Better than what the French got for their real estate deal. Or the Russians for theirs. Or the indians for Manhattan.

Take home lesson: Don't get into real estate deals with Americans.

I think the point that Hat was trying to impress upon you is that we didn't have to buy it, having won it by force of arms. Its like say, conquering a nation. You can colonize it, like we did the various indian entities or you can help them become free and independent nations like Germany, Japan, Italy, S. Korea, Philipines, etc.

So we wanted the land more than them. We didn't have to be good sports and pay them for it, it wasn't half of the country it was a few states.

Where did Ab Lincoln stand on this issue?

Is this a trivia thing ? He was against it.

Hahaha...

Somebody already has accused webwench of being TXBill! :rolleyes: :D

Mike

I figure that when online people start accusing me of actually being a man, I must be getting somewhere :D

It happens a lot, generally when (1) someone finds themselves unable to refute the content of my posts and is therefore looking for the right buttons to push for a personal attack, or (2) someone is having their mental image of women being less-than-bright and interested primarily in cookie- and baby-baking shattered, and can't handle it. Either way, I take it as an inadvertent compliment.

And you should! :D

I love it when someone like that abandons their legless argument and resorts to name-calling and/or ridiculous accusations!

I just stop and think "Ahhh.....the sweet smell of victory." :D

Mike

Careful now -- KV's head will begin to swell. :D

Kirk, how do you think nationalism comes into play regarding Mexico annexing itself to the U.S.? Also, if we did gain Mexico, it seems to me that drastic steps would be necessary to rid the Mexican states of the criminals currently entrenched therein...is this fight truly worth it?

Also, while murder and enslavement of natives in Spanish Mexico was officially condemned by the Catholic Church, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sure you know about the mission system and how kind it was to the native population :rolleyes:

While there are Mexicans descended from native Americans who fled the U.S. Army, I'm pretty sure the vast majority are descended from Aztecs (or cross-breeding between Aztecs and Spaniards).

BTW, IIRC, the Mexican-American War was actually the first place where Lincoln gained any national attention, due to his vocal opposition to it. Another noteworthy oppoent was Henry Davis Thoreau, who decided to stop paying taxes because he didn't want to help fund what he considered an unjust war. He also spent some quality time in jail for that...and, while saying that we got half of Mexico's land in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago is exaggerating some, I don't think it's exaggerating to say that we got 1/3 of Mexico's land area...keep in mind that, while "a few states" may be technically correct, those "few states" still include pretty much everything south and west of the Lousiana Purchase terriroty except for Texas and a small chunk of New Mexico that was purchased later in the 19th Century for a railroad right-of-way (I believe that's known as the Gasden Purchase, but the name may be wrong). I suppose saying that we gave them $10 million is better than just conquering the land and calling it good, but it does seem to me that that's on par with giving the natives a string of beads for the island that Manhattan now resides on. But...the Mexican-American War is still something we instigated, fought, and humiliated Mexico and certainly didn't do our image any good...and for what? Monroe primarily wanted California (and, therefore, the realization of Manifest Destiny by having a state on the Pacific Coast), and the residents of CA at the time were about ready to follow Texas's lead in any event...had we waited a few more years, we could probably have gotten California without a fight (at least not on the part of the U.S.), and I don't think Mexico cared all that much about the other regions the U.S. got (certainly not to the degree that they cared about Alta California).

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but historical debates always get me geared up :D

"The Warden", I think you've got it from a objective sort of Mexican point of view. That's the neat thing about history, everybody knows that something happened, but how we understand that 'something' depends on what we bring to understand it.

One of the finest political essays ever written was that which Thoreau wrote during is brief time in the local cárce, "On Civil Disobedience". Its as revolutionary and institutionally dangerous as the Declaration of Independence or Sermon on the Mount. I understand that both Ghandi and Mandela used it as justification for their own political activism.

To me, the war with Mexico and the war with Spain are the two least justifiable wars in which we've ever engaged. Vietnam is a distant third.

Oh well, too bad the Mexicans didn't kick our ass like the Canadians did when we invaded them. Twice, right? How embarassing.

What? We invaded the Canadians?

Kind of embarassing, isn't it? Even worse, they kicked our asses. For god's sake, don't let it get out too much. Those damned Canadians might do it a 3rd time!

