You be the judge. People can “justify” either side, but it’s the massive land grab that makes me scratch my head. For a war to be “just,” typically one must be acting in self-defense. How was Polk acting in self-defense? He’s the one who sent an army into territory he knew the Mexicans considered Mexico, and no one is quite sure who fired the first shot anyway. Even if it was the Mexicans, as seems most likely, how is a minor border scuffle in southern Texas justification for taking far-away California (or invading and occupying Mexico City, for that matter)? Can you imagine if the Mexicans had a little border scuffle with the Americans near San Diego and in retaliation took all of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana (plus invaded and occupied Washington, D.C.)? Modern-day Americans would probably be slow to give them a pass…and probably be bitter to this day.
But stopping there is to make things too clear-cut. After all, the only reason the Mexican government “had” that territory in the first place was because a violent Spanish Empire had conquered or claimed it previously—and the government in Mexico City “inherited” it. Mexico was many nations and peoples smashed unnaturally into one “nation” by a coercive central authority (one that was constantly quelling internal rebellions!), and the vast majority of territory later taken by the U.S. was not inhabited by actual Mexicans (but rather by American Indians!). So how exactly was the Mexican claim any less imperialist than the U.S. one?
With patience, the combination of migration and territorial purchases could have seen the U.S. acquire much—even all—of this territory without a war. Instead, the U.S. embarked upon its first true war of conquest even as the seeds of civil war were sown.
My two cents.
History is muddy!
As always, this is my two cents—but I’m a champion for honest conversation and civil dialogue, so tell me what you think in the comments below!
