Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did we " steal " Texas, Arizona, N.Mex and Calif. from Mexico ? ( Vanity )

Posted on 11/26/2008 2:27:17 PM PST by sushiman

My left-wing radical friend insists we stole all this land from Mexico . Any history buffs out there in Freeperland who can supply some ammo for me ?


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: arizona; california; mexico; nevada; newmexico; oregon; texas; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 11/26/2008 2:27:17 PM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS

Ping-a-ling


2 posted on 11/26/2008 2:28:55 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

To the victor go the spoils.


3 posted on 11/26/2008 2:28:58 PM PST by SandyInSeattle (Go, Sonics! And take the Mariners with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Yeah. We paid for it.


4 posted on 11/26/2008 2:29:05 PM PST by freespirited (Honk to indict the MSM for treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Remeber the Alamo!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/tdoi.htm


5 posted on 11/26/2008 2:29:44 PM PST by deport ( ----Cue Spooky Music---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

to quote TR “...fair and square”


6 posted on 11/26/2008 2:29:46 PM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

From Wikipedia, for what it’s worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cover of the exchange copy of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo in Spanish) is the peace treaty, largely dictated by the United States[1][2] to the interim government of a militarily occupied Mexico, that ended the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). The treaty provided for the Mexican Cession, in which Mexico ceded 1.36 million km² (525,000 square miles; 55%[3] of its pre-war territory, not including Texas) to the United States in exchange for US$15 million (equivalent to $313 million in 2006 dollars) and the ensured safety of pre-existing property rights of Mexican citizens in the transferred territories, the latter of which the United States in a significant number of cases failed to honor.[4][5][6] The United States also agreed to take over $3.25 million ($68 million in 2006 dollars) in debts Mexico owed to American citizens.

In Mexico, the war is sometimes referred to as the War of North American Invasion (La Intervención Norteamericana). Mexico had controlled the area in question for about 25 years since it had seceded from the Spanish Empire in 1821 in the Mexican War of Independence. The Spanish had conquered the area from the Native American tribes over the preceding three centuries.

There were approximately 80,000 Mexicans in the areas of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas during this period and they made up about 20% of the population.[7]
The Treaty took its name from what is now the suburb of Mexico City where it was signed on 2 February 1848.

The cession that the treaty facilitated included parts of the modern-day U.S. states of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming, as well as the whole of California, Nevada, and Utah. The remaining parts of what are today the states of Arizona and New Mexico were later ceded under the 1853 Gadsden Purchase, in which the United States paid an additional $10,000,000.

Background

Under U.S. President John Tyler, The Republic of Texas was admitted to the Union on March 1, 1845. It became the 28th state later that year under President James K. Polk. The Mexican government had long warned that annexation meant war with the United States, and had never recognized the Republic of Texas as an independent country. The United Kingdom and France, which both recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war against its neighbor. British efforts to mediate were fruitless, in part because additional political disputes (particularly the Oregon boundary dispute) arose between Mexico, Britain and the United States. Before the outbreak of hostilities, on November 10, 1845, the U.S. President James K. Polk had sent negotiator John Slidell to Mexico to offer the country around $5 million for the territory of Nuevo México, and up to $40 million for Alta California.[8] The Mexican government had simply dismissed Slidell, refusing to even meet with him[9] as they were greatly insulted by such an offer. This is because earlier that year Mexico had broken off diplomatic relations with the United States over the annexation of Texas, which Mexico had warned would be considered an act of war if passed by the US Congress. Mexico’s basis for this was partly a condition of the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 — which politically independent Mexico had inherited — in which the US had relinquished all claims to Mexican territory, ad infinitum.[10] After this snub Polk, an expansionist, himself took insult[9] and actively sought to provoke war with Mexico.[11][12] After the Thornton Affair, a skirmish between Mexican and American troops which took place on disputed territory near the Rio Grande (see the Treaties of Velasco), President Polk signed a declaration of war into effect on May 13, 1846, forty-nine days before the Mexican Congress was forced to formally declare war on July 1.

The war in Mexico’s Northern territories largely ended on January 13, 1847, with the signing of the Treaty of Cahuenga. Mexico’s subsequent defeat left them with little choice but to accept the United States’ demands, or risk total annexation of Mexico.[9][13] Nicholas Trist, Chief Clerk of the State Department under President Polk, negotiated the treaty with the Mexican delegation, despite having been recalled by the President.[14] Notwithstanding that the treaty had been negotiated against his instructions, given its favorable terms President Polk passed it on to the Senate.[14]
[edit]Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Part of the original treaty
The treaty was signed by Nicholas Trist on behalf of the United States and Luis G. Cuevas, Bernardo Couto and Miguel Atristain as plenipotentiary representatives of Mexico on February 2, 1848, at the main altar of the old Cathedral of Guadalupe at Villa Hidalgo (today Gustavo A. Madero, D.F.), slightly north of Mexico City as U.S troops under the command of General Winfield Scott were occupying Mexico City.


7 posted on 11/26/2008 2:30:13 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (The best thread on FreeRepublic is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/independcon.htm

Texas won its war for independance

Defeated Santa Anna took his wooden leg and made him limp home.

your friend is an idiot lib and doesn’t deserve an argument


8 posted on 11/26/2008 2:30:41 PM PST by Rightly Biased (McCain is the reason Sarah Lost <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

If you mean stole as in bought and paid for, then yeah.


9 posted on 11/26/2008 2:30:47 PM PST by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

My left-wing radical friend insists we stole all this land from Mexico .

And who gives a rats patoot?
Who did the Mexicans steal it from?
What would they (mexicans) have done with them if they still had those places? Would they be shitholes like the rest of Mexico is? Run by drug dealers and drug money correpted officials?


10 posted on 11/26/2008 2:31:35 PM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Coming to You From the Front Lines of Occupied America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Campsites of the Texian Army
The Generalship of Sam Houston--Stephen Hardin
Officers and Men of the Texas Republican Army: Battle of San Jacinto
Accounts of Participants | Mexican Officer Casualties & Prisoners

".........waving his hat and shouting "San Jacinto! San Jacinto! The Mexicans are whipped and Santa Anna a prisoner." The scene that followed beggars description. People embraced, laughed and wept and prayed, all in one breath. As the moon rose over the vast flower-decked prairie, the soft southern wind carried peace to tired hearts and grateful slumber. As battles go, San Jacinto was but a skirmish; but with what mighty consequences! The lives and the liberty of a few hundred pioneers at stake and an empire won! Look to it, you Texans of today, with happy homes, mid fields of smiling plenty, that the blood of the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto sealed forever .  Texas, one and indivisible!--Ms. Kate Scurry Terrell describing the scene among refugee families on the Sabine River.

More biographical information:
The San Jacinto Museum: Veterans
Search Handbook of Texas Online


FOREWORD

SAN JACINTO, birthplace of Texas liberty! ... San Jacinto, one of the world’s decisive battles! . . . San Jacinto, where, with cries of "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!" Sam Houston and his ragged band of 910 pioneers routed Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President and Dictator of Mexico and self-styled "Napoleon of the West," with his proud army, and changed the map of North America!

Here is a story that has thrilled Texans for more than a century ... a story of desperate valor and high adventure; of grim hardship, tragedy and romance ... the story of the epochal battle that established the independent Lone Star Republic, on April 21, 1836, and indelibly inscribed the names of Texas patriots on history's scroll of American immortals.

