Why Did the United States Pay for Lands Annexed by Force?

[Delta Force]

Why did the United States pay for land it annexed from Mexico and Spain when it acquired those as a result of wars it decisively won? Most other wars of the era ended with the loser having to pay a war indemnity, so it doesn't really make sense for the United States to have paid for lands in was already in control of following a decisive victory in war. Was it a way for the United States to try to differentiate itself from European colonial powers by making forced annexation more akin to a purchase?

 

[BlondieBC]

I always assumed it was both to make Americans feel better about themselves and to hopefully reduce the anger of the side that lost. Allowing a face saving interpretation of events can be very useful.

 

[Zorqal]

Relations. They didn't want permanent animosity between then and Mexico if they could help it.

 

[DValdron]

Makes it legal. You take lands by force, that sort of justifies taking back their lands by force. Or someone else taking your lands by force. You buy it, that's legal. They agree to release their claim. Purchase incorporates the concept of consent.

You look at Europe, lands taken by force often just lead to more wars - a la Alsace Lorraine. Or South America - Chile, Bolivia and Peru are all still nursing grudges over the same set of provinces.

 

[Riain]

Why did the United States pay for land it annexed from Mexico and Spain when it acquired those as a result of wars it decisively won? Most other wars of the era ended with the loser having to pay a war indemnity, so it doesn't really make sense for the United States to have paid for lands in was already in control of following a decisive victory in war. Was it a way for the United States to try to differentiate itself from European colonial powers by making forced annexation more akin to a purchase?

In my reading on WW1 Germany it became apparent that a big fear was the creation of a 'counter' customs union against MittelEuropa which would make it counterproductive, they would lose vastly more in market losses than they would have made with territory in the east. I'd guess the US is the same, they pay off the loser so they don't have to deal with a running sore that cost way more than the gains.

 

[water123]

Really to legitimize it. Help Mexico along so that they don't try to go out and reclaim it with European help. Even to this day there really is no serious political group in Mexico calling for the return of California etc. It did help that the lands the Americans took was almost empty except for Mormons, however.

 

[Wallet]

Cuz Americans are good people

Actually no, the land seized was theirs. Paying for it buys a promise from the losers that they won't try to recapture it.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I don't agree with the legitimize angle. It might make other powers a little less huffy, but I don't think it really does anything to prevent revanchism. Let's say Mexico somehow gets strong enough to start another war and whoops the US. They then legitimize it by purchasing the land back at gunpoint.

Guessing it's more a case of assuaging Mexican feelings. Plus, indemnities are usually assigned against an aggressor. In this case, the US was clearly the aggressor, so they pretended it was a crisis that triggered a war, and then justified taking lands to which they had zero claim by buying them.

 

[mattep74]

Why did the United States pay for land it annexed from Mexico and Spain when it acquired those as a result of wars it decisively won? Most other wars of the era ended with the loser having to pay a war indemnity, so it doesn't really make sense for the United States to have paid for lands in was already in control of following a decisive victory in war. Was it a way for the United States to try to differentiate itself from European colonial powers by making forced annexation more akin to a purchase?

THey do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nystad Russia payed 2 million pieces of silver Sweden in the peace while getting the Baltic states that they already occupied

 

[TaronQuinn]

BlondieBC has the core of it, I think. It's not so much about America buying land to make the global diplomatic set view them positively (although that may have been a consideration as well), but it's primarily so Americans can feel confident in their self-image: honest, democratic-minded citizens with no imperialist ambitions, simply seeking their destiny in this great, unclaimed land.

I teach history, and I always try to get my students to view historical events from the perspective of psychology (I know it's not a verifiable factor, but it helps convey the points I'm making)...people want to view themselves positively, and being a bunch of crass, European-style colonizers was anathema to American public image, and still is in a lot of ways. So buying land that we'd already conquered allowed us to see ourselves in that continued light of bold, scrappy underdogs paying our way fair-and-square.

