Essay Local Successes and National Failures of the EZLN Today

The apprehension between the Texians and Mexicans began to shift towards a war when a Mexican force led by Francisco De Castañeda was instructed to take a cannon from the rebels in the city of Gonzales. Castañeda was instructed to try to retrieve the cannon without force in order to prevent it from being used against the Mexican authorities and because the slightest act of aggression would likely push the Texians over the edge. The Texians, led by John Henry Moore, refused to cooperate. They even attempted to negotiate with Castañeda and his force to convince them to side with the Texas cause, as they shared the same principles in regards to Santa Anna’s dictatorship. After Castañeda refused, because as a soldier, he was obligated to follow orders, a minor battle ensued. Although it was almost insignificant, it gave the Texians a spark and the rebel cause was able to increase recruiting efforts for the larger altercations that would occur in the next few months (Hardin, 2010).

As “each jefe sought to delegitimize the other in the eyes of Zapatista headquarters and this to gain an advantage in the local power struggle”, a similar struggle emerged among

The aftermath of the Mexican American warManifest Destiney, the annexation of Texas, and the actions of President John Polk are all factors leading up to the Mexican-american war. It is known that the annexation of Texas was what pushed Mexico leaders over the edge. In 1836 Texas gained independence from Mexico, after becoming an American State the relationship between Mexico and the U.S quickly came to an end. Polk not only had his eyes on Texas but also on California and New Mexico. Polk won the support of the american people by declaring he would complete Americas Manifest Destiny, to reach the West coast. Mexico denied Polk’s offer to buy these lands, leading America to send troops onto disputed territory. April 25, 1846 Mexican troops killed american soldiers on the disputed land, marking the beginning of the war, this was the battle of Palo Alto. The Mexican-American war had a major impact on both Mexico and U.S history. This essay will discuss the political, social, and economical effects between Mexico and the U.S after the Mexican American war.

The Mexican American war was greatly beneficial to the U.S., but was it worth the cost of nearly 38,000 lives? The war lasted two years, with America emerging victorious and taking more than half of Mexico’s land. Although the conflict resulted in the U.S. gaining her most valuable land, nevertheless the war itself was unjust due to a multitude of reasons, such as the unwarranted Texas revolution, the selfish belief of Manifest Destiny, and the illegitimate intentions of President Polk.

The Mexican government were seen as not knowing what they were doing, especially after them gaining independence from Spain in 1821 because the Mexican leaders lacked experience in politics, on top of being a nation that had deep-rooted connection to Spain’s ideologies rather than that of their own. While the United States thrived from the time of its colonial origins, for Mexico to modernize after gaining independence meant breaking its structures, destroying old institutions and building new ones whilst juggling an aggressive neighbor who eagerly sought more land. By putting into context the origin of the soon-to-be-at-war states, it is easier to comprehend why holding aggressive nationalistic behavior was the norm with the United States when they decided to take on its southern neighbor as the state’s population started to expand increasingly. The origins of the United States shows the attitude of “us versus them”, where Mexico’s top officials and administration were seen as incompetent and trickled down to its

The perception of history is often crafted by the information given and the information available, however, almost too often the facts accessible are warped by the viewpoints of others before they can be properly assessed. Differing outlooks thus explicate the controversial nature of historical events and why the motives and conclusions behind certain occurrences are called into question. The Mexican American war as many American historians would call it ushers a contrary tone in Mexico as their own historians would claim the “war” as United States invasion; the difference in referral is based on the different perceptions of the conflict. In the American viewpoint, the Mexican American War was driven by economic, social and political pressures to bolster United States territories, through the annexation of Texas. In the converse, it could be argued that Mexico did not declare a formal war against the United States but rather was interested in defending their country’s territorial integrity and resisting United State’s invasion. In a Mexican viewpoint then, the war was not a result of arrogance but a consequence of defending Mexican territory from United States invasion. Nonetheless the aftermath of the war produced immense repercussions, furthering American exceptionalism, slavery, and disregard for international borders prompting the inquiry of not only the unjust methods applied but the unjustified results.

     The factors that started the Mexican War lay heavily on American shoulders. Whether if the factors were created by social, political or economical needs, they have all become the center of attention for the question of being a national interest or disgrace. However, the Americans felt that they existed for “…spreading the blessings of peace.” according to Andrew Jackson. There will always be controversy between the two sides of this matter, the Americans who feel that it had to be done, to the Mexicans who felt that it was an injustice done to their nation.

