Yes, even though we have killed a lot of people, but it was worth it. Besides for every death there's a new person. Without it we would not have the california territory.
No, why should we have gone to war with Mexico just to get one state after Thomas Jefferson bought the Lousiana Purchase. Then we got other states before that too, like Texas Oregon, Florida.
YES BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT HAVE CALIFORNIA AS PART OF THE US.ITS A BIG PART WHEN WE ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT,BECAUSE THAT STATE IS 1 OF THE BIGEST STATE IN AMERICA
We shuold go to war with mexico.I think because the war in the california territory the war mexico resulted in california and the southwest territory.Most of the states like [ Arizona Utah nevada colorado and new mexico.
Yes, I think that we should have gone to war with Mexico to gain the California territory. I think that we should have gone into war because if we didn't the United States of America wouldn't have gained California. California is a great place and it would be a bum if it weren't part of the U.S.A
Nya, i partially agree with you, yes i think we did it of pure greed, but think of it now, without the war we wouldn't have the california territory (Which i think includes a whole lot of land). Im pretty sure there are some good things in california that we enjoy, if not dislike. One thing, just honor the 13,000 american veterans that helped us gain the california territory, but died in the process.
I am on both sides,I think it would be a smart idea not to because we would have a better friendship with them,but then again if we did then we could have mpre power for our nation as well. If you think about it,if we would loose,then we would have no friendship with them at all,but if we won,well lets just say,we would be happy campers.
I disagree with Tayler and Julia beacause President Polk had already tried to purchase The California Territory and failed. I believe that war was necessary to gain the territory.
No i think we should have settled it a better way then what we done. Why do people have to die over land. I disagree with eden because even tho we got more land we could have settled this a better way
yes because they were going to try to own the california territory . we did not wanted to let that happen so we wanted to stop them. so we went to war with mexico and got gain the territory.
This is to kevin. wE WOULDNT HAVE MUCH OF ANY LAND ANYWAY. PLUS THEY WOULDNT HELP US FOR THAT LONG CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE KIDNAPPING AMERICANS AS WE TYPE CAUSE THERE ECONOMY IS SO BAD.
yes: because we got what we when`t and gain more land. A the more land the more power we have. but i don`t know why we could not see a better way to get more land.
I think we should have because if we hadn't, we would have had to share the US, and Although TJ bought Louisiana, We were able to have the whole area as our own, It gave us more room to grow :D
I love california cause thats where i grew up and I'm moving to but, Would you appreciate it if they came and tried to steal or fight for virginia or any other state? And we have enough land and if you don't like it go back to europe or wherever!:)
I agree with Andrew and Nya because without California the United States of America would be worthless.Besides California is my home state meaning I grew up there.California has San Diego,L.A. and every thing else popular.California is a great place plus anyone in the USA would want TO GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! so I am extremaly glad we went to war with Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im not quite sure,because if we did(which we did)we would have more power but,if we didn't we could have saved a lot of lives. (please no comments I dont really like typing much)
I am thinking that maybe we should of,we could have got new land and more power,come on people if we losted nothing would happen except us not having them as friends. We are a good nation anyways.
I agree with both dicisions No, and Yes. It is a good point that we should not be Greedy and have people die to get more power and land. Then agian it is a good thing that we did go into war because we did win and now we do have more power land and population. Because of this i agree with Elisa,Blake,Kevin,Andrew,Olivia,Marshall,Jeremiah and Lauren. But i disagree with Dawn and Tayler.
yes, because if we gain California, then the West could have been expanded more and allowed the United States to become more prosperous. Also, if we did not go to war with Mexico we never would have secured the Alamo.
If we hadn't gone to war, then the USA, which is already overpopulated, would have an even smaller space. I'd be like buying a hobo, who already had a nice Refridgerator box, an iPod box.
True, if we had not gone to war we might not have gotten california but we still had the rest of the U.S. What is the point of fighting for somthing you don't need?
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.
BACKGROUND
As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence.
Mexican Politics
At the time of the war, Mexico had a highly unstable government. The federal constitution of 1824 had been abrogated in 1835 and replaced by a centralized dictatorship. Two diametrically opposed factions had arisen: the Federalists, who supported a constitutional democracy; and the Centralists, who supported an autocratic government under a monarch or dictator. Various clashing parties of Centralists were in control of the government from 1835 to December 1844. During that time numerous rebellions and insurgencies occurred within Mexican territory, including the temporary disaffection of California and the Texas Revolution, which resulted in the independence (1836) of Texas.
In December 1844 a coalition of moderates and Federalists forced the dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna into exile and installed Jose Joaquin Herrera as acting president of Mexico. The victory was a short-lived, uneasy one. Although Santa Anna himself was in Cuba, other Centralists began planning the overthrow of Herrera, and the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845 provided them with a jingoistic cause.
U.S. Policy
The U.S. annexation of Texas, by a joint congressional resolution (Feb. 27-28, 1845), had caused considerable political debate in the United States. The desire of the Texas Republic to join the United States had been blocked for several years by antislavery forces, who feared that several new slave states would be created from the Texas territory. The principal factor that led the administration of John Tyler to take action was British interest in independent Texas. Indeed, anti-British feeling lay behind most of the expansionist policy statements of the United States in this period. James Polk won the 1844 presidential election by advocating a belligerent stand against Britain on the Oregon Question. Once in office he declared that "the people of this continent alone have the right to decide their own destiny." About the same time the term Manifest Destiny came into vogue to describe what was regarded as a God-given right to expand U.S. territory. The term was applied particularly to the Oregon dispute, but it had relevance also to California, where American settlers warned of British intrigues to take control, and to Texas.
The Mexican Response and the Slidell Mission
As early as August 1843, Santa Anna's government had informed the United States that it would "consider equivalent to a declaration of war . . . the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas." The government of Herrera did not take this militant position. It had already initiated steps, encouraged by the British, to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, and although Santa Anna's lame-duck minister in Washington broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. government immediately after annexation, in August 1845 the Herrera government indicated willingness to resume relations. Not only was the Herrera government prepared to accept the loss of Texas, but it also hoped to lay to rest the claims question that had plagued U.S.-Mexican affairs since 1825. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on interminably.
Fearing that American patience was running short, Herrera seemed determined to settle the issue. He requested that the United States send a minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, and President Polk appointed John Slidell.
Slidell's authority, however, may have exceeded Herrera's intentions. Slidell was authorized to purchase California and New Mexico from Mexico and to settle the Texas boundary, which was a source of dispute even with the Mexican moderates. While the Republic of Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as its boundary, the adjacent Mexican state of Tamaulipas claimed the area north of the Rio Grande to the Nueces River.
