‘Taking Sides’ Essay (20%)– This3-4 pageessays will ask students to‘take a side’on a particular historical controversy. In this case, the question—“Was the Mexican War an exercise in American Imperialism?”Students will carefully consider two scholarly views on the question and in a short essay coming down on one side or another. This essay will be due-ThursdayOctober 26th
Rubric:
- Summary- Briefly (1-2 paragraphs) summarize the two arguments.
- Analysis- Make a case for or against the Mexican War as a case of Imperialism.
Make sure to deployplenty of direct examplesfrom the texts in supporting your claims.
When I am assessing your essay, your engagement and use of the data will be extremely
important. Indicate direct quotations with quotation marks. Make sure you give page
numbers. Make sure to document the sources for all your evidence (even if
you don’t quote them directly), you must provide a full citation.
Please usefootnotes.
Consult the
Chicago Manual of Style(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.for guidelines. (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.)
Attached is the 'taking sides essay' Please read both sides
Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism? YES: Rodolfo Acuna, from Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 3rd ed. (Harper & Row, 1988) NO: Norman A. Graebner, from "The Mexican War: A Study in Causation," Pacific Historical Review (August 1980) ISSUE SUMMARY YES: Professor of history Rodolfo Acuna argues that Euroamericans took advantage of the young, independent, and unstable government of Mexico and waged unjust and aggressive wars against the Mexican government in the 1830s and 1840s in order to take away half of Mexico's original soil. NO: Professor of diplomatic history Norman A. Graebner argues that President James Polk pursued an aggressive policy that he believed would force Mexico to sell New Mexico and California to the United States and to recognize the annexation of Texas without starting a war. As David M. Plecher points out in his balanced but critical discussion of The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon and the Mexican War (University of Missouri Press, 1973), the long-range effects on American foreign policy of the Mexican War were immense. Between 1845 and 1848, the United States acquired more than 1,200 square miles of territory and increased its size by over a third of its present area. This included the annexation of Texas and the subsequent states of the southwest that stretched to the Pacific coast incorporating California and the Oregon territory up to the 49th parallel. European efforts to gain a foothold in North America virtually ceased. By the 1860s, the British gradually abandoned their political aspirations in Central America, "content to compete for economic gains with the potent but unmilitary weapon of their factory system and their merchant marine." Meanwhile, the United States flexed her muscles at the end of the Civil War and used the Monroe Doctrine for the first time to force the French puppet ruler out of Mexico. The origins of the Mexican War began with the controversy over Texas, a Spanish possession for three centuries. In 1821, Texas became the northern-most province of the newly established country of Mexico. Sparsely populated with Hispanics and Indians, the Mexican government encouraged immigration from the United States. By 1835, the Anglo population had swelled to 30,000 plus over 2,000 slaves, while the Mexican population was only 5,000. Fearful of losing control over Texas, the Mexican government prohibited further immigration from the United States in 1830. But it was too late. The Mexican government was divided and had changed hands several times. The centers of power were thousands of miles from Texas. In 1829, the Mexican government abolished slavery, an edict that was difficult to enforce. Finally General Santa Anna attempted to abolish the federation and impose military rule over the entire country. Whether it was due to Mexican intransigence or Anglos assertiveness, the settlers rebelled in September 1835. The war was short-lived. Santa Anna was captured at the battle of San Jacinto in April 1836, and Texas was granted her independence. For nine years, Texas remained an independent Republic. Politicians were afraid that if Texas were annexed it would be carved into four or five states, thereby upsetting the balance of power between the evenly divided free states and slave states that had been created in 1819 by the Missouri Compromise. But the pro-slavery President John Tyler pushed through Congress a resolution annexing Texas in the three days of his presidency in 1845. The Mexican government was incensed and broke diplomatic relations with the United States. President James K. Polk sent John Slidell as the American emissary to Mexico to negotiate monetary claims of American citizens in Mexico, to purchase California, and to settle the southwestern boundary of Texas at the Rio Grande River and not farther north at the Nueces River, which Mexico recognized as the boundary. Upon Slidell's arrival, news leaked out about his proposals. The Mexican government, fearful of losing power but realizing war might happen, rejected Slidell's offer. In March 1846, President Polk stationed General Zachary Taylor in the disputed territory along the Rio Grande with an army of 4,000 troops. On May 9, Slidell returned to Washington and informed Polk he was rebuffed. Polk met with his cabinet to consider war. By chance that same evening, Polk received a dispatch from General Taylor