America hasn’t done that since Mexico made the terrible mistake of attacking us after Texas chose to join our nation.
No question it was a terrible mistake. But it is at minimum highly debatable whether Mexico attacked us.
From another valid perspective, we intentionally marched troops into disputed territory and then claimed "American troops had been attacked on American soil." IOW, Polk staged the whole thing. I just listened to a book about Lincoln's term in Congress, and this issue dominated. Lincoln gained a (mostly unfavorable) national reputation by proposing a resolution requiring Polk to designate the "spot" on American soil where this blood was shed.
There is also the entire history of our expansion across the continent, merrily breaking solemn treaties as we went.
We also conquered the Philippines, though we didn't keep it long, and we acquired Hawaii by what can only be called dubious means. Not to mention the Panama Canal Zone.
All these and others have another side to the story, of course. I'm merely noting that our record is not as spotless as the writer seems to think.
The history of the expansion of the British and other empires is also not nearly as evil as the contrast he draws. Most of these empires, most of the time, did not have a consistent policy of expansion wherever possible. They expanded to preempt others or to stop border squabbles, which of course simply moved the border to a new location where they had to deal with new squabbles. Much expansion was done by the men on the spot, forcing reluctant home governments to accept a fait accompli.
There is also the entire history of our expansion across the continent, merrily breaking solemn treaties as we went.
We also conquered the Philippines, though we didn't keep it long, and we acquired Hawaii by what can only be called dubious means. Not to mention the Panama Canal Zone.
All these and others have another side to the story, of course. I'm merely noting that our record is not as spotless as the writer seems to think.
On "the other side" you mention, Mexico "owned" a lot of land that the US took over - but only in the sense that I "own" a huge amount of gold which is in the molten core of the earth below land where I "own" all subsurface mineral rights. I may have paper title to it, but . . .Mexico was a weak state, and couldn't even control the Indian tribes in the vast stretches of land to its north. In contrast, the US was drawing in lots of immigrants, and they were populating the Midwest. Mexico wasn't even strong enough to push back against Texas a decade or so after its independence, while it was part of the Confederacy which was losing its war with the Union!
The only reason Mexico exists at all today is that the U.S., even in its expansionist "Manifest Destiny" phase, didn't want to take over the whole thing.
Great post, Sherm!