Thursday, March 26, 2026

Mexico, part two: expansion controersy

In the 19th Century the U.S. seized land: It was our manifest destiny.

For a century the U.S. was content with our national borders.

President Trump is not content.

Trump is a builder and he sold Americans on the idea of national greatness. America is great and more is greater. All four presidents on Mt. Rushmore enlarged our national borders, two by war, two by acquisition. 

After World War II, the Roosevelt postwar plan was for strong countries to use their power to enforce rules of non-aggression. That era is over. Trump sees opportunities for acquisition: the oil of Iran and Venezuela; the strategic position of Greenland; Canada's oil, timber, minerals, and giant space on a map; Ukraine's rare earth; Gaza for resorts; and Cuba for something, maybe its good weather, Trump said. 

Jack Mullen joins yesterday's guest post author Erich Almasy in refreshing our memories about how the U.S. expanded it territory.Jack and I thinned and picked pears in local orchards in the late 1960s, and we both worked in the office of U.S. Rep. Jim Weaver in the 1970s. He studied history at the University of Oregon.

My experience is that schools in Oregon in the postwar 1950s and 1960s skipped quickly over the Mexican War. Our teachers, veterans of WWII, had fought a war against an expansionist aggressor nation.

Jack Mullen and his wife Jennifer Angelo

Guest Post by Jack Mullen

The 1861-65 American Civil War overshadows the Mexico American War (1846-48) in the mind of most Americans. The Mexican War was the Wicked War, Ulysses S. Grant said. It brought a full-blown national campaign debate over an incursion into a foreign country in the 1844 Presidential race between James K. Polk and Henry Clay.

 
Stephen F. Austin brought three hundred slave-owning families into the Mexican area of what is now Texas. Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829. Texan Americans formed a provisional government and raised an army to rebel against Mexico: the Texas Rebellion of 1835-36. The 1836 battle of San Jacinto resulted in Texas becoming an independent nation, the Lone Star Republic, a polity that permitted slavery. Eight years later, Texas became the focal point of the 1844 Presidential Election between the Democrat, James K. Polk, and the Whig, Henry Clay.

Polk’s campaign focused largely on the annexation of Texas into the Union. Texas would tip the U.S. Senate balance in favor of slave states. Polk campaigned on a vision of an American empire that extended to the Pacific, a potential bonanza for slave territory expansion. Henry Clay campaigned on economic development and opposition to the Texas annexation. Clay’s main support came from northern states.

Polk won a close election. Before Polk took his seat in the White House, out-going President John Tyler, with congressional consent, annexed Texas into the Union. The senatorial balance problem was solved by cleaving off the northern part of Massachusetts and making it the state of Maine. Seven months later, a boundary dispute over which country could claim land between Nueces and Rio Grand River, led to war between the U.S. and Mexico.

A young Abe Lincoln accompanied his wife to Lexington, Kentucky, her hometown, in 1847, where he attended a Henry Clay rally. Clay’s fiery speech opposing the war stirred Lincoln to the point that he kept a copy of Clay’s speech in his pocket. Lincoln brought his anti-war feelings to the halls of Congress in his one term in Washington.

American anti-war movements at the time involved strange bedfellows. John C. Calhoun, the racist senator from South Carolina, opposed Polk’s war for fear that non-White and Catholics would be become part of the country. Northern opponents of slavery opposed the war because it expanded slavery. Northern thought-leaders, including Henry David Thoreau and Frederick Douglas, considered it unconstitutional, an expansion of executive power, and an unjust land grab. Protestant churches, including Quakers and Congregationalists, argued the war violated Christian principles.

Newspaper accounts described disturbing actions by volunteer brigades of American soldiers involving rape of Mexican women.

President Polk pursued the war that was our "manifest destiny," in the 1946 words of newspaper editor John O'Sullivan, fulfilling its God-given mission to control all of North America. The war’s end came once American troops under General Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City. That began the dispute over how much of Mexico's territory was enough. More territory meant more war. General Scott and special envoy Nicholas Trist were chose not to try to claim all of Mexico.Trist negotiated what would become the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty, in which 55 percent of Mexican territory was given to the United States for $15 million. It secured peace, but the settlement infuriated President Polk when he learned that the Mexican territories of Sonora and Baja California were not included in the settlement. Polk called for Trist’s return to the Capitol. Trist refused. Polk fired him and refused to pay Trist's salary. Polk hated the treaty, but realizing the increasing unpopularity of the war with Mexico, he reluctantly accepted the treaty.


America expanded to the Pacific under Polk, but did not expand to the Guatemala border or include Baja California and Sonora.

