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.
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:
To understand the Mexican–American War it will be necessary to first take a look at the Texas Revolution, also known as the Texas War of Independence. That conflict took place starting in 1835 and ended in 1836, with the Anglo (U.S. citizens) folks in Texas separating their territory from its nation of origin, Mexico. As with the Mexican–American War, that dust up too had a number of causes.
Permit me to begin by saying that I think it fair to state that Mexico got just what it asked for back then when it let all those United States citizens in to their territory –damn foreigners– thinking they (the Anglos) would act as a buffer against Indian attacks as well as populate a largely uninhabited part of the Mexican nation.
The Mexican government, short on cash due to their recent war for independence against Spanish rule (it was a very pugnacious time in history), desired to have the northern part of their country settled. Since that land was already occupied by other people (Comanche Indians), who were upset that strangers were intruding into their territories, there was a good deal of conflict in that part of Mexico, the lands which we now call Texas. The Mexicans couldn’t afford to put troops in the area, so they opened up the largely uninhabited expanse (save for the aforementioned Comanches) to anyone willing to show up. And show up we did.
The Texians (the regions inhabitants, also called Texasians, Texilingans, Texicans and Texonians, the names non-Mexican people in Texas were then referred to. It was all rather confusing.) began to settle in the region in the 1820s, by invitation of the Mexican government. Pretty soon the new settlers outnumbered the indigenous Mexican population. This got the Mexican government somewhat nervous, so they prohibited further immigration into Texas by, well, us.
That made us mad. It didn’t help that a tax benefit promised settlers by Mexico for those who had come to the area was rescinded. Furthermore, Mexico recalled about that time that they had a law prohibiting slavery. And, dammit, we wanted to keep our slaves. A free man has his rights after all!
So, with around 30,000 Anglos (Texians) living in Mexico’s territory of Tejas, and only around 7,800 Mexican nationals (Tejanos), the dispute simmered over into armed conflict.
Mexico viewed this desire for separation by the Texans in the same manner the United States later viewed the desire for separation by its southern states a generation later. It was not amused.
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 SeguÃn 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.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-15-2016 at 09:32 AM..
Reason: Advertising your book is not permitted.
And another amusing tidbit from that period in history, also from my book The Third Nation:
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.
And one last bit more. Keep in mind that during this period our Secretary of War (now Secretary of State) was Jefferson Davis, who became President of the Confederate State of America!:
President Franklin Pierce headed a strong pro-southern, pro-expansionist administration. His secretary of war was Jefferson Davis, future leader of the Confederate States of America. James Gadsden was the American diplomat (in 1853 he was serving, under President Pierce, as the U.S. Minister to Mexico) who negotiated with Mexico for the purchase of a parcel of land which now forms much of the southern border between the two nations. His goal was for the acquisition of the aforementioned southern railroad link as well as the protection of the slave trade and the expansion of the slave culture. While I’m sure it had no impact on his objective negotiations for the United States in regard this matter, Gadsden, as early as 1839, had been president of the South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company.
The complex negotiations were eventually settled in 1855 for a payment of ten million dollars to Mexico (down from the initial negotiated price of fifteen million dollars) for the area of land which now makes up much of southern California, Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Had it not been for the fear that abolitionists had at the time in regard the expansion of slavery, even more land would have fallen into the hands of those favoring slave holding territory. Save for the resistance of the abolitionists the United States today could have owned substantially more of what is now Mexico, including the beautiful Baja Peninsula.
At any rate, for the settled sum of ten million dollars the United States acquired from Mexico the land that is now our southern border. We also promised to try, very very hard, to stop the Indian attacks.
And, no, except in the minds of the self-deluded, Mexico is not getting any of that land back.
And, no, except in the minds of the self-deluded, Mexico is not getting any of that land back.
Probably not indeed. Renowned geopolitician George Friedman (of Stratfor), however, explains why Mexico will be an important country and is likely to even challenge the US by the end of this century: from 2:43 to the end, in the video below, George Friedman develops why Mexico will be an even more important country in the next 100 years (more important than any other Latin American country)... "America will be ruling the world but uneasy with Mexico".
From 19:53 to 22:22 to the end, in the video below:
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.
