Mexican American War Opposition

Mexican-
American
War
Opposition

Opposition from US Citizens?

The date 1848 and immigration are indelibly linked, but it is a connection that many people, especially those

espousing anti-immigrant rhetoric hardly ever make. 1848 is the year the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and

the United States “acquired” the Southwest and in doing so reducing the size of Mexico by half. The end result of a war

which President Ulysses S. Grant stated, “I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which

resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation… I do not think there was ever a

more wicked war...I thought so at the time...only I had not moral courage enough to resign." President Grant was not

alone in his opposition to the war President Lincoln, then a Senator challenged President Polk as to the validity of the

cause of the war in his “spot resolutions”, additionally Henry David Thoreau would write his famous essay “Civil

Disobedience” in response to a stint in jail for protesting the war by not paying his taxes. Nonetheless, the connection

that 1848 and immigration have, is the question of who exactly is an immigrant?

Multiple Choice

What future US President was against the Mexican American War?

• George Washington

• Abraham Lincoln

• Bill Clinton

• Joe Biden

Misunderstood Wording?

According to Article VIII of the treaty “Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to

Mexico…shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic,

retaining the property which they possess in the said territories…[those] who shall prefer to remain in the said

territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United

States”. The wording of the treaty seems to create a situation in which Mexicans were welcomed into the new

borders of the United States. However, sadly this was not the case, through violence, threats and other methods

many Mexicans were relieved of their lives, lands, and forced to flee from their land.

Open Ended

How did American's treat Mexican's after the Mexican American War?

Stolen Land?

Not to mention that even before the establishment of New Spain and later the nation of Mexico the Southwest

was occupied by Native Americans many of which would later go on to intermarry and become Mexicans.

Consequently, those that were forced from the Southwest and moved into Mexico and beyond had their original

roots in what is now the United States. This concept is at the core of the mythic legend of Atzlan which posits

the origins of the Aztec people as the area that was taken from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This

idea of “stolen lands” and a longing to go back home is a concept that has thus far been omitted from the debate

on immigration. Although, referred to as the myth of Atzlan the idea behind is very real.

Draw

What group of people had their land stolen from them?

Should the War been fought?

For, whether you believe in the legend or not the fact that America engaged in a war that 2 U.S.

presidents pointed out should never have been fought, resulting in the loss of over half of Mexico’s territory is

not a legend it is a historical fact. Additionally, those that were forced from their homes in the Southwest, have

their origin and homeland in the Southwest. As a result, the answer to who is an immigrant is more complicated

than some would think. For, if the Southwest was actually the original homeland of people who fled south of the

Rio Grande then are they not then returning home and not entering into a foreign territory.

Open Ended

Do you think the Mexican American War should have been fought? Why?

Legitimacy?

This argument opens up a new dynamic in the immigration debate. The fact these people were displaced

by the actions of the very government that promised their lands, and personhood would be honored and

protected. Leads to a question of legitimacy and to whether these so called “immigrants” are immigrants at all

or are they simply the Atzlandian diaspora returning to their homeland. This calls into question the need to

create an immigrant narrative, for to see them as anything other than that is to recognize that they belong here,

that this is their home.

Open Ended

What does Legitimacy mean?

“Legal” or “Illegal”?

Therefore, we label them immigrants in order to de-emphasize the reality of their situation that they are living

in a land that is foreign to them and they have now made the journey back home. Labeling as foreign immigrants is

the lens in which the current immigration debate is placed in, but this is not a historically accurate picture.

Nevertheless, it does serve a purpose and that is to criminalize and turn a more nuanced topic to a very simplistic one

that is easy to understand. Terms such as “legal” and “illegal” are used to remove the humanity from people whose

origins in this land pre-date those who now label them as illegal and serve to justify the “land grab” which was the

Mexican American War. Thus the debate itself is flawed, a more nuanced understanding of the true origins of these

“immigrants” will allow for a humanization of the whole situation. In fact, it will help to begin to heal the harsh

jagged wound of a border that was created in 1848.

Open Ended

Was the Mexican American War just a "land grab"? Why or why not?