To Justify War or Not to Justify War That Is the Question free essay sample

Polk, as well as most of the rest of Americans at this time, saw the declaration of war as a legitimate and natural expression of America’s Manifest Destiny, which will be later explained. The question remains, however, was Polk’s declaration of war on Mexico really necessary, let alone justified? Was peace what he really wanted, or was his true intention just to acquire more land and expand the U. S. westward as fast as he could? President Polk did appear to have taken several steps to try to avoid an armed conflict with Mexico. First, Polk tried to reopen diplomatic relations between the U. We will write a custom essay sample on To Justify War or Not to Justify War? That Is the Question or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page S. and Mexico by sending an envoy, Mr. John Slidell of Louisiana, invested with full powers to make adjustments to the current state of affairs between the two countries. He sent this envoy, seemingly, as evidence that he did not want war, but peace and harmonious engagements between the U. S. and Mexico from there on forth. At first, Mexico’s minister stated that they would be willing to receive an envoy form the U. S. under the condition that the U. S. would withdraw its naval forces from Vera Cruz. The minister said that its presence there seemed to be or could be interpreted as an â€Å"act of menace or coercion† while the results of their negotiations were still pending. In light of this arrangement, Polk had the naval forces fall back. However, upon Slidell’s arrival to Mexico, they refused to receive the envoy and no agreement was met at that time. This set the pace for the tensions and events that followed. Throughout his address, Polk held strong to his claims that the U. S. was trying tirelessly to avoid war with Mexico and settle matters between them. Polk stated several times that because of Mexico’s refusal to address the issues that were presented, chiefly by not accepting the envoy, that Mexico was the aggressor in this matter. He supports this claim by reiterating that Mexico initiated the first act of aggression by going back on its statement of accepting an envoy to negotiate terms between the two countries. Also, Polk added the incident of how the Mexican forces at Matamoras, led by General Ampudia, started to get hostile. General Ampudia informed U. S. General, General Zachary Taylor that he needed to break up his camp within twenty four hours or face hostile actions. In this, Polk felt the U. S. was obligated to defend its people. The United States was, and still is, obligated to its land and people’s defense. Most of the tensions between the two countries began or got worse after Texas annexed itself into the union, which was a territory that Mexico still felt it held claim to. Polk ordered troops into the surrounding boundaries of this newly acquired territory because Mexican forces had begun to act belligerent and he wanted to make sure the citizens were protected should things go badly. From all of the negative events that were taking place, Polk stated that the attempts at diplomatic negotiations and the fighting troops weren’t the only things to suffer from the tensions between the U. S. and Mexico. Polk suggests in his declaration that commerce between the two countries had been practically eradicated. He claims that the U. S. merchants were not willing to prosecute these injustices of being harassed because the Mexicans had implemented a system of extortion. Despite it appearing, from the events and aggressive acts from Mexico, that Polk was totally within his rights to want to declare war on Mexico, not everyone agreed with his stand. On December 22, 1847, a freshman member of the House of Representatives introduced what has become known as the â€Å"Spot Resolutions Speech† suggesting he did not whole heartedly agree with Polk wanting to go to war with Mexico. This lawmaker was Abraham Lincoln. He had analyzed three messages by President Polk (May 11, 1846, December 8, 1846, and December 7, 1847) that claimed America blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln stated that the House was â€Å"desirous to obtain a full knowledge of the facts which go to establish whether a particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil. † From the analysis of the three messages, he composed resolutions that sought specific information. The first of which was, â€Å"Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution. The second was, â€Å"Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico. † The other six resolutions basically extended the analysis to determine whether the territory on which the casualties occurred was ever under the government or laws of Texas or of the United States. Though we have the opinions of opposing American parties, reading those articl es still bears no insight on Mexico’s account of the events that took place. It again poses the question was President Polk really justified in wanting to declare war on Mexico? Who was really the aggressor in this situation? After doing further investigating, I feel as though President James K. Polk may have been the aggressor in 1846. From his declaration, one can sympathize with Polk. It seemed as though Polk indeed only wanted peace and that he really tried to take as many non-confrontational steps as possible. However, if one looks at what was really going on during this time period, it can be assessed that Polk wanted to push Mexico into negotiating with the United States, and he was willing to create the threat of war to do so. These peaceful negotiations Polk claims he sought may have been achieved had he simply taken a different approach. Mexico refused to acknowledge Texas as independent or that it was a part of the U. S. once it had annexed itself into the union. After the annexation of Texas, Mexico withdrew its minister from Washington. This event is what prompted Polk to send