There is much debate about who was to blame for Mexico’s war. It was fated to happen due to increasing tensions between America and Mexico. James K. Polk employed it as a plot to seize territory and pursue manifest destiny. Both the authors have very different views. Walter Nugent argues Mexico’s War was a ploy used by Polk to expand his territory. Norman Graeber argues that only tensions and circumstance allowed us to enter war. My belief is that the U.S.’s imperialistic attitude during this time period strongly correlates to our reasons for going to war.
Walter Nugent provides the first argument supporting the claim that Polk was driven by imperialistic goals to get New Mexico, California. Nugent explains that violence was necessary because the U.S. desired to acquire the territory. His description of Polk’s personality is that he was strong willed, determined and eager to accomplish his “big dream”. He said that Polk was a strong-willed, stubborn, and willing to do anything to achieve his “big idea”. He stated that Polk saw war as an opportunity that could not be ignored. Polk saw Mexico as a right and fought for it if necessary. Mexico owed Mexico and because they couldn’t afford money to repay us, the territory that they possessed was a good replacement. He also asserts that Polk was manipulative when he gained the Congress’ support and that of the people for the war. This suggests that it wasn’t as inevitable a war as he believed. Polk’s decision to send troops to the most disputed southern border was a clear indication that he was seeking trouble. Nugent believes this was a deliberate move to get territory. He was able achieve the outcome he desired, though he did so after putting troops on the southernmost disputed border. Nugent believes that Polk didn’t intend to cause trouble by waging war, although Graebner doesn’t necessarily believe that it was for territorial gain. He says that war is avoidable since Mexico never posed a threat. Polk began to think about the possibility of war as soon as Mexico began to threaten the U.S. when it crossed over what they believed was the border. His argument doesn’t even mention Polk’s desire for New Mexico and California. Graebner argues the southmost border troops were placed there as a defense measure, not an attack on Mexico. Even after the slidell drama, the Graebner insists that Polk continued to try to avoid war. While Nugent’s claim of a land-grabbing president is more convincing, the war was triggered by insufficient negotiations with Mexico. However, both authors agree Polk was determined that this tension would be resolved regardless of how it came about. The acquisitions in New Mexico and California are not the reason why Polk went to war. It was only an outcome of the war. Graebner argues Graebner made his decision based on circumstance.
Both arguments are convincing. However, I tend to favor Nugent’s view. Polk’s motives in going to war were ulterior. Our decision to place troops on the border to provoke Mexico was an act of aggression and a deliberate move. According to Nugent, Polk was a hedgehog with a single big idea rather than a fox with many small ideas. I think he was a single-minded person who had one great idea. He would likely go to all the effort to bring it to fruition during his presidency. Both Polk’s stubbornness was shared by both of the authors. My belief is that his determination to expand the U.S. landholdings and increase their size didn’t stop him from pursuing them. While he might have considered war a last resort, he knew that gaining the territory would occur during his presidency. He knew exactly what was happening when he put those troops there. It was obvious that this was basically a declaration war on Mexico. Also, Graebner did not believe that New Mexico and California could be gained as an “added benefit”.
