mexican and american war essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Mexican‑American War

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 10, 2022 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848 marked the first U.S. armed conflict chiefly fought on foreign soil. It pitted a politically divided and militarily unprepared Mexico against the expansionist-minded administration of U.S. President James K. Polk, who believed the United States had a “Manifest Destiny” to spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. A border skirmish along the Rio Grande that started off the fighting was followed by a series of U.S. victories. When the dust cleared, Mexico had lost about one-third of its territory, including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

Causes of the Mexican-American War

Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836. Initially, the United States declined to incorporate it into the union, largely because northern political interests were against the addition of a new state that supported slavery . The Mexican government was also encouraging border raids and warning that any attempt at annexation would lead to war.

Did you know? Gold was discovered in California just days before Mexico ceded the land to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Nonetheless, annexation procedures were quickly initiated after the 1844 election of Polk, a firm believer in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny , who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California , New Mexico and the rest of what is today the American Southwest.

When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila .

The Mexican-American War Begins

On April 25, 1846, Mexican cavalry attacked a group of U.S. soldiers in the disputed zone under the command of General Zachary Taylor , killing about a dozen. They then laid siege to Fort Texas along the Rio Grande. Taylor called in reinforcements, and—with the help of superior rifles and artillery—was able to defeat the Mexicans at the Battle of Palo Alto and the Battle of Resaca de la Palma .

Following those battles, Polk told the U.S. Congress that the “cup of forbearance has been exhausted, even before Mexico passed the boundary of the United States, invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon American soil.” Two days later, on May 13, Congress declared war, despite opposition from some northern lawmakers. No official declaration of war ever came from Mexico.

U.S. Army Advances Into Mexico

At that time, only about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande. As a result, U.S. forces led by Col. Stephen Watts Kearny and Commodore Robert Field Stockton were able to conquer those lands with minimal resistance. Taylor likewise had little trouble advancing, and he captured the city of Monterrey in September.

With the losses adding up, Mexico turned to old standby General Antonio López de Santa Anna , the charismatic strongman who had been living in exile in Cuba. Santa Anna convinced Polk that, if allowed to return to Mexico, he would end the war on terms favorable to the United States.

But when Santa Anna arrived, he immediately double-crossed Polk by taking control of the Mexican army and leading it into battle. At the Battle of Buena Vista in February 1847, Santa Anna suffered heavy casualties and was forced to withdraw. Despite the loss, he assumed the Mexican presidency the following month.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops led by Gen. Winfield Scott landed in Veracruz and took over the city. They then began marching toward Mexico City, essentially following the same route that Hernán Cortés followed when he invaded the Aztec empire .

The Mexicans resisted at the Battle of Cerro Gordo and elsewhere, but were bested each time. In September 1847, Scott successfully laid siege to Mexico City’s Chapultepec Castle . During that clash, a group of military school cadets–the so-called ni ños héroes –purportedly committed suicide rather than surrender.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 

Guerrilla attacks against U.S. supply lines continued, but for all intents and purposes the war had ended. Santa Anna resigned, and the United States waited for a new government capable of negotiations to form.

Finally, on Feb. 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, establishing the Rio Grande (and not the Nueces River) as the U.S.-Mexican border. Under the treaty, Mexico also recognized the U.S. annexation of Texas, and agreed to sell California and the rest of its territory north of the Rio Grande for $15 million plus the assumption of certain damage claims.

The net gain in U.S. territory after the Mexican-American War was roughly 525,000 square miles, an enormous tract of land—nearly as much as the Louisiana Purchase’s 827,000 square miles—that would forever change the geography, culture and economy of the United States.

Though the war with Mexico was over, the battle over the newly acquired territories—and whether or not slavery would be allowed in those territories—was just beginning. Many of the U.S. officers and soldiers in the Mexican-American War would in just a few years find themselves once again taking up arms, but this time against their own countrymen in the Civil War .

HISTORY Vault

Stream thousands of hours of acclaimed series, probing documentaries and captivating specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault

The Mexican American War. PBS: American Experience . The Mexican-American war in a nutshell. Constitution Daily . The Mexican-American War. Northern Illinois University Digital Library ..

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Causes and Effects of the Mexican-American War

The Impact of the Mexican American War on American Society and Politics

On February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed which officially ended the Mexican-American War. However, as the guns fell silent, and the men returned home, a new war was brewing, one that continues to shape the course of this country to this day. 

While Ulysses S. Grant might have argued that the Civil War was God’s punishment for the Mexican-American War, a “wicked war" that was rooted in imperialism and the expansion of slavery, many Americans supported the Mexican-American War as they viewed it as the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny: the promise that the United States would extend from “sea to shining sea.” While Manifest Destiny remains a core of U.S. national identity, in the 1840s it encouraged a slew of ideological debates over this potential new territory, specifically if the territory should be free or enslaved. The Louisiana Purchase caused a major crisis over the organization of new states which Congress ultimately resolved with the Missouri Compromise, the compromise to end all compromises. It is important to note that the debates in 1820 were largely split among party lines, i.e. Democrats vs. Whigs . However, the Mexican American War reopened past wounds and sent the United States into another legislative crisis.

Even before the war was won and territory had been ceded, Congress was already discussing how to organize any potential new territory gained as reparations from Mexico.  One of the most important of proposals was the Wilmot Proviso  which Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania proposed in 1846, two years before the war ended. Under this proviso, any territory gained by war with Mexico should be free and thus reserved exclusively for whites. Wilmot was a free-soiler, which meant that he did not want to abolish slavery in the places it currently existed but rather prevent its expansion to new territories. However, Wilmot was also a Northern Democrat, and most Democrats supported slavery and protected it, even if they themselves did not own slaves. Many Northern Whigs believed in something called the Slave Power Conspiracy, a conspiracy theory in which slaveowners (the Slave Power) dominated the country’s political system even though they were a minority group, which was accomplished through a coalition with “dough-faced Democrats,” Northern Democrats who supported and protected slavery. While the Wilmot Proviso failed in the Senate, it passed in the House of Representatives because of a coalition between Northern Democrats and Northern Whigs and illustrates the first shift from party alliances to sectional alliances. Indignation over the Wilmot Proviso united southerners against northern threats to their most valuable institution, slavery. After this vote, the antebellum political landscape was forever changed.

The failure of the Wilmot Proviso only put off the issue of slavery for so long. With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded over 525,000 square miles of territory to the United States in exchange for $15 million and the assumption of Mexican debts to American citizens, which reopened the slavery issue. In order to promote party loyalty without aggravating sectional tensions, the Whigs did not include specific resolutions on slavery in their official platform for the Election of 1848. The Democrats ran on popular sovereignty , which is the idea that the status of a territory will be determined by the people residing in that territory. Popular sovereignty is neither explicitly pro-slavery or anti-slavery; however, it does nullify the Missouri Compromise . Neither party adopted a firm stance on slavery in the 1848 election; however, the free-soilers made the election about slavery. Consequently, the Whigs and the Democrats developed campaign materials to be sectionally distributed which highlighted their candidate's support and opposition for slavery respectively. The separate campaign materials in this election reveal the growing sectional divide in antebellum America.

Despite the growing sectionalism, Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican-American War and a slaveholding Whig was elected president in 1848 and served for two years before dying in office of natural causes. The Mexican-American War projected Taylor into a position of celebrity and enabled his election in 1848. After his election, Taylor promised not to intercede with Congress’s decision for the organization of the Mexican Cession. Many southerners felt betrayed by Taylor, a slaveowner from Louisiana, as they equated his position with those of a free-soiler. In this time of heightened sectional tensions, southerners believed that if one did not actively protect slavery and its expansion, one supported abolition.

As a direct result of the Mexican Cession, the California Gold Rush began in 1849 which caused a massive frenzy to organize and admit California into the Union.  The Missouri Compromise stated that any territory north of the 36°30’ parallel would be free; however, the line would divide California into two sections. California was never a US territory and approved a free constitution, elected a Governor and legislature and applied for statehood by November 1849. Since California did not wish to be divided into two separate states, a new compromise was formed, aptly named the Compromise of 1850. Under the Compromise of 1850 , California was admitted as a free state without deciding the fate of the remainder of the Mexican Cession. Additionally, under this compromise, there was the federal assumption of Texas debt, the abolishment of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and a stronger fugitive slave law. While controversial, the Compromise of 1850 alleviated the growing tensions over slavery and delayed a full-blown crisis over the issue.

