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 09-15-2016, 09:41 AM
 
Location: NW Indiana
39,356 posts, read 14,429,150 times
Reputation: 99443

Advertisements

Continued bickering will cause this thread to be shut down. Please stay on topic and knock off the personal attacks. Several inappropriate posts have been deleted.

.
__________________
My posts as a Moderator will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS And check this out: FAQ
Moderator of Canada (and sub-fora), Illinois (and sub-fora), Indiana (and sub-fora), Automotive, Caregiving, Community Chat, Fashion & Beauty, Hair Care, Games/Trivia, History, Nature, Psychology, Travel, Work & Employment, Writing.
___________________________
~ Life's a gift. Don't waste it. ~

Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-15-2016 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2016, 04:35 PM
 
9,056 posts, read 3,053,826 times
Reputation: 4266
let me not bicker about history.....LOL

the U.S.A got those territories by war and treaty because we are the more advanced and stronger nation and had smarter people running things than Mexico, if it was the other way around then it would have been Mexico holding most of the land and telling us to get over it, they won!

Those territories are better off under the U.S.A than under the Mexican regime.....lets just ask the 90 million plus residents in those states if they want to return under a Mexican regime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2016, 05:16 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,097 posts, read 2,913,065 times
Reputation: 9413
A notion of "Manifest Destiny" was supported by many people in the US. Somehow we were under the impression that God intended the US to spread westward from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The fact that there were people living in the wide open spaces we did not possess or that foreign countries actually occupied those spaces made little difference. We had it under divine authority that we were supposed to take over possession of all that land. The Mexican government unwittingly invited Americans (mostly Protestant) to settle in Texas in the 1820s. Then there was that little issue with Texas independence and that was confusing for a while so Texas was annexed in 1845. Settlers were moving into Oregon by 1840 preceded by missionaries and there was a wagon road a few years later with hundreds of people moving west. The Mormons marched west and settled in Utah in 1846. God seemed to have plans for the west. We went to war with Mexico and took what we wanted and - presto - God gave us a fantastic gold strike in California. How cool was this?


That's one simple way to look at it....but Manifest Destiny was part of the mindset at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 05:24 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 691,033 times
Reputation: 528
Spain had a far more powerful manifest destiny, more land and gold, so did France, Belgium, England.....but what I'm trying to state here and what was experienced in our long history is that those vast expanses are ALWAYS lost in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
36,948 posts, read 17,425,944 times
Reputation: 16782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
The Mexican government unwittingly invited Americans (mostly Protestant) to settle in Texas in the 1820s. .
"Unwittingly?"

The Mexican government opened up Texas to foreign settlement because of their failure to populate it with Mexicans. Mexicans did not wish to relocate there because the existing government had proved completely incapable of protecting the citizens from the native tribes who were the real rulers of Texas at this time.

Not long after establishing the first colonies, Stephen Austin organized the the group which would go on to become the Texas Rangers. They were able to fight the Comanches to a standstill, and eventually went on to break the domination by the tribes.

The Mexican government was aware of what it was doing and had high hopes that the Americans would become valuable Mexican citizens. That did not work out as they wished, but the initial invitations were not done "unwittingly."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,839 posts, read 1,576,226 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
"Unwittingly?"

The Mexican government opened up Texas to foreign settlement because of their failure to populate it with Mexicans. Mexicans did not wish to relocate there because the existing government had proved completely incapable of protecting the citizens from the native tribes who were the real rulers of Texas at this time.

Not long after establishing the first colonies, Stephen Austin organized the the group which would go on to become the Texas Rangers. They were able to fight the Comanches to a standstill, and eventually went on to break the domination by the tribes.

The Mexican government was aware of what it was doing and had high hopes that the Americans would become valuable Mexican citizens. That did not work out as they wished, but the initial invitations were not done "unwittingly."
This is correct, however the Mexican government was very naive thinking that the majority Protestant, proudly patriotic American settlers would want to be subjected to a rule by a corrupt, uncontrollable, Catholic and foreign Mexican central government if they could help it. At the age when the religious divide was still very strong, even if no longer recognized by law. Especially since their own country was just across the border. They were inviting trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 10:28 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,097 posts, read 2,913,065 times
Reputation: 9413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
"Unwittingly?"

The Mexican government was aware of what it was doing and had high hopes that the Americans would become valuable Mexican citizens. That did not work out as they wished, but the initial invitations were not done "unwittingly."

Simply not going to happen. It was a pipe dream. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and was a Catholic culture and society that spoke Spanish. Who did they expect to show up? The slaveholding protestant cotton farmers that arrived were not likely to give that up to become happy and proper Mexican citizens. The Spanish had decades of unhappy experiences with American and French smugglers and squatters along the eastern border areas and the coast so the Mexican government should have been aware that there would be friction and conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
36,948 posts, read 17,425,944 times
Reputation: 16782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
Simply not going to happen. It was a pipe dream. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and was a Catholic culture and society that spoke Spanish. Who did they expect to show up? The slaveholding protestant cotton farmers that arrived were not likely to give that up to become happy and proper Mexican citizens. The Spanish had decades of unhappy experiences with American and French smugglers and squatters along the eastern border areas and the coast so the Mexican government should have been aware that there would be friction and conflict.
Okay, but this would have been "naively", not "unwittingly."

I would also point out that you are writing confidently with the benefit of hindsight, already knowing the outcome. The Mexicans enjoyed no such advantage in the early 1820's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 11:29 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 691,033 times
Reputation: 528
Spain and Later Mexico did not have the power to keep squatters out, and nobody from Spain -the last was the repoblamiento of Taos 1770 and nobody from Mexico wanted those lands that were dangerous. Mexico should have granted those lands to Prussians so they could bring their fabled Krupps. To a new emerging European power. England was out of the question, they could not even keep Florida or conquer and divide the US in 1812.

Santana has Prussian advidors, he shold have brought entire regiments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2016, 12:15 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,097 posts, read 2,913,065 times
Reputation: 9413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Okay, but this would have been "naively", not "unwittingly."
Okiedoke
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