By: Patrick Shrier
In the present day immigration debate in America, it has become fashionable among some immigrant rights groups to claim that the American southwest does not really belong to America. They claim that this land really belongs to Mexico and therefore the undocumented Hispanic immigrants in the United States are not illegal, it is their land anyway, and they are just reclaiming what is theirs. Admittedly, this claim is not made very vociferously, mostly various radical immigrant groups make it, but this argument is picked up on by the wider immigrant rights groups and sometimes repeated. What is the basis for this claim of stolen territory?
Between 13 May 1846 and 2 February 1848, the United States engaged in the first offensive war in its history against Mexico, their immediate neighbor to the south. At the conclusion of the war, the United States had increased the size of its territory by almost one third acquiring the territory of the present states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas. The United States acquired this territory at the expense of Mexico who had come out of the war the loser. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on 2 February 1848.
The main immigrant rights groups that promote the theory that the United States does not have proper claim to the former Mexican territory in the southwest are student groups and radicals the two largest are The Mexica Movement and the student group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (M.E.Ch.A.). Of the two, Mexica is the more radical, advocating the overthrow of all governments on the entire American landmass, while M.E.Ch.A. only advocates the return of the American southwest to Mexico.
By all the tenets of international law, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is a legal document between two sovereign states. This point seems to be lost in the current debate. It is possible to argue that the Mexican-American War was unjust or unfair, the point can even be conceded that it was unfair of the United States to seize the territory they desired.
It is only in recent decades that the losing side questioned the rightness of particular wars in an attempt to reverse their losses on the battlefield. The debate over the American southwest is no different. Despite contemporary claims to the contrary, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, was a fair and equitable end to that decidedly unfair conflict.
There are many groups that advocate the return of the American southwest to Mexico; two in particular standout for their militant stand on the issue. The most militant is the Mexica Movement, they are an extremely radical group that claims that Europeans have no right to any territory in the Americas, and furthermore all people of European descent should leave, forcibly if necessary. They make outrageous claims such as that westerners have killed 95% percent of the native population of the Americas. The Mexica Movement also makes the claim that the current immigration debate is about racism. The Mexica Movement claims that all western settlement in the New World is illegitimate. They advocate a progressive rolling back of western settlement, starting with the American gains after the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 as a means of achieving their ultimate goal of a European free continent.
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (M.E.Ch.A.) is a student group that has chapters in many American universities and high schools. The group got its start during the radical student movement of the 1960’s and it goals are laid in three key documents, one, The Philosophy of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano De Aztlan, two, El Plan Espiritual De Aztlan, and three, El Plan De Santa Barbara.  They claim to represent the interests of the native people of Mexico and want to return this land back to the people of Mexico. They call this territory Aztlan, and want to reunite Mexico and Aztlan into one nation again.
The contemporary claims of Americas illegitimate possession of the territories that comprise the modern day American southwest at their root are all predicated on the unjustness or illegality of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. By the very nature of their argument, they accept the legitimacy of a European presence in the New World, which compromises their arguments. It is useful to study the nature of the war, whose outcome they find objectionable. Its causes are germane to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended it.
The roots of the Mexican-American War lie in the American quest for expansion and the Spanish Empires invitation of Anglo settlers into Texas in the 1820’s. The United States had been seeking to expand to the west since the end of the American Revolution. This urge to expansion had initially been satisfied from within the national territory by the expulsion of the Indian tribes in Georgia and Florida from their traditional territories to make way for white settlements. However, the Union had continued to look west and it was dream of the Americans that one day the nation would stretch from ocean to ocean and cover the whole continent. John Sullivan, a newspaper reporter, coined the term “manifest destiny”, in 1842 and it quickly gained popularity throughout the country as a description of the nations urge to westward expansion.
Americans wasted no time in moving west; by the 1820’s the first small groups of Anglo settlers were trickling westward, some with the encouragement of foreign governments. In 1821, the Spanish authorities invited a colony of 300 American families to settle in Texas near present day Houston. After the Mexican revolution the leader of the colony, Stephen F. Austin petitioned the new Mexican government for guarantees of their rights and received these guarantees in 1823.