By the time Slidell arrived in Mexico in December 1845, the Herrera government was under intense fire from the Centralists for its moderate foreign policies. The Centralist strategy was to appeal to Mexican national pride as a means of ousting Herrera. During August 1845 their leader, Mariano Parades y Arrillaga, began to demand an attack on the United States. When Slidell arrived, Herrera, in an effort to save his government, refused to meet with him. A few days later (December 14), Parades issued a revolutionary manifesto; he entered Mexico City at the head of an army on Jan. 2, 1846. Herrera fled, and Parades, who assumed the presidency on January 4, ordered Slidell out of Mexico.
After the failure of the Slidell mission, Polk ordered Zachary Taylor to move his army to the mouth of the Rio Grande and to prepare to defend Texas from invasion. Taylor did so, arriving at the Rio Grande on Mar. 28, 1846. Abolitionists in the United States, who had opposed the annexation of Texas as a slave state, claimed that the move to the Rio Grande was a hostile and aggressive act by Polk to provoke a war with Mexico to add new slave territory to the United States.
Whatever Polk's precise intentions were, for the Centralists in Mexico the annexation of Texas had been sufficient cause for war; they saw no disputed boundary--Mexico owned all of Texas. Before Taylor had moved to the Rio Grande, Parades had begun mobilizing troops and had reiterated his intention of attacking. On April 4 the new dictator of Mexico ordered the attack on Taylor. When his commander at Matamoros delayed, Parades replaced him, issued a declaration of war (April 23), and reordered the attack.
NORTHERN MEXICAN CAMPAIGN
On Apr. 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a detachment of American dragoons commanded by Capt. Seth B. Thornton. Taylor's report of this ambush reached President Polk on the evening of May 9, a Saturday. On Monday, May 11, Polk presented his war message to Congress, and on Wednesday, May 13, over the vigorous opposition of the abolitionists, the U.S. Congress voted to declare war on Mexico. In the meantime two more Mexican attacks had been made across the Rio Grande at Palo Alto (May 8) and Resaca de la Palma (May 9), and both had been repulsed.
Mexican Expectations
Mexican leaders clearly expected to win these battles as well as to recover Texas and win the war. Parades spoke grandly of occupying New Orleans and Mobile. His army of about 32,000 men was four to six times the size of the original U.S. army. Furthermore, Mexican troops were well armed, disciplined, and, above all, experienced in scores of revolutions. Parades also counted on logistics. The principal theater of war would be Texas, hundreds of miles from the populous areas of the United States. Many Centralists believed that abolitionists' objections to the war would demoralize the United States, and some Centralists believed a Mexican invasion would be supported by a massive slave uprising.
Thus, the quick defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma surprised and shocked the Mexican leadership. The U.S. victories against a larger, better trained force were attributed to the unexpected effectiveness of the American light artillery. Parades found it expedient, however, to lay the blame on his commanding general, and he quickly replaced him. The Mexican garrison evacuated Matamoros, moving to the south.
Taylor's Delay
Taylor occupied Matamoros on May 18 but then delayed for several months before moving south. He was apparently waiting for transportation promised him by the U.S. government, though his critics branded him inept. In July he moved his base up the Rio Grande to Camargo, but it was only in August that Taylor began planning the attack on Monterrey.
By that time American strength on the Rio Grande had swollen to nearly 20,000 troops, nearly all volunteers. The principal military problem was logistical support of such a quickly expanded force. The Americans were susceptible to subtropical diseases and found it difficult to maintain sanitary conditions in the camps. Fevers, dysentery, and general debility were rampant, and the mortality rate from sickness was alarming. A determined Mexican attack in July or August would have proven disastrous to the Americans.
Mexican Rebellion
The Mexicans did not attack because the Centralist government was collapsing. Rather than uniting Mexico, the war had given the Federalist faction an opportunity to rebel. Even while Taylor had been camped on the Nueces in the fall of 1845, a few Federalist leaders had been in contact with him, promising supplies and asking for assistance in overthrowing Parades. Northern Mexico was almost a Federalist stronghold, and as Taylor moved to the Rio Grande, he received increasing support from the rebels.
The defeats of the Centralist forces at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma precipitated open Federalist rebellions throughout Mexico. Major outbreaks at Acapulco and Guadalajara in July were followed by the defection of the military garrison of Veracruz on August 3 and that of Mexico City on August 4. Mexico was in turmoil.
On July 28, Parades turned the government over to his vice-president and went into hiding. The Centralists' government fell completely with the resignation of the vice-president on August 6. On August 22 the Federalists solemnly restored the constitution of 1824, and Valentin Gomez Farias, who had been deposed as vice-president by the Centralists in 1834, assumed temporary control of the government as the nation's only legitimate official.
In the meantime, Santa Anna had returned to Mexico. Having promised President Polk that he would work to effect a truce, he was allowed to pass through the U.S. naval blockade and land at Veracruz on August 16. Talk of a truce was forgotten. Perhaps the only leader capable of uniting the nation, he soon received command of the Mexican army; in December he was elected president by the Mexican Congress but did not formally assume office until the following March.
Monterrey and Buena Vista
In the meantime, Taylor began his advance on Monterrey. He reached that fortified town, which had a garrison of more than 10,000 troops, on September 19 and began his attack on the morning of September 21. With about 2,000 men, Gen. William J. Worth captured the road between Monterrey and Saltillo and by noon was storming Federation Hill. Six companies of Texas Rangers charged up the hill, seized the enemy artillery, and turned the cannon on retreating Mexican forces. On the opposite side of the city a diversionary attack penetrated the town, despite much confusion. On September 22 the Americans rested, but they resumed the attack the next day. After bloody street-to-street fighting, the Mexican general Pedro de Ampudia requested and was granted a truce. On September 25 he was permitted to withdraw his forces from the city, and an 8-week armistice was agreed upon. Total Mexican casualties were estimated at 367. The Americans had 368 wounded and 120 killed.
Taylor was criticized both by the military and by President Polk for agreeing to an armistice. Taylor therefore informed Santa Anna, who had assumed command of the Mexican forces at San Luis Potosi, that the armistice would be terminated early. On November 16 he occupied Saltillo. His position was strengthened by an independent force under Gen. John E. Wood, which took Parras, to the west of Monterrey, on December 5.
In January 1847, Santa Anna moved north with about 20,000 men to dislodge Taylor. Dispatches captured by the Mexicans had revealed that most of Taylor's forces were being withdrawn to take part in Gen. Winfield Scott's proposed landing at Veracruz. Word of Santa Anna's approach reached Taylor on February 21, and although outnumbered almost three-to-one, he took up a position at the hacienda of Buena Vista, a few miles from Saltillo. The Mexican attack began on February 22, when troops led by Ampudia gained an advantage and forced the Americans to abandon important defensive positions. The next morning the main Mexican force nearly overcame the U.S. defense. However, a dramatic charge led by Col. Jefferson Davis about noon and a determined artillery advance under Capt. Braxton Bragg finally saved the day for the Americans. Their casualties numbered about 700, but the Mexican losses were about 1,800. Santa Anna withdrew that night and moved south to intercept Scott's invasionary force. No further fighting occurred in northern Mexico, but Taylor remained in command of a small force there until he returned to the United States in November 1847.
