Who Owns the Southwest?--There's a reason the Aztlan protests take place on Februry 2.

TheConservativeVoice.com | Frontpagemagazine ^ | February 7, 2007 | Allan Wall

[wny]

"the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico."

Crappola. We paid for it. The treaty that ended the war, gave the territory to the US in exchange for (I believe it was...) $15,000,000.

A deal's a deal.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

Something else about that war that isn't mentioned in modern history books is the fact that the USA paid Mexico several million dollars in compensation for those conquered territories! How many times does THAT happen in the history of human warfare?

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

I'm willing to give 40 acres and an F-150 to any Mexican who personally lost property due to the Mexican War and its settlement.

The rest can bugger off.

[ExpatGator]

If the socialistas south of the border still had it, the territory in question would be a dusty, squalid craphole, much like the area under their control just over the border.

We took it, improved it and made it civilized via our advanced, peaceful and industrious culture. The current influx of a lesser culture will return it to the squalid, violent craphole that was its destiny in the first place. If one needs an example look at East L.A.

[denydenydeny]

We could turn over the entire continental United States to Mexico with the exception of Rhode Island and within a year there would be millions of Mexicans demanding to live in Warwick and Providence.

[Fierce Allegiance]

There's a reason the Aztlan protests take place on Februry 2.

Groundhogs?

[LexBaird]

To settle Texas, they imported Americans.

They just went there to do the jobs the Mexicans weren't willing to do.

[OKIEDOC]

"a lot. In Mexico, everybody knows that "the U.S. took half our national territory"

REPLY:

In the first place what a dumb and inane column by someone who can at least read and write but not think clearly or logically.

For this FOOL the grass is always greener on the other side.

Mexico has good land now and what have they done with it except keep three fourths of their population in abject poverty.

The Mexican government and many of it's leaders are just plain ignorant of how to run a government.

Mexican leaders have NO COMMON SENSE period................

As one of those who was born in Kalifornia Thank Gawd I have just said a big prayer of thanks for the Mexican war.

Had the Southwest stayed in Mexican hands then I would be living in abject poverty and this portion of the United States would be a hundred years behind the rest of the world.


However, I would not mind giving Mexico City some parts of Texas and Kalifornia on one condition is that in the next war they not force us to take back, Austin, parts of Houston, Sacramento, Sillycone Valley, Bezerkely, San Francisco and Hollywood.

[OKIEDOC]

OOPS...I did not mean the author but the Mexican leaders and Mecha that put out this kind of crap that we belong to Mexico.

[Savage Beast]

"Mexico’s loss was also due to internal disunity. In the face of the American invasion, Mexico’s leaders did not form a government of national unity and work together to defend their country. Instead, Mexican leaders often seemed more concerned with maneuvering against each other than against the enemy."

History repeats itself--now in the U.S.A.!

The corrupt, decadent, self-serving, anti-American Democrats will do anything--including jeopardize or even destroy the United States--in their lust for power and self-aggrandisement!

To saboutage the defense of the U.S.A. is nothing to them. To endanger the U.S.A. and the American people is even less.

Their petty concerns are the vilification of President Bush (partly as vengeance for what they perceive as the Republican vilification of President Clinton), seizure of power for themselves, and propitiation of the decadent Left, their power base.

Higher values are of no concern to them.

Consequently, and because of the deep current of decadence pervading contemporary Western Civilization, including the United States, manifested as the "Left", the U.S.A. now faces internal disunity with leaders unwilling to provide a government of national unity and to work together to defend their country.

Instead, Democrats are more concerned with maneuvering against Republicans--and the interests of the American people--than against the enemy abroad.

In fact, the Democrat Party is the Political Machine of the anti-American "Left", which is the domestic enemy of the United States, empowered by and more dangerous because of its powerful Political Machine and its powerful Propaganda Machine, i.e. the "Mainstream Newsmedia", than the foreign enemies of the United States.

[wildbill]

The reasons they imported Americans to settle Texas was because the Mexican government was over-extended and could not support the approximately 1,500-2,000 "Mexican" citizens (included Spaniards, Mestizos, and Indians)located in a few scabby villages against the Indians.

The Americans were thought to be useful as a arrow-fodder shield or barrier against the Comanche to deter their raids further south into more populated areas below the Rio Grande.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Mexico’s loss was also due to internal disunity. In the face of the American invasion, Mexico’s leaders did not form a government of national unity and work together to defend their country. Instead, Mexican leaders often seemed more concerned with maneuvering against each other than against the enemy.

Maybe I will send this one section of the story to ALL of our Congressmen. This is why we failed in Vietnam and how the Dems are attempting to cause a failure in Iraq.

[ApplegateRanch]

Just look at the parts of L.A. being overrun by the illegal invasion -- tragic that this once great city is turning into a 3rd world dump.

You mean to say that the highly touted (1970's era) Olivera Street "miracle" is now just the tip of the olive pit?

[Red Boots]

I've lived in Colorado a long time so I'd better figure out which part Mexico wants back

I live in Colorado, too, and I think they'll want everything south of the Colorado River, and the Arkansas. These were considered the historical borders during the fur trade.

[Verginius Rufus]

I had a Spanish teacher once who claimed that the Channel Islands still belonged to Mexico because they weren't explicitly ceded in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

As of 1848, most of the inhabitants of the Southwest were Indians, many of whom hated the Mexicans...the total number of Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico and California was not much (under 100,000 I would guess, most of them in New Mexico).

Five years later Mexico sold additional territory to the US, the so-called Gadsden Purchase (land the US wanted for a railroad route). In fact, Mexico agreed to a larger sale but the Senate reduced the extent because Northerners were afraid the land might become part of a slave state.

[Verginius Rufus]

The area south of the Arkansas River plus the land west of a line running north from the source of the Arkansas was all part of Mexico until 1848.

There is a map showing when different areas were acquired by the US on Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions

[rmlew]

Reconquista ping

[Paleo Conservative]

I'd loved to have seen the Mexican in 1824 who would have told the Comanches that they were Mexican subjects.

[mad puppy]

Great Map VR, thanks. I'm just outside of Denver and apparently not in the part they want back. Not that I've lost any sleep on that matter.

Seems like the US paid for the land after the US won the war: $15 M 160 years ago is probably worth more in todays $'s than Mexico's yearly gov't budget. Rather than trying to get it back, maybe they should be thinking about selling us more, though I certainly don't need another time-share.