U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2018, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Cape Cod/Green Valley AZ
814 posts, read 1,988,539 times
Reputation: 1895

Advertisements

During the 1860s, Santa Ana spent some years on Staten Island! Trying to get into the chicle business.

Rich

From my book about the border, which I'm not allowed (the title) to mention here due to forum rules:
***
As much of the supplies and virtually all the soldiers fighting in this revolt came from our side of the border (there were some notable exceptions, Juan Nepomuceno Seguín comes to mind), the Mexican government pretty much figured out that while the war was ostensibly fought for Texas independence, their real enemy was the United State of America.

Indeed, since those fighting against Mexico were considered little more than pirates by the government of that nation, the Mexican military thought it only proper to summarily execute those members of that bandit army captured by them.

Santa Anna (General Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico), due to a combination of bad luck, poor planning and logistical deficiencies, was eventually defeated by the Texian army. He signed away the rights to Texas in return for his life.

Santa Anna, eventually exiled from his Mexico, lived for a time in Staten Island, New York, trying his hand at the chicle business (the material used to make chewing gum). That enterprise didn’t work out well for him either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2018, 07:32 AM
 
11,691 posts, read 17,755,281 times
Reputation: 17597
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCapeCod View Post
During the 1860s, Santa Ana spent some years on Staten Island! Trying to get into the chicle business.

Rich

From my book about the border, which I'm not allowed (the title) to mention here due to forum rules:
***
As much of the supplies and virtually all the soldiers fighting in this revolt came from our side of the border (there were some notable exceptions, Juan Nepomuceno Seguín comes to mind), the Mexican government pretty much figured out that while the war was ostensibly fought for Texas independence, their real enemy was the United State of America.

Indeed, since those fighting against Mexico were considered little more than pirates by the government of that nation, the Mexican military thought it only proper to summarily execute those members of that bandit army captured by them.

Santa Anna (General Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico), due to a combination of bad luck, poor planning and logistical deficiencies, was eventually defeated by the Texian army. He signed away the rights to Texas in return for his life.

Santa Anna, eventually exiled from his Mexico, lived for a time in Staten Island, New York, trying his hand at the chicle business (the material used to make chewing gum). That enterprise didn’t work out well for him either.
Santa Anna is an amazing character. I really can't determine if he is a ruthless murderer dictator, a comical bafoon, or a vainglorious braggart...or probably a combination of all three. Nothing I read about him is complimentary but he seems to over and over fail in his pursuits and rise back up to power somehow until he was finally kicked out of Mexico for good and, strangely, lived in the US for a time.

Even the tale of his leg is amazing - he lost it to the french in some battle in 1938. In typical Santa Anna manner he gave his leg a state funeral with all the typical ceremonies. Only later during one of his down cycle's protestors dug it up and dragged it through the streets in disgrace. He got fitted for a prosthetic limb, only to have that captured during the war for Texas Independence. Now it sits in display in Illinois, Texas as I understand wants it for there collection.

Santa Anna - the father of modern chewing gum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 08:17 PM
 
10,862 posts, read 4,355,228 times
Reputation: 15525
One of the biggest mistakes the U.S. made at this time was not to include the territory just south of Arizona to the Gulf of California. Arizona now would have beach front property and direct access to the Gulf, and it was only a few extra miles.

They should have also offered to purchase the southern part of California, Baja. The U.S. ended up with only half of California, the northern half. Baja was very sparsely populated, had no great natural resources Mexico didn't already have and of little interest to Mexico at that time. They may have gladly sold it for a fair amount like Russia did Alaska.

Last edited by marino760; 12-11-2018 at 08:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,980 posts, read 7,971,842 times
Reputation: 6441
The citizens of Zacatecas had no love for Santa Anna, so he slaughtered most of them before he marched northward to crush those annoying Texans & Tejanos in early 1836.
His popularity waxed & waned for much of his political career, with the citizenry expressing their feelings on one occasion by disinterring his buried severed leg and dragging it through the streets of Mexico City.

While Scott won the war with his campaign to capture the capital, we shouldn’t overlook General Taylor invading from the north to take Monterrey & Saltillo, then fighting SA’s army to at least a draw at Buena Vista while being outnumbered almost 4 to 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 05:18 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,600 posts, read 1,411,945 times
Reputation: 2960
Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the US-Mexican war, said the following about the conflict in his personal memoir:
"To this day, I regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

For Grant, the very idea that a large country could attack a smaller country was an immoral venture for the United States. And that’s why after the Civil War, all the way to the end of his life, Grant would visit Mexico, had friends in Mexico, and admired Mexico’s struggle to become a democracy.

Now, I am NOT saying the U.S. should reverse history and cede land back to Mexico. That is a crazy/ludicrous idea over 150 years after the fact. And yes, Mexicans, have "voted" with their feet over the past 50 years or so by immigrating to the U.S.

All that said, I don't find the "might makes right" argument or any number of variations on it being made in this thread to justify the war to be very convincing. We stole that land pure and simple. And yes, the Mexicans stole it from the Spaniards who stole it from the native americans, etc.