CENTRAL MEXICAN CAMPAIGN
The decisive campaign of the war was Scott's advance from Veracruz to Mexico City. Scott's expedition began at a staging area at the mouth of the Rio Grande in February 1847. He assembled an army of approximately 12,000, which was transported by sea to a beach about 5 km (3 mi) south of Veracruz. Landing on March 10-11, it had surrounded the city by March 15. A combined naval and land attack began on March 22. Heavy shelling from navy guns forced the almost impregnable town to surrender on March 28.
Cerro Gordo and Puebla
Almost immediately Scott began the advance toward Mexico City. Only sporadic resistance was encountered until his army reached the village of Cerro Gordo about 80 km (50 mi) inland. There, in a narrow defile, Santa Anna prepared to turn back the Americans. The attack on Cerro Gordo was led by units under William J. Worth on April 18. The U.S. engineers, who included Robert E. Lee, George B. McClellan, Joseph E. Johnston, and P. G. T. Beauregard, found a trail that enabled the Americans to envelop and rout Santa Anna's forces. The Mexicans lost 1,000 men in casualties and another 3,000 as prisoners. The Americans had 64 killed and 353 wounded.
Pursuit was impossible, but Worth moved up the road to occupy the venerable Perote Castle on April 22. Scott and the main army had entered Jalapa on April 19. There the advance stopped for a month. Scott reported over 1,000 men bedridden in Veracruz and another 1,000 sick at Jalapa.
On May 14-15, Worth and John A. Quitman moved into Puebla, about 80 km (50 mi) closer to Mexico City. They expected heavy resistance because of Santa Anna's reported presence there. However, the town's leaders and the priests had decided to open Puebla to the Americans. Santa Anna had only about 2,000 cavalry, which the Americans easily routed. Another 1,000 Americans fell sick at Puebla, apparently from the local water supply. By July 15, with recent augmentations, Scott's forces numbered about 14,000. However, over 3,000 were sick or convalescent, and the sickness rate showed no sign of decreasing.
Contreras, Churubusco, and Chapultepec
During June and July, Santa Anna frantically prepared to defend Mexico City. On August 7, Scott began his advance from Puebla, following a route over lava beds and rough land to the south of Lake Chalco that Santa Anna had left relatively unprotected. The first heavy fighting occurred on August 19-20 at Contreras, outside Mexico City, where Mexican losses were estimated at 700 and American casualties at 60. Santa Anna fell back about 8 km (5 mi) to Churubusco, where he took up a defensive position in a fortified convent. Advancing under extremely heavy fire on August 20, Scott's men finally forced the convent's surrender, although Santa Anna and much of his command escaped. Mexican losses were estimated at more than 4,000 killed and wounded and more than 2,500 prisoners; by contrast, American losses were slightly more than 1,000.
Scott might have moved promptly into the capital. Instead he granted (August 24) the armistice of Tacubaya to permit the negotiation of a peace treaty. Santa Anna used the time to muster his forces and prepare a final defense of the city. Fighting was renewed on September 7-8 at Molino del Rey, where the Americans forced the Mexican position but lost nearly 800 soldiers. The Mexican losses totaled about 2,700. The final battle for Mexico City took place at the fortified hill of Chapultepec. American artillery bombardment on September 12 was followed the next day by an infantry assault. The citadel was heroically defended by cadets from the Mexican Military College, but they were forced to surrender before noon. American troops entered Mexico City that afternoon, and shortly after midnight Santa Anna evacuated his troops.
The war was over. In just over five months, Winfield Scott had done what many had considered impossible. The duke of Wellington wrote, "His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals." On September 16, Santa Anna resigned the Mexican presidency. Forced to resign his command also (October 7), he fled the country. The new acting president, Pedro Maria Anaya, began negotiations with the American peace commissioner Nicholas Trist (1800-74) in November. Trist had just been recalled to Washington, but he decided to negotiate without credentials.
CAMPAIGNS IN THE AMERICAN WEST
While the crucial fighting was taking place in Mexico, various U.S. expeditions effected the conquest of Mexico's territories in the American Southwest.
Kearny in New Mexico
Immediately after the declaration of war, Brigadier General Stephen Watts Kearny, stationed at Fort Leavenworth, was ordered to occupy New Mexico and California. With an army consisting largely of Missouri volunteers and numbering fewer than 2,000 (though gloriously labeled the Army of the West), he moved down the Santa Fe Trail into New Mexico in July 1846. The Mexican governor was unable to rally any resistance, and Kearny entered Santa Fe unopposed on Aug. 18, 1846. The conquest of New Mexico had, in fact, taken place through peaceful trade and commerce in the preceding years.
Kearny established a civil government with Charles Bent, a Santa Fe trader from Missouri, as governor. He then divided his command into three groups: one, under Sterling Price, was to occupy New Mexico; a second, under Alexander William Doniphan, was ordered to capture Chihuahua; the third, under his own command, headed for California. Price faced unrest and then rebellion in New Mexico in January 1847. Bent was murdered at his home in Taos. Price fought three engagements with rebels, many of whom were Pueblo Indians, and by mid-February had the revolt under control.
Doniphan and the Missouri Volunteers struggled down the Rio Grande, suffering many privations along the route, to reach the vicinity of present El Paso, Tex., late in December 1846. On Christmas Day at El Brazito they were attacked by a small detachment of Mexicans who were easily routed. The Missourians rested at Paso del Norte (present Ciudad Juarez) until Feb. 8, 1847, when the march to Chihuahua City began. On February 28 the Americans won a decisive victory at the crossing of the Sacramento River just outside Chihuahua. Their casualties consisted of one killed and five wounded; Mexican losses were about 300 dead and another 300 wounded. In May, Doniphan took his command eastward to Saltillo to join Taylor's forces.
Kearny set out for California on September 25 with only 300 dragoons. At Socorro, N. Mex., they met the famous guide Kit Carson, who was returning from California. Learning that the conquest of California was virtually complete, Kearny sent 200 of his men back to Santa Fe and, led by Carson, continued to California.
Conquest of California
The American settlers in California had revolted against Mexican rule and established (June 1846) the Bear Flag Republic, under John C. Fremont, before news of the war reached them. On July 2, U.S. Commodore John Drake Sloat landed at Monterey. He proclaimed U.S. jurisdiction on July 7 and two days later occupied San Francisco. However, California was by no means under U.S. control. Mexican authority in California was divided between two rivals, Pio Pico in Los Angeles and Jose Castro in Monterey. Following the American landing, Castro headed south, apparently to attempt reconciliation with Pico and resistance to the United States. However, Commodore Robert Stockton, who replaced Sloat on July 23, sailed down the coast and landed troops under Fremont at San Diego and others near Los Angeles. Pico and Castro fled on August 10.
