The lack of inequality According to chronological events for some people The Mexican government has been always considered as a complete mess. We can usually see it after winning independence from Spain in 1821 Mexicans not even had a clue about how to run the country, while the United States was doing very well. But, how could Mexicans knew the right tools to do it? If according to Timothy J. Henderson Mexicans were always influenced by the Spaniards that were more focused in the principles of mercantilism and they didn’t permit Mexico to progress as an independent nation. While, Anglo Americas were influenced by the British who were more liberals and came to believe that economies functioned according to natural laws because they were according to the ideas of the Enlightenment.
In July 1845, John L. O’Sullivan wrote an article in the Annexation that stated that it was Gods will for the United States to expand from coast to coast (Doc. A). less than a year later, President James Polk wrote a war message to the Senate and House of Representatives saying that we should go to war because Mexico attacked the U.S. on Americas land (Doc. B). Although President Polk’s message was ratified by the Senate and House, the United States reason for war wasn’t good enough for them go to war with Mexico.
Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer steps in to a view of the United stated that not many people would care to bring to light. He implies that since the 19th century as the American frontier diminished the consistent involvement of the United States in the disposition of foreign regimes has spanned the test of time, and showed the great lengths that we are willing to go to push our interests and policies. As history shows, the American business is what drives our policies, and furthering the grown of business is the concrete interest. Delving further in to” Overthrow”, Kinzer further demonstrates numerous examples that further show the American “Interest” in taking over foreign regimes, as well imposing democratic influences or the spread of national security. While these ideals have coincided with numerous overthrows, however they never really had the needed effect until business interests came in to play.
This action was a clear flip-flop from his previous policy of requiring any action to have constitutional authorization. Although strict constructionism was important to Jefferson, he did abandon that principle in the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, believing the ends would justify the means. To him, the Republican dream of a long-term agrarian society was more important and feasible and he continued to do, what he thought, was in the best interest of the nation. All that Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans wanted, in the end was an agrarian society and economy throughout the nation, by whatever means necessary. As Barry J. Balleck rights, “After all, what was the ultimate end of government?
These are all reasons that the U.S had no business starting a war with Mexico for territory that was legally theirs. In 1845 the U.S annexed Texas. When the Mexican government found out about the treaty signed between the U.S and Texas they considered it “a declaration of war”, Jesus Velasco-Marquez wrote in the Voices of Mexico. Most Mexicans thought that the act of annexing Texas was robbery. There was no legal document that stated that Texas stopped being part of Mexico.
The Duke, having interest in military conquest, followed the exploits of the American Army engaged in the Mexican War. He became keenly interested in the exploits of General Scott, and according to For the common defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012 (3rd Edition) (2012), when learning that Scott had abandoned both his supply and communication lines in the early part of August of 1847, to push towards Mexico City, stated the opinion, “Scott is lost…. he can’t take the city, and he can’t fall back upon his base.” (p. 139). Scott and his Army was however not lost, and when the campaign ended he had pulled off an amazing victory which according to For the common defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012 (3rd Edition) (2012), gave rise to the Duke of Wellington exclaiming that Scott was “the greatest living soldier”, and “urged young English officers to study the Veracruz-Mexico City campaign”, which he considered “unsurpassed in military annals.” (p. 140). What exactly was it about this campaign that would later have military leaders and historians calling it “one of the finest in the annals of American warfare”.
Hence, Massachusetts and eight other states passed personal liberty laws which stated that state officials could not in any way assist in the capturing of fugitive slaves. Then under the James K. Polk administration, the Mexican-American war began in 1846 where the United States army captured Mexico. Causing more tension than the war itself, the Wilmot Proviso really got under the skin of the southerners. The Wilmot Proviso said that slavery was not allowed in newly acquired Mexico. Since it was a federal bill, the south, of course, blocked this bill which escalated the tensions as high as they had ever been before.
Anglo-American immigrants, primarily from the Southern United States, began emigrating to Mexican Texas in the early 1820s at the request of the Mexican government, which sought to populate the sparsely inhabited lands of its northern frontier. Anglo-Americans soon became a majority in Texas and eventually became disillusioned with Mexican rule. This in turn led to the independence of Texas and eventually the annexation into the union. This event is not IMP because Anglo-American had no obligation towards Mexico. According to John O’Sullivan in his writing on Annexation (1845) “Their right to independence will be the natural right of self-government belong to any community strong enough to maintain…”.
Then the Zimmermann telegram caused America to join the war.The Germans suggested a German-Mexican alliance meaning Mexico will march to the U.S and recover their lost territories such as Arizona,New Mexico and Texas.This telegram was intercepted by the British and,as a result,the Americans.The U.S. was furious and joined the war for world peace and establishment of democracy to end the war.The telegram was probably Germany's worst mistake throughout WW1. The Allies’ leaders like Lloyd George and Wilson were clever people who were courageous and brilliant leaders. The German leaders came up with plans like the Zimmermann Telegram and Schlieffen Plan,which were no match for the first and made horrible mistakes which led Germany to a loss.Also as the attritional warfare continued,the leaders did not come up with anything new which could end the war.Although they made use of great defensive weapons like machine guns and poisonous gases,theycould not build an offensive weapon until the development of tanks. Looking at all these mistakes which Germany made,it is not really that surprising that Germany eventually lost the War.With the nation being constantly wore down on one hand and the Allies maintaining a strong and offensive behavior throughout the war -especially after the U.S.A. joined the war at their side-,this outcome of the war was the most expected
The “Border Insecurity” editorial claims that due to the mountainous landscape of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, “pouring billions into building a real fence-is viewed as simply insane” (1). However, an editorial from the Dallas Morning News entitled, “The Fence Must Go Up,” furthered my adamant belief that the border is, and will be an effective solution with continual help from Washington. If Texans, who are most affected by the fence, believe the reform to be, as the editorial clearly states, “a saner immigration system,” the New York Times is devoid of any valid concrete evidence to call the system “insane” (1). Both of the editorials discuss a primary flaw some may see with the whole idea of a fence. The “Border Insecurity” editorial displays uncertainty about the fence because, “In Texas, the fence is a dotted line, blocking some places but not others” (2).