The United States of America “obtained” 55% of Mexico’s territory at gunpoint

[Vandalshandle]

Originally posted by longknife
Again, if Spain and Mexico had truly been concerned with maintaining control of those areas, they would have committed troops to do so.

Originally posted by BARBASIEWICZFAN
The facts are that after Mexico took the land owned by Spain, Mexico all but abandoned California.

Isn't it funny that every piece of land on planet Earth coveted by thieves and land grabbers of the first order suddenly, magically becomes "uninhabited", "abandoned", "neglected", "wasteland", etc, etc...?

The american continent

South Africa

Palestine

You name it.

How convenient!!

The Mexican government abandoning California resulted in the local banditos controlling a large area. This is the point. That is why the US stuck it's big nose into the situation. You know this too. Don't scold about land grabbing thieves. Neither of us can take the high ground here.
My reason for writing is to counter the claim that the land purchase was a "mugging." After the treaty was signed, Santa Anna and his army invited Freemont and his troops to a giant fiesta in LA that lasted for almost a week.
You can purposely pretend to miss the message by picking at the facts. It wasn't the Mexican government...just local governors. Or, the Indians were given the missions but the "local governors" sold them to the civilians. The "straw herring" tactic. To change the subject and stop the discussion.
The point is that Mexico, as history shows, didn't occupy, protect, govern or have any attraction to California while it owned it for 26 years, and sold it at the first chance to do so. Now it is reported as a MUGGING, really ?

Interesting spin! I'm sure that in your next chapter, you will explain why our taking the West from Mexico was actually doing them a favor!

 

[longknife]

Interesting spin! I'm sure that in your next chapter, you will explain why our taking the West from Mexico was actually doing them a favor!

Again, we DID NOT take the West from Mexico! Mexico simply did not protect it and allowed other Europeans to come in and settle areas it was unwilling to guard by force of arms.

General Vallejo had long allowed Americans, Brits, and others to settle on the flanks of the Sierra Nevadas and in the Napa/Sonoma region as he felt it would hold back a possible move by Russia to take the area. The especially was true in coastal areas that never proved particularly inviting.

In the south, Pio Pico was too busy selling off everything he could to increase his personal wealth. Non-Spanish/Mexicans were desired as they formed local militias that were far better than the uneducated Mexicans could do.

 

[Oldglory1]

Europeans intermarried with the natives, which created the Hispanic race. Anglos did not. We simply killed the natives.

Are you serious? All the Europeans mated with the indios including Anglos whom were not natives anyway because they migrated to this continent just like the Europeans did. Hispanics were from Spain only. The Spanish conquistadores didn't battle with or kill any of the indios? Surely you jest. You might try taking a history class.

 

[Oldglory1]

Originally posted by longknife
Again, if Spain and Mexico had truly been concerned with maintaining control of those areas, they would have committed troops to do so.

Originally posted by BARBASIEWICZFAN
The facts are that after Mexico took the land owned by Spain, Mexico all but abandoned California.

Who the hell is "we"? Those people are all dead now. Are those of us alive today responsible for what dead people did or didn't do? Get your head out of the past. for God's sake!

Isn't it funny that every piece of land on planet Earth coveted by thieves and land grabbers of the first order suddenly, magically becomes "uninhabited", "abandoned", "neglected", "wasteland", etc, etc...?

The american continent

South Africa

Palestine

You name it.

How convenient!!

The Mexican government abandoning California resulted in the local banditos controlling a large area. This is the point. That is why the US stuck it's big nose into the situation. You know this too. Don't scold about land grabbing thieves. Neither of us can take the high ground here.
My reason for writing is to counter the claim that the land purchase was a "mugging." After the treaty was signed, Santa Anna and his army invited Freemont and his troops to a giant fiesta in LA that lasted for almost a week.
You can purposely pretend to miss the message by picking at the facts. It wasn't the Mexican government...just local governors. Or, the Indians were given the missions but the "local governors" sold them to the civilians. The "straw herring" tactic. To change the subject and stop the discussion.
The point is that Mexico, as history shows, didn't occupy, protect, govern or have any attraction to California while it owned it for 26 years, and sold it at the first chance to do so. Now it is reported as a MUGGING, really ?

Interesting spin! I'm sure that in your next chapter, you will explain why our taking the West from Mexico was actually doing them a favor!