Heavy-handed martial law administration precipitated a revolt in southern California in September. Led by Jose Maria Flores, the rebels had expelled the Americans from Los Angeles and San Diego by the end of October. On Dec. 6, 1846, Kearny, en route to San Diego, met the rebels in an indecisive action at the Battle of San Pascual. Joining Stockton, who had arrived at San Diego, Kearny defeated a rebel band near Los Angeles on the San Gabriel River on Jan. 8-9, 1847. On January 13, Fremont received the final surrender of the rebels and signed the Treaty of Cahuenga. At the end of the month another American expedition, "half naked and half fed," reached San Diego. The remnant of 500 Mormon volunteers under Phillip St. George Cooke, it had marched from Utah to Sante Fe and across scorching deserts in southern New Mexico and Arizona.
After a bitter dispute among Stockton, Fremont, and Kearny, the last established a provisional government in California. With California secure, the U.S. Navy attempted the conquest of Mexican ports on the Pacific, capturing Mazatlan (Nov. 11, 1847), Guaymas (Nov. 17, 1847), and San Blas (Jan. 12, 1848).
IMPACT OF THE WAR IN THE UNITED STATES
Despite the objections of the abolitionists, the war received enthusiastic support in all sections of the United States and was fought almost entirely by volunteers. The army swelled from just over 6,000 to over 115,000. Of this total approximately 1.5 percent were killed in the fighting, and nearly 10 percent died of disease; another 12 percent were wounded or discharged because of disease or both. For years afterward, Mexican War veterans continued to suffer from the debilitating diseases contracted during the campaigns. The casualty rate was thus easily over 25 percent for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35-40 percent if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added. In this respect the war was the most disastrous in American military history.
During the war political quarrels arose regarding the disposition of conquered Mexico. A strong "All-Mexico" movement urged annexation of the entire territory. Abolitionists opposed that position and fought for the exclusion of slavery from any territory absorbed by the United States. In 1847 the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso, stipulating that none of the territory acquired should be open to slavery. The Senate avoided the issue, and a late attempt to add it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was defeated.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the unsatisfactory result of Nicholas Trist's unauthorized negotiations. It was reluctantly approved by the U.S. Senate on Mar. 10, 1848, and ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25. Mexico's cession of California and New Mexico and its recognition of U.S. sovereignty over all Texas north of the Rio Grande formalized the addition of 3.1 million sq km (1.2 million sq mi) of territory to the United States. In return the United States agreed to pay $15 million and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico. A final territorial adjustment between Mexico and the United States was made by the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.
Bibliography:
Bauer, K. Jack, The Mexican War (1974); Bill, Alfred H., Rehearsal for Conflict: The War with Mexico, 1846-1848 (1945; repr. 1970); Connor, Seymour V., and Faulk, Odie B., North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (1971); Dufour, Charles L., The Mexican War: A Compact History (1968); Eisenhower, John S. D., So Far from God: The U. S. War with Mexico, 1846-48 (1989; repr. 1990); Johannsen, R. W., To the Halls of the Montezumas: The Mexican War in the American Imagination (1985; repr. 1988); Nichols, Edward J., Zach Taylor's Little Army (1963); Ruiz, Ramon E., ed., Mexican War (1963); Schroeder, J. H., Mr. Polk's War (1974); Singletary, Otis A., Mexican War (1960); Smith, Justin H., War with Mexico, 2 vols. (1919; repr. 1963); Weems, J. E., To Conquer a Peace (1988)
Told you, this is all the information from the mexican war, hope ya liked it!!! :P
Elisa- If we didn't fight, there would have been no chance for us to get it, but since we did, we had a chance. Plus, Our country had a really strong army, so we had a greater chance of winning California.
Mazzy- Why can't people live without violence? Why can't we put down our guns, Shake hands with our enamies, and be friends? In the war for California, Solders from both sides died. But many innocent people died too. You say we needed the space. But what the rest of the territory we(the U.S) bought/got/dividened with England?
One thing i know is that Americans rely on violence. They DO NOT put down there guns and shake hands with there enemies. They would rather pull the trigger of the AK-47 then shake hands. Sorry, but thats just how it is these days, back then they didnt do that either. They were serious about there land, and what they wanted to be there land back then. But yet, I still have to agree with Mazzy™ .
Yes because so we can get more land and power.Its also a good idea for our population to increase.Also doing this will help us get more money.
ReplyDelete(please dont comment I still dont feel like typing)
No I do not. I think that we should have tried to settle things peacefully. many lives could have been saved if had done that.
ReplyDeleteI say no. If we did not fight with mexico, we would have been better friends with them. Which they could help us in other battles.
ReplyDeleteyes because I grew up there!!!
ReplyDeleteNo I dont think it was nesacery we have enough land.They wanted California out of pure greed.
ReplyDeleteno i think we should have bought it off of them.
ReplyDeleteyea
ReplyDeleteYes, even though we have killed a lot of people, but it was worth it. Besides for every death there's a new person.
ReplyDeleteWithout it we would not have the california territory.
No, why should we have gone to war with Mexico just to get one state after Thomas Jefferson bought the Lousiana Purchase. Then we got other states before that too, like Texas Oregon, Florida.
ReplyDeleteYES BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT HAVE CALIFORNIA AS PART OF THE US.ITS A BIG PART WHEN WE ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT,BECAUSE THAT STATE IS 1 OF THE BIGEST STATE IN AMERICA
ReplyDeleteWe shuold go to war with mexico.I think because the war in the california territory the war mexico resulted in california and the southwest territory.Most of the states like [ Arizona Utah nevada colorado and new mexico.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that we should have gone to war with Mexico to gain the California territory. I think that we should have gone into war because if we didn't the United States of America wouldn't have gained California. California is a great place and it would be a bum if it weren't part of the U.S.A
ReplyDeleteyes. we should have because California is a great place.
ReplyDeletefrom maurice roots
yes i think that we should of gone to war with Mexico to gain the California territory
ReplyDeleteNya, i partially agree with you, yes i think we did it of pure greed, but think of it now, without the war we wouldn't have the california territory
ReplyDelete(Which i think includes a whole lot of land). Im pretty sure there are some good things in california that we enjoy, if not dislike.
One thing, just honor the 13,000 american veterans that helped us gain the california territory, but died in the process.
I say yes because then we can have more power and gain more land.
ReplyDelete:) yay!!
I think that Noah has a point, but if we didn't fight over the california territory then we wouldn't have enough power and land than now.
ReplyDeleteyeah cause we should have gone to war with mexico to have the california territory
ReplyDeleteI disagree with elisa because if we
ReplyDeleteall play coy they would not agree to let us have the territory of california
:)
I am on both sides,I think it would be a smart idea not to because we would have a better friendship with them,but then again if we did then we could have mpre power for our nation as well. If you think about it,if we would loose,then we would have no friendship with them at all,but if we won,well lets just say,we would be happy campers.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Tayler and Julia beacause President Polk had already tried to purchase The California Territory and failed. I believe that war was necessary to gain the territory.
