Was there Causus Belie during the Mexican/Us war

[unmerged(35)]

I have friends who both disagree on this issue. I would like to hear and objective opinion. The problem is thus:
After mexico became independent from spain it set up a constiution(sp) similar to that of the United states in some degrees. However edventually dictators began to siez controll and Santa Anna became dictator of all of Mexico and gave himself the title 'Napolean of the West' He then discarded the constiution, and began to limit various freedoms as well as closing the borders to immigrants in various areas including Texas. Texas which was largely Anglo began to grow tired of dealing with a far away government which refused to allow any local rule( it was completly centralist and many times you would have to travel all the way to Mexico city for simple matters). So they decided to rebel and after several bloody battles and a stunning surprise victory at San Jacinto; Texas was rid of Mexican armys and Santa Anna was forced to sign away texas and give it freedom. Texas applied to join the Us, however there was trouble in the Us congress as slave states and free states battled for controll and the addition of Texas( as a slave state) was too much to handle. During this time Santa Anna claimed texas was still part of Mexico since he had to sign the document under duress. So a sort of cold war which heated up occasionally formed between the 2 nations. Texas began to accumulate a large debt to keep up. Edventually america voted to accept Texas into the union. This caused a breaking of diplomatic relations between the Us and Mexico. At this time texas claimed all land north of the Rio Grande which Mexico stated was never part of texas and the claim was widely exaggerated. Also at this time the americans wanted to move west , but mexico blocked the way. The us offered to buy the land from mexico, but mexico refused and this further strained ties. Thus a group of soldier from the Us were ordered into the disputed Texas territory. A group of Mexican soldiers then crossed the rio grande and skirmish occured. At that time war was declared. Now here is the question did the Us have cause for war as one friend stated, or was it just pure aggresion as another stated, or was it a mix of the two as i believe.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Territory

^

Most wars have been sparked due to the expansionist nature of the aggressor government. Sometimes the real facts can be hidden, but it's always for one major need or want: to aquire more territory, more riches, more natural resources.

The NEED to aquire the territory: A country invades out of necessity. A vital resource in that part of their land may be necessary to stave of disaster, and possible oblivion. Example of this was the Cossacks when they rebelled against the Poles. They were a vital 'commodity' to the Poles for quite some time. Their changing of allegiences to the Muscovites caused imbalances.

The WANT to aquire territory: Greed. Pure selfish greed, the want to expand at all cost to maintain and increase their countries power.


Is it legal for a country to expand when it NEEDS to, or when it WANTS to? Or neither? If either one or both are correct, then I doubt we'll ever see any sort of 'world peace, in the very near future.

Napoleon did it in his own way, he wanted all of Europe. Hitler did the same in WW2, his Jewish propaganda was only the PR or driving vehicle for what he really craved. The Colonial expansion, and the destruction of the Aztecs and other great civilizations by white man, is another example of greed, and want over necessity. Partitions of Poland, greed, shrouded again, but not necessity...and on and on.


The Americans did not necessarily NEED to expand into these disputed lands which was apparently strictly not their territory. (I don't know much about the war..) They WANTED to expand, they could expand. In Mexico they saw a much weaker nation that, if not diplomatically, could be forced to hand over the disputed regions by applying force. I'm not going to get into a debate about how moral it was, or wasn't. The Americans (and any Mexicans?) on this forum have their own views. But this is just one view of an outsider, and I don't mean any disrespect to the U.S, though from the info I read here this is the conclusion I came to.

Sapura



[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 14-08-2000).]

 

[unmerged(234)]

The answer on the question depends on if you are asking did they have a Causus Belie as those was considered during the period or did the US have moral right to attack Mexico?
1. For a Causus Belie as as those was considered during the period I would say they had, it was a disputed boarder (if the dispute was caused buy Mexico trying to cheat the last agreement, Texas lying about where the boarder should be, missunderstandings in the last peace or a mix of any of those factors is a other thing). Diplomatic effort had failed so war was an allowed option.
2. If US had a moral right, probably not but then we are in to the big discussion about if war can be right at all, se Sapuras answer.

Regards
Janbalk

 

[unmerged(181)]

I find it amusing that Santa Anna complained that the peace treaty was signed under duress. Most peace treaties that end wars are signed under duress. That enemy army occupying your capital or holding your person tend to be great motivators. Territory is not usually surrendered for charity.

As for the Mexican War, James Polk, the US President, was the most expansionistic in our history. Three of his main goals were (1) the annexation of Texas, (2) the settling of the Oregon Territory dispute with the UK and (3) acquiring California. He is probably the only President in history to accomplish all of his campaign promises.

Personally, I believe that Polk was going to acquire California by any means necessary whether he had a CB or not. In this case, he had one, though it was perhaps tenuous. Texas and Mexico had a border dispute. Regardless of who was correct in the claim (many historians support Mexico), he had a justification to try to enforce Texas' and thus the USA's claim. When the Mexicans refused political discussions and then foolishly attacked American troops in the disputed area, he gave Polk every excuse to go to war which is exactly what he wanted.

Actually, it is sort of like the Civ2 trick where you intentionally annoy the AI until it declares war on you so you can attack the AI without any political penalties. Considering Santa Anna's track record, he was probably less intelligent than the AI.

