How Did Henry Clay Realize The Annexation Of Texas?

People in the United States were divided over whether to annex Texas. After Polk was

Gaining Texas is worth the risk of war: The annexation of Texas is worth the risk of war with Mexico. For many years Mexico has been seizing American vessels illegally and confiscating our cargoes to meet Mexico’s needs. Mexico for many years has performed numerous lawless acts upon people and property of United States citizens. The many years of aggravated and unredressed wrongs from Mexico that the United States has endured has violated solemn treaty stipulations and of every principle of justice recognized by civilized nations.

With the help of President-elect Polk and house of Congress; on March 1, 1845, Texas was admitted into the United States. Texas Annexation began the feud between Mexico and United States over Texas border. Texas State included Colorado and New Mexico. The conflict arose over

In the soon to be, the Republic of Texas, ninety insurgents signed a Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836 (Summer, American Spirit). Texas became an independent nation after the battle of San Jacinto. The Republic of Texas remained an independent nation until 1845 when Texas was formally added to the United States of America. However, was the annexation of Texas justified? The United State had no validation to attack the Mexican government.

Texas' western boundary was highly contended. The republic of Texas had succeeded from Mexico. It had been let into the United States and claimed territory that is now a modern day Mexico. Texas was also in debt. They owed almost ten million dollars to the state which couldn't be easily paid.

Texas Annexed to the United States On February 19, 1846, Texas was annexed to the United States of America. After many years of never-ending negotiations, Texas was finally admitted into the Union. Despite gaining independence, Texas would continue to face several problems. Texas, at this time, did not have enough forces to defend itself, which meant that they could be vulnerable to an attack from Mexico.

One of the negative effect is debt that Texas used in the wars against Mexico. This caused the United States to basically “owned” Texas, and this is also why Texas joined the U.S. when U.S. Had its statehood. The reason of author to take the “action” doesn't seem reasonable because they knew that they would have to follow the Mexican rules. The U.S. Immigrants followed their rules for a period, but they started to follow their own rules because of the distances from Texas to Mexican central government.

[When Texas was annexed, as part of the United States, Mexico and the United States had a disagreement on the border of Texas. The Mexican’s believed that the border was the Nueces River, while America believed that the border was the Rio Grande. This disagreement caused the war with Mexico in 1846. ] The United States was justified to go to war with Mexico.

This war happened mainly because the U.S. wanted to expand to the Pacific Ocean to fulfill their Manifest Destiny, trying to take away Mexico’s land. Mexico refused to to give land to the U.S. The big question is whether the U.S. was justified in fighting Mexico in the Mexican-American War. The United States was justified in going to war with Mexico because Manifest Destiny, too much Mexican interference, and Texas was invaded. One reason the Mexican War was justified was Manifest Destiny. In Document A, John O’Sullivan writes: “Texas is now ours...Let their reception into the “family be frank, kindly, and cheerful….”

The way they claimed annexed was by saying the Rio Grande was the southern boundary of Texas but Mexico said it was the Nueces River. In regards to the war, Americans were greatly divided. The northerners hated it because of the fact that Texas favored slavery. Those in the south liked the idea of a war because it would help expand to the west. This expansion would provide more land and opportunity.

As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with

The annexation of Texas occurred in the early 1800’s. American colonists were expanding into the Northern sector of the Rio Grande, which developed the need for Texas to become a part of the United States. In the South, the people supported the drive toward the annexation of Texas, but the Northerners opposed this idea. Texas was another slave state and the nature of their society did not appear appealing to the North.

Jesús Velasco-Márquez, a modern-day Mexican professor of studies wrote an article in 2006 about the Mexican-American War. He said, “US historians refer to this event as ‘The Mexican-American War’, while in Mexico, we prefer to use the term ‘The U.S. Invasion... From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons. ’’’ (Velasco-Márquez, 12). During the time of the independence of Texas, Mexico was ruled by the dictator General Antonio López de Santa Anna.

Was the United States Justified in Going to War With Mexico? After Texas became annexed to the US, tensions grew between the US and Mexico. The two countries could not agree on where the border of Texas was. Mexico claimed that the Nueces River was the Texan border.

Admittedly, Texas has endeavored through difficult times in the past when dealing with other countries about the frontier lines and conflicts about the statehood. After gaining independence from Spain, Texas was admitted into the United States to only later secede from the Union fifteen years later. Although, Texas received much of its rugged fashioned of being an individualistic state from the many subcultures that pertain to the diverse communities around Texas. Subsequently, when viewing Texan’s characteristics, they seem to represent not only an individualistic attitude, but also a traditionalistic sense.