city. But the Government of General Herrera was then tottering to its fall. The revolutionary party had seized upon the Texas question to effect or hasten its overthrow. Its determination to restore friendly relations with the United States, and to receive our minister to negotiate for the settlement of this question, was violently assailed, and was made the great theme of denunciation against it. The Government of General Herrera, there is good reason to believe, was sincerely desirous to receive our minister; but it yielded to the storm raised by its enemies, and on the 21st of December refused to accredit Mr. Slidell upon the most frivolous pretexts . . .
General Herrera yielded the Government to General Paredes without a struggle, and on the 30h of December resigned the Presidency. This revolution was accomplished solely by the army, the people having taken little part in the contest; and thus the supreme power in Mexico passed into the hands of a military leader.
Determined to leave no effort untried to effect an amicable adjustment with Mexico, I directed Mr. Slidell to present his credentials to the Government of General Paredes and ask to be officially received by him. There would have been less ground for taking this step had General Paredes come into power by a regular constitutional succession. In that event his administration would have been considered but a mere constitutional continuance of the Government of General Herrera, and the refusal of the latter to receive our minister would have been deemed conclusive unless an intimation had been given by General Paredes of his desire to reverse the decision of his predecessor. But the Government of the General Paredes owes its existence to a military revolution, by which the subsisting constitutional authorities had been subverted. The form of government was entirely changed, as well as all the high functionaries by whom it was administered.
Under this circumstance, Mr. Slidell, in obedience to my direction, addressed a note to the Mexican Minister of foreign relations, under date of the 1st of March last, asking to be received by that Government in the diplomatic character to which he had been appointed. This minister, in his reply, under date of the 12th of March, reiterated the arguments of his predecessor, and in terms that may be considered as giving just grounds of offense to the Government and people of the United States denied the application of Mr. Slidell. Nothing therefore remained for our envoy but to demand his passports and return to his own country.
Thus the Government of Mexico, though solemnly pledged by official acts in October last to receive and accredit an American envoy, violated their plighted faith and refused the offer of a peaceful adjustment of our difficulties. Not only was the offer rejected, but the indignity of its rejection was enhanced by the manifest breach of faith in refusing to admit the envoy who came because they had bound themselves to receive him . . . .
In my message at the commencement of the present session I informed you that upon the earnest appeal both of the Congress and convention of Texas I had ordered and efficient military force to take a position "between the Nueces and the Del Norte." This had become necessary to meet a threatened invasion of Texas by the Mexican forces for which extensive military preparations had been made. T he invasion was then threatened soley because Texas had determined, in accordance with a solemn resolution of the Congress of the United States, to annex herself to our Union, and under these circumstances it was plainly our duty to extend our protection over her citizens and soil.
The Congress of Texas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte to be the boundary of that Republic. Its jurisdiction had been extended and exercised beyond the Nueces. The country between that river and the Del Norte had been represented in the Congress and in the convention of Texas, had thus taken part in the act of annexation itself, and is not included within one of our Congressional districts. Our own Congress had moreover, with great unanimity, by the act approved December 31, 1845, recognized the country beyond the Nueces as a part of our territory by including it within our own revenue system, and a revenue officer to reside within that district has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It became, therefore, of urgent necessity to provide for the defense of that portion of our country . . . .
The movement of the troops to the Del Norte was made by the commanding general under positive instructions to abstain from all aggressive acts toward Mexico or Mexican citizens and to regard the relations between that Republic and the United States as peaceful unless she should declare war or commit acts of hostility indicative of a state of war. He was specially directed to protect private property and respect personal rights. . . . .
The Army moved from Corpus Christi on the 11th of March, and on the 28th of that month arrived on the left bank of the Del Norte opposite to Matamoras, wehre it encamped on a commanding position, which has since been strengthened by the erection of fieldworks.
The Mexican forces at Matamoras assumed a belligerent attitude, and on the 12th of April General Ampudia, then in command, notified General Taylor to break up his camp within twenty-four hours and to retire beyond the Nueces River, and in the even to f his failure to comply with these demands announced that arms, and arms alone, must decide the question. But no open act of hostility, was committed until the 24th of April . . . .