 

[Dark Knight]

The war was started by the US sending an army to occupy the disputed territory, an action which gave Mexico a cassus belli, which it effectively used by sending troops into the territory, although it didn't actually declare war itself. Although the US probably had some cause for war as Janbalk pointed out (there was also a dispute over settlement of US citizens' claims of damage), the real reason behind the war, as with the Anglo-American War of 1812, was territorial aggrandizement. This is very clear from American actions during the war as they did not merely secure the disputed Texan territory, but also swiftly occupied northwestern Mexico (present-day California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.)

 

[unmerged(212)]

Sapura,

I'm not sure if there is an easily definable difference between an aggressor nation's WANT vs. NEED for new territory. In the example of the Cossacks, why is Poland's NEED for this territory superior to the WANT of the Muscovites? It has to be a matter of reference, and with that in mind - we all know that the victor writes history. The victor in a conflict can justify it's aggression much more easily than it can if it loses. I think that in this case, if you look at Nazi aggression in Europe you can see how the victors helped define WANT vs. NEED. Hitler justified his annexation of territory on the fact that these regions had a higher percentage of ethnic Germans that NEEDED to be connected to the Germany. European leaders, who wanted 'peace in our time,' bought this cover story. Only after the Nazi invasion of Poland, and then the low countries/France did people start to recognize that Hitler WANTED to control all of Europe.

I can see a difference in WANT/NEED if only moral considerations are involved. By moral considerations, I'd consider the right to self-governance, freedom from religious persecution, etc. to be sufficient reasons for people to NEED to rebel against tyrrany. Now I don't know if there's a pure example of a third party becoming involved in a war to protect the NEEDS of a minority, but perhaps the recent UN & NATO involvement in Kosovo & Bosnia is applicable. Cynics would argue that the third parties stepped in to keep the ethnic discord from spreading all over Europe, and hence protect their own interests. However, idealists would argue that the Serbs were only motivated by their WANT to create a 'Greater Serbia' and had to be stopped. I don't know if the use of bombing to wreck the Serbian economy was the answer, but I'm just trying to make a general point. The fact that NATO didn't annex Kosovo, and have invested in improving the living conditions there go a long way to proving that the motivation is altruistic.

So, it's harder to judge the situation for Texas. However, if the majority of its citizens were in favor of joining the US, I'd say that there was more of a NEED for it to join the US, and Santa Ana just WANTED to keep it as part of his new country - despite the fact that he hadn't done a good job of governing it in the past.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Jiminov,

In the example of the Cossacks, why is Poland's NEED for this territory superior to the WANT of the Muscovites?

It's not superior at all. Both countries treated the Ukraine as second rate. This led to the revolt of 1648-67 against thee Poles when they turned to seek the protection of the Muscovites. The Muscovites treated them like dirt as well, though under them their independence was completely eliminated. Being part of Poland, they at least had partial independence, and I'm sure the Poles would have offered them an equal partnership in their Commonwealth (along with Poland and Lithuania), which infact they did, but by then it was basically too late.

Also, in this example both countries NEEDED that territory to survive. The Muscovites also WANTED the territory because they regarded it as an integral part of their nation, regarded the Cossacks as Russians, which they are clearly not. There was no need for the Muscovites to take that territory, they were expanding at a phenomenal pace to the east.

Some historians suggest that once the Ukraine became split up, the power in eastern Europe shifted in the direction of Muscovy.

Germans that NEEDED to be connected to the Germany. European leaders, who wanted 'peace in our time,' bought this cover story. Only after the Nazi invasion of Poland, and then the low countries/France did people start to recognize that Hitler WANTED to control all of Europe.

Again, I am not saying neither needs nor wants are justification enough to cause war on another country. Hitler wanted to control Europe, he covered this fact up for about 0.1 seconds claiming that he needed to connect the rest of the Germans with their country. Heck, if Poland needed to connect all the Poles living abroad, we'd have a Poland stretching from Chicago in the US, to Brazil, and into western areas of Russia. It's not justification for starting a war.

Hitler wanted to control Europe and rid it of all 'sub-human' species, and to create the 1000 year Reich -- again territorial expansion.

The fact that NATO didn't annex Kosovo, and have invested in improving the living conditions there go a long way to proving that the motivation is altruistic.

The only reason NATO waged a war against Serbia was to maintain their image of a supposedly united military alliance. Yeah right


So, it's harder to judge the situation for Texas. However, if the majority of its citizens were in favor of joining the US, I'd say that there was more of a NEED for it to join the US, and Santa Ana just WANTED to keep it as part of his new country - despite the fact that he hadn't done a good job of governing it in the past.

I agree with that.


Sapura



[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 14-08-2000).]

 

[unmerged(212)]

Sapura,
Perhaps our differences in this discussion is due to a matter of semantics. My comments on the Third Reich were just trying to get the point across on how its important to win in order to define NEED vs. WANT.

Also, I acknowledge that the Kosovo Intervention has some suspect components, I mean bombing for peace... I don't really get that spin. Yet, I think when you look at what NATO tried to do in the reference of all other armed conflict, you have to admit that it was pretty nice of them to help out the persecuted peoples there.

I'm glad we can agree on Texas though.