Did America Steal Mexican Land?

A short video by Dinesh D'Souza does a fantastic job of explaining the events of the Mexican American war as well as the historical settlement of those areas within the CONUS by Spain. Many claim that America "stole" the land of Tx, Ca, NM, Az and parts of Ut, Co and Nv from Mexico. This is a popular sentiment among Hispanics who are represented by groups like La Raza and many others.

The critical points:

#1) While claiming that European invaders drove Native Americans from the land and Mexicans from the US Southwest they completely ignore the fact that all of Central America was likewise taken by Spanish invaders from the native tribes. Since Spaniards reached the US Southwest first it was they who subdued the Native Americans in those areas to ever claim the land to begin with. If European heritage disqualifies one from owning land in the New World Mexicans are guilty of the same.

#2) The source of trouble over the Mexican American war was where the border for the Republic of Texas was to be drawn; the Nueces river or the Rio Grande. After the war the Rio Grande was made the border, Texas was admitted as a state and every former Mexican citizen living inside the border was given American citizenship. In addition their land claims were given legal status and former Mexican citizens now found themselves able to practice self-government they were unable to under Mexico.

#3) After the war the US owned ALL of Mexico. We gave them all of it back South of the Rio Grande and allowed them to remain an independent nation. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war paid the Mexican government $20 million dollars for the land North of the Rio Grande. We didn't have to pay them a dime or give them back self-government had we wanted.

This video is worth several listens in fact. It will give you the knowledge to explain why the reconquista movement to annex the Southwest US for Mexico is historically invalid. The "stolen land" myth still remains potent among Latin Americans and is a convenient story the Democrats use to generate sympathy for immigrants from the South and to encourage more to come to the US.

The "Dragoons" rode in there and carried out one of the oldest false flag events I know about (attacked themselves). And got themselves a war.

Not tooooo much unlike how they stole Hawaii's sovereignty, transforming it from an independent state (nation [state]) into one of the 50 Provinces AHEM "States" (provinces).

United Provincians rejoice!!

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I hear you, but the war was unnecessary. Had the Texans not been able to put up a fight and rebel from their former government, we wouldn't have had the "deal" after the war, or even the war itself.

It's like if Canada's native Americans hired an army and started killing Canadian troops.

How "legal" would it be for other American Indians on our side of the border to support them militarily and then ask a sovereign nation around them (USA) to commit troops to the same end?

We killed an army of children warriors in Mexico city and in Morelos. The "Hero children" that took up their fallen fathers and brothers guns and fought against a foreign army within their borders.

It's nuts.

It's also history, so I don't actually think we owe anyone anything. Such is war. Woe to the conquered.

They shouldn't have died so fast, or they should have made us go home with more urgency. That didn't happen. The end.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Did America Steal Mexican Land?

I like Dinesh D'souza and watched this last year some time. Very informative.

BUT, I'm really just here to see who blames racist Trump for stealing all the Mexican land.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

that sounds like what germany did to poland

a reply to: Sublimecraft

ok here we go TRUMP DID IT ok

If the border was further north, Mexicans would have to walk farther to escape their #hole country.

So what's the complaint?

Who cares? Nations do not expand or contract their territories by shaking hands. It's a nasty business. But nothing has changed. Look at the borders of Europe. Same thing.

The spoils of war. That’s the way it was back then for every country in the world. No need to single us out .

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The Spanish Mexicans and the European Americans both stole land.

Manifest destiny is just shorthand for 'we deserved it'. It was not undiscovered country.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
If the border was further north, Mexicans would have to walk farther to escape their #hole country.

So what's the complaint?

You are the king of facetious.
All Hail the King.
I am not worthy...

#3) After the war the US owned ALL of Mexico. We gave them all of it back South of the Rio Grande and allowed them to remain an independent nation. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war paid the Mexican government $20 million dollars for the land North of the Rio Grande. We didn't have to pay them a dime or give them back self-government had we wanted.

Can you imagine what Mexico and their various states would look like today if the USA had kept Mexico and made them a full fledged member of the republic ? Just a thought but interesting nonetheless.

a reply to: 727Sky

Mexico would probably be known as Florida grande. It would be a state swimming in cash .

It was the Comanche Indians who are in large part responsible for the border as it is. (at least with regard to Texas portion)

As the OP notes, it was the Spaniards that conquered Mexico. The Spaniards made a push north and were stopped cold by the Comanche Indians. In fact, the Spaniards lost thousands of horses to the Comanches during their ill fated push north. Horses were not native to North America prior to this. Interestingly, the Comanches took to horses like no other group (indian or otherwise) it was like they were made for each other. (Commanche skill with horses is legendary)

With the horse, Comanche Indians were able to take over a huge portion of territory (all the way up into Colorado & Kansas) and the raided deep into Mexico where the Spaniards controlled.

