Mexican-American War Mr. Polk\'s War

Mexican-American War

Mr. Polk's War -- American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-1848

Schroeder, John H.

Mr. Polk's War -- American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-1848.

Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1974.

According to John H. Schroeder's book on Mr. Polk's War -- American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-1848, political opposition to the Mexican-American War before the Civil War tore apart America was considerably better organized and more vocal than we might acknowledge today. The controversy over the war has largely been forgotten, because the question of the annexation of territory formerly under the control of Mexico was eclipsed by the Civil War. But the Civil War, according to historian Schroeder, occurred as precipitously and contentiously as it did because the political controversies over the Mexican-American War fanned the flames of discord and opposition, rallied and polarized the abolitionist and pro-slavery religious and political leaders of the day, and raised controversy over the power of the chief executive to act in an unprecedentedly dictatorial manner.

Even amongst his contemporaries, President Polk was seen as manipulative in the way that he managed the war with Mexico Schroeder believes that the Mexican-American War was an immoral war, and was largely orchestrated by Polk to protect the president's interests politically, and was instigated with the ultimate goal of incorporating California and New Mexico into the nation by any means necessary, not out of any moral considerations for the territory's residents or American security. Schroeder's bias is exemplified even in the title of his work -- the war is 'Mr. Polk's war, as if Polk alone was responsible for the war's germination, and Polk is referred to as Mister, not President Polk.

Rather than focusing upon the administration or the advocates of the war, Schroder is mainly interested in the politicians and other Americans who opposed the war, and why. He paints a picture of a fascinating and complex array of characters of different political and ideological orientations, all of whom rallied against the war for vastly different reasons. Religious leaders, writers, abolitionists, pacifists, 'Conscience' Whigs and Calhoun Democrats spoke out against Mr. Polk's war (Schroder 92-119). Personalities as diverse as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, William Lloyd Garrison, and Henry David Thoreau joined their voices with people from other states, regions of the country, and opposing political alliances. Some were quite passionate, and even risked their lives and liberty to oppose the war. Thoreau's famous essay on "Civil Disobedience" was penned when he was incarcerated for refusing to pay his taxes to support what he firmly believed was an immoral war.

What is so interesting about Schroeder's text, however, is that he does not believe that the dissenting groups of advocates had a great deal of an impact on the war itself, but more of a cultural impact upon America as a nation. Because the opposition was so fractured, and united only in its opposition of the conflict, Schroeder notes that these movements did not have a substantial impact upon the war's duration, outcome, or the final peace settlement. But he still believes that the quality and rhetoric of the opposition must be analyzed to fully understand the aftermath of the war (Schroeder 162). The war stoked fears of the incorporation of more slave states into the union in the hearts of abolitionists, and cased pro-slavery, pro-states' rights advocates to fear the concentration of federal power in presidential hands.

The contentious nature of the war makes it difficult to avoid parallels with our own national struggle. For example, much as in current debate about the war, when an opposition congressman voted against sending aid to the troops in Mexico, the congressman was accused of putting American lives in jeopardy, but if he supported sending more aid, then he was supporting the war, which rankled his own conscience as well as anti-war activists. Perhaps because he was writing in the wake of the Vietnam Era, Schroeder is highly conscious of the 'dammed if you do, damned if you don't' position anti-war politicians often find themselves, when it comes to morally and financially supporting the troops abroad. As was often the case since, most Congressmen, agreed to send aid, even if they opposed the war.

But even if congress voted to apportion funds, and obeyed Polk's degree, the dissent to the war continued to be expressed loudly and eloquently by pro-slavery and abolitionist forces alike. For the first time, the oppositional part of the Whigs articulated a clear position against the chief executive's major military policy initiative, creating the foundation, however unintentionally of the modern philosophically differentiated two-party system, where the party out of power often disagrees quite strongly with the foreign policy of the party in power. The notion of how to be a loyal opponent and still show patriotism when the U.S. is fighting a war abroad remains difficult, but the Whigs were able to generate a great deal of support, particularly in New England.

Originally, the Northern Whigs primarily opposed the war because of a fear of adding slave states to the union. However, Southern pro-slavery activists like Senator John Calhoun, also opposed the war in the name of states rights, as he feared the enormous federal and executive powers being commanded by Polk. Diversity amongst religious groups who opposed the war was equally striking, and transcended usual divides between right and left. Although in contemporary politics, liberals and conservatives are usually seen as unified blocks in opposition to or in support of military policies, in Polk's day, conservative Congregationalists and liberal Unitarians both fought against the war. A more substantial coalition was not formed, though, not simply because of the more fractured and spread out nature of American political life and territory at the time, but also because of Polk's skillful manipulation of the ideological fissures in the ranks of the dissenters. This came to a head during the controversy over the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, which banned slavery in all territories acquired by the war. It further divided the forces rallying against Polk, and although it did not finally pass, may have been the final 'nail' in the coffin between Southerners and Northerners. It also diverted the debate away from the 2 million dollar appropriations of the bill itself, and redirected the debate to the issue of slavery in general.