Mexican War of Independence

“The creoles were intensely aware of the social pressure from below and they strove to keep colored people at a distance.” As said by Leslie Bethell. This suggests their racist views of colored people. Similarly, in a mural by Juan O’Gorman, it depicts events on September 16, 1810, when father Hidalgo a Mexican creole and priest led 600 followers of mestizos and Indians into a revolt against Spain. After that, Hidalgo did not get support from the other creoles after becoming allies with the lower, colored classes. Specifically showing most creoles view on colored

Comprised of landowners, lawyers, judges, priests, military officers and public officials, the creole and mazomba leaders of Latin American society found insatiable inspiration from the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century, and flooded Latin America with a liberal movement for independent nations. Conservatives, in contrast, sought to preserve the traditions of the colonial period, and the Orthodox rule of both the church and foreign-born royal authorities. Yet Old World flavor soured bitterly in a New World teeming with liberal thinkers and daring rebels. Desiring to surpass Old World peninsular and reinós rulers, creole and mazomba won control over local resources and economic development.

Within Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, he addresses eight white clergymen who fill his desk with disagreements and criticism of his acts of attempting to abolish segregation. To give a better understanding to his audience he correlates his speech with religion, signifying himself to be similar to the Apostle Paul, while speaking up about the injustice being done in Birmingham. Martin Luther King Jr. speaks strongly about being unable to stand back and watch the disputes in Birmingham unravel. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly,” famously said by Martin Luther King Jr. bonds his idea during this speech that we are all affected by any type of injustice, small or large. Martin Luther King Jr. uses metaphors as a light of logic, first person point of view to add ethics with trustworthiness, and a tone of passion for the emotional aspect while addressing the clergymen.

During Napoleon’s reign in France, Napoleon sought to control the entire island of Hispaniola through control of Spain and the reacquisition of Haiti. Harsh rule by the governors-general induced loyalists to form the movement La Reconquista to rise up in order to restore Spanish sovereignty. (Metibag 91)

The perception of history is often crafted by the information given and the information available, however, almost too often the facts accessible are warped by the viewpoints of others before they can be properly assessed. Differing outlooks thus explicate the controversial nature of historical events and why the motives and conclusions behind certain occurrences are called into question. The Mexican American war as many American historians would call it ushers a contrary tone in Mexico as their own historians would claim the “war” as United States invasion; the difference in referral is based on the different perceptions of the conflict. In the American viewpoint, the Mexican American War was driven by economic, social and political pressures to bolster United States territories, through the annexation of Texas. In the converse, it could be argued that Mexico did not declare a formal war against the United States but rather was interested in defending their country’s territorial integrity and resisting United State’s invasion. In a Mexican viewpoint then, the war was not a result of arrogance but a consequence of defending Mexican territory from United States invasion. Nonetheless the aftermath of the war produced immense repercussions, furthering American exceptionalism, slavery, and disregard for international borders prompting the inquiry of not only the unjust methods applied but the unjustified results.

The aftermath of the Mexican American warManifest Destiney, the annexation of Texas, and the actions of President John Polk are all factors leading up to the Mexican-american war. It is known that the annexation of Texas was what pushed Mexico leaders over the edge. In 1836 Texas gained independence from Mexico, after becoming an American State the relationship between Mexico and the U.S quickly came to an end. Polk not only had his eyes on Texas but also on California and New Mexico. Polk won the support of the american people by declaring he would complete Americas Manifest Destiny, to reach the West coast. Mexico denied Polk’s offer to buy these lands, leading America to send troops onto disputed territory. April 25, 1846 Mexican troops killed american soldiers on the disputed land, marking the beginning of the war, this was the battle of Palo Alto. The Mexican-American war had a major impact on both Mexico and U.S history. This essay will discuss the political, social, and economical effects between Mexico and the U.S after the Mexican American war.

The Mexican American War was a very controversial event. The Americans believed in their “Manifest Destiny” which prompted them to annex the territory of Texas which, in turn, initiated the war on April 25, 1846. Texas was annexed to the Union as a slave state on December 29, 1845. This upset all of the Free states along with the Mexicans but the Southerners were in favor of the war because it gave them more strength when fighting for slavery. While there were many different beliefs about the Mexican-American War throughout the United States, these beliefs generally were the same within a region.

In this book, Timothy J. Henderson examines the origins, outcomes, and modern-day consequences of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). A Glorious Defeat is organized around two central questions: why did Mexico go to war with the United States in 1846 and why did the war go so badly for Mexico? Henderson does provide the answers to these questions, based on the reader having some knowledge of the expansionist history that the US partook in with its southern neighbors, but who are “far less certain why Mexico went to war with the United States” (xviii).

