A “wicked” war
The USA’S war against Mexico was the product of ‘Manifest Destiny’ but it received heavy domestic criticism and ultimately contributed to the outbreak of civil war
The conflict was driven by ‘Manifest Destiny’ and contributed to the outbreak of the civil war
“NATIONS, LIKE INDIVIDUALS, ARE PUNISHED FOR THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS. WE GOT OUR PUNISHMENT IN THE MOST SANGUINARY AND EXPENSIVE WAR OF MODERN TIMES” – Ulysses S. Grant
When the United States annexed Texas in 1845, Mexico vigorously opposed the move because it considered the rebellious state to be part of its territory. The US government initially sent an envoy to repair relations and offered millions of dollars to purchase California and New Mexico.
The Mexican government refused to cede any more territory, but the USA interpreted this as a hostile action. Once President James K. Polk sent troops into the disputed Texan border area, hostilities increased and war between the two nations became inevitable.
The reason for this inevitability was the rise of the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’. This was the increasingly influential belief that white Americans were, in a religious and racial sense, divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America. Although it was an old idea, the term was first coined by a newspaper editor in 1845 and inspired a variety of measures designed to remove or destroy native populations. This included any ethnic group that was considered to be ‘un-american’, such as Native Americans and Mexicans.
Manifest Destiny was a convenient ideology for a rapidly developing country that regarded land as a representation of wealth and freedom. Polk, who was a slave owner and cotton planter, won the 1844 US presidential election by favouring the expansionist issue, and regarded his victory as a mandate to increase US territory. Nevertheless, ‘Polk’s
War’ was heavily criticised.
Political and religious opposition
Support for the conflict was initially strong when over 200,000 men volunteered to serve in the US forces. Despite the surge in patriotism, Whig politicians became concerned at the introduction of executive powers and patronages by the governing Democratic Party. Polk came under particular scrutiny for his determination to acquire additional territory at Mexico’s expense, and the conflict threw open divisions between northern and southern politicians. The former Whig secretary of state, Henry Clay, set the tone by stating, “This is no war of defence, but one of unnecessary offence and aggression.”
Polk was a southerner, and northern ‘Conscience Whig’ and Democrat politicians condemned the war as an immoral project to extend slavery in the south. Critics of the administration included a young Whig congressman called Abraham Lincoln, and by the autumn of 1847 the Whigs had won a majority in the House of Representatives.
Opposition to the war was also religious, despite the theological foundations of Manifest Destiny. In New England, religious leaders denounced the war from the start. One of the most passionate opponents was Theodore Parker, the minister of the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society in Boston.
Parker was an abolitionist and accused Polk’s government of being an instrument of “Slave Power”, and declared in a speech, “In regard to this present war, we can refuse to take any part in it… I would call on Americans to help save the country from infamy and ruin.
“I WOULD CALL ON AMERICANS TO HELP SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM INFAMY AND RUIN. TEACH YOUR RULERS THAT YOU ARE AMERICANS, NOT SLAVES, CHRISTIANS, NOT HEATHEN; MEN, NOT MURDERERS, TO KILL FOR HIRE!” – Minister Theodore Parker
Teach your rulers that you are Americans, not slaves, Christians, not heathen; men, not murderers, to kill for hire!”
Religious opposition was based on the immorality of slavery, but sympathy for Mexico itself was noticeably lacking. Ironically, the perceived dominance of ‘Anglo-saxon America’ united both opponents and advocates of the war, and Mexican people were commonly disparaged. Even Parker viewed them as “a wretched people, wretched in their origin, history and character”. Mexicans, in his view, would, “melt away as the Indians before the white man”, and his ultimate vision of the USA was grounded in an ugly racial superiority that is repugnant today.
The road to civil war
In this context, the war, despite making the
USA a continental power, also more firmly entrenched the issues of race and slavery in the United States. The arguments between free and slave states became increasingly bitter for 13 years after 1848, until the American Civil War eventually broke out.
Ulysses S. Grant, who fought in Mexico and believed it was a “wicked” war, saw a clear parallel between the two conflicts: “The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”
Ultimately, the last word on the USA’S expansionist folly should be left to the Mexicans, who suffered thousands of casualties during their greatest national humiliation. Mexico lost half of its territory and its capital was occupied, but its people somehow knew that the USA would eventually be punished for its success. A contemporary Mexican sentiment was eerily prescient: “The United States may triumph – but its prize, like that of the vulture, will be in a lake of blood.”