The Treaty of Guadalupe - Research Paper Example

The Treaty of Guadalupe In the 19th century, war erupted between the countries of Mexico and the U.S.A over territorial rights. Mainly, they were land ownership. Many Mexicans died and others injured in the process. This continued until a time when the rival armies confronted at the Mexico’s capital called the “Mexico City”. At the city, armies claimed lives as the war resulted to severe bloodshed. Eventually the Mexicans lost to their American rivals, but through the hard way. Since Mexico was losing its bid in the war, the country, through its governance resolved to engage into peaceful negotiations to ensure that not all was lost. Therefore, this decision led to the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe in the late 1840s (Menchaca 215). Since Mexico lost its boundaries, it subsequently lost the current states of Arizona, California, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado including Wyoming. As a result, the country felt the need of finding a solution to compensate the entire loss. A meeting was thus held among commissioners from the two rival countries with the purpose of coming up with some brilliant ideas that would be used in coming up with the final solution (Acuna 123). History reveals that, Nicholas Trist (chief clerk of the State Department) and another American representative to President Polk (General Winfield) set off to meet their Mexican counterpart-General Jose Joaquin. The first meeting bore no fruits and not even a tiny resolution was brought to book (Schultz 422). The delegates to the meeting resolved to arrange for a second one, as their zeal to bring about peace was undoubtedly strong. When the time came, the delegates met a second time, and their talks were in vain lastly coming up without a solution. Failure to come with a long lasting solution meant no peace in the territories USA had acquired from the rival. Thus, USA sent Nicholas Trist for a third time, on the third meeting; he purposely went out to meet other leaders from the fallen government of Mexico. These were, Don Bernado Couto, Don Miguel de Atristain, and don Luis Gonzaga Cuevas. They were all government officials of a government, which in a way had fallen (Porterfield 5). In the treaty, fresh boundaries were set between the two countries, Mexico succeeded to win its bid on a number of territories namely, Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuejiijij o Mexico though not cited in entire treaty. Following the years of 1836, more and precisely straight boundaries were set in an attempt to avoid further war eruptions. The border consisted of Rio Grande at the northwest part with a successive stretch further north to border Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico. Through the Gila River, to the west, the border took a straight dimension to the port of San Diego (Porterfield 17). This gave a more geographic outlook on the positions of various locations like the Lower California. Mexico realized that it was almost losing some important territories that had steered the occurrence of the war. By the time this realization came, the country had already lost quite a considerable piece of it land to remain on the current area of approximately 1,972,550 km?. as a result, United States succeeded in the seizure of Nevada, California, and Utah with its boundaries cutting further to western parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. At the long run, USA had claimed an additional land of 1.36 million km? naming it the Mexican cession. In accordance to Adams-Onis’ treaty relating to the boundary, Mexico recovered only 45% of the regions fought for. Mexicans agreed in the treaty that Rio Grande would be the Texas border (Menchaca 219). Nicholas Trist and Winfield Scott of the U.S.A conducted the negotiations and drafting of the treaty with the Mexicans since further war would ultimately bear no fruits. This happened in defiance of President’s Polk orders to fight further in an attempt to claim more territories. Trist presented the treaty to the “House of Senate” in his country U.S.A for complements (Acuna 248). The president went sour about the act of defiance but sat back on his personal issues as the majority vote from the senate declared the document worthwhile. On the February of 1848, the Americans sent the document forth Mexicans’ for approval. This was to mark the end of the struggle and the Mexicans new it. However, the problem in question arose on whether to agree and secure peace or defy, stir chaos and war with the aim of saving their people who now lay in territory of USA. The American president was at the same time amassing support on his bid to stage a second revolution to acquire the remaining country of Mexico (Menchaca 223). Had it not been for fast ratification and consent to the treaty, Mexico would once more head to the battlefield to fight its daring dreaded neighbor, the USA. The assent to the treaty ended the dreadful fears of attacks and political oppressions between the two nations. The United States of America were bound to compensate the government of Mexico a solid sum of$15 million (fifteen million dollars only) to settle its claims. Precisely, the damages and atrocities committed by the United States of America included the murders of over four thousand teenagers, destruction of property mainly in the Mexico’s capital called the Mexico City, and all the ceded territories. Both nations would abide to the accord, ensuring that peace prevailed between them without prejudicing any of their citizens respectively (Porterfield 29). Both governments agreed upon a sequence of justice. They agreed that none of them should capture attempt to seize or put into justice a citizen whether belonging to the country in pursuance or the host, so long as the culprit had shifted locations to the host country. It further argued out that no slave transactions between the two nations with same case applying to domestic animals whose ownership was questionable, and then the red Indians would settle on the specific nations they found themselves in after the border divisions. All compensations agreed upon carried out in distinct phases of; the first lot would be an amount of $3 million. The Mexicans agreed upon the term as the payment was in their indigenous currency. The remaining amount would take a 6% rate of payment (per annum) for a period of years. Mexico had discharged from any claims that its citizens living in U.S.A territories would still report to it cited that, each