Yes, we actually captured Montreal during the Revolutionary War (1775). I believe our next incursion was during the War of 1812. Under British rule at the time, Canada thanked us for our efforts by driving us back and burning down the White House.

Hmmm -- a recurring theme. They don't speak Espanol in Iraq, do they? Now I see the difference......

Amen to that...one of the reasons I got so involved with the subject. I'll admit that my understanding of the Mexican-American war probably isn't as good as it should be; that's what I get for concentrating on more recent events (late 19th and into the 20th centuries, particularly the World Wars, the events leading to, and the aftermath thereof, including current-day impacts...anyone want to get into a debate over the effects of the Treaty of Versailles? ;)). My main source for the Mexican-American war is likely biased in Mexico's favor as well (the teacher is Hispanic, and has been treating his "History of California" class as a combination of a History of Latin America and an ethnic studies class :mad: )...might be worthwhile to do some more research on it someday when time allows. But...unless said source is biased to the point of lying, I think it's fair to say that Monroe instigated the war by placing troops in an area contested between the U.S. and Mexico with the knowledge that the Mexican troops would shoot, and then using the incident to get Congress to declare war, and certainly the opposition to the war can't be realistically argued. :)

That said, I actually have mixed feelings...on the one hand, much like you, I'm not all that keen on imperialistic wars (the Mexican/American War, the Spanish/American war which got us American Samoa {IIRC} and the Philippines, etc), but I'm not against expansion, and actually think it necessary at times...the real question is in how we go about it. Manifest Destiny, IMHO, was not a bad concept...we should just have handled it somewhat differently. And, if we annex Mexico and.or Canada, I won't complain...unless it's done by coercion or by force. That said, annexing Mexico, IMHO, is likely to be a mess...I'm still wanting to see what Kirk has to say about nationalism playing a role in Mexico's "desire" to unite. Same with Canada.

Yes, it's quite humbling to talk about, but they handed us our a$$es, thoroghly kicked, both times.

However, I hardly think it would turn out that way if we tangled a 3rd time.
Too many folks of French descent up there now....they'd all just surrender and want to talk about it. :p :D

Mike

I enjoy a good historical debate myself - I am a lifelong student of 19th Century US history, and you present a lot of issues so her goes:

First, on the half-of Mexico thing, Santa Ana granted Texas independence with quite literally, a gun to his head after he was captured at San Jacinto, about 12 miles from where I am typing this, incidently, and due to the claim of duress, the question of Texas was still open at the time the Mexican War began.

The Texicans actually only militarially controlled the Trans-Brazos area, which connects modern day Austin, San Antonio and the upper coast with a series of rivers. The southern border was generally considered the Nueces River, which parallels the Rio Grande, offset about 500 miles. The wild and woolly land in between was loaded with one of the main objects of economic desire of the time - wild horses and fair to good land for grazing cattle, both in ravenous demand in the rapidly urbanizing Eastern US, and most historians figured that was all we really had our eye on, but the unexpected total collapse of Mexico gave us success beyond our wildest dreams, a success engineered by another lesser known American, one of our most brillaint strategists ever, Winfield Scott. ( http://ngeorgia.com/other/scottinmexico.html ). So a lot of what happened was as much total fluke as it was a land grab. In fact, the Mexicans were so impressed with Scott, they actually offered him the presidency of Mexico - after all, if Chile could do well under an Irishman, what the heck.

After annexation the US claimed the southern border of Texas as the Rio Grande, and when we sent troops into the disputed area, the war began. After all, we were not only attacked in what we claimed was America, the Mexicans in what was Mexico had in our opinion invaded the US, along with suspected links to al-Queda.

The President was not Monroe, it was Polk, a president nobody remembers who should be. The parallels between Bush and Polk are interesting and numerous, and a good argument for reincarnation. A southerner from NC, he was accused of planning the war before he took office, of using trumped up claims to invade, and of doing so at the bidding of sinister business interests, in his case, slave holders. The war started out all rosy and ended in rancor, the list goes on and one. I would not be surprised if Polk was Bush's favorite President. The truth has been debated ever since, as a I am sure will be the case with Bush.

As one can see from the following map,

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MAP/TERRITORY/1840map.html

we obviously not only grabbed a land mass about as large as Mexico itself, we also ended any chance for Mexico to make any claims on huge portions of the west that were not settled, so in effect the war doubled the size of the US and settled 99% of our current continental borders.

