I’m Lockeed and I just Kant

Philosophy is usually viewed by many whom don’t understand it, as a useless field of study, where old white men can sit in their ivory towers and get lost in questions. In reality, philosophy can be very helpful to humanity when applied correctly. However, when used as a form of justification or excuse to do something, it can be very dangerous. In the 1800’s the Republic of Texas took over the state from Mexico and then the U.S. annexed it and conquered the rest of the northern Mexican states. The Anglo-American’s had been living with and practicing the ideas of John Locke, an English philosopher, whom I believe single handedly gave the Anglo-Americans the justification to conquer foreign lands. His philosophy, regarding limits to accumulation, was that unused property was an offense against nature, and that money (new in it’s time) could help with the unlimited accumulation of wealth. This serves as a good “moral” excuse for the nonmoral capitalist as well as add to the Puritan mentality of the “chosen people” to move forward with their Manifest Destiny. In essence, Mexico could not unite to stop the United States’ takeover of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona due to the fact that Mexico was methodically pushed out economically with the knowledge that Mexico was already lacking in financial & human resource; Some methods included using shear anarchy, and a high increase of Euro-American immigration.

First off, in order to understand why Mexico was lacking in resources during that era, Mexico was weak from many major wars it had to endure in a very short amount of time: the war of independence from Spain (1810-1821),  immediately followed by the short war it lost to the Central American Federation (1822-1823), then shortly after, another war it lost against the Republic of Texas (1835-1836), after which came the resistance to the attempts of a French occupation (1838), as well as an attempt by the Yucatan to break away (1839-1843). By this time, Mexico, lacking in financial and human resources was invaded by the U.S. (1846-1847). Aside from the preexisting conditions of its resources, Mexico faced internal attacks by the self-righteous Anglo-Americans that slowly eroded and “severely hindered... its ability to build a strong economic infrastructure,” one of which was shear anarchy.

Anarchy on the Mexican lands of Texas was a huge problem. Mexico attempted to gain human resources in its northern territories by inviting Anglo-Americans to immigrate since many Central Mexicans found life there too distant from the hub of civilization to move to. Mexico attempted to secure its lands by assimilating the new immigrants by following the old Colonial Spanish method by requiring them to convert to Catholicism, swear their allegiance to Mexico, follow a no slavery policy, etc. However, the superiority-minded Anglo-Americans went with the old adage “let’s not, but say we did,” especially when it came to their land rights. On December 21, 1821, Euro-American, Hayden Edwards, broke out into shear anarchy in the town of Nacogdoches, when Mexico kicked him out of the country for trying to take the law in his own hands. The reason Mexico kicked Edwards out of the country was because he was trying to evict colonists from his land grant. This caused political unrest that gave the U.S. a false pretense to attempt multiple purchases, manipulate border lines, and the eventual conquest of that highly profitable land between the Rio Grande and the Nueces River. Aside from anarchy, a sudden influx of Euro-Americans was a method employed to weaken the Mexican presence in the northern Mexican territories.

The sudden Immigration into Mexico was probably the biggest reason for the loss of the Mexican footing in all three states. In the 1830’s, New Mexico’s Santa Fe trail facilitated a high increase of immigration of capitalist Euro-Americans, which allowed for the purchasing of much of the land, that pushed out the self-sufficient subsistence farmers. By the 1840’s most of the millions of dollars in profits were being made by North Americans like, New Yorker Edwin Norris and German and Albert Speyer. Right after the U.S. took the northern part of Arizona, the gold rush (1848-1850) in California created a huge migration through Mesilla (southern Arizona); established a familiarity with the area. The expansion minded Euro-Americans urged the U.S. to take the state of Sonora, with its “legendary mineral wealth,” and the a established port on the Pacific. In 1853, when Mexico refused to sell President Franklin Pierce any of the states that were proposed for purchase, Pierce settled for the purchase of only Mesilla, otherwise, the U.S. would simply take it. With the recent loss of war that saw its northern regions lost to the U.S., “Mexico ceded more than 45,000 square miles to the United states, of which some 35,000 were in southern Arizona, for $10 million.”

Because of the methodical economic push-out of Mexico by the U.S. (by way of exploitation of an already economically weak country, straight up anarchy against the government, and also by a flood of Euro-Americans into its lands), Mexico could not unite to stop the United States’ takeover of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The U.S. enjoyed a much higher economic status over Mexico, thus the conquest over its lands were better expedited. Not only that, but the economic gains the U.S. knew it could attain, served as a catalyst for conquest, but what’s worse is the misused ideas of their famed philosopher, John Locke, accommodated a moral justification to gain control. In essence, the methods employed by the U.S. as well as the misuse of John Locke’s philosophy, where things are a means to an end (using various methods as a means for wealth hoarding). If only the ideas of Emmanuel Kant, a philosopher from Prussia (1724-1804), were better paid attention to during this time period. His philosophy went against the grain from that of his contemporaries. Kant’s philosophy is against using something as a means to an end as it is not morally right. What is morally right is that something be used as an end in itself; everything has intrinsic value. But because it was much newer of a philosophy in that time period, and not English, I believe it was much less engrained in the society and probably not yet accepted by Anglo-Americans of the time whom were only interested in three things: themselves (natural law), wealth (land), and expansion (extermination).