The US War of Aggression Against Mexico

2,635 Views | 15 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Aggie12B
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....

Remember Rancho Carricitos!
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not only that, the modern PC historians love to condemn the Mier and Santa Fe Excursions while conveniently ignoring the much more numerous Mexican incursions into Texas during the Republic days.

No doubt the US strengthened its power with the Mexican War at the expense of Mexico but wars, like elections, have consequences.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rabid Cougar said:

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?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....

Remember Rancho Carricitos!
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.

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.
DustysLineup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you're saying we were never annexed legally, and are still an independent republic?
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harry Lime said:

So you're saying we were never annexed legally, and are still an independent republic?


Let's go
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Langenator said:

Rabid Cougar said:

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?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....

Remember Rancho Carricitos!
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.

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?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wouldn't that be the same for California too? Kicking them out of the Union isn't a bad thought.

And following your train of thought, that would make the Mexican War just a continuation of an unresolved conflict.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

Langenator said:

Rabid Cougar said:

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?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....

Remember Rancho Carricitos!
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.

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?


What a minute. I liked where was going about us still being a Republic....
Aggie_Journalist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
California was seized after the Mexican-American war in an actual treaty.

As for the Mexican-American War, everything between the rio grande and the Nueces was claimed by both sides. The Mexicans stayed south of the rio grande, but, under orders from President Polk, the Americans crossed the Nueces and marched right up to the north bank of the rio grande. The mexicans eventually fired the first shots when they ambushed an American cavalry patrol north of the River.

President Polk had been angling for a war and was about to ask Congress to declare one anyway when he heard of the ambush and "American blood has been shed on American soil," Became his party's rallying cry.

Then some one-term opposition congressman named Abraham Lincoln introduced a series of resolutions demanding to know the exact spot where American blood had been shed on "American soil," because quite a few Americans agreed with Mexico that the Nueces was the border, but Polk just ignored Abe and the war got underway.

My favorite part though is when an exiled Santa Anna contacts Polk and says, "if you let me back into Mexico, I'll reestablish myself as dictator and sell you all the land you want for $30M," so Polk let's him in and then Santa Anna promptly raises an army of 20,000 men to fight the gringos with instead.
Oops.

Even better, during one battle, American soldiers from Illinois capture baggage containing Santa Anna's prosthetic leg. (He'd lost his leg fighting the French after Texas independence, had it preserved, and would parade it around Mexico to remind everyone of his sacrifices.) Santa Anna's prosthetic leg, seized in this war, is now on display at the Illinois state military history museum.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-santa-anna-leg-dispute-illinois-texas-edit-20161111-story.html
Thanks and gig'em
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Illinois troops seized his leg and the Texans grabbed all his silverware off the table. My friend has his teapot.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TBH, Mexico did gain something in this war. She was bankrupt at the time due to the army budgeting for 150 % of government receipts and then receiving much less.
What she got was cash for land she could not develop.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Langenator said:

Rabid Cougar said:

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?
Hell no. They invaded Texas AND shot first....

Remember Rancho Carricitos!
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.

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.
Do you have a UCC-1 on file? With your name spelled in caps???
Jayhawk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Imagine letting that bloated dysfunctional corpse of a country called Mexico hang on to everything from California east to Colorado and south to the border. Give me a break. Boo hoo for Mexico. The truth is they didn't have the wherewithal to settle the continent and the Anglo-Americans did. Another truth is the Anglo-Americans were far superior fighters. The United States conquered their entire country and gave them back the part we didn't want.
HarleySpoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fort Worth says hello.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
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.
Aggie12B
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
I have ALWAYS called it the Mexican-American War. I ALWAYS will call it the Mexican-American War.
Screw this revisionist history BullS***
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.