The grievous wrongs perpetrated by Mexico upon our citizens throughout a long period of years remain unredressed, and solemn treaties pledging her public faith for this redress have been disregarded. A government either unable or unwilling to enforce the execution of such treaties fails to perform one of its plainest duties.
Upon the pretext that Texas, a nation as independent as herself, thought proper to unite its destinies with our own, she has affected to believe that we have severed her rightful territory, and in official proclamationas and manifestoes has repeatedly threatened to make war upon us for the purpose of reconquering Texas. In the meantime we have tired every effort at reconciliation. The cup of forbearance has been exhausted even before the recent information from the frontier of the Del Norte. But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced and that the two nations are now at war.
As war exists, and notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country.
JAMES K. POLK
Click here for sample answers | Read the document again
Observation |
| 1. What type of document is this? (Ex. Newspaper, telegram, map, letter, memorandum, congressional record) |
|
|
| 2. For what audience was the document written? |
|
|
Expression |
| 3. What do you find interesting or important about this document? |
|
|
| 4. Is there a particular phrase or section that you find particularly meaningful or surprising? |
|
|
Connection |
| 5. What does this document tell you about life in this culture at the time it was written? |
|
|
Submit to Gradebook:
Representative Abraham Lincoln Disagrees with President Polk (1846)
Abraham Lincoln, then a young member of Congress from Illinois, criticized Polk's call for a war against Mexico.
Topic: The Mexican War
Please study this document and answer the following questions.
Polk's statement on the start of the war continued to be a matter of dispute between defenders of the war and its opponents. A young congressional representative from Illinois who opposed the war challenged the president's version of events. Excerpted below are passages from a speech by Abraham Lincoln on January 12, 1848. Note that this material comes from the Congressional Globe, which paraphrased the statements of members of congress instead of directly quoting them. Thus the frequent use of "he" in the passage refers to Lincoln. Read Lincoln's remarks carefully and compare them with Polk's comments.
First, as to the declaration that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana, as purchased by France. All knew that purchase was in 1803; and the President himself told us that by the treaty of 1819 we sold the land east of the Rio Grande — to the Sabine, he believed — to Spain. He wanted to make but a single remark upon this point. How the line that divided your land and mine still remains the dividing line after I have sold my land to you, was to him past all comprehension. And how a man, with the honest purpose of telling "the truth, and nothing but the truth," could have ever thought of introducing such a piece of "proof" was equally incomprehensible.
The next point was, the declaration that the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande as her western boundary. That was not true in point of fact. She did not "always" claim it. she did claim it, but not always. The constitution by which she was admitted into the Union — which, being her last act as a Republic, might be said to be her "last will and testament," "revoking all others" — made no such claim. But suppose it were true that she had always claimed it, had not Mexico always claimed that it was not so? If Texas had always claimed that the Rio Grande was her western boundary, had not Mexico always claimed directly the reverse? So that it was nothing but claim against claim, and there was nothing proved until you got behind the claims, and saw which stood upon the best foundation. And what he here said in reference to these claims of his was equally applicable to all the President said about Texas, under her republican constitution, having always claimed to the Rio Grande; and her laying out her congressional districts, towns, counties, &c., all stood on the same ground. You might just as well say I could get a valid title to your land by writing a deed and signing it as to say that Texas could get the land of another by, at home, including within her boundary, upon paper, a certain piece of territory, when it was itself where she dare not go. The thing was preposterous!
Next came the declaration that Santa Anna, by his treaty with the Republic of Texas, recognized the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Texas. . . . The fact was, it was nothing more or less than an article of agreement, and it was so called on its own face, entered into by Santa Anna, by which to get his liberty. He stipulated he would not himself take up arms, nor encourage the Mexican people to do so, during the existing war, leaving it expressly understood that there was no termination of the war. Nobody supposed it was a treaty, because it was well known, as it has many times been stated, that Santa Anna, being a prisoner of war at the time, could not have made a treaty, if he had tried to do so. but he never intended to make — he never made — any such thing. There was no mark, no characteristic about it of a treaty at all.
