The American/Mexican War- Was it Justified?

[yesdachi]

It starts when Mexico was originally a Spanish territory. The United States government and the Spanish government encouraged pioneers to settle, in what is now current day Texas. After Mexico won its war of independence, it became uneasy with the vast amount of foreign settlers occupying their land.

Seems like Mexico had an issue from the very beginning with the US pioneers that were encouraged to move there by its previous “owners”.

Any discussion about it now is just academic and has no practical application because the only way Texas is going anywhere is if the people of Texas want to, and they don’t seem to want to very badly and if they did they definitely don’t want to be part of Mexico.

[Slyspy]

[QUOTE=BigTex]There was no violation that is the problem with your statement. The Great Republic of Texas gained it's indepence from Mexico by sparing the life of the then leader of Mexican dictatorship. Santa Anna was an elected official first, then became the dictator of Mexico, that is one of the main cause of the Texas Revolution in the first place. Claiming that Texas still belonged to Mexico is exactly that a claim. It would be the same as the USA claiming the UK to be part of the Union. Would the UK's government then be a treasons gang of rebels. Becuase obviously if it works as you say it does, then any claim means that current government is in violation of territorial sovereignty. Claims though are truly just that claims, with no reality needed to back them up. The truth is, the fort was built on US soil and was invaded and attacked which is a clear declaration of war by Mexico to the US.

A few other things havent been mentioned, first of all US settlers were offered very good deals on land if they migrated west. They actively encouraged citizenship to the new settlers also. Another point is, during the Mexican American war the USA at the end of it not only payed for the territory but also alloted money for the hardships the Mexican citizens endured, and they were also payed for their land. While many were still forced to leave in some parts, the terms of their departure are about as kind as they get in wars.

The fact of the matter is war's happen and their results are often the increase in landsize of the victor and to the defeated a great loss in territory. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must./QUOTE]

-------------------------------

The other way around I think.

[lanky316]

Considering we had completely conquered them, and we paid them for the land we conquered, and they started the war, I consider it completely fair. After all, Mexico took it from the natives.

And you took most of your land from natives, usually with little to no compensation. I guess you're both equally to blame on the genocidal expansionism there ;)

[Don Corleone]

The whole concept of being justified in fighting for territory seems to be a rather ambiguous, flexible idea that continues to evolve. There are some fundamental questions that don't really have answers in order to get a hard and fast ruling of 'yes, USA was okay in what it did" or "no, USA should give California, Texas, and rest of Southwest back to Mexico".

The types of questions we're talking about....

-Is sovereignty absolute? Did Nazis have the sovereign right to gas their own citizens? Did the Iraqis? Both of these examples are tough, because in both cases, the parties in question engaged in aggressive expansion of their own.... But to use a non-expansionist example, did the President of Yugoslavia (who granted was a puppet for Milosevic) have the sovereign right to hold onto Croatia and Bosnia at any cost? Did we have the right to force the Serbs by force of arms to stop the seccession of Bosnia? Well, we won, so yes. But if we had lost, the answer would have been no.

-How far back do territorial claims go? When does land ownership truly pass from one people to the next? Using the same arguments that the Palestinians use to justify their claim of sovereignty, we could claim that the entire area really belongs to the Canaanites (a non-semitic people) and all semites: Jews and Arabs, must vacate immediately.

-What is a 'people'? We talk about stealing the land from Native Americans and our moral obligation to give it back. But the Iriquois League and the Algonquin Nation were fighting over Vermont and New Hampshire for hundreds of years before white people ever showed up (well, there was Leif Eriksson, but you get my point).

Speaking of whom, I think they had the right idea... the Earth itself belongs to noone. It's only the resources it yields that can be claimed (horses, herds for hunting, fishing stocks, etc) and fought for.

As for the particular case in question, I have to agree with those who have said that timing was everything. Texas didn't join the USA immediately, there was a 10 year discrepancy there. As for California being part of Mexico, was it ever? I know it was part of the Spanish colonies in North America, but that's not the same thing.

