The Mexican-American War

The justification of America's actions during the Mexican-American war are widely questioned, even today. There are many disagreements as to whether or not our motives were Constitutional, and for these arguments we can turn to Gregory Hospodor and Lee Eysturlid. Gregory Hospodor maintains that Mexico had a prior right to the territory between the two countries, while Lee Eysturlid claims that manifest destiny is enough to absolve any injustices on America's part.

In defense of Mexico's rights we have Gregory Hospodor. Hospodor's argument is perhaps the most believable of the two; through references to documents and historical events Hospodor presents a convincing argument for Mexico's claim to Texas. Though his first point is trite -- that had Mexico not lost the war they would have written the treaty differently -- later observations are more relevant. He sites the Adams-Onis Treaty, written in 1819, in which the United States relinquished any claim to Texas. The treaty was, admittedly, between America and Spain (Mexico had since gained independence from Spain), but this does not mean tat America has any right to back out on past promises. Having already declared that she had no claim on Texas, America had no right to take said land, especially not through violence. Also note that the people being harmed by America's breach of treaty were the same people associated with the treaty in the first place, only by a different name. Mexico made it clear that they did not want to part with their land; when offered money, Mexico declined. Disrespecting this, America refused peace; she took what she wanted by force, when money wasn't enough.

Lee Eysturlid's argument in defense of America is somewhat lacking in valid points, but his self-assured writing voice masks what his mind lacks. The majority of his argument assumes an agreement with Manifest Destiny, or a God-given right to expand our borders no matter what it takes. However, rather than describing why manifest destiny was right, he simply speaks of it as obvious fact, rather than questionable theory. Following this very weak but decently written point is a selection of ideas that seem more like a pile of excuses. One of his weaker points is that if deciding who the land really ought to belong to, we should be giving it back to the Native Americans who were there before any of us. However, far from proving his point, it simply brings up yet another point of injustice. Eysturlid's only remaining point with any credibility is that European nations also had their eyes on Texas, meaning that the only real choice was take Texas ourselves or risk having a European power at our borders. While this may be true enough today, it was hardly motivation at the time; it is hard to consider this point more than an observation when looking back, not an idea that existed while our ancestors looked forward.

Of the two arguments, the latter is the more convincingly written, but the first is more realistic. By naming legitimate facts and data, Hospodor offered realistic proof, while Eysturlid made confident excuses. This makes it difficult for the reader to sift through good writing and real point, meaning either argument could convince an unattentive reader. Overall, Hospodor's argument is far more valid, though neither is superior given Eysturlid's writing style.

After reading both arguments carfully, it becomes clear that America was not, in fact, justified in claiming Texas. No matter how much people of the time thought manifest destiny was ample justification, today the treaties broken and greedy violence can hardly be considered just. Mexico had every claim to Texas, but America disrespected that right for her own selfish gain.

(Mr. Kulowiec! I'm sorry this is up so late, I couldn't get internet and then I was away, while I was away I typed it but couldn't post it, and when I got back to where I had internet it wouldn't let me copy-paste onto the blog so I had to REtype it! Hope you had a great vacation =] )