He next came to notice the declaration of the President, that Texas before annexation, and the United States since annexation, had exercised jurisdiction over the country between the two rivers — the Nueces and the Rio Grande. . . . He did not understand that exercising jurisdiction over territory between two rivers necessarily implied the exercise of jurisdiction over the whole territory between them . . . . He knew, then, from actual experience, that it was possible [a laugh] to exercise jurisdiction over a piece of land between two rivers without owning the whole country between then. And when you come to examine this declaration, this was just the amount of it.
Bartolomeo de Las Casas was a Spanish cleric who became an early defender of the Indians in the New World. He was one of the first to argue that the Indians were civilized and worthy of the same respect as other humans. What follows is an excerpt from his History of the Indies, in which he describes the cruelty inflicted by the Spanish when they overran Cuba.
They [the Spaniards] arrived at the town of Caonao in the evening. Here they found many people, who had prepared a great deal of food consisting of cassava bread and fish, because they had a large river close by and also were near the sea. In a little square were 2,000 Indians, all squatting because they have this custom, all staring, frightened, at the mares. Nearby was a large bohio, or large house, in which were more than 500 other Indians, close-packed and fearful, who did not dare come out.
When some of the domestic Indians the Spaniards were taking with them as servants (who were more than 1,000 souls . . . ) wished to enter the large house, the Cuban Indians had chickens ready and said to them: "Take these—do not enter here." For they already knew that the Indians who served the Spaniards were not apt to perform any other deeds than those of their masters.
There was a custom among the Spaniards that one person, appointed by the captain, should be in charge of distributing to each Spaniard the food and other things the Indians gave. And while the Captain was thus on his mare and the others mounted on theirs, and the father himself was observing how the bread and fish were distributed, a Spaniard, in whom the devil is thought to have clothed himself, suddenly drew his sword. Then the whole hundred drew theirs and began to rip open the bellies and, to cut and kill those lambs—men, women, children, and old folk, all of whom were seated, off guard and frightened, watching the mares and the Spaniards. And within two credos, not a man of all of them there remains alive.
The Spaniards enter the large house nearby, for this was happening at its door, and in the same way, with cuts and stabs, begin to kill as many as they found there, so that a stream of blood was running, as if a great number of cows had perished. Some of the Indians who could make haste climbed up the poles and woodwork of the house to the top, and thus escaped.
The cleric had withdrawn shortly before this massacre to where another small square of the town was formed, near where they had lodged him . . .
The cleric, moved to wrath, opposes and rebukes them harshly to prevent them, and having some respect for him, they stopped what they were going to do, so the forty were left alive. The five go to kill where the others were killing. And as the cleric had been detained in hindering the slaying of the forty carriers, when he went he found a heap of dead, which the Spaniards had made among the Indians, which they thought was a horrible sight.
When Narvaez, the captain, saw him he said: "How does Your Honor like what these our Spaniards have done?"
Seeing so many cut to pieces before him, and very upset at such a cruel event, the cleric replied: "That I command you and them to the devil!" . . . Then the cleric leaves him, and goes elsewhere through some groves seeking Spaniards to stop them from killing. For they were passing through the groves looking for someone to kill, sparing neither boy, child, woman, nor old person. And they did more, in that certain Spaniards went to the road to the river, which was nearby. Then all the Indians who had escaped with wounds, stabs, and cuts—all who could not flee to throw themselves into the river to save themselves—met with the Spaniards who finished them.
Click here for sample answers | Read the document again
Observation |
| 1. What type of document is this? (Ex. Newspaper, telegram, map, letter, memorandum, congressional record) |
|
|
| 2. For what audience was the document written? |
|
|
Expression |
| 3. What do you find interesting or important about this document? |
|
|
| 4. Is there a particular phrase or section that you find particularly meaningful or surprising? |
|
|
Connection |
| 5. What does this document tell you about life in this culture at the time it was written? |
|
|
Submit to Gradebook:
Resistance to Civil Government (1849), Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau's opposition to the Mexican War prompted these thoughts on the relationship between citizens and their government.
Topic: The Mexican War
Please study this document and answer the following questions.
