1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Vesnalui [34]
2 years ago
9

Write an essay that answers the following question: Was the United States justified in going to war against Mexico in 1846? Use

primary source material on pages 3-5 of this document and the information in Chapter 16 to help you answer the question and provide support for your answer. [ Read the passage now]---> Except from James Polk's 1845 Inaugural Address: Eighty years ago population was confined on the west by the ridge of the Alleghenies. Within that period... our people... have filled the eastern valley of the Mississippi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its headsprings, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings of self-government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. U.S. Army Officer, Regarding the April 24, 1847, Skirmish Between Mexican and American Forces. We have not one particle of right to be here. It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses. Excerpts from Polk's Message to congress, May 11, 1846: 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. 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. The Mexican Government not only refused to receive him [ the U.S. envoy] 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. I had ordered an 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. The invasion was threatened solely 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. Texas, by the final action of our Congress, had become an integral part of our Union. The Congress of Texas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte to be the boundary of that Republic. 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. Accordingly, on the 13th of January last instructions were issued to the general in command of these troops to occupy the left bank of the Del Norte. This river, which is the southwestern boundary of the State of Texas, is an exposed frontier. 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, where it encamped on a commanding position, which has since been strengthened by the erection of fieldworks. General Ampudia... notified General Taylor to break up his camp within twenty-four hours and to retire beyond the Nueces River, and in the event of his failure to comply with these demands announced that arms, and arms alone, must decide the question. A party of dragoons of 63 men and officers were... dispatched from the American camp up the Rio del Norte, on its left bank. to ascertain whether the Mexican troops had crossed or were preparing to cross the river, became engaged with a large body of these troops, and after a short affair, in which some 16 were killed and wounded, appear to have been surrounded and compelled to surrender. 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 redness have been disregarded. Mexico has repeatedly threatened to make war upon us for the purpose of reconquering Texas. In the meantime we have tried every effort at reconciliation. Mexico... has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has ​

History
1 answer:
lana [24]2 years ago
3 0

Answer:Answer:

I would say that Yes, the United States was and is justified for going to war against Mexico in 1846. The reason for this is because in 1884, Mexico started the War when they attacked the Army that was led by General Zachary Taylor who was order by the United States to defend the territory on the Rio Grande that was in fact claimed by the United States of America. But, it was owned as a consequence because of the treaty between Texas and Mexico when Texas first became independent.

The United States of America tried to be peaceful and negotiate the disputed territory that had once been part of Texas. The United States of America did this by sending John Slidell to Mexico City that was empowered at that time to offer Mexico substantial amounts of money for the disputed territory.

IF, big IF, the United States of America had seriously provoked the war and would have taken advantage of the fuzziness that was going on with the relevant treaties, then the people in the relevant regions which included Texas and Alta California, would have been better off under the control of America then they would if they were under control of Mexico. And the reason for this is because while this was all going on, Mexico was corrupt and confused at the time because of the Presidency changing hands rapidly and also because of the democratic traditions being abandoned along the way. AND, in some cases but very few, there were settlers that were originally Americans, had asked to be part of the United States of America!!

Now, the only basis that Mexico could claim was any superior lands right to rule that piece of land was that they had to conquer that piece of land first. Now the Spanish aristocracy of Mexico didn’t even have an “original village settler” to claim the lands. The reason for that is Mexico had already acquired them by conquering and displacing the Indian and Mesoamerican inhabitants.

Explanation: just took the test

You might be interested in
What reason does the author suggest for why North Korea and the United States answer the three basic questions differently?
GrogVix [38]

Answer:

The difference in economic system they implemented.

Explanation:

Here are three basic questions of economy:

- What To produce ?

- For whom we produce it ?

- how to produce it ?

Since United States adopted a free market system , the answers to all of these basic questions will be depended on the power of supply and demand that created by consumers and the producers.

North Korea on the other hand, implemented a Centralized economy. So, the answers to all of these basic question will be fully determined/decided by the government. The people have no power to influence them.

5 0
3 years ago
Which scenario could occur without the supremacy clause?
Agata [3.3K]
The correct option is C.
The supremacy clause states that the under the constitution of the United States of America, the federal laws are superior to state laws, therefore in time of conflict between the federal and the state law, the state law has to bow to federal law. Thus, the supremacy clause is used when federal and state laws are in conflict. 
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
When did the United States become a member of the Allied Powers?
iris [78.8K]

Answer:

the correct answer is December 1941

8 0
2 years ago
What was the mission of the Bonus Army in 1932?
Viefleur [7K]

Answer: Option (D). They demanded payment of bonuses promised to veterans.

Explanation: The mission of the Bonus Army in 1932 was to demand for the immediate bonus payment for wartime services to alleviate the economic hardship they were experiencing. They marched with their wives and children to Washington to demand for what was promised to them, this action exposed Hoover for not honoring his promise and made Americans even hate him more. President Hoover, however responded by sending soldiers to curtail the activities of the people , it led to the clash between the veterans and the soldiers which led to the death of some soldiers and some of the veterans.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What are three pros of the use of Agriculture and what are three cons of the use of agriculture (in your own words please )
Luda [366]

Answer:

Farmers have got a new option insofar they will have the freedom to sell their produce outside the APMC (agricultural produce market committee) market and there will be no tax on such trade which will give a higher price to the farmers.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When did Rwanda genocide end?
    10·1 answer
  • How did martin luthers attitude towards good works contradict erasmus's philosophy of christ.
    13·1 answer
  • Would you expect to see a folded mountain range at a mid-ocean ridge?
    11·2 answers
  • How is historical evidence useful to a historian?
    8·2 answers
  • 4 points
    9·2 answers
  • Which landform is most similar to a dune
    6·2 answers
  • What was the legacy of the writings of anne frank?
    15·1 answer
  • What is the major difference between the two types of countries in the region​
    11·1 answer
  • Please help will give 14 points
    12·1 answer
  • A. Obtaining a drivers license
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!