Red, White, and Brown: Violence and Cultural Conflict Along the Rio Grande

Abstract

“American blood has been shed on American soil!” James K. Polk cried as he implored Congress to retaliate for the wounding and death of sixteen U.S. soldiers on the north bank of the Rio Grande River in April 1846. Two years later, “Young Hickory” scored his revenge when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ceded a sizeable portion of the Mexican empire to the United States. Angry and skeptical Whigs could not stop “Mr. Polk's War,” but they did raise questions of “moral rightness” and the president's role in provoking the imbroglio. For several generations, U.S. historians followed the thread of this debate and focused their attention on the larger issue of Manifest Destiny, Polk, and his culpability in promoting the war.1 Regrettably, most Americans remain unaware not only of the when and how of the acquisition of our western territories, but of the Texas war of independence as well. Embracing a broadly romantic view, we certainly “Remember the Alamo!” The iconic personages of Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Sam Houston merge to create a unique, if flawed, sense of the Texas Revolution held not only by residents, but also by millions of Americans who admire the ultimate courage and sacrifice of William B. Travis and his brave band. Hollywood has been kind to the Lone Star Republic with its television and movie portrayals of the heroes.2 Scholars quickly looked beyond the legends. Commencing with the indefatigable Justin Smith in 1911, monographs have explored the diplomatic intrigues relating to annexation involving Texas, the United States, and Great Britain. Presidents from James Madison through Andrew Jackson attempted to add to the territory by fair means or foul, and John Tyler's success in 1845 only further strained feelings on both sides of the Rio Grande.3