The United States went to war against Mexico in May 1846. That July, while living at Walden Pond, Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax as a protest against the conflict, for he saw the war as an effort to extend the realm of slavery. As a result, the local constable arrested him, and he spent the night in the Concord jail. The next day a relative—probably his aunt—paid the tax, and he was released. As Thoreau continued his study of the woods and himself, he also contemplated the nature of government and the citizen's connection to it: out of this came his statement explaining his act of protest. Published in 1849, his essay has since become the classic justification for acts of civil disobedience. Mohandas K. Gandhi was inspired by its message and adopted Thoreau's principles in his lifelong campaign to gain Indian independence from Great Britain. Thoreau's ideas also influenced Martin Luther King, Jr. in his campaign for racial equality in the 1950s and 1960s.
I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. . . .
This American government,—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity; but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. . . . It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. . . .
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. . . . Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. . . .
* * *
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. . . . But when . . . oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
* * *
. . . Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. . . .
* * *
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
* * *
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not every thing to do, but something; and because he cannot do every thing, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the governor or the legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. . . .
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors, constitutes a majority of one already.
* * *
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,—the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. . . .
* * *
I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. . . . Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all? However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. . . .
* * *
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to,—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well,—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Click here for sample answers | Read the document again
Observation |
| 1. What type of document is this? (Ex. Newspaper, telegram, map, letter, memorandum, congressional record) |
|
|
| 2. For what audience was the document written? |
|
|
Expression |
| 3. What do you find interesting or important about this document? |
|
|
| 4. Is there a particular phrase or section that you find particularly meaningful or surprising? |
|
|
Connection |
| 5. What does this document tell you about life in this culture at the time it was written? |
|
|
Submit to Gradebook:
U.S. Grant, Memoir on the Mexican War (1885)
After leaving the White House, Ulysses Grant published a memoir in which he recalled the war with Mexico.
Topic: The Mexican War
Please study this document and answer the following questions.
In this excerpt from the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, the former president and general called the Mexican War unjust and voiced his lasting objection to it. As you read this passage, consider why Grant believed the United States won that war against Mexico, but then paid the terrible price of a civil war.
. . . Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico -- another Mexican state at that time -- on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own, and war existed, between Texas and Mexico, in name from that time until 1836, when active hostilities very nearly ceased upon the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican President. Before long, however, the same people -- who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so -- offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.
Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot. The fact is, annexationists wanted more territory than they could possibly lay any claim to, as part of the new acquisition. Texas, as an independent State, never exercised jurisdiction over the territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico never recognized the independence of Texas, and maintained that, even if independent, the State had no claim south of the Nueces. I am aware that a treaty, made by the Texans with Santa Anna while he was under duress, ceded all the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; but he was a prisoner of war when the treaty was made, and his life was in jeopardy. He knew, too, that he deserved execution at the hands of the Texans, if they should ever capture him. The Texans, if they had taken his life, would have only followed the example set by Santa Anna himself a few years before, when he executed the entire garrison of the Alamo and the villagers of Goliad.
In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General [Zachary] Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory; The army did not stop at the Nueces and offer to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war. It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
Click here for sample answers | Read the document again
Observation |
| 1. What type of document is this? (Ex. Newspaper, telegram, map, letter, memorandum, congressional record) |
|
|
| 2. For what audience was the document written? |
|
|
Expression |
| 3. What do you find interesting or important about this document? |
|
|
| 4. Is there a particular phrase or section that you find particularly meaningful or surprising? |
|
|
Connection |
| 5. What does this document tell you about life in this culture at the time it was written? |
|
|
Submit to Gradebook:
Map, The Mexican War: Major Campaigns
Map of the Major Campaigns of the Mexican War
Topic: The Mexican War
Please study this document and answer the following questions.
Click here for sample answers
Observation |
| 1. Which individual items within the image are drawn to your attention? |
|
|
| 2. List the characters, objects, and / or action. |
|
|
Expression |
| 3. What is your overall impression of this image? |
|
|
| 4. What is this image attempting to convey to the viewer? |
|
|
Connection |
| 5. What does this image tell you about this period in America History? |
|
|
Submit to Gradebook: