|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 8, 2008 12:09:03 GMT -5
Indeed; especially in the early 19th century when, in a very real sense, land was money. As Jim pointed out elsewhere, I believe that this is what brought Crockett to Texas (that and perhaps being fed up with U.S. politics; we all know THAT feeling!).
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 8, 2008 12:45:38 GMT -5
As to the military action in the Mexican War, there are two questions -- First, was the war actually justified (was there really any threat to the United States?). The only justification was if there was a real threat to the U.S. from Mexico over the annexation of Texas. I think that's an argument advanced from a 21st Century perspective and not a 19th Century one. How often did Alsace-Lorraine go from France to Germany and vice versa and how many wars were fought over where that particular border was? The truth is that in 1846, the governments of both nations wanted war - and neither was truly interested in a negotiated settlement. Again, Grant's opinion is a post war opinion, that wasn't shared by too many experts at the time. Demographically and militarily the advantages were largely with Mexico. This war is what changed everything and made the US the dominant country on the continent. Looking at the picture in 2008 is starkly different from what was ground truth in 1845. Nobody, had any idea how dominant US artillery would be - in fact for the past 30 years most of the field artillery (as opposed to Coast Artillery) had been used as infantry in Indian fighting and garrisoning the various posts. The Duke of Wellington's, rather famous comment about Scott being doomed after Scott departed from Vera Cruz on his campaign to take Mexico City is rather telling. US success in the war, was primarily due to just a few things, one was US naval supremacy, this allowed Scott's Vera Cruz operation and the rapid conquest of California. Secondly, was the huge qualitative superiority of US Artillery (which not only overcame their quantitative inferiority but in fact normally dominated the battlefields). Third, the US possessed the only bona-fide military genius of the war, Scott. Fourth, the reason Scott gave for US dominance, West Point. Scott said: "I give it as my fixed opinion, that but for our graduated cadets, the war between the United States, and Mexico might, and probably would have lasted some four or five years, with, in its first half, more defeats than victories falling to our share; whereas, in less than two campaigns, we conquered a great country and a peace, without the loss of a single battle or skirmish." Except for the naval superiority, none of this was truly known until after the war had begun.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 8, 2008 14:59:56 GMT -5
I know the U.S. wanted war, but why did Mexico? Was it over the annexation of Texas alone, or other factors?
Ironic that both Crockett and Polk had advocated abolishing West Point during their years in Congress!
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 8, 2008 15:00:27 GMT -5
Mexico did recognize a border regardless of whether it was or was not the same border we recognize today. And as RR pointed out the Texians held Texas, Mexico did not and by that right Texas broke free from Mexico and became independent much like Mexico broke free from Spain and became independent. I’ll go away for a while now and cool off… I’m one of those hard-headed Texans RR mentioned and an affair of honour between a Texan and a Scotsman might lead to an international incident! Ha, come on Scott, read my other posts before the shooting starts. I'm not disputing that Texas was fairly won by the US, just pointing out that because it was Mexican territory you need to look at the revolution and why it happened from a Mexican perspective. Yes the Texians probably had right (and Uncle Sam) on their side, but the revolution began not in isolation but as part of a federalist civil war which started months earlier in Zacatecas and Coahuila.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 8, 2008 15:06:20 GMT -5
I know the U.S. wanted war, but why did Mexico? Was it over the annexation of Texas alone, or other factors? Ironic that both Crockett and Polk had advocated abolishing West Point during their years in Congress! AW Aside from the usual catalogue of "provocations", Mexico had to take a stand over the Nueces Strip. Originally the border between Tamaulipas and Texas ran along the Nueces river - hence the importance of San Patricio, but after the revolution the Texians claimed that the border should lie further south along the Rio Grande. By mobilising in 1846 the Mexicans were responding not to the annexation so much as the American troop build-up in the Nueces strip - and warnings of that build-up coming from British agents in New Orleans.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 8, 2008 21:47:44 GMT -5
Stuart, I'm not sure I completely understand your premise. Are you stating that the Texas Revolution is best understood through the context of Mexican History, or are you saying that the study of it should only be within that context?
My thoughts are that while I agree the event does not exclusively belong to American History, neither does it belong exclusively to the history of any specific nation or region. Texas had been the target of American expansion for some time before the Revolution, and involved much doings in America as well as Mexico.
The main reason why the history of Texas cannot be separated from American History is that the Revolution is what gave the US its 29th State. Also, the Revolution was partly a continuation of the Centralist vs. Federalist battle in Mexico, it was also a war waged by American colonists against the authority of Mexico as a part of Manifest Destiny.
This was a Revolution that Mexico very much allowed to happen. Both Teran and Almonte alerted their government that their inspections found that Mexico barely held Texas, and that much had to be done to keep it part of Mexico. Their pleas were ignored until it was too late.
Mexico had an even more absurd claim on Texas from 1836-1845. War with Mexico was one reason why the US avoided annexing Texas for almost 10 years, but after that length of time, everyone involved but Mexico realized that Texas was indeed an independent nation.
Mexico was very much injured and insulted by the annexation of Texas into the US. As absurd as its claim was, Texas could be considered in a state of rebellion, but still a part of Mexico in terms of national pride. Annexation by the US erased that facade. The loss of Texas was now official and public. The Nueces strip, however worthless in reality, was a vital piece of Mexican pride that had to be maintained. If the US could take this too, then what else could it take from Mexico?
History is best judged from perspectives closest to the period in question. To some, the Mexican War was about establishing an international border, and Mexico's desire to violently enforce such borders. To others, it was the carving out of a new slave state from a weaker nation. No, it was not a popular war in many parts of the country. No war has been anywhere near universally popular in the US.
With all due respect to Grant, his Republic of the Rio Grande wasn't around in 1846 to affect the Mexican War. Santiago Vidaurri's later and more successful version was much more influential in international politics. If you'd like to check out a fascinating period of history, start looking into the role Matamoras and northern Mexico played in the American Civil War. The major factions in Mexico, Britain, France, the United and Confederate States of America as well as the state government of Texas all converging in one area. It's amazing this tinderbox didn't blow up any more than it did.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Sept 8, 2008 22:20:49 GMT -5
Phil,
Wasn't Texas the 28th state added to the Union? And there was a Republic of the Rio Grande of sorts in the early 1840's but it didn't do very well... partly due to the slippery nature of Canales and his boys. It's all very interesting stuff to discuss though, more of a Mex War conversation the direction it's been headed.
Stuart,
Alright, I'll wait before issuing a formal challenge. Maybe we can lob sheep at eachother if it comes to it?
SMc
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 8, 2008 23:59:18 GMT -5
Phil, Wasn't Texas the 28th state added to the Union? And there was a Republic of the Rio Grande of sorts in the early 1840's but it didn't do very well... partly due to the slippery nature of Canales and his boys. It's all very interesting stuff to discuss though, more of a Mex War conversation the direction it's been headed. You're correct sir. Texas was the 28th state and I'm sure TM just mis-typed. Why do numbers have to be so numerical on a keyboard? I'm always typing my dates wrong. I think all of those Rio Grande expeditions (Matamoros, Federalist, Somervell/Mier) were doomed to failure. It's one thing to make lightning raids across the river "ranger style" and another thing to ride so far into the enemy's territory with an army. I guess I'll volunteer to be your second in this sheep shootin' scrimmage, but I'd really hate to sling a sheep at Stuart or any Scotsman. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 9, 2008 1:14:13 GMT -5
Stuart, I'm not sure I completely understand your premise. Are you stating that the Texas Revolution is best understood through the context of Mexican History, or are you saying that the study of it should only be within that context? Depends on your personal viewpoint. I have my own reasons as you know for looking at the events from a European/Mexican perspective, but equally obviously the subject is relevant to American history given that Texas became a state long before quite a bit of the rest of the US. What I'm arguing against is hindsight and suggesting that because Texas was unequivocally Mexican until 1835/6, Mexican history is more relevant for that period. Just by way of example, all the (British) Foreign Office files and Consular reports I went through in researching Grant's story were filed under Mexico, rather than Texas - far less the USA
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 9, 2008 23:21:49 GMT -5
29? I'm going to have to slow down my typing.
I won't disagree at all that the Mexican context isn't vital. I just don't think I'm ready to concede that one single nation "owns" the conflict. Just think of WWII? Which country's perspective is most important?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 10, 2008 1:19:51 GMT -5
World War 2 is actually a good example.
From a European perspective America didn't come in until 1942. Therefore while it exercised an increasingly important role from that point onwards and in the post war era, its importance prior to that time is pretty negligible.
Thus in Texas, America's only really starts to become significant with the arrival of the volunteers and then increasingly significant after the declaration of independence up to annexation.
However just as the US was pretty peripheral to the rise of Hitler in Germany; and the opening campaigns which took German armies to the Atlantic coast and the gates of Moscow, so in Texas we're looking at the Mexican government and how it tried and failed to populate Texas with European settlers rather than Americans and then how it coped or failed to cope with those settlers while simultaneously fighting a civil war in which a significant number of those same settlers were wavering between hostile neutrality and active participation on the federalist side
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 10, 2008 8:11:49 GMT -5
Yes -- the WWII analogy is pretty good. Didn't Britain have some U.S. pilots flying for them before our entry into the fray? Sort of like the volunteers and such that came over and got involved in the Texas fighting.
The British have traditionally held on to the " we stood alone" viewpoint, because, in effect, they did, until much later in the war when the U.S. finally joined them.
Interesting stuff, to say the least.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 10, 2008 21:09:30 GMT -5
I completely agree. However, the point still stands that the history of either war cannot belong to one country. We cannot forget that China and Japan were fighting long before Germany invaded Poland.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 11, 2008 10:32:12 GMT -5
I agree, I agree, but my point is that it isn't a question of "ownership" of history; quite the opposite. This thread started out with the "beginnings of Texian independence" and my point is that you can't fully understand those beginnings by approaching it from the traditional US point of view. A thorough understanding of the Mexican side of the story is absolutely essential
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 11, 2008 21:31:01 GMT -5
Ok, sounds good to me! I can get on board with that.
|
|