Three reasons not to fight the war with Mexico, and why they were wrong
The idea of taking the territory from Mexico espoused by Daniel Webster, and why it was flawed. 2.
The use of the word aggrandizement and how it is not entirely accurate, and how his argument needed to focus on prior US mistakes, especially with the Native American people. 3.
Daniel Webster, along with other people also objected to Texas joining the Union due to its’ status as a slave state, but this was not due to slavery being evil, so much as it was a socio-economic issue for the North. 4.
How the argument against the war was used in conjunction with the belief of “Manifest Destiny”, and how that argument is used as a racial motivation against acquiring the state of Texas. 5.
Why the issue of slavery was used as propaganda against the war, and why that argument is more centered on economics, not the idea that slavery was inherently evil. 6.
How all these issues relate, and how all of them taken in together gives a totally different perspective of the individuals opposed to The Annexation of Texas. Thesis Statement
The Mexican American war had many arguments espoused both for and against the Annexation of Texas. The reasons against the war are very well articulated and deserve and attention. After a thorough examination of the numerous pros and cons of the war, three of these arguments stand out in particular. These deserve further scrutiny in order to determine their validity. The issue of slavery, aggrandizement of the United States towards Mexico, and the use of manifest destiny as an ideological form of racism will be addressed in full, along with the rationalizations behind them as viewed in arguments against the war.
Three reasons against the war with Mexico, and why they are wrong The Mexican American war had numerous argument espoused both for and against the Annexation of Texas. The reasons against the war are very well articulated and deserve attention. However, after a thorough examination of the numerous reasons for and against the war, three arguments against the war stand alone, and deserve further evaluation. Two of these arguments are ones that the United States had wrestled with for many years, and represent two different cultural social and economic ideals. The other issue is more about the reputation of the United States, and how the war might affect how other nations perceived us as a new nation. The issues that will be focused on in this paper are the issues of slavery, manifest destiny, and the perceived ruthlessness of the United States. A prominent United States senator by the name of Daniel Webster believed that the war with Mexico would cause other nations to view us as aggressive and ruthless. In his address before congress on December 22, 1845, he uses the term “aggrandizement”, and held a belief that fighting Mexico for more territory was more an act of seeking greater power and importance at the expense of our national reputation He also saw the annexation of Texas upsetting the balance of free states and slave states, and saw the admission of Texas as a slave state as bringing unfair advantages to the north . While the issue of slavery will be addressed later in depth, it is also important to the argument of aggrandizement. Before the war with Mexico, the United States dealt poorly with another race of people living in the America’s long before any English settlers arrived. Known to us as the Native Americans, the US forced these natives off of their own land in order to allow the new nation to grow. This was accomplished by the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 . This Act labeled all Indian Tribes as foreign nations, and allowed the United States to take possession of tribal lands only through treaties with the federal government. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act stripped the Indians of their homeland. 1831, the Supreme Court ruled that the Indians were a “domestic dependent nations”,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document