poop dogg

Once again, while the U.S. did provoke Mexico into war, in the end
Mexico signed a treaty ceding the territory to us. I'm not sure
what would have happened had Santa Anna refused to sign the 1848
treaty, the U.S. may or may not have simply taken the territory
anyway. There was talk of the time of taking all of Mexico, but
it was decided it would be too costly and difficult to police
once conquered.

ceb

U-S-A U-S-A

ceb

All it must have felt good too

douglas s. ladden

The Terran carbon-based unit designating itself as "Poop Dogg"
<nospam@nospam.com> shared its ideas in soc.culture.mexican on Thu, 25
Sep 2003 04:51:33 GMT:


Santa Anna did NOT sign the 1848 Treaty. Santa Anna had absolutely
nothing to do with the Treaty, since he was neither President of Mexico at
the time, nor was he a member of the plenipotentiaries appointed to
negotiate and sign the treaty for Mexico. The Mexican signatories to the
Treaty of Guadalupe were Don Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, Don Bernardo Couto, and
Don Miguel Atristain. The President at the time the Treaty was signed was
DON MANUEL DE LA PEÑA Y PEÑA.

--Douglas

poop dogg

Hmmm, maybe I was wrong. I remember something about the U.S. holding
Santa Anna hostage until the treaty was signed, I assumed he was the
one who signed it, but I guess the Mexican government simply caved
in and signed it to spare Santa Anna's life, though I can't imagine
why they would think he was so goddamn important that they would
be willing to sign away half of their territory to spare his life.

roger r

Sort of like 1870 when the Germans took Alsace and Lorraine from France as
part of the Peace Treaty. Or like England took Canada from France at the end
of the Seven Years War (French and Indian War to Americans.) In fact, I
think that Napoleon took what became the Louisiana Purchase (back) from the
Spanish, then sold it to the US in 1803 when the British fleet made keeping
it impossible. Sure, the losing side in a war frequently gives up some
territory as part of the treaty ending a war, but the fact that the
negotiator from the US in 1846 was authorized to offer to ~buy~ that same
territory ~before~ the war certainly tells what the goals of the war were.
Santa Ana, of course, turned down the offer.

Instead we got a nice, short war, took over the land we wanted without
paying for it, and trained most of the top officers of both sides of the
Civil War all in one fell swoop.

As I said earlier, I do not suggest that we give it back. I brought it up in
the first place to demonstrate how unwise it would be to send guns to
potential rebels in Mexico, since they could well have motives to use those
same guns against us as well as their own government.

roger r

<_rqcb.396$rU6.17@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...

Probably because the railroad hadn't been invented when the Spanish owned it
or for most of the time Mexico owned it. Even if it had, what was up there
to attract them? The Gold Rush of 1849 changed circumstances a great deal,
giving Americans a reason to head west past St. Louis and Texas, and some of
the travelers decided to stop on the way. Had Mexico still owned California
during the Gold Rush, what do you want to bet those towns would have had
Spanish names?

You are trying to use the 150 years of history since the Mexican War to
justify the war itself. That is simply poor history. The causes of the
Mexican War stand on what happened in the 1840's, not since then.


Then you don't know many Mexicans. I take objection to your adjective
'most'.

kberg

I think that while the Mexicans that come to the USA are good folks,
and that we are lucky to have them, the upper class in Mexico has much
to be ashamed of. Historically, they have grabbed most of the money
in Mexico, and they allow very little of it to trickle down through
Mexican society.

Rather than put forth a real effort to solve their (huge) social and
economic problems and work to create a reasonable middle class, upper
class Mexicans have, it seems, instead chosen to simply continue with
the status quo, which leaves their poorer classes in desparate
conditions, with no choice but to head north.
--------------------------------------

douglas s. ladden

The Terran carbon-based unit designating itself as "Roger R"
<jayray29remove@hotmail.com> shared its ideas in soc.culture.mexican on
Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:16:54 GMT:

I believe they offered $5 million initially, then upped the offer
to $25 million.

I don't know what you consider "paying for it", but in fact, $15
million was paid to Mexico for the lands, and that doesn't count the
$100+ million spent fighting the war, and the 13,780 dead soldiers. It
seems the U.S. ended up paying quite a bit for it.

--Douglas

ribeldi2003

What you've just described about the upper class in Mexico is EXACTLY
what is going on in the US right now.

The way things are going in the US, before too much longer it will look
like Mexico, a very few in the upper class, a very small middle class,
and the vast majority in the lower (poorer) class.

It should obvious to anyone that in the US, the upper class,
won't put forth a real effort--these days, not even a nominal effort--
to solve the US's social and economic problems.

Ribeldi