It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Southwestern States Stolen fron Mexico?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I have seen many comments stating that the United States Stole the Southwestern States from Mexico. A brief study of the history of the area denies these statements.

Let us put to rest the notion that the south-western states were stolen from Mexico.
At the end of the Mexican-American War (Started by Mexico) the Mexican Government ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States. With the Gadsden Purchase Parts were bought from Mexico.

“The Mexican-American War began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.”
I’ll say it again “Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.”

www.lone-star.net...

“The United States gave $15,000,000 and assumed responsibility for paying $3,000,000 in claims of American citizens against the Mexican Government. A large body of public opinion in the United States had opposed the war against Mexico and felt that the Southern republic had been treated badly. In 1852 Gadsden (Gadsden Purchase) agreed to pay Santa Anna $10,000,000 for a strip of territory south of the Gila River and lying in what is now southwestern New Mexico and southern Arizona.”
Certain areas were Purchased.
www.progress.org...




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Texas

Texas was an independent Republic before joining the U. S.
www.lsjunction.com...

1832-1833 -- The Convention of 1832 and the Convention of 1833 in Texas were triggered by growing dissatisfaction among the settlements with the policies of the government in Mexico City.

3 November 1835 -- The Consultation met to consider options for more autonomous rule for Texas. A document known as the Organic Law outlined the organization and functions of a new Provisional Government.

2 March 1836 -- The Texas Declaration of Independence was signed by members of the Convention of 1836. An ad interim government was formed for the newly created Republic of Texas.

21 April 1836 -- Texans under Sam Houston routed the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Thus, independence was won in one of the most decisive battles in history.

25 April 1846 -- The Mexican-American War ignited as a result of disputes over claims to Texas boundaries. The outcome of the war fixed Texas' southern boundary at the Rio Grande River.

New Mexico, Arizona, southern Colorado, southern Utah, and southern Nevada

www.ppsa.com...

www.shgresources.com...

1848 - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends Mexican-American War.

1850 - New Mexico (which included present-day Arizona, southern Colorado, southern Utah, and southern Nevada) is designated a territory but denied statehood.

1854 - The Gadsden Purchase from Mexico adds 45,000 square miles to the territory

1863 - New Mexico is partitioned in half. Territory of Arizona is created.

1880 - Phoenix becomes capital of Arizona Territory.

1889 - The capital moved to Phoenix.

1906 - People of New Mexico and Arizona vote on issue of joint statehood, New Mexico voting in favor and Arizona against.

1910 New Mexico Constitution drafted in preparation for statehood.

1912 New Mexico admitted to the Union as the 47th state.

1912 - February 14th, Valentine’s Day, Arizona becomes the 48th State: Capital is Phoenix, first Governor is George W. P. Hunt.

California

www.shgresources.com...

1821 - Mexico wins its independence from Spain, becoming California's new ruler.

1846 - The Mexican-American War - The United States invades Mexico from the east, reaching San Diego in December.

1848 - California became a U.S. holding with the Treaty of Guadalupe, which ended the Mexican War.

1850 - California was admitted into the Union as the 31st state on September 9, 1850.

As this very brief history shows New Mexico (which included present-day Arizona, southern Colorado, southern Utah, and southern Nevada) and California were ceded by Mexico and paid for by the United States. Texas won its independence from Mexico before joining the United States. Neither Mexico nor the people thereof have any legitimate claim to any of these areas.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
"Tensions. After 1845 the fact that Texas was now part of the United States was beyond dispute. Yet annexation did not calm tensions since the Texas-Mexican border remained a subject of dispute. The Mexican government defined the south and west border of Texas at the Nueces River. The Texas government, now backed by the U.S. government, declared that the Rio Grande was its southern border, a claim that increased the size of Texas by almost 200 percent. Predictably, Mexico responded to the Texans' belligerent declaration by breaking off diplomatic ties with the United States. This move set in motion a series of events that changed the pattern of Western expansion, foreign relations with Mexico, and American politics.