In conclusion, I fall back to the old adage, history is written by the victors, and the winners are always right. It is a good thing to remember this in reviewing history, as 'right and wrong' don't really play too well. You can make good arguments for most of history's losers (the Carthaginians, the Gauls, in time the Romans themselves, the Irish, the Native Americans, the Confederacy) but in many ways, they were every bit as wrong as the winners. There's nothing enobling in losing.

Facts are value neutral. We weren't right to annex Texas and the rest of the Southwest, and we weren't wrong. We just did.

[Xiahou]

This just doesn't seem right to me. We pretty much coerced a weaker, Sister Republic into war. We then decide to take half their country (THE BETTER HALF) and give them the shaft. I honestly feel guilty now for the awful conditions of Mexico today. Maybe if we hadn't taken so much of their good land, their country might be in a better shape. It's ironic that we whine so much about illegals today when in reality we were the illegals there 160 years ago.

What makes it "THE BETTER HALF"? Modern day Mexico has many natural resources.

As for Santa Anna he was President 11 times:
* May 16 1833 / Jun 1 1833
* Jun 18 1833 / Jul 5 1833
* Oct 28 1833 / Dec 4 1833
* Apr 24 1834 / Jan 27 1835
* Mar 18 1839 / Jul 9 1839
* Oct 9 1841 / Oct 25 1842
* Mar 5 1843 / Oct 3 1843
* Jun 4 1844 / Sep 11 1844
* Mar 21 1847 / Mar 31 1847
* May 20 1847 / Sep 15 1847
* Apr 20 1853 / Aug 9 1855
This includes numerous presidencies after he made his treaty with the Texans- during one of which, he tried and failed to recapture Texas which succeeded only in forcing Texas into the arms to the USA. It seems to me that the view of Santa Anna is quite duplicitous. He's elected president, tries to put down a rebellion in Texas, fails and grants Texas sovereignty- at which point he suddenly doesnt speak for Mexico. I'd wager if he had won they wouldnt have complained much. None the less, Mexico later (numerous times) brought Santa Anna back to power when they felt he was needed. It seems to me that he spoke for Mexico only when it was convenient.

His treaty with Texas was as legitimate as any and his subsequent attempt at reconquest forced Texas to join the US... after which point the US was within its rights to build forts to protect it.

[Major Robert Dump]

Mexico was violating UN resolutions. Also, the spirit on the Incas manifested themsleves into Texans and brought revenge upon the Mexicans, which still explains why so many Texans smell like fried onions.

[Slyspy]

Why would the Incas be cross at the Mexicans?

[Divinus Arma]

DA, how do you reconcide Christianity with your general attitude towards the rest of the world? Less love they fellow man than stamp on his face and sneer.

Easy. I'm not a Christian.

That said, I'm not a Christina in the sense that I do not think Jesus is God or the Son of God. I do, however, find the teachings of Christ to be some of the most revolutionary in terms of linking existential perspective with morality. And I agree with most of his teachings whole heartedly.

However, if you consider my general attitude towards the rest of the world to be a negative one, perhaps you can clarify what you believe to be my general attitude. And then maybe I can explain where I am coming from if you are interested.

[Reenk Roink]

-How far back do territorial claims go? When does land ownership truly pass from one people to the next? Using the same arguments that the Palestinians use to justify their claim of sovereignty, we could claim that the entire area really belongs to the Canaanites (a non-semitic people) and all semites: Jews and Arabs, must vacate immediately.

Actually the Canaanites are "Semetic". Proto-Canaanite is one of the earliest examples of West Semetic language.

[Don Corleone]

Well, the Canaanites were certainly not Arabs, so you can safely boot all Arabs out of Palestine as well as Jews. Talk about splitting hairs...

[Reenk Roink]

Well, the Canaanites were certainly not Arabs, so you can safely boot all Arabs out of Palestine as well as Jews. Talk about splitting hairs...

