Historians categorize the Mexican War as one of the most controversial debates in history: to whom should the blame fall? Was American imperialism the root cause of the Mexican War? This paper will analyze the topics of Manifest Destiny, premeditative war, and ethnocentric views of two historians, Rodolfo Acuna and Norman A. Graebner, to seek the answers to these questions.
The Monroe Doctrine created one of the prominent disputes surrounding the controversy of the Mexican War. According to Rodolfo Acuna, Manifest Destiny was the motive for Anglo-Americans to seize Mexican territory. Puritan ideals influenced the American people to believe it was their religious responsibility to spread democracy. Acuna also claimed the United States had no intention of allowing Mexico to possess vast amounts of valuable land without confrontation. President James K. Polk went so far as to order his negotiator, Nicholas Trist to break mediation with Mexico during the creation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in an attempt to gain more land. The depression of 1819 also encouraged American expansion into Texas. Migrants who lost their lands were able to start anew on Texas soil. However, Norman Graebner does not mention Manifest Destiny as a cause of the war, choosing to focus on diplomatic relations or lack there of. It was alluded to by America's efforts to purchase Mexican property and increase the size of the nation. Graebner believed the American government wished to ensure the country's destiny by honorable means instead of through force.
American premeditated war against Mexico is the most disputed argument in Texas history. Acuna argued in favor of this statement, saying Thomas Jefferson believed only a war would allow the United States to acquire Texas. American authorities were ready to initiate an aggressive foreign policy when Mexico refused their first offer of one million dollars. When Mexico continuously refused to give up Texas, President Polk began drafting his declaration of war and planned the stages of the campaign before the war started. The American government was too prepared for war to have been suddenly shoved into that position. In contrast, Graebner declared the war existed because Mexico "has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil...War exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it..." (Graebner 237). Throughout the article Graebner highlighted the determination and struggle the United States endured to prevent the outbreak of war between them and Mexico. All American military activity prior to the war was part of the aggressive foreign policy to successfully gain Mexico's cooperation. The United States did not feel threatened by Mexico and it had lived with disputed boundaries without considering war, therefore the U.S. had no reason to participate in battle. But Mexico's attack provoked the president to defend the nation. Graebner also points out that Mexico declared war on America before their attack, which resulted in Congress' declaration of war the day after.
Acuna accused the United States of believing they were racially and culturally advanced. He blamed their arrogance in the diplomatic relations with Mexico on their distrust of an inferior race. The Anglo-Americans who resided in Texas before the revolution "saw themselves in danger of becoming the alien subjects of a people to whom they deliberately believed themselves morally, intellectually, and politically superior" (Acuna 227). Like Manifest Destiny, the reasoning behind this sentiment stems from the Puritan belief of those predestined for salvation. This mindset continued throughout the country's dealings and filtered down from the political leaders to influence the relationships between the Anglo majority and Mexican minority. Acuna also asserted myths were trying to justify American intervention and downplay the racial atrocities committed by Anglos. Whereas Acuna blamed the ethnocentric American society, Graebner criticized Mexico for fearing American power and control. His diplomatic focus resulted in the elimination of social conflicts. Graebner would cast blame on the United States only if they were unpatriotic or not passionate enough to defend their territory and democratic principles. He believed America had every right to pursue accumulating more lands and impugned Mexico for preventing this advancement.
Unfortunately, history does not proved all the facts surrounding specific events. Many are left out or unknown from the start and eventually become lost. History cannot be morally judged to discover the truth; in this case, right and wrong do not apply because history simply happened. Both American and Mexican supporters claim they hold the true knowledge behind the incident. Even by analysis, it is impossible to determine what myths are and what truths are since we did not witness the affair. Perhaps it is a combination of both. The disagreement over the Mexican War will never be resolved as long as both quarreling sides are represented. The controversy of American imperialism will remain until the conflict is forgotten.
