Talk:Mexican-American War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 13 selected anniversary

Contents

Battle of Dominguez Rancho

  • Why is this California battle not inserted into the war battle's section box at the front of this article? it was a significant defensive battle in which the Californios were victorious over a numerically superior American force, and were fighting to defend their land, not the Mexican government. I would recommend insertion of this battle into the index box..DonDeigo 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reference: California History, Bancroft - http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm

Mexico's Reasons for Losing

Mexico came from gaining independance from Spain and also just came from another war against France in Veracruz. Thus, Mexico was to weak to put up a fight against the U.S.

And the U.S. has always been known as a bullying country agaist smaller or under developed countries. (I am not offending the U.S.)

If you look at the difference in troops you obviously have to give Mexico credit:

Mexico Troops: 18,000–40,000 soldiers

U.S. Troops: 78,790 soldiers

Casualties U.S. Total dead: 13,271 Wounded: 4,152

Mexico 25,000 killed or wounded (Mexican government estimate)

The numbers are one sided Mexico couldn't defend itself.

- Remember that only 10% of the US casualties were from combat. Most died from disease and whatnot. 76.236.177.235 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The war was all Polk's idea, not Mexico's

This is NOT a neutral take on the war, in my opinion. I may not be a historian but I looked into this war years ago. The Rio Nueces border was more than just the beginning of a no-man's land. Old maps of the era, for example, showed a significant number of Anglo settlements as far south as the Nueces, but virtually none between the Nueces and the Rio Bravo (or Grande to Anglos) which was further south still. It was Polk who, admitting he was expansionist, sent troops across the Nueces in a deliberate provocation. He knew the Mexican forces were weak as they were made up chiefly of uneducated peasants. When the Mexicans attempted to defend their country, Polk spun the situation to look as if the U.S. had been attacked. Furthermore, some key points like the fact that Chapultepec was defended by children (cadets) should not be glossed over as Mexicans, to this day, are proud of the way these kids defended their military academy. I'm going to have to do some research and then revise this article with citations, etc.

I tried to clarify what you are pointing out. Please take a look. Wenteng 03:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

the war was fought over the dispute of the border (nueces river or bravo river.) historically the nueces river was the border between texas and coahuila. US uses this as an excuse to seize land from Mexico, which it does. Not content with the incredible amount of land won, The All of Mexico Movement even wanted to annex all of Mexico.

There was a legitimate border dispute between the two sides. Back in 1836, when Texas forces captured General Santa Anna, he signed a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as Texas's southern boundary. Later, when he was back in Mexico City, he claimed that the treaty was invalid. Texans (and later, Americans) insisted that it was valid. It's hard to say which side was "right." As for there not being many Anglo settlements below the Nueces, remember that Texas is a giant state and there weren't that many people there yet. It's true that Polk was an expansionist, but you shouldn't gloss over the border issue. There was certainly no consensus in Washington that the Nueces was the border.
Irrespective of whether the treaty (Treaties of Velasco) was invalid or not, both sides failed to abide by its terms. In any event, it didn't state that the Río Grande was to be the border -- it said Santa Anna was to immediately withdraw his troops south of it. Reading the text, it certainly sounds like the tejanos wanted the RG to be the border, but that issue was to be settled in separate peace negotiations (which, of course, never took place). –Hajor 01:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just redid the background paragraph. I'm seeing a lot of very slanted comments "texas continually tried" to "no avail". The facts of the treaty and the Texas revolution should be kept on there own page. In a broad view of history, this war was the result of a border dispute and the refusal to recognize a break away province which led to a somewhat opportunistic US landgrab. We really need some more commentary on the politics of the day in the union, and less about Texas.--Dschroder 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone elaborate on the US British problem that may have effected mediation? What was the issue? I took it out since it was just sorta hanging there--Dschroder

rephrase

"however, the Mexican government disputed the southern border of Texas."

This implies that the border was a fact, and that the Mexican government was challenging that fact. Is that objectivelly true? Shouldn't this be something like "however, the two nations disagreed over the southern border of Texas." It takes more than one group to have a dispute, right?

I wrote this. I think it's fair to both sides:

The U.S. government claimed that the southern border of Texas was the Rio Grande; Mexico maintained it to be the Nueces River.

NPOV?

The bottom line here is that the actual spark of the war is the Nueces/Rio Grande dispute. Either the article itself needs to be neutral and point to a separate article regarding the dispute itself, or three things need to be included: 1. Mexican Point of view on why the border should have been the Nueces; 2. US Point of view on why the border should have been the Rio Grande; and 3. why the distinction even mattered (the difference on the Gulf of Mexico isn't particularly significant, but if you follow the course of the rivers it quickly becomes clear that a lot of territory was at stake)


Far from a NPOV, this article has tremendous anti-American bias.



It's going to be difficult to write an NPOV and pro-American article when such well-known anti-Americans as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant considered the war a shameful episode in American history. Angusmclellan 12:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And of course, the fact that the President (Polk) was a Democrat and that Lincoln and Grant were Whigs (and later, Republicans) had *nothing* to do with that, now did it? :o) People can have all kinds of motivations for their stances. Lincoln was not a saint, and Grant, while a fine general, wasn't exactly a model President (he's actually considered one of the most corrupt men to ever hold the office).
Actually, Grant's administration was certainally corrupt, but there is little indication that Grant himself was corrupt. If he was corrupt, he certainally didn't profit from it. Grant seems to have exercised poor judgement in appointing cronies who were corrupt. In any case, even if Grant was corrupt, that has no bearing on his opinions about the Mexican War.--RLent 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard that Grant was a Whig, either. I seem to vaguely recall that, before the war, he was a Democrat, which is borne out by this site, which calls him a "Douglas Democrat" at the opening of the war (although it describes his father Jesse Grant as an abolitionist Whig). john k 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Nobody's asking for a "pro-American" article. But if you can't figure out how to write an NPOV article related to this or any war then you better just stop writing now. Its certainly fair to include what prominent Americans thought of the war; and it can be included without endorsing those views.

I cannot detect a pro-Mexican bias in this article. On the contrary, with all its concessions to bad conscience, it is written exclusively from a US point of view -- liberal, conservative, these are just two sides of the same US-coin. However, this article does not reflect recent Mexican scholarship and/or viewpoints on the subject. Many details, from turns of phrase (beginning with the fact that this war is called Mexican-American War, as if the Mexicans were the aggressors and not the victims of US- expansionism) to the descriptions of post-Independence Mexico (riven by internal conflict, etc.), reflect the attempt of generations of US-historians to justify the occupation of Mexican territory as part of the "Manifest Destiny" of the US. To top it off, at the end the writers of the article imply that the Mexicans have to be grateful to have been invaded by US-troops. The writing of history (especially in the departments of military history) has always been an integral part of that nationalist project -- winners write history, in Wikipedia as well as everywhere else. Jinmex 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree that the article is biased against the Americans. From a neutral (ie, non-US) viewpoint (I'm a Brit), the article, if anything, glosses over many of the less attractive aspects of the conduct of the war. I have studied this war in detail. The border dispute was used by Polk as an excuse to drive the Mexicans to war. The real reasons behind the war were more to do with Southern slaveowners wanting a free hand to introduce slavery into the expected gains in order to maintain a balance between slave and free states in Congress, and Northern and Southern greed for more land and mineral resources.

The conduct of US troops in Mexico was a disgrace. This was remarked upon at the time by senior members of the army and also by senior US politicians and commentators. Rape, murder, theft and drunkeness were commonplace. The officers had virtually no control over the largely volunteer units (many of them were elected). It's amazing to think that supposedly civilised, western armies in the 19th century could act like hordes from the dark ages.

This war, was, without doubt, one of the most unjust in history. If you guys out there think that your country is right and just in everything it does or has done, then the lessons of history are lost. Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and admit you were the bad guys. As a Brit, we've had to do this quite a lot! mblamer


mbalmer would do well to read David M. Pletcher, The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon, and the Mexican War. University of Missouri Press, 1973, which probes deeply into the British involvement in the issues. The Brits tried urgently over and over again to restrain the mexicans but failed--Mexico insisted it had to destroy Texas. If mbalmer thinks the Americans were naughty in 1846 he perhaps might want to look at what the Mexicans did in Texas in 1836. eye-opener. In any case Mexico wanted war, even as the Brits warned them over and over. Rjensen 00:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you rather miss my point. I'm not suggesting that the Mexicans were blameless, or that their behaviour in their province of Texas in 1836 was excusable. However, whatever the Mexicans dis in '36 does not in any way excuse the behaviour of US troops in this conflict. And I certainly do not agree that Mexico wanted the war. The was was forced onto Mexico by Polk's belligerent attitude. mblamer
Rjensen, if you think Mexicans were hard on Texans, you might want to take a look at what Winfield Scott did at Mexico City. A reminder? Killed kids that were not even 18 years old, raped women by taking advantage that the army was defeated, and even killed Irish people that had served earlier in the U.S. army. Eye opener.Aguizar 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say the Great Boer War or almost any that England conducted in Asia, such as the Opium war, were far more unjust than this. I'm not being an asshole, the Opium War actually has a bearing on this conflict as the US wanted to get the California coast to secure its trade with the orient, which was just being opened uped. There are two sides to every war, at least, and I would encourage the reviewers to try to make sense of the perspective of both sides of this conflict keeping in mind the goals and values of the people who actually played a part in it. Not some diatribe about "American (or Mexican) Imperialism" --Dudeman5685 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

San Patrico's

I'm not sure, but when I took a look at this (16 Feb 2005), it calls the bias against the Irish, "racist" I don't think this quite factually right, as it could best be said as navtivst/religous, rather than racial.

Thoughts?--Mtnerd 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United States and Mexican Boundary Survey

Anyone know enough to start an article about the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey (1848-1855) which followed the war? I only know about it because a lot of scientific research (e.g. new plants discovered, etc) was done on it; I don't know anything about other aspects of the survey other than that it was an official US Army expedition. - MPF 16:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Gadsden Purchase article probably already does the job. If not, information on the boundary survey could be included there.


Thoughts?--Having destroyed all Mexican army and being left defenseless, what made the American Government restraint of annexation the rest of Mexico, or at least some of the northern states that were during those years inhabitaed?

  • Two reasons I would suggest -- i) Occupying the populated parts of Mexico in a conquest would have required a long term military commitment at a time when the US usually avoided maintaining a standing army, and it took long enough for Mexico to submit to the current treaty, let alone a more invasive one ii) there was significant sectional opposition to the war in the US, based on Northern fear that any new territories would be slave states, and this opposition might have intensified if the treaty had been more demanding or the war gone on longer. On the other hand, I think there was definitely second guessing in the US at the time on whether the treaty could have secured more, with Polk attempting to change the negotiators and terms. Willhsmit 22:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been studying this war for a little while now, and after reading "America: A consise history, second edition" the northern states was afraid that the war against Mexico was a slave conspiracy created by the southerners and the democratic politicians, and thus they protested against continuing the war and annexing the whole of Mexico. Polk tried to calm down the northern population then letting the new immigrants who moved into the new territories (also called free-soilers) to choose if the new states should be a slave state or not.

(and to finish your thought, the northern fear that any new states carved out of the rest of Mexico would become slave states, though I'm not really sure why they thought this would've happened)

Sounds fair to me...

Considering the ridiculous argumentation that goes on concerning this subject this entry is remarkably fair and factual.

Two crucial facts that must be maintained are that Texas fought for and won its independence from Mexico, and that in victory Texas claimed the Rio Grande as its southern border. Mexican acceptance of this border was not necessary for the Texan claim to be valid.

So your whole point boils down to "the border had to be at the Rio Bravo because Texans said so. The historical border at the Nueces and/or Mexico's claims did not matter". Your comment is remarkably biased and not based on any facts.
No, because Santa Ana agreed to it. And the pro-Mexico camp in this dispute always seems to forget that Mexico informed the US that annexation of Texas would be considered an act of war. You also forget that it wasn't just Texas that balked at the abrogation of the 1824 Mexican Constitution, the original flag of the revolution was the Mexican flag with the year '1824' on it. Other states did break away before coming back or being coerced back into the fold. We can discuss the boundary issue all day long, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to the fact that the US had relatively strong leadership from the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Taylor, Polk, Lincoln, et al. and Mexico got stuck with Santa Ana, and that fact, frankly, is where the finger needs to be pointed.

By the way, it was Mexico who fought and won its independence from Spain. It was Mexican blood that liberated Texas from Spain's domination. Unlike Spain and the U.S., Mexico never was an imperialist nation. Texan settlers were not libertarians - they were opportunists, at best.Aguizar 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mexico was imperialist! Mexico oppressed the Anglo settlers, as well as its indigenous peoples. Now I know as out post-modern historian can't conceive of any other paradign other than a counter-racist-capitalist-sexist-imperialist, it is possible for non-white groups to oppress white groups. Just look at Armenia.

Mexico needs to stop fanning the fires of nationalism and admit, for one, that it was wrong. The west does it enough--Dudeman5685 05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Political implications of the war

Don't you think that section "Political implications of the war" speaks too much about slavery-related implications instead of war-related implications? Saigon from europe 10:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Buy Mexican territory to pay off debt to US??

I have actually never heard that theory before. In fact I didn't even know that Mexico had borrowed from the US in the first 20 years after the independence. Would you mind citing the sources for that? As far as I know, indeed Britain and France (and Spain, I might add) threatened to invade Mexico if debt was not paid, but that ocurred in 1861-1862, and the Mexican American war had been fought almost 15 years before. In fact, it was the war with the US, plus the Reforma War, the events that had depleted the treasury, which forced (as far as I know, I might be wrong) Benito Juárez to default (temporary cessation) on the debt for the first time, and which he promptly agreed to pay when the British, French, and the Spanish navies approached the city of Veracruz in 1861. --J.Alonso 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Misnomer

It is misleading to speak of an "Mexican-American" war. Mexico is a part of The Americas and unless you assume that Mexico be at war with itself, there can be no "Mexican-American" war. Unfortunately, the U.S. claim the adjective "American" exclusively for their own use, but that is quite misleading. Imagine an article about a "Chinese-Asian" war or a "German-European" war, they would rightly be renamed to remove the bias. Why should we accept the naming of this article?


Because... it's actually normal to refer to the U.S. as America? Few, if any, English speaking user would actually be confused by using America for the United States. Besides, Mexico was also an United States. If Germany had gone to war against every other state of Europe, or a single state commonly known as 'Europe', then surely a German-European War would have been appropriate, yet this has never happened.

That said, it seems that the Mexican War might be more appropriate as the title, given that it appears to be more common then Mexican-American War. I don't know how the academic standard, but certainly the CIE History syllabus called it the Mexican War; someone should take a look. --Rmdsc 10:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall it being called anything but the Mexican-American War in any context, including school textbooks. Also, american has been used as the adjective for the US for quite some time now. Alcuin 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The war should be appropiatly called "The American Agression of 1846" donDeigo

"Mexican-American War" is a misnomer because the generally accepted name is the Mexican War. For instance, "The Oxford Companion to Military History" (Holmes, 2001), "The Oxford Companion to American Military History" (Chambers, 1999), and "The Reader's Companion to Military History" (Cowley, 1996) are standard references of military history; they refer to the Mexican War, not the "Mexican-American War." Likewise, "A Country Made by War" (Perret, 1989), "America's Wars and Military Excursions" (Hoyt, 1987), and "The Wars of America" (Leckie, 1981) are standard surveys of American military history. They refer not to the "Mexican-American War," but rather to the Mexican War.Kraken7 18:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Sources you give are all recent. America is the name of this country, therefore, mexican american war. Quoting some politcal correct sources is pointless! RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

War names often seem random. But, the key to war names seems to be convention, what most people accept as the name for a war at any one time. Thus, at one time, World War I was called the Great War, but no one today uses that latter name, except in an antiquarian sense. Now at some time in the future, the "Mexican-American War" may become the most popular name for the 1846-1848 conflict between the United States and Mexico. However, at this time, the common name for it is the Mexican War. (Kraken7 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
Question: Why is the article titled "Mexican-American War" when the first paragraph refers to it as the "US-Mexican War"? I, for one, have never heard of the latter term. Also, Wikipedia seems to have a precedent whereby the first paragraph begins with the name of the article in bold followed by any other less common names for the topic. I have never seen (I don't think) an article that is named one way and which then proceeds to talk about the topic using a different term (save for brevity's sake, of course).

Background on US-Mexican War

This article begins with the US-Mexican War, but provides no background on why it began or what led to it.

In Spanish, the war is called the "Northamerican Intervention" which makes more sense and is less derogatory in the sense that the "Mexican War" can have effects such as making people think that Mexico started the war or that it was their fault. Since when Texas was annexed to the U.S. in 1845, both countries agreed in a treaty that the border would be the Nueces. So "American blood on American soil?", I think not. Let's face it: We invaded, we wanted more land, we would do whatever it took to get Mexico to fight us so it wouldn't seem like we just took over, so we were obviously going to get shot if we were in their country. So let's just get over it that's the way it was and there is nothing we can do about it now. We were irrational but history isn't perfect. Oh and since this was an internal affair, that is, Texas seceding from Mexico then we just stuck our nose there just like we still do in all the wars we get into, we just like fighting what can be said. So we intervened in none of our business (except for the whole land ambition) so the first title is best. It's like in the Civil War, what if Great Britain actually sent troops to the South and help them and claimed that they never really accepted us an independent nation yet or regardless just saw the chance of getting their stuff back. Then they would have intervened but did not.

It is not true that "in 1845, both countries agreed in a treaty that the border would be the Nueces". The US and Texas always claimed the Rio Grande. Fact is Mexico wanted war and was pretty stupid to provoke the US, as the British ambassador kept telling them. In a larger sense Mexico was unable to handle either its internal or its external affairs. Rjensen 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the internal situation in Mexico was quite chaotic, the pretension that Mexico "wanted war" is quite laughable. There was as much provocation by the American government as Mexican incompetence in handling the affair. Moreover, the British were not a neutral party in this dispute, since at the same time they had their own dispute with the US regarding the Oregon territory. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Mexico wanted war"? Laughable. Fact is the U.S. wanted more territory and Mexico's long war with Spain had left the country in a weakened state, situation which was exploited by the imperialist parties in the U.S. congress. Lincoln himself rejected the casus belli, showing just how questionable this war was even to (liberals) Northamericans. On the other hand, supporters of the war were also supporters of slavery. This just goes to show that, in the past and in the present, there are reasonable Northamericans and there are mindless Northamericans. Unfortunately, the former seem to be a species in danger :-(

Yes, Mexico wanted to go to war to try to reclaim Texas. Prior to the US annextion of Texas, the US was informed that such an annexation would be considered an act of war. People forget that the Mexicans were hoping to be marching into New Orleans. "Colossus of the North" - the US was no such thing in 1846. The Mexicans thought they were going to win. And just a question to ponder, why were there more Mexican soldiers sitting in Matamoros than there were US soldiers on the northern side of the Rio Grande? And if the Mexicans had really been thinking all along that the border had been at the Nueces, why weren't the soldiers waiting at the south bank of the Nueces?

A final point: if Mexico (or Cuba, or Irak, or Afghanistan for that matter) was unable to handle either its internal or external affairs, this it was Mexico's business and nobody else's. The U.S. had no right or justification to intervene.Aguizar 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mexican War is the text-book example of U.S. Imperialism. Invade and conquer a weaker nation based on some lame excuse in order to steal land, oil, etc. This is and has been the U.S. modus operandi for quite some time now... In 1846, this was the U.S. God-given right, their "Manifest Destiny." Nothing was going to stop the U.S. from reaching the Pacific and owning the whole continent. They were going to take what wasn't theirs and they were going to do whatever it took to do so, even if it meant lying, robbing, killing, and plundering because it was their manifest destiny. God told them it was all right.

Mexico didn't want war with the Colossus of the North, they had just won their independence and were in the process of forming their government and nation (with a lot of infighting, overthrowing of governments, etc). Plus, their treasury was broke. Their army was in tatters, largely peasants, and using sub-standard weaponry.

Being in such a sad state, why in the world would they want to provoke and/or invade the U.S.? What would they have to gain from this, other than to get spanked and get their people killed, their country invaded, and their land taken by force???

