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.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, agreement, signed on February 2, 1848, between the United States and Mexico that marked the end of the Mexican War (1846-1848). The treaty established the boundary between Mexico and Texas at the Río Grande and ceded to the United States over
1,295,000 sq km (500,000 sq mi) of land, more than half of Mexico’s national territory. This land became the states of California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, the United States paid an indemnity of $15,000,000 and assumed the financial claims of its citizens for damages against Mexico, which amounted to about $3,250,000.
President Polk sent John Slidell of Louisiana to Mexico in the autumn of 1845 to adjust any differences over the Texan claims. But though Slidell labored for months to get a hearing, two successive presidents of revolution-torn Mexico refused to recognize him, and he was dismissed from the country in August, 1846.
Taylor attacked on the Rio Grande.
The massing of Mexican troops on the southern bank of the Rio Grande, coupled with the refusal of the Mexican government to receive Slidell, led President Polk to order General Zachary Taylor to move to the borders. Taylor marched to the Rio Grande and fortified a position on the northern bank. The Mexican and the American troops were thus facing each other across the river. When Taylor refused to retreat to the Nueces, the Mexican commander crossed the Rio Grande, ambushed a scouting force of 63 Americans, and killed or wounded 16 of them (April 24, 1846).
The United States accepts War with Mexico.
When the news of the attack reached Washington early in May, Polk sent a special message to Congress, concluding with these words:
"We have tried every effort at reconciliation...But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States [the Rio Grande], has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are at war. As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country."
Scott take the city of Mexico.
Scott took Vera Cruz in March and worked his way slowly but surely, against forces always superior to his own, up to the very gates of Mexico (August, 1847). Here he paused, by the President's orders, to allow the Mexicans another chance to accept the terms of peace which the United States offered,-the cession by Mexico of New Mexico and California in return for a large payment of money. The Mexican commissioners, however, insisted on having both banks of the Rio Grande and all of California up to the neighborhood of San Francisco, besides receiving damages for injuries inflicted by the American troops in their invasions. These claims were preposterous, coming from a conquered country, and there was nothing left for Scott to do but to resume military operations. Santa Anna defended the capital with a force of 30,000 men, but the Mexicans were no match for the American soldiers. Scott stormed the fortified hill of Chapultepec and advanced to the gates of the city. On the thirteenth of September his troops entered the Mexican capital and raised the Stars and Strips over "the palace of the Montezumas."
Polk's Efforts to secure Peace.
From the beginning of the war Polk had been negotiating for peace. He had kept Slidell in Mexico long after the opening of hostilities and had sent Nicholas Trist as special peace commissioner to join Scott's army at Vera Cruz and to offer Mexico terms of peace at the earliest possible moment. He had allowed Santa Anna to return to Mexico from his exile in Cuba in the summer of 1846, because the wily and treacherous dictator held out false promises of effecting a reconciliation between Mexico and the United States. He had asked Congress for an appropriation of $2,000,000 for peace negotiations when General Taylor was still near the Rio Grande, ten days before General Kearny had taken Santa Fé and the province of New Mexico, and before General Scott's campaign had been thought of.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
When the Mexican commissioners made advances for peace at the beginning of the year 1848, they were given terms almost as liberal as those offered them before Scott had stormed and occupied their capital. By the treaty concluded at Guadalupe-Hidalgo, February 2,
1848, Mexico was required to cede California and New Mexico to the United States and to recognize the Rio Grande as the southern and western boundary of Texas. In return, the United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 cash and assumed some $3,250,000 more in claims of American citizens on the Mexican government. Considering the facts that California was scarcely under Mexican control at all and might have been taken at any moment by Great Britain, France, or Russia; that New Mexico was still the almost undisturbed home of Indian tribes; that the land from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was almost a desert; and that the American troops were in possession of the Mexican capital, the terms offered Mexico were very generous. Polk was urged by many to annex the whole country of Mexico to the United States, but he refused to consider such a proposal.
Nah, your mom was hogging it again. Hopefully she breaks out next time.
What? Robbed? You must be illiterate and incapable of cognizant thought to make a post like that. Americans marched ALL THE WAY to Mexico City and CAPTURED IT before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. You and your compatriots are lucky to have ANY country left! Based on the results of 'being nice', I think America should have taken the whole 9 yards back then! At least then all your amigos would have legal status, and this current disagreement would have no reason to exist....
Youre one of us too Guy. One Of uSSSS....ONE OF USSSS..
Youre one of us too Guy. One Of uSSSS....ONE OF USSSS..
I'm not a hyphenated American, I am an American, plain and simple. Unlike you, my citizenship trumps my ethnicity, as it should EVERY American.
I think this man said it best...
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
I'm not a hyphenated American, I am an American, plain and simple. Unlike you, my citizenship trumps my ethnicity, as it should EVERY American.
I think this man said it best...
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
I'm not a hyphenated American, I am an American, plain and simple. Unlike you, my citizenship trumps my ethnicity, as it should EVERY American.
I think this man said it best...
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt - 1919
A huevoooooooo!
no mames, guey! eres mexicano con el pinche nopal en la frente, compa!
I'm not a hyphenated American, I am an American, plain and simple. Unlike you, my citizenship trumps my ethnicity, as it should EVERY American.
I think this man said it best...
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt - 1919
BULLY for you, Guy....I remember hearing this, but you brought it out for our attention. Good post. And for anyone who asks "Who was THAT dude?"..let them figure it out !....
no, i think it morally belongs to the indians. interestingly enough the least resentful of all USA inhabitants and of late, the most self reliant.
they do have a knack for pulling together don't they, unlike most of us.
no, i think it morally belongs to the indians. interestingly enough the least resentful of all USA inhabitants and of late, the most self reliant.
they do have a knack for pulling together don't they, unlike most of us.
Which group of Indians?
Remember that certain tribes defeated weaker Indian groups as well.
For that matter: maybe the Italians (descendents of the ancient Romans) in Europe 'should' demand their lands back from the Germans, etc. when Rome was sacked 1,500 years ago.
Besides: many of us Americans have Cherokee, Apache, Iroquois, etc. blood in our bloodlines.
Final point: if we had to leave the New World; any person less than 100% indigenous heritage would either have to leave with us or be killed--------and, those few Indians left would have to give up their Western ways.
Somehow; I do not see any of the above happening------especially with static/declining birthrates.
Maybe we should all go back and claim land that belonged to our ancestors. I like the idea -- 200 years ago an ancestor of mine in England owned a huge house that is now a museum. I like it. I like the land that it sits on too. Now who was the nasty person who took MY house and land away? I'm going to claim it back.
How stupid. Throughout the course of history lands have been been taken over by others -- where would it stop? Everyone, check your genealogy and you'll see that YOUR land was taken too. Does any government feel morally obligated to return OUR lands to us? LOL
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.
