Did you do any research on the Mexican-American War beyond?

Mexico "never quite accepted an independent republic of Texas." Well, no, not if invading Texas a couple of times and snatching and imprisoning hostages in a dungeon for lenghty periods counts as never quite accepting.

And is there not a disconnect between the idea of Polk seeking to expand the national boundaries and the push for the Pacific being just a conspiracy by the slavers? Polk threatened the British with war in order to settle the Maine and Oregon boundary disputes. Was he trying to push slavery there as well?

Just because Adams and the abolitionists over engorged themselves on erroneous conspiracy theories is no reason why we should continue to do so today.

John, just so you know...the entry is much more even-handed and informative.

What's funny is that the author's premise seems to be that we silly sheep out here in the hinterlands assume that, until just recently, all wars were universally supported by all of America. Silly author! Every war has had it's dissenters, and anyone who listened up in US History knows this.

Every war has had it's dissenters, and anyone who listened up in US History knows this.

One point I'm making here is that not everyone listened up. Virtually every time a political leader expresses shame in a decision of the American government, it's as if some great sin has been committed. This should not be the case.

Another interesting parallel is what happened in Congress: the Whigs opposed the war but voted in sufficient numbers to sustain it's funding, much as the dems were forced to for political reasons this time around.

one other thought:

Though the wars of Iraq and Mexico were very similar in some respects, I'd venture to say that when it comes to the "national interest" they couldn't be more different. Whatever the deceitfulness of Polk, it can't be denied that the succesful prosecution of the war was a boon to the US national interest in innumerable ways: solidifying its claims on the Pacific Coast, getting Texas (which was a Republic for nearly 10 years), and pushing the British out once and for all (they were interested in California and there were rumours that Texas may go under its protection). Soon after the war, the gold rush in the new territory of California started, and the rest is history.

Looking at the states of Texas, New Mexico and California today, its plain that America benefitted enormously from the Mexican war.

Looking at Iraq today, it seems that the opposite conclusion is the only possible one: that America's national interest has suffered heavily from the venture. Only time will tell the degree to which this is true, but at this point, it surely is looking grim...

I've had no problem finding and reading any number of political pundits who are quite openly critical of those who would wage unjust wars, or allow/encourage torture of prisoners. The problem is that back in 2002-2005, they were almost exclusively online.

I recall that back then, the majority of American newspapers were bad enough with their unquestioning Iraq War fervor, but tv news was a whole 'nother story. Now it turns out that TV news didn't just feature go-along patriot-pundits, TV news was even more proactive than that. The NY Times recently revealed the alarming details of network and cable news' complicity in a covert domestic propaganda program - now suspended - run by the Department of Defense that had retired generals appear on network news shows to "carry the water" for the Administration regarding the Iraq War. Since the NY Times story appeared, there has been no mention of this illegal operation on any of the networks, except for PBS.

I think we've already begun to see a dramatic shift in how Americans get our news/opinion in the last few years, and I think the shift will continue. It's not just the convenience of the net, it's the pundit-problem Josh points to in this post. The shift will be further hastened with the coming end of the unprofitable Network News divisions. That will happen once the transition to cable-only tv transmission is final next year. Look for all the networks to make their cable News Networks their News Divisions, period. Bye bye Katie and Brian. And good riddance.

Great post, Josh. It's worth noting, however, that the denouncements you've quoted by US statesmen were made years after the conclusion of the war they were denouncing. Perhaps there were "esteemed leaders" such as former presidents who denounced the US for its wartime decisions while the nation was at war, or who paid visits to world leaders hostile to the U.S. (a la Jimmy Carter), but these are not examples of that.

Good point Seymour... I think that the largest opposition was in the papers and in congress - I refer you to Daniel Walker Howe's masterful "What Hath God Wrought: The transformation of America (1815 - 1848)".

There were examples a plenty in there of opposition before and during the war, but I'm a little pressed for time and unable to dig up the quotes...

it can't be denied that the succesful prosecution of the war was a boon to the US national interest in innumerable ways

Maybe it depends on which national interest. We are still dealing with the nasty aftermath of the Mexican War in 2008. I'm not so sure the result was a net gain for our country.