The actual battle of San Jacinto lasted less than twenty minutes, but it was in the making for six years. It had its prelude in the oppressive Mexican edict of April 6, 1830, prohibiting further emigration of Anglo-Americans from the United States to Texas; in the disturbance at Anahuac and in the battle of Velasco, in 1832; in the imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin, the "Father of Texas," in Mexico in 1834. Immediate preliminaries were the skirmish over a cannon at Gonzales; the capture of Goliad; the "Grass Fight," and the siege and capture of San Antonio . . . all in 1836. The Texas Declaration of Independence at Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 2, 1836, officially signalized the revolution.

RETREAT FROM GONZALES

Four days after the Declaration of Independence, news came to the convention on the Brazos of the desperate plight of Colonel William Barret Travis, under siege at the Alamo in San Antonio. Sam Houston, commander-in-chief of the Texas Army, left Washington post-haste for Gonzales, to, take command of the troops there and go to the aid of Travis. He arrived there on the 11th, and at about dark learned from two Mexicans who had just arrived from San Antonio that the Alamo had fallen and its 183 brave defenders massacred. This was confirmed two days later by Mrs. Almeron Dickinson who had been released by the Mexicans after seeing her lieutenant husband killed in the old mission. She was trudging toward Gonzales with her babe in her arms when the Texas army scouts found her.

The reports of the Alamo slaughter terrified the people of Gonzales. They were panic-stricken by the general belief that Santa Anna next would sweep eastward with his well-trained army, in a drive to wipe the rebellious Texans from the face of the earth. Then began the exodus of frantic colonists known to Texas history as the "Runaway Scrape." Men, women and children packed what belongings they could take in wagons and carts, on horseback, or on their own backs, and fled their homes in terror across the rain soaked country . . . all moving eastward toward the Louisiana border to escape the wrath of the bloodthirsty Santa Anna.

General José UrreaGeneral Houston, realizing that his few hundred green troops were no match for the well-drilled hordes from Mexico, evacuated Gonzales and had the rear guard put the town to the torch. The Texans crossed the Colorado River on the 17th at Jesse Burnam's, and camped there for two days. Then the army resumed its march down the east bank to Benjamin Beason's crossing, some twenty miles below, near the present town of Columbus. Camp was pitched at Beason's on the 20th. Had the retreating column been fifty miles farther south, the troops might have heard the distant rumble and crackle of gunfire. On March 19, Colonel James Walker Fannin Jr., commanding about 450 volunteers withdrawing from Goliad toward Victoria, was defeated in battle on Coleto Creek by General José Urrea's forces (photo at left) of 1200 infantry and 700 cavalry. Fannin surrendered. On Palm Sunday, March 27, he and 352 of his men were marched out on the roads near Goliad and brutally shot down, by order of Santa Anna.

 

THE MEXICAN PURSUIT

Gen. Adrian WollFlushed with their Alamo victory, the Mexican forces were following the colonists. Houston's scouts reported that General Ramirez y Sesma and General Adrian Woll (left) were on the west side of the Colorado with approximately 725 troops and General Eugenio Tolso with 600. By this time recruits and reinforcements had increased Houston's army to a strength estimated as high as 1200. The chilling news of Fannin's defeat, reaching the Texas forces on March 25, impelled many to leave the ranks, to remove their families beyond the Sabine. Those remaining clamored for action, but Houston decided to continue his retreat. On the 26th, keeping his own counsel, he marched his army five miles. On the 27th the column reached the timbers of the Brazos River bottoms, and on the 28th arrived at San Felipe de Austin, on the west bank of the Brazos. On the 29th the army marched six miles up the river in a driving rain, and camped on Mill Creek. On the 30th after a fatiguing tramp of nine miles, the army reached a place across the river from "Bernardo," on one of the plantations of the wealthy Jared E. Groce, and there camped and drilled for nearly a fortnight. [this plantation belonging to Groce has been confused by the historian John Henry Brown, and perhaps others, with another plantation he owned which was situated in the present county of Grimes, and known as "Groce's Retreat."]

 

David BurnetWhen the ad interim Texas government at Washington-on-the-Brazos learned of the Mexicans' approach, in mid-March, it fled to Harrisburg. President David G. Burnet (left) sent the commander-in-chief a caustic note, prodding him to stop his retreat and fight. Secretary of War Thomas J. Rusk (below) arrived at the camp April 4 at Burnet's direction, to urge Houston to a more aggressive course. Houston having shown no disposition to fight, Santa Anna decided to take possession of the coast and seaports, as a step in his plan to round up the revolutionists. Crossing the Brazos at Fort Bend (now called Richmond) on the 11th, the Mexican general proceeded on April 14 on the road to Harrisburg, taking with him about 700 men and one twelve-pounder cannon. Urrea was at Matagorda with 1200 men: Gaona was somewhere between Bastrop and San Felipe, with 725; Sesma, at Fort Bend, with about 1,000, and Vicente Filisola between San Felipe and Fort Bend, with nearly 1800 men.

 

Thomas J. RuskSanta Anna arrived at Harrisburg on the 15th. There he learned that the Burnet government had gone down Buffalo Bayou to New Washington (now Morgan's Point), about 18 miles southeast. Burning Harrisburg, Santa Anna sped after them. On the 19th when he arrived at New Washington he learned that the new Texas government had fled to Galveston. Santa Anna then set out for Anahuac via Lynchburg.

THE ROAD TO SAN JACINTO

Meanwhile, on April 11th, the Texans at Groce's received two cannon, known to history as the "Twin Sisters," a gift from citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio. Thus fortified, General Houston, after a consultation with Rusk, decided to move on to the east side of the Brazos. The river being very high, the steamboat "Yellow Stone" and a yawl were used to ferry the army, horses, cattle and baggage across. The movement began on the 12th and was completed at 1 p.m. on the 13th.

On the 13th Houston ordered Major Wyly Martin, Captain Mosely Baker, and other commanders of detachments assigned to delaying actions, to rejoin the main army at the house of Charles Donoho, about three miles from Groce's. At Donoho's the road from San Felipe to eastern Texas crossed the road south from Groce's.

On April 16 the army marched twelve miles to the home of Samuel McCurley on Spring Creek, in present Harris county. The creeks formed the boundary line between Harris and Montgomery counties. Three miles beyond McCurley's was the home of Abram Roberts, at a settlement known as "New Kentucky." At Roberts' two wagon trails crossed, one leading to Harrisburg and the other Robbins' Ferry on the Trinity and on to the Sabine.

Many of his officers and men, as well as government officials, believed that Houston's strategy was to lead the pursuing Mexicans to the Sabine River, the eastern border of Texas. There, it was known, were camped United States troops under General Pendelton Gaines, with whose help the Texans might turn on their foes and destroy them. However, on April 17, when Roberts' place was reached, Houston took the Harrisburg road instead of the one toward the Louisiana line, much to the gratification of his men. They spent the night of the 17th near the home of Matthew Burnett on Cypress Creek, twenty miles from McCurley's. On April 18 the army marched twenty miles to White Oak Bayou in the Heights District of the present city of Houston, and only about eight miles from Harrisburg, now a part of Houston.

