In XIXth century USA stole half of Mexican territory, how do you feel about it? Is it breaking the law?

Answer 1

I wouldn't call it "breaking the law" ... what law? But you're not far off base when you say the U.S. "stole" the territory. And at least one (maybe more) of the previous posters needs to read some history themselves.

The right thing to say is that the U.S. took the Mexican territory by conquest. They fought a war, the U.S, won the war, and as part of the peace settlement, Mexico "ceded" a large territory to the U.S. for a modest sum of money. (By the way, the Mexican government sorely needed the money at that time.)

As a postscript to that part of the story, there were some American legislators who felt Mexico got a raw deal. A few years after the Mexican War, railroad interests (the Southern Pacific) wanted rights to a chunk of land so they could build a southern route between California and points east -- Texas and New Orleans. That culminated in the Gadsden Purchase -- now southern Arizona and New Mexico. The U.S. paid a relatively sum for that piece of land -- in part because they felt they ripped off Mexico in the earlier (Mexican War) cession.

Now back to the beginning of the story. Historically, Texas, the desert southwest (the Sonoran desert), and Alta California were Spanish by right of discovery (Coronado, Cabeza de Vaca, Juan Cabrillo, etc.). Spanish missions were established in a line in California (San Diego to San Francisco), but clustered in Texas (around San Antonio, for example). Both of these patterns had to do with transportation -- El Camino Real in California, but nothing in Texas.

Particularly after Mexican independence (1821), the missions were secularized, but, since the governmental machinery was centralized in Ciudad de Mexico, transportation to outlying regions was tenuous at best, and those areas were sparsely populated. It was Mexican territory, but Mexico couldn't control it.

First the Texans came -- originally from Tennessee. Although their leaders agreed to abide by Mexican law, the transplanted Americans followed their own customs (religion, slavery).

That led to Texan independence. At one time, the Texans wanted to join the United States, but U.S. domestic politics (slavery and a bad image vis a vis Mexico) delayed annexation.

A decade later, expansionist President James Polk stationed American troops along the Texas-Mexico border (the Nueces, I think), deliberately provoking an international confrontation.

The rest is history. Winfield Scott landed at Vera Cruz, Phil Kearny crossed the desert to San Diego, Robert Stockton seized Monterey from the sea not long before Marshall discovered gold at the American River in 1848, and the Mexicans sued for peace. It was the American ambassador (I forgot his name) who negotiated the terms in Mexico City.

In the middle of this (1845, I think), Texas was admitted to the Union as a state.

So yes, it's fair to say the U.S. "took" California and the American southwest by right of conquest. And we started the war.

Maybe the same thing is going on now in Iraq. We started that war; George W. Bush declared that we won; so now maybe we should annex Iraq as the 51st state.

Or, maybe, we should give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and part of Utah back to Mexico!

Answer 2

War with Mexico was inevitable after the success of the Texas Revolution and the subsequent annexation of Texas. (Texas was not the only territory that ever revolted against an imperialistic Mexican state; several former provinces to the south in Central America, now independent states. were successful in breaking away; Yucatan, unfortunaltely, was not.) American Colonial claims from the Atlantic to the Pacific existed when Spain claimed the southwest and had never truly been forgotten. Also Mexico had never successfully settled the region and was itself an imperialistic power over the territories of New Mexico and California. Thomas Jefferson himself thought that the U.S. should assert its power over the southwest as Spanish colonial power waned, but the Mexican Revolutin intervened. Mexico was not a unified state until years after independence; it was largely an very ununified imperialistic empire centered in Mexico City. Had not the Mexican-American War happened, both California and New Mexico (NM + AZ) would have revolted against the Mexican state. Some say that if TX had not feared a Mexican invasion, she would have not joined the U.S. and would have remained a buffer state between the two giants. Others say that TX itself would have warred with Mexico and seized the southwest and perhaps other territories for herself. In the end, Mexico probably gained more by losing the Mexican-American War than if it had never occurred. More territory would have been lost than California and New Mexico (NM/AZ).

Answer 3

1846, Mexico attacked American troops along the southern border of Texas. The fighting ended when General Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City, September 14, 1847; a few month later a peace treaty was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo which recognized the US annexation of Texas and ceded California and New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States. The treaty was "reluctantly approved" by the US Senate on March 10, 1848, and was ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25, 1848. This added 1.2 million square miles of territory to the US. In return the US agreed to pay $15 million dollar to Mexico and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico. This broke no laws nor did it indicate any thievery by the US; all actions were initiated by Mexico.

Answer 4

And Spain stole territory from the local Indian people and made it Mexico. Is this breaking the law? Yeah. It wasn't right. The world just plain isn't right. Who says we have any right to own territory at all? Why not just do away with borders and get along? Because we live in a stupid corrupt world and as long as there is corruption there will always be injustice legalized by war or brute strength over the weaker party.

Answer 5

sort of like how the Spanish stole all of the territory from the indigenous peoples in several areas of the world. Or the French, German, Portugese, Danish, Russians etc.

The relality was that there weren't enough Mexican people living in a huge area to either populate or defend it. They tried to make adjustments to allow immigration but demanded religious and political loyalty from non Catholic Americans. That obviously was asking too much.

Answer 6

In The Old Days When Your *** Got Whipped In A War The Winner Took Your Money Your Women And Your Land And He Didn't Give Em Back,They Knew How To Fight And Win Wars...

Answer 7

The situations the lead up to the War with Mexico are very questionable and dishonest. In this respect, I think it was wrong for the US to instigate and trick the Mexican soldiers into killing American soldier just for the sake of imperialism. But that's the American way unfortunately.

Answer 8

America didn't steal Mexican territory..some Mexicans wanted independence from Mexico they didn't have a problem with being part of America...Mexico couldn't govern itself...

Answer 9

Remember The Alamo!

Answer 10

A war was fought and a treaty signed. We also paid money for territory. Today we are being invaded. Ask me how I feel about that.