The Anglo presence in Texas continued to grow throughout the 1820’s and 1830’s. However, in 1835 the Mexican regime, which had always been unstable changed once again and the new government did not look as kindly on the growing Anglo presence in Texas. They abolished the Mexican constitution of 1824, outlawed further settlement, and began to harass the people already there in an effort to get them to return to the United States. This plan backfired on them though, when the settlers in Texas revolted and decided to fight the Mexican army. On 2 March 1836, the Anglo settlers in Texas declared independence and announced their intent to drive the Mexican army from Texas.
After suffering several battlefield reverses at the Alamo and the town of Goliad, the Texan army defeated the Mexican army on 21 April 1836, at the Battle of San Jacinto and forced it to surrender. Three weeks later the Mexican dictator General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna signed the treaty of Velasco, which provided for the evacuation of the Mexican army from Texas. There was a secret provision of the Treaty of Velasco in which the Mexican government recognized the independence of Texas however; both Mexico and Texas repudiated the treaty soon afterwards.
Almost as soon as the Texans had ejected the Mexican army, they began to ask the United States for entry into the union as a state. The United States did little about the Texas request for statehood until the Tyler administration began negotiations for annexation in 1844. U.S. and Texan representatives agreed to a treaty of annexation in the spring of 1844 but the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty in June 1844.
The cause of Texas statehood was not lost; James Polk was elected president at the end of 1844 on an annexationist platform. After the election, President Tyler saw his chance and in a flurry of eleventh-hour negotiations with congress passed a joint resolution of the congress offering annexation to Texas. The United States transmitted the offer of annexation to Texas and the Texas congress considered it, finally accepting the offer of statehood by a unanimous vote of the on 4 July 1845.
The Mexican government had threatened war if Texas were admitted to the Union and this was indeed the final spark that set the two nations on a course for war but it was not the only issue of contention between the United States and Mexico. Another issue that received high-level attention was Mexican mistreatment of American merchants and ships trading with Mexico.
Ever since the Mexican revolution there had been instances where the Mexican authorities impounded ships, confiscated cargoes, arrested crewmembers, or charged extraordinary taxes or port fees to American owned or crewed vessels leading to claims by American citizens against the Mexican government. Successive American administrations had tried to mediate these claims through diplomacy. Twice in the 1830’s joint commissions had been appointed to arbitrate American claims however the Mexican government defaulted on payment agreements both times. This left the claims dispute as a cause of disagreement between the two countries.
The final issue that led to war is directly related the independence of Texas and its subsequent annexation by the United States, this was pride on the part of Mexico. Mexico was a young nation in 1846; it had only achieved its independence from Spain in 1821 after an eleven-year war. The Mexican government was not willing to see their country dismembered so soon after their independence. Furthermore, the Mexican government was incredibly unstable; the regime changed on average every four years between independence and the outbreak of the war in 1846. The type of government also swung from republican to dictatorial forms with frightening ease, this led to successive governments catering to public opinion.
Because of the instability of the Mexican government and their pandering to public opinion, the various regimes found it impossible to acquiesce in the loss of Texas or any other territory. Despite the fact that the United States had offered to purchase Mexican territory, offering $5,000,000 in 1835 for all the Mexican territory north of a line running between Monterrey and San Francisco, territory that was eventually conquered. The Mexican government simply could not agree to American desires if they wanted to stay in power.
In consequence of all these grievances between the United States and Mexico and after an attack on the American forces along the Rio Grande, the United States government declared war on Mexico on 13 May 1846. The war would last almost two years and would only end after the United States occupied the Mexican capital, Mexico City.
The war goals of the Mexican government were simple; they sought to stop the United States from annexing Texas or any other Mexican territory. They intended to fight a purely defensive war, attempting to eject American forces from what they considered Mexican territory.
The American government on the other hand, sought the annexation of Texas and as the war continued, decided to seek the conquest of all the territory north of a line from El Paso to the border of Upper California on the Pacific coast. Except for Texas, this was all territory that the United States had attempted to acquire peacefully prior to the opening of hostilities.
The American government considered the problem of terminating the war almost as soon as hostilities began. When the Polk administration worked out their war goals, they also thought about what concessions they wanted from the Mexican government. Once American victory seemed assured, the American government made peace overtures to Mexico. Secretary of State James Buchanan sent a letter to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs on 15 April 1848 announcing the appointment of Nicholas Trist as a delegate with full powers to conclude a peace treaty with the Mexican government.
