The question of who is responsible for the Mexican War is hotly debated even today. Was this something that was destined due to rising tensions between the United States and Mexico? Was this a ploy by James K. Polk to gain territory in pursuit of manifest destiny? The points of view of the two authors highlight two quite different aspects. Walter Nugent argues that yes, the Mexican War was, in fact, a ploy by Polk to gain more territory, while Norman Graeber says that it was only because of tensions and circumstances that we got into a war. I believe that the imperialist nature of the United States at this time correlates strongly with why we go to war. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayWalter Nugent's first argument supports the claim that Polk's imperialist desires lead the country into a war that was primarily aimed at win New Mexico and California. . From the beginning, Nugent asserts that because of the size of the territory the United States wished to acquire, violence would be necessary to obtain it, and contrary to Graebner's argument, he suggests that from the beginning it s It mainly concerned the territory. He describes Polk's character as strong-willed and stubborn, willing to do anything to achieve his "big idea". He said of Polk's mission: “He would do it through diplomacy and cash, not to mention bribery, if possible; or by military force, if necessary. Although he claims that military force was not his first choice, much like Graebner's argument, it was indeed an option from the start. He also said that Polk viewed this war as an opportunity, not something to be avoided. The land that Mexico held and that Polk desired was seen by him as our right, something worth fighting for if necessary. Mexico owed us money and since it couldn't afford to pay us back in money, the territory it owned served as a natural replacement. He also argues that Polk was manipulative in gaining support from Congress and the people in this war, suggesting that this war was not as inevitable as he believed. By placing troops on the more controversial southern border, it was obvious that Polk was asking for trouble and Nugent believes it was deliberate to start the war Polk needed to gain territory. Ultimately, he only achieved the result he so sought after subjecting the country to a war in which his motives were not fully revealed. On the other side of the argument, Graebner did not necessarily argue that the greatest reason for going to war was possible territorial gain. He begins by saying that the war was avoidable because Mexico was never really a threat to the United States. Once Mexico began to become a threat by crossing what the United States believed to be the border and shedding "American blood on American soil," that's when Polk began to glimpse the possibility of war. Nowhere at the beginning of his argument does he even mention that Polk had a desire for California and New Mexico. Graebner maintains that placing troops on the southernmost border was actually an act of defense, not aggression against Mexico, and even after the drama with Slidell, Graebner persists that Polk always tried to avoid war. The failure of negotiations with.