In many ways this was a wise move, because many doubted Mexico would survive, and would instead fall into the hands of European powers, and the Sonora desert and the Rio Grande provided a much more defensible southern border if the day ever came when we had to face a modern European army instead of the hapless and poorly led Mexicans. Since the French eventually did successfully occupy Mexico for a time, it was probably a smart move, so I agree with much of what you have said.

Morally, however, our actions, in which vast amounts of oil, the Comstock Lode, the California gold fields, the vast agricultural lands of Texas and California, vast stretches of timber, which is rare in most of Mexico, just to mention a few things, meant that the population and future generations of Mexico got royally screwed and stuck with a land mass that had been stripped of mineral wealth by the Spanish, whose main remaing value was that one could grow a really nice avocado. For this I feel we owe them a social debt.

On the question of Mexican nationalism, I don't know if you have lived near the Mexican border at all, but huge numbers of Mexicans live a life of dual citizenship in both countries anyway, either as workers or shoppers or as part of family situations. All of the cities and towns of Texas, New Mexico and Southern California have large Mexican populations (Arizona is now undergoing this process) and our culture influences theirs more than vice versa, and they are in fact becoming Anglicized, simply because speaking English is the easiest way to make more money along with the fact they are bombarded with it all day.

In addition, union with us would mean re-union with much of what they consider their own country - they have never really gotten over the Mexican War, and your average Mexican laborer knows more about this period of history than any average American. They envy our way of life, our prosperity and our stable political system. In addition, they understand the US system of states, where each state is like its own little country (or at least it used to be like that) and those Mexican American friends of mine I have talked to on the subject think of it in those terms, that Mexico would keep its identity in a US union the way Texas does, and in the end gain much more than they lose. At the rate we are going, a state called Mexico would not be much different than Texas is becoming. San Antonio, El Paso, Laraedo, McAllen, Brownsville (and soon Ft. Worth) are already de facto Mexican cities, as is half of Houston. They will be the majority in this state in 10 years, and the rural Texas counties that border Mexico look no different from the area around Juarez in many ways, and that is spreading north.

Ultimately, I think it would go off without a hitch under a 10 year transitionary law. Since this would require super majority votes in both countries, I see the biggest road block as ratification in the US, not Mexico, but time will eventually make it happen. Mexicans do not practice abortion or birth control for the most part, and large families are a badge of male success in Hispanic culture, so demographics will eventually provide the majorities necessary in the US at the current rate we are being infiltrated, which is why I say, lets either get it over, or get serious about keeping them out.

The current situation in Mexico is horrible. The old saying in Texas is that the main problem in Mexico is that the police are responsible for most of the crime. If we locked every cop up, the people would cheer. The saddest thing one can say about Mexico is that the worst thing that can happen to you is to meet a police officer. On the plus side of that however, we would know just who it is we would need to get rid of. The new Fox government was supposed to make things better, but that did not happen. The only thing that perpetuates the situation is the American safety valve - the hard working and ambitious, the ones most likely to destablize the government if they actually had to live in Mexico, simply hit the road. The people who are left envy those who hit the road. I believe the vast majority of them would see US citizenship as a path to a better life.

When I hear chestbeaters blame the aliens for being illegal, etc, I wonder if these people are even aware the depth of poverty that exists in Mexico. For example, one million people in Mexico City live in garbage dumps and landfills. If your choice was being illegal in the US and taking a few chances with the law or spending your life watching your children eating rotten garbage and dying of simple diaherrea and measles in a garbage dump what would you do? The question of fault or blame or culpability before the law, important to us as we point accusing fingers at them, mean about as much to them as warm spit. When I worked construction in Texas in my younger days, the Mexican national who was my personal wage slave, told me he got paid one chicken a day, and a six pack of beer on Friday, for back breaking farm work. That works our to about six bucks a day. Anyone who thinks a guy with a wife and four kids facing that or life in the US has much of a choice ought the get themselves a copy of Les Miserables.

