Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Mexican American War
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Essexroundhead (U5331128) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Does anyone know what the general feeling of people in Mexico today is regarding the territory lost to the USA? Do they want it back as per the Spanish and Gibralter/ Argentina and the Falklands. Do they regard those states of the USA as traditionally being part of Mexico or do they accept them as lost forever? Many thanks.
-
Message 2
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Yes they certainly do, the illegal aliens claim they did not cross the border, the border jumped over them. The land belonged to the Native Americans so what are they moaning about? Mexico lost half of their country owing to the War, probably War forced on them. It was, 'Manifest Destiny' in any case, Britain lost what is now the States of Oregon and Washington the original preserve of the Hudson Bay Company. Believe the cry in the North was, 'Forty Four Forty or fight', or something like that.
-
Message 3
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
I think you mean "Fifty Forty or Fight!" The US claimed all the territory between 42o and 54o 40' lines of latitude. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 between Britain and the US (signed just before the start of the Mexican-American war) compromised on the 49th parallel as marking the border (for the most part) between Canada and the USA which it remains to this day.
The US indeed did secure Washington and Oregon (where its writ had mostly run anyway) but Britain (or Canada, after 1867) gained Vancouver Island, including that part south of the 49th Parallel. This followed the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 which, inter alia, settled the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.
The two treaties taken together mark the acceptance by the US of Canada as a British colony (although one which became self-governing after 1867) and a determination by both English-speaking powers to resolve differences diplomatically rather than by the use of force. -
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Essexroundhead
"as per the Spanish and Gibralter/ Argentina and the Falklands"
Argentina never had the Falklands, they only inherited Spain's claim. -
Message 5
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
There is still substantial expression of sentiment from Mexico of resentment about the loss of that territory. How much of that is a simply displaced resentment about wealth disparity? I don't know. Mexicans vote for the US with their feet in large numbers. Except for a small portion of radicals, one does not see evidence that the immigrants have any desire whatsoever to walk hundreds of miles to get to the US only to find the territory turned back to the corrupt inept poverty creating administration of Mexico. They are mostly simple villagers and simple villagers have better sense than that.
When the territory was lost, the Spanish speaking occupants did not all have a strong atatchment to or affection for the government in Mexico City. The descendants, to my knowledge never identified themselvs as ethnic Mexican, but rather ethnicly as "Spanish-American". At least that has been very true in my lifetime. They will set you straight immediately but politely if called "Mexican-American" to their face. This is all very rational if one examines the historical experience.
At the time of the Mexican-American war, the mature adults living in those areas had been born into Spanish rule, not Mexican. The Mexican revolution was at first very promising, but was unable to lead to creation of a sustained and stable government. Continued civil war with attendent massacre and intermittent military dictatorship had marked the intervening years. Little surprise that some joined the American immigrants in overthrowing the regieme and most of the rest would not assist the Mexican authorities in resisting. I suspect that there would have been more enthusiasm for annexation by the US had not so many of the Anglo-Americans been so blatantly racist towards the Spanish-Americans.
Many who actively supported the American annexation came to regret it later as that racism realized itself in the courts as their Spanish land grants were undermined. Even so, the old Hispanic settlers of the American Southwest have always been among the most patriotic of Americans.
There is a wide disparity in some other respects between the long established Spanish-Americans and newer Mexican immigrants. Most noteworthy of these is that the Spanish-Americans are even more firmly opposed to illegal immigration than the "Anglo" population. Probably a combination of a lack of the neurotic "white guilt syndrome" and the fact that they are more likely to experience the immediate consequences of uncontrolled immigration in their neighborhoods.
Your question was not of course about what Hispanics north of the border thought of it, but of what Mexicans thought of it. In the end, what does it matter? Both the US and Mexico are in theory grounded on the principle of consent of the governed. Granted the historical facts show serious deviations from that theory for both nations (both have attempted to crush secession), but as long as the inhabitants north of the border show no desire to be governed from Mexico City, the opinions of those on the other side of the river have no moral weight. -
Message 6
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Petulana:
Regarding your tangential statement that Mexico "probably" had the war forced on them, you need not, thanks to the medium you are using to post that, depend on your estimates of probability (is it after all, anything more than thinly educated prejudice?). -
Message 7
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
KurtBronson, probably as is probably, fail to understand, (thinly educated prejudice) doubtful if Mexico wanted to go to War against the USA. Americans were welcomed to Mexican California by the Californios (sp.?) if getting married had to have a Catholic ceremony however non Catholics did go off shore and got married on ships. An American navy officer Bill Jones landed at Monterey hoisted the American flag and seized California for the USA, a little premature it turned out, as the War had not started, the War was planned way ahead. Many Americans and English were granted large land grants by the Spanish and they are still legal today, and were welcomed by the Spanish. The book, "Two years before the mast", is excellent reading of life there at the time.
Fail to understand your post, 'probably' used in a diplomatic way, Mexico had no way to avoid War unless voluntarily giving up claim of lands wanted by America.