Deaf SmithFrom two prisoners, captured by Erasmus "Deaf" Smith, the famous Texas spy (left), Houston first learned that the Mexicans had burned Harrisburg and had gone down the west side of the bayou and of San Jacinto River, and that Santa Anna in person was in command. In his march downstream Santa Anna had been forced to cross the bridge over Vince's Bayou, a tributary of Buffalo Bayou, then out of its banks. He would have to cross the same bridge to return. Viewing this strategic situation on the morning of the 19th, Houston told his troops it looked as if they would soon get action. And he admonished them to remember the massacres at San Antonio and at Goliad. "Remember the Alamo!" The soldiers took up the cry. "Remember Goliad!" [Thomas J. Rusk, Secretary of War, and other Texans who were in the battle said the battle cry was 'Remember the Alamo' 'Remember La Bahia!']

In a letter to Henry Raguet he said:

"This morning we are in preparation to meet Santa Anna. It is the only chance for saving Texas." In an address "To the People of Texas" he wrote: "We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish…We must act now or abandon all hope."

Houston's force crossed Buffalo Bayou to the west side, near the home of Isaac Batterson, two and a half miles below Harrisburg, on the evening of the 19th. Some 248 men, mostly sick and non-effective, were left with the baggage at the camp opposite Harrisburg. The march was continued until midnight.

ON THE EVE OF BATTLE

At dawn April 20 the Texans resumed their trek down the bayou, to intercept the Mexicans. At Lynch's ferry, near the juncture of Buffalo Bayou and San Jacinto River, they captured a boat laden with supplies for Santa Anna. This probably was some of the plunder of Harrisburg or New Washington. Ascertaining that none of the enemy forces had crossed, the Texans drew back about a mile on the Harrisburg road, and encamped in a skirt of timber protected by a rising ground.

Col. Sidney ShermanThat afternoon, Colonel Sidney Sherman (left) with a small detachment of cavalry engaged the enemy infantry, almost bringing on a general action. In the clash two Texans were wounded---one of them, Olwyn J. Trask, mortally---and several horses were killed. In this preliminary skirmish Mirabeau B. Lamar, a private from Georgia (later President of the Republic of Texas), so distinguished himself that on the next day he was placed in command of the cavalry.

Santa Anna's blue-uniformed army made camp under the high ground overlooking a marsh, about three-fourths of a mile from the Texas camp. They threw up breastworks of trunks, baggage, pack-saddles and other equipment. Both sides prepared for the expected conflict. The Texans awoke to find Thursday, April 21, a clear fine day. Refreshed by a breakfast of bread made with flour from the captured supplies and meat from beeves slaughtered the day before, they were eager to attack the enemy. They could see Santa Anna's flags floating over the enemy camp, and heard the Mexican bugle calls on the crisp morning air.

It was discovered at about nine o'clock that General Martín Perfecto de Cos had crossed Vince's bridge, about eight miles behind the Texans' camp, with some 540 picked troops, swelling the enemy forces to about 1265. General Houston ordered "Deaf" Smith and a detail to destroy the bridge and prevent further enemy reinforcements. This also would prevent the retreat of either the Texans or the Mexicans toward Harrisburg. In dry weather Vince's Bayou was about fifty feet wide and ten feet deep, but the excessive April rains bad made it several times wider and deeper. [With "Deaf" Smith in the detail that destroyed the bridge were Young P. Alsbury, John Coker, John Garner, Moses Lapham, Edwin R. Rainwater and Dimer W. Reaves.]

 

Gen. Martin Cos[Photo: Martín Perfecto Cos, Santa Anna's brother-in-law]. Shortly before noon, General Houston held a council of war with Colonels Edward Burleson and Sidney Sherman, Lieutenant Colonels Henry Millard, Alexander Somervell and Joseph L. Bennett, and Major Lysander Wells. Two of the officers suggested attacking the enemy in his position, while the others favored awaiting Santa Anna's attack. Houston withheld his own views, but later, after having formed his plan of battle, submitted it to Secretary of War Rusk, who approved it.

THE BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO

General Houston disposed his forces in battle order at about 3:30 in the afternoon. Over on the Mexican side all was quiet; many of the foemen were enjoying their customary siesta. The Texans' movements were screened by the trees and the rising ground, and evidently Santa Anna had no lookouts posted. Big, shaggy and commanding in his mud-stained unmilitary garb, the chieftain rode his horse up and down the line. "Now hold your fire, men," he warned in his deep voice, "until you get the order!"

Gen. Ed BurlesonAt the command, "Advance," the patriots, 910 strong, moved quickly out of the woods and over the rise, deploying. Bearded and ragged from forty days in the field, they were a fierce-looking band. But their long rifles were clean and well oiled. Only one company, Captain William Wood's "Kentucky Rifles," originally recruited by Sidney Sherman, wore uniforms. [In his official report of the battle, April 25, 1836, Houston said 783 Texans took part. Yet in a roster published later he listed 845 officers and men at San Jacinto, and by oversight omitted Captain Alfred H. Wyly's Company. In a Senate speech February 28, 1859, Houston said his effective force never exceeded 700 at any point. Conclusive evidence in official records brings the total number at San Jacinto up to 910.] The battle line was formed with Edward Burleson's (photo left) regiment in the center; Sherman's on the left wing; the artillery, under George W. Hockley, on Burleson's right; the infantry, under Henry Millard, on the right of the artillery; and the cavalry, led by Lamar, on the extreme right

 

The Battlefield of San Jacinto
(Click here for enlargement)

 

Silently and tensely the Texas battle line swept across the prairie and swale that was No Man's land, the men bending low. A soldier's fife piped up with "Will You Come to the Bower,"' a popular tune of the day. That was the only music of the battle. [Several veterans of the battle said the tune played was "Yankee Doodle."] As the, troops advanced, "Deaf" Smith galloped up and told Houston, "Vince's bridge has been cut down." The General announced it to the men. Now both armies were cut off from retreat in all directions but one, by a roughly circular moat formed by Vince's and Buffalo Bayous to the west and north, San Jacinto River to the north and cast, and by the marshes and the bay to the east and southeast.

At close range, the two little cannon, drawn by rawhide thongs, were wheeled into position and belched their charges of iron slugs into the enemy barricade. Then the whole line, led by Sherman's men, sprang forward on the run, yelling, "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember Goliad!" All together they opened fire, blazing away practically point-blank at the surprised and panic-stricken Mexicans. They stormed over the breastworks, seized the enemy's artillery, and joined in hand-to-hand combat, emptying their pistols, swinging their guns as clubs, slashing right and left with their knives. Mexicans fell by the scores under the impact of the savage assault.

General Manuel Fernández Castrillón, a brave Mexican, tried to rally the swarthy Latins, but he was killed and his men became crazed with fright. Many threw down their guns and ran; many wailed, "Me no Alamo!" "Me no Goliad!" But their pleas won no mercy. The enraged revolutionists reloaded and chased after the stampeding enemy, shooting them, stabbing them, clubbing them to death. From the moment of the first collision the battle was a slaughter, frightful to behold. The fugitives ran in wild terror over the prairie and into the boggy marshes, but the avengers of the Alamo and Goliad followed and slew them, or drove them into the waters to drown. Men and horses, dead and dying, in the morass in the rear and right of the Mexican camp, formed a bridge for the pursuing Texans. Blood reddened the water. General Houston tried to check the execution but the fury of his men was beyond restraint.