A lot of Americans don't want to accept this because it appears to be just another shameful chapter in the formation of the U.S.; instead, Americans may prefer to make up stories and blame Mexico for instigating the war. Let's just see this for what it was: U.S. Imperialism at its best (or worst)! MiztuhX 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Background and Clarity

I agree the background leaves much to be desired. Some parts of this page are also unclear, such as when you speak of "General Twiggs". You should probably explain who he was, and what his reason for being there was. I would also like to see exactly what the United States and Mexico gained and lost from this war. --Beow-- 6:47PM 30 November 2005

Rjensen- I like your rewrite. This sentence -- "Third the Americans wanted to expand, offering repeatedly to purchase California" -- could, perhaps, be expanded to include one factor not mentioned in your otherwise complete, very well-organized list, namely, one of the significant reasons why Americans wanted to expand: to be certain to try to reduce influence, future and present, of European "empires." The "let's get as much land as possible to make sure the British, French, and Spanish don't have places from which to attack us easily" was a significant feature of American thinking in the early 19th century. But perhaps that can be addressed elsewhere (like in the article on Manifest Destiny). Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 10:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree on the need to somewhere say more about expansionist urges (but not in the opening summary). Rjensen 10:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This Article is !@#$% !@#$%

This article is very biased against the Americans. I have half a mind to delete this article. Cameron Nedland 02:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifics please Xerex 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what makes it biased? That it offered an honest critique of American motives and practices leading up to the war? There there, you're just feeling threatened.

This is like saying that the world war 2 articles are biased against nazis. I'm an American and I have no problem admitting that the Americans were clearly the "bad guys" in this war. Mosquito-001 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Mosquito-001 and others have said. I too am an American and a very patriotic on at that, but the truth is still the truth. The United States was clearly the in the Mexican-American War. President Polk order Zachary Taylor to Nueces River fully realizing it would lead to war. A war the Americans knew that would win thus gain all of what is now Texas and all of what is not the American Southwest. This is why the German thought they would be able to convince Mexico into join them in 1917. For more on this see the article on the Zimmermann Telegram. Note one thing more. If you delete this article it will simply be reverted and you would be cited with vandalism. Just food for thought. (Steve 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

This article, like many Wikipedia articles on the U.S., manifests an extraordinary anti-U.S. bias. I changed the first sentence of the "Background" section, which I think helps a great deal. But much more work is needed. --Cultural Freedom talk 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't mean the article should make the U.S. out to be sweeties in this matter! But to state "The Mexican-American War grew out of a US expansionist ideology known as Manifest Destiny" is hardly NPOV. A significant part of all U.S. dealings in the West was a desire to rid the New World of European colonialism -- in the Mexican War, this was less a concern than with the major land purchases the US made, but it was still a concern. There are many other factors as well; I'll try to address these later. --Cultural Freedom talk 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The occupation of half of Mexico is due to "a desire to rid the New World of European colonialism" -- Bush could not have said it better. I guess, the subsequent attempts to anahilate the Apaches was due to the same noble impulse. Seriously, I cannot detect an anti-US, let alone a pro-Mexican bias in this article. On the contrary, with all its concessions to bad conscience, it is written exclusively from a US point of view -- liberal, conservative, these are just two sides of the same US-coin. This article does not reflect recent Mexican scholarship and/or viewpoints on the subject. In its most minute details, from turns of phrase (beginning with the fact that this war is called Mexican-American War, as if the Mexicans were the aggressors and not the victims of US- expansionism) to the descriptions of post-Independence Mexico (riven by internal conflict, etc.), it reflects the attempt of generations of US-historians to justify the occupation of Mexican territory as part of the "Manifest Destiny" of the US. To top it off, at the end the writers of the article imply that the Mexicans have to be grateful to have been invaded by US-troops -- that is something that with all due respect I have edited out, because it is an insult to the Mexicans and the intelligence of the user. Jinmex 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"a desire to rid the New World of European colonialism"... two quick replies: 1) Mexico was never a colonialist nation; 2) Ask around America (the continent, for the uninitiated) and from bottom to top the unanimous answer will be that the heir of European colonialism is the U.S. Otherwise, how can you explain Northamerican "influence" (to use one of the top Northamerican euphemisms in preference of "control") in Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Panama, et cetera?
I'd take your sentence "U.S. dealings in the West was a desire to rid the New World of European colonialism" and append the phrase "not including the U.S.' own colonialism" :-)Aguizar 14:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a clarification is in order here. Although I don't endorse his arguments, it's apparent to me that Cultural Freedom's badly-worded phrase is actually referring to the Monroe Doctrine -- i.e. the U.S. desire to block the expansion of European powers into the Western Hemisphere by in essence declaring it an exclusive U.S. sphere of influence. (Or more colloquially, "stay out of our backyard".) Which fitted hand-in-glove with Manifest Destiny. Cgingold 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No room for grammar

I had very minor grammar edit reverted as vandalism. As I am a relatively new Wikipedia contributor, could someone please explain how I can tell which articles gladly accept proofreading? Just Some Guy 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That was my mistake. Sorry. I guess I saw the mispelling an thought is was vandalism. Several vandals have done similar things. Sorry. (Steve 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Geographical Bias

Just have to say that this page doesn't meet our standard for geographic scope. How many US politicians, diplomats, and millitary men are mentioned by name in this artice? How many Mexicans? I'd say its around 10 to 1 in favour of the Americans. This page is in need of some serious attention regarding the Mexican prespective. If you need help, flag the main article page with this tag. Thanks. Kevlar67 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Guess what? Six months later, and this is still written from an American prespective. We can do better! You may consider asking Mexican Wikipedians to peer review this article. Kevlar67 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here, a Mexican who's just read the article. Anything you want me to suggest?--DWDarkwyng 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

War Missing?

This seems to concentrate on the lead up to the major battles, it mentions them extremely briefly and in the wrong place. Also it seems to have a Mexican nationalistic POV.

Ever wonder why this war is barely mentioned in the American history books even though it brought so much wealth to a young American nation? Well wait till I have the time to mention the various atrocities commited by the American forces against Mexican civilians during the war. They come complete with sources too. This war was clearly not one of America's finer moments.Mosquito-001 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs major rewrite to higher standards and to remove POV

This page lacks organization, is full of grammatical errors, and needs more details into the background and causes. Ironically, the spanish language page is far less POV and includes much more needed information. If I have time, I'll translate and merge in infomation from that page, though It'd be great if someone else would help too. Alcuin 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

does ALCUIN have any specific complaints re POV?? Rjensen 04:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, no. My complaints have more to do with organization and structure of the article. The article reads like a hodge-podge of sentences supporting the political opinions of various editors. This article could gain alot from the structure and information at the Spanish article. Really, I'm just soliciting the help of more ambitious (and bilingual) editors. Alcuin 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Censure and Mexican War

Censure means criticism. It is not a term specified in statute or constitution, simply the proper word for a criticism formalized by a vote of a legislative body. Polk was censured by the House. Furthermore, he was not censured by a vote of the Whig Party, but by the House of Representatives. And no claim is made in the current edit that the Senate even voted on the joint resolution. Tmangray 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

NO "censure" is a highly specific term. President Jackson was censured and it was a HUGE deal. In the Clinton impeachment at one point the Democrats suggested clinton be censured, but the Republicans insisted on impeachment. What happened was that the House sent the resolution to committee where it never reemerged. There was never a final vote in either house or senate. The vote on the amendment was 82-81 along party lines, but since the bill never passed the amendment was lost as well as the bill. Keep the technicalities in and the POV out please. Rjensen 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, censure is not a procedure specified by any statute, nor any rules in effect at the time of JR 4 (or even currently as far as I can tell). The word censure simply means a formal criticism as by vote of a political body. If a committee votes to criticize, castigate, denounce, or even slander, then they have censured. If the House votes likewise, that is censure by the House. If both houses of Congress vote likewise, that is censure by the Congress. Impeachment, on the other hand, is defined by the Constitution, statutes, and rules, as well as by its ordinary meaning. Impeachment is essentially a censure with legal consequences---an indictment by a political body. Tmangray 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make up stories, get it right. The primary and secondary sources all reject this interpretation. The word "censure" is famous in Congressional history and the Whigs were very careful NOT to use it here. The vote was on sending a resolution to committee with a criticism. The criticism passed 82-81 on party lines. the measure went back to committee and never reappeared. It was all PR or spin. There was no final vote taken by either house. As for Lincoln's role it was pretty trivial: Beveridge says:

"no notice whatever was taken in Washington of Lincoln's speech. Neither the Whig nor Democratic papers at the capital made mention of it, except as a part of the routine report of proceedings in Congress. Lincoln's colleagues from Illinois did not speak of it in their letters to party friends about the political situation. McClernand frequently advised the editor of the Democratic paper at Springfield of developments in Congress, but he made no reference to Lincoln. Neither did Winthrop, nor Ashmun, nor Giddings, nor Toombs, nor Stephens, nor any of the Whig leaders, whether from the North or the South." [Beveridge 1: 428]

Rjensen 7:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should inject in this heated debate, but Lincoln and the Whigs in general was actually dead wrong on their spot resolution. The Mexican army had actually engaged in two major battles after the Thornton affair, that it seems they hadn't received word of yet. Whether or not you consider Polk's order to build Fort Texas to be a provocation, they were committed to war after that. I think we should not get too much into the politics of the time - they were rigidly partisan and may not tell us much about what they thought about the war but more about the slavery stances. And we shouldn't judge people by present day standards. --Omnicog 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the primary sources of the information on the vote. It was NOT a procedural vote. YOU'VE made that up much as you've been attempting to squelch and minimize what most people have never even heard of. It was in fact a substantive amendment. It was made as to the wording of the resolution. No assertion is made that the House or the Senate voted on the resolution in question, JUST THE AMENDMENT. That this happened is remarkable and extremely important to demonstrating the degree of controversy as well as the politics involved with the Mexican War. As to the word "censure", it is not a statutory nor a procedural term in US law as is the case with impeachment. It is simply a word meaning a formal reprimand or critique. Unless you can show otherwise, the common definition and usage should stand. Tmangray 08:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

the vote was on an amendment to send the resolution back to committee, with instruction the committee add certain words. That is procedure. What happened as Beveridge explains is that the Dems lost control of the motion by mistake. It proves the Whigs at that point (Jan 1848) were very critical of the war. They DROPPED that criticism that summer when the nominated Taylor who approved of the war. The term is used for official action against presidents (Polk, Bush II) and senators (McCarthy). It is never used otherwise in Congress. Rjensen 08:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Establishing Borders: The Expansion of the United States, 1846-48" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/start.html

If you think visitors would find this site valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

You can add it yourself if you want. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On the slavery issue