That, 'thinly educated prejudice', why don't you type what you mean, some are always looking for, 'skeletons in closets'. Adios. -
Message 8
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
All you need to do is research the matter and remove the probably--take a position on the facts. Texas was in fact a functioning independent republic at the time that the US annexed them. Certainly the Mexican government had withdrawn it's the recognition of that fact which Santa Anna had conceded upon his defeat, but they had not been successful in reversing it. Slidell attempted to negotiate with Mexico regarding their claims and was prepared to offer substantial sums to Mexico but the authorities there (at the insistence of the then war-spirited Mexican public) refused to even talk to him, then the Mexicans crossed the Rio Grande and attacked the American forces posted on the north shore of the river (within the territory of Texas that Santa Anna had agreed to and which Texas had continued to claim and administer upon Mexico's repudiation of Texan independence).
In short while strong political elements within the US were hell-bent on expanding to the Pacific one way or another, and may well have initiated a war between the US and Mexico had Mexico neither sold the territory nor started a war, we will never know for sure since Mexico did in fact start the war and attack the Americans. Given the strong opposition to war in the US even after the attack, it is at least equally likely that the expansionists would not have been able to force the matter had the Mexicans not crossed the river and attacked the American forces patroling the Rio Grande.
The revolt of the Americans in California was not until 2 months after the attack by Mexico and a month after the formal declaration of war. Furthermore it was not by the Americans alone being supported by many of the Californios--even secretly by General Vallejo the commandante of Northern California.
I do not think Mexico had war forced upon them, unless you consider that the US was somehow obliged to forever recognize an ineffectual claim to former territory under self-rule by it's inhabitants who now desired to join the US, and that therefore Mexico had no choice given the annexation of Texas. They did have a choice however and could have enriched themselves handsomely by just agreeing to negotiate. They were constrained only by their own nationalistic passions. They chose instead to fight to keep what they had already lost (Texas) and accelerated thereby the loss of what they already had no hope of keeping (California) by their own alienation of their citizens.
Had Mexico instead treated Californians as citizens should be treated and allowed them to administer their own territory justly, the farce of 36 people revolting and capturing the Mexican forces would of course not been doable and California's physical separation from the US by forbidding desert would have made the territory easily defendable.
Of course had the Mexicans been successful in operating a benign constitutional government, the Texans may well have not revolted either. Instead, the nation descended into widespread civil war with resulting massacres and outrages by the authorities. Texas was unique only in that their revolt was successful. -
Message 9
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
The fact of Bill Jones raising the American flag and claiming California for the USA, as he was told before embarking on his trip that War with Mexico was likely as that was the purpose of his trip, a little premature as it turned out, thus causing Mexico raising the price of California if deciding to sell to the USA. Washington was where matters of State were formulated. My information was from History taught in an American school as the official version not as historians often offer it, with all the trimmings.
-
Message 10
Posted by Essexroundhead (U5331128) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Many thanks for the interesting posts. I have been reading up on the battles of the war, President Polk, etc.but had clearly not fully appreciated the 'Spanish' viewpoint as opposed to the 'Mexican' so will take that on board in future research. Last year,I spent time (just for my own interest) researching the American War of 1812-14, now I've moved on to this period which is equally engrossing. Thanks again.
-
Message 11
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Essex, if you can try and read 'Two Years before the Mast', good book easy reading, film of that title very little in common. I found the book very enlightening and written by an intelligent person, in an intelligent manner, he wrote as he saw. He had great admiration of the skill and daring of English sailors, being non political with no axe to grind I thought the book painfully honest compared to many writers, well worth a read and relaxing. (granted knowing the coast and weather conditions described helps)
-
Message 12
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Essex, I forgot to mention I can tune in to the Mexican education satellite so have a better insight compared to many people. In California, Hispanics means mainly Mexican (mixed blood mainly Native) field workers and generally laborers and most unskilled jobs mainly speaking Spanish. The Mexican education satellite also includes general programing, the Head Honchos are definitely if the European variety very little if any Indian (native) blood. They run everything, seeing the government in session or any gathering of people of power 99.5% European type. Featuring Mexico in general the Natives are shown in their dress and actions, actual Mestiso (sp?) part European part (most) Native make up the rest. So whatever one reads regarding Mexico can be taken lightly if originating from Mexico. There are three groups, European type, Mestisos mixture of Native and Spanish, and at the bottom Natives, but of course in the USA all referred to as Hispanics.
-
Message 13
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Essex, just learned recently, (and I thought I knew everything) after the Americans gained independence from Britain their ships were fair game to Britain, France (can't trust old allies) and Spanish to piracy, young country being robbed by the strong and mighty. Seen of letters exchanged between Britain and American merchants regarding being compensated for stolen cargos, name of ship the whole thing. History must sound like comic-cuts to some.
-
Message 14
Posted by Essexroundhead (U5331128) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
Petaluma
Many thanks again, the author Richard Henry Dana Junior? If my library canβt help Iβve got my brother on the case as he is living in San Francisco. Objective accounts are of course the best, Iβve been reading some material that is poles apart, from the Mexican side about βNorth American intervention in Mexicoβ to a US book aimed at college students that portrays the conflict asβliberation from tyranny and oppressionβ. To counter that however, the anti-war side in the US certainly had a voice. I was reading a newspaper quote following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which said βWe take nothing by conquest. Thank Godβ. Interesting to read Ulysses S Grant quoted in 1879 saying βI am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasionβ and the context of the ensuing civil war. Interesting parallels with the British Army in the Crimean war in roughly the same period that lost more soldiers to sickness than combat in that more US soldiers died of yellow fever than in battle. Going back to my OP, living in England I find it fascinating the amount of land the US gained. Thanks again for the βSpanishβ input; I am now keeping this in mind.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.