Mexican Resentment Was Our War With Mexico Justified?

[Lon]

---

Mexican Resentment?

There must be a considerable amount of resentment on the part of many Mexicans over the U.S. owning lands that were once their domain and how those lands were acquired.
In his famous Memoirs written while he was terminally ill with Throat Cancer---former U.S. President and Civil War General expresses his view on the Mexican War in which he fought as a young officer.

From Grant's Memoirs

"Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."​

 

[Shirley]

But then we wouldn't have Texas and New Mexico. Surely we have more right to them than Mexico?

 

[SeaBreeze]

No, the American Invasion was not justified. I think the facts were always known that we took some of the land in the US away from the Mexicans to begin with, so their coming here is not that much of a surprise now, tables are turning, but many don't want to look at the realities of what happened long ago...http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas...-the-border/3/

Greenberg says the conflict matters today because "A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico in this war, taken from Mexico, and they're not aware of that. I believe a lot of the immigration debate that's going on now operates in a vacuum, where people are not realizing that in fact Mexicans are here in lands that once belonged to Mexico."

 

[Warrigal]

It was a long time ago.
Surely the focus should be on building good diplomatic and personal relationships with the Mexican people.
When this happens borders become less troublesome.

 

[Lon]

But then we wouldn't have Texas and New Mexico. Surely we have more right to them than Mexico?

That's certainly true Shirley, but it has nothing to do with the question I posted.

 

[Don M.]

The Mexican/American war may/may not have been justified, but in reality, many of the Mexicans are Still fighting this war...AND they are winning. California is already a Mexican majority, and Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are not far behind. The Latino web site...La Raza...which stands for "The Race", is quietly promoting the return of our SW...which they refer to as Aztlan...back to Mexican majority and control.

The biggest indicator of the Mexican influence can be seen on virtually every product sold in our stores. You cannot buy anything that does not have product details or an owners manual written in Spanish, as well as English. Our population consists of people whose heritage consists of dozens of different languages, yet, Spanish seems to be the Only one that continues to be represented. Coincidence??....I think not.

 

[tnthomas]

The Mexican/American war may/may not have been justified, but in reality, many of the Mexicans are Still fighting this war...AND they are winning. California is already a Mexican majority, and Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are not far behind. The Latino web site...La Raza...which stands for "The Race", is quietly promoting the return of our SW...which they refer to as Aztlan...back to Mexican majority and control.

The biggest indicator of the Mexican influence can be seen on virtually every product sold in our stores. You cannot buy anything that does not have product details or an owners manual written in Spanish, as well as English. Our population consists of people whose heritage consists of dozens of different languages, yet, Spanish seems to be the Only one that continues to be represented. Coincidence??....I think not.

Here in Southern California the Mexican population and culture blend seamlessly with the overall society. Perhaps some Mexican activists advocate Reconquista but quite frankly not a shot need be fired, as reconquest is being accomplished with continued [illegal] immigration and the population growth of the Mexican populace currently residing in the U.S. Does it matter? Most Anglo's I know don't really care, there is a lot of intermarriage here and in other border states as well. Everyone I know enjoys Mexican food, so...

I think that through love & friendship, and good eating, the "Reconquista" movement is proceding quite smoothly.

 

[imp]

Our proponents of "Anti-drug Culture" insist that the U.S. is being constantly infiltrated by drug-runners and non-descripts. Fact is, the great majority of folks entering illegally seek to improve the lives of those loved ones left behind, by seeking jobs here. I have known quite a few who faithfully sent back the bulk of their earnings, while living as frugally here as possible.

After 40 years of "Drug War", more drugs are more widely available than ever before. Evidently, since we cannot teach our populace to re-think their position on drug use, to improve their lives we embarked on a Drug Prohibition program which has cost untold billions of dollars, to little avail.

A bit off-thread, sorry. Gave me a chance to voice my heretofore unreleased thoughts on the "War on Drugs". imp

 

[tnthomas]

imp, maybe a little off topic, but very true.

It's a cryin' shame that:
A. The Mexican government is so corrupt, from top-to-bottom
B. That the U.S. government (all administrations in the last 50 years)has chosen to ignore the corruption, and simply pay 'lip-service' to the [illegal] immigration problem.