government was to govern those within its territories (Menchaca 254). Therefore, USA having obtained Mexico’s citizens upheld to the term that it would adhere to the set decrees, govern them and do justice. In cases of claims arising from the acquired citizens amongst themselves on crimes of the past, the USA would seek help from the Republic of Mexico. The decision exempted the view of and revision the view of commissioners sent to settle the damages, as their involvement to the issue would result to heated relations, a factor the two nations tried to curb (Porterfield 38). USA troops secured the opportunity of tax exemptions on all goods shipped into the Latin country of Mexico as far as they remained to be in the country. The resulting punishment was that if one was guilty of confisticating the troops’ supplies, such an individual will face a special tribunal and will stand answerable to the offence committed (Acuna 371). The Republic of Mexico had to let United States of America set up the tribunal to keep an eye on all the operations affecting its troops and Mexico agreed on the same. Nevertheless, the condition was that all other supplies brought imported into her country for business purposes will not be exempted of duty. Further, all duty collected during and after the ratification of the treaty would be surrendered with utmost good faith to the customhouses of the republic of Mexico. The imports that would have a questionable validity on whether duty bound or maliciously having been smuggled into the Mexico, would be confisticated (Porterfield 41). On the deadline of the set three months, Mexico would take full charge over ports and levies would not be changed as such would adhere to the previously set protocol on taxation. Meanwhile, immigrants living in either nation would be free of any kind of social injustices. On the expiration of the three-month date, the immigrants will not be forced to leave as far as their conduct is conducive to the nation’s welfare. Theft, burglary and all other possible atrocities against people despite their country of origin would be an atrocity violating the rights and obligations agreed on. Scorching of peasant farms would be a serious offense and so would the malicious destruction of property whether owned by a foreigner or an indigenous citizen. Although terms were clearly stated, most of Mexican who found themselves in the U.S.A lost their bid to secure their land ownership titles when peace presumed (Acuna 273). With the severe apathy of war prisoners stated, and the necessity to avoid overcrowding in the various prisons brought into book, the governments agreed to ensure health and sanitation for prisoners. The treaty expressly stated that officers would live in cantonments, and have plenty of training space, which happened to all troops with no regard to the country of origin. The prisoners were spaced in camps under the authority of officers. Due to the various escape attempts and successes, officers would be liable for their escape actions (Porterfield 43). The officers had the power to bring into the cantonments the number of prisoners they felt they could control. They would receive supplies and refreshments from the immediate heads as are the units and divisions of the troop rankings, and so would be the subsequent punishment to the officers in the event of misconduct, directly or indirectly but in a way that injures the terms of the treaty mainly on the issue pertaining security (Menchaca 218). The treaty ended the long struggle. Mexicans felt that their leaders had approved to the treaty for malicious purposes thus going sour about the whole process, little did they know that the second option to the treaty would be a second battlefront. It is of essence to note that the treaty, having pushed through most stages with the help of Nicholas and Scott, through several meetings with the republic of Mexico, still went sour with the then president of the U.S.A. He was at the time engaged in talks with a number of government officials in an attempt to stage a second battle against Mexico in attempt to claim the entire country. On resolving the war, Mexico realized that revolts were likely to erupt within its boundaries as peasants had formed fronts to counter any forms of internal or external attacks. This caught the government in a dilemma on whether to clear matters with the U.S.A first or secure its grounds against its own intruders-the peasants. The internal uprisings amongst the Mexican states led to the murder of over two hundred thousand people and many Mexicans so U.S.A as their glimmer of hope, begged for help but the efforts bore no fruits (Porterfield 57). After the unfruitful battle that took Mexico ten years, she ended up losing much of her land to the U.S.A as all the parts that were conquered during the were not presented as a point to argue on as the regions belonged to America and no question could be raised on the same. Although the Mexicans upheld the conditions of the treaty, they realized that they had no government; their land had become a constant battlefield. Mexico lived in a puzzled environment of uncertainty on the turn of events in her country. In late 1930s, the Mexican immigrants obtained citizenship but apathy remained the major problem. U.S.A citizens traumatized them physically and psychologically, perceived them as lesser beings and unworthy (Menchaca 276). In conclusion, the world’s current states clearly depicts that much still remain unlearned and a lot has still to be done to ensure that the international climate that is globally acceptable is ultimately achieved. This is inclusive of the United States’ relationship with Rio Grande. From the essay, it is evident that eventually, the citizens of Mexican origin and the habitats of the present Latin America lost their entire properties to the Americans. Faced by negative perceptions, their social standards deteriorated and until the present day, they have lived in abrupt poverty and discrimination from the view that they commit all sorts of criminal activities. Work Cited Acuna. Rodolfo. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. Prentice Hall, 2010. Print. Menchaca, Martha. Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black, and White Roots of Mexican Americans. Texas: University of Texas Press, 2002. Print. Porterfield, Jason. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 1848: A Primary Source Examination of the Treaty that Ended the Mexican-American War. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2006 Read More