As protesters march in Saturday's No Kings event, and as sentiment against bombing and troop deployments in Iran continue, opponents of the Iran War can take heart in the notion that anti-war and anti-expansionist movements do influence U.S. decision makers. News accounts of disturbing actions -- My Lai in Vietnam, Abu Ghraib in Iraq, or a bomb destroying a school in Iran -- affect the public mood. Americans are notoriously sensitive to war casualties. At some point peace is a better option than war.

Under President Grant,Trist got vindication for drawing the boundaries where he did. Grant restored his back pay with interest and he was given a postmastership job.



[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]




14 comments:

John F said...

Apart from the incorrect reference to the US Army occupying Mexico City in 1946 (it should be 1847-48), today’s blog reminds your readers of US expansionist tendencies from our early beginnings up to the present.

John F. said...

Apart from the US Army occupying Mexico City in 1946 (should read 1846), todays blog reminds your readers of US expansionist tendancies from our early begins up to the present.

Michael Trigoboff said...

There is also sentiment in this country in favor of bringing down an Iranian regime whose goal is nothing less than the conquest of the entire world by radical Islam.

Here’s a quote from the founder of the Iranian regime:

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
― Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
(link)

These are the words of a jihadist Islamic death cult that thinks it will ultimately triumph because it loves death more than we love life. An ideology like that in possession of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, capable of carrying them is an unacceptable threat to the entire world.

Peter C. said...

This is why any country ruled by a religion will turn out bad. Does that mean all religion is bad? Maybe.

Mike said...

Islam shares the same values as Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus. Unfortunately, they all have leaders willing to amass wealth and power by promoting murder and mayhem, and they all have rabid followers willing to wreak havoc on god’s name. Some delude themselves into imagining this to be a “holy war,” but Operation Epstein Fury is all about oil.

Low Dudgeon said...

“Islam shares the same values as Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus”.

Speaking of delusional? None but the first mandates world domination as religious imperative. None but the first boasts Western leftist apologists.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

Deuteronomy 20, 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
0
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

Note that the above quotation is not from some low level functionary It is the inspired word of God in the holy book of Jews and Christians. Genocide to clear the land for Jews' exclusive use wasn't an offhand suggestion. It was a command by God himself. I am very dubious about assertions that Muslims are blood-thirsty and Jews and Christians are peace-loving. I am offended and disappointed by them all equally. No wonder God nearly wiped the world clean in the flood. But God was just doing himself what He instructed.

Low Dudgeon said...

One assertion is that (fundamentalist) Muslims have been more bloodthirsty—read: religiously, self-righteously murderous—in modern times.

If there is a Christian or Jewish list akin to Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Manchester, Bondi Beach, et al, I concede.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

The guy who killed 8 Black worshipers in Charleston SC, Jim Jones the cult leader, the Wesr Bank settlers, plum U.S. killing and enslaving native people in the western hemisphere, Boston puritans that hanged Quaker Mary Dyer, or the gleeful joy this month that Pete Hegsted takes in bombing civilians in Iran and destroying their electrical and water systems, a war crime that would result in mass death. Please address God's own commandment to do genocide, as said in Deuteronomy. I personally think it is all make believe, but if LD thinks it is sacred and true, then fully own it. The God of the universe, creator of it all, said to kill all the non-Jews in the so-called Holy Land. And slowly, but imperfectly, Netanyahu is doing that now as commanded. Are you really going to assert that History shows that Christians and Jews haven't done mass murder on behalf of their faith? Really? Please don't embarrass yourself. Accept the sorry truth. Own it. Call it human nature, or territorial conquest imperative or survival of the fittest or whatever you want. But don't deny it.

Low Dudgeon said...

Read: “modern times”. Nor is your single comparable event analogous. Every event on my list (plus so many others, including 9/11 and 7/7) was undertaken explicitly in the name and furtherance of Islam. The Charleston shooter’s motivation was racism, not religion.

Mike said...

Blaming all Muslims for the actions of some murderous fanatics is as stupid as blaming all Jews for murdering Jesus.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

Is the Bible considered no longer current? I had understood that, for believers at least, the Bible is eternal, and that it would be disrespectful to imply that this was just the old God, since retired, or irrelevant. God's command is sacred. I can absolutely imagine Muslims assuring their friends that Jews and their offspring Christians are genocidal monsters who worship a god who insists that his followers do genocide. I think believers are stuck with this. Worse, I think it gives every Muslim the ability to say that the Jews started it, going back some 2800 years ago. They are only responding in self defense against the murder-loving Jews and Christians.

Low Dudgeon said...

Biblical history is perfectly fair game to indict Christianity—except when, once again, the context for my assertion about comparative murderousness, above, was “modern times”.

Not to be a stickler, but Muslims could hardly say “Jews started it 2800 years ago” when Islam itself is only about half that old. They conscripted Jerusalem, as well as Jesus.