Talk:Mexican–American War

Archives

1

Almost Perfect

This article is almost perfect, neutral, and shows the two sides of the currency, not only the U.S. side, I think it would be perfect if showing too "THE IMPACT OF THE WAR IN MEXICO", the main cities were almost destroyed, the economy almost collapse etc etc. and would be good say for Mexico the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or Mexican cesion includes the Disputed Territory with Texas and Texas itself, not only New Mexico and California like the picture in the article. thanks --jmko22 (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} casualties and more are inaccurate

{{editsemiprotected}}The source for mexican casualties is listed, but if you check that source it's 1) a personal page, not a valid source page and 2)lists the casualties for the mexicans at 8000 KIA not 5000 KIA. obviously someone has a bias. the number of forces also seems in accurate because from what i've learned, during all of the major battles within modern day mexico leading up to the seige on mexico city, Mexicans troops always outnumbered the american troops. I have a feeling this page is heavily bias to the mexican side.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please do not use templates in the header. It messes up the layout. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is someone addressing the list of current US states involved in the territory gained?

Following the quotes from US Grant, the article has a list of states which is incomplete, and at least one typo

For some reason, I apparently cannot (am not allowed to?) edit that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filbertius (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of that (I was from New Mexico, so I noticed when the list didn't include it). Filbertius (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS MEXICO AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED THE SOVEREIGNS OVER CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA ETC

The USA is almost always called the aggressor --yet Mexico was itself a brand new nation perhaps 20 years old when the Mexican American War began. There were numerous legitimate boundary disputes and who is to say that after throwing off the Spanish yoke people in those lands and the USA had no right to decide which political entity they would ultimately belong to? I have heard that a large majority of people in those lands (California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc) felt no connection to Mexico and certainly did not voluntarily agree via any plebiscite to join a newly founded Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackzatar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like the majority of Native Americans did not feel a "connection" with Anglo invaders in the US. Within a Euro-centric legal paradigm, the US invaded Mexico and stole 55% of their land. Within a philosophical debate over who truly "owned" the land, the answer is either, No one," or "He with the most riflemen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.87.166 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but note that the "people in those lands" did not choose "which political entity they would ultimately belong to". The Mexican Cession was something worked out (or forced upon) the governments of Mexico and the US, without consultation of the people in the land being ceded--just as the sovereignty of Mexico over those lands before the war was something worked out in treaties between the US, Mexico, Spain, etc, without consideration of the people. There were no plebiscites or agreements to join either Mexico or the USA. Probably "a large majority of people in those lands" did not wish to become part of either nation--after all, most were Native Americans. Pfly (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Territories dispute between Mexico and United States, legally belonged to New Spain, when Mexico became independent from Spain, they become part of the territory of Mexico. However, if as stated here, these territories belonged to Mexico, why is the United States dispute and reach a legal agreement with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to get to them? The answer is that United States recognized that this vast territory belonged to Mexico. Atte: LOART —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.127.213 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources which discuss that point of view that would be something good to add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.16.28 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Casulaty figures

The casualty figures, in favour of Mexico, are WAY WAY too big and FAR disproportioned. I am deleting them until proven right. Regards. --Philippe Auguste (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Exorbitant Casualty numbers and under done Mexican Casualty numbers

Certain editors have been messing around with casulty figures frequently making any enemy of Mexico having suffered WAY too big to be proportionate for the truth. I am deleting those figure until proven and will patrol this page as to guarntee that this happens. Regards. Philippe Auguste (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mexico actually did take a disproportionally large number of casualties, according to my AP US History textbook (Inventing America (Maier, Smith, Keyssar, Kevles), 2^nd edition). When I refind the numbers, I will put them in. Dude1818 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which cities were occupied and for what period?

Can we get more information on this? --JWB (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Boiler plate

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US has taken part in. While it is true that they were in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as the only national boilerplate on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for Mexico should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Battalion

I've removed them from the list of combatants in the Campaign Box as they were an integrated part of the Mexican army, not an independent force. Battleax86 (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I just moved this

from the Combatants section.

"The majority of atrocities committed by the volunteers."

It is not a complete sentence and it is not necessarily supported by the subsequent quotes. It is probably (opinion) true. Carptrash (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, when I (if you) google the phrase "Just like Gaines's army" - I found the whole section, word for word, that was, I believe just added here, in all sorts of blogs and other places I did not go to. So . ... who wrote this first? Carptrash (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, check out this version of Gaines and his volunteers and why they were sent back. [1] Carptrash (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Even our own article on Edmund P. Gaines tells a different story that we present here. Carptrash (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

citation needed

The quotation from John L. O'Sullivan is taken from the magazine "The United States Democratic Review".