I'm not quite sure why it's "unsourced speculation" to point out that there are historians on both sides of this issue. The article as it stands makes it seem that all scholars are categorically opposed to the possibility, but off the top of my head I can think of a scholarly book (Amazon, not a sponsored link) and a peer-reviewed article that discuss the slavery-expansion theory. 159.91.118.158 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

the sources cited do not say that slavery expansion was Polk's motivation. Dusinberre p 16 says that Polk's critics at the time made that allegation (they certainly did)-- and quotes Polk's diary entry (p 79) "Slavery has no possible connection with the Mexican War." The second article by Dunning deals with events after 1859 and does not discuss slavery as a motivation for the war. Basically the ideas was common before Polk's diary was discovered in 1900, and has been discarded since then. What Polk DID promise was acquisition of Oregon, but no one thought that was a slave issue. As for Texas that country joined the US shortly before Polk became president and was not a motivation for a war that took place 2 years later. Bottom line: no historian in last 75 years argues that slavery expansion was motivation for war. Rjensen 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a different version of Slavemaster President that I'm not aware of? My version's page 16 only mentions that he was investing heavily in his plantations at the time. On the other hand, my version's page 132 says, "The drive for Texas was propelled above all else, however, by the desire of many slavemasters and would-be slavemasters to extend the realm of slavery." Dunning's article, while it deals with the attitudes of 1850, discusses those attitudes as continuations of Southern thinking prior to and during the war. Polk's diary entry for 30 May 1846: "...I declared my purpose to be to acquire for the United States, California, New Mexico, and perhaps some others of the Northern Provinces of Mexico whever a peace was made. In Mr. Slidell's secret instructions last autumn these objects were included." (Quote from Nevins's 1952 edition). The point here is that yes, scholarship exists that makes the case for this theory. 159.91.118.158 05:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
i'm sorry it was page 16 of "slavemaster president" I quoted not page 17. That Texas was slave territory was agreed on all sides. Antislavery Northerners hated the idea of Texas joining the union because it would have at least 2 and maybe 10 Senate seats, and would shift the balance of power in Congress. But that was texas 1844 not Mexico 1846. The war with Mexico in 1846 did not have to do with seizure of territory for slavery-- people who wanted new slave territory did not look at New Mexico-Arizona-California-Nevada-Colorado. They looked at Cuba (see Ostend Manifesto or Mexico itself. But as Polk emphasized, "Slavery has no possible connection with the Mexican War." You need to name some historians who say otherwise. Dunning and Dusinberre do NOT make that statement. It is true that was often said before 1900, but No major historian has made that argument for 75 years. Rjensen 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Chapter 11 of Slavemaster President again, specifically the last paragraph on 132, where he clearly makes the case that Polk was in favor of the expansion of slavery. Also, on page 79, the full quote is, "'Slavery has no possible connection with the Mexican War,' he inscribed in his diary, which he wrote with an eye over his shoulder for the judgment of future generations." Here he makes the point (correctly, in my opinion) that we shouldn't necessarily take Polk's diary at face value. 159.91.118.158 06:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
well I read p 132-- it says that Polk himself had helped expand slavery by opening up new cotton lands in Mississippi and Arkansas--and that he had relatives in Texas. Yes but that does not say anything about war with mexico--I guess the author meant it as sort of a metaphor. Opening up cheap new land in Mexico would I suppose LOWER the value of the Polk family holdings--one reason many Whig slaveowners opposed the war. That issue does not occuer to the author. When Polk does say "'Slavery has no possible connection with the Mexican War,', the author says maybe he did not really mean it! (That is Polk when he wrote it assumed that the South would lose a future civil war and slavery would be abolished and that in 2006 supporters of slave expansion would look bad. Do you think Polk thought that?) In any case the author is unable to make a clear statement that slave expansion motivated the war. As he says on one page, that is certainly not the consensus of historians, and I agree. Wiki should go with the consensus of historians not with the between-the-lines hints.

Treaties of Velasco

The Treaties of Velasco recognized the new border between Mexico and Texas as the Rio Grande - only later did Santa Anna decide due to public humiliation to revoke his original agreement. Thus "American blood was shed on American soil" which was one of the leading causes for Declaration of War by Congress used by President Polk - that is Mexico crossed into US territory (Texas by then American state) and shed American blood right on our own soil - much as Pancho Villa did later under President Wilson who sent Pershing into Mexico in response to capture that terrorist. --Northmeister 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where was the exact spot of the skirmish? :) Alcuin 11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"President Wilson who sent Pershing into Mexico in response to capture that terrorist". On the one hand, you criticize the Mexicans' alleged crossing of the border. On the other hand, you seem to applaud Wilson's sending a punitive expedition to Mexico. This is called dual morale and is a plain fallacy.
Calling Doroteo Arango Arias a terrorist is representative of how deeply the U.S. propaganda targeted at making the Irak war seem justifiable has penetrated your mind. In that closed box, everyone with critic view of U.S.' past and present actions is probably considered a terrorist. Aguizar 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead section problems

The lead section is too short, not well-written, and not a good summary. I propose correcting these flaws by trebling the section's length, revising to make it more readable, and providing additional context. Any objections? (Kraken7 23:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

good idea. I suggest you post the draft here on Talk to get feedback and avoid edit wars. Rjensen 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your suggestion and post here. Along the way, I'll explain what I'm doing and invite editors to explain the rationale behind their edits. Since the subject of this article is war, the lead section will emphasize military and political events. I also intend it to serve as a guide for revising the rest of the current text. The lead will be composed of three paragraphs: 1) war's beginnings, 2) the major campaigns, and 3) peace and conclusion. Begin FIRST paragraph: The Mexican War (aka the Mexican-American War, the U.S.-Mexican War, the U.S. War with Mexico, and Mr. Polk's War) was fought between the United States and Mexico from April 25, 1846 through May 30, 1848. The principal causes of the war were the U.S. annexation of Texas and Mexico's unwillingness to recognize the loss of Texas. The war began with the Mexicans attacking and overwhelming a U.S. patrol in disputed territory along the Texas-Mexico border. However, in two subsequent battles in the same area, the United States destroyed a much larger Mexican army. End FIRST paragraph. (Kraken7 01:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Personally, I think you're going into too much detail for an introduction to an article. WP's lead sections are generally pretty brief, which is appropriate, given that an encyclopedia article is itself an introduction to a subject and not an exhaustive treatment. Everything that's said in the lead pretty much has to be said again when it's fleshed out in the main body of the article, so by writing a detailed lead, you create a lot of redundancy for the reader. Nareek 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nareek, while that paragraph is great, if the intro is 3 times as long as that then it'll be too much. How about:
The Mexican War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico that lasted from April 25, 1846 through May 30, 1848 (Bauer, 387). It is sometimes called the Mexican-American War, the U.S. War with Mexico, the U.S.-Mexican War, or Mr. Polk's War. The direct cause was the U.S. annexation of Texas in July 1845. The indirect causes of the war were the unwillingness of Mexicans to recognize the loss of Texas, the United States' desire to acquire Mexico's vast northern territories, and Mexico's almost constant political turmoil.
How about this as the intro, with an additional sentence or two about the consequences of the war? Anyway, I applaud your efforts, and hope you take the time to improve the article at large. -Alcuin 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Begin SECOND paragraph: With the war now well underway, the United States proceeded to seize the California and New Mexico territories while the main U.S. army captured Monterrey after fierce fighting, but a new Mexican government refused to admit defeat. The United States then resolved to take the war to the Mexican capital. Before this plan could be carried out, though, Mexico attempted to crush the depleted U.S. force in northeastern Mexico, but failed. Subsequently, U.S. troops landed on Mexico's Gulf Coast, captured Vera Cruz, routed a Mexican army at Cerro Gordo, defeated another at Padierna/Contreras, seized Churubusco, won Molina del Rey, took the fortress of Chapultepec, and forced their way into Mexico City. End SECOND paragraph. I've deliberately omitted citations in all three paragraphs of the lead for brevity's sake. (Kraken7 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Begin THIRD paragraph: Unable to resist the American advance, Mexico agreed to relinquish the California and New Mexico territories (the Mexican Cession) in return for $15 million, conceded the loss of Texas, and signed a peace treaty. The United States thus acquired several hundred square miles of territory and access to immense natural resources at minimal cost, although the controversy over whether slavery should be extended to the newly won territories helped sharpen the sectional differences that led to the Civil War. In Mexico, the political infighting that had hamstrung the war effort against the Americans continued to hamper the country's political stability even after the last U.S. troops had departed. End THIRD paragraph. (Kraken7 01:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

This is far too much details for an introduction. Remember, the intro is supposed to provide the bare outline. The details are supposed to be in the article. Please don't enter this paragraph in the article. Griot 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've shortened the third paragraph by almost half and slightly edited the second paragraph. If any of the three paragraphs are still too long, I'd welcome editorial suggestions. (Kraken7 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

The recent expansion of the lead section from one to three paragraphs is a definite improvement. Yet, little progress has been made on the section's other problems. Furthermore, the additional length has brought with it new problems: 1) too much emphasis on the war's causes, 2) confusion of the Texas Revolution with the Mexican War, and 3) conflation of the war's background (e.g., "westward migration by Americans") with the war's causes. (Kraken7 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I agree with Kraken7 - the middle para could do with paring. Maybe give one sentence to background, another to the causes, and another to casus belli.--Shtove 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Following suggestions by fellow Wikipedians and after studying some featured articles, I've again revised the three paragraphs (see above) proposed as a replacement for the current lead section. These paragraphs total about 300 words, which is about average for a lead section in featured articles of this length. (Kraken7 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

Immigration of Americans into the Mexican territories as cause of war?