However, in 1854 tensions over slavery once again skyrocketed over the organization of Kansas and Nebraska. While Kansas and Nebraska were not part of the Mexican Cession, their debates over their organization are linked to the Mexican-American War. As stated above, the Mexican-American War re-opened the discussions over how to organize territory, and one of the proposed solutions was popular sovereignty. While the Compromise of 1850 elected not to include popular sovereignty, it reemerged in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act , where Kansas and Nebraska would be organized using popular sovereignty.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused Bleeding Kansas , where pro-slavery and anti-slavery Americans flocked to Kansas in an attempt to establish either a slave or free government in that state, which eventually erupted into violence where neighbor killed a neighbor in the name of slavery and abolition. Bleeding Kansas is also the first instance where John Brown , famous for his 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry, used violence to enact his radical abolition vision. Moreover, the Kansas-Nebraska Act propelled future President Abraham Lincoln into the national spotlight. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois’s pet project and popular sovereignty is often associated with Douglas. Lincoln and Douglas engaged in a series of debates in 1858, which mainly focused on popular sovereignty and slavery’s expansion. While Lincoln lost the senatorial election in 1858 to Douglas, he became well known because of the debates, which positioned himself to be the Republican candidate for the Presidential Election of 1860. Additionally, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the final nail in the coffin for the Whig Party and paved the way for the establishment of the Republican Party, the first prominent anti-slavery party which was rooted in sectionalism.

Ralph Waldo Emerson prophetically wrote, “Mexico will poison us.” The Mexican-American War and the massive territory gained reopened debates over slavery which diminished party alliances and increased sectional alliances. These debates over slavery eventually led to the demise of the Second Party System and paved the way for the rise of Republicanism. Sectional tensions had never been stronger and there were open discussions of disunion which increased as the 1850s progressed. All these tensions and issues would come to head with the Election of 1860 and eventually with the Civil War, where brother fought against brother. To say "Mexico poisoned" the United States is an understatement, the bloodshed during the Civil War rivaled any other American conflict and today we are still in the process of healing wounds that occurred over 150 years ago.

Further Reading:

• So Far From God: the U.S. War with Mexico 1846-1848 : By John S. D. Eisenhower
• A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico : By Amy S. Greenberg
• The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Expansion and the Coming of the Civil War : By Michael F. Holt
• The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War 1848-1861 : By David M. Potter

Hispanic-Americans in the Civil War

Federico Fernández Cavada: Union Ties and Cuban Roots

Tejano Heroes of the Texas Revolution

You may also like.

• The Mexican-American War

A forgotten war with unforgettable consequences

Opinion on the war with Mexico was divided and Woodville therefore depicted a range of responses among the figures reading the latest news in a Western outpost. Detail, Richard Caton Woodville, War News from Mexico , 1848, oil on canvas, 68.6 × 63.5 cm (Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art). Watch the video .

Essay by Dr. Kimberly Kutz Elliott

A tourist visiting the National Mall in Washington, D.C. today is likely to see monuments commemorating American involvement in several foreign wars, including the striking Vietnam Memorial , with its reflective surface naming the war dead, or the squadron of stainless steel soldiers honoring veterans of the Korean War. That same tourist might be surprised to learn that the United States had fought another foreign war whose toll on the American population was greater than either of those conflicts: the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). [1] 

Maya Lin, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 1982, granite, National Mall, Washington, D.C. (photo: Steven Zucker , CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

There is no memorial to the Mexican-American War in Washington, D.C., and only about 30 monuments across the whole of the United States pay tribute to a war in which more than 15,000 American soldiers lost their lives. By comparison, there are at least 13,000 historical markers commemorating the U.S. Civil War. [2] In fact, the Mexican-American War has been overlooked in both U.S. and Mexican popular culture. The war is rarely depicted in film, and no images of the War of Northern Invasion (as the war is named in Mexico) were made by Mexican artists. A war of conquest conducted by a land-hungry U.S. government against ill-supplied Mexican soldiers did not generate much pride for either nation. 

Timeline of significant events 

Nevertheless, the Mexican-American War had far-reaching consequences for both the United States, Mexico, and the Indigenous peoples whose land both nations claimed. First among these was the cession of about one third of Mexico’s territory to the United States, a landmass of over 338,000,000 acres. Redrawing the border added to American economic prosperity at Mexico’s expense. The war also contributed to the outbreak of later civil wars in both countries: the Civil War in the United States (1861–1865) and the War of Reform in Mexico (1857–1860) .

Lastly, the war’s outcome left many residents of the ceded territory worse off than they had been under Mexican rule, which had guaranteed people of African and Indigenous descent some rights and protections. Not only did the U.S. government permit slavery (which had been outlawed in Mexico for years) but the annexation of these lands sent large numbers of white American settlers west, where they displaced and often killed Indigenous people. 

Comparing Mexican and American societies before the war

Both the United States and Mexico were young republics that had recently gained independence after centuries of European colonization. The process had been considerably easier for the United States, which had had French aid in defeating Great Britain, as well as bountiful natural resources to fuel its economy. In the early nineteenth century, the people of the United States were awash in patriotism, Protestant religious fervor, and enthusiasm for rapid expansion. Jacksonian Democracy , ushered in by the presidency of Andrew Jackson, extolled the virtues of the “common man,” extending the franchise to all white men regardless of their social standing. 

George Caleb Bingham portrayed the Missouri election in which he was running as a candidate for state legislature (he depicts himself at center, seated on the wooden steps). Bingham seems both to celebrate and critique the enthusiastic exercise of mid-nineteenth century U.S. democracy, depicting the white male voters with equal dignity, although he shows some men who are clearly inebriated. George Caleb Bingham, The County Election , 1852, oil on canvas, 38 x 52 in. (96.5 x 132.1 cm) ( Saint Louis Art Museum ).

But citizenship in the United States became more entwined with constructions around racial difference at the same time it became less tied to class. The “white man’s republic” championed by Jacksonian Democrats categorically excluded women and people of color from the body politic. This was particularly evident in Jackson’s policy of “Indian Removal” : where once white Americans had committed to christianize and assimilate Indigenous people for their own good, many now declared Indigenous people savages who must either be expelled to distant western lands or face extinction. 

By contrast, Mexico had won independence after 300 years of Spanish colonization without outside help, but the conflict had left the nation in a difficult economic state, with its mining, industrial, and agricultural capacity significantly reduced. The Mexican government was unstable, with 50 different governments in the 30 years after independence, most installed by military coup. Conservatives wanted to maintain a version of the colonial system that privileged social elites, the army, and the Catholic Church, while Liberals wanted to implement republican reforms. 

Although Mexican society did make sharp distinctions of race and class in the years leading up to the war, nonwhites had more political power and social mobility than in the United States. Centuries of racial and cultural mixing between the descendants of Spanish settlers, enslaved Africans, Indigenous inhabitants, and Asian immigrants of the region had created a diverse populace. After independence from Spain, the Mexican government removed racial identifiers from official documents to promote equality in the new republic, and in 1829 abolished slavery altogether.

Cotton, Texas, and Manifest Destiny

Many Americans believed that the key to their prosperity was relentless expansion. The U.S. government had purchased the Louisiana Territory in 1803, and newspaper editors spread the idea that it was the “ Manifest Destiny ” of the United States to possess North America from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. The ideology of Manifest Destiny justified U.S. imperialism by claiming that the nation had a divine mission to spread democracy and Protestant Christianity across the continent.

Expansion was particularly crucial for the cotton planters who dominated the southern United States. Cultivating cotton quickly depleted soil, and plantation owners were eager to obtain more fertile land. They relied on the forced labor of enslaved people of African descent, and sought to expand slavery along with the borders of the American south. Many cotton planters crossed the border into the Mexican territory of Coahuila y Tejas, where they were initially welcomed as a stabilizing force that would help to repel raids from the powerful Comanche ( Nʉmʉnʉʉ ) nation. But the Mexican government soon grew frustrated with the American settlers, who disregarded the ban on slavery and showed no intention of assimilating into Mexican society.  

The war begins

In 1836, American and Mexican residents who wanted to introduce enslaved laborers to the area to farm cotton took advantage of the Mexican government’s tenuous hold on the country’s periphery by declaring Texas an independent republic. The Texians triumphed, despite their storied defeat at The Alamo , a Spanish mission ( San Antonio de Valero ) that had been converted into a fortress. But the Mexican government did not accept the treaty granting Texas independence since it had been signed under duress. For nearly ten years, the Mexican government considered Texas a rebel territory, while the United States recognized it as a sovereign nation. 

In fact, Texians wanted to join the United States and applied for annexation shortly after the rebellion. But the U.S. Congress, unwilling to upset the delicate balance between states that permitted slavery (“slave states”) and states that did not (“free states”), declined to consider the matter. All of that changed when James K. Polk was elected president in 1844. Polk was a Democrat, closely tied to Andrew Jackson, and he favored territorial expansion. Consequently, the United States annexed Texas in 1845 (leading Mexico to sever diplomatic relations), and Polk negotiated with Britain for a portion of the Oregon Territory in 1846. 

Polk also sent an envoy to Mexico to offer to purchase California, then coveted for its Pacific ports and fertile farmland, but the Mexican government refused. Finally, in April 1846, Polk sent U.S. soldiers under the command of General Zachary Taylor to disputed territory south of the Nueces River, hoping to provoke conflict. 

