Why is history so silent on the Gadsden Purchase?

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by Jewel City Joe

Just wanted to offer this to the thread for reference or any Teachers who may find it useful. It is a Map of the USA showing how the pieces of it came together, who it was purchased from and for how much. Notice the Gadsden Purchase #7. I often hear people from Mexico on Television saying it was stolen/taken from Mexico and should be returned to it's rightful owner, Mexico.

If you don't feel the data in it is correct, consider posting your comments & citations.

The gold star represents the area I'm from. where Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia come together,
People here call it Kyova and this Map below comes from an old website that regards history of this area. (but there wasn't communication in 1895 like there is now for Mexican citizens to know of the sale or what happened to the $10,000,000 that their government received for the land)

index_djsaan

I would say the Mexicans stole it more than the Americans. Mexico took the territory from Spain who in turn paid nothing for it when they took it from Native Americans. The United States was the only country to actually buy the land from the previous owner.

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

Sometimes I think Santa Anna had a greater effect on US history than some presidents.
*Jefferson acquires Texas as part of Louisiana Purchase;
*JQ Adams trades Texas away to Spain and thus to Spanish Mexico, which Santa Anna supported;
*Mexico becomes independent so Texas becomes a province of Mexico and free from Spanish control. Santa Anna has now switched sides and fights for Mexican independence;
*Santa Anna mistreats Mexican landowners in Texas so they revolt. They successfully become an independent country after the 18 minute Battle of San Jacinto and Santa Anna is captured;
*Santa Anna goes (or is taken) to Washington where he now encourages the recognition of Texas as an independent country;
* Later, Santa Anna tries to reclaim Texas so the US goads him into the Mexican American war. He loses badly (again) and Texas becomes part of America;
* Having lost the fertile Rio Grande valley in Texas, Mexico holds on to the worthless (to them) desert of New Mexico and Arizona. That actually pays off a little, since America wants it bad enough to pay real money for it.


It would make a great movie, but no one would believe it actually happened.

As an added bonus, he helped introduce the US to chewing gum. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.his...out-santa-anna

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by WRM20

A small part of North Texas was in the Louisiana Purchase, but not the entire state.

The Adams-Onis treaty settled the competing border claims, giving the US control of Florida and fixing the borders between the US and what is now Texas. Texas wasn't "traded away", as it was not part of the US at that time.

Santa Anna didn't really mistreat Texas settlers, he was beyond annoyed that they broke the law by owning slaves and not being Catholic. The Texicans were oppositional when told they had to follow the rules or lose their land grants, and much hilarity ensued. Hilarity is probably the wrong word, especially if you were at the Alamo or Goliad.

I am sometimes a bit pedantic...

Well….depends on the definition of “mistreat”. If by revealing himself to be a centrist after running on a federalist platform, dissolving state governments and militias, overturning the constitution and creating a dictatorship, irritating Anglos and Tejanos alike, resulting in secession movements from Texas to the Yucatán, then maybe “mistreat” isn’t a strong enough word?