What on earth are you talking of?

[Don Corleone]

The Canaanites were in what's now Israel/Palestine in approximately 1500BC. Mohammed didn't start moving the Arabs off the peninusla for another 2000 years after that. They weren't the same people by any stretch.

[Reenk Roink]

The Canaanites were in what's now Israel/Palestine in approximately 1500BC. Mohammed didn't start moving the Arabs off the peninusla for another 2000 years after that. They weren't the same people by any stretch.

And who is asserting this (besides yourself)?

[Don Corleone]

Pretty much every history book I've ever read. Look, maybe I picked the wrong particular group of people, because I can sense you're about to launch into some crazy argument that modern day Palestinians are the direct descendents of the Canaanites (which they couldn't possibly be). My point in using that example is if you dig deep enough, there's always a people that existed on that chunk of turf prior to the ones who claim it, ad nauseum. Let's pick another place that's seen some rotation:

Does England belong to the Normans? The Angles? The Saxons? The Romans? The Celts? The Bretans? Maybe there were people there before that? My point is there is almost a limitless timeline back into the past of displaced owners. Where does one stop and say 'these are the original, rightful owners' ?

[Reenk Roink]

because I can sense you're about to launch into some crazy argument that modern day Palestinians are the direct descendents of the Canaanites (which they couldn't possibly be).

Well then there seems to be a problem with your intuition. I was merely pointing out an anthropological fact, and you interpreted it to be some political claim. Perhaps if you'd have looked closely into my views on the matter (apparent in post 3 of this very thread), I don't buy the argument of an indigenous claim to a land because logically, it would entail giving back that land (big problem for me living here), in many cases to an "extinct" people. Plus there is the fact that no true "purity" exists. I have to uphold the "right by conquest" idea.

Anyway, back on anthropology, there is no research on Palestinians and Canaanite linkage, though the Lebanese population (Christian, Maronite, Sunni, Shi'ite mind you) have gene pools comprising of Canaanites (the ones in the Bible) and Arabs and to a smaller extent, Europeans and Turks.

Now, you may take this however you want, or try to argue against a position that nobody is holding (as you did just now), but these are facts.

Also, the Canaanites themselves are said to be originated in the Arabian Penninsula. Oh No! Don't kill me on this one either Don, I'm not implying anything.

[Pannonian]

That said, I'm not a Christina

Having seen your photos, I would be extremely worried were you a Christina.

[Don Corleone]

Well then there seems to be a problem with your intuition. I was merely pointing out an anthropological fact, and you interpreted it to be some political claim. Perhaps if you'd have looked closely into my views on the matter (apparent in post 3 of this very thread), I don't buy the argument of an indigenous claim to a land because logically, it would entail giving back that land (big problem for me living here), in many cases to an "extinct" people. Plus there is the fact that no true "purity" exists. I have to uphold the "right by conquest" idea.

Anyway, back on anthropology, there is no research on Palestinians and Canaanite linkage, though the Lebanese population (Christian, Maronite, Sunni, Shi'ite mind you) have gene pools comprising of Canaanites (the ones in the Bible) and Arabs and to a smaller extent, Europeans and Turks.

Now, you may take this however you want, or try to argue against a position that nobody is holding (as you did just now), but these are facts.

Also, the Canaanites themselves are said to be originated in the Arabian Penninsula. Oh No! Don't kill me on this one either Don, I'm not implying anything.

Again, I'm not trying to divert the thread topic. My point was how land claims tend to pile up on each other. That was all.

[Csargo]

Having seen your photos, I would be extremely worried were you a Christina.

Me too.

[Kralizec]

Reenk Roink and Don Corleone: Canaanites are referred by linguists as Semites as their language is closely related to Hebrew, Akadian, etc.
However, the Jews didn't consider the Canaanites to be descendents from the Biblical Sem, a son of Noach.
This can not really be verified, but anyway the label "Semite" as a linguistic term is flawed.

