Nicholas Trist and the All-Mexico Movement (original) (raw)
Related papers
Diplomatic History, 2005
On 13 May 1846-two days after President James Polk had informed Congress that Mexican troops had crossed the Rio Grande and that American blood had been shed on American soil-the Washington National Intelligencer published a letter from a Whig representative from Maine, Luther Severance: "It is. .. on Mexican soil that blood has been shed. The war has not been commenced by Mexico but by the President of the United States, without the authority of Congress and without any necessity." 1 It is well known that Polk's war message provoked a fierce, albeit brief, debate in Congress and in the press. John M. Clayton (Whig-DE) spoke for many in the Senate when he said, "The whole conduct of the Executive. .. has been utterly unjustifiable. If the acts of the Executive do not amount to acts of war, they are acts which necessarily tended to provoke war, and to bring on war, and that without consulting Congress." And Garrett Davis (Whig-KY) spoke for many in the House when he concluded, "It is our own President who began this war. He has been carrying it on for months in a series of acts." 2 Davis was right. Polk had been pursuing a belligerent policy toward Mexico since the fall of 1845, when Mexico had agreed to receive a U.S. envoy to discuss the annexation of Texas to the United States. But where were Severance, Clayton, Davis, and the other members of Congress who expressed such outrage in May during the preceding months? Did they voice their opposition while Polk carried out the "series of acts" that, in Clayton's words, "necessarily tended to provoke war"? And was this opposition echoed in the newspapers that harshly criticized Polk's war message after it was sent to Congress? Or were Polk's moves so stealthy that no one could see the drift to war? Historians have discussed the expansionist mood of Manifest Destiny that held sway among Americans at the time; they have dissected Polk's policy toward Mexico; but they have consistently treated the debate that followed Polk's war message as the starting point in their discussion of opposition to the war. 3 Indeed, the most exhaustive discussion of the opposition in the months 223
2012
In this revision of his 1996 publication, Mark Stegmaier has polished up an already comprehensive history of the Compromise of 1850 as it unfolded from the perspective of Texas and New Mexico. Whereas most histories have focused on the compromise from the standpoint of the national question about slavery, this work illuminates the significance of the part that fixed the boundary between Texas and New Mexico. Stegmaier argues that the boundary dispute acted as the linchpin for the entire block of compromises the 31st Congress passed in 1850. More so than any other issue-including statehood for California, the new fugitive slave laws, and the slave trade in the capital-the clash between Texas state authorities and those of the federal government over Texas\u27s claim to all territory east of the Rio Grande could very well have led to armed conflict and potential civil war
Oxford Research Encyclopedias
The United States’ westward expansion in the first half of the nineteenth century illustrated the political and economic forces motivating the nation’s desire to acquire additional territory. The Democratic and Whig parties advocated divergent goals for the nation’s development and territorial expansion. During this period, the United States and Mexico had contrasting success in acquiring territory. Mexico struggled to hold onto its northern territories while plagued by political instability after gaining its independence from Spain. In contrast, the United States embarked on an aggressive westward territorial expansion while enjoying continuing political stability. The Texas separatist revolt and the subsequent deteriorating diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico led to the outbreak of the US–Mexico War, which had a major social and economic impact on the Mexican population. The terms of the treaty that ended the war held important implications for ethnic Mexicans and American Indians in the borderlands, and the conflict left enduring legacies.
