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.
Side note here: about the only thing that saved the rest of Mexico from being annexed by the USA was racism here in 1848. Read that had the Mexican people been mostly White (not Mestizo let alone Indian)------Mx would have been a historical footnote (1821-48) in American history.
Side note here: about the only thing that saved the rest of Mexico from being annexed by the USA was racism here in 1848. Read that had the Mexican people been mostly White (not Mestizo let alone Indian)------Mx would have been a historical footnote (1821-48) in American history.
That's a bit of a stretch. A mostly Mestizo population didn't discourage us from annexing New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California. Annexing Mexico just didn't give us any real advantages since it wasn't a gateway to the Pacific we needed, an area Americans wished to settle, or a home base for hostile Indian tribes, like the Apache, Navajo, and Comanche, who attacked those settlers.
The north would have been very unhappy annexing Mexico. So would Europe who almost certainly would have prevented it. We would have faced constant irregular warfare as the French did. The territories we did annex were only lighted populated unlike Mexico proper.
The carried out so many human rights abuses that they became famous for it. Not a group for Americans to be proud of - they defined the hatred and contempt for native americans and mexicans that so tarnished the US in the 19th century.
Their opponents weren't any better. Two relatives of mine were murdered, one at the Alamo, one at Goliad, by the Mexicans. I'm not too inclined to believe the Mexicans were any kinder than the Americans.
The north would have been very unhappy annexing Mexico. So would Europe who almost certainly would have prevented it. We would have faced constant irregular warfare as the French did. The territories we did annex were only lighted populated unlike Mexico proper.
Tough call either way with hindsight being 20/20. The one error I see on the US side was not taking Baja as well as at least northern Sonora. Flip side: the Rio Grande (El Paso on east) was/is a natural border.
Two relatives of mine were murdered, one at the Alamo, one at Goliad, by the Mexicans. .
The garrison of the Alamo wasn't murdered, it was denied quarter which was within the rules that governed siege warfare.
Whether or not those killed at Goliad were murdered or nor is a trickier question but note that Fannin's force surrendered "at discretion" and was granted no terms. The Mexican government considered them rebels and pirates (many were foreigners, mercenaries and adventurers from The United States) and was possibly within it's rights in shooting them.
Last edited by Irishtom29; 04-18-2010 at 05:06 PM..
The point about the rangers is that they carried out such behavior for decades, not in one campaign. Still my point was not that the Mexicans were not barbaric at time. As an American I am primarily concerned how Americans behaved. I expect us to behave better.
The garrison of the Alamo wasn't murdered, it was denied quarter which was within the rules that governed siege warfare.
Whether or not those killed at Goliad were murdered or nor is a trickier question but note that Fannin's force surrendered "at discretion" and was granted no terms. The Mexican government considered them rebels and pirates and was possibly within it's rights in shooting them. Note that those taken but not under arms were spared.
I think what distinguishes a massacre from a military execution is what side you are on. Above you have provided the proper legal framework for viewing the question, but the notion of legality in wartime has always been a fluid concept.
The problem of course is rather a primary one, war itself is the abandonment of prevailing legal relationships in favor blood hostilities. War is composed of homicides, destruction of property, trespassing and theft, all acts which if performed in peace time, would be crimes. Identifying what is unacceptable within such a dynamic is quite difficult since your entire object is the inflcition of suffering on your opponent.
So, regardless of legalities, "They killed our guys but had every right to do so" will always be emotionally subordinate to "They killed our guys."
The garrison of the Alamo wasn't murdered, it was denied quarter which was within the rules that governed siege warfare.
Whether or not those killed at Goliad were murdered or nor is a trickier question but note that Fannin's force surrendered "at discretion" and was granted no terms. The Mexican government considered them rebels and pirates (many were foreigners, mercenaries and adventurers from The United States) and was possibly within it's rights in shooting them.
Depends on your perspective. Most Western nations at the time generally did not massacre captured enemies that way.
But war is just legalized murder anyways, be the cause right or wrong.
Depends on your perspective. Most Western nations at the time generally did not massacre captured enemies that way.
Generally no but look what the Brits did during the Indian Mutiny; at least the Texians at Goliad weren't blown from guns. I think most western nations were apt to give rebels and irregulars short shrift.
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.
