How did the outcome of the Mexican American War intensify intersectional conflict?
How did the outcome of the Mexican-American War intensify intersectional conflict?
In 1845, the Unites States took in Texas to the Union, the Mexican government was in such turbulence that their new leader was not able to meet with the American government. They were even unable to negotiate concessions as they were too weak at that period. Both the Mexicans and Americans awaited the outbreak of violence. In 1846, the then president, James Polk, received information that the Mexicans had ambushed two of General Taylor’s companies situated along the Rio Grande. The president immediately commanded that the Congress should set aside funds for war, stating that the Mexicans had instituted a full-blown war. Reluctantly, the House agreed, and the Mexican-American war began.
The Mexican American war lasted about one a half years. The war raged throughout New Mexico, California, and Texas. Mexican’s resistance was adamant and had the advantage of greater manpower than their opponent. However, this benefit proved futile as the United States had an easy victory because of superior leadership and artillery. Following the victory by the US, a treaty was signed in 1848, called the treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo. The treaty completed US claims to the land and in return, the US government simulated all the monetary claims against the Mexican government of the American citizens. US paid Mexico $15 million.
Despite the fact that patriotism arouses during the war, intersectional conflict grew much more dramatic during the period of war.
Wait! How did the outcome of the Mexican American War intensify intersectional conflict? paper is just an example!
This conflict was not all due to expansion. On the contrary, Polk had created a lot of adversaries in the North because he did not support tariffs. Polk had also made enemies in the West because he failed to initiate internal improvement. Nonetheless, the future of slavery and expansion created much more conflict in the pre-Civil period. Antislavery Whigs and proslavery Democrats raged against each other in Congress over slavery’s future in the expanded West.
There had been tension between the two nations over the issue of slavery throughout the years. However, before the Mexican-American war, the issues were under control. The famous Missouri Compromise had established which regions would have slavery and the ones that would not. The conflict between the two sides still existed, but it was not a high point. The Mexican-American war changed that and made these tensions more intense. Logic dictates that the Mexican-American war led to grabbing of huge chunks of land. Consequently, the United States government was left with the decision of the slavery status in these regions. The entire issue had to be discussed and debated. Of course, this led to tension as each of the sides, the North and South, each tried to get their way. The latter statements show that by the government forcing Congress to make the decision on slavery’s legality in the new lands, made the war intensify intersectional conflict. Congress agreed that California would become admitted into the Union as a free state. This decision angered the South. On the other hand, Congress decided that two other new territories would be established, namely New Mexico and Utah. These regions would be open to slavery. This decision angered the North. This contrast in views is what lead to intersectional conflict.
In conclusion, one can clearly see that following the high acquisition of land after the end of the war, the slavery issue on these huge chunks of land was heightened. Each of the two sides had their point of view of these matters and this, in turn, led to intersectional conflict. As a result, the North and South division deepened.
Subscribe and get the full version of the document nameUse our writing tools and essay examples to get your paper started AND finished.