Griot, what's your source for this? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 07:40 (UTC)

It seems to be a misinterpretation--no historian mentions it. There were perhaps 700 Americans living in California and a handful in New Mexico in 1845. Rjensen 08:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. Thanks for changing it back. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 08:20 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying, but westward expansion and manifest destiny made the war inevitable. I'll change this to "westward expansion." Rjensen is wrong when he states there were 700 Ameicans living in California in 1845. Fremont himself was in California in 1845, and the port of Monterey was full of Americans. Also, the U.S.'s desire to purchase California had nothing to do with the war. It was essentially an attempt on the U.S.'s part to take advantage of Mexican indebtedness. Griot 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, if someone challenges your claim, neither 1) "(I think) it goes without saying," nor 2) your own reasoning is considered to be a sufficent reason to change a page back to the version of yours that's been challenged. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 14:57 (UTC)

My point is simple: American settlers were moving west on the strength of their ambitions for themselves, their belief in their democratic values, and the offer of free land -- what generally falls under the umbrella heading "manifest destiny." Thanks for the Wikipedia etiquette lesson, but to say that manifest destiny and westward expansion had nothing to do with the Mexican-American War is just daft. Griot 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You're still (here, in your response) "doing original research," and not citing a reliable source. 2) Before insulting your colleagues here, you should think more carefully about what they've claimed. I see no evidence that anyone claimed "westward expansion had nothing to do with the Mexican-American War." My response above, for ex., was to your claim that "westward expansion and manifest destiny made the war inevitable," a very diff. claim from "had nothing to do with...." --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 15:10 (UTC)

I put a citation in there. Check it up if you want. Griot 15:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you look at the very end of your source? "I found this article on the web and found it to be quite accurate. It was written by an American High School student." --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 15:15 (UTC)

Please make your potentially controversial edits one at a time. Making large changes that include controversial items that aren't named in your summaries of edits -- for ex, removing "[conversion], which Mexico had made a condition of residency in its territories" -- makes it hard to collaborate, and is at times known as "sneaky editing." --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 17:05 (UTC)

There is nothing "sneaky" about this. Much of the material comes from Mexican Texas. Some I got from an older version of this article. Please do me the service of reading it before you reject it outright. Griot 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re my "downplaying" of the role of slavery: I actually did not mean to erase it entirely. Sloppy mistake. Sorry. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 17:48 (UTC)

Immigration of Americans into Mexican territories in the 1840s was not an issue raised by the Mexicans at the time. There were a few hundred such immigrants (in California). GRIOT is mixing up the causes of the Texas revolution with the causes of the US war with Mexico. Rjensen 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yankee immigration to California was a big issue in CA before the Mexican-American War. It's confusing to speak of numbers, since the entire non-Native American population of California in 1840 was only 30,000. But the Yankees were of great concern to Pio Pico and other Californianos who adminstered the state for the gov't in Mexico City. Prior to the outbreak of the war, Commodore Wilkes's Expedition came overland from Oregon (1841) and Commodore Thomas even raised the American flag briefly at Monterey (1843). John C. Fremont (anxious to take the state for the U.S.) and Kit Carson came in 1845. The Californianos were perplexed by the arrival of these Yankees -- they enjoyed the benefits of the sea trade and the skilled workers but were alarmed that their numbers were rising and California was losing its Spanish-Mexican culture (how times change!). There was a sizable Yankee population in Monterey, then the state's capital. You might like reading this original document. Griot 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The argument is that these few immigrants were a cause for the war plans in Mexico City. Indeed--a MAJOR cause of the war. No historian holds that extreme position. The war was not started by Pio Pico! Rjensen 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I never claimed the war was started by Pio Pico or that immigration was a cause for war plans (?). I'm merely saying that Yankee immigration to the Mexican territories forced the issue of who would rule and administer these lands. Commodore Wilkes's drunken sailor raised the American flag in Monterry, territoy's capital, in 1843, and Fremont's men did the same in Petaluma in 1845. Are these causes of war? And in any case, if all Yankees had observed Mexican sovereignity, if they had not crossed the border, the war would never have occurred. 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The passage deals with what were the main causes of the war. Immigration to California was not one of them. The actions of a drunken sailor did not cause 3 years later a war between the US and Mexico--which of course started on the texas border. Rjensen 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see how anyone could fail to list immigration as the major cause of the war. If the immigrants hadn't come, the war would never have occurred. Mexico saw this immigration as a threat, and rightfully so. Griot 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"If the immigrants hadn't come, the war would never have occurred" Nonsense. If the Spanish never came to Mexico there would not have been a Mexico and thus no war. If the English had not come to the 13 colonies there would have been no war. If.... this is all nonsense and unsourced. Or maybe we can blame the Columbus, or the crusades or..... Fact is the war was fought over the annexation of Texas. Mexico wanted Texas. The US wanted Texas. War. Rjensen 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you concede that westward expansion was a cause of the numerous American-Indian wars? You're engaging in a old and disengenous debating trick -- inflating someone else's opinion and then refuting it. You're taking a very narrow diplomatic view of this war's causes without looking at the big picture. Griot 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The movement of American settlers into the then-Mexican territories of California and New Mexico was a main cause of the Mexican War; that is the claim debated above. To support that claim, three sources are cited: 1) "Mexican Texas," 2) "an older version of this article, and 3) Joseph Bidwell's "Life in California Before the Gold Discovery." However, the first and third sources do not mention the Mexican War, let alone the causes of it, and the second source is too vague. Thus lacking any apparent support, the claim is unverified and should not be included in Wikipedia. (Kraken7 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC))
This is obvious. It wasn't a question of immigration -- it was a case of settlers moving into territory where they were not welcome. Westward expansion was most certainly a cause of the war. The war would not have occurred without it. Griot 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet, earlier it was maintained that "Yankee immigration to the Mexican territories forced the issue of who would rule," but now "[i]t wasn't a question of immigration," but rather of "westward expansion." So, what is "westward expansion"? Was "westward expansion" a root cause or merely a cause of the Mexican War? Which verifiable sources support the cause or root cause thesis? (Kraken7 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

There wre a number of revolts in california, by the californios themselves. However teh imperialistic Mexican army was sent to crush them or did back room deals preventing teh californios from attaining the sovereignty[1]. The irony is they were put under teh boot of the Mexican army right after they helped mexico become liberated from Spanish colonialism. Mrdthree 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Slidell and the failure of negotiations

Saying that Mexicans were eager for war seems quite an overstatement. Negotiations through Slidell failed because the US government insisted to send him with plenipotentiary powers knowing (through previous diplomatic exchanges) that the Mexican government would refuse to negotiate with somebody having those powers. Also, widely circulated Mexican newspapers of the time repeatedly pointed out the folly of going to war against the American army, which was better equiped and trained. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Democrats supporting and Whigs opposing?

I thought it was the other way around: the Democrats did not want to go to war and expand US territory to the south because of the fear that slavery would be taken to the new lands. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Democrats were the pro-slavery party back then. Nareek 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion as Cause of war? Not

GRIOT mixes up this war and the very different Texas war for independence a decade earlier. In 1846 no one claimed that Mexico planned to impose Catholicism in Texas. So we drop the old irrelevant stuff and focus on this war. Rjensen 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The material RJENSEN removed was from the part of the article describing the background of the war and the Texas Revolution. Religion was an issue there. It belongs in this background material. Griot 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The Texas Revolution was part of the historical backdrop that set the stage for the Mexican War, and should be mentioned, as such, but there is no need to go into detail about an event that has its own detailed article. The degree to which religious differences affected the outbreak of war is debatable: If an historian has credited religion as a factor, it should be mentioned and cited appropriately. If not, then it is speculation or OR.--Rockero 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen here, I have found no reference to religion being a cause of (or pretext for) this war. Bringing up the issue in this context appears like a justification of the military aggression Jinmex 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom and racism

For U.S. citizens the war was a good thing... the idea of freedom would expand the frontiers. Many opportunities for all. At least for anglo americans.

But this war only meant one thing for Mexicans: To be illegal on our land. Freedom meant not the same for all. For the anglos it was opportunities. Liberty. Freedom. For the Mexicans it meant restriction. Prosecution. Racism.

I hope the day for the mexicans can walk into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or Alta California with no restrictions at all. Just like walked hordes of U.S. Anglo americans into California in times of war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.234.152 (talk • contribs)

I hope the day not ok, you vengeful know-nothing. RomanYankee (24.75.194.50 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

"But this war only meant one thing for Mexicans: To be illegal on our land." Some might subscribe to this, but not all Mexicans live in the past and wallow in self-pity. Nor are all Mexicans "illegal" in the United States. In fact, many thousands are here legally as visitors or legal residents. Only Mexicans who cross the border without official permission are here illegally, and that applies equally to those of any other nationality who defy our laws. Moreover, Mexico and every other self-respecting country in the world have similar laws. Finally, since Mexico lost the war, it's not Mexican land anymore. (Kraken7 23:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC))
Sounds something like Israel-Palestine. When similar laws are applied, the dispossessed tend to take possession. Ask London to keep out the Irish, and they'll now say no, please no.--Shtove 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There may be a few superficial similarities to Israel-Palestine, but there are many more differences: The United States and Mexico signed a peace treaty, the Israelis and Palestinians have not; there were no (or at least very few) Mexican refugees after the Mexican War, as opposed to the thousands of Palestinians who fled after the first Arab-Israeli war; the Mexican government, unlike the Palestinian government regarding Israel, does not support terrorists coming to the United States; and the United States, unlike Israel in Gaza, does not send its fighter aircraft across the border to bomb Mexican power plants. (Kraken7 21:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Why is "Mr. Polk's War" POV and no longer acceptable in the intro?

Why would a user put information in the introduction, then 6 months later change his mind and delete the same info, based solely on his knowledge of the field? For some reason, the information Rjensen added to this article 22 Jan 2006 has suddenly become POV to Rjensen. I want to know what's true: is there a sudden change of heart, or has there been significant new scholarship on this 160 year-old conflict in the last 6 months? Please feel free to explain. If this was rarely used, then why did the user introduce the material in the first place? BusterD 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's sourced in a reputable history, and doesn't overwhelm a contradictory POV, then it's NPOV, even if the phrase itself is an expression of bias/bigotry.--Shtove 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The term "Mr Polk's War" was a derogatory one occasionally used by Whig politicians at the time. It was never used by them to describe the whole war, only to specify Polk's responsibility for starting it. [Perhaps it would be like an encyclopedia calling the current war in Iraq "Mr Bush's War"] Therefore we should NOT suggest to Wiki readers it is a commonly used synonym of the sort they can use in a student paper. I did add the term by mistake--my apologies to everyone. Rjensen 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - doesn't belong in the intro.--Shtove 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying it in Spanish

Apparently, Mexican academics classify a military conflict between a powerful nation (e.g., the United States) and a small one (e.g, Mexico) as an "intervencion" (intervention; see "War, The Theory and Conduct of" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition). Also, norteamericano (North American) is the common, polite way for a Mexican to refer to a U.S. citizen. Thus, the common name for the Mexican War in Mexico is "la intervencion norteamericana" (the North American Intervention). Further, Amazon.com lists three books in Spanish with "intervencion norteamericana" in their titles but without "la guerra de." (Kraken7 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