But as a republic that broke off from a monarchy I'd like to hold the U.S. to a moral standard of some kind.

Last edited by Astral_Weeks; 12-12-2018 at 05:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,600 posts, read 1,411,945 times
Reputation: 2960
They are large commemorative statues of Lincoln in four major Mexican cities (including Tijuana and Mexico City).

The reasons for the respect Lincoln gets in Mexico include: 1) Lincoln's stand in Congress as one of the few voices against the Mexican War; 2) His support in the 1860s for democratic reformist Benito Juárez, who has at times been called the “Abraham Lincoln of Mexico”, and 3) Lincoln’s role in abolishing slavery in the U.S. which had been abolished in Mexico a few decades prior to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,980 posts, read 7,971,842 times
Reputation: 6441
Mexico has a legitimate complaint about the Mexican Cession which was nothing but imperialistic theft at the point of a gun (same with the Gadsden Purchase).

However, they have no claim whatsoever against Texas since our successful revolution was instigated by by expat American colonists turned Mexican citizens who were invited here, plus a substantial portion of the native born Tejanos. They rebelled against perceived oppression & aggression by a ruthless dictator who had usurped the enlightened Constitution of 1824 (which was illustrated on the flag that flew over the defiant Alamo).

Hence, the return of California could be a good starting point in renegotiations with Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2018, 11:32 PM
 
9,651 posts, read 3,253,985 times
Reputation: 4541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the US-Mexican war, said the following about the conflict in his personal memoir:
"To this day, I regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

For Grant, the very idea that a large country could attack a smaller country was an immoral venture for the United States. And that’s why after the Civil War, all the way to the end of his life, Grant would visit Mexico, had friends in Mexico, and admired Mexico’s struggle to become a democracy.

Now, I am NOT saying the U.S. should reverse history and cede land back to Mexico. That is a crazy/ludicrous idea over 150 years after the fact. And yes, Mexicans, have "voted" with their feet over the past 50 years or so by immigrating to the U.S.

All that said, I don't find the "might makes right" argument or any number of variations on it being made in this thread to justify the war to be very convincing. We stole that land pure and simple. And yes, the Mexicans stole it from the Spaniards who stole it from the native americans, etc.

But as a republic that broke off from a monarchy, I'd like to hold the U.S. to a moral standard of some kind.

More like you like to hold the U.S. to a double standard after 150 years.


since when a country only has to go to war with a country of equal or greater military strength? Since when war is moral under this silly definition?

We didn't "steal" any land....and if you are going to set those rules after 150 years then Mexico "stole" it from Spain and Spain "stole" it from the 1,000 Native tribes that were fighting and "stealing it" from each other before Spain came in the picture.


If we go by that silly standard, then every country on earth is "land" stolen from Group A to Z in history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2018, 11:39 PM
 
9,651 posts, read 3,253,985 times
Reputation: 4541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Mexico has a legitimate complaint about the Mexican Cession which was nothing but imperialistic theft at the point of a gun (same with the Gadsden Purchase).

However, they have no claim whatsoever against Texas since our successful revolution was instigated by expat American colonists turned Mexican citizens who were invited here, plus a substantial portion of the native born Tejanos. They rebelled against perceived oppression & aggression by a ruthless dictator who had usurped the enlightened Constitution of 1824 (which was illustrated on the flag that flew over the defiant Alamo).

Hence, the return of California could be a good starting point in renegotiations with Mexico.

Return California to the dumped waste of corruption they call Mexico? what a silly idea.....while you are at it, let's return Alaska back to Russia. Louisiana and the other states back to France. Florida back to Spain, Hawaii back to a minority tribe. Hell! let's give back the original 13 colonies back to the British.


I love the history-social warriors trying to "fix" history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2019, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,600 posts, read 1,411,945 times
Reputation: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
More like you like to hold the U.S. to a double standard after 150 years.


since when a country only has to go to war with a country of equal or greater military strength? Since when war is moral under this silly definition?

We didn't "steal" any land....and if you are going to set those rules after 150 years then Mexico "stole" it from Spain and Spain "stole" it from the 1,000 Native tribes that were fighting and "stealing it" from each other before Spain came in the picture.


If we go by that silly standard, then every country on earth is "land" stolen from Group A to Z in history.
Where did I ever say the U.S. should give back land to Mexico? I agree with the bolded part above except the U.S. did steal the land just like the Mexico stole it from Spain and Spain appropriated it from the Native Americans, etc.

Stealing land or conquest is no doubt a part of human history. Simply recognizing that Country A took advantage of Country B does NOT mean you have to believe Country A should give back land to Country B 150 years later.

I mentioned Mexicans "voting with their feet" to point out the corruption and poor governance that Mexico has suffered from (and is a reason Mexicans have immigrated to the U.S.).

I do NOT think the U.S. should give back the land we stole to Mexico. But I am also not for white washing history. Let's call a spade a spade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top