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 09-09-2016, 10:07 PM
 
1,797 posts, read 730,142 times
Reputation: 1412

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joao View Post
This documentary is about the Anglo settlement in Texas. It began with 300 Anglo American settlers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Three_Hundred ).
Quote:
Boland Whitesides
Henry Whitesides
James Whitesides
William Whitesides
This family brought many of my ancestors to Grimes county Texas.

Wow. Didn't realize they were among the "Old 300".

In a strange way, I feel some sort of connection with all these old slave owners that my family belonged to.

Last edited by Tritone; 09-09-2016 at 10:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2016, 02:05 AM
 
Location: In a state of mind
5,998 posts, read 6,357,816 times
Reputation: 11253
Yeah, and the Second mexican american war is gonna be when we kick them all back across the border.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 03:20 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 691,033 times
Reputation: 528
They did the same in Louisiana, Hawaii, etc. First they placed squatters and then they destroyed the country. At that time, American birthrates must have been tremendous. Reminds me of the case of Algeria, in the end it always revert to original population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 04:26 AM
 
1,797 posts, read 730,142 times
Reputation: 1412
Quote:
Originally Posted by karstic View Post
First they placed squatters and then they destroyed the country.
Say what you will about Americans, but they developed Texas. There wasn't much there before then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 10:19 AM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
14,933 posts, read 16,520,894 times
Reputation: 28705
This reminds me a lot of how the Aztecs conquered or displaced a multitude of indigenous cultures in the Valley of Mexico and surrounding areas in the centur(ies) before the Spanish arrived and created the imperial European vassal state of Mexico.

They didn't cross the border into Aztec lands, the Aztec border crossed them.

Those peoples were regarded both by the Aztec ruling class and the Spanish as members (or subjects) of the Aztec culture, but in reality they spoke different languages and had different ancestral beliefs, yet they were entirely dominated by the Aztec cultural sphere until they were Hispanicised and converted to Catholicism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 04:23 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,705 posts, read 4,278,721 times
Reputation: 1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joao View Post
It began with American settlers in what was then Mexico. Quite ironic, is it not?

I've read about it on Robert Scheina's Latin American Wars. It began ironically with American settlers in Texas. Then they proclaimed their independence and a conflict went on, Texas winning its independence. Then the Texans joined the US and the conflict continued, this time the American forces occupied California, Monterrey, and from Veracuz, Mexico City. Long distances were covered by both armies, often in inhospitable desert like conditions. The US had 21 million as opposed to 8 million Mexicans. It was politically more stable and it had an industrial/manufacturing edge. Even then, at that time, these advantages were not clear, and it seems many thought Mexico would have won. The US also had a powerful Navy, which blockaded Mexico, and operated both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific.

Ironically again, what began with Americans settling in then Mexican lands has reversed back. Texas, California and New Mexico are becoming ethnically Mexican again:



A map showing the military operations:
Hispanic/Latino doesn't necessarily equal Mexican, though.

Also, though, I would like to point out that the Mexican-American War is one of the wars in which the winning country actually acquired a good amount of Lebensraum (living space).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 05:42 PM
 
560 posts, read 305,765 times
Reputation: 1816
One interesting thing about the Mexican-American war was that many of the American Civil War generals of the North and South were fighting on the same side in the Mexican-American war.
Civil War Generals Who Served in the Mexican-American War






I am also reminded of what Mexico's President Diaz said in the later 1800's:
"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
36,945 posts, read 17,425,944 times
Reputation: 16782
With regard to the morality of the war, it would not do to pretend that this was not a war deliberately provoked by President Polk for the specific purpose of land acquisition. On the other hand, the Mexican claim to those lands was in reality little more than a claim. Apart from Santa Fe, the Mexicans had little in the way of administrative personnel, protective soldiers or government services of any sort in the territories. Further, in terms of their future, the lands would be far better off as part of the prosperous, stable United States than they would be if they continued under the impoverished, unstable, strongman-of-the-month government which plagued Mexico well into the 20th Century.

Land ownership has never been a matter of morality, it has always been a matter of strength. If you wish to argue that the US should give the lands back to Mexico, then why not also argue that Mexico itself should still belong to Spain? Or that the US should give the land back to Mexico, which gives it back to Spain, which gives it back to the Comanches who give it back to whatever tribes they displaced when they arrived...and so on..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2016, 06:27 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 691,033 times
Reputation: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
Say what you will about Americans, but they developed Texas. There wasn't much there before then.

Nobody asked them, they were just guests. De fuera vendrán de quienes de casa te echaran....."give somebody an inch and they take a mile".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2016, 06:35 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 691,033 times
Reputation: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
With regard to the morality of the war, it would not do to pretend that this was not a war deliberately provoked by President Polk for the specific purpose of land acquisition. On the other hand, the Mexican claim to those lands was in reality little more than a claim. Apart from Santa Fe, the Mexicans had little in the way of administrative personnel, protective soldiers or government services of any sort in the territories. Further, in terms of their future, the lands would be far better off as part of the prosperous, stable United States than they would be if they continued under the impoverished, unstable, strongman-of-the-month government which plagued Mexico well into the 20th Century.

Land ownership has never been a matter of morality, it has always been a matter of strength. If you wish to argue that the US should give the lands back to Mexico, then why not also argue that Mexico itself should still belong to Spain? Or that the US should give the land back to Mexico, which gives it back to Spain, which gives it back to the Comanches who give it back to whatever tribes they displaced when they arrived...and so on..

Those lands were inherited by Mexico when they became independent, they were not a claimed land, as California was not a "claimed land". No, those lands were not from Spain or Comanches.

In terms of the future, don't you think that greedy land grabbing neighbours tend to bring havoc and destruction to neigbours at the end, the land always reverts to the original occupants. You can call it Israel, Algeria, Tunisia or Texas.

Colonization does not work and is very expensive, that's why Europe only has testimonial colonies.

What happens when invaders don't breed like rabbits and "natives" do occupy again their lands? Argeria, Libya, etc.

Built a wall to prevent the entry of original occupants? Absurd, nobody has done that.

Americans should have kept themselves well away from the Rockys.

Last edited by karstic; 09-11-2016 at 06:50 AM..
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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.

© 2005-2018, 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