Provoking a War. Polk, meanwhile, was busy plotting how to gain the rest of the Mexican northwest for the United States. His first move was to send an envoy to Mexico City with an offer to purchase California and New Mexico, an acquisition that would mean the loss of half of Mexico's territory, for $30 million. At the same time, he ordered American troops into the disputed territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande, and he dispatched a naval squadron into the Gulf of Mexico. Polk also attempted to stir up pro-American sentiment among the settlers in central California by naming a popular businessman from Monterey American consul and starting talk about California becoming the thirty-first state. Then Polk sat back and waited for any of these forms of provocation to prompt the Mexicans to fight back. When they did not respond as he had anticipated, Polk decided to declare war on Mexico anyway. On 9 May 1846, however, before he took action on his own, Polk received word that Mexican soldiers had crossed the Rio Grande and killed eleven Americans patrolling the disputed area. He sent the official declaration of war to Congress two days later.

Conflict. The declaration of war ran into trouble in Congress, where Whigs, most of them from Northern states, tended to oppose both continued westward expansion and war with Mexico. Nevertheless, in the end most of them voted for the declaration rather than be branded unpatriotic. As a result the declaration of war passed the House by a vote of 174-14 and the Senate by 40-2. Many Whigs at the time remembered how the Federalist Party had openly opposed the War of 1812 and never recovered politically; despite their misgivings, they voted for war.

Source Citation:Earle, Jonathon. "Rivalry along the Rio Grande: War with Mexico (1800-1860)." American Eras. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli and Richard Layman. Detroit: Gale Research, 1997. Discovering Collection. Gale.

Check your local library Web site for access to this and other databases... Discovering Collection"

Saw this on Yahoo! answers.

Seems like the American side wasn't being very quaint. I think the Mexicans felt threatened by the sudden power-moves and changes that were transforming their territory. I'm not Mexican myself. But I know that if some other country tried to do the same to us, we wouldn't be too pleased with that.

At least ... not a lot of hardcore patriots. I personally wouldn't mind if Canada took a bunch of states from the US.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Seeing what a crap hole Mexico was, and has become because of poor leadership, graft, I would think that those in the border states would be grateful they had become members of the US (LEGALLY)

People are running from Mexico because it's so awful...poverty stricken, disorganized and very poorly run...USA had nothing to do with that...it has always been that way.

If Mexico would clean it's own house, we wouldn't have so many of their rats jumping ship over here...

just my 2 cents



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


All very good points. But whether the U.S. provoked the attack or not (which in my opinion they did to a certain degree) the results are the same. Or should the U.S. repatriate all lands won by treaty? I believe that would leave most of the land East of the Mississippi, the Louisiana Purchase lands and Alaska as well as parts of the southwest that were purchased.

My belief is the Mexican government is trying the same tactic against us, (deliberately or not) by allowing its citizens to come here illegally (as many did to Texas and all of the other territories mentioned).



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
It's just my opinion, but I think we are giving their "government" way too much credit if we think they are "planning" to re-take their "county" back...they have no government to speak of. They are not organized in any way...they have 3 groups of people: the very rich, the very poor, and the drug cartels that have taken advantage of the very poor.

They are not coming here to take their mexican rights back, they are not coming here for a better life as AMERICANS...ie to contribute to the social construct here and obtain the benefits from doing that...they are here to take what they can.

I'm all for LEGAL immigration...we are a country built by immigrints from everywhere...but the key word here is "built" ...the illegals are not here to build and contribute...they are just here for a free ride.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


In actuality, the USA has had a hand in some of the disorder in Mexico. The USA, as many know, can't seem to keep itself out of the affairs of others.

Did everyone forget the drug wars that were fueled by agencies of our government across the border?


I have no doubt in my mind that the US would do such a thing. This country is not without ill-practice. Don't get me wrong, the principles of; freedom, truth, liberty, etc. Wonderful and inspiring things. Truly. But America has not always been so kind and respectful to other nations. It is not as though we've sat here, minding our own business, and they've come to our doorstep wanting to pick a fight.


A lot of Americans seem to forget that the past forges the future.

A lot of Americans don't acknowledge the hardships faced outside of this country. I remember a survey was taken that said most Americans haven't ever even left the US. Yet, they claim they're the best country in the world. Without having experienced any other countries. Only hearing the opinions of others.


Does that even make sense?

It is easy to tell others to deal with their own misfortune once you're already comfortable.

-----

Americans need to acknowledge that while they directly might not be responsible for the way things are, their manner of thinking is corrosive. Thinking either it never happened, or that it did happen but who-cares. That kinda mindset is ridiculous.

And it is only our successes that we drool over. How many WW2 games and WW2 documentaries are there? Tonssss. Just so many of them. I can't even begin to imagine why they'd like to relive that horrible war from so many different perspectives.