I guess that when it comes to the U.S. government making decisions....doing nothing right beats doing something wrong.... :shrug:

 

[Ralphy1]

Just part of Manifest Destiny, couldn't be helped...

 

[Debby]

But then we wouldn't have Texas and New Mexico. Surely we have more right to them than Mexico?

Just curious as to why you figure you have 'more right to that land' than the country it was part of?

Sort of puts America in the same boat as they say Russia is in doesn't it? Pot meet kettle? Except the people of 'New Mexico and Texas' back in those days likely didn't have the luxury of a referendum so that they could decide which country they wanted to be part of. America came, saw, conquered, took...end of story.

 

[Warrigal]

They tried to take some of Canada too. :grin:

 

[QuickSilver]

Borders are arbitrary invisible lines created by governments... they are not real.. Look at the Middle East and how the UK tried to draw borders for Iraq... it was stable under the strong government of Saddam Hussein.. but once WE stuck our nose in and destabilized it, the arbitrary borders are blurring, and people are reverting back to their own tribal territories.

 

[Ralphy1]

Quite right, you must occupy and kill or displace the natives, or simply make them think like you. There is nothing like a well-run empire...

 

[Shirley]

But then we wouldn't have Texas and New Mexico. Surely we have more right to them than Mexico?

I was just being facetious. That statement is so obviously ridiculous that it never occurred to me that anyone would take it seriously.

 

[Debby]

They tried to take some of Canada too. :grin:

I remember reading something about that too. Or at least they had serious discussion and plans for it. It was called War Plan Red and was devised around 1934. This link is actually quite interesting and one paragraph referring to the Canadian plan read thus:

'...Canadian Invasion Plan- Different versions of the plan were proposed, and one was first approved in 1930 by the War Department. It was updated in 1934-1935, and, of course, never implemented. Although it was far reaching and addressed some of Britain’s greatest strengths, such as the Royal Navy, one of the chief areas of concern was the U.S.’s long border with Canada. As a result, the plan addressed our northern neighbors with great detail, .....'

As I live about an hour from Halifax, I found this very interesting:

'...Military planners apparently hoped to stun the Maritime Provinces with a poison gas attack on Nova Scotia’s capital city, Halifax, then also home to a major naval base....'

and then there was this: '...Also revealed in the New York Times was the fact that the United States Congress had assigned $57 million in 1935 (nearly $1 billion today) in order to build three air bases near the U.S./Canadian border in line with War Plan Red’s recommendations, in case the U.S. needed to defend against or attack Canada. ...'

which as expected tweaked my brain to recall the angst engendered in Russia about the US's plans to park NATO bases in Ukraine and many countries right on Russia's borders. It would seem that some governments never change despite the friendships and relationships that grow between the citizens of countries. And then there are other governments (like mine) who change our global reputation from being the Peacekeepers to count on in war torn countries, to war mongering wannabe's with a little, itty-bitty army who at the very least can be cheerleaders for those who can.


http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/07/the-u-s-plan-to-invade-canada-war-plan-red/


Wikipedia seems to suggest that America went through the exercise in their effort to determine how they would fight Britain in that time and taking control of Canada was a major part of that thought process. It also went on to make mention that both Congress and the President are required to approve 'war' which might explain why there is a current philosophy of not declaring war on any country (but to label them conflicts instead- Iraq for example?). Not being too familiar with British history of that time, are there any Brits here who might remember if Britain had made any hostile moves against America at that time?

 

[Debby]

We people have learned to get along pretty good I'd say. Our friendships cross borders and oceans and we're learning as time goes by to listen to the other side, and yet governments everywhere seem more actively focussed on some other agenda that we are not privy to although it's gotten a lot harder to hide since the advent of the internet and alternate news sources.

I've come to the conclusion that politicians in general are an aberrant development of human DNA who are programmed to want power and control and in some cases are more than willing to go extremes to achieve what they in their skewed way of thinking, deem as their right. After all, you never see 'nice folks' or real peace makers going for the big chair do you?

Seems like politicians all want to sit on 'the Iron Throne'.