 

[Vandalshandle]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

 

[Conservative65]

The Mexican-American War was not a war as much as it was a mugging. It is now recognized that most of the rationale for the declaration of war by the United States on Mexico had little to do with defending US citizens or property and a lot to do with our designs on seizing northern Mexico. We had offered to buy much of the land prior to the war and Mexico rejected it, but after the war we paid fifty cents on the dollar.

America 8217 s Hostile Takeover of Mexico Paul Kiser s Blog

Bet you think we should give it back to them.

 

[Conservative65]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Then you would know that Conquistadors were primarily from Spain and Portugal. Last time I looked dumbass, they are both European. Seems to me when you say European, you mean white people. Willing to concede playing that race card.

 

[Conservative65]

If you consider the social welfare benefits for 50 million illegal invaders over 50 years, our subsidizing Mexico's corn supply, our billions in investment in Mexico's industrial infrastructure, the loss of millions of American jobs, and the astronomical costs in crime and societal deterioration that millions of illiterates and criminals represent, we didn't end up fucking Mexico out of jack shit. Whatever land (we paid for...read a history book) we got, probably cost us a million dollars an acre.

If Obama grants amnesty to what will include Mexicans, that will add to it.

 

[Oldglory1]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Again, are you kidding me? It wasn't only the Spaniards that mated with the indios. Other Europeans did also. No European intentionally killed the indios by germs. So just what genocide are you referring to? WTH does Hitler have to do with this? He stayed in Germany. I don't know where you think you are going with all of this but the Spaniards weren't any better or worse than the rest of the Europeans that came here. What has all of this to do with the present anyway? Those people are all dead not and they aren't us and we aren't them. No one is guilty of what their ancestors did or didn't do. We are all individuals only responsible for our own actions.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Mexican-American War was not a war as much as it was a mugging. It is now recognized that most of the rationale for the declaration of war by the United States on Mexico had little to do with defending US citizens or property and a lot to do with our designs on seizing northern Mexico. We had offered to buy much of the land prior to the war and Mexico rejected it, but after the war we paid fifty cents on the dollar.

America 8217 s Hostile Takeover of Mexico Paul Kiser s Blog

And mexico took all it's land at gun point.

what's your point? other than showing how much you hate America

 

[Vandalshandle]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Then you would know that Conquistadors were primarily from Spain and Portugal. Last time I looked dumbass, they are both European. Seems to me when you say European, you mean white people. Willing to concede playing that race card.

Ok, I will narrow it down, if you wish. The Spanish and the Portuguese did not commit genocide in Latin and South America. The Europeans who settled what became the United States did commit genocide. So, you see how easily you won that round?

 

[Vandalshandle]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Again, are you kidding me? It wasn't only the Spaniards that mated with the indios. Other Europeans did also. No European intentionally killed the indios by germs. So just what genocide are you referring to? WTH does Hitler have to do with this? He stayed in Germany. I don't know where you think you are going with all of this but the Spaniards weren't any better or worse than the rest of the Europeans that came here. What has all of this to do with the present anyway? Those people are all dead not and they aren't us and we aren't them. No one is guilty of what their ancestors did or didn't do. We are all individuals only responsible for our own actions.

Oh. Well, then, everything is alright, isn't it? In fact, since there is no guilt for the European's wiping out the North American natives, then there is no reason to concern ourselves should ethnic cleansing is going on in Somalia, Germany, or anywhere else. Generally speaking, though, you are correct. History is written by the surviving winners, not the dead. So, we continue to hold ourselves in self-righteous majesty and splendor! Long may our flag wave, wherever we decide to plant it (and to hell with the poor bastards that use to live there)! That is the story that is in our history books, and we are sticking to it!

Remember the Alamo! (but forget about Wounded Knee)

 

[Politico]

Yup, but won the interior of the continent at New Orleans after the war ended.

Then took the other half at gunpoint. America fuck yeah!

So go spit on some dead American's grave then if it will make you feel any better. Either demand that the Mexican government take it up with our government or STHU!

WTF are you talking about? Though I regret the existence of Kalifornia, why would I spit on the graves of the folks who fought to take all the land we own? They worked very hard. And I could give a shit less what the Mexicans might be upset about.