Some of the Mexican cavalry tried to escape over Vince's bridge, only to find that the bridge was gone. In desperation, some of the flying horsemen spurred their mounts down the steep bank; some dismounted and plunged into the swollen stream. The Texans came up and poured a deadly fire into the welter of Mexicans struggling with the flood. Escape was virtually impossible. General Houston rode slowly from the field of victory, his ankle shattered by a rifle ball. At the foot of the oak where he bad slept the previous night be fainted and slid from his horse into the arms of Major Hockley, his chief of staff.

 

Gen. Juan AlmonteAs the crowning stroke of a glorious day, General Rusk presented to him as a prisoner the Mexican general Don Juan Almonte, who had surrendered formally with about 400 men. The casualties, according to Houston's official report, numbered 630 Mexicans killed, 208 wounded, and 730 taken prisoner. As against this heavy score, only nine Texans were killed or mortally wounded, and thirty wounded less seriously. Most of their injuries came from the first scattered Mexican volley when the attackers stormed their barricade. The Texans captured a large supply of muskets, pistols, sabers, mules, horses, provisions, clothing, tents and paraphernalia, and $12,000 in silver.

 

 

THE CAPTURE OF SANTA ANNA

Santa Anna had disappeared during the battle, and next day General Houston ordered a thorough search of the surrounding territory for him. In the afternoon Sergeant J. A. Sylvester spotted a Mexican slipping through the woods toward Vince's Bayou. Sylvester and his comrades caught the fugitive trying to hide in the high grass. He wore a common soldier's apparel round jacket, blue cotton pantaloons, skin cap and soldier's shoes. [With Sylvester in the capture of Santa Anna were Joel W. Robison, Joseph D. Vermillion, Alfred H. Miles and David Cole.] They took the captive to camp, and on the way, Mexican prisoners recognized him and cried, "El Presidente!" Thus his identity was betrayed; it was indeed the dictator from below the Rio Grande. He was brought to General Houston, who lay under the headquarters oak, nursing his wounded foot. The Mexican President pompously announced, "I am General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and a prisoner of war at your disposition." General Houston, suffering with pain, received him coldly. He sent for young Moses Austin Bryan and Lorenzo de Zavala Jr. to act as interpreters. Santa Anna cringed with fright as the excited Texas soldiers pressed around him, fearing mob violence. He pleaded for the treatment due a prisoner of war. "You can afford to be generous," he whined; "you have captured the Napoleon of the 'West." "What claim have you to mercy?" Houston retorted, "when you showed none at the Alamo or at Goliad?" They talked for nearly two hours, using Bryan, de Zavala and Almonte as interpreters. In the end Santa Anna agreed to write an order commanding all Mexican troops to evacuate Texas. Later, treaties were signed at Velasco, looking to the adjustment of all differences and the recognition of Texas independence. Thus ended the revolution of 1836, with an eighteen-minute battle which established Texas as a free republic and opened the way for the United States to extend its boundaries to the Rio Grande on the southwest and to the Pacific on the west. Few military engagements in history have been more decisive or of more far-reaching ultimate influence than the battle of San Jacinto.


Opposing Commanders' Reports

It is interesting to compare the accounts of the battle of San Jacinto written by leaders of the opposing Texan and Mexican forces.

Report of Secretary of War Thomas J. Rusk.

General Sam Houston, in his official report of the engagement to President David G. Burnet, dated April 25, 1836, reviewed his movements during the three days preceding the battle:

[Headquarters of the Army, San Jacinto, April 25, 1836.---Sir I regret extremely that my situation since the battle of the 21st has been, such as to prevent my rendering you my official report of the same previous to this. I have the honor to inform you that on the evening of the 18th, after a forced march of fifty-five miles, which was effected in two days and a half, the army a: rived opposite Harrisburg. That evening a courier of the enemy was taken, from whom I learned that General Santa Anna, with one division of his choice troops, had marched in the direction of Lynches Ferry, on the San Jacinto, burning Harrisburg as he passed down. The army was ordered to be in readiness to march the next morning. The main body effected a crossing over Buffalo Bayou below Harrisburg, on the morning of the 19th, having left the baggage, the sick and a sufficient guard in the rear. We continued the march throughout the night, making but one halt in the prairie for a short time and without refreshment. At daylight we resumed the line of march, and in a short distance our scouts encountered those of the enemy, and we received the information that General Santa Anna was at New Washington and would that day take up the line of march for Anahuac, crossing at Lynches Ferry. The Texas army halted within half a mile of the ferry in some timber, and were engaged in slaughtering beeves, when the army of Santa Anna was discovered to be approaching in battle array, having been encamped at Klopper's Point, eight miles below. Disposition was immediately made of our forces and preparation for his reception. He took a position with his infantry and artillery in the center, occupying an island of timber, his cavalry covering the left flank. The artillery, consisting of one double fortified medium brass twelve-pounder, then opened on our encampment. The infantry in column advanced with the design of charging our lines, but were repulsed by a discharge of grape and canister from our artillery, consisting of two six-pounders. The enemy had occupied a piece of timber within rifle shot of the left wing of our army, from which an occasional interchange of small arms took place between the troops, until the enemy withdrew to a position on the bank of the San Jacinto, about three-quarters of a mile from our encampment and commenced fortifications. A short time before sunset our mounted men, about eighty-five in number, under the special command of Colonel Sherman, marched out for the purpose of reconnoitering the enemy. While advancing they received a volley from the left of the enemy's infantry, and after a sharp re-encounter with their cavalry, in in which ours acted extremely well and performed some feats of daring chivalry, they retired in good order, having had two men severely wounded and several horses killed. In the meantime the infantry, under command of Lieutenant Colonel Millard, and Colonel Burleson's regiment, with the artillery, had marched out for the purpose of covering the retreat of the cavalry if necessary. All then fell back in good order to our encampment about sunset and remained without any ostensible action until the 21st, about 8:30 o'clock, taking the first refreshment which they had enjoyed for two days. The enemy in the meantime extended the right flank of their infantry so as to occupy the extreme point of a skirt of timber on the bank of the San Jacinto, and secured their left by a fortification about five feet high, constructed of packs and baggage, leaving an opening in the center of the breastwork in which their artillery was placed, their cavalry upon their left wing.]

and then said:

"About nine o'clock on the morning of the 21st, the enemy were reinforced by 500 choice troops, under the command of General Cos, increasing their effective force to upward of 1500 men, whilst our aggregate force for the field numbered 783. At half-past three o'clock in the evening, I ordered the officers of the Texian army to parade their respective commands, having in the meantime ordered the bridge on the only road communicating with the Brazos, distant eight miles from the encampment, to be destroyed-thus cutting off all possibility of escape. Our troops paraded with alacrity and spirit, and were anxious for the contest. Their conscious disparity in numbers seemed only to increase their enthusiasm and confidence, and heightened their anxiety for the conflict. Our situation afforded me an opportunity of making the arrangements Preparatory to the attack without exposing our designs to the enemy. The first regiment, commanded by Colonel Burleson, was assigned to the center. The second regiment, under the command of Colonel Sherman, formed the left wing of the army. The artillery, under special command of Colonel George W. Hockley, Inspector General, was placed on the right of the first regiment; and four companies of infantry, under the command of Lieut.Col. Henry Millard, sustained the artillery upon the right. Our cavalry, 61 in number, commanded by Colonel Mirabeau B. Lamar (whose gallant and daring conduct on the previous day had attracted the admiration of his comrades), completed our line. Our cavalry was first dispatched to the front of the enemy's left, for the purpose of attracting their notice, whilst an extensive island of timber afforded its an opportunity of concentrating our forces, and deploying from that point, agreeably to the previous design of the troops. Every evolution was performed with alacrity, the whole advancing rapidly in line, and through an open Prairie, without any protection whatever for our men. The artillery advanced and took station within 200 yards of the enemy's breastwork, and commenced an effective fire with grape and canister.