Text of Polk’s war proclamation in the New-York Daily Tribune ( Library of Congress ).

The progress of the war

Polk’s gamble paid off; after a U.S. patrol marched into the disputed territory, a Mexican cavalry unit attacked, killing 11 American soldiers. When news reached Washington, D.C. two weeks later, Polk wen t to Congress to ask for a declaration of war, claiming that Mexico had shed “American blood on the American soil.” Many U.S. lawmakers, especially those of the opposition Whig party, were suspicious of Polk’s claims—Abraham Lincoln, then a young Congressman, would later ask the president for evidence of the exact “spot” where the hostilities had begun—but conscious that fighting was already underway, the Whigs ultimately voted to support the war. 

Detail of map below, showing land and naval campaigns during the Mexican-American War, including Monterrey and Buena Vista.

General Taylor commanded just one of many American military forces in what would become a two-year-long, multi-front war. In northern Mexico, Taylor fought inland to Monterrey and secured the region for the United States in the Battle of Buena Vista. 

Farther north (see map below), the U.S. army captured Santa Fe, in what is now New Mexico, without firing a shot (although Mexican and Indigenous Puebloan residents later rebelled against U.S. occupation in the Taos Revolt). Naval campaigns targeted the west coast of Mexico from Mazatlán to Yerba Buena (present-day San Francisco), and wrested control of the ports and pueblos of California along with several ground units. 

Map of land and naval campaigns during the Mexican-American War. The inset depicts General Winfield Scott’s route from Veracruz to Mexico City (map: Kaidor , CC-BY-SA 3.0).

The most devastating campaign, however, was in southeastern Mexico (see inset in map above). In 1847, U.S. General Winfield Scott conveyed a force of more than 13,000 men by sea to Veracruz. He deliberately followed the same path of conquest to Mexico City that Hern án Corté s had taken more than 300 years earlier to the Mexica capital of Tenochtitlan (which became Mexico City). In September 1847, the U.S. army invaded the nation’s capital, Mexico City. Despite months of guerrilla warfare , Mexicans could not expel the occupying army. 

In February 1848, the two nations negotiated the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to end the war. The treaty’s terms gave the United States most of what is now the southwestern United States, including the modern-day states of Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and portions of Colorado and Wyoming, in exchange for $15 million and the forgiveness of Mexican debts to American citizens. Mexicans who chose to remain in the territory would receive American citizenship. 

“A wicked war”  

“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico.” —Ulysses S. Grant, 1879

Ulysses S. Grant, who would go on to command the victorious forces in the Civil War nearly twenty years later, not to mention serve as president of the United States, was a 24-year-old lieutenant during the Mexican-American War. Grant believed that in the Mexican-American War, a stronger nation had unjustly made war on a weaker one. [3] Indeed, the United States government had expected a quick win against an inferior opponent, and the extent of Mexican resistance came as a surprise. Racial and religious prejudice influenced American attitudes toward Mexicans. Officers wrote about the depredations committed by volunteers, who frequently stole from and sometimes killed Mexican civilians. 

Most American soldiers and volunteers were Protestants, rife with anti-Catholic prejudice, and they disdained Mexican religiosity as superstition and ignorance. In some cases, American soldiers deliberately defiled churches or religious objects. Their behavior so disgusted German and Irish Catholic volunteers that several hundred switched sides and fought for the Mexicans as the St. Patrick’s Battalion, or San Patricios . 

The San Patricios were U.S. soldiers who switched sides to fight with the Mexican army. Many were captured and executed in the battles leading up to the occupation of Mexico City. Samuel Chamberlain, who was a private in the U.S. army during the 1847 mass execution, illustrated the event in his memoirs twenty years later. Chamberlain likely made sketches on site (suggested by the recognizable volcanoes in the Valley of Mexico and Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City at right) and worked them into finished watercolors at a later time. The hanging scene’s distance from the viewer, and the lack of visible emotion with which Chamberlain portrays it, suggests that he saw the San Patricios as traitors. Samuel Chamberlain, Hanging of the San Patricios following the Battle of Chapultepec , c. 1867, watercolor ( Smithsonian Magazine ).

Unknown photographer, General Wool and staff in the Calle Real, Saltillo, Mexico , c. 1847 ( Amon Carter Museum of American Art )

New technologies of communication and representation brought news of the war home to civilians faster and more vividly than ever before. The first photographs of war anywhere in the world emerged from this conflict: a series of 50 daguerreotypes, now housed at the Amon Carter Museum, which were created in 1847 by an unknown photographer in Saltillo, Mexico. Daguerreotypists followed the U.S. troops, taking portraits of officers, landmarks, and grave sites as souvenirs. [4] The Mexican-American War was also the first war in which U.S. journalists accompanied the army as foreign correspondents, and the updates they sent home to newspapers by telegraph generated great interest and patriotism among the public.

Richard Caton Woodville, War News from Mexico , 1848, oil on canvas, 68.6 × 63.5 cm (Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Arkansas)

But the war and its expansionist aims did not enjoy universal support in the United States. Just three months into the conflict anti-slavery politicians introduced a bill into Congress, the Wilmot Proviso , that would outlaw slavery in any territory that might be gained from Mexico.

In addition, the first anti-war movement in the United States arose in response to the conflict; many northeastern intellectuals protested what they saw as an unprincipled land-grab aimed at increasing the power of slaveholders. Henry David Thoreau, a leading Transcendentalist writer, was jailed for refusing to pay taxes to support the war. His essay on the duty of citizens to refuse to cooperate with immoral government actions, “Civil Disobedience,” inspired the nonviolent resistance tactics of later civil rights leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Consequences of the Mexican-American War

The war’s human cost is difficult to quantify. Historians estimate that 25,000 Mexican soldiers died, as well as 15,000 American soldiers. The vast majority of American men died from disease, not battlefield injuries, as the volunteer soldiers failed to implement necessary measures for sanitation. As many had feared, the addition of land suitable for cotton farming meant the extension of slavery, along with the human misery of the enslaved men and women who cleared and farmed the land. White settlers who moved to the west did not respect the rights of the Indigenous people or Mexican-Americans (those who had received U.S. citizenship at the war’s end) living there, often forcibly removing them from their land. 

The political and social consequences of the war are easier to see. For Mexico, the defeat demonstrated the weakness of the country. Debates over the proper role of the army and the Catholic Church in politics led to the Reform War, and later the installation of a French emperor in Mexico. For the United States, the acquisition of western lands proved both a blessing and a curse. Their rich resources, including the gold discovered in California just weeks before the end of the war, contributed to growing American economic power. But the addition of new territory upset the fragile balance of power that had kept free and slave states bound together in an uneasy union. In 1861, the tensions over the expansion of slavery into the west led to the U.S. Civil War.

• War dead as a percentage of total U.S. population. .057% of the U.S. population died as a result of the Mexican-American War.
• See the Historical Marker Database for estimates.
• For Grant’s quote concerning the “wicked war,” see John Russell Young, Around the World with General Grant (New York: American News, 1879), 2:447–48.
• James Oles, Art and Architecture in Mexico (Thames and Hudson, 2013), 155.

Additional resources: 

View the text of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo at the Library of Congress

See more Mexican-American War daguerreotypes from Google Arts & Culture 

Political cartoons and prints relating to the Mexican-American War at the Library of Congress 

Samuel Chamberlain’s Mexican-American War watercolors at the San Jacinto Museum 

Find this essay in...

Seeing america.

• Theme: America in the World
• Period: 1848–1877
• Topic: The Frontier, Manifest Destiny, and The American West

Art histories

Explore the diverse history of the United States through its art. Seeing America is funded by the Terra Foundation for American Art and the Alice L. Walton Foundation.

Your donations help make art history free and accessible to everyone!

Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The Mexican-American War: Arguments for and against Going to War

By tim bailey.

Click here to download this three-lesson unit.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

Mexican-American War

Related resources for this article.

• Primary Sources & E-Books

Introduction

The Mexican-American War, or Mexican War, was fought between Mexico and the United States from 1846 to 1848. “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil. War exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself.” So U.S. President James K. Polk said in his message to Congress in May 1846.

The trouble grew out of a dispute over the border between the two countries. Texas , formerly a part of Mexico, claimed that its southwest boundary extended to the Rio Grande . When Texas entered the Union and became a U.S. state, this was the boundary accepted by the United States. Mexico claimed that the boundary was the Nueces River, which is 100 miles (160 kilometers) eastward.

In August 1845, President Polk stationed American troops west of the Nueces, showing that the United States would protect Texas to the Rio Grande but attempting at the same time to avoid war. But on January 13, 1846, he ordered General Zachary Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande. This was a frank invasion of Mexican territory. A Mexican force crossed the river at Palo Alto, and a battle took place on May 8 of that year. This was followed on May 9 by the Battle of Resaca de la Palma. The United States declared war on Mexico on May 13.

