Posted on 03/15/2008 7:16:21 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HSgbeTegko
There are other videos regarding this incident as well.
Nicely put.
You should patent that, or copyright it, and sell it on bumperstickers -
I'll buy the first one, and I'll p*ss on anyone who doesn't like it!
If Texas was still Mexican, San Antonio would have dirt streets.... Enough said, they can pound their sand..
Why? Arbusto Bush agrees witth him.
Your description of the history of the Mexican War is at best one-sided, completely ignoring those aspects that reflect less well on America.
A great many prominent Americans at the time believed the US to be in the wrong on the war, including Lincoln, US Grant and many other military officers, Thoreau, ex-president John Quincy Adams and essentially all abolitionists.
Nevertheless, Mexico controlled the area (very loosely) for less than 25 years. The US has controlled it for closing on 200 years at this point. It is ludicrous to claim that legitimate title has not transferred.
No chingas con los estados unidos!
This is what's so humorous about the Reconquista movement; they don't even know their own history, they've just made up something that fits their agenda.
Have you had a chance to read Travis McGee’s books? The second one deals with Azatlan.
More to the point, WILL we? At the very least we could learn some lessons from history...
From The Beginning of the End:
Despite the 1830 decree to halt immigration, between 1830 and 1835 as many as 10,000 U. S. citizens entered Texas illegally, and more than a few were spoiling for a fight. Even [Stephen F.]Austin, the go-along to get-along empresario, had a change of heart and mind in Mexico. After his release from prison in July, 1835, Austin penned a letter in New Orleans to a cousin:
"A great immigration from Kentucky, Tennessee, etc., each man with his rifle… would be of great use to us—very great indeed… I wish a great immigration this fall and winter from Kentucky, Tennessee, everywhere; passports or no passports, anyhow. For fourteen years I have had a hard time of it, but nothing shall daunt my courage or abate my exertitions to complete the main object of my labors to Americanize Texas. This fall and winter will fix our fate—a great immigration will settle the question." Although Austin was five years behind the invasion plan, he was, at last, on board and the Texas Revolution had begun.
So, Texas belongs to the US now. The US bought, bartered, swapped and traded for it; fought and won it when it became necessary. Obviously, groups like MEChA and their ilk's job is to sew seeds of discontent wherever possible. Probably aided and abetted by the likes of a George Soros. Chavez maybe???
YUP.
Except that the globalists are determined to have one of their 10 regional kingdoms comprise the North American Union as one “pseudo-country” in the world government.
It’s a good thing that Mexican troops started the war, then, isn’t it? They over-ran a small US outpost and then started to move towards a larger one near the coast. This was after a new Mexican government repudiated the terms of a treaty they had agreed to earlier under a different dictator, and they had refused further negotiations with the US over the Tex-Mex border sticking point. Whether or not that was worth the full-scale war that soon came might be debated, but at the time, it was a good enough reason for Congress to declare war.
You mean the whole enchilada?
Isnt this speshall ???
And mind-blowing...
He’s like the Speedy Gonzales fellow that Terry Anderson plays on Sunday nights
“Go back to the Plyumouth Rock”
This is again a very incomplete story.
I assume the “treaty” you speak of is the one Santa Ana made after his capture. It was never ratified by the Mexican Congress and did not have any validity under international law as agreements made by prisoners under duress are not considered valid.
The land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was disputed. Texas and the US claimed the Rio as the border, while Mexico claimed the Nueces.
When the new president, Polk, entered office he ordered the US Army to occupy the disputed territory, which the Mexicans considered theirs. When the Mexicans attacked to evict the invaders, he reported to Congress that American troops had been killed on American soil.
While there was no doubt that American troops had been killed, it required a good deal of spinning to assert with a straight face that it was “on American soil.” Lincoln’s most famous speech during his sole term in Congress was to demand that Polk prove that the spot where the troops died was American soil at the time.
Of course the Mexicans refused to negotiate over the border. They had never recognized the validity of Texan independence and still viewed it as a Mexican province in rebellion.
While Congress declared war, it was widely considered by
Whigs and northerners to be the result of a proslavery conspiracy seeking land to expand the institution.
The Mexicans behaved very stupidly in the runup to the war and there was plenty of fault on both sides, but it is just inaccurate to refer to the Mexican War as an American response to Mexican aggression.
This is again a very incomplete story.
I assume the “treaty” you speak of is the one Santa Ana made after his capture. It was never ratified by the Mexican Congress and did not have any validity under international law as agreements made by prisoners under duress are not considered valid.
The land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was disputed. Texas and the US claimed the Rio as the border, while Mexico claimed the Nueces.
When the new president, Polk, entered office he ordered the US Army to occupy the disputed territory, which the Mexicans considered theirs. When the Mexicans attacked to evict the invaders, he reported to Congress that American troops had been killed on American soil.
While there was no doubt that American troops had been killed, it required a good deal of spinning to assert with a straight face that it was “on American soil.” Lincoln’s most famous speech during his sole term in Congress was to demand that Polk prove that the spot where the troops died was American soil at the time.
Of course the Mexicans refused to negotiate over the border. They had never recognized the validity of Texan independence and still viewed it as a Mexican province in rebellion.
While Congress declared war, it was widely considered by
Whigs and northerners to be the result of a proslavery conspiracy seeking land to expand the institution.
The Mexicans behaved very stupidly in the runup to the war and there was plenty of fault on both sides, but it is just inaccurate to refer to the Mexican War as an American response to Mexican aggression.
Chavez thinks himself the new Che...
After Texas Independence, the war with Mexico was almost a foegone conclusion if Mexico in any way physically objected to Texas statehood, trying to claim the disputed border, or in any other way.
Sorry, it may not seem fair to some today, but to those along that border at the time, who were contending with Mexican incursions, Apache and Commanche, it was very serious.
That two year war, though the relative strengths of the two nations was one sided, was not so one sided in and of irself. The US forces invading Mexico were much smaller than the Mexican Armies they faced, and they were about equally armed. In most cases you had smaller US forces attacking well defended, fortifications manned by larger numbers. What that smaller force accomplished is fairly amazing on its face.
The bottom line? The Mexicans lost. US troops occupied their capitol in Mexico City and the Mexican government ultimately signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. That's the bottom line. it was signed in 1848 and allowed the US to take possession of the current US southwest, which the US paid the Mexican government millions of dollars for, and which also guarunteed Mexican citizens who were cauight up in the exchane their property rights in the new territories if they elected to stay. Most did.
The land was very loosley controlled by the Mexican government at the time (with the exception of Santa Fe perhaps and the lower California coast) and mostly empty.
A comparison of the relative prosperity, freedom, and rights, and peace of the two seperate areas today (those lands ceded and the rest of Mexico) tells us which region benefited most.
What the re-Conquista movement is proposing would not only be terrible for the citizens in the areas...it would quite simply lead to a bloody, ut fairly short war...with the same outcome as 1848. property ownership.
there are so many books out there that i haven't even seen them.
free dixie,sw
I agree with most of what you say.
I would like to add that during the period of Texas Independence the raiding went both ways. It wasn’t just Mexicans raiding innocent peaceful Texans. Rangers and other Texans raided innocent peaceful Mexicans.
My critique is not based on revisionist history but rather on criticisms of the justice of the war that were put forward at the time.
But, as you say, it is ludicrous to propose the “return” of these areas to Mexican control.
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.