 

[Captain Jack]

BlondieBC has the core of it, I think. It's not so much about America buying land to make the global diplomatic set view them positively (although that may have been a consideration as well), but it's primarily so Americans can feel confident in their self-image: honest, democratic-minded citizens with no imperialist ambitions, simply seeking their destiny in this great, unclaimed land.

I teach history, and I always try to get my students to view historical events from the perspective of psychology (I know it's not a verifiable factor, but it helps convey the points I'm making)...people want to view themselves positively, and being a bunch of crass, European-style colonizers was anathema to American public image, and still is in a lot of ways. So buying land that we'd already conquered allowed us to see ourselves in that continued light of bold, scrappy underdogs paying our way fair-and-square.

I can't agree with this more. The only thing I'd add is that in addition to having some value in softening the blow and humiliation to Mexico and letting Americans feel good about themselves and accomodating the American conception of themselves as anti-imperialists, it's also a tool to weaken the domestic Whig opposition to the war. We tend to forget just how vehement the opposition could get, but it was extremely important at the time. Paying for the land lets the administration say "No, we didn't go to war to steal Mexico's land. Everything we've taken was either righfully American due to the annexation of Texas, or was purchased fair and square. No imperialist wars of conquest here." with at least more justification than they would otherwise. Plus, purchasing land in a peace treaty when the territory had already been conquered was a known practice in Europe, and was used for similar reasons. I'd argue you could trace the same ideas to the practice of compensating defeated dynasts with another territory to make up for being deprived of their initial land. In any case, I think the US purchased the Mexican cession largely to let Americans retain their self-conception that eschewed imperial conquest, with buttressing the legal claim, assuaging Mexico's psyche, and preserving the international reputation as other lesser considerations.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I can't agree with this more. The only thing I'd add is that in addition to having some value in softening the blow and humiliation to Mexico and letting Americans feel good about themselves and accomodating the American conception of themselves as anti-imperialists, it's also a tool to weaken the domestic Whig opposition to the war. We tend to forget just how vehement the opposition could get, but it was extremely important at the time. Paying for the land lets the administration say "No, we didn't go to war to steal Mexico's land. Everything we've taken was either righfully American due to the annexation of Texas, or was purchased fair and square. No imperialist wars of conquest here." with at least more justification than they would otherwise. Plus, purchasing land in a peace treaty when the territory had already been conquered was a known practice in Europe, and was used for similar reasons. I'd argue you could trace the same ideas to the practice of compensating defeated dynasts with another territory to make up for being deprived of their initial land. In any case, I think the US purchased the Mexican cession largely to let Americans retain their self-conception that eschewed imperial conquest, with buttressing the legal claim, assuaging Mexico's psyche, and preserving the international reputation as other lesser considerations.

Omg no no no! Actual history is quite clear- while the territorial claim over the particular land is by right of conquest, the payments to the losing party is to compensate for the losing government for actual improvements, buildings, railroads, infrastructure owned by the government and to recompense any corporations in the losing country whose property the US was now seizing. In the Mexican War the US also assumed all debts the Mexican govt occured with US citizens regarding the war. It had NOTHING to do with "feeling better" and plenty of other nations did the same through out history. History didn't start with the Treaty of Versailles! Stop thinking treaties are about punishing.

 

[Byz]

As others have said, this sort of thing happened all the time across the world and throughout history, with the exceptions often proving the rule. The whole point of treaties was to come together and bury the hatchet, even if there are practical reasons and desires at work. In the past, treaties were often sealed with marriages or hostages given to both sides, both to make sure the other side cooperates and to actually improve relations. Purchasing conquered land is a lot like that, especially in a society like the U.S where nobles are anathema to American culture and money plays a big role in it.

 

[vizzer]

And of course such treaties don't always last - see China and the 'Unequal Treaties' for example.
So in a couple of centuries when Mexico is the rising power and the US is an out of date backwater then things may be re-visited