John Slidell as an envoy. Mexico, expecting Slidell to be coming to negotiate the issue of Texas, was blindsided when Slidell had been sent to discuss opening negotiations for buying California and that the Texas issue was being completely ignored. They knew that accepting this envoy would mean they wouldn’t get any headway on the issue of Texas. This was the reason Mexico refused to have Slidell come as an envoy to commence negotiations. Once Slidell left Mexico, newly in office Mexican President, Jose Herrera, sent troops to the Rio Grande, a territory Texas claimed to be its proper boundary, to meet the Americans. In this matter, both sides had reached impasse and Polk had the excuse he need to declare war. Even though Polk had what he felt like was a â€Å"reason† to declare war, that doesn’t mean he was really justified in declaring war on Mexico. But, is war itself really justifiable? In theory, yes, war can be justified or considered justifiable under certain circumstances. I think that you can call a war justified if the reasons behind a government or country wanting to wage the war are for a just cause. For example, a war against a people to end its existence, basically genocide, is never a reason to start a war. There should also be a reasonable margin of success in winning the war so that the outcome sought will come to pass. Most importantly, the innocents should never be harmed. In my opinion, these are some things that can constitute a â€Å" justifiable war†. An example of a â€Å"justified war†, considering, was the American Civil War. This war happened as a result of a social and economic divide between the Northern and Southern U. S. The South relied primarily on agriculture, while the Northern states used manufacturing to sustain their economy. The South used slavery because they saw blacks as subhuman, inferior beings and because they didn’t want to have to pay them for their labor. The Southern states believed in the states having individual rights, where as the Northern states believed in a strong federal government. All of that was just to say that the cause for the war was justifiable and important, but the result more so which was permanently abolishing slavery in America and the United States was once again united. In terms of justification of Polk’s war against Mexico, this war wasn’t totally justifiable. The U. S, responded with violence against the Mexican government, which wasn’t necessary. Polk’s over ambition to seize new territory from Mexico and his disappointment at their refusal to sell him California, more than likely, played a major role in his wanting to go to war with Mexico. There was also another factor that made it easier for Polk to want to wage war with Mexico. It’s something called Manifest Destiny, which was the idea or theory that the U. S. had a â€Å"divine right† to rapid expansion westward toward the Pacific Ocean through the annexation of the western half of the continent; hence â€Å"from sea to shining sea†. Polk’s premature actions against Mexico, in my opinion, were unnecessary, but are all actions to initiate war unnecessary? Even more, if we use certain tactics to initiate war, are we being effective? For example, is our current â€Å"war on terror† necessary, let alone justifiable? Our so called â€Å"War on Terror† isn’t simply black and white because there are so many things one can argue in terms of being for or against this war. For example, some would say the war is justifiable because it appeared to be the only effective solution to the threat posed by the militant Islamic fundamentalism. Also, one could argue that we can’t sit around and do nothing after the Taliban had made such an obvious declaration of war against America by attacking us on our own soil! Then, on the other hand, some can argue that the war isn’t justifiable because unless in extreme circumstances, like being under arbitrary provocation or attack from a hostile power with no reasonable alternative, war is never justifiable. Our war on terror involves the military, political, legal, and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism in response to the tragic 9/11 attacks. So in this aspect is out war justified? In my opinion, not so much. I feel that there may have been ways to avoid war prior to the conditions escalading the way they did. My view is that the war’s sole justification was retribution, which is not sufficient justification. The seemingly most powerful western democracy in the world should hold itself to a higher standard than those who only seek to thwart them. I can say that 9/11 was indeed the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. To highjack an aircraft(s) and plummet them into the Twin Towers, killing over 200 innocent civilians, is universally an inexcusable act and no amount of rhetoric will ever be able to even slightly shift that affirmation. However, in regards to a comparison between the two wars, I don’t feel President Roosevelt entered or declared war on Japan as an act of vengeance. The U. S. ’s declaration of war on Japan was against a sovereign power, with its own controlled army, with a fixed structure, and broadly connected to a worldwide fascist movement that, at the time, posed an incredibly serious threat to the stability of the free world. I do agree that we must defend or nation against the hostilities of rouge nations and terrorists, however, war is never made to â€Å"keep peace†. It only maintains peace for a very short period of time and after such period has passed, one side must inevitably wage war again to claim the debts for the original war. Again and again, an eye is claimed for an eye, and the Shakespearian drama continues to unfold, where everybody lies dead on the floor. A far better solution is the Chekhovian drama; everyone is upset and disillusioned, but still remains alive at the end. We need to try to find a Chekhovian solution to our threat of terrorism, maybe then having to justify a war wouldn’t be necessary at all.