A. briefly explain one major difference between acuna’s and graebner’s historical interpretations of the debates over origins of the mexican-american war in the 1840s.
b. briefly explain how one development in the 1840s or 1850s not directly mentioned in the passages supports acuna’s argument.
c. briefly explain how one development in the 1840s or 1850s not directly mentioned in the passages supports graebner’s argument.

A) Possible responses include the following:

Acuna argues that not only did the Polk administration want territory from Mexico, but it sought to acquire that territory through the projection of muscular force as a means of asserting American superiority over their southern neighbors. Graebner argues that American policy goals made war inevitable, since there was no way to fulfill American policy goals peaceably.

B) Possible responses include the following:

The fact that Polk had to provoke war by dispatching American troops onto Mexican soil (the origins of the “Spot Resolutions”); the prevalent climate of Manifest Destinyand American notions of racial and cultural superiority of the era, which did not particularly see Mexico as a peer nation worthy of American respect; American economic and population encroachment in California in the 1840s; Polk having a pre-drafted Declaration of War message ready for delivery to Congress on a moment’s notice.

C) Possible responses include the following:

The Slidell Letter, offering to purchase California and Texas from Mexico, and Mexican refusal to even see Slidell; the inability of Mexico to adequately populate, develop, or defend its northern provinces; the popularly accepted legitimacy of the idea of Manifest Destiny during this time; the fact that the Polk Administration did not proceed to conquer the entirety of Mexico, though it was within its capacity to do so.

this question your asking is true hope this and you get a 100 percent : )