In truth, one of the reasons I want the enforcement switched from them to employers is compassionate - if they knew there were no jobs here to begin with, they would not come at all and get into situations like I described and at least keep their families together. That was not an unusual situation I described. It used to happen all the time when INS raided the metropolitan areas of Texas. They quit doing it as much because the State of Texas was screaming about all the unnecessary orphans the feds were creating as the from simple disgust at themsleves for doing it - a lot of BC guys complained bitterly about it, quit or were simply unhappy employees. MM, go rip some guy's kids from him a couple of times and let me know how long you think you can do it.

Ask anybody, you don't see INS in the cities much anymore. In the final analysis. it simply can't be done. In addition, when I finally did see my son's friend again years later, he was covered in Chicano gang tattos and had a six inch scar in his upper arm where he had slashed himself with a straight razor as part of a gang initiation, and had obviously become a big time drug user. Taking a kid from his stable parents at 14, packing him off to foster homes, creates a hell of a lot more problems than it solves. His only crime was he was an American citizen, and his parents weren't.

Canada is a different story. Those nasty little junior Brits would probably give it the old stiff upper lip. There is a persistent rumor, however, the Canadians used VX nerve gas on its Eskimos in he 80s, and is secretly building an Atomic weapon - not mention "links".

I think the simple solution to the orphans is get rid of the stupid law that says being born here makes you a citizen. or just make like an exception, if your parents are illegal so are you. kids arent really citizens yet anyway. That law seems like it came from one of them "compromises" between the liberals and conservatives that kinda doesnt work.Except, it seems, nobody wants the illegals gone, Lib. or Cons.?? :confused:

BTW kirk very informative, interesting stuff. :)

Well, in 1812, those were all British troops stationed in French Canada that kicked our sorry ass - they were there to keep their eyes on the Frenchies as much as us.

The ones who burned Washington were European Continental Naval Infantry if I remember right. Bunch of DC city slickers fighting the guys who whipped Napolean's ass got a serious ass whipping and town burning. The Brits luck ran out when the finally faced American regulars out side of Baltimore, and then a fortuitous hurricane hit, with the Americans in their comfy stone forts and the Brits out in the open.

Aside from the wierdly incongrous assertions concerning the present world situation and that of the time of Polk, I think Kirk presented a nice synopsis.

I think 10 years would be too short a time and fifty too long, but I have no clearer estimation that his. I agree that it would be in the best interest of the USA and MX to reach some sort of confederation. If I were Mexican patriot, I would not want my country subsumed by the USA. Instead, I would seek an accomodation that would accept the best the USA has to offer (reliable jurisprudence) and combine it with the best of Mexico (IMO, the strong familial and regional identities). But that would be up to the Mexicans, of course. It would have to be a new concept for the planet, wouldn't it? More independence than Puerto Rico but some strong assurance to the USA that Mexican political corruption would be destroyed. I would never agree to any special relationship with MX until their thoroughly corrupt legal system was completely exorcized.

Yes it is an interesting period that no one ever studies. There is a good PBS Ken Burns series on it, catch it if you see it coming around. It determined our entire fate as a nation, in fact the puny little Battle of San Jacinto is considered one of the ten most decisive battles in history even though only a few thousand guys were involved, its ramifications were tremendous.

The law on citizenship is not of political origin, like much of the Consitution it has its roots in English common law, and it goes back a thousand years. A serf was attached to the land - he was not a slave owned by another person, he came with the land like a tree or something. If you got born on a certain chunk of land, thats where you were a citizen. Most people don't realize it but the law ultimately looks at all people, especially children, as the property of the State. You don't own your kids, you raise them for the State, and if you don't do a good job, they take them back. Just substitute the word "king" or "Duke" for State and you can see where this came from. German common law is based on blood - a citizien has to be born of parents who are German citizens, and this has resulted in a huge Turkish minority who were born there but are denied citizenship, and it is causing them problems. Both systems have some fancy name, maybe Narwhal knows what they are, but usuallly either one or the other is used in the Western world. I believe Napoleanic Law is based on blood citizenship, which is why Louisiania had all this stuff about octoons and all that racist crap.

The congruency is clear to us that voted for Kerry.

