It was okay to launch a war of conquest because the Mexican government was weak?
All because a bunch of American slave owners invaded Texas and started a war of “independence”.
But there’s more to the story. Mostly Santa Anna. He became a national hero for beating back attempts at conquest by both Spain and France. He became president and then sparked a multi-front civil war by centralizing power in his own hands…
A bit rich, considering you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the Mexican-American war was one of open conquest.
The entire justification for the war was Mexico refusing to sell the land that the US wanted, so James K. Polk sent 80 soldiers into Mexican territory, then launched a war when Mexico easily overwhelmed them.
The war went badly for Mexico, because it was still recovering from a civil war, the Texas revolution, multiple invasions attempts by Spain and France, and their own war of independence against Spain.
The US actually took Mexico City, but decided not to just take the entire country because they didn’t want to get into a long, drawn out occupation that would have sapped resources and manpower.
The Spanish had learned that Mexico is impossible to hold through force. A lesson the French would learn under Napoleón III.
The US at the time was smart enough to not even try.
The United States never wanted Mexico. Thus it bought the parts of Mexico that it’s citizens were already moving to. It could have just taken it through conquest but it didn’t.
Mexico fired first, they invaded the United States territory after slaughtering hundreds at the Alamo. They didn’t expect the United States to respond and certainly didn’t expect the border dispute to lead to the complete defeat of the Mexican military. What they didn’t know is the vast innovations developed at West Point that crushed all opposition, mostly through military engineering innovation.
While Mexico was completely defeated and President Pierce took advantage of the situation, it was the actions of Mexico that led to their defeat. They invited war and lost. The United States had every right to take territory but it decided to make it a legal transaction of land instead and led to peaceful diplomacy going forth.
The acquisition of the west thus doesn’t fall under conquest but a legal land transaction between governments. Same as the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty, and the Alaska Purchase.
You mean the slavers who moved to Mexico and then fomented a rebellion?
Because that’s what the Alamo was. It was slave owners moving to Mexico and then rising up in rebellion against the Mexican government when Mexico said, hey, slavery is illegal. Mexico outlawed slavery almost immediately after winning their independence from Spain.
Most importantly, Texas was not a part of the US until a decade after the slavers were defeated at the Alamo.
You have such a twisted view of history that I can only assume you were taught in either Florida or Texas.
The US then annexed Texas, and then Polk sent a diplomatic mission offering to buy more land. Mexico said no, so Polk Started a war and took the land anyway.
After the Mexican-American war, the US paid out a pittance in damages, but one of the terms of the peace treaty forced on Mexico was the revocation of all territorial rights of Texas, California, and everything in between.
A later administration then bought a small sliver of the border along New Mexico and parts of Arizona for an elevated price. Partially to smooth tensions with Mexico over the blatant war of conquest that was the Mexican-American war.
Moving the goal posts now?
It was okay to launch a war of conquest because the Mexican government was weak?
All because a bunch of American slave owners invaded Texas and started a war of “independence”.
But there’s more to the story. Mostly Santa Anna. He became a national hero for beating back attempts at conquest by both Spain and France. He became president and then sparked a multi-front civil war by centralizing power in his own hands…
But yes, he also killed some slavers. Boo hoo.
Nope, just saying your missing A LOT historically. What doesn’t change is that the west was purchased for $10 million.
A bit rich, considering you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the Mexican-American war was one of open conquest.
The entire justification for the war was Mexico refusing to sell the land that the US wanted, so James K. Polk sent 80 soldiers into Mexican territory, then launched a war when Mexico easily overwhelmed them.
The war went badly for Mexico, because it was still recovering from a civil war, the Texas revolution, multiple invasions attempts by Spain and France, and their own war of independence against Spain.
The US actually took Mexico City, but decided not to just take the entire country because they didn’t want to get into a long, drawn out occupation that would have sapped resources and manpower.
The Spanish had learned that Mexico is impossible to hold through force. A lesson the French would learn under Napoleón III.
The US at the time was smart enough to not even try.
The United States never wanted Mexico. Thus it bought the parts of Mexico that it’s citizens were already moving to. It could have just taken it through conquest but it didn’t.
“bought”…
Again, you ignore the fucking war of conquest.
Mexico fired first, they invaded the United States territory after slaughtering hundreds at the Alamo. They didn’t expect the United States to respond and certainly didn’t expect the border dispute to lead to the complete defeat of the Mexican military. What they didn’t know is the vast innovations developed at West Point that crushed all opposition, mostly through military engineering innovation.
While Mexico was completely defeated and President Pierce took advantage of the situation, it was the actions of Mexico that led to their defeat. They invited war and lost. The United States had every right to take territory but it decided to make it a legal transaction of land instead and led to peaceful diplomacy going forth.
The acquisition of the west thus doesn’t fall under conquest but a legal land transaction between governments. Same as the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty, and the Alaska Purchase.
You mean the slavers who moved to Mexico and then fomented a rebellion?
Because that’s what the Alamo was. It was slave owners moving to Mexico and then rising up in rebellion against the Mexican government when Mexico said, hey, slavery is illegal. Mexico outlawed slavery almost immediately after winning their independence from Spain.
Most importantly, Texas was not a part of the US until a decade after the slavers were defeated at the Alamo.
You have such a twisted view of history that I can only assume you were taught in either Florida or Texas.
The US then annexed Texas, and then Polk sent a diplomatic mission offering to buy more land. Mexico said no, so Polk Started a war and took the land anyway.
After the Mexican-American war, the US paid out a pittance in damages, but one of the terms of the peace treaty forced on Mexico was the revocation of all territorial rights of Texas, California, and everything in between.
A later administration then bought a small sliver of the border along New Mexico and parts of Arizona for an elevated price. Partially to smooth tensions with Mexico over the blatant war of conquest that was the Mexican-American war.