In Defense of the Mexican-American War

Left-wing academics will denounce the United States as a “bully” launching a “war of conquest” — in the Mexican War. The academics seem to liken the embattled Texicans (who “stole” Aztlan) to modern illegal immigrants and portray the modern antiwar movement as the successors of Abraham Lincoln. Jim Lindsay, writer of the brief book brief book James Polk and the Expansionist Impulse is also quoted as saying:

There are parallels between the war that’s going on today and the war in Mexico. There was certainly in the 1840s a rush to war, and afterwards a great deal of second-guessing on the part of Congress as to whether or not this was the right policy for the United States.

Not the right policy? Victory in the Mexican War gained for the United States all of Texas, California, and everything in between, comprising most of what is now New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Next to the War of Independence and the Union victory in the Civil War, the Mexican War was the most important conflict endowing the United States with, as Prof. Delay noted, “the wealth and security we enjoy today.” Yet, it is not much remembered because, according to Delay, “we want to believe we are a virtuous people who would not fight a war in this way” even though “we are happy with the results.”

Mexican textbooks claim that the American southwest was “stolen” and will someday be regained. Radical elements in the movement championing an “open border” between the U.S. and Mexico, and not just amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants who have crossed the existing border, hope to someday fulfill this irredentist ambition.

This is ironic because it was the influx of American settlers into California and Texas that lost these territories to Mexico in the first place. What’s frequently not mentioned is that from 1824 to 1830, promises of cheap land and tax breaks attracted Americans to settle in Texas on the condition they become Roman Catholic and swear allegiance to Mexico. But the number of American colonists alarmed the Mexican government, which prohibited future immigration and tried to coax its own people to move north in 1830. But American farmers, ranchers and merchants kept coming. In response to the repressive dictatorship of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Texicans revolted in 1835. They declared their independence a year later and established it on the battlefield.

In December 1845, President Jose Herrera told his state governors that regaining Texas would be useless because not enough Mexicans could be persuaded to move there to hold it. The same could be said for California and the rest of the Northern Territory. As Prof. Vasquez notes, Mexico was ‘unpopulated in the north because conditions there were so difficult.”

The proximate cause of the Mexican War was where to draw the international border after Texas joined the United States in 1845. Texas had claimed the Rio Grande river (also known as the Del Norte), but neither this line nor the independence of Texas itself had been recognized by the Mexican government. President James K. Polk tried to buy the disputed area, as well as California and New Mexico. This was how President Thomas Jefferson had obtained the vast Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, who knew he couldn’t hold the territory and needed the money. The Mexican government seemed in the same plight, bankrupt and on the brink of civil war.

Its also not mentioned that a military coup overthrew Herrera during the negotiations. Another coup brought Santa Anna back from exile in Cuba. He had talked his way past the U.S. naval blockade by promising to negotiate peace, but had never intended to do anything wage war. There was wild talk about not only retaking Texas but of marching on New Orleans.

With diplomacy failing, President Polk sent 3,400 soldiers under General (and future president) Zachary Taylor to enforce the U.S.-Texas boundary claim. Many scholars will argue this was an American attempt to “bully” Mexico into selling the Northern Territories, but that is a hard assertion to maintain given that Mexico had four times as many soldiers under arms as the United States. Mexico had a regular army of 19,000 soldiers plus a 10,000-man militia, most of whom were on permanent active duty and led by professional officers. The U.S. had a regular army of only 7,000 scattered across the western frontier.

The Mexican-American War began when a U.S. patrol was ambushed north of the Rio Grande on April 25, 1846. Eleven U.S. soldiers were killed. President Polk asked Congress to declare war on May 11, the day after word of the battle reached Washington. The House vote was 174–14, but the Senate passed the war proclamation by only one vote.

Though heavily outnumbered in every major battle, the Americans outfought their opponents. For example, at Cerro Gordo, 1,400 Americans outflanked and defeated 4,000 entrenched Mexicans, and it took only 7,400 U.S. troops to drive 16,000 enemy soldiers out of Mexico City. Better U.S. planning, superior artillery tactics, and “tenacity” allowed the Americans to carry the day. The Mexican historians understandably stress the determination of their soldiers to defend their homeland against “aggression.” Given prominent mention is the legend of the six military cadets who fought to the death at Chapultepec, the last one wrapping himself in the Mexican flag and throwing himself off the battlements rather than surrender.

An important lesson to learn of this story, and apply it to current conflicts. America’s enemies are not just going to go away or have a change of heart. They must be defeated. The only choices left to any enemy should be either surrender or suicide. The war was also very popular, in Tennessee, 30,000 volunteers showed up wanting to enlist. The name of University of Tennessee athletic teams, “The Volunteers,” is linked to this as well.