 

Mirabeau Lamar[Photo: Mirabeau Lamar]"Colonel Sherman, with his regiment, having commenced the action upon our left wing, the whole line, at the center and on the right, advancing in double quick time, rung the warcry, 'Remember the Alamo!' received the enemy's fire, and advanced within point blank shot, before a piece was discharged from our lines. Our lines advanced without a halt, until they were in possession of the woodland and the enemy's breastwork, the right wing of Burleson's and the left of Millard's taking possession of the breastwork; our artillery having gallantly charged up within seventy yards of the enemy's cannon, when it was taken by our troops. The conflict lasted about eighteen minutes from the time of close action until we were in possession of the enemy's encampment, taking one piece of cannon (loaded), four stand of colors, all their camp equipage, stores and baggage. Our cavalry had charged and routed that of the enemy upon the right, and given pursuit to the fugitives, which did not cease until they arrived at the bridge which I have mentioned before---Captain Karnes, always among the foremost in danger, commanding the pursuers. The conflict in the breastwork lasted but a few moments; many of the troops encountered band to hand, and, not having the advantage of bayonets on our side, our riflemen used their pieces as war clubs, breaking many of them off at the breech. The rout commenced at half past four, and the pursuit by the main army continued until twilight. A guard was then left in charge of the enemy's encampment, and our army returned with our killed and wounded. In the battle, our, loss was two killed and twenty-three wounded, six of them mortally. The enemy's loss was 630 killed….wounded 208 . . . prisoners 730."

 

MEXICAN VERSION OF BATTLE

Santa AnnaGeneral Santa Anna, in the memoirs of his old age, wrote a brief and untruthful account of the battle of San Jacinto, an alibi blaming General Filisola for the defeat. He said he had ordered Filisola to join him by forced marches, for the attack on Houston's army, and was waiting for the reinforcements when he found Houston camped on the San Jacinto. He continued:

"At two o'clock in the afternoon of April 21, 1836, 1 had fallen asleep in the shade of an oak, hoping the beat would moderate so that I might begin the march, (to find Filisola), when the filibusterers surprised my camp with admirable skill. Imagine my surprise, on opening my eyes, and finding myself surrounded by those people, threatening me with, their rifles and overpowering my person. The responsibility of Filisola was obvious, because be and only he had caused such a catastrophe by his criminal disobedience."

This is somewhat at variance with an earlier report, in which Santa Anna recounted his own heroic efforts to rally his troops in the battle until "the new recruits threw everything into confusion, breaking their ranks and preventing veterans from making use of their arms, whilst the enemy was rapidly advancing with loud hurrahs, and in a few minutes obtained a victory which they could not some hours before, even have dreamed of."

Then, El Presidente went on:

"All hopes being lost, and everyone flying as fast, as he could, I found myself in the greatest danger, when a servant of my aide-de-camp . . . offered me his horse, with the tenderest, and most urging expressions insisted on my riding off the field. . . . I remembered that General Filisola was only seventeen leagues off, and I took my direction toward him, darting through the enemy ranks. They pursued me, and after a ride of one league and a half, overtook me on the banks of a large creek, the bridge over which had been burned by the enemy to, retard our pursuit."

 

Gen. Filisola[Photo: General Vicente Filisola]"I alighted from my horse and with much, difficulty succeeded in concealing myself in a thicket of dwarf pines. Night coming on I escaped them, and the hope of reaching the army gave me strength. I crossed the creek with the water up to my breast and continued my route on foot. I found, in a house which had been abandoned some articles of clothing, which enabled me to change my apparel. At eleven o'clock a.m., while I was crossing a large plain, my pursuers overtook me again. Such is the history of my capture. On account of my change of apparel they did not recognize me, and inquired whether I had seen Santa Anna. To this I answered that he had made his escape; and this answer saved me from assassination, as I have since been given to understand."

Colonel Pedro Delgado, of Santa Anna's staff, gave a more detailed and more accurate Mexican version of the battle. He told how Santa Anna, his staff and most of the men were asleep when the bugler sounded the alarm of the Texan advance. Some of the men were out gathering boughs for shelter; cavalrymen were riding bareback, to and from water. Continuing:

"I stepped upon some ammunition boxes the better to observe the movements of the enemy. I saw that their formation was a mere line of one rank, and very extended. In their center was the Texas flag; on both wings, they had two light cannons, well manned. Their cavalry was opposite our front, overlapping our left. In this disposition yelling furiously, with a brisk fire of grape, muskets and rifles, they advanced resolutely upon our camp. There the utmost confusion prevailed. General Castrillon shouted on one side; on another Colonel Almonte was giving orders; some cried out to commence firing; others to lie down and avoid the grape shot. Among the latter was His Excellency. Then already, I saw our men flying in small groups, terrified, and sheltering themselves behind large trees. I endeavored to force some of them to fight, but all efforts were in vain---the evil was beyond remedy; they were a bewildered and panic-stricken herd. The enemy kept up a brisk cross-fire of grape on the woods. Presently we heard, in close proximity, the unpleasant noise of their clamor. Meeting no resistance they dashed, lightning-like upon our deserted camp. Then I saw His Excellency running about in the utmost excitement, wringing his hands, and unable to give an order. General Castrillon was stretched on the ground, wounded in the leg. Colonel Trevino was killed, and Colonel Marcial Aguirre was severely injured. I saw also, the enemy reaching the ordnance train, and killing a corporal and two gunners who had been detailed to repair cartridges which had been damaged on the previous evening. "

In a grove on the bayshore, Colonel Delgado said, the Texans wrought the worst carnage of the battle.

"There they killed Colonel Batres; and it would have been all over with us had not providence placed us in the hands of the noble and generous captain of cavalry, Allen, who by great exertion, saved us repeatedly from being slaughtered by the drunken and infuriated volunteers."

 

11 posted on 11/26/2008 2:33:04 PM PST by Rightly Biased (McCain is the reason Sarah Lost <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

We won them in warfare. After that, we turned around and paid for them.

Your friend has been indoctrinated, not educated.


12 posted on 11/26/2008 2:33:47 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Speak up, fight back, even if your voice trembles and your knees shake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Only if you apply the language of the United Nations Charter (1944) to 1846-48 — which you can’t. And if you could, where would you stop?


13 posted on 11/26/2008 2:34:15 PM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

And Mexico took it from Spain, who took it from the Nahuatls, who took it from the Mayans, who took it from the gentle deer and birdies who once lived here in peace till man came along. (Now cue world’s smallest violin.)


14 posted on 11/26/2008 2:34:47 PM PST by A_perfect_lady (History repeats itself because human nature is static.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Texas was being ‘policed’ by Mexico using ex-cons, is something I read once. That was one problem. The Texas farmers were also not allowed to see any of there crops anywhere but to Mexico first, which sort of makes sense but it was a rather remote territory from Mexico proper, sort of like the Yukon is to Canada. Not a lot of support from Mexico and so close to the colonies .. and since Texans were predominantly English speaking ... well that’s what lead to the revolution and the domino’s fell west.

