Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Henry Clay, Speech at Lexington, Kentucky , pages 114-115 and New York Herald, Public Meeting in Favor of Annexing All of Mexico, pages, 116-118:...
3. Henry Clay, Speech at Lexington, Kentucky, pages 114-115 and New York Herald, Public Meeting in Favor of Annexing All of Mexico, pages, 116-118:
Use these three documents to answer this question: According to these authors, what were the advantages and disadvantages of acquiring Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War?
HENRY CLAY Speech at Lexington, Kentucky November 13, 1847xxx Henry Clay, leader of the Whig party, was defeated by James K. Polk in the presidential election of 1844 by the slimmest of margins. In 1846 Whigs begged Clay to speak out against the U.S.-Mexican War, but the three-time presidential candidate, aged and in bad health, instead stayed in seclusion. In September 1847, General Winfield Scott's troops captured Mexico City, but Mexico refused to negotiate a treaty of peace. In October some expansionists began calling for the annexation of all of Mexico. In November Clay finally agreed to give a public speech about the war. Journalists traveled hundreds of miles to attend this speech, delivered in Clay's hometown of Lexington, Kentucky, and reported in newspapers across the country. Abraham Lincoln, a newly elected U.S. representative from Illinois, was most likely in the audience and adopted many of Clay's views as his own during his single congressional term. Clay spoke out against the spread of slavery. He demanded that the war end immediately, that Mexico keep all of its territory, and that those who shared his views organize in opposition to the war. He also, in the portion of the speech reprinted here, outlined his reasons for opposing the annexation of Mexican territory. Notice how both racism and anti-Catholicism informed Clay's anti-annexation stance. Shall this War be prosecuted for the purpose of conquering and annexing Mexico, in all its boundless extent, to the United States? I will not attribute to the President of the United States any such design; but I confess I have been shocked and alarmed by manifestations of it in various quarters. Of all the dangers and misfortunes which could befall this nation, I should regard that of its becoming a warlike and conquering power the most direful and fatal. History tells the mournful tale of conquering nations and conquerors. . . . Supposing the conquest to be once made, what is to be done with it? Is it to be governed, like Roman Provinces, by Proconsuls? Would it be compatible with the genius, character, and safety of our free institutions, to keep such a great country as Mexico, with a population of not less than nine millions, in a state of constant military subjection? Shall it be annexed to the United States? Does any considerate man believe it possible that two such immense countries, with territories of nearly equal extent, with populations so incongruous, so different in race, in language, in religion and in laws, could be blended together in one harmonious mass, and happily governed by one common authority? Murmurs, discontent, insurrections, rebellion would inevitably ensue, until the incompatible parts would be broken asunder, and possibly, in the frightful struggle, our present glorious Union itself would be dissevered or dissolved. We ought not to forget the warning voice of all history, which teaches the difficulty of combining and consolidating together conquering and conquered nations. After the lapse of eight hundred years, during which the Moors held their conquest of Spain, the indomitable courage, perseverance and obstinacy of the Spanish race finally triumphed over and expelled the African invaders from the Peninsula. And even within our own time, the colossal power of Napoleon, when at its loftiest hight [sic], was incompetent to subdue and subjugate the proud Castilian. And here in our own neighborhood, Lower Canada, which, near one hundred years ago, after the conclusion of the Seven Years' War, was ceded by France to Great Britain, remains a foreign land in the midst of the British provinces, foreign in feelings and attachment, and foreign in laws, language and religion. And what has been the fact with poor, gallant, generous and oppressed Ireland? Centuries have passed since the overbearing Saxon overran and subdued the Emerald Isle. Rivers of Irish blood have flowed, during the long and arduous contest. Insurrection and rebellion have been the order of the day, and yet, up to this time, Ireland remains alien in feeling, affection and sympathy toward the power which has so long borne her down. Every Irishman hates, with a mortal hatred, his Saxon oppressor. Although there are great territorial differences between the condition of England and Ireland, as compared to that of the United States and Mexico, there are some points of striking resemblance between them. Both the Irish and the Mexicans are probably of the same Celtic race. Both the English and the Americans are of the same Saxon origin. The Catholic Religion predominates in both the former; the Protestant among both the latter. Religion has been the fruitful cause of dissatisfaction and discontent between the Irish and the English nations. Is there no reason to apprehend that it would become so between the people of the United States and those of Mexico, if they were united together?