"Annexation," Democratic Review, 17 (July-August 1845), 5.

By the way, I dont think that O'Sullivans just came up with the idea of "Manifest Destiny". To me, it took him some years to "create" the catchphrase "Manifest Destiny". In particular, an article he wrote in 1839 is interesting because he stated that "America is destined for better deeds." Furthermore: "In its magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest [my itallics] to mankind the excellence of divine principles (...)." "The Great Nation of Futurity," Democratic Review, 6 (November 1839), 426-430. Vellmar64 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

good point-- it should be added to the Manifest Destiny article (but not here). Rjensen (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: strength

The infobox gives US strength as 78,700 and Mexican strength as 25-40,000. No sources are given. I think the US strength is about right, if you count everyone who served in the army at any place and any time during the war, but the Mexican strength seems low. Later in the article it says that Santa Anna took 20,000 troops to fight Taylor, which means he took 50-80% of the total strength of the entire army with him on one campaign. That seems way too high. Also consider that the Mexicans out-numbered the US in every major battle. It seems odd that they could do this with a total army half the size of the US army. Someone with better sources than I have should verify these figures, and make sure that the same thing is being measured for each side. Tms (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My source, says "Before the war Mexico's standing army was at least three times the size of the U.S. army, with about 25,000 to 30,000 men." It also mentions that there were "about 200 generals before the war, most of them without a command." Carptrash (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The same source about the US army states, " ..General Zachary Taylor and his 12,000 troops left Matamoros to launch the US campaign . ..." and later I find regarding the US army in the West, "Kearny mustered 1,600 men ... assembled an additional 1,000 volunteers" and later the Mormon Battalion show up. with a few more That seems to be what the US army involved in the war at the beginning consisted of. 15 or 16 thousand men. Carptrash (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A source I saw (I forget where) said the US army had 7000 men when the war began, which is consistent with your source's comparison of the two armies. Congress authorized 50000 more, and rather more than that enlisted, including state units. I assume the Mexican army also grew during the war. Tms (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Format.

I am removing the white gappy bits and blank sections, like I did in some Arizona articles.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed now.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And what i still don't get is why the U.S. doesn't give Mexicans the right to live in the U.S without a broblem Knowing that they were once part of MEXICO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.209.68 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Balance

The article does a great job of elaborating the opposition to the war and the outrage over its aftermath both in Mexico and among its opponents in the United States, but I feel that it would appear less biased by the inclusion of more argument and documentation concerning justifications offered in support of American actions. It might be at least mentioned, for example, that, in the view of the war's adherents, the ceded territories were only nominally Mexican possessions, and were actually unsettled, ungoverned, and unprotected frontier lands with only very tenuous ties to Mexico, and whose non-indigenous population, where there was any at all, comprised a substantial--in places even a majority--American component, and were feared to be under imminent threat of acquisition by America's rival on the continent, the British. The issue of indemnity for outstanding American claims against Mexico might also be addressed, for which it was claimed that, in view of Mexico's insolvency, the only possible resource was the sale of some large portion of its territory. Bakesnobread (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In a separate issue, I've added a "biased" tag to the section on Texas. The section is worded to make the Mexicans out as monsters, rather than an army at war. For example, the Battle of the Alamo is described as a 'massacre', rather than a pitched battle where the Mexicans lost nearly a third of their force in taking the mission. Houston is portrayed in a much more flattering light, and there is little actual discussion of how all of this relates to the Mexican-American War. Dpenn89 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Quibble about usage

Re: section entitled "Defense of the War"

I have been asked by another contributor to solicit consensus here on a point of usage.

When is it appropriate to deviate from the past tense in writing about historical events?

Explaining his changes to my text, Beyond My Ken writes, "Let's please recall that we are compiling an encyclopedia for general audiences. There's no particular reason why an article about a past historical event needs to be so complex in its use of tenses - plain old past tense is just fine."

I maintain that when discussing the contents of a book, an argument, a speech, etc., the present tense is employed.

For example:

"At the end of the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein takes note of his frequent references to the very general facts of nature and fends off any overeager metaphysical use of them..." [my emphasis] (The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, ed. H. Sluga and D. Stern (Cambridge U. Press, 1996), p. 152.)

This is an instance of the "ongoing truth exception" to the general rule governing sequence of tenses, and a common source of confusion. When we speak of an ongoing truth or state of affairs, the present tense is employed, regardless of when it originated. Thus She said she is sorry, not She said she was sorry. The act of speaking is indeed past, but not its contents.

I agree that we needn't be overly fastidious about slight deviations from standard usage in a popular work of this sort, but it seems odd to bother actually introducing them into material that is already written.