Instructions: Read : Manifest Destiny: Re-creating the American Southwest; Textbook readings (pages 3-11, 13-20, 23-32, 33-42) and listen to audio clip on “The Golden land” and write a critical analysis response essay of a minimum of 800 words to the readings and audio clip. Audio clip Link: “The Golden land” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmdGdOFjFHc&feature=youtu.be Materials and text pages will be sent to you once the job is accepted. Please note: Critical analysis response (Not a summary) Format of written work: Black ink, Times new roman 12pt. font, 1-inch margins, single-spaced. Please use essay protocol: heading: name, class, date, title, and paragraphs accordingly. Hello, I need help with a 800 word critical analysis response essay for my Chicano studies class. Instructions are posted along with some textbook reading pages. I will send you Textbook pages 33-42 to the tutor Via Message. Please read the instructions carefully before bidding on this assignment. Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     Conquest and colonization was an ongoing theme in the region we know today as the American Southwest. The Texas Revolution When one visits the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas, one is exposed to a patriotic and nationalistic version of what occurred at the Mexican fort. In the version constructed and related by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, the democratic and freedom loving Americans score a decisive victory over the backward and autocratic Mexicans. According to the myth, it is because of this victory that Texas emerged as the prosperous state that it is today. I will suggest to you that this version of the Alamo is a myth. A myth is a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being, hero, or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation. Let me begin by explaining the developing political situation of the new nation known as Mexico, and how this situation would impact the northern frontier region known as Coahuila y Tejas. Mexican Rule, 1821-1848 After Mexico gained its independence, a philosophical debate ensued between those who wanted to create a government based on the traditional Spanish past and those wishing to establish a federal republic based on the ideals of the Enlightenment and on the principles of the American Republic. Federalists won out and in 1824 a constitution was written which established the first constitutional government of Mexico. While the constitution satisfied regional interests by giving states control over their own affairs, it did create one crucial point of contention: it united the two former Spanish provinces of Tejas and Coahuila, this would not sit well with Tejanos who wanted the formation of their own state. Keep this point in mind since this issue would play an important role in Texas independence. Nevertheless, federalism under the constitution of 1824 came under attack in 1835 when Antonio López de Santa Anna led a coup d’ etat. Mexico now fell under Centralist rule, meaning those belonging to a conservative party intent on creating a strong central government and weakening the power of the states. Because of the political difficulties that plagued the new nation, the northern frontier had been neglected; therefore, Centralist rule was not welcomed in the Far North. These territories saw a central government as oppressive and opposed to their local interests. For years the Spanish crown considered various methods for populating the northern frontier province of Tejas in an effort to ward off Native American resistance and American expansion. In a state of desperation, the Mexican government developed land policy that encouraged American colonists to settle in Tejas. Mexico hoped that the newcomers would accept Mexican citizenship and in turn serve as a buffer from both “barbarous” Indians and American expansion. Mexican Colonization Policy The first colonization contract was negotiated with Moses Austin in 1821. According to the contract, Austin was to relocate three hundred “Christian” [“Catholic”] families from the United States to Tejas in exchange for huge personal land grants. Moses Austin died before moving to Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     Tejas and his son Stephen assumed the contract. Prospective settlers, some of them slave owners, began to arrive in Tejas near the end of 1821. The peopling of Coahuila y Tejas occurred mainly under the National Colonization Law of 1824. The law imposed few federal restrictions on immigration and in fact left individual states in control of immigration and the disposal of public lands. While the general sentiment in Mexico shunned slavery, the colonization law did not prohibit the importation of slavery. State Colonization Law of 1825 In 1825 the newly coupled state of Coahuila y Tejas approved a state constitution that included the State Colonization Law of 1825. The plan permitted American immigration, but it also tried to encourage Mexican migration first by offering priority in land acquisition. The law required that all new residents who were not Mexican citizens take an oath of loyalty to the state and federal constitutions and promise to observe the Christian religion, but it did not define Catholicism specifically. The contracts formed between the state and immigrants were known as Empresario Contracts and American immigrants entered into most of these contracts. An empresario was an immigration agent who acted on behalf of the state government to select colonists, allocate lands, and oversee law enforcement in the colonies they helped found. Euro-Americans, whether they came independently, fleeing U.S. law, or through empresarios soon became a problem for the Mexican government. They did not take Mexican nationality serious and were conducting themselves in ways that made the Mexican government uneasy: they squatted on unoccupied lands, engaged in smuggling, and brought slaves. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     In response to these actions, Mexico sent a high-ranking military official named Manuel de Mier y Terán to study the troubles in Texas. His report illustrated his fear that Mexico was in danger of losing the province. Immigration Law of 1830 In response to Mier y Terán’s report, Mexico passed the Immigration Law of 1830, which intended to stop further immigration and consequently the importation of slaves. Only those contracts belonging to empresarios who had already brought in 100 families or more were considered valid, and according to the law slaves could no longer be imported. Mexico, however, was too weak to defend the law. Tejano community Let me take a moment to define the Tejano identity that had been forming in the province since the first settlers arrived. The Spanish arrived in Tejas in the 1720s and encountered numerous indigenous groups already living there. Additionally, there were probably Africans in the region as well since the Spanish were slave owners. The Tejanos, therefore, were the descendents of these original settlers. Tejano communities mostly formed in Central and South Texas. They generally undertook farming and ranching. Tejano identity was unique. It underscored a sense of independence and individuality fostered in part because of the distance between Tejas and Mexico City, the center of power. War for Independence The dissolution of federalism at the hands of Santa Anna produced revolts in several Mexican states, and clashes between Euro-Americans and Mexicans soon erupted in Texas. By early 1836 Santa Anna himself was on the move toward Tejas to crush a rebellion in San Antonio. Santa Anna arrived in Béxar on February 23, 1836, to find the Alamo fortified by a contingent led by William Barrett Travis. On March 6, 1,800 of Santa Anna’s troops headed toward the walled compound as the deguello (a bugle call that signals the taking of no quarter) sounded. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     The actual battle ended within twenty minutes but the carnage followed for another hour. Although Santa Anna had given orders to spare no lives, there were some survivors mostly women and children. Santa Anna lost upward of 600 men, a large number considering that the Americans holed up in the Alamo were severely outnumbered. Some historians see the Texas Revolution as a courageous act by freedom loving Americans against the intolerant and undemocratic government of Mexico. Other interpretations depict the Texas Revolution as part of a southern slavocracy conspiracy to take over Texas. And still others see the revolution as the consequence of a constitutional conflict between centralist and federalist politicians in Mexico. Other historians attribute ethnocentrism or racism as the cause for the revolution arguing that the Americans arrived in Texas already conditioned to think negatively of Mexican people: their dark skin and their adherence to Catholicism helped racially biased Americans view Mexicans as biologically inferior and morally flawed; therefore, Americans arrived in Texas bent on “rescuing” the underdeveloped region from a backward people and a government enmeshed in instability. I think is it important to remember that myths simplify the past. In many instances they are deliberate attempts by those in power to socialize and brainwash their subjects in order to control their loyalties. Myths work to support patriotism, and not necessarily truths. They encourage blind pride and a fear of complexities. In other words, they make us scared to find out the truth of what really happened because the truth might not support what we have believed all along. In this case, the myth of the Alamo has worked to silence the Mexican perspective and in turn has served the contemporary political needs of those who control power in Texas. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     Manifest Destiny The term Manifest Destiny was coined by John O’Sullivan in 1845 to describe American expansion. Enormous expansion was in fact taking place in the name of liberty and democracy, but it was a liberty and democracy that was for all intents and purposes intended for the “AngloSaxon” person. Manifest Destiny is more than a term, however; it is an ideology that began with the Puritan colonies, who believed that God had ordained their venture into the wilderness of North America. For the Puritans, this god given right justified their conquest of the Pequot Indians. Implicit in this term was the notion that the Anglo-Saxon race had the God given (providential) right to move into supposedly empty areas or areas deemed incapable of self rule in order to improve these areas through Anglo-Saxon liberty and democracy. From this perspective the continent’s far west was imagined to be empty and Mexico in general and Mexico’s northern frontier in particular were seen as chaotic land where “dark skinned mongrels” squandered a space in need of superior Anglo Saxon leadership. Numerous historians have written on the topic of Manifest Destiny. Recall that the analysis of the history of a topic is called a historiography. I will briefly discuss how historians have theorized Manifest Destiny. In the 1930s, historians like Albert Weinberg argued that Anglo Saxon expansionists envisioned Manifest Destiny as a new way of life. For Weinberg, the expansion of Anglo-Saxon values offered freedom, privilege, and strength for “uncivilized” regions in the West. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     Then, in the 1950s, some historians like Norman Graebner suggested that Manifest Destiny revolved around economic interests. Anglo merchants wanted seaports, especially in California and primarily San Francisco. Other historians during this timeframe also suggested that Manifest Destiny was a project of the southern slavocracy in need of new fertile lands like Texas. All of these conclusions were racist evaluations that offered justification for war with Mexico. Scholars continued to grapple with this philosophy and term, and by the 1980’s historians like Reginald Horsman posited Manifest Destiny as a Euro-Americans effort to initiate the U.S.Mexico War (1846-1848) and conquer one third of Mexico’s territory. Anglo-Saxon expansion no longer imbued a providential right but instead underscored the conquering framework of American expansionism. What was at the Core of Manifest Destiny? Westward expansion was at the core of Manifest Destiny. Expansion encouraged a mission into the unknown; it tested courage and strength in unconquered territories. Expansion was a divine mission designed specifically for the Anglo-Saxon character. To a certain extent Americans “imagined” the West to be empty, there for the taking, but even if they were willing to acknowledge that the West was not empty, they saw themselves as politically, economically, and socially superior to the Indian and Mexican who were not using the land properly; therefore, conquering the land as well as those bodies that resided on those lands was acceptable. Of course we have already discussed that racism was also at the core of Manifest Destiny, but also supporting Manifest Destiny was the belief that Protestant Christian ideals and work ethics must replace the backward, vile, superstitious Catholic religion believed to be the work of the devil. In other words, Euro-American expansion supported the notion that civilization must be brought to the empty, savage, dark, west. Manifest Destiny, then, justified the removal of Mexicans and Indians who had wasted the land thus far. A more dire consequence of this ideology, however, would be the U.S.-Mexico War, 1846-1848. U.S.-Mexico War The U.S.-Mexico War was one of the most momentous conflicts of the nineteenth century, yet today many Americans seem to know little about this war. The war is frequently confused with the Texas Revolution (1835-1836), the Spanish-American War (1898), or the border skirmishes with Mexican Revolutionaries that took place between 1913 and 1916. This is probably due in part to the overshadowing of the U.S.-Mexican War by the American Civil War, a much larger and more protracted conflict. Politics of Expansion In order to understand how Manifest Destiny fueled the war, we need to examine the political environment of the 1840s. In 1844, James K. Polk, a Democrat, won the presidency of the United States. The Democrats viewed their victory in the election as a popular mandate for Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     expansion. They had campaigned on a platform that boldly demanded both Texas and the “reoccupation” of Oregon from the British, and James K. Polk fully shared the expansionist vision of his party. The greatest prize in Polk’s eyes was California and he made the acquisition of California the cornerstone of his foreign policy. In 1844 the United States attempted to expand it power on two fronts: 1.) The U.S. wanted to acquire the Oregon Territory from the British, and 2.) the U.S. wanted to purchase New Mexico and California—it already considered itself in possession of Texas. Polk proved far more conciliatory with the British than with the Mexicans. In the spring of 1846, Polk compromised with the British on Oregon. He agreed to a boundary at the 49th parallel that allowed Britain to retain Vancouver. The British, however, recognized American sovereignty in the remainder of what we know today as the Pacific Northwest. With the Oregon Territory issue out of the way, Polk could now concentrate on the war with Mexico that had erupted a month earlier. Unlike Oregon, where he backed off from extravagant territorial claims, Polk refused to budge on the American claim (inherited from Texas annexation) that the Rio Grande was the border between Texas and Mexico. The Mexicans insisted that the Nueces River, a hundred miles north of the Rio Grande was the border, as it had been when Texas was still part of Mexico. An immense territory was at stake, for the border claimed by the Americans would more than double the size of Texas. Citing rumors of Mexican invasion, Polk sent 3,500 troops under Zachary Taylor to the Nueces River in the summer of 1845. He also instructed Thomas Larkin, the American Consul in California to inform both Californios and Americans that the United States would support them if the revolted against Mexican rule. Through all of this maneuvering, Polk made one last effort at peaceful expansion. In November of 1845 he sent John L. Slidell, s special envoy to Mexico, to offer the Mexican government $30 million dollars for California and New Mexico. When Polk learned that the Mexican government had refused to receive Slidell, he set out to draw Mexico into a war that would result in the American acquisition of California. Provoking War Let us step back to Texas independence for just a moment. Texas leaders had wanted annexation to the United States soon after they gained independence in 1835, but the U.S. resisted because they knew that such an action would probably lead to war with Mexico since Mexico still considered Texas part of its nation. Remember, they are also wrangling with the British over the Oregon territory so it would not be wise to encourage war with two separate countries along two different fronts. The United States eventually annexed Texas and Texas gained statehood in December 1845. Texas immediately claimed territory all the way to the Rio Grande although this was never considered Texas before. Mexico maintained that the boundary of Texas was at the Nueces River. In early 1846 he ordered Taylor and his troops to block the mouth of the Rio Grande, the Mexicans attacked. Even before news of the skirmish reached Washington, Polk had already Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     decided on war, on the grounds that the Mexican government had unjustifiably refused to sell territory to the United States and had fallen behind on debt payments owed to American citizens. Informed of the confrontation between Mexican and American forces at the Rio Grande, he drafted a war message to Congress on May 9, 1846 stating that Mexico “had invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil.” Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. The war was a military success for the United States. Mexico, mired in political chaos and lacking military capacity, was unable to check American advances. By early 1847, the United States had already captured Mexico’s Northern provinces and in February of 1847 the United States occupied Mexico City. Annex Mexico? Some (irrational) expansionists believed that the Anglo-Saxon race could and would actually replace numerous world peoples in the course of progress. They would not teach or rule them but they would replace them. They believed that if the military succeeded in Mexico, the U.S. should enforce a military, colonial style government. They asserted that this would bring prosperity to Mexico since Anglo-Saxons would simply absorb and eliminate what was left of the Mexican population. These beliefs created a crisis among Americans because there were many in the United States that believed that the trappings of colonialism would ruin the republic. Moreover, the Whigs rejected expansion because it involved extending slavery, nor did they want to bring large numbers of non-Anglo-Saxon people into the republic as citizens—such inferior people would ruin the republic; therefore, arguments hinged on militarism, the extension of slavery, and the forcible addition of a “mongrel race.” Journalism The U.S.-Mexico War coincided with the “print explosion” of the mid 19th century. Journalists played a very important role in the war as they disseminated propaganda and rhetoric to justify the impending war. The “print explosion” consisted of the invention of the faster steam presses. Additionally, the newspaper industry utilized new innovative techniques for gathering the news. We also see the employment of war correspondents for the first time and the use of the new magnetic telegraph for rapid proliferation of stories as well as books and periodicals. All of these new innovations combined to carry the war into people’s lives on an unprecedented scale. War was reported in greater detail than in any previous war, anywhere in the world. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest     Journalist used these innovations very strategically to appeal to American nationalism and patriotism. Their reports legitimized long held convictions of “mission” and “destiny.” Nationalistic rhetoric would also unfold in poetry, song, art, and national dramas performed on stage. Consequences of War Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 1848 – The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war, is still in force today. It not only fixed the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas, but required Mexico to cede to the U.S., in return for $15 million, all the territory that today makes up the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. At the time of the cession, the Republic of Mexico exercised very little actual control over this territory, which contained less than 1% of the country's population nor was anyone aware of the gold, silver, and other minerals that would later be found there. The following are important parts of the treaty that eventually determined the social, political, and economic status of Mexican Americans: • • • • • The treaty stated that Mexicans in annexed territories could decide to become American citizens or remain Mexican citizens. Nonetheless their property rights would be respected. Article Ten specifically outlining the guarantee of Spanish and Mexican land grants was stricken by the U.S. Senate. The treaty established the rights of Mexicans who remained in the United States. Guaranteed citizenship, but citizenship in the U.S. is based on the status of white, males, so would Mexicans be considered white? Treaty was not fully enforced, what were the consequences for Mexican Americans? Gadsden Purchase – After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo an unsettled dispute over the exact location of the Mexican border west of El Paso, Texas remained. U.S. Secretary of War Jefferson Davis sent James Gadsden to negotiate with Mexican president Santa Anna for the land. Davis valued it, as others did, as the perfect tract for the construction of the southern transcontinental railroad. President Santa Anna decided to sell more of Mexico to the United States giving the U.S. claims to approximately 29,000 square miles of land in what is now southern New Mexico and Arizona, for the price of $10 million. On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, U.S. Minister to Mexico, and General Antonio López de Santa Anna signed the Gadsden Purchase. The disputed boundary was settled and an eventual railroad line would connect western territories to the east and north, greatly increasing accessibility to these new lands. Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.     Manifest  Destiny:  Re-­‐Creating  the  American  Southwest       Copyright  2010  The  University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso  and  Irma  Montelongo.    
Purchase answer to see full attachment