California and the Slavery Question

Two other issues complicated the matter. In the first place many American citizens had claims against Mexico for losses of property caused by the unsettled condition of the country. Mexico agreed to pay only part of the claims. The U.S. president also wished to acquire the vast region of California during his administration. He had tried in vain to purchase California, but Mexico had refused to sell its territory. The refusal had added fuel to the flame, especially for those Americans who wanted more land for the expansion of slavery . Antislavery New England opposed the war.

A One-Sided Conflict

In almost every battle in the war the American troops were victorious, though they were outnumbered by the Mexicans by about two to one. After taking Resaca de la Palma, General Taylor struck into the interior of Mexico. After a four-day siege and a gallant resistance by the Mexicans, he entered the city of Monterrey on September 24. His most famous victory was that of Buena Vista. There, for the entire day of February 23, 1847, his army of 4,700 men successfully withstood the attack of 20,000 Mexicans under Antonio López de Santa Anna . The Mexicans finally acknowledged defeat by withdrawing from the field.

While these victories were being won in Mexico, Americans were taking possession of California. U.S. Navy Commodore John D. Sloat was stationed in Mazatlán, Mexico, at the outbreak of the war. He sailed to Monterey, California, and took possession of it on July 7, 1846. Yerba Buena (now San Francisco), California, was seized the next day. In August 1846, Sloat relinquished command of the Pacific squadron to Commodore Robert F. Stockton . With Captain John C. Frémont he completed the conquest of California. In January 1847 the last areas of resistance were brought under control by General Stephen W. Kearny , who had earlier secured New Mexico.

On March 27, 1847, General Winfield Scott captured the fortress on the harbor of Veracruz. This fort controlled the gateway to Mexico. On April 18, with 8,000 men, he drove some 12,000 Mexicans from the pass of Cerro Gordo. Finally, he came to the Rock of Chapultepec (Grasshopper Hill), 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from Mexico City. The Mexicans fought heroically in defense of this ancient fortress; however, after a desperate struggle they were defeated. On September 14, American troops entered Mexico City, and the fighting was at an end.

The Treaty of Peace

By the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (February 2, 1848), Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its boundary. The treaty also gave the United States Mexico’s northern provinces of California and New Mexico . These included parts of the present states of Nevada , Utah , Arizona , Colorado , and Wyoming . Mexico received 15 million dollars and was also relieved of all claims of citizens of the United States against it.

The United States thus acquired vast mineral wealth, especially gold, and a door to the Pacific Ocean and to East Asia. The additional territory raised again the burning question of slavery in the U.S. and the application of the Missouri Compromise to the new lands. The questionable character of the American claims to Mexican lands contributed a heritage of ill will to the troubled relations between the United States and its southern neighbor, Mexico.

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

Military Records

Mexican War

Pre-World War I U.S. Army Pension and Bounty Land Applications

Search Records Online

Service records.

Scan your Mexican War records in our DC Scanning Room!

Index To Compiled Service Records Of Volunteer Soldiers Who Served During The Mexican War (Microfilm Roll #M616, Record Group 94)

• FamilySearch.org  (free)

Compiled Service Records of Volunteer Soldiers Who Served During the Mexican War for the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and in Mormon Battalion  (Microfilm Rolls #M1028, M278, M351, M638,  M863, M1970, Record Group 94)

• National Archives Catalog (NAID: 654520)  (free)
• Ancestry.com  (free from NARA computers) |  Ancestry.com   ($ - by subscription)
• FamilySearch  (free)
• Fold3:  Service Records for Arkansas , Mississippi , Pennsylvania , Tennessee , Texas , and Mormon Battalion

Pension Records

 Index to Mexican War Pension Files, 1887-1926 (Microfilm Roll #T317, Record Group 15)

• FamilySearch.org  (free)

Selected Pension Application Files Relating to the Mormon Battalion, Mexican War, 1846-1848 (Microfilm Roll #T1196, Record Group 15)

• National Archives Catalog (NAID: 1104361) (free)

Case Files of Mexican War Pension Applications, ca. 1887 - ca. 1926 (Microfilm Roll #T317, Record Group 15)

• National Archives Catalog (NAID: 1104361)  (free) 

Index to Pension Application Files of Remarried Widows Based on Service in the War of 1812, Indian Wars, Mexican War, and Regular Army before 1861 , (Microfilm Roll #M1784, Record Group 15)

• FamilySearch.org (free)

Killed and Wounded

Returns of Killed and Wounded in Battles or Engagements with Indians, British Troops, and Mexican Troops, compiled 1850 - 1851, documenting the period 1790 - 1848  (Microfilm Roll #M1832, Record Group 94)

Other Resources

" Monuments, Manifest Destiny, and Mexico " Michael Dear's article which tells the story of the survey of the U.S.-Mexico border following the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. From NARA's publication Prologue .

Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo Digitized version of the original document that ended the Mexican-American War.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo A Teaching with Documents lesson plan about the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War.

A Continent Divided: The U.S.-Mexican War A web site created by a collaboration between the Center for Greater Southwestern Studies and the Library at the University of Texas at Arlington for both scholars and teachers.

A Guide to the Mexican War This guide provides links to digital materials related to the Mexican War that are available on the Library of Congress web site.

The Mexican-American War "This web site presents a historical overview of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), as well as primary documents and images related to the conflict."

Mexican War The Texas State Historical Association offers this chapter from The Handbook of Texas .

Mexican War Dead or Veterans From the American Battle Monuments Commission, this site remembers soldiers from the Mexican War who are buried in the Mexico City National Cemetery.

Robert E. Lee Mexican War Maps An online exhibit of 30 original military maps owned by Robert E. Lee from the holdings of the Virginia Military Institute.

U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848) This PBS site chronicles the events of the border disputes through multiple points of view to provide an enlightened perspective on the subject. Includes histories, articles, essays, a timeline, and a moderated discussion area for visitors.

U.S.-Mexican War A site rich in the history of the war, by the Descendants of Mexican War Veterans. Read battle plans and orders, peruse letters, and see images of the war and veterans.

U.S.-Mexican War: The Zachary Taylor Encampment in Corpus Christi Created by volunteers at the Corpus Christi Public Libraries, this informational site offers images, letters, newspaper accounts, and more, of the Mexican War in the Corpus Christi, Texas, area.

Home — Essay Samples — War — Mexican War — Why the U.S. Was Not Justified in Going to War with Mexico

Why The U.s. Was not Justified in Going to War with Mexico

• Categories: Mexican War

About this sample

Words: 866 |

Published: Sep 12, 2023

Words: 866 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Territorial disputes: questionable claims to mexican land, the controversial outbreak of war: polk's role, ethical concerns: the impact on mexico and indigenous peoples.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: War

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 655 words

1 pages / 332 words

4 pages / 1646 words

2 pages / 714 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Mexican War

The Mexican-American War, which took place between 1846 and 1848, marked a significant chapter in the history of the United States. It was a conflict that raised questions about the nation's motives, its expansionist goals, and [...]

The Mexican-American War, which spanned from 1846 to 1848, remains a pivotal event in the history of both nations, marking a significant territorial and ideological shift in the continent of North America. The war's [...]

The question of justification concerning the U.S.-Mexican War (1846–1848) has remained a contested subject among historians, scholars, and policymakers. At the heart of this discourse is an inquiry into the ethical, political, [...]

The Mexican-American War, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, is a pivotal yet controversial chapter in the history of both the United States and Mexico. This conflict, initiated by a combination of territorial ambitions and [...]

It is strong debated, even today, who to blame for the Mexican War. Was it something bound by fate to occur due to rising tensions between the U.S. and Mexico? Was it a ploy by James K. Polk to gain territory in a pursuit of [...]

Was the United States justified in going to war with Mexico?” This is a trigger phrase similar to watching two siblings fighting over who gets to play the Xbox. “It’s MY Xbox.” “But you ruin the whole game.” In this case, Mexico [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Modern Latin America

Document #38 Abraham Lincoln on the Mexican-American War (1846-48)

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 12, 1848:

Although most U.S. politicians supported the Mexican-American War, among the outspoken opponents was Abraham Lincoln, a young congressman from the state of Illinois, who had been elected several months after the declaration of war. Lincoln, like many others who spoke out against the war, considered it a ploy to expand slavery should the U.S. government acquire new territories as a result of a Mexican defeat.

Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President [James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be removed, I will now try to show. When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so. Besides the continual effort of the President to argue every silent vote given for supplies, into an endorsement of the justice and wisdom of his conduct—besides that singularly candid paragraph, in his late message in which he tells us that Congress, with great unanimity, only two in the Senate and fourteen in the House dissenting, had declared that, “by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States,” when the same journals that informed him of this, also informed him, that when that declaration stood disconnected from the question of supplies, sixty seven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it—besides this open attempt to prove, by telling the truth, what he could not prove by telling the whole truth—demanding of all who will not submit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out—besides all this, one of my colleagues (Mr. Richardson) at a very early day in the session brought in a set of resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions, when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I can not be silent, if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him. Under the impression thus made, I gave the vote before mentioned. I propose now to give, concisely, the process of the examination I made, and how I reached the conclusion I did. The President, in his first war message of May 1846, declares that the soil was ours on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico; and he repeats that declaration, almost in the same language, in each successive annual message, thus showing that he esteems that point, a highly essential one. In the importance of that point, I entirely agree with the President. To my judgment, it is the very point, upon which he should be justified, or condemned. In his message of Decr. 1846, it seems to have occurred to him, as is certainly true, that title—ownership—to soil, or any thing else, is not a simple fact; but is a conclusion following one or more simple facts; and that it was incumbent upon him, to present the facts, from which he concluded, the soil was ours, on which the first blood of the war was shed.

Accordingly a little below the middle of page twelve in the message last referred to, he enters upon that task; forming an issue, and introducing testimony, extending the whole, to a little below the middle of page fourteen. Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this,—issue and evidence—is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception. The issue, as he presents it, is in these words “But there are those who, conceding all this. to be true, assume the ground that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that, therefore, in marching our army to the east bank of the latter river, we passed the Texan line, and invaded the territory of Mexico.” Now this issue, is made up of two affirmatives and no negative. The main deception of it is, that it assumes as true, that one river or the other is necessarily the boundary; and cheats the superficial thinker entirely out of the idea, that possibly the boundary is somewhere between the two, and not actually at either. A further deception is, that it will let in evidence, which a true issue would exclude. A true issue, made by the President, would be about as follows “I say, the soil was ours, on which the first blood was shed; there are those who say it was not.”

I now proceed to examine the Presidents evidence, as applicable to such an issue. When that evidence is analyzed, it is all included n the following propositions:

1. That the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it of France in 1803. 2. That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande, as her Western boundary. 3. That by various acts, she had claimed it on paper. 4. That Santa Anna, in his treaty with Texas, recognized the Rio Grande, as her boundary. 5. That Texas before, and the U. S. after, annexation had exercised jurisdiction beyond the Nueces—between the two rivers. 6. That our Congress, understood the boundary of Texas to extend beyond the Nueces.

Now for each of these in its turn.

His first item is, that the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in 1803; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues over the amount of nearly a page, to prove it true; at the end of which he lets us know, that by the treaty of 1819, we sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward, to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the present, that the Rio Grande, was the boundary of Louisiana, what, under heaven, had that to do with the present boundary between us and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line, that once divided your land from mine, can still be the boundary between us, after I have sold my land to you, is, to me, beyond all comprehension. And how any man, with an honest purpose only, of proving the truth, could ever have thought of introducing such a fact to prove such an issue, is equally incomprehensible. His next piece of evidence is that “The Republic of Texas always claimed this river (Rio Grande) as her western boundary[.]” That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she has not always claimed it. There is, at least, one distinguished exception. Her state constitution,—the republic’s most solemn, and well considered act—that which may, without impropriety, be called her last will and testament revoking all others—makes no such claim. But suppose she had always claimed it. Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary? so that there is but claim against claim, leaving nothing proved, until we get back of the claims, and find which has the better foundation. Though not in the order in which the President presents his evidence, I now consider that class of his statements, which are, in substance, nothing more than that Texas has, by various acts of her convention and congress, claimed the Rio Grande, as her boundary, on paper. I mean here what he says about the fixing of the Rio Grande as her boundary in her old constitution (not her state constitution) about forming congressional districts, counties &c &c. Now all of this is but naked claim; and what I have already said about claims is strictly applicable to this. If I should claim your land, by word of mouth, that certainly would not make it mine; and if I were to claim it by a deed which I had made myself, and with which, you had had nothing to do, the claim would be quite the same, in substance—or rather, in utter nothingness. I next consider the President’s statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas, recognized the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war—a captive—could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive—besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing, which the President calls by that big name, he can have it, by turning to Niles’ Register volume 50, page 336. [See Santa Anna Treaty.] And if any one should suppose that Niles’ Register is a curious repository of so mighty a document, as a solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I learned, to a tolerable degree [of] certainty, by enquiry at the State Department, that the President himself, never saw it any where else. By the way, I believe I should not err, if I were to declare, that during the first ten years of the existence of that document, it was never, by any body, called a treaty—that it was never so called, till the President, in his extremity, attempted, by so calling it, to wring something from it in justification of himself in connection with the Mexican war. It has none of the distinguishing features of a treaty. It does not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna does not therein, assume to bind Mexico; he assumes only to act as the President-Commander-in-chief of the Mexican Army and Navy; stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexican people to take up arms, against Texas during the existence of the war of independence [. ] He did not recognize the independence of Texas; he did not assume to put an end to the war; but clearly indicated his expectation of its continuance; he did not say one word about boundary, and, most probably, never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces should evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande; and in another article, it is stipulated that, to prevent collisions between the armies, the Texan army should not approach nearer than within five leagues—of what is not said—but clearly, from the object stated it is—of the Rio Grande. Now, if this is a treaty, recognizing the Rio Grande, as the boundary of Texas, it contains the singular feauture [sic], of stipulating, that Texas shall not go within five leagues of her own boundary.

Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation, and the United States, afterwards, exercising jurisdiction beyond the Nueces, and between the two rivers. This actual exercise of jurisdiction, is the very class or quality of evidence we want. It is excellent so far as it goes; but does it go far enough? He tells us it went beyond the Nueces; but he does not tell us it went to the Rio Grande. He tells us, jurisdiction was exercised between the two rivers, but he does not tell us it was exercised over all the territory between them. Some simple minded people, think it is possible, to cross one river and go beyond it without going all the way to the next—that jurisdiction may be exercised between two rivers without covering all the country between them. I know a man, not very unlike myself, who exercises jurisdiction over a piece of land between the Wabash and the Mississippi; and yet so far is this from being all there is between those rivers, that it is just one hundred and fifty two feet long by fifty wide, and no part of it much within a hundred miles of either. He has a neighbour between him and the Mississippi,—that is, just across the street, in that direction—whom, I am sure, he could neither persuade nor force to give up his habitation; but which nevertheless, he could certainly annex, if it were to be done, by merely standing on his own side of the street and claiming it, or even, sitting down, and writing a deed for it.

But next the President tells us, the Congress of the United States understood the state of Texas they admitted into the union, to extend beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so understood it. But how far beyond? That Congress did not understand it to extend clear to the Rio Grande, is quite certain by the fact of their joint resolutions, for admission, expressly leaving all questions of boundary to future adjustment. And it may be added, that Texas herself, is proved to have had the same understanding of it, that our Congress had, by the fact of the exact conformity of her new constitution, to those resolutions.

I am now through the whole of the President’s evidence; and it is a singular fact, that if any one should declare the President sent the army into the midst of a settlement of Mexican people, who had never submitted, by consent or by force, to the authority of Texas or of the United States, and that there, and thereby, the first blood of the war was shed, there is not one word in all the President has said, which would either admit or deny the declaration. This strange omission, it does seem to me, could not have occurred but by design. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; and there, I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client’s neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it appear so; but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it still does appear to me, that just such, and from just such necessity, is the President’s struggle in this case.

Some time after my colleague (Mr. Richardson) introduced the resolutions I have mentioned, I introduced a preamble, resolution, and interrogatories intended to draw the President out, if possible, on this hitherto untrodden ground. To show their relevancy, I propose to state my understanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It is, that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one, from that of the other, was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our territory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President’s statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther. Now sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evidence, as to whether Texas had actually carried her revolution, to the place where the hostilities of the present war commenced, let the President answer the interrogatories, I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion—no equivocation. And if, so answering, he can show that the soil was ours, where the first blood of the war was shed—that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and that the same is true df the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification. In that case I, shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the President may do this. I expect to give some votes, in connection with the war, which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he does so. But if he can not, or will not do this—if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive—what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning—to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying contributions on Mexico. At one time, urging the national honor, the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, and even, the good of Mexico herself, as among the objects of the war; at another, telling us, that “to reject indemnity, by refusing to accept a cession of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, bearing all its expenses, without a purpose or definite object[.]” So then, the national honor, security of the future, and every thing but territorial indemnity, may be considered the no-purposes, and indefinite, objects of the war! But, having it now settled that territorial indemnity is the only object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all that he was content to take, a few months ago, and the whole province of lower California to boot, and to still carry on the war—to take all we are fighting for, and still fight on. Again, the President is resolved, under all circumstances, to have full territorial indemnity for the expenses of the war; but he forgets to tell us how we are to get the excess, after those expenses shall have surpassed the value of the whole of the Mexican territory. So again, he insists that the separate national existence of Mexico, shall be maintained; but he does not tell us how this can be done, after we shall have taken all her territory. Lest the questions, I here suggest, be considered speculative merely, let me be indulged a moment in trying [to] show they are not. The war has gone on some twenty months; for the expenses of which, together with an inconsiderable old score, the President now claims about one half of the Mexican territory; and that, by far the better half, so far as concerns our ability to make any thing out of it. It is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could establish land offices in it, and raise some money in that way. But the other half is already inhabited, as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of the country; and all its lands, or all that are valuable, already appropriated as private property. How then are we to make any thing out of these lands with this encumbrance on them? or how, remove the encumbrance? I suppose no one will say we should kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves of them, or even confiscate their property. How then can we make much out of this part of the territory? If the prosecution of the war has, in expenses, already equaled the better half of the country, how long its future prosecution, will be in equaling, the less valuable half, is not a speculative, but a practical question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question which the President seems to never have thought of. As to the mode of terminating the war, and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemies country; and, after apparently, talking himself tired, on this point, the President drops down into a half despairing tone, and tells us that “with a people distracted and divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace[.]” Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and trusting in our protection, to set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us, that “this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace.” But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of “more vigorous prosecution.[“] All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At its beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes—every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,—after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

