"The glory of the victory was for the President and generals not the deserters, the dead, the wounded......" Howard Zinn page 143 Greasers and Gingos
Mexico typically entered battle with the US with larger troops and greater familiarity with the land they defended.
Why then, did they repeatedly lose those battles, giving way to American concept of Manifest Destiny?
What did Mexico lack which might have turned the tables in their favor? How might modern society be different in the event of Mexican victories?
Factors to Consider:
America's population being three times bigger than Mexico
Political Motivations
plans for disputed lands
Here's a map so that we can better see what happened during the war
ReplyDeleteI think that had Mexico had better leadership, a more streamlined chain of command and a better grasp of guerilla warfare tactics they might have had a better chance at turning the tables of history in their favor. Though america's population dwarfed Mexico's, the mexican army outnumbered the US's by far on many occasions. Probably the Mexican's inability to adapt to new styles of waging war stems from the Spanish love of beurocracy.
ReplyDeleteHad the Mexicans won the war, I believe their tenuous hold on what was northern Mexico probably would have broken in the long term, since so many of the would-be US citizens were tired of Mexican rule and ready to unite with the United States.
Kate, that's a very good point on how Mexico had a hard time adapting to new styles of warfare. It can also reflect how Mexico has always had a hard time in catching up with the United States in government, technology, agriculture, and other aspects. I can also agree on if Mexico had won the war, they would have still lost their northern territory. I don't think Mexico had a grasp in their country to begin with and holding far away land was not helping their cause in trying to sustain their country. I can connect Mexico during the 1800's to ancient Greece. Greece had different cities spread around and they rarely had contact with each other because of the geographic landscape, and because of that they were separated. Mexico was very separated and it took them a while to unite into a country.
ReplyDeleteI agree I kind of think Mexico had such a small chance of winning against the United States that it was kind of inevitable that they would loose. Their army was tiny compared to ours and marcm22 makes a good point in saying that they would have still lost their northern territory at some point. I mean the United States gained so much power so fast that they were definitely on a mission to win. Mexico lacked money, power, and leaders and that is why they lost to the US. I think a way it would have been different in modern times would be that instead of fighting I think there would have been negotiations before force, and the United Nations would most likely be involved in the decision.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what has been said before, but also a point was that Mexico had been in war after war and were tired of fighting. Also the U.S. had better leaders and more money unlike Mexico who had to keep looking for new leaders. Also Mexico didn't know how to keep the country together because they seemed to keep "forgetting" about their northern states. They were only remembering the states when they wanted their tax money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone in that the Northern territories of Mexico would eventually fall under control of the US. The relations between the two countries would undoubtedly be different than it is now. Now whether for the better or not is debatable. But, overall, the sheer desire for the land that the US had and Mexico's stark unwillingness to pay all that much attention to it makes it an inevitability that the US would gain control of the territory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick about what was formerly Northern Mexico. The US's thirst for land was essentially unquenchable, and I think that thirst and ambition would have overcome Mexico's more passive desire to retain its land possession. I disagree with Kate in that I think the US actually had better leadership than Mexico... as marcm said, Mexico didn't unite as well as the US did. Sure, they had good guerilla tactics and they knew the land, but without that intense desire, strong organization, and even technological advances that the US had, they just didn't stand much of a chance.
ReplyDeleteEven though Mexico had a large population, the lack of adequate leadership was what really hurt them. As Adams stated “Poor leadership, of course, is the product of confused followers, and Mexico had those in abundance” (112). Santa Ana was the epitome of this poor leadership and as a result Mexico lost a big part of their territory. At the same time, Texas had always had this sentiment of independence towards Mexico. In the eyes of many Mexicans they were so far away from the capital that they acted more as a cushion between Mexico and the U.S. Furthermore the United States at this point had already taken Florida and this served as a precursor for the realization of the concept of Manifest Destiny.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mexico was simply not as ready for the war as the United States was. They did not have the big industrial backing like the US did. Their population base was much smaller, so although they went into the battles with more soldiers, they had less people overall that they were 'able' to lose. Also, the US had such a hunger to complete their manifest destiny that they weren't going to let small little Mexico stand in their way.
ReplyDelete