ReplyDeleteYes because the war resulted in getting more land for the U.S.A
ReplyDeleteNo Because it is their terrritory and it is not our right to even fight with them for it.
ReplyDeleteyes because if we hadn't we would not have all of the U.S. and there would be no L.A. yep thats why.
ReplyDeleteYes, because we would not have California if we would not have gone to war. Also we got the freedom to get more land.
ReplyDeletei think blake is right
ReplyDeleteyes because that if we did our republic would have been better!!!!
ReplyDeletei agree with eden we got more land to run
ReplyDeletei think yes because we have a better chance to win and get our respect.
ReplyDeleteNo i think we should have settled it a better way then what we done. Why do people have to die over land. I disagree with eden because even tho we got more land we could have settled this a better way
ReplyDeleteyes because we should gain the territory
ReplyDeleteyes because they won
ReplyDeleteYes, it was worth it.
ReplyDeleteWe got more land, and we wouldn't have the california territory if we didnt go into war.
I agree with Eden because we did get more land for the U.S.A.
ReplyDeleteyes because they were going to try to own the california territory .
ReplyDeletewe did not wanted to let that happen so we wanted to stop them.
so we went to war with mexico and got gain the territory.
yes because it was important to hear and see
ReplyDeleteThis is to kevin.
ReplyDeletewE WOULDNT HAVE MUCH OF ANY LAND ANYWAY.
PLUS THEY WOULDNT HELP US FOR THAT LONG CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE KIDNAPPING AMERICANS AS WE TYPE CAUSE THERE ECONOMY IS SO BAD.
yes: because we got what we when`t and gain more land. A the more land the more power we have. but i don`t know why we could not see a better way to get more land.
ReplyDeleteNo,because we shouldn't fight for one state when Thomas Jefferson just bought the Lousiana purchase.
ReplyDelete(i change mine from yesterday)
I ThInK We ShOuLd Go In WaR WiTh ThEm BeCaUsE We CaN GeT MoRe LaNd..AlSo Its A GoOd PlAce
ReplyDeleteNo I don't think we should all those people that would die it would be
ReplyDeletereally sad their family's would be horubly sad.
I think yes 'because we can get more land and power in each state.
ReplyDeleteI think we should have because if we hadn't, we would have had to share the US, and Although TJ bought Louisiana, We were able to have the whole area as our own, It gave us more room to grow :D
ReplyDeleteI love california cause thats where i grew up and I'm moving to but, Would you appreciate it if they came and tried to steal or fight for virginia or any other state? And we have enough land and if you don't like it go back to europe or wherever!:)
ReplyDeleteto: Andre
ReplyDeleteBut, you will never know unless you try.
I agree with Andrew and Nya because without California the United States of America would be worthless.Besides California is my home state meaning I grew up there.California has San Diego,L.A. and every thing else popular.California is a great place plus anyone in the USA would want TO GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! so I am extremaly glad we went to war with Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIm not quite sure,because if we did(which we did)we would have more power but,if we didn't we could have saved a lot of lives. (please no comments I dont really like typing much)
ReplyDeleteNo,We probaly would have just gained it in the future.
ReplyDeletei also agree with elisa i men it's the turth right.
ReplyDeleteAlissa Sweet (:
I am thinking that maybe we should of,we could have got new land and more power,come on people if we losted nothing would happen except us not having them as friends. We are a good nation anyways.
ReplyDelete:)
I agree with both dicisions No, and Yes. It is a good point that we should not be Greedy and have people die to get more power and land. Then agian it is a good thing that we did go into war because we did win and now we do have more power land and population. Because of this i agree with Elisa,Blake,Kevin,Andrew,Olivia,Marshall,Jeremiah
ReplyDeleteand Lauren. But i disagree with Dawn and Tayler.
I agree with Olivia, I'm glad we did go to war with them, and like she said, Nothing could have happened except them not befriending them.
ReplyDeleteYes I do, to the USA this would mean more land and power!!!!
ReplyDeletei disagree with jeremiah because they will know not to mess with us and i agree with shairik because we need our respect
ReplyDeleteyes because we needed more space or land and power
ReplyDeletei AGREE with nya because we would of wanted more territory to have alot we can have alot.
ReplyDeletewe needed more land, alot of settlers were coming to amarica
ReplyDeleteThis is to Ashanti:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, however, like i said 13000 americans died.
I do not agree with Mazzy. If we had not gone to war then think of all the lives that could have been saved.
ReplyDeleteYes,we needed more land and power.WE should also go in war because of money.
ReplyDeleteI say yes. I mean we never know if we didn't try.
ReplyDeleteIf we didn't we wouldn't have it now, and then we wouldnt havethe USA that we have now.
:D I am smartical !!
yes, because if we gain California, then the West could have been expanded more and allowed the United States to become more prosperous. Also, if we did not go to war with Mexico we never would have secured the Alamo.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think we needed Califonia to expand
ReplyDeleteeven though we had to fight a war. I feel bad
that our relationship with Mexico was tense
after the war.
J.Rumley
Yes! We need more land for California then the west will have more land and we don't need the west to have more land
ReplyDeleteI agree with olivia in her statement:)
ReplyDeleteand i agree with Matt
I don't agree with you, Elisa.
ReplyDeleteIf we hadn't gone to war, then the USA, which is already overpopulated, would have an even smaller space. I'd be like buying a hobo, who already had a nice Refridgerator box, an iPod box.
True, if we had not gone to war we might not have gotten california but we still had the rest of the U.S. What is the point of fighting for somthing you don't need?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good comment:
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.
BACKGROUND
As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence.
Mexican Politics
At the time of the war, Mexico had a highly unstable government. The federal constitution of 1824 had been abrogated in 1835 and replaced by a centralized dictatorship. Two diametrically opposed factions had arisen: the Federalists, who supported a constitutional democracy; and the Centralists, who supported an autocratic government under a monarch or dictator. Various clashing parties of Centralists were in control of the government from 1835 to December 1844. During that time numerous rebellions and insurgencies occurred within Mexican territory, including the temporary disaffection of California and the Texas Revolution, which resulted in the independence (1836) of Texas.
In December 1844 a coalition of moderates and Federalists forced the dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna into exile and installed Jose Joaquin Herrera as acting president of Mexico. The victory was a short-lived, uneasy one. Although Santa Anna himself was in Cuba, other Centralists began planning the overthrow of Herrera, and the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845 provided them with a jingoistic cause.
