What were the major terms and consequences of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?
The “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” established the border between Mexico and Texas and ceded over half of the northernmost lands of Mexico to the United States. The treaty effectively ended the Mexican-American war, limited Mexico’s powers, and shaped the geographical boundaries of the United States (What the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Actually Says – Race, Politics, Justice, n.d.). It also helped resettle many individuals who were displaced during the Mexican-American war. The Treaty drastically changed Mexican and American claims to Texas, strengthened ties between the two nations, and altered the lives of people living in those regions.
How did this treaty reflect the rising power and continental ambitions of the United States at that time?
The Treaty of Guadalupe added an additional 500,000sq. Miles to the territory of the United States, which solidified the US’ control over a vast continental expanse. With the acquisition of Mexican territories, the US achieved its goal of continental expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, which resulted in Mexico giving up all claims to Texas (Del Castillo, 1992). This territorial gain by the United States demonstrated the country’s power and growing ambition to dominate the North American continent, which left Mexican citizens uncertain about their country’s future as an independent state (What the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Actually Says – Race, Politics, Justice, n.d.). In sum, the Treaty expanded US territory and shaped future political dynamics, reflected the nation’s growing power in the northern region, and fueled tensions between those two regions.
What were some of the criticisms and controversies surrounding the treaty from both American and Mexican perspectives?
The Treaty was met with both praise and criticism from both American and Mexican perspectives, as Americans celebrated the Treaty as an achievement. However, Mexicans viewed it as completely controversial because it led to the cessation of approximately 55% of Mexico’s national territory to the United States. The US Senate also critiqued the Treaty because it threatened to upset the delicate balance between free and slave states, raising questions about whether the acquisition of new territories would allow slavery or be admitted as free states (NBC News Learn, 2020). On the other side, Mexicans also viewed the Treaty as an unjust outcome because their loss included valuable lands of historical and cultural importance for Mexico, and they believed that the US had “stolen” their lands, and the Treaty just made this stealing official.
What are your thoughts concerning the continuing & current fight to reclaim the land?
Building on the Treaty of Guadalupe, which posed significant consequences for both Mexicans and Americans, the Treaty, from my point of view, was an unjust seizure of Mexican land. The Mexicans’ loss of their valuable lands left many Indigenous people of Mexico uncertain about their country’s future, and their current fight to reclaim the land reflects the aggression and lingering resentment that the Indigenous communities faced during the war and after being displaced. In my view, the current fight is because the Treaty left a legacy of conflict and political upheaval in Mexico, although it completed the continental expansion of the United States through unjust means.
References
Del Castillo, R. G. (1992). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A legacy of conflict. University of Oklahoma Press.
NBC News Learn (Director). (2020, May 1). Compromise of 1850. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNU5mzJ4FBU
What the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Actually Says – Race, Politics, Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2024, from https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/racepoliticsjustice/2017/07/12/what-the-treaty-of-guadalupe-actually-says/
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