-----

Slavery is like ... the one thing that we're constantly in remembrance of. But isn't that because we're constantly playing the race card on each other? Or the government would have us bicker over such insubstantial points?

-----

My point is, things are the way they are for a reason. When you trace it back, you can see the factors that gave you your product. I think it's time Americans stopped acting as though they(historically, the nation and its government) didn't do anything wrong.

We can't hold people of this day and age accountable for the crap-storm evoked by their ancestors. That would just be silly. What we can do is gain more humility and understand the complex dynamics of the issues unfolding around us.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


As for them coming here to take advantage; of course they come here to take advantage. That is inherently why everyone is here in the first place. They wish to capitalize on CAPITALISM. This country has more positives than their country. So they will come here to take advantage of those positives. It's simple.

And they do build things for us, all the time. You've never seen illegal construction workers? They work just as hard for less.

Not all illegals are drug-lords or psychopaths bent on raping America of all its glory.

The PROCESS of immigration needs to be refined, and made a far faster affair. If your neighborhood is in constant turmoil and corruption runs down from the politicians to the police, if your streets are infested with terrifying bandits and gangsters; how the HELL do they expect you to wait it out for a couple of years.

To sit in that mess, that psychological and maybe even physical abuse, for what ... 1-5 years? While they get your papers ready? Are you serious? You could DIE in that time. Your family could DIE in that time.


It needs to be refined for those that actually just want to live a better life and become part of something that isn't complete crap and kills/tortures anyone that raises their voice.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


Theodore Roosevelt kicked off American Imperialism with what came to be known as the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine in which he claimed the U. S. Not only had the right to oppose European intervention in the Americas but to intervene itself in the affairs of its neighbors if necessary to maintain order. Unsaid is the motivation to maintain U. S. interests, whether Military, Political or Business.

In this country the American flag can be burned and flown upside down (A traditional sign of Distress) below a Mexican flag (Illegal) on the grounds of a California School in the name of free expression. Illegal Alians can protest a change in the immigration laws, receive free medical service, and welfare support, and cross the border to have a baby in the U. S. thus becoming a citizen and stretching our citizen “emergency support system” to the breaking point, (FIA, WIC. Etc.) with no protest from the State or Federal Governments. But when a State (Arizona in this case) stands and says no more and enacts a law that only enforces current federal law, the the President, the ACLU and a few others cry foul.

That being said, we really need to withdraw our troops from around the world, i.e. Korea, Japan, Germany etc. and concentrate on our own problems here in the U. S.; those troops could easily secure our borders, north and south.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


The "Government" I was thinking of is the Drug Cartels who bribe Mexican and American officials and are currently planting and growing Drugs (marijuana) in our national forests and parks. While the Sierra Club has "other priorities".

www.newser.com...

www.vdare.com...

[edit on 24-5-2010 by RedmoonMWC]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I think there is a feeling among some that losing California, Texas etc cost Mexico a chance to become a major power (or at leat a greater power).
a relatively unappreciated historic fact; the above areas were very unhappy with the central government in Mexico City, feeling forgotten and unsupported. North Mexico is mostly empty desert and travel and communications between Mexico City and points north was difficult and expensive, while East-West links were many and increasing; every day more settlers were arriving from, or via, Arkansas and Louisiana and hardly anyone from the south. Texas etc were essentially islands, separated by desert instead of water but still mostly isolated.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Well, first off, yes you can say Mexico did start the war but they attacked US soldiers that were on their territory. I bet you would totally approve of the US attacking Mexican soldiers that are coming onto American territory so why is it not ok then? Keep in mind that what many are complaining about now is exactly what Americans were doing then. They were going onto Mexican territory and calling it their own. To top it off, Texans fought for independence. Independence from what? That wasn't their land to be fighting for independence in the first place. Here's a more accurate history from a more reliable source.

"In 1848, at the conclusion of the U.S.- Mexican War, the two countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The treaty called for Mexico to give up almost half of its territory, which included modern-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. In return, the U.S. paid $15 million in compensation for war-related damage to Mexican land.

Among the notable aspects of the treaty, it set the Texas border at the Rio Grande; it provided for the protection of the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals who would now be living on U.S. soil; the United States agreed to police its side of the border; and both countries agreed to compulsory arbitration of future disputes. However, when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, it erased Article 10, which guaranteed the protection of Mexican land grants; Article 9, which deals with citizenship rights, was also weakened. This in turn created an anti-Mexican atmosphere that spurred the violation of their civil rights. In Texas, Mexicans were restricted from voting. In New Mexico, Mexicans were the victims of violence, while in California, laws against them were passed, some of which were known as the Greaser Laws.