The Mexican War of 1846-1848 was one of major importance to U.S. history, but has since fallen into annals of obscurity. It was the nation’s first war fought on foreign soil: a war that advocated the concept of “manifest destiny”, the United States God-given right to claim territory for the establishment of a free democratic society (Stevenson 2009). Even though many historians claim the war was forced on Mexico by slaveholders greedy for new territory, President John Polk viewed the war as an opportunity to defend the annexation of Texas, establish the Rio Grande as its border, and to acquire the Mexican territories of California and New Mexico (Stevenson 2009).

The Mexican-American war fought between 1846 and 1848 remains a topic of much contention amongst modern historians. Differing accounts and conclusions of the war are often presented and one must remain pragmatic when analysing both primary and secondary sources regarding the war. There is a clear time line of events that led to the outbreak of the war, but there is one major event, and one minor action, which directly resulted in the declarations of war on both sides of the conflict between Mexico and the United States. Most scholars agree that the annexation of the Republic of Texas by

During the 19th Century, the United States sought to expand westwards and increase their land. Since Mexico stood in the way they did all they could to provoke it and start a war. “The Mexicans fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted” (Zinn 151). What they wanted was California, soon they wanted Texas and then Arizona and New Mexico came along. For a long period of time, probably still today; Mexican-Americans are seen as “an ahistoric people” (Romano 44). An assumption that is completely wrong. Mexican American have been fighting for their rights and equality since they became part of America. In fact, they had two movements conduct by different generations. The Mexican-American Generation between 1930 and 1960; and the Chicano generation between 1945-1960. Although both generations were had the same ancestry, they had different worldview because of their history and the events that were going on in their time. Both Mexican-American generation and Chicano generation similarities and differences help understand the overall Chicano history in the 20th Century.

Dr. Henderson’s purpose for writing A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States is to explain the causes of Mexico going to war with the United States in 1846, and the reasons Mexico suffered severely from it. Dr. Henderson’s focus throughout the book is not solely on the military tactics, but rather on the political and diplomatic maneuvering. This approach to the book is to provide to the reader the conflict’s real significance, as to the how and why the United States and Mexico went to war. This book does not point blame at either side, but tells the war from the Mexican point of view. Furthermore, Dr. Henderson explores Mexico’s weaknesses at the time and how those weaknesses led to the war with the United States.

However, the story of the Aztec defeat and the successful resolution of the Spanish mission against incredible odds raises many questions. Regardless of more advanced technology and weapons, the Spanish force was vastly outnumbered and began a military campaign poorly supplied within an unknown territory against an unknown enemy. This paper explores the possibility that other key factors were at play, which provided the Spanish with a several of advantages and facilitated the successful resolution of their campaign. Furthermore, these factors allowed for an incredibly quick and effective subjugation of millions of people – considering that by comparison it took hundreds of years to expel the Muslim armies from southern Spain, a war ending in 1492 and in which many conquistadores fighting in the new world took part of. This paper will argue that internal religious quarrels, unsustainable tax obligations, and continuing military conflicts weakened the Aztec social fabric by increasing resentment among subjugated towns and cities and diminishing trust among Aztec citizens in their highly centralized government.

The Mexican government has faced legal and practical restraints on launching an all-out war on the Zapatistas. The first government counter-attacks encountered tactical difficulties in the jungles of Chiapas and the army failed to score a quick military victory. In 1995, the federal congress passed a ?law for dialogue,? which foreclosed the option of a unilateral show of force by the Mexican army in areas under Zapatista control. This legislation catalyzed the signing of the San Andrés Accords by the EZLN and the Zedillo government. The San Andrés Accords, as well as the inaccessibility of the jungles of Chiapas, made overt military action politically and tactically unviable.

Throughout its history Mexico has had many revolutions. The most famous perhaps is the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictator rule of President Porfino Diaz. People of all classes were fighting in the revolution. The middle and upper classes were dissatisfied with the President’s ways. The lower and working class people had many factors such as poor working conditions, inflation, inferior housing, low wages, and deficient social services. Within the classes everyone was fighting; men, women, and children all contributed to the fight for freedom from Diaz (Baxman 2). This revolution proved to be the rise and fall of many leaders.

The underdogs is the most important novel written by Mariano Azuela which is deeply linked to the historical context of how the Mexican Revolution was established, especially in the northern states of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution it was intended to ensure a fairer way of life of the agricultural classes. However, it was harsh, brutal, and bloody complex conflict for the whole country, in which federalism and rebels have been fighting tirelessly for a cause they both believed to be flawless. Azuela follows the performance of a band of revolutionaries who radically transformed politics and Mexican society. Represents the uprising and difficulty of the revolution throughout his novel. Furthermore, describes the rise and fall of Demetrio Macias and his band of rebels who participated and uncovered the hard details effects at the height of the armed phase of the Mexican revolution in the early twentieth century.