 

[Oldglory1]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Again, are you kidding me? It wasn't only the Spaniards that mated with the indios. Other Europeans did also. No European intentionally killed the indios by germs. So just what genocide are you referring to? WTH does Hitler have to do with this? He stayed in Germany. I don't know where you think you are going with all of this but the Spaniards weren't any better or worse than the rest of the Europeans that came here. What has all of this to do with the present anyway? Those people are all dead not and they aren't us and we aren't them. No one is guilty of what their ancestors did or didn't do. We are all individuals only responsible for our own actions.

Oh. Well, then, everything is alright, isn't it? In fact, since there is no guilt for the European's wiping out the North American natives, then there is no reason to concern ourselves should ethnic cleansing is going on in Somalia, Germany, or anywhere else. Generally speaking, though, you are correct. History is written by the surviving winners, not the dead. So, we continue to hold ourselves in self-righteous majesty and splendor! Long may our flag wave, wherever we decide to plant it (and to hell with the poor bastards that use to live there)! That is the story that is in our history books, and we are sticking to it!

Remember the Alamo! (but forget about Wounded Knee)

The so-called guilty are all dead now.

 

[longknife]

Europeans intermarried with the natives, which created the Hispanic race. Anglos did not. We simply killed the natives.

Are you serious? All the Europeans mated with the indios including Anglos whom were not natives anyway because they migrated to this continent just like the Europeans did. Hispanics were from Spain only. The Spanish conquistadores didn't battle with or kill any of the indios? Surely you jest. You might try taking a history class.

They NEVER called themselves Hispanic - that is a modern term to identify those from Spanish-Speaking countries.

The Spaniards always divided themselves into two classes, Peninsulares who came from Spain and Criollos who were born in the New World.

 

[Oldglory1]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Then you would know that Conquistadors were primarily from Spain and Portugal. Last time I looked dumbass, they are both European. Seems to me when you say European, you mean white people. Willing to concede playing that race card.

Ok, I will narrow it down, if you wish. The Spanish and the Portuguese did not commit genocide in Latin and South America. The Europeans who settled what became the United States did commit genocide. So, you see how easily you won that round?

Yup, but won the interior of the continent at New Orleans after the war ended.

Then took the other half at gunpoint. America fuck yeah!

So go spit on some dead American's grave then if it will make you feel any better. Either demand that the Mexican government take it up with our government or STHU!

WTF are you talking about? Though I regret the existence of Kalifornia, why would I spit on the graves of the folks who fought to take all the land we own? They worked very hard. And I could give a shit less what the Mexicans might be upset about.

Sorry, but my post was meant for someone else. Curious though, why would you spell California with a K?

 

[Conservative65]

History is, in fact, my specialty, Old. The Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the natives, but they did not purposely commit genocide. They intermarried and created the Hispanic race. While millions died from diseases brought by Spaniards, they did not intentionally kill natives with germ warfare.

The Europeans did not intermarry with the natives. They committed genocide, pure and simple. Hitler even used our treatment of Native Americas as his justification for ridding the world of Jews. Of course, if you can point to the North American equivalent of the mixed race native and Spaniard (Hispanic), I will happily concede that point.

Then you would know that Conquistadors were primarily from Spain and Portugal. Last time I looked dumbass, they are both European. Seems to me when you say European, you mean white people. Willing to concede playing that race card.

Ok, I will narrow it down, if you wish. The Spanish and the Portuguese did not commit genocide in Latin and South America. The Europeans who settled what became the United States did commit genocide. So, you see how easily you won that round?

Are you saying that Florida isn't part of the U.S. St. Augustine is the oldest, continuously occupied European settlement on the 48 contiguous States. It was founded in 1565 by Pedro Menendez de Aviles.

 

[Oldglory1]

Hispanic isn't a race. It's a culture. The mix of white Spaniards or other European whites with the indios created the mixed race called Mestizos.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Mexican-American War was not a war as much as it was a mugging. It is now recognized that most of the rationale for the declaration of war by the United States on Mexico had little to do with defending US citizens or property and a lot to do with our designs on seizing northern Mexico. We had offered to buy much of the land prior to the war and Mexico rejected it, but after the war we paid fifty cents on the dollar.

America 8217 s Hostile Takeover of Mexico Paul Kiser s Blog

Polk was a great president, I'll give you that.

i love that dance the POLKa he invented.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

Hispanic isn't a race. It's a culture. The mix of white Spaniards or other European whites with the indios created the mixed race called Mestizos.

And this correction to wording I used to describe the mixed race people in Latin and South America has what to do with my point that they are a mixed race, whereas North America did not mix races?