Summary of Rodolfo Acuna’s Occupied America: a History of Chicanos (chapter 1) by Ryan Steed

 

Initial intentions of invasion

            Acuna claims that as early as 1767, Benjamin Franklin considered the invasion of Mexican territory.  At the time, the invasion was hidden under the false pretenses of “future expansion.”  Even after the Louisiana Purchase, many Americans felt Mexico and her territories to be American in fact.  After repeated attempts to establish the “Republic of Texas” by force, American inhabitants already in the area agreed to obey Mexican government stipulations.  However, even after accepting these obligations, Americans still felt the Mexicans as their inferiors.  Further conflicts arose due to racial tensions forcing America to negotiate for full ownership of the land.

            After the initial offer of $1 million for the territory extending to the Rio Grande was dismissed, “the United States launched an aggressive foreign policy, attempting to coerce Mexico into selling Texas.  Settlers accepted more laws and obligations imposed upon them by the Mexican government as the bid for Texas increased to $5 million from Andrew Jackson.  Mexican reinforcements were moved in as it was now clear that America wanted Texas for its industrial and economical gains at this point, and showed little interest in stopping.  Sam Houston’s “war party” was becoming increasingly popular as he was “elected to direct the course of events.”

            Henry Smith’s pamphlet entitled Security for Texas openly called for defiance of the Mexican government.  “Anglos saw separation from Mexico and eventual union with the United States as the most profitable political arrangement.”

The invasion

            Mexico seemed to be totally out of line imposing regulations on its American settlers as “the deliberately believed themselves, morally, intellectually, and politically superior.”  Conflict was inevitable.  A general call to arms was declared in 1835.  In reality, the settlers with American reinforcements easily outnumbered and outperformed than their Mexican counterparts.  There were nearly 30,000 Americans in Texas as opposed to Santa Anna’s army of 6,000 conscripts.  The overplayed mythology of the Alamo legend gives way to the reality of Americans who had “come to Texas for riches and glory.  These defenders were hardly the sort of men who could be classified as peaceful settlers fighting for their homes.”  Albeit, the myth of the Alamo and it’s heroic defenders paved the way for massive America government support in the form of soldiers, equipment, and funding.  After the Alamo, Houston’s army eventually captured Santa Anna and forced him the sign the territory away.  Although Mexico disagreed with many actions thereafter, “the Jackson Administration made it plain to the Mexican minister that it mattered little whether Mexico approved, that the important thing was to protect the boarder against Indians and Mexicans.”

            Acuna points out that “the two Mexican wars gave U.S. commerce, industry, mining, agriculture, and stock raising a tremendous stimulus.”  Expansion leads to plenty of new opportunities, why not expand more?  James K. Polk won the presidency riding his expansionism ideals.  After the annexation of Texas, Polk seemed to do as much as humanly possibly to stir up more trouble with Mexico.  As the boarder was still in doubt (Rio Grande or 150 miles north of there), Polk ordered General Taylor into the disputed territory “wanting to provoke an attack.”

            When he learned of an attack on Americans in the disputed territory, it was all the evidence he needed to warrant another invasion.  His stages of conquest included: (1) “Mexicans would be cleared out of Texas;” (2) “Anglos would occupy California and New Mexico;” and (3) “U.S. forces would march to Mexico City to force the beaten government to make peace on Polk’s terms.”  In the end, the war was made out to be by the American government an outlet for economic and industrial expansion.

 

The reason for expansion

            It has been claimed that Manifest Destiny was at the very heart of the Mexican-American war.  Acuna argues that “Anglo-Americans believed that God had made them custodians of democracy and that they had a mission – that is, that they were predestined to spread its principles.”  However, Acuna asks, how can one claim Manifest Destiny in the light of the utter horrors Americans committed on Mexicans in the months following?  War atrocities mounted as American soldiers remained encamped in Mexican cities.  “In truth, the United States conducted a violent and brutal war.”  “The bomb did not discriminate as to age or sex. Anglo-American troops destroyed almost every city they invaded.”  Does this reflect the supposed “God-selected custodians of democracy?”  Acuna argues that “land was the main motive for the war.”  Americans wanted the Mexicans out.  “The United States, through the violence of its soldiers, left a legacy of hate in Mexico.”

 

 

 

The treaty

            In 1848, hostilities had officially ended with Mexico being forced to agree to the boarder marked at the Rio Grande.  Mexico further had to the rest of the Southwest of the current United States.  In return, Mexico received $15 million.  The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo also featured Mexican rights equal to those of the Americans’ under the Constitution.  “In practice, however, the treaty was ignored and during the nineteenth century most Mexicans in the United States were considered as a class apart from the dominant race.”  In the end, Mexico lost over a half of their soil to a country seeking to extend their economic self-interest.