We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Well, the Mexican government never recognized Texas as an independent country, because they removed Santa Anna as president as soon as he marched north against the Texans, meaning he was just a general with no authority to sign any binding treaty. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, the U.S. had invaded Mexican territory.Rabid Cougar said:Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Remember Rancho Carricitos!
Harry Lime said:
So you're saying we were never annexed legally, and are still an independent republic?
Langenator said:Well, the Mexican government never recognized Texas as an independent country, because they removed Santa Anna as president as soon as he marched north against the Texans, meaning he was just a general with no authority to sign any binding treaty. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, the U.S. had invaded Mexican territory.Rabid Cougar said:Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Remember Rancho Carricitos!
Oh, and the U.S. annexation of Texas was unconstitutional, since it was done by a simple joint resolution of Congress, not a treaty. If Texas was recognized as an independent country (which the U.S. did recognize), then annexation should have required a treaty, approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. That never happened, despite several attempts (all of them blocked in the Senate by northern free states).
So, the truth is really quite messy, and each side chooses to believe the version of events that lets them feel good about themselves.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Langenator said:Well, the Mexican government never recognized Texas as an independent country, because they removed Santa Anna as president as soon as he marched north against the Texans, meaning he was just a general with no authority to sign any binding treaty. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, the U.S. had invaded Mexican territory.Rabid Cougar said:Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Remember Rancho Carricitos!
Oh, and the U.S. annexation of Texas was unconstitutional, since it was done by a simple joint resolution of Congress, not a treaty. If Texas was recognized as an independent country (which the U.S. did recognize), then annexation should have required a treaty, approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. That never happened, despite several attempts (all of them blocked in the Senate by northern free states).
So, the truth is really quite messy, and each side chooses to believe the version of events that lets them feel good about themselves.
Where does it say that a treaty is needed for the US to annex Texas?
Do you have a UCC-1 on file? With your name spelled in caps???Langenator said:Well, the Mexican government never recognized Texas as an independent country, because they removed Santa Anna as president as soon as he marched north against the Texans, meaning he was just a general with no authority to sign any binding treaty. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, the U.S. had invaded Mexican territory.Rabid Cougar said:Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?
Remember Rancho Carricitos!
Oh, and the U.S. annexation of Texas was unconstitutional, since it was done by a simple joint resolution of Congress, not a treaty. If Texas was recognized as an independent country (which the U.S. did recognize), then annexation should have required a treaty, approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. That never happened, despite several attempts (all of them blocked in the Senate by northern free states).
So, the truth is really quite messy, and each side chooses to believe the version of events that lets them feel good about themselves.
This is not true. Santa Anna was still president. He would have never accepted such a condition and would not have left Mexico if it had been insisted upon.Quote:
Well, the Mexican government never recognized Texas as an independent country, because they removed Santa Anna as president as soon as he marched north against the Texans, meaning he was just a general with no authority to sign any binding treaty. As far as the Mexicans were concerned, the U.S. had invaded Mexican territory.
I have ALWAYS called it the Mexican-American War. I ALWAYS will call it the Mexican-American War.BQ78 said:
We used to call it the Mexican-American War but the subject is how a prominent Texas historian refers to it now, certainly invokes that he probably isn't open minded about the causes of that war, but is he right?