U.S. Policy
The U.S. annexation of Texas, by a joint congressional resolution (Feb. 27-28, 1845), had caused considerable political debate in the United States. The desire of the Texas Republic to join the United States had been blocked for several years by antislavery forces, who feared that several new slave states would be created from the Texas territory. The principal factor that led the administration of John Tyler to take action was British interest in independent Texas. Indeed, anti-British feeling lay behind most of the expansionist policy statements of the United States in this period. James Polk won the 1844 presidential election by advocating a belligerent stand against Britain on the Oregon Question. Once in office he declared that "the people of this continent alone have the right to decide their own destiny." About the same time the term Manifest Destiny came into vogue to describe what was regarded as a God-given right to expand U.S. territory. The term was applied particularly to the Oregon dispute, but it had relevance also to California, where American settlers warned of British intrigues to take control, and to Texas.
The Mexican Response and the Slidell Mission
As early as August 1843, Santa Anna's government had informed the United States that it would "consider equivalent to a declaration of war . . . the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas." The government of Herrera did not take this militant position. It had already initiated steps, encouraged by the British, to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, and although Santa Anna's lame-duck minister in Washington broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. government immediately after annexation, in August 1845 the Herrera government indicated willingness to resume relations. Not only was the Herrera government prepared to accept the loss of Texas, but it also hoped to lay to rest the claims question that had plagued U.S.-Mexican affairs since 1825. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on interminably.
Fearing that American patience was running short, Herrera seemed determined to settle the issue. He requested that the United States send a minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, and President Polk appointed John Slidell.
Slidell's authority, however, may have exceeded Herrera's intentions. Slidell was authorized to purchase California and New Mexico from Mexico and to settle the Texas boundary, which was a source of dispute even with the Mexican moderates. While the Republic of Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as its boundary, the adjacent Mexican state of Tamaulipas claimed the area north of the Rio Grande to the Nueces River.
By the time Slidell arrived in Mexico in December 1845, the Herrera government was under intense fire from the Centralists for its moderate foreign policies. The Centralist strategy was to appeal to Mexican national pride as a means of ousting Herrera. During August 1845 their leader, Mariano Parades y Arrillaga, began to demand an attack on the United States. When Slidell arrived, Herrera, in an effort to save his government, refused to meet with him. A few days later (December 14), Parades issued a revolutionary manifesto; he entered Mexico City at the head of an army on Jan. 2, 1846. Herrera fled, and Parades, who assumed the presidency on January 4, ordered Slidell out of Mexico.
After the failure of the Slidell mission, Polk ordered Zachary Taylor to move his army to the mouth of the Rio Grande and to prepare to defend Texas from invasion. Taylor did so, arriving at the Rio Grande on Mar. 28, 1846. Abolitionists in the United States, who had opposed the annexation of Texas as a slave state, claimed that the move to the Rio Grande was a hostile and aggressive act by Polk to provoke a war with Mexico to add new slave territory to the United States.
Whatever Polk's precise intentions were, for the Centralists in Mexico the annexation of Texas had been sufficient cause for war; they saw no disputed boundary--Mexico owned all of Texas. Before Taylor had moved to the Rio Grande, Parades had begun mobilizing troops and had reiterated his intention of attacking. On April 4 the new dictator of Mexico ordered the attack on Taylor. When his commander at Matamoros delayed, Parades replaced him, issued a declaration of war (April 23), and reordered the attack.
NORTHERN MEXICAN CAMPAIGN
On Apr. 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a detachment of American dragoons commanded by Capt. Seth B. Thornton. Taylor's report of this ambush reached President Polk on the evening of May 9, a Saturday. On Monday, May 11, Polk presented his war message to Congress, and on Wednesday, May 13, over the vigorous opposition of the abolitionists, the U.S. Congress voted to declare war on Mexico. In the meantime two more Mexican attacks had been made across the Rio Grande at Palo Alto (May 8) and Resaca de la Palma (May 9), and both had been repulsed.
Mexican Expectations
Mexican leaders clearly expected to win these battles as well as to recover Texas and win the war. Parades spoke grandly of occupying New Orleans and Mobile. His army of about 32,000 men was four to six times the size of the original U.S. army. Furthermore, Mexican troops were well armed, disciplined, and, above all, experienced in scores of revolutions. Parades also counted on logistics. The principal theater of war would be Texas, hundreds of miles from the populous areas of the United States. Many Centralists believed that abolitionists' objections to the war would demoralize the United States, and some Centralists believed a Mexican invasion would be supported by a massive slave uprising.
Thus, the quick defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma surprised and shocked the Mexican leadership. The U.S. victories against a larger, better trained force were attributed to the unexpected effectiveness of the American light artillery. Parades found it expedient, however, to lay the blame on his commanding general, and he quickly replaced him. The Mexican garrison evacuated Matamoros, moving to the south.
Taylor's Delay
Taylor occupied Matamoros on May 18 but then delayed for several months before moving south. He was apparently waiting for transportation promised him by the U.S. government, though his critics branded him inept. In July he moved his base up the Rio Grande to Camargo, but it was only in August that Taylor began planning the attack on Monterrey.
By that time American strength on the Rio Grande had swollen to nearly 20,000 troops, nearly all volunteers. The principal military problem was logistical support of such a quickly expanded force. The Americans were susceptible to subtropical diseases and found it difficult to maintain sanitary conditions in the camps. Fevers, dysentery, and general debility were rampant, and the mortality rate from sickness was alarming. A determined Mexican attack in July or August would have proven disastrous to the Americans.
Mexican Rebellion
The Mexicans did not attack because the Centralist government was collapsing. Rather than uniting Mexico, the war had given the Federalist faction an opportunity to rebel. Even while Taylor had been camped on the Nueces in the fall of 1845, a few Federalist leaders had been in contact with him, promising supplies and asking for assistance in overthrowing Parades. Northern Mexico was almost a Federalist stronghold, and as Taylor moved to the Rio Grande, he received increasing support from the rebels.
The defeats of the Centralist forces at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma precipitated open Federalist rebellions throughout Mexico. Major outbreaks at Acapulco and Guadalajara in July were followed by the defection of the military garrison of Veracruz on August 3 and that of Mexico City on August 4. Mexico was in turmoil.
On July 28, Parades turned the government over to his vice-president and went into hiding. The Centralists' government fell completely with the resignation of the vice-president on August 6. On August 22 the Federalists solemnly restored the constitution of 1824, and Valentin Gomez Farias, who had been deposed as vice-president by the Centralists in 1834, assumed temporary control of the government as the nation's only legitimate official.
In the meantime, Santa Anna had returned to Mexico. Having promised President Polk that he would work to effect a truce, he was allowed to pass through the U.S. naval blockade and land at Veracruz on August 16. Talk of a truce was forgotten. Perhaps the only leader capable of uniting the nation, he soon received command of the Mexican army; in December he was elected president by the Mexican Congress but did not formally assume office until the following March.
