Manifest Destiny, or land stealing? The war against mexico and the us, which took place north of the Rio Grande, broke out May 1846. The land north of the Rio Grande was disputed by the US and Mexico. Because the United States decided to occupy disputed territory Mexico attacked. With that said, is the United States justified in declaring war against Mexico? The United States was not justified in going to war because they deprived Mexico from their land, occupying territory in dispute and it was mexico's territory.…
Was Mexico justified to go to war with the United States? This essay argues the US was justified because Mexico invaded US territory, Mexician territories needed a new government, and Mexican territories didn´t respect the US reconciliation. Mexico invaded the United States terrirory. The quote that supports this is,”Mexico has passed the boundry of the United States… has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. ”(Polk).…
The United States was unjustified when going to war with Mexico for multiple reasons. One of the biggest reasons was the expansion of a slavery state. Texas is very large and great for growing cotton, so if the U.S. annexed Texas, a very large slave state would be added. The second reason was that James Polk provoked the war. He was also a big believer in Manifest Destiny. This meant that he wanted to expand the land of the U.S. , and His motto was “54 40 or fight” which meant expanding the U.S. up to the northern boundary of the Oregon territory. If this goal was not achieved, they would go to war to get it.…
September 11 2001, marked a very tragic day in history, and immediate action was required in order to handle the situation. During the Bush administration, surveillance programs were put into place in order to monitor possible hostile actions towards our country. In a post Snowden article in 2006, Robert A. Levy went into depth about what Article II is and if current programs put into place can be deemed illegal. After reviewing Article II and Levy’s position I agree that it was illegal, but I believe that this was because what need to take place was described vaguely and was left up to interpretation. The fourth amendment speaks about using “reasonableness,” what might be reasonable to one may not mean the same to another. Due to this, abuse…
“We might have accomplished something if we have been able to treat the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the damage on the nation's highways-by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limit, safety belts, and the like, which took decades to accomplish in the cause of auto safety)-rather than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.”…
The U.S had a clear and valid reason on why they needed to move into Mexico. Mexico, essentially, invited Americans to live in the province of Texas, which turned out to be a bad idea in the end. So, was the United States justified in going to war with Mexico? The answer to that question would be yes, the U.S was justified in going to war with Mexico because their population was overgrowing and they needed more land, their economic depressions made people want to live in frontier areas, and living in frontier areas would create many new opportunities for commerce and self-advancement.…
The Mexican-American war stared in 1821 after Mexico won its independence from Spain, thus allowing American settlers to move into the newly unoccupied territory. The Victorians of the war, were the Americans. After the war came to an end, Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe hidalgo. In the treaty Mexico agreed to give 500,000mi to the U.S., while the united states paid Mexico $15 million. There are many different point of views towards the Mexican-American war. The United states was not justified by going to war with Mexico because, they fought for what belonged to Mexico in the first place. And they used the belief of Manifest Destiny to overspread our country ignorantly.…
WASHINGTON—With the United States facing a daunting array of problems at home and abroad, leading historians courteously reminded the nation Thursday that when making tough choices, it never hurts to stop a moment, take a look at similar situations from the past, and then think about whether the decisions people made back then were good or bad.…
proclaims western beliefs and medicine superior to Liberian culture. This again feeds into the issue of lack of trust: and trust between those giving and receiving aid is a significantly large issues because it keeps the provision of aid and communication network efficient. Without trust humanitarian work cannot suffice.…
Our heroes are out there fighting for America. But exactly what are they fighting for, because it seems like our own government is hiding information from us. They say that it’s to protect us. Is it really? A government that we call one of our own and one that we trust has deceived us. For the families who are losing their sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers, etc.,who are in the war, are just told that they should be proud of their protector protecting the United States of America. After the soldiers die, the only remembrance of the fallen is the burial. Only families remember their deaths while the government moves on with their business and they say that they care for our people. To me the United States should have never gone to war with…
The Islamic State is a terrorist group that should be stopped. They have hurt and continue to hurt a lot of people, but there isn’t much that the U.S. could do that has not been done yet. In my opinion, the fastest way to end with a problem is to get rid of it completely. One way to achieve that is by using nuclear weapons. Bombing Iraq to swipe the Islamic State could be an infinitive answer, but like everything there are some pros and cons to this method. To be more exact there are more negative effects to this method. First of all, Isis is not just in one place, but it’s spread all over the region. That means the U.S. would have to use many bombs. That would be extremely expensive and ineffective. Also, we would also be killing innocent…
In chapter three of “Occupied America, A History of Chicanos,” Acuna explains the cause of the war between Mexico and North America. Eugene C. Barker states that the immediate cause of the war was “the overthrow of the nominal republic by Santa Anna and the substitution of centralized oligarchy” which allegedly would have centralized Mexican control (Acuna 39). Texas history is a mixture of selected fact and generalized myth. The expansion and capitalist development moved together. The two Mexican wars gave U.S. commerce, industry, mining, agriculture, and stock rising. The truth is that the Pacific Coast belonged to the commercial empire that the United States was already building in that ocean. In the Polk-Stockton Intrigue, Americans found it rather more difficult than other people to deal rationally with their wars. Many Anglo-American historians attempted to dismiss it simply as a “bad war”, which took place during the era of Manifest Destiny. Most studies on the war dwell on the causes and results of the war, and dealing with war strategy. The attitude of Mexicans toward Anglo-Americans was obviously influenced by the war and vice-versa. In the end, by late 1847 the war was almost at an end. Scott’s defeat of Santa Anna in a hard fought battle at Churubusco…
One reason the Mexican war was justified was because of the Manifest Destiny. (Doc A) When we’re welcoming Mexicans into the Texas territory, they’re keeping the U.S. from expanding. America needs land because of our massive population. Mexico’s government is so deprived that they can’t keep California. If Mexico can’t afford California, how will they even afford Texas? America will eventually have California, but that’s not enough for our evolution population. This evidence shows the U.S. was justified in going to war because Mexico can’t control the land they already have; America has more population than Mexico, the U.S. should have more land.…
Illegal immigration is the movement of people toward national borders in a manner that breaks the immigration codes of the destination country. In other words, illegal immigration is the action of staying in a region in a country without any permission from government. According to Demetrios the director of the immigration policy foundation (2005), in “ Illegal Immigration,” that the universal fight with illegal immigration has no end. Seminara (2007) writes in his article “Migration,” that half of millions foreigner in the USA came legally with acceptable visas. However, the ministry of homeland security infers that the range of the illegal population of USA is from 27 to 57 percent. In fact, legal immigration including coming into a country with a green card or a visa. As a result, such unlawful entrance is crime and if…
To insist that any civilized nation attempt to combat irrational, hostile nations or terrorist organizations by following international law is itself irrational. The UN and international law in general need to be able to adjust to face unique threats. Fighting an enemy that does not adhere to rules of warfare or international law while “playing by the rules” is a recipe for disaster. A simple example of this is the use of uniforms. The Geneva Conventions provided that lawful combatants must wear a distinguishable uniform. In Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy wore no uniforms while American soldiers are required to wear them. How does a soldier identify the enemy if he wears no uniform? There is little argument that our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not following international law. The argument then turns to how we deal with nations and organizations like these.…