 

[Debby]

Borders are arbitrary invisible lines created by governments... they are not real.. Look at the Middle East and how the UK tried to draw borders for Iraq... it was stable under the strong government of Saddam Hussein.. but once WE stuck our nose in and destabilized it, the arbitrary borders are blurring, and people are reverting back to their own tribal territories.

Or look at how Britain went into Palestine in 1917 and started drawing lines for all the countries and deciding who would control which area and also set it up for the Jews to live there. That worked out well didn't it?

 

[tnthomas]

We people have learned to get along pretty good I'd say. Our friendships cross borders and oceans and we're learning as time goes by to listen to the other side, and yet governments everywhere seem more actively focussed on some other agenda that we are not privy to although it's gotten a lot harder to hide since the advent of the internet and alternate news sources.

I've come to the conclusion that politicians in general are an aberrant development of human DNA who are programmed to want power and control and in some cases are more than willing to go extremes to achieve what they in their skewed way of thinking, deem as their right. After all, you never see 'nice folks' or real peace makers going for the big chair do you?

Seems like politicians all want to sit on 'the Iron Throne'.

What kind of people are we talking about, in discussing the human sub-species dubbed "politicians''? Think: Sociopaths! (not kidding)

Academics refer to psychopaths in the workplace as workplace psychopaths, executive psychopaths, corporate psychopaths, business psychopaths, successful psychopaths, office psychopaths, white collar psychopaths, industrial psychopaths, organizational psychopaths or occupational psychopaths.
Hare reports that about 1 per cent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[SUP][141][/SUP] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3-4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[SUP][42][/SUP] Even with this small percentage, corporate psychopaths can do enormous damage when they are positioned in senior management roles.[SUP][142][/SUP]

Source

Article

Are Politicians Psychopaths?

Further,

In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is one of the dark triad personalities, characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality and a focus on self-interest and personal gain

 

[BobF]

Some of these remarks about the US 'taking' from Mexico are just ignoring the years that England, Spain, France, among others, spent so much time traveling to the Americas to divide and conquer and take. What the US has now is the remnants of those years, nothing less. To surrender to the real original owners of Mexico means the Spanish types would need to go and we revert back to the natives that were originally here.

There is no need to keep these criminal types in charge in any of the new countries of the Americas. Including in the US. Blame laying in this thread seem to be ignoring who has taken from whom.

 

[WhatInThe]

Too much emphasis on changing or 'righting' history with present day machinations. History was already played out by the colonial powers frequently with war. Wars have been won & lost for centuries. The object should be to avoid another era of colonialism rather than try to achieve a new desired outcome of history that already played out hundreds of years ago.

 

[Debby]

What kind of people are we talking about, in discussing the human sub-species dubbed "politicians''? Think: Sociopaths! (not kidding)

Academics refer to psychopaths in the workplace as workplace psychopaths, executive psychopaths, corporate psychopaths, business psychopaths, successful psychopaths, office psychopaths, white collar psychopaths, industrial psychopaths, organizational psychopaths or occupational psychopaths.
Hare reports that about 1 per cent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[SUP][141][/SUP] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3-4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[SUP][42][/SUP] Even with this small percentage, corporate psychopaths can do enormous damage when they are positioned in senior management roles.[SUP][[/SUP]

Source

Article

Are Politicians Psychopaths?

Further,

Interesting comment Thomas and what popped out when I read it was that number: One Percent!!!! Where have I heard that number before?

So if there are any retired psychotherapists here, can you tell me if there's something we can put in their water that will cure them so that they quit 'taking' from everyone else and learn to be happy with only their share?

 

[Lara]

Here in Southern California...not a shot need be fired, as reconquest is being accomplished with continued [illegal] immigration and the population growth of the Mexican populace currently residing in the U.S. Does it matter? Most Anglo's I know don't really care, there is a lot of intermarriage here and in other border states as well. Everyone I know enjoys Mexican food, so...I think that through love & friendship, and good eating, the "Reconquista" movement is proceding quite smoothly.

What a lovely thought…effectively claiming land by replacing war & bloodshed with love, friendship, and good food…that's just crazy enough to work