Monterrey and Buena Vista
In the meantime, Taylor began his advance on Monterrey. He reached that fortified town, which had a garrison of more than 10,000 troops, on September 19 and began his attack on the morning of September 21. With about 2,000 men, Gen. William J. Worth captured the road between Monterrey and Saltillo and by noon was storming Federation Hill. Six companies of Texas Rangers charged up the hill, seized the enemy artillery, and turned the cannon on retreating Mexican forces. On the opposite side of the city a diversionary attack penetrated the town, despite much confusion. On September 22 the Americans rested, but they resumed the attack the next day. After bloody street-to-street fighting, the Mexican general Pedro de Ampudia requested and was granted a truce. On September 25 he was permitted to withdraw his forces from the city, and an 8-week armistice was agreed upon. Total Mexican casualties were estimated at 367. The Americans had 368 wounded and 120 killed.
Taylor was criticized both by the military and by President Polk for agreeing to an armistice. Taylor therefore informed Santa Anna, who had assumed command of the Mexican forces at San Luis Potosi, that the armistice would be terminated early. On November 16 he occupied Saltillo. His position was strengthened by an independent force under Gen. John E. Wood, which took Parras, to the west of Monterrey, on December 5.
In January 1847, Santa Anna moved north with about 20,000 men to dislodge Taylor. Dispatches captured by the Mexicans had revealed that most of Taylor's forces were being withdrawn to take part in Gen. Winfield Scott's proposed landing at Veracruz. Word of Santa Anna's approach reached Taylor on February 21, and although outnumbered almost three-to-one, he took up a position at the hacienda of Buena Vista, a few miles from Saltillo. The Mexican attack began on February 22, when troops led by Ampudia gained an advantage and forced the Americans to abandon important defensive positions. The next morning the main Mexican force nearly overcame the U.S. defense. However, a dramatic charge led by Col. Jefferson Davis about noon and a determined artillery advance under Capt. Braxton Bragg finally saved the day for the Americans. Their casualties numbered about 700, but the Mexican losses were about 1,800. Santa Anna withdrew that night and moved south to intercept Scott's invasionary force. No further fighting occurred in northern Mexico, but Taylor remained in command of a small force there until he returned to the United States in November 1847.
CENTRAL MEXICAN CAMPAIGN
The decisive campaign of the war was Scott's advance from Veracruz to Mexico City. Scott's expedition began at a staging area at the mouth of the Rio Grande in February 1847. He assembled an army of approximately 12,000, which was transported by sea to a beach about 5 km (3 mi) south of Veracruz. Landing on March 10-11, it had surrounded the city by March 15. A combined naval and land attack began on March 22. Heavy shelling from navy guns forced the almost impregnable town to surrender on March 28.
Cerro Gordo and Puebla
Almost immediately Scott began the advance toward Mexico City. Only sporadic resistance was encountered until his army reached the village of Cerro Gordo about 80 km (50 mi) inland. There, in a narrow defile, Santa Anna prepared to turn back the Americans. The attack on Cerro Gordo was led by units under William J. Worth on April 18. The U.S. engineers, who included Robert E. Lee, George B. McClellan, Joseph E. Johnston, and P. G. T. Beauregard, found a trail that enabled the Americans to envelop and rout Santa Anna's forces. The Mexicans lost 1,000 men in casualties and another 3,000 as prisoners. The Americans had 64 killed and 353 wounded.
Pursuit was impossible, but Worth moved up the road to occupy the venerable Perote Castle on April 22. Scott and the main army had entered Jalapa on April 19. There the advance stopped for a month. Scott reported over 1,000 men bedridden in Veracruz and another 1,000 sick at Jalapa.
On May 14-15, Worth and John A. Quitman moved into Puebla, about 80 km (50 mi) closer to Mexico City. They expected heavy resistance because of Santa Anna's reported presence there. However, the town's leaders and the priests had decided to open Puebla to the Americans. Santa Anna had only about 2,000 cavalry, which the Americans easily routed. Another 1,000 Americans fell sick at Puebla, apparently from the local water supply. By July 15, with recent augmentations, Scott's forces numbered about 14,000. However, over 3,000 were sick or convalescent, and the sickness rate showed no sign of decreasing.
Contreras, Churubusco, and Chapultepec
During June and July, Santa Anna frantically prepared to defend Mexico City. On August 7, Scott began his advance from Puebla, following a route over lava beds and rough land to the south of Lake Chalco that Santa Anna had left relatively unprotected. The first heavy fighting occurred on August 19-20 at Contreras, outside Mexico City, where Mexican losses were estimated at 700 and American casualties at 60. Santa Anna fell back about 8 km (5 mi) to Churubusco, where he took up a defensive position in a fortified convent. Advancing under extremely heavy fire on August 20, Scott's men finally forced the convent's surrender, although Santa Anna and much of his command escaped. Mexican losses were estimated at more than 4,000 killed and wounded and more than 2,500 prisoners; by contrast, American losses were slightly more than 1,000.
Scott might have moved promptly into the capital. Instead he granted (August 24) the armistice of Tacubaya to permit the negotiation of a peace treaty. Santa Anna used the time to muster his forces and prepare a final defense of the city. Fighting was renewed on September 7-8 at Molino del Rey, where the Americans forced the Mexican position but lost nearly 800 soldiers. The Mexican losses totaled about 2,700. The final battle for Mexico City took place at the fortified hill of Chapultepec. American artillery bombardment on September 12 was followed the next day by an infantry assault. The citadel was heroically defended by cadets from the Mexican Military College, but they were forced to surrender before noon. American troops entered Mexico City that afternoon, and shortly after midnight Santa Anna evacuated his troops.
The war was over. In just over five months, Winfield Scott had done what many had considered impossible. The duke of Wellington wrote, "His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals." On September 16, Santa Anna resigned the Mexican presidency. Forced to resign his command also (October 7), he fled the country. The new acting president, Pedro Maria Anaya, began negotiations with the American peace commissioner Nicholas Trist (1800-74) in November. Trist had just been recalled to Washington, but he decided to negotiate without credentials.
CAMPAIGNS IN THE AMERICAN WEST
While the crucial fighting was taking place in Mexico, various U.S. expeditions effected the conquest of Mexico's territories in the American Southwest.
Kearny in New Mexico
Immediately after the declaration of war, Brigadier General Stephen Watts Kearny, stationed at Fort Leavenworth, was ordered to occupy New Mexico and California. With an army consisting largely of Missouri volunteers and numbering fewer than 2,000 (though gloriously labeled the Army of the West), he moved down the Santa Fe Trail into New Mexico in July 1846. The Mexican governor was unable to rally any resistance, and Kearny entered Santa Fe unopposed on Aug. 18, 1846. The conquest of New Mexico had, in fact, taken place through peaceful trade and commerce in the preceding years.
Kearny established a civil government with Charles Bent, a Santa Fe trader from Missouri, as governor. He then divided his command into three groups: one, under Sterling Price, was to occupy New Mexico; a second, under Alexander William Doniphan, was ordered to capture Chihuahua; the third, under his own command, headed for California. Price faced unrest and then rebellion in New Mexico in January 1847. Bent was murdered at his home in Taos. Price fought three engagements with rebels, many of whom were Pueblo Indians, and by mid-February had the revolt under control.