Pretty much every history book I've ever read. Look, maybe I picked the wrong particular group of people, because I can sense you're about to launch into some crazy argument that modern day Palestinians are the direct descendents of the Canaanites (which they couldn't possibly be).

In history books? Good gravy.
Blame the confusion on the Romans. After explusing the Jews for the final time from their land, they renamed the province Judea into Syria Palestina. A direct reference to the old enemy of the Jews, to add insult to injury.

Of course the original Philistines were soundly genocided.

[Watchman]

...but anyway the label "Semite" as a linguistic term is flawed.

Would you like to tell that to our university here then ? I'm pretty sure they have a small Faculty of Semitic (or is that Semic?) Languages or something like that. For that matter, I've also seen it used in both linguistics and as an umbrella cultural/anthropolical term...

[Derfasciti]

Well hmmm.... a hard and good question. There are two basic beliefs that I tend to use alternatively with this type of question simply because I can't decide which one is really right.


1: The expansion of a nation's borders and therefore it's population; is usually OK if you treat your enemies fairly and the benefits are aimed towards your people.(hopefully the majority)

2: How would you like this to happen to you!?


I do tend to feel that expansionism, while usually not legally justified, can be morally justified as long as your actions during the war are relatively civilized and you do aim to benefit your nation(and hopefully by proxy the newly conquered).

Like Japan in the 20th century, while they were legally(no legal reason to start)and ultimately morally irresponsible(bad treatment of POWs and general conduct) the reasons for expansion were not wrong. (i.e. feeling of no security due towards China's national destruction by the West. And the genuine need for living space and resources; national pride hurt after the 5:5:3 naval agreement, etc., etc.)

While America was probably legally in the wrong, the us having a coast-to-coast nation and all of those trade benefits have surely benefited us after so many years. Not to mention the huge amount of living space that was acquired and future oil.

[Kralizec]

Would you like to tell that to our university here then ?

Sure, I don't mind seeing Finland. You'll finance my plane ticket right?

The term is pretty engrained right about now so I wouldn't bother, but my point was that it's technically flawed because not all people that spoke a "Semetic" (a Biblical reference) language as it's called today, are recorded as descendents of Sem in the Bible.

[Watchman]

...I don't think the Bible is regarded as an unconditionally reliable or even necessarily worthwhile source in these matters though... Or in blunt terms, it's also full of crap for purposes of rhetoric and propaganda that dropped off the agenda up to over three millenia ago.

[Kralizec]

Sigh...

Point is, if you're going to use a term from a mythical book for science, you might as well do it the right way. The term "Semite" does not coincide with the myth of Sem and his descendents.

[Watchman]

I don't see where that becomes an issue if it's nonetheless been approved to general scientific use, the Bible be damned. I mean, if the practice is to term the linguistical family in question Semitic then whatever the scripture says about one particular group of speakers can take a hike if it arbitrarily contradicts the accepted terminology.

[Reenk Roink]

Point is, if you're going to use a term from a mythical book for science, you might as well do it the right way. The term "Semite" does not coincide with the myth of Sem and his descendents.

To be clear, I was using "Semitic" as anthropologists do.

When I was saying "Semitic" you could replace with "Indo-European" as I was talking about language groups.

Actually, the analogy should be "Afro-Asiatic" to "Indo-European" but I digress...

[Mooks]

Who cares? We took it fair and square. It doesnt need to be justified.

If you have ever been to Texas. Your see the majority of people you see are mexican.

[Strike For The South]

If you have ever been to Texas. Your see the majority of people you see are mexican.

NO NO NO NO

[BigTex]

Who cares? We took it fair and square. It doesnt need to be justified.

If you have ever been to Texas. Your see the majority of people you see are mexican.

What the heck are you bablin about. Texans are the majority of people in Texas, nuff said.
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Mooks]

Iv been to Texas a few times (Visiting grandma and grandpa). The majority of people I saw were Mexican. This was around San Atonio.