Talk:Mexican-American War
From Academic Kids
An event mentioned in this article is a May 13 selected anniversary
I don't know enough about this war to make claims as to this articles NPOV-ness, but it certainly doesn't sound like it to me, especially the first and last paragraphs. -Montréalais
For the record, I have heard this refered to as the "War of Northern Agression" in Mexico. Google shows the American Civil War to be more commonly called this, but some instances of this in English as well (eg [1] (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~hist8b/resources.html)). -- Infrogmation 05:27 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
---
| Contents |
The war was all Polk's idea, not Mexico's
This is NOT a neutral take on the war, in my opinion. I may not be a historian but I looked into this war years ago. The Rio Nueces border was more than just the beginning of a no-man's land. Old maps of the era, for example, showed a significant number of Anglo settlements as far south as the Nueces, but virtually none between the Nueces and the Rio Bravo (or Grande to Anglos) which was further south still. It was Polk who, admitting he was expansionist, sent troops across the Nueces in a deliberate provocation. He knew the Mexican forces were weak as they were made up chiefly of uneducated peasants. When the Mexicans attempted to defend their country, Polk spun the situation to look as if the U.S. had been attacked. Furthermore, some key points like the fact that Chapultepec was defended by children (cadets) should not be glossed over as Mexicans, to this day, are proud of the way these kids defended their military academy. I'm going to have to do some research and then revise this article with citations, etc.
- I tried to clarify what you are pointing out. Please take a look. Wenteng 03:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
the war was fought over the dispute of the border (nueces river or bravo river.) historically the nueces river was the border between texas and coahuila. US uses this as an excuse to seize land from Mexico, which it does. Not content with the incredible amount of land won, The All of Mexico Movement even wanted to annex all of Mexico.
- There was a legitimate border dispute between the two sides. Back in 1836, when Texas forces captured General Santa Anna, he signed a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as Texas's southern boundary. Later, when he was back in Mexico City, he claimed that the treaty was invalid. Texans (and later, Americans) insisted that it was valid. It's hard to say which side was "right." As for there not being many Anglo settlements below the Nueces, remember that Texas is a giant state and there weren't that many people there yet. It's true that Polk was an expansionist, but you shouldn't gloss over the border issue. There was certainly no consensus in Washington that the Nueces was the border.
- Irrespective of whether the treaty (Treaties of Velasco) was invalid or not, both sides failed to abide by its terms. In any event, it didn't state that the Río Grande was to be the border -- it said Santa Anna was to immediately withdraw his troops south of it. Reading the text, it certainly sounds like the tejanos wanted the RG to be the border, but that issue was to be settled in separate peace negotiations (which, of course, never took place). –Hajor 01:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
rephrase
"however, the Mexican government disputed the southern border of Texas."
This implies that the border was a fact, and that the Mexican government was challenging that fact. Is that objectivelly true? Shouldn't this be something like "however, the two nations disagreed over the southern border of Texas." It takes more than one group to have a dispute, right?
- I wrote this. I think it's fair to both sides:
The U.S. government claimed that the southern border of Texas was the Rio Grande; Mexico maintained it to be the Nueces River.
NPOV?
Far from a NPOV, this article has tremendous anti-American bias.
- It's going to be difficult to write an NPOV and pro-American article when such well-known anti-Americans as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant considered the war a shameful episode in American history. Angusmclellan 12:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And of course, the fact that the President (Polk) was a Democrat and that Lincoln and Grant were Whigs (and later, Republicans) had *nothing* to do with that, now did it? :o) People can have all kinds of motivations for their stances. Lincoln was not a saint, and Grant, while a fine general, wasn't exactly a model President (he's actually considered one of the most corrupt men to ever hold the office).
San Patrico's
I'm not sure, but when I took a look at this (16 Feb 2005), it calls the bias against the Irish, "racist" I don't think this quite factually right, as it could best be said as navtivst/religous, rather than racial.
Thoughts?--Mtnerd 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
United States and Mexican Boundary Survey
Anyone know enough to start an article about the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey (1848-1855) which followed the war? I only know about it because a lot of scientific research (e.g. new plants discovered, etc) was done on it; I don't know anything about other aspects of the survey other than that it was an official US Army expedition. - MPF 16:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The Gadsden Purchase article probably already does the job. If not, information on the boundary survey could be included there.
Thoughts?--Having destroyed all Mexican army and being left defenseless, what made the American Government restraint of annexation the rest of Mexico, or at least some of the northern states that were during those years inhabitaed?