We did actually buy the strip of south Arizona (south og Tucson) from Mexico later, called the Gadsdon purchase. Apparently this was needed for the railroad efforts to be able to have a cross continental passage and stay in this country.

When I get these sort of left wing crazies, I do a little reading on wikipedia and such. Basically, Mexico was pretty young and just getting it’s independence from Spain together (remember they took Mexico from the Spanish who took it from the Mayans and Aztecs, etc.). And since Mexico was so young and hardly able to manage Mexico city, let alone the whole country, these ‘outposts’ of Texas, California, etc. were felling pretty lonely and just ‘claimed territory’ on a map.

Tell your left wingers when Mexico gives itself back to the Aztec’s and Mayans, we will consider it.


15 posted on 11/26/2008 2:34:49 PM PST by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
from Wikipedia...not the best but it says it pretty much:

The Mexican–American War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas. Mexico claimed ownership of Texas as a breakaway province and refused to recognize the secession and subsequent military victory by Texas in 1836.

In the U.S. the conflict is often referred to simply as the Mexican War and infrequently as the U.S.–Mexican War. In Mexico, terms for it include Intervención Norteamericana en México (North American intervention in Mexico), Invasión Estadounidense de México (American[a] Invasion of Mexico), and Guerra del 47 (The War of ‘47).

The most important consequence of the war for the United States was the Mexican Cession, in which the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México were ceded to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In Mexico, the enormous loss of territory following the war encouraged its government to enact policies to colonize its remaining northern territories as a hedge against further losses. In addition the Rio Grande became the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and Mexico never again claimed ownership of Texas.

16 posted on 11/26/2008 2:35:24 PM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

We should have kept the northern half of Mexico. American soldiers were mostly met with friendly faces until they neared Mexico city.


17 posted on 11/26/2008 2:35:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

The current mayor of Los Angeles thinks so...

Villaraigosa was a leader of MEChA at UCLA

The Mexican American Youth Organization was founded in San Antonio, Texas in 1967. It employed the tactics of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and later spurred the creation of the controversial La Raza Unida Party.

La raza (The Race) is the “Brown Panther” Party that believes in taking back the US.


18 posted on 11/26/2008 2:36:23 PM PST by jessduntno (Barack - Kenyan for "High Wind, Big Thunder, No Rain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

And the Romans stole Spain from the celts. The Scots stole Scotland from the Picts. The Mexicans stole Sonora from the Apaches. How far do we want to take this?


19 posted on 11/26/2008 2:36:45 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

I’ve mentioned this before. Ask your friend, “For the sake of argument, let’s say we ‘stole’ the land. Both sides of today’s border for hundreds of miles in either direction looked exactly the same. What the Hell did the Mexicans do with what we let them keep? We turned or side into a generator of wealth and good living for its citizens. Mexico has turned theirs into a corrupt crime-ridden Hellhole that people risk their lives to get away from. You tell me which is better.” (Use that confrontational manner - it shocks them. They are used to people looking guikty at that charge.)

i’ve always gotten some throat-clearing, foot-shuffling and lame comments like “Well, it’s just not right.”


20 posted on 11/26/2008 2:36:53 PM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

< p>Several historians have given similar reports on the "Bloody arm flag of Goliad" said to have been made by Captain Phillip Dimmitt. On December 20 1835 the first declaration of Texas independence was signed at Goliad in the chapel of the Presidio by members of Dimmitt's command then stationed at La Bahia. After signing, the group went into the quadrangle and "amidst rapturous hurrahs, the flag of Texas Independence was hoisted and unfurled to the wintry wind".

The flag was described as being made of white domestic, two yards long and one yard wide. "In the center was a sinewy arm and hand, painted red, grasping a drawn sword of crimson." The flag pole was made from a tall sycamore tree found on the banks of the San Antonio River.

Most of the accounts on this flag ceremony quote as their source of information, the memoirs of John James and Nicholas Fagan.

The Dimmitt flag has now become the accepted flag of Goliad and is frequently displayed by business houses around the Goliad Square.

The Goliad Massacre

On Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836, after being held captive for one week, the men were told to gather up their things. They thought that they were going to the port of Copano and then on to New Orleans. They were happy and singing. They knew that Colonel Fannin had returned from the Port of Copano the previous day. What they didn't know was that at 7:00 p.m. the pervious evening, Colonel Portilla had received word directly from Santa Anna to execute the men. About an hour after Portilla received the execution order from Santa Anna, he received another order from General Urrea to "Treat the prisoners with consideration, particularly their leader, Fannin, and to employ them in rebuilding Goliad."

At sunrise the able bodied men were formed in three groups and under very heavy guard taken out of the fort. One group was taken out on the San Antonio road, another on the Victoria road, and the other on the Copano road. The prisoners had little suspicion of their fate because each group had been given a different story as to where they were going. One group told that they were going to gather wood, another to drive up cattle and the they they were going to the port of Copano. At selected spots on each of the three roads from one half to three-fourths of a mile from the fort, the groups were halted. After they halted, the guards on one side stepped through the ranks so that all the guards were on one side, they turned and fired at very close range. Those men where not killed ran and were pursued by the cavalry.

The soldiers then came back to the fort and executed the wounded. There were about forty of them. Colonel Fannin was saved until last. He was taken outside the chapel, blind folded and seated in a chair. He made three requests, not to be shot in the face, his personal possessions sent to his family and that he be given a Christian burial. He was shot in the face, an officer took his personal possessions and his body was burned along with many of the other bodies. Not all bodies were burned, some were left where they died. There were 342 men who died in the Goliad Massacre, which is almost twice the number of men who died at the Alamo and San Jacinto combined. Twenty-eight men did escape from the three massacre sites and seventeen men's lives were spared. It is from the accounts of the men who escaped and were spared that we know what happened at Presidio La Bahia. Francita Alavez, the Angel of Goliad and the wife of General Urrea saved the lives of a number of the men.

Of the multiple banners that flew over DeWitt Colony territory and those under which DeWitt colonists served and died, this famous flag is one which originated solely within and is unique to the DeWitt Colony and a symbol of contribution of the region to the Texas Independence movement. The banner can be said to be the counterpart in concept and message of resistance as the early "Don't Tread on Me" flags of the American Revolution. Some say it was made from the white silk of the wedding dress of Empresario DeWitt's daughter, Naomi, and was flown by DeWitt Colonists reinforced by volunteers from the other settlements at the confrontation with the Mexican army in October 1835 over the Gonzales cannon (Battle of Gonzales). Other reports suggest it was made after the confrontation during the muster at Gonzales for defense of Texas and the assault on Bexar.

The Zavala Flag. Proceedings of the Texas Independence Convention of 11 Mar 1836: "On the motion of Mr. Scates, the Rainbow and star of five points above the western horizon; and the star of six points sinking below, was added to the flag of Mr. Zavala accepted on Friday last. Mr. Taylor introduced the following resolution: Resolved that the word "Texas" be placed, one letter between each point of the star on the national flag." The banner at left is most often depicted as the first official flag of the Texas Republic proposed by Vice-President of the new Republic of Texas, Lorenzo de Zavala. The proceedings appear to indicate that Zavala proposed a simple Lone Star flag which if white on blue was essentially that of Scott's flag of the War Party without the word "Independence," or the left part of Burnet's naval flag. It is unclear whether any of the proposed modifications including the indicated lettering were ever employed.