Good map that depicts this:
i.imgur.com...

Mexican citizens fought alongside other American settlers and where given land to encourage settlement and bring security to the region. It was a clash of civilizations at the time. The Commanche were not agricultural, they were all about war, raping, robbing, pillaging. They did it to other Indian tribes before anyone else showed up. They would raid and rob others then sell their plunder to the Commancheros.

So you have "Mexicans" who have been in Texans longer than most who fought alongside European settlers to take territory from the native Indians to become Texans/Americans


So whose land was it anyway? Anyone who was strong enough to take it from the Comanche basically.

a reply to: Strate8

That's the most accurate picture of the region and its history that I have read in a while.

Well put.

One thing I learned in the military.... "there's only one thief, everyone else is just trying to get their # back."

A2D

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: 727Sky

Mexico would probably be known as Florida grande. It would be a state swimming in cash .

Yep and the Panama canal would actually be a border we could defend..after we captured Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, et al.. I have been to all those countries many times and IMO they would be 10,000 percent better off if way back when TPTB in America had a different mind set. But alas that is not the way it turned out..

a reply to: Strate8

Off topic I know but many of the men who would fight the Commanche would go to fight the Mexicans and then the Federals during the Civil War. Small wonder the Texas soldiers were legendary for skill and bravery. What chance would city slickers from New England who had just learned to shoot a rifle have against men like that?

Mexico did encourage Americans to help settle Texas because of the Indian troubles. It would also benefit their country but they sowed the seeds of their own destruction in so doing. Americans weren't used to being bossed around like Mexican peasants and it wasn't long before a clash of cultures emerged.

Was the Alamo, a predecessor to Pearl Harbor and Gulf of Tonkin?

Looks some a plan of action is on the table for international tribunal...
Will Mexico Get Half of Its Territory Back?

www.nytimes.com...

reading William Prescott’s “History of the Conquest of Mexico” — a recounting of Hernán Cortés’s expedition to conquer the Aztec Empire — as they advanced across Mexican territory. Many important figures of the epoch, with shame and regret, recognized its nature.

That “most outrageous war” (John Quincy Adams wrote) had been “actuated by a spirit of rapacity and an inordinate desire for territorial aggrandizement” (Henry Clay), and began with a premeditated attack by President James Polk, thanks to which “a band of murderers and demons from hell” were “permitted to kill men, women and children” (Abraham Lincoln).

Short summary what the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Actually Says

www.ssc.wisc.edu...

Mexicans in the territory previously belonging to Mexico can stay where they are or they can move to Mexico but still retain their property.

Those who remain can be Mexican citizens or US citizens but have to choose within a year; the default is US citizenship.

Property rights dating from before the treaty are “inviolably respected.” [In case you don’t know, enforcement of this provision varied by region, and many Mexicans lost their land and/or were driven out of the territory by violent White mobs in some areas, while Mexicans remained landholding elites in others.]

Those who do not choose Mexican citizenship will have the full rights of US citizenship including “free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.”

The US agrees to prevent incursions into Mexico of “savage tribes” in US territory with the same diligence as the US is protected. [NOTE: I found this allusion to the ongoing Indian wars to be a reminder of the multi-lateral character of history.]

It is illegal to purchase “any Mexican, or any foreigner residing in Mexico, who may have been captured by Indians” or any property stolen by Indians. The US promises to try to rescue any people or property captured by Indians. [Again, multi-lateral history.]

Lots of sections on the rules of warfare if war breaks out.

Lots of sections on ending the war, removing troops, defining boundaries, guaranteeing free transport through waterways and border areas.

originally posted by: dojozen

Looks some a plan of action is on the table for international tribunal...
Will Mexico Get Half of Its Territory Back?

www.nytimes.com...

::icks up jaw from floor::::
That link from NY Times is as inflammatory as it gets:

For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.

But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.

Never mind that 1/3 of Mexico's population already migrated to the US legally and otherwise. That shameful history again, over and over the poor victims tell their tale of woe. Forget the 300 prisoners massacred at Goliad. This stuff is just atrocious, only telling one side of a story far more complex than their reductionist history will ever admit. Small wonder Hispanics and the Left are all hopping mad, these articles are purely for the purpose of creating anger, naming a victim and labeling an oppressor. Fanning the flames of division and ethnic and national hatred.