The Mexican-American War Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The US-Mexican War started on 25 April 1846 and lasted for 2 years until 1848 (Bauer, 1992). The war broke out mainly because both the US and Mexico were interested in Texas, which had gained independence from Mexico in 1836. People have divided opinion on whether the US should have been involved in this war. On one side, some people argue that the US should not have been involved in the war because it had refused to incorporate Texas into the Union in 1836 after gaining independence. On the other side, some individuals hold that the US should have been involved in the war as retaliation after Mexico attacked American soldiers on the disputed land. However, this paper holds that the US should not have engaged in the 1846 Mexican-American War.

The Mexican president at the time, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, had warned the US that any efforts to annex Texas would break the already fragile relationship between Mexico and the US (Frazier, 1998). However, the US president at the time ignored such warnings. Mexico and the US were equal partners in the region, and President James Polk should have respected the calls to leave Texas alone. The Mexican president was only concerned about the peace of the region. President de Santa Anna even went to the extent of begging the US to stay out of Texas, but President Polk was determined to annex Texas to the Union. Therefore, for the interest of peace in the region, the US should not have engaged Mexico in this bloody war.

To show its commitment to resolve the Texan conflict amicably, the Mexican government decided to negotiate with a low-level US government official. Having a low-level government official would keep politics out of the already volatile issue. However, the US government would not divorce the politics of supremacy from the confrontation, and thus it sent a minister to negotiate with Mexico. At this point, it is clear that the US was set for a military confrontation by defying all the demands from the Mexican government. If the US sent a low-profile government official as required, perhaps the war would have been averted.

However, the proponents of the war argue that Mexico had to be held responsible for attacking American troops and killing two officers (Henderson, 2008). Apparently, Mexico had no right to dictate whether Texas wanted to join the Union or remain an independent country. Texas needed help from its allies after being ravaged by the struggle for independence from Mexico. Therefore, the US was simply helping its ally at the time of need through annexation. Additionally, Mexico refused to honor its promise of receiving the US emissary with honor befitting an American government official in foreign land. Therefore, Mexico pushed the US into the war.

In conclusion, there are compelling reasons explaining why the US should or should not have engaged in the Mexican-American War. However, the US should not have engaged in the war. Mexico had categorically stated that the annexation of Texas to the United States would cause conflicts in the region, and President Polk should have respected this stand. Besides, Mexico indicated its willingness to negotiate with a low-profile US government official. However, the US sent a high-ranking minister in the government.

The proponents of the war hold that Mexico had no right to determine if Texas would join the US. However, this argument is weak because Mexico wanted peace in the region and the US should have respected that view. Therefore, the arguments on why the US should not have engaged in the war are highly compelling because peace should surpass supremacy battles.

Bauer, J. (1992). The Mexican War: 1846–1848 . Winnipeg, MB: Bison Books.

Frazier, D. (1998). The U.S. and Mexico at war . Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Henderson, T. (2008). A glorious defeat: Mexico and its war with the United States. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

• Early American Way of War: Tactics and Practices
• The Chinese Civil War in the 20th Century
• Conference: History Before 1877
• Chicano Art as a Form of Identity Expression
• The Chicano Movement
• Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries
• "The Accidental Guerrilla" by David Kilcullen
• The American Combat Soldier in Vietnam by Grunts
• The First and Second Chechen Wars Comparison
• The Arab Spring: Change and Resistance in the Middle East
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 25). The Mexican-American War. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-mexican-american-war/

"The Mexican-American War." IvyPanda , 25 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-mexican-american-war/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Mexican-American War'. 25 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Mexican-American War." August 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-mexican-american-war/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Mexican-American War." August 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-mexican-american-war/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Mexican-American War." August 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-mexican-american-war/.

Mexican-American War

By William V. Bartleson

Despite taking place in the American Southwest and Central America, the Mexican-American War (1845-48) had significant ties to the Philadelphia area. As one of the most populous urban centers in the country, the Delaware Valley became a hotbed of activity for one of the most controversial wars in American history.

War between the United States and Mexico followed the admission of Texas as the twenty-eighth state of the United States in December 1845. This exacerbated preexisting tension with the Mexican government, which never recognized Texas independence, American annexation of Texas, nor the proposed border of the new state at the Rio Grande River. After an armed clash between U.S. forces led by General Zachary Taylor (1784-1850) and Mexican troops in the disputed area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande, Congress declared war on Mexico on May 13, 1846, and authorized President James K. Polk (1795-1849) to call up fifty thousand volunteers to join the existing U.S. Army.

In Philadelphia and elsewhere, the controversy surrounding the coming and course of the Mexican-American War illustrated the widening divide in American society over the issues of territorial conquest and the expansion of slavery. Initially, support for the war was strong in the mid-Atlantic states, and Philadelphia’s historic ties to the American Revolution made it a centerpiece for pro-war patriotism by politicians and cultural figures who viewed Manifest Destiny as the legacy of American independence. The Philadelphia North American, a “penny press” newspaper owned by George R. Graham (1813-1894), reported news from Mexico and supported “Mr. Polk’s War” in editorials. However, Philadelphia’s active abolitionist community opposed the war as a vehicle for expanding slavery into new territory. In June 1846, The National Anti – Slavery Standard, published in Philadelphia, strongly opposed the war based on its abolitionist views against expansion of slavery into the West.

The war was equally controversial in New Jersey and Delaware. In New Jersey, a strong Whig Party presence in state politics made unified action difficult. In October 1847, a convention of New Jersey Whigs condemned the Polk administration’s drive for territorial annexation. Niles’ National Register reported that their resolutions “strongly denounced the present national administration for violations of the liberties of the people and interests of the Union, especially in having made war without consulting the people or their representatives, and that too, for party purposes.” This sentiment was common across New Jersey. When New Jersey Governor Charles C. Stratton (1796-1859) responded to President Polk’s call to organize volunteers for service, the turnout was so meager that only a New Jersey Battalion of Volunteers could be formed, not a regiment. In Delaware, opposition to the war ran so strong that only a dozen residents volunteered to serve.

During the opening stages of mobilization, Philadelphia joined other cities in holding a pro-war rally, but this fervor was not universal. In response to impassioned opposition speeches delivered by Whig politician Henry Clay (1777-1852) in the autumn of 1847, anti-war rallies took place in Philadelphia and Trenton, New Jersey.

The “Killers” in the Ranks

Following the declaration of war, Pennsylvania Governor Francis R. Shunk (1788-1848) called for forming six regiments to serve in the U.S. Army. In contrast to the tepid response in New Jersey and Delaware, patriotic enthusiasm quickly satisfied the quotas, and several full companies had to be turned away. Recruits from the Keystone State were organized into the First  and Second Pennsylvania Volunteer Regiments. Of the ten companies constituting the First  Regiment, six hailed from Philadelphia, including the City Guards of Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Light Guards, and the Cadwalader Grays. The Second Regiment became home to Company F, known as the Philadelphia Rangers.

Along with the patriotism that motivated Philadelphia men to serve, the disorder and violence that had been hallmarks of Philadelphia during the 1830s and 1840s also traveled west with the volunteers who mustered in Harrisburg and then proceeded to Pittsburgh en route to Mexico. In Pittsburgh, soldiers from Company D (The City Guard) invaded a local theater in an incident that ended in a violent clash with police. This riotous behavior continued later New Orleans, where a soldier claiming membership in the notorious Philadelphia “Killers” gang attacked citizens and destroyed property across the city. Later, a faction of the Killers intimidated Company D’s commanding officer, Captain Joseph Hill, who temporarily fled the regiment in April 1847. Another veteran of Philadelphia street violence led the Pennsylvania volunteer regiments after their transport down the Mississippi River and across the Gulf to Lobos, Mexico, where they landed in February 1846. Major General Robert Patterson, a former Pennsylvania militia commander, had led troops against rioters during the destruction of the Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia in 1838. In Mexico, he commanded the Second Division of a brigade led by Brigadier General Gideon J. Pillow (1806-1878), which took in the Pennsylvania volunteers.