All of the aforementioned factors contributed to the independence movement of Mexico. However, the main steps towards independence came because of Napoleon’s invasion of Spain in 1808. The monarchy was greatly weakened when Napoleon gave the crown to his brother causing the people of Madrid to revolt. With Spain’s back turned, the leaders of New Spain began to argue amongst themselves. The viceroy was forced to allow the Criollos to participate in administration. Then, a group of Peninsulares, those who had been placed in many of the administrative positions, did not like that the Criollos were gaining any influence in the government. They staged a coup d’etat and overthrew the viceregal government.

Did you know that in the Mexican-American War, the US took half of Mexico 's land? After Mexico 's independence from Spain in 1821, the northern lands of Mexico were rarely used. America saw this as an opportunity to expand by seizing Mexico’s northern lands, and took it. They accepted Mexico 's offer to live in Texas, and soon Texas became overrun with Americans. They influenced Texas to go against Mexico, and eventually Texas was won by the US in battle. After that, Mexico and America began having disputes. However, the Mexican-American War officially started when Mexican troops shot American soldiers in the disputed territory. In modern-day, many people take sides about whether it was right or not for America to declare war upon Mexico. In various forms, one of the most controversial questions is, "Did the US have good reasons for starting war with Mexico?". The United States were not justified because they were greedy for land, broke Mexican laws that they agreed to while in Mexico, and created faulty reasons for their actions.

The war with Mexico is long remembered as an episode, and by no means is it an unimportant one. With the events that led up to its happening, from the Manifest Destiny to the disputes on territory, it has severely marked the United States. American historians regard the Mexican-American war as “the foulest blot on our national honor”. (sfmuseum.org) Unethical actions were taken gain Mexican territory. Polk and his hunger for land drove him to find some devious way to fight a war with Mexico. His belligerent attitude in regard to this war was the “foulest blot on our national honor.” However, as one studies the events that led to it, was it an unprovoked act of aggression? Or did the US unjustifiably lure Mexico into one of the bloodiest wars on American soil?

“The United States had emerged as a modern capitalist nation, and the spirit of nationalism in the country was strong and growing” (Henderson 71). As tensions grew between the Unites States and Mexico, there was a thirst for war. The Unites States declared war with Mexico, because they owned land that Americans desired, resulting in America’s fulfillment of achieving their philosophy of “Manifest Destiny”. The blood boil of both countries caused a lot of bloodshed. The dispute lasted for a long two year battle which was for huge amounts of land. The Americans were victorious and claimed new territories from the conflict.

Those creoles pushing towards revolution to free themselves from Spanish rule felt that the Spanish crown was only abusing, discriminating and holding them back form growing economically. The elite felt they were not part of a revolution seeing themselves only as people who were All those part of the social context of Latin America, felt differently within Indians, on side of the Spanish King, though great abuse fell through. "Nonetheless, the Indians of New Spain (and elsewhere) enjoyed a set of legal privileges, exemptions, and protection which significantly interferes with their complete integration into colonial society, and kept them in a legal bubble of tutelage ruptured only with the advent of independent Mexican nationhood in the third decade of the nineteenth century (Van Young, 154). The point here is that where these and other legal and administrative remedies were applied in favor of the Indians of colonial New Spain, they were applied in the kings' name. Furthermore, religious and civic ritual of all kinds constantly stressed the centrality of the Spanish king to the colonial commonwealth, and his benevolence and fatherly concern with the welfare of his weakest subjects (Van Young 155). "Situated as they were between the Spaniards and the masses. The creoles wanted more than equality for themselves and less than equality for their inferiors" (Lynch, 44). The creoles discriminated against those in lower classes than themselves.

The United States of America was justified in going to war with Mexico. Throughout history, it has always been exceedingly dangerous to occupy the same land as another nation. Such close borders contribute to invasions or prompt a significant decrease of commerce with other foreign nations. These fears were proven to be legitimate when American soldiers investigated Mexican military near the Rio Del Norte territorial boundary. The group was attacked by Mexican soldiers, resulting in an estimated 16 Americans killed or wounded on U.S soil. Mexican soldiers ignored the boundaries of the newly annexed Texas, and then engaged American military, it provided a more than sufficient reason to claim that Mexico had supplied the means to declare war.

After the people of Mexico freed themselves from Spanish control, they faced difficulties trying to officially establish themselves as a country. Despite their independence, Mexico had to also live with the aftermath of Spanish colonialism. Part of the aftermath included socio-political issues amongst the Mexican people. In an effort to establish themselves as a nation, they first had to free themselves from a Spanish ideology, for Mexico truly was not free after their independence. The socio-political predicaments contribute to the evolution of modern day Mexico.