September 11, 1998
by Jesús Velasco-Márquez
Originally published in La Prensa San Diego.
The most dramatic event in the history of relations between Mexico and the United States took place a century and a half ago. U.S. historians refer to this event as "The Mexican War," while in Mexico we prefer to use the term "The U.S. Invasion." These contrasting conceptualizations are not based on mere whims, but on different perceptions of the conflict.
The question was and continues to be: were the U.S.'s actions territorial security or the flagrant invasion of Mexican territory? From the viewpoint of Mexicans, the answer was clear: the U.S. government was not seeking to protect its territorial security, nor did it have other supposed demands, but rather, it was determined to take over a territory legitimately belonging to Mexico. This posture was reiterated in an article in the daily El Tiempo which stated: "The American government acted like a bandit who came upon a traveler." The daily El Republicano published the following opinion:
No one has any doubts about the intentions the Washington cabinet has had for some time now with respect to Mexico... One fights in the name of usurpation; the other defends justice... the war has begun and the [Mexican] nation has a great deal at stake, since even if justice is on its side, that is unfortunately not enough to triumph and hold back the excesses of a powerful enemy... The war... has not begun, to our misfortune, and it is urgent that time not be wasted.
Most people in Mexico believed the use of arms was the only option available to defend their rights and territorial integrity. Thus, on July 6, 1846, President Mariano Paredes enacted the Congressional decree that sustained such principles in the following terms:
"Article 1. The government, in the natural defense of the nation, will repel the aggression initiated and sustained by the United States of America against the Republic of Mexico, having invaded and committed hostilities in a number of the departments making up Mexican territory.
Article 3. The government will communicate to friendly nations and to the entire republic the justifiable causes which obliged it to defend its rights, left with no other choice but to repel force with force, in response to the violent aggression committed by the United States."
If we carefully analyze the text of this decree, we find that war was never declared against the United States. Rather, reference was only made to the need for defending the country's territorial integrity and repelling the U.S. invasion. This is even more important to note if we consider that by that time, General Zachary Taylor's forces had already crossed the Rio Grande and seized the city of Matamoros; Mexican ports had been blocked; Captain John Fremont was promoting a revolt in California; and Colonel Stephen Kearny had received orders to occupy New Mexico and California.
On August 8, 1846, President James K. Polk asked the U.S. Congress for a special two-million-dollar fund to cover the costs of the war. In a message accompanying his request, he declared that these resources would also be used to make adjustments in the border with Mexico, thus making it clear that the intention was to forcefully acquire Mexican territory. When the news of this message reached Mexico, the daily El Republicano commented that a war started for such motives was "unjust and barbaric, and those responsible should be considered enemies of Humanity." A month later, it reiterated that:
"A government... that starts a war without a legitimate motive is responsible for all its evils and horrors. The bloodshed, the grief of families, the pillaging, the destruction, the violence, the fires, and its works and its crimes... Such is the case of the U.S. government, for having initiated the unjust war it is waging against us today."
The U.S. Army continued to advance during the second half of 1846 and the first months of the following year. On March 3, 1847, the U.S. Congress approved three-million-dollar fund for allowing the President to reach a treaty of "peace, boundaries and borders" with Mexico. A month later, Nicholas Trist was appointed to negotiated with Mexican authorities. But by this time a new offensive had been initiated under the command of General Winfield Scott, who was ordered to attack the territory between the port of Veracruz and Mexico City. The opinion shared by Mexican society and government was against signing a peace agreement in disgrace. And even after the first contacts between Trist and Mexican authorities, El Diario del Gobierno stated:
"[The peace] that could be established right now between the Republic of Mexico and the United States would be ignominious for the former, ad would lead to so much discontentment toward other nations and such negative impacts within the country that Mexico would soon become a stage for war once again, and would disappear from the list of free and independent nations."
The events of the following months dramatically prevented Mexicans from pursuing the stubborn, however just, defense of their territory, and they finally had to accept a negotiation that was difficult, painful and undignified for negotiators on both sides. This is revealed by comments made by Nicholas Trist to his wife regarding the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the attitude assumed by Mexicans with regard to the U.S. invasion:
"Just as they were about to sign the treaty... one of the Mexicans, Don Bernardo Couto, remarked to him, "this must be a proud moment for you; no less proud for you than it is humiliating for us." To this Mr. Trist replied, "we are making peace, let that be our only thought." But, said he to us in relating it, "Could those Mexicans have seen into my heart at that moment, they would have known that my feeling of shame as an American was far stronger than theirs could be as Mexicans. For though it would not have done for me to say so there, that was a thing for every right-minded American to be ashamed of, and I was ashamed of it, most cordially and intensely ashamed of it."
Indeed, during the entire conflict, from the separation of Texas to the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico defended its territory and if at any time its position was belligerent, it was belligerent in the defense of national security and for the preservation of international legal order. Therefore, it was not a result of arrogance, nor of irresponsibility, but rather the only possible response to the arguments and the actions of the U.S. government. In conclusion, the armed conflict between Mexico and the United States from 1846 to 1848 was the product of deliberate aggression and should therefore be referred to as "The U.S. War Against Mexico."
(Jesús Velasco-Marquez, author and professor of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, serves as an advisor and a series commentator for the new documentary, The U.S.-Mexican War 91846-1848]).
Other articles republished from La Prensa San Diego
Warning: include(/home/.meuser/rvazquez/lasculturas.com/inc/bottom.inc) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /opt/apps/lasculturas.com/lib/sd/blsd091198a.php on line 126
Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/.meuser/rvazquez/lasculturas.com/inc/bottom.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /opt/apps/lasculturas.com/lib/sd/blsd091198a.php on line 126