The Pennsylvania Volunteers in Mexico

The fighting men from Philadelphia saw their first significant combat at the Siege of Veracruz in March 1847. In the thunderous twenty-day siege, the Pennsylvania regiments lost the service of fifteen soldiers to enemy cannon fire, including three who were killed. After the fall of Veracruz, the regiments moved into the Mexican interior and saw action again in April at the Battle of Cerro Gordo as part of an assault on Mexican artillery at Jarero, south of the Mexican encampment near Vasquez. Despite the ferocity of the engagement, the regiments suffered few casualties. For the next two months, they continued inland toward Mexico City, fighting guerillas, the elements, and disease.

In September 1847, the Pennsylvania Regiments were split by General Winfield Scott (1786-1866) to prepare for the assault on Mexico City. While three of the Philadelphia companies were reassigned to garrison duty at Puebla, the Reading Artillery of Company A and the Philadelphia Rangers of the Second Regiment proceeded with the main army toward Mexico City. Both companies saw heavy fighting at close range with the Mexican defenders. In two days of combat, the Second Regiment suffered its worst losses of the conflict with eight men killed and eighty-nine wounded.

Mexican troops flushed out of Mexico City and led by General Antonio López de Santa Anna (1794-1876) next attacked Puebla, where the Philadelphia remnant of the First Regiment had been stationed.  A nearly month-long siege ensued began in September 14, 1847. Forces under Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel Black (1816-1862), a Pittsburgh native and future Pennsylvania congressional representative, faced repeated assaults and dwindling supplies until Santa Anna withdrew his troops on October 12. The Siege of Puebla was not only the Pennsylvanians’ finest performance, it was also the most costly. The First Regiment suffered fifty-five casualties with twenty-one men killed in action. In December 1847, the survivors marched to Mexico City, where they reunited with the Second Regiment to much fanfare and celebration.

Philadelphia-area soldiers also served in areas of the war other than Mexico. A veteran of the War of 1812, Rear Admiral William Mervine (1791-1868), commanded the USS Savannah in the Pacific, and his Marine detachment captured the city of Monterey in July 1846. Samuel Francis Du Pont (1803-65) of the famed DuPont family of Delaware commanded the blockade of California and achieved the rank of rear admiral. Future U.S. senator from New Jersey Commodore Robert Stockton (1795-1866) was instrumental in the capture of Monterey and Pueblo de Los Ángeles in California. Between July 1846 and January 1847, Stockton served as  military governor of California.

In Mexico, Philadelphia native and Brigadier General Persifor Frazer Smith (1798–1858) served as military governor during the occupation of Mexico City, when duty for the Pennsylvania volunteer regiments consisted of a mixture of drill, boredom, and sporadic chaos as Mexican guerilla units harassed U.S. forces. When U.S. troops withdrew on March 6, 1848, the regiments’ long journey home took them from Mexico back to New Orleans, then up the Mississippi River and Ohio Rivers to Pittsburgh, where they arrived on July 11, 1848. The Pittsburgh units mustered out of service quickly, but the Philadelphia companies resolved to end their service at home. Between July 27 and August 5, parades, speeches, banquets, and community events across the Delaware Valley marked their return. Of the 2,415 men who served in the Pennsylvania Volunteer Regiments, 477 died in Mexico or in transport. Fifty-two were killed in combat. New Jersey’s volunteers saw little combat in Mexico and returned to the Garden State in July 1848.  Delaware’s volunteers, who took part in the Battle of Huanmantla in October 1847, returned in August 1848, having suffered a single casualty.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War on February 2, 1848, and expanded the territory of the United States by 525,000 square miles. However, the costly victory, earned after two years of ferocious combat, exacerbated the simmering tensions throughout the country. Volunteers from Philadelphia and the surrounding region participated in the military actions while local citizens debated the war’s political and moral ramifications, making Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley a microcosm of the conflict.

William V. Bartleson is an independent scholar of military history who has worked with the New Jersey National Guard Militia Museum and the Center for Veterans Oral history. He is a member of Phi Alpha Theta . ( Author information current at time of publication .)

Copyright 2017, Rutgers University

Army of Occupation Camp

Library of Congress

Philadelphia native and Brigadier General Persifor Frazer Smith (1798–1858) served as military governor during the occupation of Mexico City until the withdrawal of U.S. troops on March 6, 1848. Duty for the Pennsylvania volunteer regiments consisted of a mixture of drill, boredom, and sporadic chaos as Mexican guerilla units harassed U.S. forces. Soldiers from Philadelphia’s Company C produced a bi-weekly publication, the Flag of Freedom, to inform garrison troops of local sites, current events, and the progress of the war. The newspaper remained the only soldier-published work by U.S. soldiers during the war.

General Winfield Scott at the Battle of Buena Vista

During several engagement of the Mexican-American War, the Pennsylvania Volunteer Regiments served directly under General Winfield Scott, depicted on horseback in this lithograph titled "A Little More Grape Capt. Bragg," by Nathanial Currier. After the Siege at Puebla in 1847, General Scott presented the 1st and 2nd Regiments with their own regimental colors to show his appreciation for their efforts and sacrifice.

Beachhead at Veracruz

The First and Second Pennsylvania Volunteer Regiments, the New Jersey Battalion of Volunteers, and the Delaware Squad of volunteers all passed through the beachhead at the port of Veracruz, depicted here.

Despite the opposition to the war, New Jersey eventually furnished troops for the war. In May 1846, New Jersey Governor Charles C. Stratton (1796-1859), responded to President Polk’s call for state regiments by asking New Jersey citizens to “organize uniform companies and other citizens of the state to enroll themselves.” The turnout of those willing to serve was so lacking only a “New Jersey Battalion of Volunteers” could be formed, not a regiment. Consisting of four companies and led by Captain M. Knowlton, left for Vera Cruz, Mexico on September 29, 1847. Much like their Philadelphia counterparts, troops from New Jersey displayed riotous behavior during the journey. The New Jersey volunteers saw little combat in Mexico and returned to the Garden State in July 1848.

Battle of Buena Vista

In Delaware, opposition to the war made the raising of a state regiment for U.S. Army service impossible. However, a dozen residents answered President Polk’s call for troops and formed the Delaware Squad. The Delaware Squad was attached to the 5th Indiana Regiment of Indiana Volunteers under the command of future senator and American Civil War general James Lane (1814-1866) and took part in the Battle of Buena Vista (pictured) in February 1847 and the Battle of Huanmata in October 1847. The Delaware Squad returned to the United States in August 1848, having suffered a single casualty.

Battle of Cerra Gordo

After their first significant combat at the Siege of Veracruz, where they lost 15 soldiers to enemy cannon fire, the Pennsylvania regiments saw action again at the Battle of Cerro Gordo on April 17, 1847. Despite the ferocity of the engagement, depicted here in a lithograph published in Philadelphia, the regiments suffered few casualties. For the next two months, they continued inland toward Mexico City, fighting guerillas, the elements, and disease typical of camp life.

Siege of Monterey

Several Delaware Valley residents took part in the September 1846 siege and occupation of Monterey, depicted in this lithograph. Philadelphia native Rear Admiral William Mervine (1791-1868) commanded the USS Savannah in the Pacific, and his Marine detachment captured the city of Monterey in July 1846. Samuel Francis Du Pont (1803-65) of Delaware commanded the blockade of California. Future U.S. senator from New Jersey Commodore Richard Stockton (1795-1866) was instrumental in the capture of Monterey and Pueblo de Los Ángeles in California. Between July 1846 and January 1847, Stockton served as military governor of California.

Mexican War Monument

At Philadelphia National Cemetery in Northwest Philadelphia, the Mexican War Monument marks the burial site for 38 who died in the conflict. Their remains were moved to the national cemetery in 1927, after the closing of their original burial place, Glenwood Cemetery at Twenty-Seventh Street and Ridge Avenue in North Philadelphia.

Philadelphia National Cemetery, at Haines Street and Limekiln Pike north of Germantown, was among 14 national cemeteries established in 1862, during the Civil War. In its first year, it served as a burial place for soldiers who died in Philadelphia hospitals. In addition to the Mexican War Monument, the cemetery has a Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument, commemorating soldiers and sailors whose remains were reinterred after the Civil War, and a Revolutionary War Memorial.

Related Topics

• Greater Philadelphia
• Philadelphia and the World
• Philadelphia and the Nation

Time Periods

• Nineteenth Century to 1854
• Northeast Philadelphia
• Mexicans and Mexico
• National Guard
• Philadelphia Navy Yard
• Slavery and the Slave Trade
• Spanish-American Revolutions
• Irish (The) and Ireland

Related Reading

Hackenburg, Randy W. Pennsylvania in the War With Mexico . Shippensburg, Pa.: White Mane Publishing Co., 1992.

Schroeder, John H. Mr. Polk’s War: American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-1848 . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973.