Many Whigs were against expansion, and some Democrats were concerned about presidential power. Congressman Abraham Lincoln had called the war unconstitutional. The Whigs were willing to accept Mexico’s claims to the border and denounced Polk, a Democrat, for sending U.S. troops into harm’s way to contest the issue. Lincoln introduced the infamous “spot resolution” demanding that Polk prove the “spot” where American blood had been shed was U.S. territory. Yet when Congress voted Texas into the union, it had officially accepted the Rio Grande as its border and even incorporated it into a Congressional district in the House of Representatives.

Prof. Marquez rekindled this argument, claiming that Polk “absolutely lied” about the ambush having taken place on American soil. Vasquez claims that Polk “provoked” Mexico into firing the first shot by sending troops into “Mexican territory” and that his message to Congress was “full of lies.” At stake was disputed territory, and such a difference of opinion does not mean either side is “lying.” Such matters are settled by power. In a veiled reference to current events, Haynes talked of how members of Congress felt railroaded by President Bush, who had not allowed adequate time for debate before going to war. Delay twice argued that the U.S. invaded “a weaker neighbor because we wanted what she had” and this act “changed the character” of America for the worse.

There was also an attempt to argue that Mexican resistance was stronger than anticipated; thus, the war was prolonged, feeding antiwar sentiment. But Mexico City fell in September 1847, only 16 months after war was declared. A U.S. column had taken Santa Fe in May 1846, and on July 7, 1846, California was declared ready for annexation with the successful uprising by American settlers under the Bear Flag. Given the vast territory and the slow pace of movement and communications 160 years ago, the Mexican campaign was rapid. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo met all of Polk’s territorial objectives. He had completed America’s march across the continent, gaining strategic California ports to open the Pacific.

No, the United States did not “Steal” Land from Mexico

Anti Americans repeat the oxymoronic, liberal prevarication that we stole the Western United States from Mexico after the Mexican-American War. This claim is specious for two reasons. First, the United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 cash and assumed some $3,250,000 more in claims of American citizens on the Mexican government. When one considers that Great Britain, France, or Russia might have taken California at any moment; and that the American troops were in possession of the Mexican capital, the terms offered Mexico were very generous. Indeed, then-President James Polk was urged by many to annex the whole country of Mexico to the United States.

The second reason this claim is specious is the same reason that it is oxymoronic. If we stole California, New Mexico and Texas from the Mexicans, did not the Mexicans steal this land from the Native Americans? It certainly was not their land. They annexed it after declaring independence from Spain. However, Spain stole it from the Native Americans. So how could Mexico claim it was their land to annex? All of Mexico was conquered during a rebellion against the oppression of dictator Santa Ana, but half was returned, and Mexican war debt was retired in the process.

The truth is following the Mexican-American War, the government of Mexico legally ceded this territory to the United States (by the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo, 1848).


Many opponents of the war represents the liberal-left preference for placing abstract values above such concrete principles as American livelihood, let alone liberty. Many say the war presented the U.S. with a “moral dilemma”: would America be a “good nation or a great nation?” To be “good” means to put the “self-determination of neighbors” ahead of “our own self-interest,”they assert.

History and ideology make it clear that the objective of left-wing policy is not to be more effective, but simply to promote a leftist agenda. Leftist criticism of the Mexican-American War shows just how far this self-defeating ideology can go. Opponents of the inadvertently perform a valuable service: it shows how left-wing sentiments can imperil the United States during a war fought along its own borders, not to mention conflicts overseas.

Additional Reading:




I Defend America and its Foreign Policy from a Liberal Perspective.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

The Cold War E01: Why did the Cold War start?

My JoyProject podcast launches TODAY: The Joy of Old Things with Ashley Semrick and a joyful news…

Reconciling Lithuania’s Hidden Holocaust

The train arrived _____ the Lahore station in time.

How WW2 Spy Virginia Hall defied adversity, and how she inspires us now

Nazi Germany Defeated Itself: Part 3

Julita Villaruel Sotejo

Remembering Charlie Chaplin on his birth anniversary.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
James Slate

James Slate

I Defend America and its Foreign Policy from a Liberal Perspective.

More from Medium

The Bomb That Blew Up Yemen: A Television.

I think about religion a lot. Two Takeaways

A Historical Fine Line

The Subliminal Brainwashing in North Koran Reduction camps, found in “Escape from Camp Fourteen”