517
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
517 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2593 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It bought some of the western states. It flat out stole the rest.
It bought them all, but Mexico was really poor so they got it cheaper. The US was willing to pay $50 million.
No. It did not.
The US did offer to buy the territories, Mexico said no, then the US invaded and took them. During the peace process after the war, the US then paid less than half of the initial offer for the territories that it was never going to give back.
Later, the US bought a sliver of land on the border for a slightly inflated price, but that was its own thing.
But you can't really call an armed invasion, and then a pittance paid out in damages, to be "Buying them all".
The United States could have just taken all of Mexico, but it didn't. It paid for the land. The population of the western states was made up of Americans anyhow, less than a thousand Mexican citizens lived in those areas at the time.
How generous of you to call the natives American after the fact.
That is actually addressed in the purchase agreement.
If a guy takes your car at gunpoint, and then hands you a fiver, he did not just "buy your car".
A peace treaty at the end of a war of conquest is not a "purchase agreement".
You are assuming a lot, especially that Mexico had a functional government even before their Army slaughters settlers in Texas.
Moving the goal posts now?
It was okay to launch a war of conquest because the Mexican government was weak?
All because a bunch of American slave owners invaded Texas and started a war of "independence".
But there's more to the story. Mostly Santa Anna. He became a national hero for beating back attempts at conquest by both Spain and France. He became president and then sparked a multi-front civil war by centralizing power in his own hands...
But yes, he also killed some slavers. Boo hoo.
Nope, just saying your missing A LOT historically. What doesn't change is that the west was purchased for $10 million.
A bit rich, considering you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the Mexican-American war was one of open conquest.
The entire justification for the war was Mexico refusing to sell the land that the US wanted, so James K. Polk sent 80 soldiers into Mexican territory, then launched a war when Mexico easily overwhelmed them.
The war went badly for Mexico, because it was still recovering from a civil war, the Texas revolution, multiple invasions attempts by Spain and France, and their own war of independence against Spain.
The US actually took Mexico City, but decided not to just take the entire country because they didn't want to get into a long, drawn out occupation that would have sapped resources and manpower.
The Spanish had learned that Mexico is impossible to hold through force. A lesson the French would learn under Napoleón III.
The US at the time was smart enough to not even try.
The United States never wanted Mexico. Thus it bought the parts of Mexico that it's citizens were already moving to. It could have just taken it through conquest but it didn't.
"bought"...
Again, you ignore the fucking war of conquest.
Mexico fired first, they invaded the United States territory after slaughtering hundreds at the Alamo. They didn't expect the United States to respond and certainly didn't expect the border dispute to lead to the complete defeat of the Mexican military. What they didn't know is the vast innovations developed at West Point that crushed all opposition, mostly through military engineering innovation.
While Mexico was completely defeated and President Pierce took advantage of the situation, it was the actions of Mexico that led to their defeat. They invited war and lost. The United States had every right to take territory but it decided to make it a legal transaction of land instead and led to peaceful diplomacy going forth.
The acquisition of the west thus doesn't fall under conquest but a legal land transaction between governments. Same as the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty, and the Alaska Purchase.
You mean the slavers who moved to Mexico and then fomented a rebellion?
Because that's what the Alamo was. It was slave owners moving to Mexico and then rising up in rebellion against the Mexican government when Mexico said, hey, slavery is illegal. Mexico outlawed slavery almost immediately after winning their independence from Spain.
Most importantly, Texas was not a part of the US until a decade after the slavers were defeated at the Alamo.
You have such a twisted view of history that I can only assume you were taught in either Florida or Texas.
The US then annexed Texas, and then Polk sent a diplomatic mission offering to buy more land. Mexico said no, so Polk Started a war and took the land anyway.
After the Mexican-American war, the US paid out a pittance in damages, but one of the terms of the peace treaty forced on Mexico was the revocation of all territorial rights of Texas, California, and everything in between.
A later administration then bought a small sliver of the border along New Mexico and parts of Arizona for an elevated price. Partially to smooth tensions with Mexico over the blatant war of conquest that was the Mexican-American war.
Someone: puts a gun to your head and says "I'll give you $4 for your car".
You: "This is a free and fair trade."
That wasn't the case, the Mexican government was run as an oligarchy. The United States threat was to threaten to turn over their lands to the public.
The US took most of the land from Mexico that was worth taking. There's little viable agricultural land south of Texas. Also, it put a lot of land in between Mexico and New Orleans, which is an incredibly important international port. With that secured, no foreign army would be able to threaten that port without major logistics challenges, much less fighting through the US Army and every local citizen with a gun.
The US grabbed what it wanted and let Mexico keep the scraps.
That is looking at it from today, not from how it was viewed then. The main reason Mexico was fine with selling was the massive desert that separated the two areas and the extremely violent native population that inhabited the region. That reason didn't become peaceful until the 1920s.