Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science FrancoMexican War FrancoMexican War The Franco-Mexican War was a war fought by two very different countries then they are today. The war was fought over reasons that seem very unlikely to arise ever again between these two countries. The war was fought over gaining territory, group thinking, and just pure human Nature. These are very unlikely to be present between Humans are said to be naturally aggressive. From the time of Adam and Eve humans have always been looking out to gain power. Humans as well as animals have a natural aggressive and also territorial instinct. This is a Emperor Napoleon III was a very power hungry leader. Like his uncle, Napoleon I, Napoleon III wanted to gain as much power as he could. When he realized that there was an opportunity to seize more land Napoleon III took it. He realized that Mexico had just finished a civil war and their government was weak. His aggressive instinct caused Napoleon to seize the moment. This war was mostly motivated because of Napoleon III’s aggressive nature. He wanted to become like his uncle and he took advantage of it. Napoleon III was known to be a very aggressive and power hungry man. Like his uncle he was very aggressive militarily and tried to gain as much power and land as possible.(Meyer & Sherman) These aggressive actions have toned down a great deal not only between France and Mexico but with all countries in the world today. There are countries that allow their aggressive tendencies to get the best of them. All in all though humans have evolved in understanding that acting on our aggressive tendencies is not always the best thing to do in situations that involve possible war. Another reason for the war to start is territory. In order for Napoleon III to gain power he needs land. The theory behind conflict starting over territory is stated as such; Explicit Contention over territory, official government representation, and claims of a specific territory must all be met, in order for a conflict to exist. Napoleon went to Mexico in order to gain back some of the money lent to the Mexican Army. When he his legion/army arrived in Mexico his intentions changed immediately. He wanted not only to gain power but also to place his own appointed leader into the thrown. Napoleon III ordered his army to take over Mexico and claim it for France.(Meyer & This was the start of a territorial conflict. Napoleon III had explicit contention over Mexico, he had sent over official government representation, and claimed Mexico and only Mexico specifically. When these all were in place the first battle broke out and war was officially declared against the French by the Mexicans. As the battles were being fought France and Napoleon III the third was not only gaining more power but also more land.(Hensel) This has changed throughout the years. After France ended up losing Mexico after it was won they never tried to regain that territory . Conflict over territory is a very common source for wars and conflict in general to break out. As far as France and Mexico are concerned I feel that it is not going to happen in such away again, they have totally different agendas then they had in the late 1800’s as well as different types of leaders, France especially. Now to the subject of the group thinking, Napoleon III was able to get his men behind him. He was able to make his legion believe that they were doing the right thing. His men had great respect for him as well as for each other, this is a key point when it comes from looking at the Group think theory by Irving Janis. When you have a group like the French under Napoleon III you can see that they are a very cohesive group, very close knit, they also have great loyalty to their country and a sense of belonging. When you have all of these things within a group you can almost make them do anything. Napoleon was able to rally these men up get them to believe in what they were doing. This is the theory behind group think. (Hensel) When Napoleon III sent his men to Mexico they had one goal in common to take over the government and the country. Even though the French lost a huge amount of men in Mexico due to disease they would not give up. There consequences with this approach for starting a war. People reach a quick consensus. This means that no one is able to think about what the outcome maybe for this war. Napoleon was thinking about how he was going to maintain a great deal of power in a country over five thousand miles away. This will also not allow controversial questions to arise about what or why exactly they are starting the conflict. Most importantly it leads to bad decisions.(Hensel; Meyer & Sherman) Napoleon learned this the hard way. He took action so fast that he was unaware of the consequences he would face. Not only did Napoleon III lose a great deal of men not only from disease but also from the war itself. He also over looked how the people of Mexico would feel toward the new government that would be put in place by France. Ferdinand Maximillian was appointed emperor after Napoleon III’s legion/army invaded and conquered Mexico. If France and Napoleon were not so caught up in rallying their troops and storming in to Mexico for a quick gain of land they would have known that putting a monarchy in a country so close to the United States would not fly well. After only a few months in power, and with few supporters Maximilian was kicked out of power and killed. (Meyer & The times have changed though. That was then this is now. There is a lot less group think around today than there were back in the 1800’s. Wars are a thought out process more so today. Countries and government look more to the future consequences of going to war. War can damage a country a lot more today due to the complex economies, and When understanding conflict and how it is started and how it is ended it is easy to assume that these two adversaries will most likely never have conflict again. There are many reasons that are relevant in understanding why France and Mexico are unlikely adversaries. Mexico and France are both allies with the United States. If a situation ever arose the U.S. would squash it immediately. Another reason for there never to be conflict between France and Mexico is there aren’t any reasons for conflict. In the late 1800’s with Napoleon III, France as a whole had and aggressive power hungry attitude. This is not the case today. France is a more laid back country then they were now. They see Mexico as a country that they have no interest in. As seen through out history controlling territory that is not close to your homeland is next to Invading lands just to gain more power and prestige is unacceptable in world view. If France or any other country would invade another country just to gain territory and power that country would lose a few allies and gain a few enemies. Mexico doesn’t have anything that France desperately needs at this time. Both countries are content in their situation as we speak and there for will not have another uproar such as the Franco-Mexican war ever again. So as might already know my projection for these two countries to become enemies and then even institute a conflict between one another is very unlikely. I project in the next decade these two countries will not become enemies again but become closer to each other. The world, I feel, is becoming more and more socialistic. When all the countries as a whole come up with a form a socialism that works for everyone it will no longer be countries but Bibliography: Bibliography Michael C. Meyer and William L Sherman. The Course of Mexican History. New York, 1983. Oxford University Press. Paul Hensel, Ph.D. Class Notes. Fall semester 2000. INR 4083 Word Count: 1362
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.