If you go to the Mexican wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Intervenci%C3%B3n_Norteamericana), you will see that it is called "La guerra de intervencion norteamericana." I think we should stick to that. Let's not try to interpret Mexican academics' motives and simply translate this literally. BTW,"norteamericano" isn't the "polite way for a Mexican to refer to a U.S. citizen." It's THE way. Griot 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's either "norteamericano" or "estadounidense" but the former is less clumsy to pronounce and therefore used more often. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is one Wikipedia article more authoritative than three history books? There is no "Mexican wikipedia," or at least none at the webpage address provided above. In addition to "estadounidense," there are two other ways Mexicans refer to U.S. citizens: "gringo" and "yanqui" (see "Dicconario practico de la Lengua Espanola," p. 482). (Kraken7 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but "gringo" and "yanqui" are slang. You never see those two words used in academic articles relating History. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought "Gringo" referred specifically to white Americans? Are Chicanos or Puerto Rican Americans Gringos? African-Americans? john k 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is straying pretty far off topic, but to answer the question: "gringo" is a slightly (and not necessarily) perjorative term used throughout Latin America, but especially in Mexico, for someone from the United States. A Chicano, Puerto-Rican American, or African-American may be called a gringo if he or she markedly shows the manners and dress of someone from the U.S. Griot 04:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the main point: The source cited in footnote 1 makes no reference to "guerra de intervencion norteamericana." Also, the hyperlink next to that footnote connects to the "Guerra de Intervencion Norteamericana" article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Under the "Titulo" headline of the "Discusion" section of that article, it is argued (with supporting evidence) that the "guerra de" prefix has no standing in Mexican historiography. Absent better evidence, it would seem the "guerra de" in the Spanish-language Wikipedia is a mistake and to use it in the English-language Wikipedia would repeat that mistake.Kraken7 12:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It`s La Intervencion Norteamericana, because in Mexico this was not considered a fight between equals, this was a conquest in order to steal 51 percent of Mexico's Land....
It was the north american indians land before the spanish stole it. And the Mexicans are just as bad. Instead of supporting popular soveriegnty and setting indian nations free after beating the Spanish, Mexico engaged in massive land theft and oppressed the indian nations.Mrdthree 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Germany-Czechosolovakia

Are there studies to compare/contrast this war/intervention with Germany's invasion/intervention in Czechoslovakia ninty years later? Strikes me as an interesting paralell.--Shtove 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good observation. Czechoslovakia was a country of mixed ethnicities and distinct populations put together by a receded imperial power. So was Mexico. In czechoslovakia the czechs dominated government over the rural slovaks and germans (who were more numerous than the slovaks). Similarly the central mexican government dominated California, Texas, and Arizona which had large and often majority american or native american populations. I think the primary difference is that there werent any rebellions in Czechoslovakia that had to be put down by the government; people in Czechoslovakia seemed to want to be part of the same country. In contrast of course, California and other northern territories of Mexico such as Texas had frequent rebellions and Mexico's army was always having to restore order over its subjects that desired freedom from the Mexican boot. Mrdthree 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet, the differences between the two events are more significant than the similarities: 1) Unlike the United States, Germany fought no war for the Sudetenland; 2) unlike the United States and Mexico, Nazi Germany's goals were not limited to the Sudetenland as she later took over the whole of Czechoslovakia and eliminated that country as an independent state; 3) unlike Mexico and the United States, Czechoslovakia never received a penny from Nazi Germany in compensation for its lost territory; and 4) the United States in 1846 was no Nazi Germany in 1938, nor is James K. Polk comparable to Adolf Hitler. In sum, the analogy is a weak one. (Kraken7 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC))
Germany's goal seems similar to that of the US - control and colonise your hinterland: Texas/Czechoslovakia were baby steps. Germany took the Sudetenland, and then said, Yikes - this territory can't be defended, let's secure the whole country: isn't that what the US did with Texas, down to the Rio Grande? Moral comparisons? Tiresome. The point is: territory and resources - what do we do to git 'em? Kick up a fuss, insist these people are misguided inferiors, then go in and kick their bottoms (while lamenting the loss of life). The comparison seems strong, but has anyone written about it? Or compared the opportunities arising to the US and Germany, respectively, from the fall of the Spanish Empire and of Czarist Russia?--Shtove 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it may be significant that Texas asked to be annexed by the United States while Germany took the Sudentland. What do you think? Mrdthree 05:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the Sudeten Germans made a similar request - not sure. What did Texan hispanics ask for?--Shtove 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Texas Hispanics supported the Revolution and annexation. When Santa Anna moved in he tried to massacre them.Rjensen 12:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Texas Hispanics supported the Revolution and annexation." Sources for this claim? Actually there was only one Mexican in the Texas independence declaration, Lorenzo Zavala. From Spanish version of this article. This evidences the opinion of Hispanic population was not properly represented.Aguizar 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't just the Texas Revolution, many Tejanos supported the Revolution, other Mexican states were breaking away from the Federal regime; but I suppose the only reason why you would remember Texas is because it was the most remote and the one that actually escaped the central authrority in Mexico City —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.5.34 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 June 2007

letter from santa anna while in captivity

Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico in 1824, considered Santa Anna was a great apostle of republican ideas in 1824, a young leader who had just overthrown the empire, and was the avowed champion of popular government.After the 1836 Texas Revolution and capture of Santa Anna Mr Poinsett sent a message to Santa Anna while he was in captivity:

"Say to General Santa Anna that when I remember how ardent an advocate he was of liberty ten years ago, I have no sympathy for him now, that he has gotten what he deserves."

To this very unkind message, El Presidente made this deliberate reply:

"Say to Mr. Poinsett that it is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one."[2] Mrdthree 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict over cession resolved?

According to the article, the conflict over slavery in the Mexican Cession was resolved by the compromise of 1850. Wasn't it still a huge question until the civil war ended? I think a better sentence would be: American politics entered several years of heated debate over slavery in the new territories, resolved in part by the Compromise of 1850 but ultimately by the American Civil War.68.4.212.158 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

after 1850 people rarely talked about slavery in the Cession teritories--debate switched to Kansas which was Louisiana Purchase. Rjensen 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

name of this article

why is this article named with a double wide between 'Mexican' and 'American' instead of a normal wide dash? This dos not seem to be a normal naming convention. Thanks Hmains 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), the proper punctuation for situations like this is the en dash, which is what's currently up there. It's shorter than a "double-wide" em dash. The manual of style is pretty ambiguous on whether to use these special dashes in titles. It says normal hyphens are to be preferred, but then gives examples like Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem where special dashes are used. Unless someone sets a firmer policy on this, my vote is to leave it as is. That said, the en dash messes up Google searches, so someone who has the time would probably do wikipedia good by setting that firmer policy and going on a renaming rampage. Epukinsk 22:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Mexican POV?

I don't know enough about this war to make claims as to this articles NPOV-ness, but it certainly doesn't sound like it to me, especially the first and last paragraphs. -Montréalais

Who can possibly read the section about the war in Califirnia and NOT see a pro-Mexican bias? This article is a prime example of the worst of Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything... this is awful.

I cannot detect a pro-Mexican bias in this article. On the contrary, with all its concessions to bad conscience, it is written exclusively from a US point of view -- liberal, conservative, these are just two sides of the US-coin. This article does not reflect recent Mexican scholarship and/or viewpoints on the subject. Many details, from turns of phrase (beginning with the fact that this war is called Mexican-American War, as if the Mexicans were the aggressors and not the victims of US-expansionism) to the descriptions of post-Independence Mexico (riven by internal conflict, etc.), reflect the attempt of generations of US-historians to justify the occupation of Mexican territory as part of the "Manifest Destiny" of the US. To top it off, at the end the writers of the article imply that the Mexicans have to be grateful to have been invaded by US-troops. The writing of history (especially in the departments of military history) has always been an integral part of that nationalist project -- winners write history, in Wikipedia as well as everywhere else. Jinmex 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the historiography is rather more complex than Jinmex seems to believe. For example many American historians are negative toward the war. The goal here is to get a NPOV statement of what happened. Changing "American" to "U.S." is counterproductive in that regard. As for Mexican scholars, I did add some, I hope JinMex can add some more. Rjensen 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson. I am very well aware of the complexities as well as the partisanship of history writing and hold that this article is in serious need of reconstruction -- as are many others.
fellow editors are always ready to help Newbies with the complexities of history and the goals and policies of Wiki. Rjensen 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, are you a fellow editor? After reading a few of your posts, stating beauties such as "Mexico wanted war and was stupid enough to provoke U.S." it is hard to believe you are pursuing a NPOV of what happened. Reading the word "stupid" applied to a country as a whole is enough to disregard any objective claims on your part.Aguizar 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have heard this refered to as the "War of Northern Agression" in Mexico. Google shows the American Civil War to be more commonly called this, but some instances of this in English as well (eg [3]). -- Infrogmation 05:27 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ha, it proved my expression that Alamo is some traitor try be independent lured by USA. USA tempt some texan to betray, and then annex it. The propaganda of Alamo is rediculas. I feel sorry for Mexico, he was cheated by USA, and lost such a big land, he should not have that war while he is not prepared.

