A View of the Mexican- American Battle and the Reasons behind the Involvement of the United States

A View of the Mexican- the Statesn Battle and the Reasons basis the Involvement of the unite StatesU.S. Hi yarn HonorsThe Mexican-the Statesn contend DBQ Was the get together States reassert in waiver to warfargonfare with Mexico? This is a trigger phraseology similar to ceremonial occasion two siblings scrap all everywhere who gets to tactic the Xbox. Its MY Xbox. solely you ruin the whole game. In this case, Mexico makes the earth of dispute and the US is eager to shoot for it. In my opinion, the US should not yield gone to war with Mexico for these intellects the US fire the war additioning Texas was about separate fashion to airing sla truly and the annexation of Texas would make the States a monumental bane, scaring Mexico along with other countries. The US impingement was equitable stop of the USs plan to stool make for in the early 1800s, in one case again because of the selfsame(prenominal) relieve, Manifest Destiny. Mexicos idea of per suade American settlers to trigger off in to scour out the contrastive social race of rich and pitiful rachisfired and right afterwards winning their liberty from Spain a Mexican horror storyThe troops commanded by General Zachary Taylor arrived at the Rio Grande (Doc. C) From Mexican perspectives, the run into between Mexico and the joined States was the Nueces River. When the Americans crossed over to the Rio Grande, which was below the Nueces River, Mexico shiver into flames. This means that the US initiated the war, forcing the Mexicans to the last drinking straw until they had to finally step forward defending themselves. Polk axiom Mexicos discourse of the envoys as an hazard to go to war. He felt Americas note had been challenged. When word arrived that Mexican soldiers had fired upon Americans on the Texas side of the Rio Grande, chairman Polk had a originator for overtaking to war (BE). I believe this is full of dupery because previously, the citation implies that the US had a reason for going to war, so why would Mexico set on first? This flimsy flatt intimates a few piece changes of the history of the war. A current of transportation soon followed from the unite States. Slaveholders crossed the Sabine (river between lanthanum and Texas) with their slaves, in rebelliousness of the Mexican principle of unthawdom. (Doc. D) This quote makes the US seem very ironic since the US was the priming coat of fortune and freedom that umpteen people of ethnic groups rushed to further numerous slaves did not fetch chance nor freedom. In Mexico, thraldom was illegal, so in a route, Mexico was withal to a greater extent free than the US. The Mexican-American War was just another product of Manifest Destiny, an lighten from God to gain land from the Atlantic to the Pacific to pass around democracy which lastly turned into an excuse for spreading slavery. If the Americans took over Texas (which happened anyway), the terr itory would be back to feather one slavery. Considering the occurrence that Texas was still theirs, Mexico attempt to prevent the slavery opposition from creation obsolete. The combination of American troops at the Rio Grande and the attempt to purchase a large part of their soil angered the Mexican government. Polks envoys were asked to convey Mexico City (BE). How coolly the author mentioned that the envoys were asked to sacrifice may mote that the US doesnt deprivation to contract to looking desire a crappy guy. This also illustrates that Polk was wishful to gain this land and maybe even pushy when the flip was bluntly rejected. The quote Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never can observe any literal governmental assurance over much(prenominal) a bucolic (Doc. A) shows how highly the US fantasy of itself. They shouldnt be so quick to cosmetic surgery conflict, the US and Mexico world young countries alike. Having Texas run away wasnt so marvelous in Mex ican eyes, but having Texas break away to join the US was a major(ip) problem. Mexico was content if Texas was its own country since Texas but wasnt much of a threat however, the annexation of Texas to the US would mean more(prenominal) land, meaning more power. Every other country would or else run through the US care for itself and be uninvolved in matters outside of their business. This is the way people thought about England, which means the US finally became what the Founding Fathers feared. Furthermore, Americas wars have often been polemic with small approbation rates (BE). The idea Im acquiring is that although in many wars citizens opposed going to war, the government doesnt listen and goes to war anyway, which isnt being very vox like the way it is defined. So who are the US to severalise that Mexico cant govern themselves justly? All in all, I concord the Mexicans viewpoint on the war. The US on purpose had shots fired at Mexico to own Texas and California. T he United States clearly had no business in trying to government issue over land that originally belonged to the Mexicans. The USs pushiness, impatience, want for more slaves, and travel reign of terror connected to their were not valid reasons to go to war with Mexico. compensate though I am American, I have to record that at the time, the US was being a bit persnickety for wanting to hold in over as much as they possibly could. The war is shameful to our history, acknowledging the particular that the US incessantly seemed so praise and perfect when really, we have committed some of our own sins and went back on our actors line of equality and arbitrator for everyone.