The rising sun of empire": William H. Seward's Mexican policy 1861-1865
2013
Historians argue that Secretary of State William H. Seward abandoned the pursuit of his expansionist vision during the Civil War. They interpret his conduct of wartime Mexican policy as a case in point for this argument. Although Seward wished to see the Mexican republic stabilised and eventually incorporated into the United States, he allegedly remained neutral towards the French invasion of Mexico 1862-67 in order to prevent Emperor Napoleon III from striking up an alliance with the Confederacy. This thesis argues that Seward never gave up expansionism and that his wartime Mexican policy was designed to facilitate the future absorption of that country into the U.S. republic. Seward believed the Civil War signalled the coming demise of slavery, which had complicated previous instances of national territorial growth, in the United States. He also saw the French invasion of Mexico as an opportunity for the Mexicans to prove their commitment to republicanism and therefore their readiness to become citizens of the U.S. republic. Once both these crises had passed, Seward predicted, the next stages of U.S. expansionismthe peaceful incorporation of Mexico into the United Stateswould follow. As secretary of state, Seward used his influence over Mexican policy to facilitate the realisation of this goal. This thesis tracks the development of Seward's prewar expansionist outlook and compares it to his approach to wartime relations with Mexico, an undertaking not yet attempted by historians. During the antebellum era Seward advocated a method for expansion whereby the United States would build relations based on non-intervention, ideological affinity, and commercial cooperation with those countries it wished to absorb. These same principles guided and shaped Seward's Mexican policy and his response to the French invasion in 1862. In regards to Mexico, Seward made significant advances towards furthering his expansionist ambitions during the Civil War.
The Relations between the Texas Republic and Mexico
Acta Hispanica
The Texan Santa Fe Expedition was a commercial and military enterprise. It was unofficially initiated by Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar, second President of the Republic of Texas, in the summer of 1841. His aim was to gain control over the lucrative Santa Fe Trail and to establish Texas jurisdiction over the area. The expedition included twenty-one wagons carrying merchandise and was accompanied by businessmen, Lamar’s commissioners, and a military escort of some three hundred volunteers. The members of the expedition expected a warm welcome by the citizens of New Mexico, but instead, were “welcomed” by a detachment of the Mexican Army. The Texans, reduced in number and broken in health and spirit, were forced to surrender, and then to march 1,600 miles from Santa Fe to Mexico City. They were held prisoners for almost a year and released only in the spring of 1842. In my paper I propose to discuss the organization, course, and consequences of the ill-fated expedition. My most important p...
The Debate over Annexing Texas and the Emergence of Manifest Destiny
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2001
Scholars have long understood that the ideology of manifest destiny congealed out of the millennial ideals embedded in American culture. However, they have not ful ly appreciated that manifest destiny only became a national ideology by overwhelming the arguments that were first voiced during the Monroe Administration to resist the incorporation of Texas into the Union. Understanding how the secular ideals of the classical republican tradition were used to resist the inclusion of Texas can help us understand the crystallization of manifest destiny into a theologized ideology in the 1840s. A ll students of American history are familiar with the astonishing burst of expansion in the 1840s that began with the annexation of Texas and culminated in the huge territorial gains of the Mexican-American War. Fewer, however, appreciate how vigorously many Americans sought to block expansion into the Far West by opposing the annexation of Texas. Opposition began in the early 1820s and crystallized into a movement led by Conscience Whigs and abolitionists between 1836 and 1844. During these years, opponents of annexation fervently warned that acquiring Texas would ignite war with Mexico and set the nation on a path of empire building. Appealing to the civic principles of the Revolutionary generation, opponents urged the nation to cultivate the inner resources of the republic rather than pursue an expansionist policy that would transform the nation into an empire. "We have a republic," boomed Daniel Webster in one of several orations he delivered denouncing annexation in 1844. "Instead of aiming to enlarge its boundaries let us seek, rather, to strengthen its union, to draw out its resources, to maintain and improve its institutions of religion and liberty, and thus to rush it forward in its career of prosperity and glory." 1 Arguing that expanding slavery across the Southwest would corrupt the civic foundations of the republic, Whigs and abolitionists impeded expansionists in the Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler administrations from annexing Texas.
Review of James K. Polk and his Time: Essays at the Conclusion of the Polk Project
Journal of the Early Republic, 2024
James K. Polk receives far less attention than his peers shortly before or after his presidency. This alone is reason to welcome this sweeping volume on one of the most consequential early US presidents, one whose legacy continues to influence, particularly in foreign policy. This collection moves beyond biography to put the complexities of Polk and his presidency in context, identifying its origins and influence on American government and policy. It highlights the experiences not only of leaders but those Polk affected, including victims of slavery.