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.
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.
.
You have advanced my education. I had no idea that Spain had left those lands to Mexico in its will.
I did not understand any of your post nor do I see how what you wrote is related to the points I was making.
It began with American settlers in what was then Mexico. Quite ironic, is it not?
It began with a dispute over the border between Mexico and Texas, which had just become a US state. Mexico claimed the border was north of the Rio Grande while Texas and the US recognized the river as the boundary.
In 1844 James K. Polk, the newly-elected president, made a proposition to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed lands between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States commanded by Major General Zachary Taylor were moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila. These troops were then attacked by Mexican troops, killing 12 American troops and taking 52 prisoners. These same Mexican troops later laid siege to a US fort along the Rio Grande.
Around the time of the war there were a number of independence movements in Mexico. Various parts were trying to become separate countries. Texas was just one of several. Mexico was so large and far-flung that administration was almost impossible in any reasonable sense. Filibusteros and even old colonial powers were watching for opportunities in Mexico. The Russians were still hanging on in California at Fort Ross until 1841 (Sonoma County). The Mexican American War might have saved Mexico's life as an integrated and governable nation.
It began with a dispute over the border between Mexico and Texas, which had just become a US state. Mexico claimed the border was north of the Rio Grande while Texas and the US recognized the river as the boundary.
I was referring to the independence of Texas, which began with Anglo American settlers. That was the first step leading to the war IMO.
By the way, this is what Friedrich Engels wrote about that war:
Quote:
How did it happen that over Texas a war broke out between these two republics, which, according to the moral theory, ought to have been "fraternally united" and "federated", and that, owing to "geographical, commercial and strategical necessities", the "sovereign will" of the American people, supported by the bravery of the American volunteers, shifted the boundaries drawn by nature some hundreds of miles further south? And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?
I was referring to the independence of Texas, which began with Anglo American settlers. That was the first step leading to the war IMO.
It was separate war 10 years earlier, but they were certainly related. Texas won its independence from Mexico and existed for awhile as an independent republic, but became a US state in 1845.
George Friedman, of Stratfor, described the settling of Texas, the independence of Texas and the later Mexican American war as being part of the same process:
Quote:
The defense of New Orleans became a central interest of the United States. During the War of 1812, when the British destroyed Washington, they also attacked New Orleans. Future President Andrew Jackson defeated the British there and kept control of New Orleans and the Midwest. Jackson remained properly obsessed with New Orleans. It was the key to American power and prosperity. It was also still in danger.
The US-Mexican border was only about 200 miles away from New Orleans. In order to defend it, the Mexicans had to be pushed back. This was not a trivial fear. The United States had a small standing army, spread through a large territory. The Mexicans had a larger army, and if they massed a force, they might be able to take New Orleans and strangle the United States.
In the classic paradox of American strategy, the desire to defend New Orleans triggered an attack on Mexico in two parts.
First, Jackson asked Sam Houston to organize American settlers in the northeastern section of Mexico and foment an uprising designed to, at the very least, block Mexican access to the region… and at best, create an independent country, the Republic of Texas. This was accomplished in 1836 when Sam Houston defeated Mexican forces under Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, near today’s Houston.
The second stage took place in 1846 when the United States, now more militarily capable, conducted a broad assault on Mexico, including amphibious operations that led to the capture of Mexico City.
The Mexican-American War achieved three things from the American point of view. First, it crippled Mexican military capabilities for over a century. Second, it created a barrier between Mexico and the United States. After the war, there was a string of deserts and mountains south of the new border that made any possible counter-move by Mexico difficult. Finally, the US took control of all of northwestern Mexican territory, which included present-day California. This made it possible to secure the Louisiana Territory against any potential threat from the west and anchor the United States on the Pacific. It created the framework for the contemporary continental United States.
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.
You are missing the macro point...
1. Define "original inhabitants".
2. The land was not heavily populated.
3. Mexico lacked the power to enforce it's claims over the territory. Like it or not all land is "claimed" and the only thing that prevents someone else from "claiming" it is the power of the former claimant to resist.
LMAO!!!!....Should we give Alaska back to Russia? Florida and Puerto Rico back to Spain?..Louisiana Purchase back to France? how about the 13 original states back to Britain? How do these people think the Mexican government got those lands in the first place because of Spain and it wasn't by an act of peace or because the 70 Native tribes who were fighting each other before the Europeans arrived volunteered to give their lands to Spain by an act of generosity.
Fact is Mexico lost those lands because they were a weak corrupt government that were broke and had no choice but to sell those lands to the U.S. who was a stronger nation.
that's how the world works and how countries were formed.
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.
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.