Doniphan and the Missouri Volunteers struggled down the Rio Grande, suffering many privations along the route, to reach the vicinity of present El Paso, Tex., late in December 1846. On Christmas Day at El Brazito they were attacked by a small detachment of Mexicans who were easily routed. The Missourians rested at Paso del Norte (present Ciudad Juarez) until Feb. 8, 1847, when the march to Chihuahua City began. On February 28 the Americans won a decisive victory at the crossing of the Sacramento River just outside Chihuahua. Their casualties consisted of one killed and five wounded; Mexican losses were about 300 dead and another 300 wounded. In May, Doniphan took his command eastward to Saltillo to join Taylor's forces.
Kearny set out for California on September 25 with only 300 dragoons. At Socorro, N. Mex., they met the famous guide Kit Carson, who was returning from California. Learning that the conquest of California was virtually complete, Kearny sent 200 of his men back to Santa Fe and, led by Carson, continued to California.
Conquest of California
The American settlers in California had revolted against Mexican rule and established (June 1846) the Bear Flag Republic, under John C. Fremont, before news of the war reached them. On July 2, U.S. Commodore John Drake Sloat landed at Monterey. He proclaimed U.S. jurisdiction on July 7 and two days later occupied San Francisco. However, California was by no means under U.S. control. Mexican authority in California was divided between two rivals, Pio Pico in Los Angeles and Jose Castro in Monterey. Following the American landing, Castro headed south, apparently to attempt reconciliation with Pico and resistance to the United States. However, Commodore Robert Stockton, who replaced Sloat on July 23, sailed down the coast and landed troops under Fremont at San Diego and others near Los Angeles. Pico and Castro fled on August 10.
Heavy-handed martial law administration precipitated a revolt in southern California in September. Led by Jose Maria Flores, the rebels had expelled the Americans from Los Angeles and San Diego by the end of October. On Dec. 6, 1846, Kearny, en route to San Diego, met the rebels in an indecisive action at the Battle of San Pascual. Joining Stockton, who had arrived at San Diego, Kearny defeated a rebel band near Los Angeles on the San Gabriel River on Jan. 8-9, 1847. On January 13, Fremont received the final surrender of the rebels and signed the Treaty of Cahuenga. At the end of the month another American expedition, "half naked and half fed," reached San Diego. The remnant of 500 Mormon volunteers under Phillip St. George Cooke, it had marched from Utah to Sante Fe and across scorching deserts in southern New Mexico and Arizona.
After a bitter dispute among Stockton, Fremont, and Kearny, the last established a provisional government in California. With California secure, the U.S. Navy attempted the conquest of Mexican ports on the Pacific, capturing Mazatlan (Nov. 11, 1847), Guaymas (Nov. 17, 1847), and San Blas (Jan. 12, 1848).
IMPACT OF THE WAR IN THE UNITED STATES
Despite the objections of the abolitionists, the war received enthusiastic support in all sections of the United States and was fought almost entirely by volunteers. The army swelled from just over 6,000 to over 115,000. Of this total approximately 1.5 percent were killed in the fighting, and nearly 10 percent died of disease; another 12 percent were wounded or discharged because of disease or both. For years afterward, Mexican War veterans continued to suffer from the debilitating diseases contracted during the campaigns. The casualty rate was thus easily over 25 percent for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35-40 percent if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added. In this respect the war was the most disastrous in American military history.
During the war political quarrels arose regarding the disposition of conquered Mexico. A strong "All-Mexico" movement urged annexation of the entire territory. Abolitionists opposed that position and fought for the exclusion of slavery from any territory absorbed by the United States. In 1847 the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso, stipulating that none of the territory acquired should be open to slavery. The Senate avoided the issue, and a late attempt to add it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was defeated.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the unsatisfactory result of Nicholas Trist's unauthorized negotiations. It was reluctantly approved by the U.S. Senate on Mar. 10, 1848, and ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25. Mexico's cession of California and New Mexico and its recognition of U.S. sovereignty over all Texas north of the Rio Grande formalized the addition of 3.1 million sq km (1.2 million sq mi) of territory to the United States. In return the United States agreed to pay $15 million and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico. A final territorial adjustment between Mexico and the United States was made by the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.
Bibliography:
Bauer, K. Jack, The Mexican War (1974); Bill, Alfred H., Rehearsal for Conflict: The War with Mexico, 1846-1848 (1945; repr. 1970); Connor, Seymour V., and Faulk, Odie B., North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (1971); Dufour, Charles L., The Mexican War: A Compact History (1968); Eisenhower, John S. D., So Far from God: The U. S. War with Mexico, 1846-48 (1989; repr. 1990); Johannsen, R. W., To the Halls of the Montezumas: The Mexican War in the American Imagination (1985; repr. 1988); Nichols, Edward J., Zach Taylor's Little Army (1963); Ruiz, Ramon E., ed., Mexican War (1963); Schroeder, J. H., Mr. Polk's War (1974); Singletary, Otis A., Mexican War (1960); Smith, Justin H., War with Mexico, 2 vols. (1919; repr. 1963); Weems, J. E., To Conquer a Peace (1988)
Told you, this is all the information from the mexican war, hope ya liked it!!! :P
Elisa-
ReplyDeleteIf we didn't fight, there would have been no chance for us to get it, but since we did, we had a chance.
Plus, Our country had a really strong army, so we had a greater chance of winning California.
Mazzy-
ReplyDeleteWhy can't people live without violence? Why can't we put down our guns, Shake hands with our enamies, and be friends? In the war for California, Solders from both sides died. But many innocent people died too. You say we needed the space. But what the rest of the territory we(the U.S) bought/got/dividened with England?
I think we should have fought for it cause lots of things happen in C.A.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all it was not us at first,but there own citizens went to war,and I would have to agree with andrew but that is just my opion.
ReplyDeleteOne thing i know is that Americans rely on violence. They DO NOT put down there guns and shake hands with there enemies. They would rather pull the trigger of the AK-47 then shake hands. Sorry, but thats just how it is these days, back then they didnt do that either. They were serious about there land, and what they wanted to be there land back then.
ReplyDeleteBut yet, I still have to agree with Mazzy™ .
no because we did not need it we could of settled where we were cauase ewe were fine the way we were we never in danger.
ReplyDeleteyes because we won and we get more territory
ReplyDeletei agree with olivia cause she is so right:)
ReplyDeleteyes, because now that we have won we have Oregon and it had a big impact on the United States.
ReplyDeleteyes because our land can increase and we can have more power
ReplyDeleteyes because we have a large population and we need a large masses to match the population.
ReplyDeleteyes because we would have more land and power
ReplyDelete