« Google bidding games -- markets in everything? | Main | Bottomfeeder »
The War with Mexico
The Mexicans made strong appeals to U.S. troops to switch sides, targeting immigrants and Catholics in particular. Their broadsides emphasized the injustice of the invaders' cause in the eyes of "civilized people" and stressed what North American Catholics had in common with Mexican Catholics. Alluding to well-known riots by U.S. Protestant nativist mobs, a Mexican pamphlet asked, "Can you fight by the side of those who put fire to your temples in Boston and Philadelphia?" Mexico also offered land grants to opposing soldiers who would desert and claim them: two hundred acres for a private, five hundred for a sergeant. Together, the inducements and propaganda had an effect. The first shots in the war were fired on April 4, 1846, not between Mexican and U.S. troops, but by American sentries at an immigrant deserters swimming across the Rio Grande to the Mexican side...Among three hundred U.S. deserters, the great majority of them Catholics and/or immigrants, joined the Mexican army.
That is from the excellent What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, by Daniel Walker Howe. The rate of desertion in the Mexican-American War was the highest in American history and twice that of Vietnam.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 16, 2008 at 05:56 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
This is fascinating info and why I love "marginal revloution"; by the way, I always like to cite the Mexican War to those Lou Dobbs anti-Hispanic immigration types: it may be wrong to cross the border illegally, but it was just as wrong for the US to steal by force Mexico's northern territories
Posted by: Enrique at Jun 16, 2008 9:46:03 AM
This complaint is a xenophobic and anti-catholic dig at the Quebecois, isn't it?
"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies".
I need hardly tell you its source.
Posted by: dearieme at Jun 16, 2008 11:36:52 AM
Enrique, the US did not "steal by force" Mexico's northern territories. Those lands were ceded by the perfectly valid treaties of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and Gasden Purchase.
Now you may try to argue that all war-ending treaties where the losing side loses land are "illegal", but that would be an interesting position to take as it would invalidate almost all treaties. Maybe the US should give up its eastern half ("stolen" from Britain in the Treaty of Paris) and Mexico return Chiapas back to Guatemala (stolen in the 1840s to 1880s).
Posted by: LZ at Jun 16, 2008 3:25:19 PM
The Mex-American War was one of the greatest events in American history. It made us a true continental power. It made the world a much better, more prosperous place.
It's never fun to be on the losing side in a war. But, hey, that's life.
Posted by: david at Jun 16, 2008 3:30:59 PM
I propose giving back some of that stolen land and building a fence around it.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 16, 2008 4:51:54 PM
Lots of Irish immigrants fought for the Catholic side.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 16, 2008 7:06:28 PM
Lots of Irish immigrants fought for the Catholic side.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 16, 2008 7:07:01 PM
the hidalgo treaty does not legitimize an illegitimate war: if you point a gun to my head, and ask for my wallet, my giving it to you does not legitimize your stealing my wallet, even if you will put the money to better use than I would have
Posted by: enrique at Jun 16, 2008 11:33:53 PM
For what it's worth, the telenovela adaptation of Ramona (starring Kate del Castillo) made Ramona's father an Irish-American deserter named Angus O'Faill (in Helen Hunt Jackson's original novel he was a wealthy Scottish shipowner named Angus Phail).
Posted by: at Jun 16, 2008 11:44:43 PM
David,
America at the time of the Mexican-American War was a faint promise with dismal living standards by today's measures: No civil liberties, emancipation or women's vote.
Justifying the outcome of that war just by the benefits to America or the world, is also trying to legitimize something unfair and distinctly un-American: the preeminence of the powerful over the rule of law. It also requires literally more than a century of hindsight.
Posted by: José T at Jun 17, 2008 1:01:53 AM
David -
let's return to those high minded days of war for the improvement of humanity.
'A joint session of Congress approved the declaration of war, with southern Democrats in strong support because they saw the annexation of Mexico as an opportunity to increase the number of slave states.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
Ooops - I guess a war to expand slavery through conquest doesn't fit most people's definition of making 'the world a much better, more prosperous place.'
Oh well - better luck with the next war to improve the world.
Posted by: rent_to_own at Jun 17, 2008 4:20:29 AM
Seems to me the Mexican government had a good idea here (Is it the only good idea that can trace back to Santa Ana's administration?).
The US has a problem in Afghanistan, and another because food is getting scarce. The less ideological guys fighting for the Taliban would rather be farmers but cannot make a living at it. How about offering them each a few hundred acres of US secondary forest to clear again and farm? Clearing forest for your and your family's future is less tough and much more attractive than risking your life for a pittance in the Afghan hills. If we take the money from other farm subsidies, the measure could be budget neutral too.
Posted by: Diversity at Jun 17, 2008 7:01:17 AM
My main complaint about the Mex-American war is that we didn't take enough territory. I mean, come on, Baja California is rightfully ours.
It's undeniable that the land under American rule has been more prosperous and productive than it was, or would have been, under Mexican rule.
Look, every country's borders are the result of war, conquest and tribal conflict. The Mex-American War was just one that radically improved the world. And, as wars go, it was relatively quick and painless. A win-win.
Posted by: David at Jun 17, 2008 1:27:49 PM
Howe's book is indeed really good -- it's gotten me hooked on the other Oxford History of the U.S. volumes.
Re: Mexico, David's argument is that, we having despoiled the Mexicans of half their country, they proceeded not to be especially prosperous. You don't say.
Posted by: Anderson at Jun 17, 2008 9:31:12 PM
So Anderson, what is your excuse for why the rest of Latin America isn't "especially prosperous"?
Posted by: scottynx at Jun 18, 2008 1:32:10 PM
"Enrique, the US did not "steal by force" Mexico's northern territories. Those lands were ceded by the perfectly valid treaties of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and Gasden Purchase."
Hahahaha. So, after invading Mexico on questionable pretexts and establishing a military governorship, the subsequent treaty is "perfectly valid"? Talk about "might makes right". There is a reason we are not trusted in Latin America, and this is but the first among them. The other 9/11 is another.
"having despoiled the Mexicans of half their country, they proceeded not to be especially prosperous. You don't say."
I doubt the invasion had much to do with their lack of prosperity. Sure, they missed out on the California gold, but they weren't exactly on track to develop silicon valley, Vegas, or Salt Lake City, either. However, perhaps they would not have become so anti-yanqui, even to the point of embracing capitalism's antithesis (Marxism) had it not been for this unfortunate bit of history.
Posted by: Eric H at Jun 22, 2008 9:41:57 AM
A person on her own luggage, leaving the noise of the city, into the 花蓮民宿 arms. To savor the refreshing nature of the original. In Taiwan, as long as a departure from the flow of downtown, everywhere in the garden-like 宜蘭民宿 you, they like their own home Like a warm and comfortable. Taiwan's Lodge 室內設計, the two luxury five-star hotel suite as if the presidential suite general Wah. It is there away.
Posted by: 清境民宿 at Dec 9, 2008 12:41:42 AM
