¨(I) regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.¨ Ulysses S. Grant wrote this later in his life in 1885 well after the Civil War. Although the Mexican-American War had large popular support at the beginning of the War, as it progressed a strong anti-war movement grew. Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, as well as many more would join in condemning and opposing the War. So, were they right or did the War liberate California, Arizona, New Mexico, from a despotic chaotic Mexican Government. Would California be better off today if it had remained part of Mexico? Was the death of around 25,000 Mexican soldiers, 13,000 Americans, and an untold number of civilians justified for gaining land and asserting American dominance?
As an American teaching history in Mexico I have always been very cautious when approaching and teaching this very painful part of Mexican history. Anytime this subject comes up in conversation in Mexico there are almost always two points made: Americans were wrong for invading Mexico and Santa Ana was a disgrace who is to blame for the loss of a huge amount of Mexican land. This made me wonder if I asked an average American student currently studying US history what are the two main points they have? How are American textbooks portraying this War, has left leaning revisionism changed the perception of the War? Over the last few years high school US history class has become an ideological battleground whether it’s the state standards in Texas or the rejection of AP US History in many conservative districts. So to investigate these questions I compared the two widely used US history textbooks: The American Pageant and The Americans with two major revisionist works A People´s History and Amy Greenberg´s new nonfiction history book A Wicked War.
The American Pageant is the most popular book for AP history and is used throughout the US and the world. In chapter 17 the book looks at the Mexican-American War and right off the bat it does a good job of showing the deep dishonesty of Polk´s pretext to the war. This is echoed in Houghton Mifflin´s widely used textbook The Americans and this shows that both textbooks reveal the truth that Polk wanted to go to war with Mexico but needed an excuse. One would hope that with the Gulf of Tonkin or WMDs future textbooks would continue to discuss the tradition of dishonest pretexts to war. Where the problems arise with both textbooks is in three main areas: ignoring the large domestic protest against the war, the lack of discussion of American War crimes during the war, and the lack of critical examination of the value of the war.
“Marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us.¨ This quotation comes from the famous ¨spot resolution¨ speech that Abraham Lincoln gave as a freshman congressman in which he laid out his opposition to the war. This speech is what launched Lincoln into national fame and is based largely on a speech Henry Clay had given earlier in opposition to the war. Both chapter 8 of Zinn´s A People´s History and throughout Greenberg´s A Wicked War the large-scale protest against the war from Northern Abolitionists to Midwestern Whigs is discussed in depth. Although this protest only really arose as the war dragged on, it is important to explain that many prominent and common Americans were deeply opposed to the war. It is impossible to ignore anti-war protests when teaching Vietnam and yet both aforementioned textbooks ignore this protest almost entirely. Except for a brief quotation from the ¨spot resolution¨ in The American Pageant (which is given no context or explanation), the protests are ignored.
The general focus of the teaching the Mexican-American War is on the great successes of General Zachory Taylor and General Winfield Scott. Both generals won every battle in relatively short time despite the inferior numbers and devastating impact of diseases that were responsible for 85% of US deaths. Both textbooks do a good job of explaining this important part of the war but as with any war a balanced view of history needs to include the warts. In this case Zinn and Greenberg spend a lot of time, too much time, on the incidents where the US military committed crimes. For example Greenberg says, ¨In the February Massacre at Agua Nueva where the Arkansas Rackensackers killed at least 25 Mexican civilians in a cave was a key turning point in the reporting of the war.¨ Greenberg describes how many newspaper covered this massacre and how many Americans were appalled and shocked as a result. Furthermore both Greenberg and Zinn outline other acts of murder and rape during the invasion of Veracruz and the occupation of Mexico City. While these acts of inhumanity are not the worst the US military has done, a balanced textbook needs at least a sentence or two in order to give the full picture of the events of the war. In this case both textbooks fail to paint the full picture.
Finally, the emphasis in how history is taught in American High Schools today has moved towards critical thinking, historical analysis, and historiography. While memorizing events and dates is still valued, the focus has shifted. In this case the textbooks have many opportunities to encourage and facilitate debates and activities focused on thinking critically about history. When it comes to the Mexican-American war the defining analysis should be centered on the question of whether the War was ethical and justified. This leads to the enduring understanding of what conditions justify war. The problem with using Greenberg and Zinn is that they have a definitive answer about this the necessity of this war, which is useful, but not without the other side. So a good textbook should have an activity framed around debate questions that discuss the necessity of wars while also talking about the consequences of wars. Yet neither The American Pageant nor The Americans explore these important questions but remain unquestioning on the necessity of the War. All that is really needed to fix this is a few provocative questions at the end of the chapter that get students to question the necessity of the war and understand the anti-war perspective.
I am not the first left leaning history teacher who has written about the bias of a US history textbook. I know that there are thousands of teachers like me that use the standard textbooks but also use supplementary books that show another side. There are also many teachers who rely far too much on Zinn and left leaning supplementary sources as the only understanding. There is no doubt that University and high school social studies are dominated by left leaning interpretations and as a result there has been a backlash in many red states. In States like Texas and Oklahoma the textbooks have been altered to reflect right leaning state standards. There is not much to do to change how history is taught in these states unless the teacher is motivated and courageous enough to show the other side. What can be changed is the middle of the road teachers who are unaware of when the textbook does not give the full picture. In this case the textbooks can really fail students because the textbook will be the only sources and with same changes it could be balanced. In the case of the Mexican-American war I would really add about 4 to 6 sentences and debate questions. To fully understand the Mexican-American War and future potential wars students must know about the tradition of anti-war dissent, creating false pre-texts to get into war, and the disturbing trend of the US military committing acts of war crimes. There is an undeniable line from Mexico to Iraq and the many wars in between where American values were lost despite the objections of millions of Americans. Students need to see the full picture of all wars and how they can inform future decisions on war in our democracy.
History Teacher Abroad 