Probably in the sense that Mexico as an independent state was only about 20 years old. The territories the US conquered from Mexico after the Mexican-American War had been colonized by Spain starting in the 16th century, and as far as I know had been mostly continuously occupied by Spain and Mexico since then. It is true that the population was still very low and sparse.
Three times.
Wait, I’ve said too much…
Are you saying that the small population somehow justified forcing Mèxico to cede that territory? Or a country that has been been in existence for a short period (actually 38 years) has less right for its boundaries to be respected?
In the context of this thread, I took it to mean that “the fact that it only had 20% of the population and almost none of the infrastructure of the rest of the country belies the proposition that the United States took the best half of Mexico.”
Thank you for the clarification.
Of course, in the post that DrDeth was responding to, muldoonthief was simply quoting a joke.
I think he means that ethnic Mexicans (such as can be said to exist) were 20% of the population of the ceded territories, and the rest were English-speaking settlers…
Well, yesbut. Before Mexican Independence in 1821 (etc) Alta California was part of the Spanish Empire but not part of Mexico. Mexico took control of the other Spanish territories such as Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México from the Spanish. (The various territories went back and forth between stages of semi-independence from the others, and the borders shifted a great deal also.)
Mexico had but tenuous control of that territory, (and others, see "Republic of the Rio Grande " and others). The Government was unstable, unpopular and bankrupt. It’s legal and moral claim to areas which it had little control over and little support from the populace. The people- by and large- did not consider themselves “Mexican” and in many cases greeted the Americans as liberators, not conquerors.
In some cases, Mexico didn’t really have any real political control until the 1835 “Constitutional Bases”, whereby the federal republic was converted into a unitary one, and the nation’s states (estados) were turned into departments (departamentos). And the Mexican American war started in 1846. That’s about 11 years. Things were very fluid and chaotic from 1821 (Treaty of Córdoba) until 1835 and even after, with several areas declaring themselves independent.
In any case, the residents were mostly not Mexican, and did not want to be governed from Mexico.
So, what were the “boundaries of Mexico” then? It had little control over parts, other parts were in open revolt, and the President had abrogated the Constitution. Without the money received from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, the Government of Mexico would have doubtless collapsed anyway.
Here’s an idea of how much territory Spain held: (wiki)
*The Viceroyalty of New Spain united many regions and provinces of the Spanish Empire throughout half a world. These included on the North American mainland, New Spain proper (central Mexico), Nueva Extremadura, Nueva Galicia, Nueva Vizcaya and Nuevo Santander, as well as the Captaincy General of Guatemala. In the Caribbean it included Cuba, Santo Domingo, most of the Venezuelan mainland and the other islands in the Caribbean controlled by the Spanish. In Asia, and the Pacific the Viceroyalty included the Captaincy General of the Philippines, which covered all of the Spanish territories in the Asia-Pacific region.
Therefore, the Viceroyalty’s former territories included what is now the present day countries of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize, Costa Rica; the United States regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Florida; the Caribbean nations of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, the island of Hispaniola, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda; the Asia-Pacific nations of the Philippine Islands, Guam, Mariana Islands, Palau and Caroline Islands.*
The problem with annexing places like Canada or Mexico were that they were full of foreigners. And they weren’t like Indians that you could just chase into the desert or kill.
The United States pretty much took all the land it could conveniently fill up with American settlers and then stopped when that land ran out.
Right, most of the land ceded to us in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo had quite a large number of American settlers.
There was a very brief discussion of taking more and even all of Mexico, but that was quickly dismissed. After the Mexican War, the USA could’ve taken Baja California and a few of the more Northern Areas of present day Mexico, but there was no real need to.
Remember right after the Mexican War the North and South were very much at odds. The chief issue was whether the new rail line to connect the nation would run through the central or southern USA. The Gadsen Purchase provided a good southern route, but the route went through the central USA.
The biggest argument against the annexation of more of Mexico was the “Catholic” problem not as much as “foreigner” association.
In the end the USA took what, as other posters have noted, as relatively uninhabited areas that could be colonized. The only other part of Mexico that could’ve been taken and was unpopulated enough was Baja California.
As for Canada, the US tried to take Canada, but didn’t try very hard. You have to remember during the War of 1812 the whole of New England was very much against the war and there was even talk of leaving the United States. So any attempt to “take” Canada at that time was half hearted.
British Columbia and Vancouver Island were also good targets. The governor of Vancouver Island was so concerned he even organized for slaves that had run away and escaped to Canada to be relocated to Vancouver to build up an opposition force.
In the end British Columbia played one hand against the other, when it insisted on a rail line to connect it to Canada or it’d join the USA. When Canada promised and failed there was real talk of leaving Canada. Of course this promted the Canadians to make good and build the rail line.
The USA historically only has taken under populated areas or areas where the sentiment was great enough to support annexation, such as California and Oregon.
Seward tried to get what is now the Dominican Republic when it was in a financial mess but Congress nixed it as buying into a bankruptcy and a lot of strangers.
Cuba had no chance of annexation because the whole point of the Spanish American War was to stop Spanish abuse, not trade American abuse for it.
When the US could trade freely with a nation it left it alone, such as Hawaii, until it was seen vulnerable. Hawaii was seen as vulnerable to British and German interests.
This was British policy as well. The Brits could care less about the South American Colonies, but supported their independence 'cause that meant they could trade with them. As Spanish colonies they were not permitted to do so.
There was precious little to stop America from taking over all of North America after the Civil War and certainly by 1900, but one must ask, why do it? If there is no benefit why bother and taking unproductive tropical lands filled with diseases, inhabited by strangers and <gasp> Catholics who were willing to trade with you anyway, there was no need to add the headache of ruling them.
Well, the Mexican you could have. They didn’t even speak English, after all.
I had learned the same – that a not insignificant factor in the USA not trying to take all of Mexico was that the Powers That Be in the US didn’t want a huge Catholic voting bloc like that in the country.
Doubtful. America has never really wanted foreign territory, they wanted areas which were either mostly empty, or sparsely populated with a significant American presence.
Why we didn’t grab Baja, I’ll never know, but we likely thought it was worthless.
The argument in the US Congress on how much of our land they should steal was summed up with “the most land with the least Mexicans”. We were considered subhuman or dirty mongrels by many in the US.
The Mexican citizens that remained in the stolen territory were made numerous promises. The foremost was that they would retain their property. And unsurprisingly, just as the US reneged or violated its treaties with the American Indians, the rights promised to those who remained were ignored.
Independence was declared in 1810. I am presently in Mèxico D.F. and the city is adorned with decorations for our upcoming Indepence Day celebrations next week (no it isn’t the 5 de Mayo). The number 1810 is prominently displayed. Next year is the Bicentennial. In what year did the USA celebrate theirs?
Declared is not the same as when it was received. Mexico was not actually independent until the Treaty of Córdoba in 1821.
The USA was not actually independent until 1783.
My point was to show the double standards used by many in the US.
Mexico was recognized diplomatically by the US in 1823. That means they also recognized our boundaries. All of the rest of argument such as sparsely populated etc. is simply attempts at justifiying imperialism.