21 posted on 11/26/2008 2:38:30 PM PST by Rightly Biased (McCain is the reason Sarah Lost <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

You can get an overview of the situation at —

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_-_american_war

It started with the country — the Republic of Texas — being taken in as a state in the United States. Since Mexico refused to recognize the new country of the Republic of Texas (after they defeated General Santa Ana at San Jacinto), this (annexation) caused the declaration of war with the United States.

From that point forward, everything went *downhill* for Mexico and they lost a lot of territory to the United States. In the end, the U.S. did compensate Mexico (monetarily) for the “acquisitions” - but they were also the “spoils of war” you could say.

That doesn’t go over very well with Mexicans, even to this day and it’s a source of a lot of hard feelings (which I guess is natural).

AND, remember — there was Manifest Destiny — which was a *big driving force* in the United States, a conviction that we were to have a country from “coast to coast” and have no other nation interfering or dividing our land...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

At least that’s a starting point for understanding what was going on...


22 posted on 11/26/2008 2:39:15 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Screw the Mexicans. They have a whole bunch of resource-rich land south of our borders and what have they done with it? Made a complete mess out of all of it. As a culture, they are a joke, an uneducated, mentally lazy, unproductive, corrupt joke, barely more impressive than most of the Arab countries. The clearest contrast you could possibly imagine is the comparison between what has happened up here, versus what has happened down there. Screw them and let’s pull all benefits to these illegals and drive them back home.

Hey Mexico: It ain’t this land that made this place far more successful than your country, it’s the people who managed it for the past 300 or so years. And it’s not all that coincidental that with many of you now coming up here, our country is beginning to falter under the weight of having to support all you dead asses.


23 posted on 11/26/2008 2:39:17 PM PST by raptor29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

At the very least, we purchased Gadsden!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase


24 posted on 11/26/2008 2:39:22 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

I’m more concerned with the liberals stealing the USofA from the Constitution, frankly.


25 posted on 11/26/2008 2:41:01 PM PST by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

I live in Los Angeles

I was not aware that Mexico no longer owned this part of California

Thank you for that news


26 posted on 11/26/2008 2:41:08 PM PST by swordfishtrombone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
Yep, we took the area with the best roads and lake systems. /sarc

We kicked Santa Anna's butt fair & square and then the Comanche's. Winner takes all.

27 posted on 11/26/2008 2:41:33 PM PST by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

We bought it. Fair and square.

Read about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession


28 posted on 11/26/2008 2:42:11 PM PST by passionfruit (When illegals become legal, even they won't do work American's won't do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

And another thought did we steal these United States from the American Indians that lived here before us no we won it from them as well.

It sucks to be the weaker country or defender.Shear firepower and force will help you win every time.

Liberals don’t understand that. Heck they want Isreal to return land that they won in battle as well.


29 posted on 11/26/2008 2:43:12 PM PST by Rightly Biased (McCain is the reason Sarah Lost <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Is he/she an American (N or S) Indian? *Not to be confused with American/Indian*


30 posted on 11/26/2008 2:44:31 PM PST by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
It's my understanding that the New Mexico Territory (which included parts of present day New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Utah) was ceded to the United States as war spoils under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after the Mexican-American War.

Up to that time Mexico City had largely ignored New Mexico due to its distance from the capital and the territory had pretty much been left to fend for itself. The land on the east bank of the Rio Grande was at that time a part of Texas. Because the United States had originally planned for the railroad to be built along the far southern portion of New Mexico, the U.S. purchased the "boot heel" of southern New Mexico and the southern portion of Arizona from Mexico as part of the Gadsden Purchase. The government also purchased the land on the east bank of the Rio Grande from Texas to form the modern Texas/New Mexico border, though I'm not sure of the timeframe of this purchase.

31 posted on 11/26/2008 2:45:52 PM PST by LatinaGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS

A long while ago, a co-worker fumed about how the US stole the western US from Mexico, too.

Once I reminded them that Spanish is a European language and not a Native American one, they shut up about it.


32 posted on 11/26/2008 2:46:04 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

You could always say those native American areas were “liberated” from the foreign oppressors.


33 posted on 11/26/2008 2:46:16 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Both his parents of Polish ancestry and he was born in CT .


34 posted on 11/26/2008 2:47:30 PM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Its called the big lie, repeated often enough and people start to believe it.

Works for Obama why not your friend and La Raza


35 posted on 11/26/2008 2:48:02 PM PST by driftdiver (No More Obama! - The corruption has not changed despite all our hopes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

He wrote this to me yesterday :

” I don’t know what to say....i think you are way out in never-never land. there is no Communist threat...there’s an American threat of their own making.

Immigration...we stole Texas, Arizona, NMex and Calif from Mexico....and we killed Native Americans...and sold slaves from Africa as big business and Christian law. Since the Calvinists thought blacks weren’t human so therefore they had no spirits. “


36 posted on 11/26/2008 2:49:09 PM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
It's always nice to see how left wing radicals can drop their "internationalism" for a bit of fanatical, rightwing irredentist nationalism, isn't it? Perhaps after this they'd like to join the Maoist Scottish National Liberation Army in its move to expel all "alien" Anglo-Saxons from the pure Gaelic homeland.

It's true that the battle that triggered the Mexican War took place on disputed territory (as Abraham Lincoln pointed out). This means that Mexico's and the USA's claims to the spot were of equal worth.

However, the war being commenced we first conquered the territories which were ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Then after that we paid Mexico for the territory we had conquered (followed by the Gadsden Purchase of 1853).

"Mexico" didn't even exist originally. "Mexico" is the name of a Spanish colony that won its independence from Spain just as we won ours from Britain. So if we stole these territories from Mexico, then they "stole" them from Spain, who in turn "stole" them from the "indigenous pipples."

Tell your radical friend that the real lefty nationalist cause of the day is for the indigenous Cajun people (whose ancestors were Communists long before Marx) to be granted independence in Louisiana--and the paltry little state of that name today, but the whole Louisiana Territory! [/sarcasm]

37 posted on 11/26/2008 2:49:15 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vayigdelu hane`arim, vayehi `Esav 'ish yodea` tzayid 'ish sadeh; veYa`aqov 'ish tam yoshev 'ohalim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
Texas won its independence from Mexico; that is, the people in Texas revolted against Mexican rule, defeated the Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto, and were an independent republic for nearly a decade. Texas entered the US by treaty between two sovereign states.

Its true that parts of the West were once part of Mexico but only for about a quarter of a century as Mexico did not exist as an independent country until the mid 1820’s. Before than, the area was New Spain. People must remember that in the 19th Century (and before) territory changed hands frequently; for example, France lost Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in 1871 and gained it back in 1918.

The territory that Mexico lost was sparsely populated and poorly governed, if governed at all. No one with an ounce of sense believes that Mexico - given the political situation existing in Mexico and the lack of communications between say Mexico City and San Francisco - could have maintained sovereignty over so vast an area. Anyone who looks at a map can see the area is far more contiguous to the US than to Mexico. Lincoln was an opponent of the Mexican War but he came to see that the outcome was necessary for the US. As he put it, the temperate zone of North America could sustain but one country, which was one reason for his opposition to secession by the South.

