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.
The Battle of San Jacinto, fought on April 21, 1836, in present-day Harris County, Texas, was the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. Led by General Sam Houston, the Texian Army engaged and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna's Mexican army in a fight that lasted just 18 minutes.
The Texian victory on the plain of San Jacinto changed the entire world. There would be no states of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada or Colorado.
The real change in the above territories came 10 years later with the Mexican-American war, of which was preceded by various events including the Texas Revolution and San Jacinto.
But without the Texas independence the Mexican War never would have happened. Mexico could not abide the admission of Texas as a U.S. state since that woul dmake Texas' secession and independence permanent. As a republic Texas was quite subject to reconquest.
You are wasting your time trying to argue this on moral grounds. Morality has never determined property ownership, the power to take and hold property has. By your reasoning the US was stealing Mexico's property, but why do you not apply this same thinking to the Mexicans stealing it from Spain in the first place? Or the Spanish taking it away from the native tribes before that? Or the Comanches displacing the weaker tribes when they arrived?
When I say that Mexico had a weak claim on the SW. I do not mean weak morally, I mean they barely had a basis to claim that they controlled these lands. Their presence there was tiny, scattered and ineffective. Most of the Mexican citizens in these territories were self governing because they received almost nothing in the way of assistance from the Mexican government. It could not protect them from the native tribes, it could not provide essential services.
Americans were invited to settle in Texas because the Mexican government had failed so miserably in trying to settle it with Mexicans. This eventually backfired on Mexico because Texas, with 80% of the population being American immigrants, became American in character.
You were the one using moral grounds to support invasion of a foreign country.
Please, read your text:
Mexico had no claim............what claim had the US? Really....
Mexico was not able to administer the territory......None of the business of any nation, Mexico was incapable of administer efficiently any territory.
It could not protect the territory from native trobes...so were large tracts of the US at that time...
And then, to top it up.....80% of the population were American immigrants.....Then, most of the SW and California will be Mexican again?
So it was just a land grabbing act, colonization.
You are very lucky to have Mexicans, if Mexicans were Muslims you would be praying to the east!!
It would be no different from Argelia or Lybia, that also had a very large number of settlers, in this case.... not invited.
The rights of Castile to conquer Mexico?......you are talking about a medieval kingdom that just emerged from a war of 800 years in medieval times, not a democracy.
Last edited by Krokodill; 03-28-2016 at 04:49 AM..
You were the one using moral grounds to support invasion of a foreign country.
Please, read your text:
Mexico had no claim............what claim had the US? Really....
.
I wish you had understood my post, if you had you would not be writing the above. You have decided that what I wrote must be the opposite of what I clearly meant, and you have decided to argue against that imaginary position.
Why not give it some more reading until you grasp what I actually wrote?
Last edited by Grandstander; 03-28-2016 at 07:29 AM..
You are very lucky to have Mexicans, if Mexicans were Muslims you would be praying to the east!!
It would be no different from Argelia or Lybia, that also had a very large number of settlers, in this case.... not invited.
I'm afraid to ask, but besides agreeing that Mecca is to the east, what the heck does the above statement even mean and how in the world can it even relate to this topic?
You did say that moral had no say in territorial conquest, but at the same time mentioned some of the moral grounds stated by the occupiers.
Do you not understand the difference between moral and practical? I listed the practical reasons why Mexico's claim on the SW territories was a weak one. Further, I opened participation by explaining that property rights have always been a matter of power, not morality.
That you have continued to direct moral arguments at me indicates you have not comprehended what you have been told. Unless you can grasp this, there seems little point in sustaining a discussion with you.
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.