The main problem is that nowadays in Mexico there is no reliabable information about it, since that part of history, is a part of the black past of Mexico and almost all information is vanished.
konegistiger 18:27 Nov 18, 2006 (UTC)
Correction: There IS plenty of reliable information, you just need to go beyond history textbooks, study guides, or nationalist texts covering up certain details. I'm plenty sure you'll find something accurate. --DWDarkwyng 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image found on Commons

Image:Mexican war overview.gif
Image:Mexican war overview.gif

- Leonard G. 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

War in / with California

someone inserted an unsourced fanciful account full of POV. It's poorly done. I replaced it with the section from the History of California to 1899 article that has passed intense scrutiny by numerous editors. Rjensen 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Small battles, skirmishes, weakened US troups.... you call 18 US troops killed in San Pasqual and 14 US Marines killed in Dominguez Hills (Carson, CA) small battles and skirmishes? You must edit for Fox news...I think your references are a despicable attempt to ignore facts about the war in California...you even clear the defeated Capt William Melvine by not mentioning him at all. next, you will be calling the Californios "insurgents"

'Poorly done huh!!, It's too bad your history is one dimentioned, as usual, being told from esoteric American / English accounts...you can't remove the documented, heroic defending of Southern California by a vastly undermanned, undertrained and under armed group of Californios' and Mexican regulars led by historical figures Jose Maria Flores and Jose Antonio Carrillo. Your intrinsic arrogance in the whitewash /vandalism of this article about the war in Caifornia only propagates the racist elements and anti-American sentements in the discussion section of this article. If we are to further utilize proper citation for edited input to these articles, discussion should take place also before a clearing edit as you did to my comments. I, in fact hold a PhD in California history, and have historical diary documentation of my family from the Mexican territory period, back through the Californios and New Spain, through El Paso, Chihuahua, Monterrey and Tampico (New Spain), Burgos, Spain and Vienna, Austria. I will no longer waiste my time with this section, or use wikipedia as a sourse of information, and further, I will implore it's use for research reference to students and colleagues as well if my edited comments are not immediatly restored. DonDeigo 17:48, 20 December 1786 (UTC) '

The californios were not brave and had valor. They were not heroic. The californios were fighting to maintain a government that according to their own general and on-again off-again president, Santa Anna, said was a "despotism". The US fought for the democratic-republican principles, which is a more heroic cause.Mrdthree 04:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. The ideology of George W. Bush is taking hold in the minds and hearts of US-American Youth. Really, Santa Anna was part of the axis of evil and deserved to be tried and

. But hold it. At that time, the Uk still had slavery, and Mexico did not, which is why the US settlers in Tejas started their famous revolution in the first place: They wanted to have their slaves, too. The nobility of the cause must be hidden elsewhere, then... But polemics aside (including the polemics of Mrdthree), I agree with the many voices on this and other pages bemoaning the deplorable state of history-writing in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to US aggression against other nations. Most articles are dyed by an unbearable pro-US-stance and a historical one-eyed-ness, was the self-proclaimed editors-in-chief converts, not to inform. The US-Mexican War was a war of aggression on the part of the US, period, it need not be glossed over as some kind of humanitary action.Ulises Criollo 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Corpus Christi is just north of the Nueces

Corpus Christi would be considered just north of (or at) the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande (which is nearly 200 miles away). Changing that fact would cause the paragraph to not make sense. Could someone more familiar with the Mexican-American War look into this and see how it should read? Thanks. — Bellhalla 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Troop Strenghts...

I have reason to believe that the troop strength on this article is inaccurate, does anyone know what source the troop strength is from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.48.37 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I think you are right. I know Congress had said 50,000 volunteers could be raised and that more than that volunteered, but I know the number of troops who participated in fighting was much lower than that. I'll check a few sources for a more accurate number. BlazingDOSspeeds 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to The United States Army Center of Military History, "During the Mexican War, some 73,260 volunteers enlisted, although fewer than 30,000 actually served in Mexico."[4] BlazingDOSspeeds 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on US

I think this article over-emphasizes the point of view of the US. All the results are about the impact of the US, the campaign accounts are all about the US generals, etc. What about the impact this war had on Mexico? What about the Mexican generals? And I think more could be said about why Mexico lost the war. That has always been a big question for me. Now I am from the US, but I still would like to see more on Mexico in this article, this is the Mexican-American war after all.

== the mexican american war =join they just had to have a big war about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.232.105 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Opposition to War section re-write

I'm nearly finished with a year's worth of research on dissent against the Mexican War (from the US pov). I was hoping to upgrade the section on opposition a bit since it's not organized all that well. I will post whatever changes I plan to make here before adding them to the page. Unfortunately I don't have much info on Mexican opposition. I will likely have 3 sections, the first dealing with the debates over the constitutionality of the war preceeding and immediately following the declaration of war. The second will deal with general opposition to war (religion/morality/democratic virtues). The third will deal with opposition to the acquisition of new territories (slavery, manifest destiny). All my citations are of primary sources - mostly speeches and newspaper articles. BlazingDOSspeeds 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great topic for study: BUT No originial research is allowed in Wiki. You have to summarize exiting scholarship instead. Rjensen 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on inputing any new interpretations, just paraphrasing and maybe a quote or two. (for example - Daniel Webster, a prominent Whig, believed “there are three pretexts, all unfounded, upon which this war has been justified”. Then a listing of the 3 followed by a citation of the primary source.) No original ideas, just a broader perspective. Just a simple, this guy said this kind of thing. Like I said before, I'll post whatever changes I want to make here for review. Is that kind of revision possible? BlazingDOSspeeds 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As the editor who recently pulled together paragraphs from two different sections and consolidated them in the new "Opposition to the war" subsection, I would be very interested in seeing your material added to the article, provided it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. If you haven't seen them yet, please be sure to read through the guidelines relative to primary and secondary sources. Then use your best judgement. Welcome aboard! Cgingold 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Once I finish writing my paper on this, I'll take the time to find some of the better quotes I've come across and figure out a way to present them without analysis. BlazingDOSspeeds 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas

User:Ulises Criollo changed the name of Texas in the Background section to "Tejas". Reading this article for the first time, I was confused by this--I'm familiar with the names and locations of the Mexican states, but "Tejas" seemed out of place, honestly it broke me out of reading, trying to figure out what the text meant. I checked out "Tejas" in Spanish Wikipedia and got redirected to the Texas article [5], so it seems clear to me that "Texas" is not purely some weird American spelling. Not to belabor the point, "Durango" and "Jalisco" and all the other names in the list are the names that an English speaker would use in referring to these Mexican states to another English speaker. If we had a different name for those places, then that would be the appropriate name to use. We have an article about Spain, not an article about "España". I think that a WP:POINT is getting made here that's disrupting Wikipedia. Thoughts? Darkspots 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And then I looked at three articles on Spanish wikipedia, including http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Intervenci%C3%B3n_Estadounidense, the article about this war, and realized nobody, certainly not most speakers of Spanish, spells the word "Tejas". You had me going for a second there. Darkspots 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish spelled their New Spanish province "Tejas", which is how Mexicans pronounce it to this day. English-language speakers did not get their tongue around the jotta and changed it to "x" (just as they changed the pronunciation /mexiko/ to /meksikou/; that modern-day Mexico is spelt with an "x" is very a different story and has to do with Porfirio Díaz' attempts to revive the Aztec past). Spanish language speakers came to accept the anglified spelling, but the historically correct spelling for the Mexican province (as opposed to the US state) remains "Tejas". I refer you to the hi-res version of the map [[6]], where the spelling is clearly visible. See also Coahuila y Tejas. Ulises Criollo 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all very true, but doesn't change the central nature of the encyclopedia--it needs to be written for an audience of general readers of English. See Mexican Texas, which I got to from the Coahuila y Tejas article you pointed out. You see this as a debate about history--your comments seem to veer towards the political; I, however, see it as a simpler question of clarity. I think a compromise can be reached really easily here. Please see my new edit. Darkspots 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of war = title of article