Mr. Trist joined Gen Scott’s army at Jalapa on 14 May 1848, prior to the fall of Mexico City. Gen Scott and Mr. Trist did not at first get along but as time went on, they patched up their differences and worked together very well. In June of 1847, Trist received a letter from General Santa Anna through the British ambassador proposing that in return for a $1,000,000 bribe he would arrange a peace. General Scott discussed the plan with his generals and with their agreement, $10,000 in earnest money was forwarded to Santa Anna. The deal fell apart when Santa Anna conveniently announced that he could not go through with the deal because of law passed by the Mexican legislature making it treason for any official to treat with the enemy, Santa Anna then kept the earnest money for himself.
After the fall of Mexico City on 15 September 1848, Santa Anna left the city and resigned the presidency, Manuel de la Pena y Pena president of the Mexican Supreme Court assumed the presidency in his stead. One of the problems the Americans had after Santa Anna’s resignation was the political situation in the Mexican capital was unsettled even though Pena y Pena had assumed the presidency. Peace negotiations with the Pena government did not begin until 20 October and in the meantime, General Scott had been trying to pacify the city and the surrounding countryside.
At the time of Mexico City’s fall on 15 September, the United States had occupied a huge swath of Mexican territory. The Mexican territories of Upper California, new Mexico, Texas, and parts of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas as well as controlling the route from Veracruz to Mexico City and the city itself. The American possession of this territory and their defeat of all the Mexican armies that had opposed them was the basis upon which the American government began negotiations with the Mexican government to end the war.
At first, the Mexican government claimed they could not negotiate for a permanent peace until after they held elections to seat a new interim president, as Pena was just a placeholder with no real power or authority. The election was held on 11 November and Pedro Anaya was elected president with a strong mandate for a negotiated peace, this was important because General Scott was threatening to recommence active operations to subdue the rest of the country outside the capital.
The negotiations to end the war continued from mid-November 1847 until the end of January 1848, after reaching an agreement the negotiators signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on 2 February 1848. The US Senate ratified the treaty on 10 March 1848, and the president ratified it on 16 March 1848, the United States officially proclaimed the treaty on 4 July 1848.
The terms of the treaty are very simple and laid out in twenty-two articles. The most important article of the treaty as concerns modern debate is the fifth; this article details the new boundary of the two nations and requires that the new border be surveyed and agreed upon by representatives from both nations.
The eighth and ninth articles make allowance for Mexican citizens living in the newly acquired territory to choose to keep their Mexican citizenship or became American citizens. Even if they chose to keep their Mexican citizenship, the treaty guarantees them the right to keep their property and allows them to continue to live in their homes. It further guaranteed the rights of absentee Mexican owners of property in the new territory.
Was the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo a fair treaty? While it could be argued that the terms of the treaty are unfair because Mexico lost so much territory, the United States did not take as much territory as they could have. Furthermore, most of the territory given to the United States was sparsely populated it was mostly inhabited by various Indian tribes, which the United States agreed to police. Mexico was also compensated for the loss of territory and to sweeten the deal even further, the American government agreed to assume the claims by Americans against the Mexican government. No Mexican residents of the lost lands were not forced to leave; in fact, they were given the option of retaining their Mexican citizenship.
The United States was undoubtedly the aggressor in the Mexican War, but the Mexicans were not defenseless. The Mexican army outnumbered the American army in almost every battle of the war it was only the superior training and cohesion of the American army that allowed it to win battles. If the Mexican army had been more cohesive or steadfast they could have possibly fought the Americans to a draw, the result of the war was not a foregone conclusion. America acquired territory at the end of the war through right of conquest, a right as old as civilization itself. America made concessions at the peace that were not necessary, but they did so in order to make the peace more palatable to the Mexican people.
The results of the war were not satisfactory to the Mexican people but who is ever satisfied with losing a war, there are people in the American south that are still not happy with losing the civil war, the causes of World War II can be directly linked with the German loss in World War I. When the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo are compared with the terms of other wars in which an enemy capital was captured the terms offered to the Mexican government appear more reasonable. In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 not only did Prussia annex two of the most prosperous provinces of France, they also forced the French to cover the costs of the Prussians going to war against them.