Well, I am talking about complete integration of Mexico as a US state, most I have read written on the subject suggests splitting it into two states, Mexico and Yucatan. The key to making it work would be the complete replacement of their Spanish common law based sytem with our English common law based system. Spanish common law does not have its roots in Parliaments and English Courts at Law, its roots are in things like the Inquisition. Its a lousy system and many political scientists blame it for the stunted growth of the former Spanish colonies compared to former English colonies. I believe under Spanish law the sore spot is that the judges run police forces as private armies, and a judge acts as both a prosecutor and judge in a number of ways, and you assumed guility and must prove yourself innocent, and the judge has the option to try you before himself or a jury. So a corrupt judge is usually the equivalent of a Mob Boss, except now he has a private army that can execute warrants, seize property and arrest and imprison anyone on trumped up charges to surpress any oppositon from decent people. One of the things that has happened in Mexico is that millions of Mexicans have lived in the US for extended periods, and many as we know, become acquainted with our criminal justice system, which they find fair and superior. They go back to Mexico, and get that ****. Its a powerful part of the motivating forces that would make this work.

Funny thing about LA's racial politics, to which you allude. If you're 1/32nd negro (I think that's the measure), you're legally a minority. In the late 1990's folks litigate against that on the grounds that they wanted to be white, not black. African-american special interest groups fought against self-designating as that would dilute the racial clout of minorities. So the racialists won--the folks who wanted to keep the 1/32 rule. This was the NAACP and allied groups.

Now if you can untangle which group was the racist group, I'd be obliged.

YOUR Grandchildren
 

K.V.,

TOO simple , U.S. is the only "group" with the cabability to "Police" the
World (Try getting ANYONE to pay us for their safety).

"No one has Left Planet Earth Alive" (except the astronauts, for a short
time).

'keep XXXXXXX with the Ecosystem and Earth will become what we look
up into the sky and call Mars.

Actually, Texas seized the Yucatan and had that lying bastard Sam Houston not double-crossed Commodore Moore and the people of the Yucatan, it would have been a much different state that entered the Union.

BTW, Commodore Moore and the TX Navy were really something. Terrific fighters. Moore's task force is the only instance in which sailing vessels defeated steamships. And the steamships were manned by British sailors. Moore nearly got court martialed for his efforts by Houston. Guess who wrote the history?

Its also worth remembering that many, many people of Spanish descent fought for TX independence--it wasn't just Davy Crockett. Funny thing. My ancestor moved to TX when it was still Spanish and so pledged allegiance to Spain. Thus, even though my family is anglo-scottish from day one, that guy would technically make me an hispanic-american, right mis amigos?

First I would just say that this is truning into a great thread. It is nice that we can have a debate and throw around ideas like this.

Now onto Canada, if Benidict Arnold had been in command we would have succeded in Canada. He is one of my favorite players in the Revolution.

Hello,
Same thing happening here in Malaysia, we have about 4.5 million illegal Indonesians in a country of 22 million that is about the size of California.
Officials claim there are only 2 million, but we all know politicians cannot count.
The government is always treading lightly to maintain good relations with *neighbouring countries*, the reality is that their croonies are making money hand over fist by employing the illegals for a mere pittance and paying out kickbacks to whoever is getting in the way of making a few million.
The time bomb here is that the illegals have reintroduced diseases that had been eradicated: leprosy, malaria, hepatitis and of course there is a barely controlled outbreak of ALL the STDs plus AIDS.
The technique in Malaysia is to sweep it under the carpet and ignore it. There are budget increases, pay increases, equipment upgrades for Immigration and Police enforcement but all they seem to be able to do is declare amnesties once a year to *encourage* the illegals to return home on the taxpayers tab, only to have them back here in two weeks sporting a different hairstyle.
I have had it with politicians

I large influx of illegals lowers the average wages and in turn the lifestyles of EVERYONE who belongs here.

At nearly any job you can find an illegal who will work for a third what you make, many are paid off the books so they pay no taxes, when they show up in emergency rooms with no coverage the hospital gets stiffed, YOUR insurance and mine goes up, they put kids in schools Our taxes pay for, but they don't , soon your taxes go up to make up for all the illegals 10 kid families in the schools.

The Managers that turn a blind eye to all of this to save a buck so they can give themselves a bigger BONUS every year.....Who gets screwed? You and me, If you are middle class you get the shaft.

I say do massive sweeps.....round up EVERY illegal, dump their butts a LONG LONG way from the border. And if they get caught a second time make them dissappear. Anyone who wants to come here follows the rules or pays a high price for failing to.