First I just want to say, I'm not taking a side in this debate, as it's not clear to me what the correct answer is. (My sense of things is that we (in the U.S.) are in the middle of a shift from "Mexican–American War" to either "Mexican War" or "U.S.-Mexican War".) However, in the interest of consistency -- and per WP:MOS, I should think -- the intro really shouldn't indicate that some name other than the one used in the title is the preferred name. So for the time being, until this question is resolved one way or the other, I think we should leave the wording as-is. Cgingold 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed "U.S.-Mexican War". US historians (and US historians only) refer to this war as the "Mexican-American War", though it is good international custom to name the aggressor first. I believe en.wikipedia is an international project and a medium for all who speak English as a first or second language and should therefore make a serious attempt to take international historiography into account. Mexican historians represent the matter in a very different light which is just as legitimate as the US point of view, and so do British and other English-language historians. I believe it is the task of an international encyclopedia to integrate these different positions and get beyond the various parochialisms to post-nationalist estimations that reflect the interests of a reader in India, Australia or Great Britain as much as those of a US reader. Ulises Criollo 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is in the business of following the scholars. What do THEY call it recently? I looked at ALL the books in last 10 years in America History & Life and here are ALL the ones with "war" in the title (you can check them at Amazon.com) Note that only three of 21 use the form "U.S.-Mexican War".
  • Heidler, The Mexican War. 2005
  • Eubank, The Response of Kentucky to the Mexican War. 2004. pp.
  • Carey, The Mexican War: 2002
  • Foos, A Short, Offhand, Killing Affair: Soldiers and Social Conflict during the Mexican-American War. 2002
  • Hill, A Fighter from Way Back: The Mexican War Diary of Lt. Daniel Harvey Hill, 2002.
  • Smith, Company "A" Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., 1846-1848, in the Mexican War. 2001.
  • Francaviglia, Dueling Eagles: Reinterpreting the U.S.-Mexican War, 1846-1848. 2000.
  • Eisenhower, So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. 2000
  • Carter, For Honor, Glory, and Union: The Mexican and Civil War Letters of Brig. Gen. William Haines Lytle. 1999
  • Dawson, Doniphan's Epic March: The 1st Missouri Volunteers in the Mexican War. 1999
  • Kendall ed. Dispatches from the Mexican War. 1999.
  • Crawford, Encyclopedia of the Mexican-American War. 1999.
  • Engstrand and Griswold del Castillo, Culture y Cultura: Consequences of the U.S.-Mexican War, 1846-1848. 1998.
  • Ohrt, Defiant Peacemaker: Nicholas Trist in the Mexican War. 1998.
  • Frazier, The United States and Mexico at War: Nineteenth-Century Expansionism and Conflict. 1998.
  • Spurlin, Texas Volunteers in the Mexican War. 1998.
  • Moore, The Eutaw Rangers in the War with Mexico 1998
  • Elliott, The Mexican War Correspondence of Richard Smith Elliott. 1997.
  • Winders, Mr. Polk's Army: The American Military Experience in the Mexican War 1997
  • Laidley, Surrounded by Dangers of All Kinds": The Mexican War Letters of Lieutenant Theodore Laidley. 1997.
  • Haecker, Charles On the Prairie of Palo Alto: Historical Archaeology of the U.S.-Mexican War Battlefield. 1997
Consistency and the Wikipedia Style Guide are good things, but they are irrelevant to the central issue: What is the correct name in English for the 1846-48 war between the United States and Mexico? "Correct" is defined as the name most frequently used by historians in books written over the last forty years or so. Evidence that the "Mexican War" is the correct name can be found in the list above as well as in the "Misnomer" section of this "Discussion" page. Also, the "References" section of this article cites 7 sources that use the "Mexican War" versus 3 that use the "Mexican-American War" and zero that use the "U.S.-Mexican War." Kraken7 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I, too, don't know exactly what the correct answer to this question is, although I agree wholeheartedly with Kraken7 that it should be the correct name in English, and not any other language. The Spanish wikipedia article about the war is, as far as I can tell with my mediocre Spanish, just as completely all over the place! Their article has been moved a couple times, too; the present title is "Guerra México-Estados Unidos," (guess they didn't get the memo about the aggressor-first custom) but recent versions show just as many different names, like "la intervencion estadounidense". They think we call the war "The Mexican War." We seem to think they also call it "La Guerra del 47", which shows up exactly nowhere on their page. Look, I know that what Spanish speakers call the war is irrelevant over here, but it's actually nice to see them wrestling with it too. It seems to me that the problem with the "American" in "Mexican-American War" is that it pisses off everyone else in the Western hemisphere when Americans use "American" to describe themselves. Unfortunately, everyone else in the world who speaks English uses "America" and "American" to refer to the people who live in the United States of America. And, sorry, "U.S.-Mexican War" is clumsy, and that's actually important. We can be as politically correct as we want and call the war by that moniker, but it ain't gonna catch on. So, "Mexican-American War" makes it totally clear to English speakers which war you mean, but angers many Spanish speakers, "Mexican War" sounds like a generic name for any Mexican War and not the specific one we're talking about here unless you're speaking from an obviously American perspective, so that fails, and "U.S.-Mexican War" will never catch on with Americans, who are a fairly huge majority of the English speakers who actually care about the war, because "U.S." is not really an adjective in American English, "American" is. Ulises Criollo, I'd like you to actually cite the British historians to whom you refer. In any event, I guess I'm trying to say that we can't win with this debate. Darkspots 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a folk myth to the effect that some people in Latin America dislike the use of "American" to refer to the US. It seems almost all the complaint comes from people who live in the US--So unless we have a barrage of legitimate protests from people outside the US, we can safely use the term "American" without fear. (The folks I know in Mexico and Argentina never call themselves "American".) Rjensen 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If Mexican War "fails" then so too must Korean War, Vietnam War, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, and all the hundreds of other generic-sounding war names. That the Mexican War is the name for this conflict most frequently used by historians in books published in English over the last forty years or so has been supported with evidence and reasons. No evidence has been offered to support "Mexican-American War," yet this article continues to use that name. Why? Kraken7 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When I said that "Mexican War" "fails" I meant that it fails the rigid internationalist perspective offered by Ulises Criollo, who insists that "U.S.-Mexican War" is correct--not that it fails by my lights. I personally think "Mexican War" is okay, maybe not as clear as "Mexican-American War," but if it's universally adopted it will work fine. It just seems like a) any name will anger some people and that, regardless of that fact, b) we should have a single name used throughout the article. Having "U.S.-Mexican War" in the infobox is silly when the name of the article is "Mexican-American War." Darkspots 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether good international custom or rigid internationalist perspective, no evidence has yet been shown that either of these is a widely accepted criteria for naming wars. On the other hand, as shown above and in the "Misnomer" section, the name for this conflict that is most commonly accepted and frequently used by a thumping majority of American historians over the last forty years is the Mexican War. Therefore, using the "Mexican-American War," the "U.S.-Mexican War," or any other name as the title for this article is a mistake. Kraken7 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 6, a Google Scholar search for the phrase "U.S.-Mexican War" returned 481 results, for "Mexican-American War" 1,950 results, and for "Mexican War" 6,270 results. This suggests that scholars overwhelmingly prefer the Mexican War as the name for this conflict. Kraken7 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Convincing arguments, Kraken7. I think we should move the page to "Mexican War". Darkspots 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No the searches were in US sources and the American part was assumed by the authors. Imagine we were all in Japan and did an article on the Russia-Japan war of 1904. Then would we call it "The Russian war" ?? same fallacy. Rjensen 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page to "Mexican War" would be the best solution. On a related point, what fallacy? As long as "The Russian war" was the usual name for that conflict in Japanese, it should be used in the Japanese-language Wikipedia. Kraken7 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The English language Wiki goes worldwide. Perhaps in Canada or Britain they will call the war of 1812, The American War. Heaven known what the Indians and Australians will think of the "Mexican War." Rjensen 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What an Indian or Australian might think is beside the point. Reliable, published sources show that the Mexican War rather than the "Mexican-American War" is the common name for this conflict. If someone wants to argue otherwise, they need to cite reliable, published sources to the contrary. Kraken7 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

The article asserts that while most Texans were in favor of annexation by the United States "Andrew Jackson rejected it." That is certainly incorrect, as Andrew Jackson was one of the major forces behind the effort to annex Texas. See Lone Star Nation by H. W. Brands.DAvanyveren 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackson wouldn't annex Texas during his presidency, however. john k 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Title problem

Without desire to get into the discussion on the preferred name, according to WP:MOSDASH "Please do not use an en dash, em dash, or any type of dash other than a standard hyphen in a content page name because such symbols prevent some software (including Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP) from saving the page as a file on a computer. The non-hyphen dashes can be used in redirect pages if an enhanced precision for the page name is desired for use in wikilinks elsewhere."

I'm therefore going to move it to Mexican-American War, though it may, of course, change later to one of the other suggestions above. Adam Cuerden talk 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Header formatting

I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, but the header is constantly mired in bad formatting: as it is, "The Mexican-American War" has an apostrophe after the comma, yet I can't find any extras to remove. And the rest of the intro also suffers from this bad formatting. Somebody else please try to fix it and do better than I can. Nyttend 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. There was a set of 5 unmatched apostrophes after (the theft of the century) that I removed. Weird, but it worked. :) -Ebyabe 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Mexican Territory

It is stated in the "Intro" that Mexico lost (52%) of its territory, but in the "Results" section, it is stated that the loss was "almost half of its territory." Which figure is accurate? I believe it is the former. Winner of the Nobel-Prize in Literature (1990) Octavio Paz in his book "The Labyrinth of Solitude" states that the U.S. took more than half of Mexico's territory. MiztuhX 00:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. took more than half of Mexican territory. However, both of the figures you mentioned are wrong: Mexico lost 51% of its territory, and was about to lose more, if a previous treaty attempt had been proposed and ratified (In which Mexico would lose Texas, BOTH Californias, New Mexico and parts of Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamaulipas).--DWDarkwyng 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing picture and wrong name of president

There is an image of Texas and its present-day states missing; I presume it's the same picture as in the republic of Texas article. Also, the article mentions a U.S. president "Michal Johnson." There was no such president, and I'm not 100% certain who it should say as there were several presidents in this era.

myths about sending settlers to border areas after war

The notion that the central government encouraged migration to the northern states is not mentioned in the detailed standard histories, such as Mark Wasserman, Capitalists, Caciques, and Revolution: The Native Elite and Foreign Enterprise in Chihuahua, Mexico, 1854-1911. University of North Carolina Press. 1984 Perhaps it is one of those folk myths that encyclopedias should avoid. Rjensen 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

However, it is mentioned in just about every history of Mexico published in Spanish. Perhaps people who contribute to this article should look at the war from the vanquished's point of view as well as the victor's, objectivity being a goal of all encyclopedias, if not all scholars. Griot 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Takaki's sources, Mexico was handing out land grants in California to anyone who would take them, expecially in the early half of the 19th century, when American settlers were flooding into California. The Mexican presence in California was restricted to some ranchers clinging to the coast, few in number, who kept native Americans as slaves and had such a weak economy they had to ask for brooms to be shipped to them from Mexico. Their governors were largely a series of bandits who roamed California, extorting money from the ranchers, only to be defeated by a series of revolts. By 1848 it was arguable that there were more American settlers in California than Mexican ones. MarkB2 Chat 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's just not true that Mexico was "handing out land grants in California to anyone who would take them." Pio Pico and the other Californos were very wary of Americans in California and their intentions. Mexicans did not keep California Indians as slaves. And "their governors were largely a series of bandits who roamed California" is just plain false. Have you read a history of Spanish or Mexican California? Griot 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't read a history of Mexican California. I just decided to make all this stuff up.
I'll root around in my library for the relevent sources. They're Takaki's main sources from "A Different Mirror" in the chapter relating to the acquisition of California. MarkB2 Chat 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexican-American War → Mexican War — It seems as if the conflict is most widely known as "the Mexcian War" and there is nothing that seems to require disambiguation. Mexican War is already a long-standing redirect here. It's shorter, easy to link to and there's nothing in the name that seems to imply any noteworthy POV. —Peter Isotalo 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - I would have no idea which war involving Mexico the page was talking about. I see nothing in the naming conventions to guide me. Speciate 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Mexican War" is a US centric name, and Mexican-American War is common in the US anyways. 132.205.44.5 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per reasons given by Speciate. Reginmund 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Based on the first two reasons given by users here. Fennessy 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to make it perfectly clear: this request is based on a misunderstanding due to an improperly updated lead. There's no need to cast more votes. Peter Isotalo 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Could you back up your claims with some sort of evidence? Who says "Mexican War" is the most widely known? Speciate 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not call it the US-Mexican War? Speciate 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend checking the current article contents when confronted with an RM of this kind. I have no personal opinion about which title to use, but I was naive enough to think that the lead would accurately reflect the appropriate naming of the article.[7] That said, it should be pointed out that Mexican War has been redirecting people here for over five years[8], apparantly without any opposition of confusion. Perhaps a mere coincidence, but that it leaves readers bewildered doesn't seem to be all that accurate.
Peter Isotalo 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It could just be that no one uses the redirect. Dekimasuよ! 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Geography Mix-Up?

OK, this part kind of stuck out: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000, half the amount of money that the U.S. had attempted to offer in return for New Mexico and California alone three years earlier.

Err, I think someone is confusing the Mexican provinces of California and New Mexico with the American states/territories today. The Mexican provinces of California and New Mexico contained all the area mentioned in the sentence above it: "California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming." The inclusion of "alone" is implying that the U.S. took additional areas past the ones they initially tried to buy in the first place, which doesn't seem to be accurate.

Here are maps of the Mexican provinces: [9] and [10] and [11].

Depending on the source, you might say part of Sonora was taken, but that isn't clear. ;-) However, there is no mention of Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, or Arizona at all on the Mexican provincial maps. WMS 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Border under Treaties of Velasco

I flagged the claim that the Velasco Treaties set the Río Grande as the Tex-Mex border as "dubious". Check the Treaties of Velasco article: the border was to be set later (at negotiations that never took place) "no further south than the river". That the Texans wanted it at the Río Grande is clear, but the matter was far from officially decided at Velasco. The dubious non-official and non-ratified nature of the Velasco Treaties further clouds the issue. Aille 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)