At the time of the treaty, approximately 80,000 Mexicans lived in the ceded territory, which comprised only about 4 percent of Mexico’s population. Only a few people chose to remain Mexican citizens compared to the many that became United States citizens. Most of the 80,000 residents continued to live in the Southwest, believing in the guarantee that their property and civil rights would be protected. Sadly, this would not always be the case. By the end of the 19th century, most Mexicans had lost their land, either through force or fraud.

In the Chicano movement in the late 1960s, New Mexico land rights leader Reies Lopez Tijerina and his Alianza movement cited the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in their fight to regain American-seized Mexican land. In 1972, the Brown Berets youth organization also cited the treaty in their takeover of Catalina Island.

In terms of property ownership, many property rights existing under Spanish and Mexican land grants were not recognized by the United States. In California, approximately 27 percent of land grant claims were rejected; in the territory of New Mexico, some 76 percent of such claims were rejected." www.pbs.org...

Seriously, who cares. It's been over for over 150 years. Don't worry, Mexicans are not gonna be trying to take the land back. As you can see, a few tried before and it didn't get them very far. Besides, as others have already said, with what resources would they accomplish that feat even if they really wanted to? We all know our government does sneaky and unethical cr@p. It's nothing new. They do it now just as much as they did then. They bullied a less powerful country. It's not like we haven't seen them do this before
Let's move on past this nonsense, it's been 150 freckin years! It's simple to accept that we did some terrible things and just move on. All countries do crummy things. I know Mexico has done some terrible things to their less powerful southern neighbors. It happens everywhere. More powerful countries bullying the less powerful.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
S&F. I think the main point of this thread was to counter those who constantly claim that the U.S. was stolen from Mexico. With the obvious lack of knowledge regarding science and grammar rampant on this site and throughout the country, a lack of historical knowledge is hardly surprising.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bagari
S&F. I think the main point of this thread was to counter those who constantly claim that the U.S. was stolen from Mexico. With the obvious lack of knowledge regarding science and grammar rampant on this site and throughout the country, a lack of historical knowledge is hardly surprising.


Thank you.
And you are correct that was the whole point of the post, now whenever I see someone stating that the U.S. stole the land from Mexico I (and hopefully others) can link this thread.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy88
Well, first off, yes you can say Mexico did start the war but they attacked US soldiers that were on their territory.


The Territory was in dispute at the time.


Keep in mind that what many are complaining about now is exactly what Americans were doing then. They were going onto Mexican territory and calling it their own.


True and I have stated as much in this thread.


"In 1848, at the conclusion of the U.S.- Mexican War, the two countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The treaty called for Mexico to give up almost half of its territory, which included modern-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. In return, the U.S. paid $15 million in compensation for war-related damage to Mexican land.


And $3,000,000 in claims of American citizens against the Mexican Government and $10,000,000 for a strip of territory south of the Gila River and lying in what is now southwestern New Mexico and southern Arizona.


the United States agreed to police its side of the border;


Something it is not doing.


However, when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, it erased Article 10, which guaranteed the protection of Mexican land grants; Article 9, which deals with citizenship rights, was also weakened. This in turn created an anti-Mexican atmosphere that spurred the violation of their civil rights. In Texas, Mexicans were restricted from voting. In New Mexico, Mexicans were the victims of violence, while in California, laws against them were passed, some of which were known as the Greaser Laws.


I never said the U.S. was guiltless.


At the time of the treaty, approximately 80,000 Mexicans lived in the ceded territory, which comprised only about 4 percent of Mexico’s population. Only a few people chose to remain Mexican citizens compared to the many that became United States citizens. Most of the 80,000 residents continued to live in the Southwest, believing in the guarantee that their property and civil rights would be protected. Sadly, this would not always be the case. By the end of the 19th century, most Mexicans had lost their land, either through force or fraud.

In the Chicano movement in the late 1960s, New Mexico land rights leader Reies Lopez Tijerina and his Alianza movement cited the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in their fight to regain American-seized Mexican land. In 1972, the Brown Berets youth organization also cited the treaty in their takeover of Catalina Island.