National borders have never truly been fixed, they always change due to many factors and war is one of the most common. The argument that the war was illegitimate is specious at best; conquest is one of the oldest ways for a nation to enlarge itself. It is possible to argue that those territories annexed by the United States are better off today than if they had remained in Mexican hands, certainly the United States is more developed and stable since the war than Mexico has been. Despite contemporary claims to the contrary, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, was a fair and equitable end to that decidedly unfair conflict.
Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “Message of President Polk, May 11, 1846”, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/messages/polk01.htm
────, “Annexation of Texas, Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1845”, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan01.htm
────, “Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk”, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/polk.htm
────, “Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo; 2 February 1848”,
Bailey, Thomas Andrew, The Pugnacious Presidents: White House Warriors on Parade, New York, The Free Press, 1980
Brooks, N.C., A Complete History of the Mexican War: Its Causes Conduct, and Consequences: Comprising an Account of the Various Military and Naval Operations. From its Commencement to Treaty of Peace, Chicago, The Rio Grande Press, 1965
Butler, Steven R., ed., A Documentary History of the Mexican War, Richardson, Texas: Descendants of Mexican War Veterans, 1995, p. 53
Chambers, John Whiteclay II, ed., The Oxford Companion to American Military History, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1999.
Cornell University M.E.Ch.A., M.E.Ch.A. Documents, http://rso.cornell.edu/mecha/doc.htm
Descendants of Mexican War Veterans, “The U.S. Mexican War – Battle Reports”, http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/mexwar1.htm
────, “A Concise History of the U.S.-Mexican War”, http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/history/intro.htm
Eisenhower, John S.D., Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott, New York: The Free Press, 1997.
────., So Far From God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848, Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press, 2000
Encyclopedia Brittanica, The Annals of America, Vol. 7, Chicago, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc., 1976
Fuller, J.F.C., Decisive Battles of the U.S.A., New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1942
Hoyt, Edwin P., Americas Wars and Military Excursions, New York, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1987
Johannsen, Robert W., To the Halls of Montezuma: The Mexican War in the American Imagination, New York, Oxford University Press, 1985
Lone Star Internet, “The Mexican war”, http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm
Lone Star Junction, “Treaties of Velasco”, http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/velasco.htm
Maurice Matloff, ed., Army Historical Series, American Military History, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
Maury, Dabney Herndon, Recollections of a Virginian in the Mexican, Indian, and Civil Wars: Electronic edition, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1998
Roe, David, 2nd LT, ed., The Dragoons’ Story: A History of the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, Privately published, 1958
Singletary, Otis A., The Mexican War, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960
Tezcatlipoca, Olin. The Mexica Movement Homepage, http://mexica-movement.org/
“Treaty with the Republic of Mexico,” February 2, 1848, United States Statutes at Large, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975
U.S. Army Center of Military History, “Brief Summaries of the Named Campaigns of the U.S. Army: (Revolutionary War – Vietnam)”, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/mwcmp.htm
 Library of Congress, “Treaty with the Republic of Mexico,” February 2, 1848, United States Statutes at Large, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975
 See the respective websites of the two groups for their views on the legality of the American possession of former Mexican territory, of the two, M.E.Ch.A. is more coy about what they think is right though both agree that illegal immigrants especially Mexicans are doing nothing wrong. M.E.Ch.A.: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~mecha/index.html and The Mexica Movement: http://www.mexica-movement.org/
 Eisenhower, John S.D. So Far From God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848, p. 42
 Brooks, Nathan C., A Complete History of the Mexican War: Its Causes Conduct, and Consequences: Comprising an Account of the Various Military and Naval Operations. From its Commencement to the Treaty of Peace, pp. 24-25
 Eisenhower, p. 17
 Brooks, p. 59
 Singletary, Otis. The Mexican War, pp. 15-16
 Eisenhower, pp. 199-200
 Brooks, p. 349
 Eisenhower, pp. 304-307
 Ibid, pp. 359-360
 Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo; 2 February 1848”, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/mexico/guadhida.htm