Question

questions 1 through 3 refer to the following.
-yes, mexico must be thoroughly chastised. the news of yesterday at the southern border has added renewed fire to northern resentment. we are justified in the face of the world, in having treated mexico with more forbearance tolerance than we have ever yet treated any power.
nevertheless, the necessity of the american nation, and the crying energy of our interests,—we have sought peace through every avenue, and shut our eyes to many things, which, had they come from england or france, the president would not have dared to pass over without stern and speedy remonstrance! we have damned up our memory of what had passed in the south texas years ago—of stealthy incursions of some of our bravest and richest men, in violation of all the rules of war. we think there can be no doubt of the truth of yesterday’s news, and we are sure the people here, ten to one, are for prompt and hostilities. last our arms now be carried with a spirit which shall teach the world that, while we are too forward for a quarrel, america knows how to crush, as well as to expand.
—walter whitman, journalist and poet, editorial in the brooklyn eagle, 1846
“president james k. polk in his message, as a pretext for sending our army to invade and conquer the country upon the rio grande, says: ‘texas formerly independent republic, by its legislative act of december 19, 1836, had declared the rio grande to be the boundary of that republic. the truth is that texas had agreed upon the nueces river as her boundary.
if mexico be right, why does he seek to justify the taking possession of it by references to the fact that mexico is indebted to some of our people? if it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to compel mexico to pay those debts, why not say so? the fact that mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens, is, i hope, no justification to war.
when, in the course of these two years, has mexico crossed the boundary of the united states? when have we been the aggressors?
i have no hesitation in saying that i consider the act of the president as a war of aggression; the very worst of all crimes.
our constitution is gone.
—joshua giddings, u.s. congressman from ohio, speech in the united states house of representatives, 1846

1. based on their arguments in the excerpts, giddings would likely agree with which of the following claims about the causes of the mexican-american war?

a the united states sought the repayment of mexican debts.
b mexico had killed americans during a previous conflict in texas.
c the united states desired to expand slavery to mexican territory.
d mexico had sent soldiers across the southern border of the united states.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze the viewpoints. Lincoln and Whitman likely oppose the war. Let's check each option:

• Option A: The text says "Mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens" (implying US might claim this, but Lincoln/Whitman oppose the war, so they'd disagree with US' war cause based on this? Wait, no—wait, the question is which claim about the war's cause Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with. Wait, the options are claims about the cause. Let's re-examine:
• Option D: "Mexico had sent soldiers across the southern border of the United States"—the passage's context (US government's claim) vs Lincoln/Whitman's opposition. Wait, the key: The passage has "why does he [the president] seek to justify the war by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted to some of our people? If it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to coerce Mexico to pay those debts, why not say so?" Also, "Texas had agreed upon the Nueces [River] as her boundary... the president... has taken possession of it in order to coerce Mexico..." So the US' claims about the cause (like Mexico crossing borders, or debt-related) are what Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with? Wait, the options:
• Option D: Mexico sent soldiers across US border—if the US' war cause included this (but the passage implies the US' justification is flawed). Lincoln/Whitman, opposing the war, would disagree with false claims about Mexico's aggression. Let's check other options:
• Option A: US sought repayment of Mexican debts—passage says "why does he seek to justify the war by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted...", so maybe US claimed this, but Lincoln/Whitman would say the war isn't about that (so they'd disagree with US' claim that this is a cause? Wait, no—the question is which claim about the cause Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with. Wait, the options are claims that Lincoln/Whitman (opposing the war) would think are false. Let's re-express:

Lincoln and Whitman are critical of the US war. Let's analyze each option:

A. The United States sought the repayment of Mexican debts—The passage has "why does he [president] seek to justify the war by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted...", so maybe the US claimed this, but Lincoln/Whitman would argue the war is not about that (so they'd disagree with this as a cause? Wait, no—maybe the US' actual cause is expansion, not debt. So Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with A? No, wait, the question is which claim about the cause Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with. Wait, the options are claims that are part of the US' justification (or false claims). Let's check D: Mexico sent soldiers across US border—if the US claimed this as a cause, but the passage implies the US' aggression (Texas' boundary, US taking land), so Mexico didn't send soldiers. So Lincoln/Whitman would disagree with D, as it's a false claim about Mexico's aggression.

Wait, let's re-read the passage: "Texas had agreed upon the Nueces [River] as her boundary... the president... has taken possession of it in order to coerce Mexico to pay those debts..." So the US is the aggressor, not Mexico. So the claim that Mexico sent soldiers (D) is false, so Lincoln/Whitman (opposing the war) would disagree with D.

Answer:

D. Mexico had sent soldiers across the southern border of the United States