In terms of property ownership, many property rights existing under Spanish and Mexican land grants were not recognized by the United States. In California, approximately 27 percent of land grant claims were rejected; in the territory of New Mexico, some 76 percent of such claims were rejected." www.pbs.org...


And some were not rejected.


Seriously, who cares. It's been over for over 150 years. Don't worry, Mexicans are not gonna be trying to take the land back. As you can see, a few tried before and it didn't get them very far. Besides, as others have already said, with what resources would they accomplish that feat even if they really wanted to? We all know our government does sneaky and unethical cr@p. It's nothing new. They do it now just as much as they did then. They bullied a less powerful country. It's not like we haven't seen them do this before
Let's move on past this nonsense, it's been 150 freckin years! It's simple to accept that we did some terrible things and just move on. All countries do crummy things. I know Mexico has done some terrible things to their less powerful southern neighbors. It happens everywhere. More powerful countries bullying the less powerful.


Again I never said the U.S. was guiltless, all I said and tried to show was that the U.S. aquired these lands by the accepted methods of the time. The fact remains we need to secure our borders, North and South.
Which will be no easy task.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by RedmoonMWC]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
And Mexico was stolen from the Indians.

So your point is exactly what?

And Mexico has such a gem of governance that illegals are going to ALL parts of these United States instead of staying in good old Mexico?

Could you make any actual cogent points that would register to a sane person?

Instead of completely empty legalistic mumbo-jumbo.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The fact that desperate people are coming here is NOT a reason for us to make immigration easier. We are NOT the keepers of the world, we are first responsible to our own citizens who often don't have adequate health care for themselves. We need to fix OUR own house. Take care of our own citizens, infrastructure, etc.

Regardless of what people rant about. USA is a compassionate country, but you can also deplete what you have to give and then EVERYONE loses.

We have to control what is comiong in...because of what they are taking away...free medical care, no taxes, criminal element that has reached all the states.

If it is an orderly process, and people WANT to learn ENGLISH because they want to be AMERICAN and take part in all the goodness this country can provide, then I'm all for it.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Aztlan the "Brown supremacy movement" & Reconquista












[edit on 24-5-2010 by zzombie]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
The indians of the southwest have the first claim.


Acoma Indians 2,802
Apache Indians 56,060
Cochiti Indians 1,175
Havasupai Indians
Hopi Indians 6,946
Hualapai Indians 600
Isleta Indians
Jemez Indians
Jicarilla Indians
Keresan Indians
Laguna Indians
Maricopa Indians
Mohave Indians 1059
Navajo Indians 140,000
Pima Indians 12,600
Paiute Indians 6,300
Qahatika Indians
Shoshone Indians 7,000
Taos Indians
Tewa Indians
Tigua Indians
Tohono O'Odham Indians 12,600
Yuma Indians
White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe 12,429
Yavapai Indians
Zuñi Indians
Comanche Indians 14,105
Kato Indians
Maidu Indians
Miwok Indians
Pomo Indians
Wailaki Indians
Wintun Indians
Yokuts Indians
Yuki Indians
I know i missed a number of tribes.

Now if the Aztlan & Reconquista movement want to try to take the southwest they are welcome to try but many native americans have done there time in the US military and can put up a good fight.

As it was Mexico never did control all the southwest.
They controlled some missions (church or government??????) and settlements but the american Indians controlled the rest until after the US finely defeated them.
There are quite a few Navajo (Diné) Marines (once a Marine always a Marine)that would make mincemeat out of any Mexican that tried.(by the way the Diné Nation is a sovereign nation within the US)
there are only 140,000 Diné people.

For hundreds of years the Comanche Indians were feared by the Mexicans.
that can become that problem again.

The american Indians in the southwest out number the Mexican military 10 to 1 and would likely be supported by other tribes across the US.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I think a little review of history on the subject was well- warranted. Mexico has gone downhill as a nation with help from the WTO and GATT thanks to America and it's merciless corporate interests.
GMO crops have displaced many traditional mexican farmers and the illegal drug trade from the US has allowed the cartels to eclipse the government in power. The US does have a hand in Mexico's miseries though I do not feel that gives them the right to migrate here illegally by the millions. They are indeed a great strain on our nation and particularly our southwestern states. IF the problem is not solved soon it will overwhem those states and send them all into bankruptcy.
We stole the land fair and square, just like we did with the indians. We''re no different than any other empire in that respect.




top topics



 
7

log in

join