Millett, Allan Reed and Peter Maslowski. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of America . Rev. and expanded. New York and Toronto: Free Press, 1994.

Smith, Justin Harvey. The War With Mexico . Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1963.

Tucker, Spencer, et al. The Encyclopedia of the Mexican-American War: A Political, Social, and Military History . Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2013.

Related Collections

• Militia Resource Guide 1815-1870 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 300 N. Street, Harrisburg, Pa.
• Mexican War (1846-1848) Document Collection Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 300 N. Street, Harrisburg, Pa

Related Places

• Independence Square (site of pro-war and anti-war rallies and victory celebration)
• Mexican War Monument, Philadelphia National Cemetery (near Section P)
• State of Pennsylvania Mexican War Monument

Backgrounders

Connecting Headlines with History

• Play written for Philly butcher shop a lesson in Mexican-American history (WHYY, February 24, 2016)
• Geary Family Papers (Historical Society of Pennsylvania Digital Library)
• A Forgotten American Hero: Captain John B. Page (Historical Society of Pennsylvania)
• The Mexican-American War in a nutshell (National Constitution Center)
• Santa Anna's Proclamation, published in Philadelphia, 1847 (Library of Congress)
• The Storming of Chapulapec, Song of War, published in Philadelphia (Library of Congress)
• A Guide to the Mexican War (Library of Congress)
• The U.S.-Mexican War (PBS)
• Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (National Park Service)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

Mexico freezes relations with US, Canadian embassies which criticized judicial reform

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Ana Isabel Martinez, Raul Cortes and Kylie Madry; additional reporting by Brendan O'Boyle; writing by Cassandra Garrison; Editing by Sarah Morland, Paul Simao, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Kylie Madry is a headline news reporter covering business, politics and breaking news for all of Latin America. She's based out of the Reuters office in Mexico City, where she was previously a freelance journalist and translator working on award-winning podcasts, books about Mexico's drug lords and stories ranging from the fight for clean water to the millions spent on the city's surveillance system. Kylie is originally from Dallas, Texas.

Burkina Faso massacre survivor describes 'horrible' bloodshed in trenches

A woman who survived the massacre of hundreds of villagers in central Burkina Faso described the horror of searching through bodies to find her brothers, in an interview following the attack claimed by an Al Qaeda-linked group earlier this week.

Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.

Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jonathan Swan Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman

• Published July 17, 2023 Updated July 18, 2023

Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Prints & Photographs

Military Photographs: Finding Images in the Prints & Photographs Division at the Library of Congress

World war ii.

• Introduction
• Sample Images
• Crimean War
• Civil War (American)
• Spanish-American War and Philippine–American War
• World War I
• Vietnam War
• Iraq War and Afghanistan War
• Searching & Viewing
• Related Resources

The World War II photos in the Prints & Photographs Division include a large number of photos from the US government agency called the Office of War Information as well as press photos in the New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection. Many photos can also be found in the personal papers received from such leaders as US air force generals Carl Spaatz, Hap Arnold, Ira Eaker, Curtis LeMay, Donald Wilson, and Nathan F. Twining, and US Marine Corps general Merritt Edson. The division has, in smaller numbers, photos from Nazi Germany and other combatants. We have more photos from the European theater than the Pacific. There is very strong coverage of activities within the United States, such as civilian war work, the Japanese-American concentration camps, training of soldiers, and changes in civilian life—the home front during wartime.

The division has many more items and collections than can be listed in this guide. Search the online catalog for your specific interests. The formal subject heading for World War II is "World War, 1939-1945." Searching for that phrase will bring up many collections and scanned items, but not all World War II collections and items include that subject heading. If a search brings up too many results, try adding more specific terms or adding a specific year. Keep in mind that photos from other countries many be in the language of that country rather than in English.

Office of War Information (OWI) Collection

Much of the Office of War Information (OWI) Collection consists of photos taken in the United States showing how the country was mobilizing for the war. This includes photos of women working in factories; the construction of airplanes, ships, and tanks; factories converted to war work; Civil Defense work; and civilians altering their lives to help the war effort. Some photos show soldiers training in the United States, and a smaller number of photos show US soldiers in combat, soldiers from allied countries, and war efforts in their countries which were transferred to the OWI from other sources.

Many photos from the OWI collection are digitized including black-and-white and color images. Photos from several other government agencies are housed with the OWI collection, so unrelated pre-war images may also turn up in search results. Adding a single year to the search string will limit those searches to the year searched. When you are looking for photos taken during the entire war, do the search five times to cover each of the years 1941 through 1945.

Photographic prints from the OWI collection are in two places. The first is the browsing file in the Prints & Photographs Reading Room. The photos are arranged by region of the country and then by subject matter. In some cases, starting with a broad subject, like "aircraft" or "planes," and looking through the relevant sections of prints will be more productive than looking for a specific term, like a type of aircraft. The other part of the collection is grouped in LOTs that you can request in the Prints & Photographs Reading Room. Descriptions of these LOTs are in catalog records . Search for "Office of War Information" along with other terms or a year to limit your results to wartime photos.

• Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Subject Index (prints filed in the reading room)
• Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives Collection (summary and search)
• Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Color Photographs Collection (summary and search)

New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection

The New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection (NYWT&S) has a large number of World War II photos that come from a variety of sources. Most of the collection is not scanned, but a finding aid can be searched online. Most of the WWII photos are in the Subject/Geographic (SUBJ/GEOG) section of the collection. The official heading for World War II in the NYWT&S collection is "War--European II." Under that heading are many sub-headings relating to different aspects of the war. Other photos are filed in folders under the headings for individual countries involved in the war. Many have sub-headings for individual branches of the military as well as other topics. Some subjects have their own headings. For example, when searching for a specific type of plane, it may be in a folder with the heading "Aeronautics—Airplanes." The Biographical (BIOG) section has photos of people related to the war. World leaders and notable military officers are included as well as some enlisted soldiers who appeared in newspaper stories. A guide on how to search the New York World-Telegram & Sun is at https://guides.loc.gov/new-york-world-photographs . The collection is stored off site, so you should contact the Prints & Photographs Reading Room to request a folder in advance of your visit.

• New York World Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection (catalog record)
• New York World Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection (summary and search)

Tuskegee Airmen

Photojournalist Toni Frissell documented the 332nd Fighter Group at air base in southern Italy in March 1945. She photographed the African-American squadron officers, pilots, and ground crew preparing for active duty; runway conditions and on-base radio broadcaster at work. Commanding Officer Colonel Benjamin O. Davis briefing pilots, also known as Tuskegee Airmen.

• LOT 12477 (catalog record)

Visual Material from the Carl Spaatz Papers

Carl Spaatz held several leadership positions in the US Army Air Forces during the Second World War. The photos from his collection span his entire career in the military but the majority are from World War II or the period shortly after. Many of the photos are related to aerial bombing raids and show photos of targets before, during, or after bombing. Other photos show aerial bomb damage taken from the ground and photos of the planes under his command. The collection also includes photos of Spaatz and other military leaders at events concerning the war. The unprocessed portion of the collection has more aerial bombing photos, including a series of very large, chronological albums documenting the operations of the 8th Air Force. Unprocessed material must be requested in advance because most of this material is stored off site.

• Processed Visual Materials from the Carl Spaatz Papers (search result)
• Unprocessed Visual Materials from the Carl Spaatz Papers (catalog record)

Japanese-American Concentration Camps

The Prints & Photographs Division has several groups of photos showing Japanese-Americans reporting to what were called assembly centers and glimpses of their lives while incarcerated in the camps. The three largest sets of photographs are described below, and other images are also in the collections. Searching for such terms as Japanese along with the words evacuation, relocation, or internment will show you many of these collections and photos.

The most well-known images are the 244 photos taken by Ansel Adams at the Manzanar camp in California. The majority of these photos are portraits of the incarcerated men and women. Other people are shown working at their jobs in the camp. All of these photos have been scanned, and Ansel Adams dedicated the rights to these photos to the public. There are no copyright restrictions on their use.

LOT 1801 is a set of over 260 photos from the US War Relocation Authority showing Japanese-Americans before, during, and after being forcibly moved into government-built camps. Since they were taken by the federal government, the photos minimize the harmful impact of relocation on the lives of Japanese Americans. But some photos represent the homes and businesses people had to give up along with their lives inside the camps. Most of the photo have been scanned. The federal government created the photos, which means that there are no copyright restrictions.

LOT 10617 has over 1,000 photos from various sources showing Japanese-Americans reporting to what were called assembly centers, their activities inside the camps, and camp facilities. Over 150 photos have been scanned, but looking at the majority of the collection requires a visit to the reading room to view them. The photos come from various creators including some government sources and some private sources. Some photos may still be under copyright.

• Ansel Adams's Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar (summary and search)
• LOT 1801 (catalog record)
• LOT 10617 (catalog record)
• << Previous: World War I
• Next: Korean War >>
• Last Updated: Jun 28, 2024 2:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/military-photographs