Finally, one can argue that the loss of territory by the US created the modern Mexican state. Mexico could not govern these areas, any more than the Ottomon Empire could govern the Egypt or the Arabian Peninsula. When Ataturk cast off the useless appendages of the Sultan and proclaimed the Turkish Republic, the new state was concentrated on its Anatolian core. So with Mexico. By cutting loose areas that it could not govern, Mexico became a country and not a pitiful remnant of New Spain.

If liberals ask, tell them they need to imagine the areas annexed by the US as gangrenous appendages to Mexico that were surgically removed to save the life of the patient. I'm not a physician but I'm told that when a gangrenous leg is cut off, the patient’s health improves almost immediately, as his system is no longer poisoned by gangrene.

38 posted on 11/26/2008 2:51:24 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

He don’t have a horse in this race. Ignore him!


39 posted on 11/26/2008 2:51:25 PM PST by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn; sushiman

You said — “Texas was being ‘policed’ by Mexico using ex-cons, is something I read once. That was one problem. The Texas farmers were also not allowed to see any of there crops anywhere but to Mexico first, which sort of makes sense but it was a rather remote territory from Mexico proper, sort of like the Yukon is to Canada. Not a lot of support from Mexico and so close to the colonies .. and since Texans were predominantly English speaking ... well that’s what lead to the revolution and the domino’s fell west.”

Ummm..., I don’t know about that. It doesn’t sound right or familiar with the Texas history that we had (nor with what I have studied since then).

You have to remember that all the people going to Texas, in those beginning years of the well-known and recognized names moving there — were all agreed on being Mexican citizens. They did not move there to become the Republic of Texas. That’s something that grew out of a bad situation and a changing situation, after many years.

Those initial “big names” were “impresarios” receiving huge land grants from the Mexican government to build up the region (and to act as a buffer between the U.S. and Mexico). These impresarios, receiving the large land grants from Mexico, gained a lot of wealth in the process — which is part of the reason why they were drawn there, to do that in the first place.


In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain, and assumed the responsibility of colonizing the Texas region. Unable to secure the land with Mexican citizens, the government turned to the United States. Moses Austin was awarded a land grant from the Mexican government, and was entitled an Impresario. His task was to settle 300 families in his colony. After his death, his son Stephen F. Austin fulfilled his fathers contract by settling the colony with 300 families from the United States. The “Old 300” were the first permanent Anglo-American settlers in Texas. Other impresarios would receive land grants, and soon thousands of Americans had immigrated to Texas.

According to the Mexican Constitution of 1824, these settlers were granted land, allowed to own slaves, and were to be free of taxes for seven years. The only requirements were that they become Mexican citizens, practice the Roman Catholic religion, and secure Texas for the Mexican government. Austin became the leading spokesperson for the “Texians” for all affairs with Mexico. Texas was a part of the territory known as Coahuila y Tejas. Many times Austin petitioned the government for separate statehood for Texas, all to no avail.

[ http://www.dallashistory.org/history/texas/colonization.htm ]


You see, they all came there to be citizens of Mexico and to eventually become *another state* within Mexico (as opposed to being part of an already existing state). And therein was part of the problem...

Don’t misread this — “Many times Austin petitioned the government for separate statehood for Texas, all to no avail.” This was petitioning to *Mexico* to become another *state within Mexico* and not the United States...

Of course, there are a lot of other details... and it’s interesting history.


40 posted on 11/26/2008 2:52:26 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Maybe a California historian can help you there, but Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico were all a part of Mexico whom they fought for their Independence. Texas won, and was an Independent Republic for a time before voluntarily joining the US as a state. The war for Texas’ Independence from Mexico included the famous battle of the Alamo, but if you really want to quiet your friend you could research the battle of Goliad, also known as Presidio La Bahia, where the Mexicans accepted the Texan surrender under certain conditions, then abrogated those conditions and massacred 400 unarmed men.

The treaty between Texas and Mexico left the southern border in dispute, and that became important to the US after Texas joined the Union. Mexico claimed that the border was at the Nueces River and the US claimed the border was at the Rio Grande. The US brought in troops to settle the matter, and a war resulted. The US gained the territory in dispute, and some besides. I believe this is where California changed hands, but I am not certain.

Those who claim that Texas, New Mexico, etc were stolen from the US usually claim that the US was behind the Texas War of Independence. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mexican Dictator Santa Ana had invited settlers into Texas, which was underutilized by Mexico. The “Texian” settlers had to convert to Catholicism and renounce US citizenship to receive land grants. There were a few agitators from the US who joined in the struggle, led by a disaffected former Tennessee congressman named David “Davey” Crockett. When he was defeated in his bid for reelectin to congress, he told his former constituents, “You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas.”


41 posted on 11/26/2008 2:52:36 PM PST by Bertram3 (Come and take it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

A year or so back the History channel ran a pretty good series about the mess.

Basically Mexico’s claim to the American southweast consisted of scattered farmers who were left here as placeholders to fend for themselves and fight off constant attacks from the Indians. The Mexican government all but forgot about them and many hadn’t seen a mexican soldier in years.

The Americans showed up and brought stability, defense against and treaties with the Indians, not to mention the most modern technology. Basically made their lives better. The mexicans living here happily accepted American rule and later citizenship. The story was much the same throughout northern current day Mexico. We made a big mistake in Giving it back in my opinion.


42 posted on 11/26/2008 2:52:47 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
PS: Also tell your friend that Karl Marx endorsed taking this territory from the "lazy" Mexicans "who didn't know what to do with it."

The America-hating Left has forgotten that the American Revolution was in fact the first radical chic cause of the Internationl Left (we "rapacious" Americans were the original Noble Savages!).

43 posted on 11/26/2008 2:52:55 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vayigdelu hane`arim, vayehi `Esav 'ish yodea` tzayid 'ish sadeh; veYa`aqov 'ish tam yoshev 'ohalim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swordfishtrombone

I live in Phoenix.

We Phoenicians are excited to hear that Mexico no longer owns Arizona.

However, this does leave us confused as to why-oh-why there are so many Mechicans still in Arizona.

Further clarification requested ...


44 posted on 11/26/2008 2:54:03 PM PST by webschooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

He’s one of my best friends ! Can’t ignore !


45 posted on 11/26/2008 2:54:27 PM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Sort of like Israel. Before that area got all built up with lots of houses and cities and things, not many people wanted it all that much. Now that it is built up, they want it badly.


46 posted on 11/26/2008 2:54:49 PM PST by Twinkie (REPENT! Look Up! The Lord's Return Is At Hand . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Santa Anna traded Texas off to save his sorry butt from Texian firing squad or worse ,after he was caught in a womans dress trying to escape the fight at San Jacinto....We excepted his offer! God Bless Texas and remember the Alamo!


47 posted on 11/26/2008 2:55:24 PM PST by Reflex (SSCDD (same socialist crapola different day))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Pisss...(whispering) Both my daughters voted for Obama.

WE DON’T TALK ABOUT IT!


48 posted on 11/26/2008 2:56:39 PM PST by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
Since it is your “friend” who is claiming the U.S. stole these lands from Mexico, why don't you ask your “friend” to prove his assertion rather than you being the one to prove he's an idiot?
49 posted on 11/26/2008 2:56:58 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Tell him since we are such terribull pipples who done terribull thingys, who obviously don’t deserve to breathe free air anymore, that he should set the example and fall on his sword (or kitchen knifey, in the absence of a proper sword).


50 posted on 11/26/2008 2:57:49 PM PST by webschooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson