Posted on 05/02/2006 3:48:34 PM PDT by persephone35
The Aftermath of War Vast New Territories by Robert W. Johannsen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
What did the Mexican War mean to Americans in the mid-19th century? The answer reflects the nature and character of mid-century America itself. Americans were reaching out beyond their border. Advancements in transportation and communications technologies were dissolving the nation's geographic and cultural isolation. Commerce expanded and travel increased as interest in exploration carried Americans around the globe. The war was a "window" through which Americans saw a strange and exotic land of alien manners, customs, and attitudes. Many were convinced that America would never be the same.
Some observations of the war were more pragmatic. The "Democratic Review" noted that the war's end meant the "reduction of our enormous expenses by the withdrawal of the army, and the cessation with it of the excessive jobbing which has been so long going on" (May 1848). After the treaty was ratified, some critics of the war acquiesced, that the war had shown "that a people devoted to the arts of peace, possessing free political institutions, can vanquish a military people, governed by military despots" ("Merchant's Magazine," April 1848).
Some critics predicted that the "impenetrable mountains and dry narrow valleys" of California and the "trackless, treeless and utterly uninhabitable" New Mexico would prove useless, threatening the nation's frontier settlements and draining the national treasury. Some believed that Mexico rid itself of worthless land and received $15 million from the U.S. for the sacrifice.
Vast new territories had been incorporated as part of the United States. On July 4, 1848, the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo by the Mexican Congress arrived at the White House. That same day the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was dedicated.
Robert C. Winthrop, Congressman from Massachusetts and Speaker of the House of Representatives, delivered the dedication oration. The occasion, he noted, marked "the precise epoch at which we have arrived in the world's history and in our own history." A war against a foreign foe had been won, and he paid tribute to the "veterans of the line and the volunteers." The "great American-built locomotive, 'Liberty'" moved "on the track of human freedom, unimpeded and unimpaired; gathering strength as it goes; developing new energies to meet new exigencies," with a swiftness that "knows no parallel." By the end of the day, the dedication of the monument became even more symbolic that anyone had expected. "This great anniversary," declared on citizen, "has never come in, with more of enjoyment to be thankful for, and more of promise to cheer and encourage us."
Never before had American independence been "more joyfully commemorated." The accomplishments of "our brave and magnanimous army in Mexico" recalled the struggles of the Revolution of Independence and the leader of that revolution now stood forth as the "founder of an empire" which would soon eclipse anything that the "world has heretofore produced."
Besides, what-if scenarios are always a good method of figuring out the right course of action.
In this case, it was deemed necessary to drive the invaders back accross the Rio Grande, because the prospect of socialist kalifornians migrating to the great American interior was too terrible to contemplate.
Doesn't that Texas flag flying on your profile look pretty? Welcome to the real America.
I haven't had a chance to do anything more than glance at it but this might be what you were looking for:
from the northeast Texas Piney Woods!!! :-)
LOL Sandy!
Thanks!
Do you not recognize sarcasm when you see it in printed form? Of course we're not giving it back! I was merely pointing out the folly of their argument.
The Brown Berets holding the sign are a paramilitary Aztlan brigade.
bueno
I was born and raised on the Gadsden Purchase and most of my immediate family is either living or buried there, 60 miles north of the Mexican Maybe-Border. I don't really want to have to get a Mexican Visa just to go see my Mom's grave. Or my children having to, either. And I mean that.
Just to make the Reconquista's head's spin, we should sue Mexico in the International Court for breach of the purchase agreement because they a) now have so many of their citizens living on the land we paid them good money for, which is clearly not included in the contract, and b) because they have politicians in Mexico openly trying to abrogate the deal.
If they refuse to participate in the case it would be a good pretext to declare war on them and take some more land. Arizona really does need a nice seacoast town on the Sea of Cortez. We'll take Puerto Penasco, but all the locals have to leave....or else BOOM! He he...just kiddin'...well, maybe not that much... :^)
Usted es ya un miembro.
As I remember it (from reading--it was before my time), the Senate reduced the area acquired by the Gadsden purchase in order to reduce the amount of new territory that might someday become slave states.
(Could we just give them Hollywood? Please?)
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was not passed by the US Congress until 1854, but with all the tensions of the time, likely slavery issue did come into play.
But Gadsden was also a frugal sort, who thought that buying what he considered rocks and sand in 1853 was not a good bargain. Too bad, US access to the Gulf of California would be worth billions today
They've injured our country enough with the infusion of drugs and criminal dregs that paying us for it with their oil might become a reasonable outcome...
Not to mention in hindsight we gave up the chance of full control over Tijuana and other ports of entry for illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.