It would be very easy to believe that the US, like it has done in so many other countries, just wanted the land and it took it, no questions asked. So why is there controversy about this particular event. The following essay is an attempt to come to an understanding about what happened during the Mexican American war of 1846, and to look into the various events that were taking shape that would ultimately lead to the war. .
To find Historical text on this war that is void of bias is nearly impossible, so the books that have been quoted are books that prove their merit with the amount of research that went into the writing of them. Each book takes a uniquely different approach to trying to come to terms with the war, and collectively give us as clear a view as possible.
One very important term that seems to have played a role in the beginning stages of pre-war politics was "Manifest Destiny". As written in the Oxford dictionary "Manifest Destiny" is, "Belief that the US was intended by God to expand to the Pacific coast, and to eventually cover all of America." Poet John O"Sullivan wrote this term in 1845, it's original meaning as quoted by Vazquez and Meyer, "was simply an argument that any group of people could settle in unoccupied land, organize its government by social contact, and ask to be admitted to the Union." The term was then irresponsibly applied to the idea of material expansionism. In time this term became the catch phrase of the period, within US politics. It is also in some people's opinion either the major cause of the war, or the justification after the fact. Either way it is clear that the thinking that went along with this term had a major effect on some of the leading Americans that were responsible for influencing the drift to war. Others believe that this term was peripheral to the other events that were taking place at the time. These optimists often point to the problems that were taking place within Mexico as playing a greater role in causing the war, these will be covered next.
