[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.