Wars and Rumors of War: Mexican-American


via University of Mass at Lowell


By The republican Mother


Because there was no internet in 1846, we're going to be looking today at the Mexican War in a more critical light. No Fess Parker and Bowie knives here, but some facts are presented that were markedly absent from you Establishment schoolbooks. This is from a column written by Richard Sanders via Lew Rockwell. I will backlink, embellish, and attempt to make connections as we review history, which is always in the process of repeating..




CONTEXT After Mexico’s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.[1] Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!”, drove Mexican troops out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years, many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the US and feared a war with Mexico.[2]In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared support for annexing Texas and won with the thinnest margin ever.[3] The following year, Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the envoy.[4]
 So as you can see, things are not going how Washington DC wants them to. Should they...
 (a) give up and go home, (b) have some Tequilas and say they tried, or (c) escalate
PRETEXT John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA’s covert 1970s war in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by saying “they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.”[5] President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor’s 3,500 soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against US troops.[6] “On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack.” [7] When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.” [8] Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico. [9]

 Ahh, the days when you needed a declaration of war. I know, to the average neocon, this is so quaint. Can you imagine a group of neocon schoolchildren going through the interpretive museum where the guide says, and this the point at which the Congress declared war, as she points at a yellowed paper. They children are mystified, that is, if they haven't been dumbed down so far as to interpret speech on this level. Never heard of a declar-a-tion of war, a mysterious word to them as long ago the delineation between war and peace stopped and there is just constant aggression, which is completely normal for them. This is what you get when wars have no beginning or end - Orwell's War=Peace scenario. Back to 1846:
RESPONSE Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: “‘Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.’ [10]
With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their border with the US state of Texas. [11] General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as president in 1849.
 The ever independent and fair media strikes again. Like Jefferson said, the only accurate thing in a newspaper are the advertisements. As a bonus, the USG got New Mexico and California $10 million bucks cheaper. And now that we've left a liberal commie stain all over California, Mexico won't take back any returns. That, and I'm pretty sure our ever diligent public servants lost the receipt.
REAL REASONS The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico, including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular support for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the US where slavery was allowed.
Now don't get all tensed up over the slavery mention, as I know a lot of you out there are conditioned to look for liberal code, so that you may go into a defensive mode. I've taken the emotion out of my political analysis by just following the money. There was a lot of money tied to slavery, not just with the Southern states, but the Northern ones too. Also, I suspect that the Northern industrialists had as much to gain from opening up virgin mining operations. This was probably the real grease behind the Mexican-American war wheels. 


So for your consideration, we go back to examining the roots of public war manipulation in America. We lived in a screwed up world, the Good Book tells us this up front. It also tells us to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. Don't take any wooden nickels, ya'll.


-------------------
Sources
1. “History of Mexico, Empire and Early Republic, 1821-55,” Area Handbook, US Library of Congress.
2. Shayne M. Cokerdem, “Unit Plan: Manifest Destiny and The Road to the Civil War.”
3. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt, “James Polk,” The American President, 2000.
4. “Diplomatic Approaches: U.S. Relations with Mexico: 1844-1846,” LearnCalifornia.org, 2000.
5. John Stockwell, “The CIA and the Gulf War,” Speech, Santa Cruz, CA, Feb.20, 1991, aired by John DiNardo, Pacifica Radio.
6. Betsy Powers, “The U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48,” War, Reconstruction and Recovery in Brazoria County.
7. “The White House and Western Expansion,” Learning Center, White House Historical Association.
8. Ibid, Powers
9. White House Historical Association
10. Stockwell
11. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt

5 comments:

  1. I enjoy the story of the Mexican-American war, and want to point you toward the peace treaty that ended it. We took the land but could have taken all of Mexico. We did not because of the fear that the Mexican people would have been enslaved and slavery would have never died.

    It is ironic that many of these people are now enslaved by the progressive policies that would have enslaved their entire nation, yet they vote Democrat. The people who stopped the slave conquest of Mexico are today called REPUBLICANS and conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the feedback. I notice you use the pronoun "we". I used to do that too until I became conscious of the collectivist nature of it. The point here is that the only way they get the "we" on board with war is with manipulation via media. They don't give the facts and allow a rational debate to follow. As far as taking over Mexico - gee, I don't think the fear of slavery would stop them, but just the shear undertaking. That would be quite a quagmire. Do you have a link to where this was considered?

      As far as Republicans ending slavery, that's kind of simplistic way of looking at it. Slavery was on its way out anyway, as it was becoming expensive. I can't recommend enough the documentary Maafa 21, which documents the history of the eugenics movement in America. You'll be shocked at some of the people involved.

      Delete
  2. Excellent read. Thanks for writing it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=478

    I am being precise in saying that it was the Republicans (known as abolitionists at the time) that opposed the annexation of Mexico as a whole. Congress debated it, and I seem to recall there were 2 treaties and the first to arrive in Washington was GH which only annexed a portion of Mexico. I recall that the other treaty had been sent the long way to Washington by ship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link there. I'll have to check out that other treaty.

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.