erk's reinterpretation of the Mexican War justified the actions that were committed in pursuit of Manifest Destiny. He recognized Polk’s aggression as a retaliation to Mexico’s uncooperative nature. By continuously commenting on the unreasonable reactions of Mexicans, he implies that the War could have been avoided; but, due to the stubbornness of Mexicans, the war was inevitable. Recent historians, like Amy S. Greenberg, have challenged this argument. Greenberg, like Merk, does not fully examine the Mexican perspective in her analysis; however, her research reveals the unjust nature of the war instead of justifying the war.
In A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 US invasion of Mexico, Amy S. Greenberg emphasizes Polk’s territorial goals, to expand shore to shore, as a major cause of the war. Before Polk was elected as president, the Whig party predicted Polk’s election would lead to war. Polk pursued the …show more content…
In the 1916 textbook, A History of the United States, a slavery question is proposed before defining the Mexican War with four detailed pages, which provides a distinction between the attitudes of the North and South during the war. The dispute of territory is again the issue that leads to war, but the textbook says, “Our government took steps that were almost certain to bring on war…The Mexicans justly considered this an invasion of their territory and therefore an act of war. It certainly looked like an attempt to provoke them to make an attack on American Troops” The textbook indicates that the war’s purpose was to acquire new territory from a weak country; however, it justifies the acts by stating, “But however unfair our government may have been in bringing on the war with this weak country, it was willing to pay for any territory it might secure. Mexico received over eighteen million dollars for the cession it made to the United