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 = "stolen" land. Okay.
Quote:
Outnumbered militarily and with many of its large cities occupied, Mexico could not defend itself; the country was also faced with many internal divisions, including the Caste War of Yucatán. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, by American diplomat Nicholas Trist and Mexican plenipotentiary representatives Luis G. Cuevas, Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain, ended the war. The treaty gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah, most of New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received $15 million[163] ($434 million today) – less than half the amount the U.S. had attempted to offer Mexico for the land before the opening of hostilities[164] – and the U.S. agreed to assume $3.25 million ($94 million today) in debts that the Mexican government owed to U.S. citizens.[165] The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 38 to 14 on March 10, and by Mexico through a legislative vote of 51–34 and a Senate vote of 33–4, on May 19. News that New Mexico's legislative assembly had passed an act for organization of a U.S. territorial government helped ease Mexican concern about abandoning the people of New Mexico.
Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of relocating to within Mexico's new boundaries or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights.[166]
If I recall correctly, US soldiers were scalping Mexican civilians and engaging in other atrocities on their way to MX City. US Grant said that if he'd had the courage, looking back, that he'd have resigned his commission as the whole invasion was an atrocity. From the book:
<<“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico,” said Ulysses S. Grant in 1879, more than thirty years after he had fought in that war as a young lieutenant. As he was dying of cancer in 1885, Grant re- asserted that the American war against Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” >>
If I recall correctly, US soldiers were scalping Mexican civilians and engaging in other atrocities on their way to MX City. US Grant said that if he'd had the courage, looking back, that he'd have resigned his commission as the whole invasion was an atrocity. From the book:
<<“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico,” said Ulysses S. Grant in 1879, more than thirty years after he had fought in that war as a young lieutenant. As he was dying of cancer in 1885, Grant re- asserted that the American war against Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” >>
You know, I detest "histories" that start with a premise, then build a book around it to prove the theory. It's bad history because it results in the author selectively choosing accounts that fits his premise, other than the other way around.
Anyways - US Grant was indeed against the war. No argument there. Have you read his biography? I have. Since you reference it, you should. He was part of Scott's campaign into mexico from it's landing in Vera Cruz up to Mexico City. He dedicates an entire chapter to it. In spite of being opposed to the war, not once does he mention any atrocities committed by Scott's troops. Not once. Did it occur? Yes I am sure it did by both sides, as they do in all wars through history. But Scott needed that supply line and communication line into the interior back over 100s of mile to Vera Cruz and logic alone dictates that he would not antagonize the local population in his garrison towns lest he lose that supply line (it's an amazing campaign by the way, skip the crap book you are referencing and get a real history book and read up about it).
Scott (and Grant) occupied Mexico City for almost a year. A certain segment of the population actually wanted him to remain, as they were sick of the Santa Anna's government's ineptitude.
If I recall correctly, US soldiers were scalping Mexican civilians and engaging in other atrocities on their way to MX City. US Grant said that if he'd had the courage, looking back, that he'd have resigned his commission as the whole invasion was an atrocity. From the book:
<<“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico,” said Ulysses S. Grant in 1879, more than thirty years after he had fought in that war as a young lieutenant. As he was dying of cancer in 1885, Grant re- asserted that the American war against Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” >>
I have two biographies of Ulysses S Grant, one by Ronald C White and another one by Ron Chernow. I usually by one biography of major men in the history of the Americas, but Ron Chernow is one of my favorite authors and I had to have his biography. Had I known that Chernow had a biography on Grant, I probably would had never bought the biography by White.
In any case, what attracted me to White vs other writers on Grant at the bookstore was a map detailing the invasion of Mexico City. It was fantastic (the map, not the invasion).
Grant is buried in a very large tomb-monument close to NYC Hudson River. Not only have I been there, but I had taken various shots with my DSLR camera of the monument.
I also stumbled upon other actions of Grant in other historical books that had nothing to do with him, including entire speeches that he gave. One of those speeches was in favor of annexing the Dominican Republic, which was being debated at the Congress of the United States. They even sent an official delegation to see with their own eyes and write various reports on all aspects of the Dominican Republic. In that delegation sent to Santo Domingo was Frederick Douglass.
I don't understand why anyone would read someone else's interpretation when one can get it directly from the horse's mouth. (That is directly form Ulysses s Grant's memoirs)
I'm asking this because there seems to be a lot of mexicans who are angry about it.
No one is angry about it. No one is even alive from that time. Any "anger" is just someone trying to justify why they should enter and remain in the US illegally, an absurd reason at that.
As to why they did not take it back, well, they just lost a war, and the US was only gaining strength. They lacked the means to take anything back.
Perhaps the only chance for Mexico to regain some lost territory would have been during confusion of the US Civil War but Mexico was already preoccupied with the French intervention and their puppet Emperor Maximilian. After the Civil War the US strongly supported the restoration of Benito Juarez and the French withdrew support for the Emperor, who was executed in 1867. The US supported and recognized Juarez as the legitimate government throughout the Empire period.
Both parties agreed, they accepted money for it, and signed a treaty. Nobody stole anything. If you took money for something you cannot claim that somebody stole it from you. That's ridiculous.
It didn't really belong to them in the first place. Mexico controlled the land as colonial power.
Look at the history of Texas. It has been under six different flags:
Why on earth would Mexico's 15 year occupation of Texas mean that they have claim to it today?
Do the French have claim to Texas because they once controlled it (and a large part of the United States)? Should French people be able to come to the United States illegally and claim "This was all part of France, we are the Natives!"?
The French occupation of Texas during a few years is anecdotical. Mexico inherited the legacy of the Spanish crown that was there 200 years. Just as the emerging 13 colonies inherited the legacy of those British companies.
I don't think reconquering the lands lost by Mexico to the USA is in the works. The Mexican government doesn't even has a department focus on this and it isn't a governmental policy. Without the Mexican government on this, the whole enterprise is moot. Even most people living in Mexico either are against this or don't have an opinion about this. If anything, its only a few individuals living in areas that were lost by Mexico that say this, mostly to rub the Americans a certain way.
History is what it is and distorting it despite the evidence to the contrary is a futile task, IMO.
In any case, what attracted me to White vs other writers on Grant at the bookstore was a map detailing the invasion of Mexico City. It was fantastic (the map, not the invasion).
The invasion by Scott into central Mexico, although obviously not celebrated by Mexicans, actually was fantastic - operationally and strategically brilliant and skillful by any and all historical measure. A military force of 12,000, outnumbered and cut off from firm supply lines or avenues of retreat, landed an amphibious invasion and managed to fight no less than 5 battles and march 100's of miles into enemy territory and take the enemies capital. It's also noteworthy because it included not only Grant, but such future civil war characters as Robert E. Lee and T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson.
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.
