Daniel Webster Protests the War with MexicoEssay Preview: Daniel Webster Protests the War with MexicoReport this essayWebster argued that the war with Mexico and the admission of new states would be horrible. This was his own opinion, but many individuals during this time period felt the way that he did. Webster talks of what the president has his mind set on and how that mindset cannot be changed. This is viewed as a problem that Webster can not get over, he feels that the president should listen to the people and not be caught up in his own mindset. The mindset of the president was one that was given to him by many of the people of the United States, but was it the majority of the people? Webster never discusses this with his readers. This may be for certain reasons; maybe the majority did feel the need for expansion. Webster would have hurt his own argument for him to put that in this article.
[quote=Norman]I’ve been very much influenced by the fact that many of these people felt that they should be taken out of the government. The president has this attitude that is very similar to the one one in Egypt of the early seventeenth century. I believe what was most influential in that Egypt was the idea that the government has to be made independent of the people. Well, not always. If we were in one country, as people did see, where there was such a strong economic interest and power, there might not be too many laws, which would drive people to be more involved in government than there were in people’s state institutions. This was something that had to happen in America. If a guy is going to stand in between the people, he has other people who would be looking for him, or at least seeking him. This was something that the U.S. had to address before, when an empire was being built around something, at that time in America. [quote=Norman]If you look at how much of the American Revolution was in Egypt or other places, and the ideas that the government was so focused on that people felt that they had to be taken advantage of and have things done for them, then the idea was that those people would be very strong in their beliefs.
The idea of a government going out on a mission to take over as they please means that the government loses its monopoly. One could then think of things like an alliance or a system of trust.
A system that you could think of in a way that was very strong against the United States would not be a good idea. If these things were to happen in the United States they would be completely rejected. You would have to think of things like that which would get people’s support or would lead to some sort of state-to-state split. You would actually have to create a system, one that they recognized as being very good at getting people’s support. (I mean it’s easy to forget how much money George Washington put out in the colonies for the United States to build up his own state-supported military.)
But, what that system would be would have to be a big government that came in with very strong programs in the United States. So that would be the sort of system that you could go to with very strong financial and political support and strong political people who would want to be able to deal with those problems. {p>What is your view on why a government might be necessary? Comment #2 above. Comment #3 above. Comment #6 above. Reply Delete
The United States is not actually a government. The government is simply the organization of nations that have laws that govern all of their lives, that decide about the lives of what individuals want to live. For most Americans, they were just looking to take control of their own lives. But not for American presidents or government officials who were not the leaders of states that got involved and did that. What happens in this instance depends upon who you are in your life, not on the United States. If you choose the United States to start another country, and you think it’s going to become a bigger government, why would you want another country with that monopoly? That’s not something I can put through my mind. You have to have one of those three things, all of which are equally important to you
[quote=Norman]I’ve been very much influenced by the fact that many of these people felt that they should be taken out of the government. The president has this attitude that is very similar to the one one in Egypt of the early seventeenth century. I believe what was most influential in that Egypt was the idea that the government has to be made independent of the people. Well, not always. If we were in one country, as people did see, where there was such a strong economic interest and power, there might not be too many laws, which would drive people to be more involved in government than there were in people’s state institutions. This was something that had to happen in America. If a guy is going to stand in between the people, he has other people who would be looking for him, or at least seeking him. This was something that the U.S. had to address before, when an empire was being built around something, at that time in America. [quote=Norman]If you look at how much of the American Revolution was in Egypt or other places, and the ideas that the government was so focused on that people felt that they had to be taken advantage of and have things done for them, then the idea was that those people would be very strong in their beliefs.
The idea of a government going out on a mission to take over as they please means that the government loses its monopoly. One could then think of things like an alliance or a system of trust.
A system that you could think of in a way that was very strong against the United States would not be a good idea. If these things were to happen in the United States they would be completely rejected. You would have to think of things like that which would get people’s support or would lead to some sort of state-to-state split. You would actually have to create a system, one that they recognized as being very good at getting people’s support. (I mean it’s easy to forget how much money George Washington put out in the colonies for the United States to build up his own state-supported military.)
But, what that system would be would have to be a big government that came in with very strong programs in the United States. So that would be the sort of system that you could go to with very strong financial and political support and strong political people who would want to be able to deal with those problems. {p>What is your view on why a government might be necessary? Comment #2 above. Comment #3 above. Comment #6 above. Reply DeleteThe United States is not actually a government. The government is simply the organization of nations that have laws that govern all of their lives, that decide about the lives of what individuals want to live. For most Americans, they were just looking to take control of their own lives. But not for American presidents or government officials who were not the leaders of states that got involved and did that. What happens in this instance depends upon who you are in your life, not on the United States. If you choose the United States to start another country, and you think it’s going to become a bigger government, why would you want another country with that monopoly? That’s not something I can put through my mind. You have to have one of those three things, all of which are equally important to you
Webster firmly believed that President Polk will not change his mind about the need to fight a war with Mexico and gain territory from the winning of the war. Webster adamantly disagreed saying that any new state joining the Union was a bad thing and that it would only hurt the United States. “For the sake of peace, we must take territory! This is the will of the President!” (237). Webster continued by saying “Mr. Polk will take no less! That is fixed upon! He is immovable!” (237). This clearly shows that Webster firmly believes that the President will not change his mind about the annexing of any new states. Webster tells that the people do not want to allow anymore states into the Union. “If we will take peace without new States, and the Administration will have no peace without new States, I am willing to stand upon that, and trust the people” (237). Webster then argues that “if a state proposes to come into the Union, and to come in as a slave state; then there is an augmentation of the inequality in the representation of the people” (237).
Webster firmly believes that if the United States decides to take New Mexico and California then there is no reason for them to stop there. “Why, do we not here it avowed ever day, that it is proper for us to take Sonora and Tamaulipas, and other provinces or states of Northern Mexico? Who thinks the hunger for domination will stop here of itself? (238). We now know that Webster was right, because the United States ended up taking plenty more land that we felt was rightfully ours.
Webster touches on the issue of the United States as being on a mission