informing him that on April 25 the Mexican army crossed the Rio Grande and killed or wounded 16 of his men. On May 11, Polk submitted his war message claiming" American blood was shed on American soil." Congress voted overwhelmingly for war 174 to 14 in the House and 40 to 2 in the Senate despite the vocal minority of Whig protesters and intellectuals who opposed the war. Was the Mexican War an exercise in American Imperialism? In the first selection, Rodolfo Acuna argues that Euroamericans took advantage of the young, independent, and unstable government of Mexico by waging an unjust and aggressive war against Mexico in the 1830s and 1840s for the purpose of taking away more than half of its original lands. In the second selection, Norman A. Graebner contends that President Polk pursued the aggressive policy of a stronger nation in order to force Mexico to sell New Mexico and California to the United States and to recognize America's annexation of Texas without causing a war. **************************** Rodolfo Acuna YES Legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico's Northwest An Overview The United States invaded Mexico in the mid-nineteenth century during a period of dramatic change. Rapid technological breakthroughs transformed the North American nation, from a farm society into an industrial competitor. The process converted North America into a principal in the world marketplace. The wars with Mexico, symptoms of this transformation, stemmed from the need to accumulate more land, to celebrate heroes, and to prove the nation's power by military superiority. This [selection] examines the link between the Texas (1836) and the Mexican (1845- 1848) Wars. It analyzes North American aggression, showing how European peoples known as "Americans" acquired what is today the Southwest. The words "expansion" and "invasion" are used interchangeably. The North American invasions of Mexico are equated with the forging of European empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The urge to expand, in the case of the United States, was not based on the need for land--the Louisiana Purchase, central Illinois, southern Georgia, and West Virginia lay vacant. Rather, the motive was profit- --and the wars proved profitable, with the Euroamerican nation seizing over half of Mexico. North Americans fought the Texas War--that is, U.S. dollars financed it, U.S. arms were used on Mexican soil, and Euroamericans almost exclusively profited from it. President Andrew Jackson approved of the war and ignored North American neutrality laws. The so- called Republic held Texas in trusteeship until 1844, when the United States annexed it. This act amounted to a declaration of war on Mexico. When Mexico responded by breaking diplomatic relations, the North Americans used this excuse to manufacture the war. Many North Americans questioned the morality of the war but supported their government because it was their country, right or wrong. This [selection] does not focus on the wars' battles or heroes, but on how North Americans rationalized these invasions and have developed historical amnesia about its causes and results. War is neither romantic nor just, and the United States did not act benevolently toward Mexico. North Americans committed atrocities, and, when they could, Mexicans responded. Eventually, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican- American War, and northern Mexico became part of the North American empire. The treaty, however, did not stop the bitterness or the violence between the two peoples. In fact, it gave birth to a legacy of hate. Background to the Invasion of Texas Anglo justifications for the conquest have ignored or distorted events that led up to the initial clash in 1836. To Anglo-Americans, the Texas War was caused by a tyrannical or, at best, an incompetent Mexican government that was antithetical to the ideals of democracy and justice. The roots of the conflict actually extended back to as early as 1767, when Benjamin Franklin marked Mexico and Cuba for future expansion. Anglo-American filibusters1 planned expeditions into Texas in the 1790s. The Louisiana Purchase, in 1803, stimulated U.S. ambitions in the Southwest, and six years later Thomas Jefferson predicted that the Spanish borderlands “are ours the first moment war is forced upon us.” The war with Great Britain in 1812 intensified Anglo-American designs on the Spanish territory. Florida set the pattern for expansionist activities in Texas. In 1818 several posts in east Florida were seized in unauthorized, but never officially condemned, U.S. military expeditions. Negotiations then in progress with Spain finally terminated in the Adams-Onis, or Transcontinental, Treaty (1819), in which Spain ceded Florida to the United States and the United States, in turn, renounced its claim to Texas. Texas itself was part of Coahuila. Many North Americans still claimed that Texas belonged to the United States, repeating Jefferson's claim that Texas's boundary extended to the Rio Grande and that it was part of the Louisiana Purchase. They condemned the Adams-Onis Treaty. Anglo-Americans continued pretensions to Texas and made forays into Texas similar to those they had made into Florida. In 1819 James Long led an abortive invasion to establish the “Republic of Texas.” Long, like many Anglos, believed that Texas belonged to the United States and that “Congress had no right or power to sell, exchange, or relinquish an 'American possession.'” In spite of the hostility, the Mexican government opened Texas, provided that settlers 1 A filibuster is