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
vitfil [10]
2 years ago
13

Explain 2 reasons used to justify war with Mexico in the 1800’s.

History
1 answer:
Ira Lisetskai [31]2 years ago
4 0

Answer:

"The United States was justified in going to war because Mexico had shed American blood on American soil, Texas (a land that many Mexicans still considered theirs) was an independent republic and had the right to govern itself, and Texas was trying to become part of the United States, which means that the United States had a right to be involved, too."

Explanation:

"Mexico had encouraged Americans to settle in the province of Texas, which was part of Mexico at the time. After the Texans and Mexicans fought, Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836. Now, in 1846, America sent a troop of men lead by General Zachary Taylor to the Texan border to make sure the Mexicans weren’t attempting to attack Texas (Doc B). This angered the Mexicans since it made it seem like Texas was now allied with America. The dispute that followed led to the death of sixteen Americans. Also, the Mexicans chose to believe that the arrival of General Zachary Taylor was an outright attack, which lead to the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma (Doc C).  This shows that Mexico had taken the first step of fighting the United States. Eventually, the Mexicans were forced to surrender. As to which side fired first, this cannot be determined. In one letter to Congress, James Polk stated, “We have tried every effort at reconciliation. The cup of forbearance had been exhausted even before the recent information from the frontier of the Del Norte. But now, …Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” (Doc B).

Before Texas became part of the United States, it was an independent republic. An independent republic has the right to govern itself and set itself apart from other nations. Texas regarded the Rio del Norte to be the Texan border (Doc B). This means that Texas now has the choice to do whatever they wish. Charles Sumner, a state legislator from Massachusetts, said, “…in seeking extension of slavery, (our own citizens denied) the great truths of American freedom” (Doc D). If Texas is independent, it has the right to own slaves. Also, states in the United States already owned slaves, so the point cannot be argued any further. Sumner also said Americans brought slaves in Mexico in defiance of Mexican law (Doc D). However, Mexico invited Americans into Mexico and Mexico should have realized that Americans would have different ways. Also, Texas was trying to become part of the United States, which meant that the United States had a right to go to war with Mexico.

Since Mexico could not govern all of its territory, they invited Americans in. Now that Americans were settling in unpopulated Mexican territory, the ratio of Americans to Mexicans increased (Doc A). Eventually, the American lifestyle took over, and demanded different rights. In Document C, Velasco-Marquez said the treaty signed between Texas and the U.S. and also the fact that Texas wanted to be annexed to the U.S. was an act of war. Texas had the right to be a part of the U.S., and if Mexico considered this an act of war with Texas, then the U.S. had the right to be involved too (Doc C). Finally, James Polk said, “The invasion was threatened solely because Texas had determined…to annex herself to our Union” (Doc B). If that is true, then America did have the right to declare war.

Once Mexico showed aggression to Texas, the United States had a right to go to war with Mexico because Texas was an independent republic and wanted to be annexed into the United States. Whatever Texas does, Mexico cannot have a stake in it. From these points, it can be concluded that the United States was justified in going to war with Mexico."

Excerpt from textbook.

You might be interested in
What are some details about the Louisiana Purchase ?
julia-pushkina [17]
In exchanging , the United States acquired the vast domain of Louisiana Territory, some 828,000 square miles of land. The treaty was dated April 30<span> and signed on </span>May 2<span>. In October, the U.S. Senate ratified the purchase, and in </span>December 1803<span> France transferred authority over the region to the United States.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
(MC)This statement was one of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in July 1945: "We call upon the government of Japan to procla
MakcuM [25]

Answer:

B - The leaders of Great Britain and the Solviet Union supported dropping the bomb.

Explanation:

The Potsdam Declaration was issued by The US, Great Britain, and China in 1945.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In the 1870s falling crop prices and high interest rates led farmers to focus on the elimination of silver as legal tender as th
MAVERICK [17]

This decision to make gold the sole legal tender was known as the crime of 1873

B. The crime of 1873

<u>Explanation:</u>

The crime of 1873 was the notable omissions of standard silver dollar from coinage law passed on February 12, 1873. It  paved the way for America's adoption of the gold standard which was very controversial especially for those who were no longer able to turn the silver into legal tender.

The decision of making the gold as a solo legal tender was concerned with crime of 1873. Panic of 1873 is concerned with financial crises and other two do not have official relevance in USA history.

8 0
3 years ago
How did Anna Hutchinson affect the colonies
Eddi Din [679]
 <span>In 1636, Anne Hutchinson, the wife of one of Boston's leading citizens, was charged with heresy and banished from Massachusetts Colony. A woman of learning and great religious conviction, Hutchinson challenged the Puritan clergy and asserted her view of the "Covenant of Grace" - that moral conduct and piety should not be the primary qualifications for "visible sanctification." 

Her preachings were unjustly labeled "antinomianism" by the Puritans - a heresy - since the Christian leaders of that day held to a strong "Covenant of Works" teaching which dictated the need for outward signs of God's grace. The question of "works versus grace" is a very old one; it goes on forever in a certain type of mind. Both are true doctrines, however, the "Covenant of Grace" is true in a higher sense. 

Anne Hutchinson's teaching can be summed up in a simple phrase which she taught the women who met in her home: "As I do understand it, laws, commands, rules and edicts are for those who have not the light which makes plain the pathway. He who has God's grace in his heart cannot go astray." 

Actually, what Anne Hutchinson was preaching was not antithetical to what the Puritans believed at all. What began as quibbling over fine points of Christian doctrine ended as a confrontation over the role of authority in the colony. Threatened by meetings she held in her Boston home, the clergy charged Hutchinson with blasphemy. An outspoken female in a male hierarchy, Hutchinson had little hope that many would speak in her defense, and she was being tried by the General Court. 

After being sentenced, she went with her family to what is now Rhode Island. Several years later she moved to New York where she and some of her family were massacred by Indians. One of her descendants, Thomas Hutchinson, later became governor of Massachusetts. 

Anne Hutchinson pioneered the principles of civil liberty and religious freedom which were written into the Constitution of the United States. The spirit of Anne Hutchinson, the first woman preacher and fearless defender of freedom in New England, survived her persecution and death and it survives even until this day. 

--Hope This Helps--

</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court have
lawyer [7]
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "decreased over time and are primarily accepted by writ of certiorari" Petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court have <span>decreased over time and are primarily accepted by writ of certiorari</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following was NOT a military technology used in World War I?
    10·1 answer
  • Suppose that in the Roman Republic one of the council's wanted to start a war that no one else supported how would the council b
    6·1 answer
  • The Meiji government supported and encouraged japan's modernization and industrialization in all except one of the following way
    8·2 answers
  • Board of education v earls relatability to present day ? <br> i need one paragraph.
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following is not a necessary part of the historical thinking process?
    9·1 answer
  • How did Deng Xiaoping’s undo some of Mao’s influence?
    9·1 answer
  • Which statement is true about the relation between a monopoly and it's competition in a market?​
    12·1 answer
  • What is the main idea In this passage?
    12·1 answer
  • HElP pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    15·1 answer
  • Read the following excerpt from a report about some of the possible reasons college costs are increasing. A major concern relate
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!