I have claimed that the boundaries between the US and Mèxico were recognized before Texas seperated from Mèxico. And their really wasn’t much of a dispute on the boundaries until after Texas was annexed. Then the US tried to claim Mèxico had invaded US territory before there ever was a ratified agreement on where that particular border was located. How could it have been US territory if the US itself had never established a firm line?
I think you just answered your own questioned. 
Nobody here argued the U.S. of A. was particularly generous in its interpretations of agreements, only that it was not particularly dishonest.
Well, yes, except the Lincoln was likely really just not wanting another Slave State. Nearly all the US opposition to “Imperialism” was based upon not wanting another Slave State.
And his speech make it clear that the border was in contention “His first item is, that the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in 1803; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues over the amount of nearly a page, to prove it true; at the end of which he lets us know, that by the treaty of 1819, we sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward, to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the present, that the Rio Grande, was the boundary of Louisiana, what, under heaven, had that to do with the present boundary between us and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line, that once divided your land from mine, can still be the boundary between us, after I have sold my land to you, is, to me, beyond all comprehension. And how any man, with an honest purpose only, of proving the truth, could ever have thought of introducing such a fact to prove such an issue, is equally incomprehensible. His next piece of evidence is that “The Republic of Texas always claimed this river (Rio Grande) as her western boundary[.]” That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she has not always claimed it…It is, that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one, from that of the other, was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution.”
*
*(James K Polk)
Note that last line “The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution.”
Odd that Mexico seems to forget that originally Mexico claimed all of Central America. Why not get upset that the nasty people of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize, & Costa Rica stole their land from Mexico (with the urging of Columbia, btw)? Central America is about 500000 Km2, and was more populous than most of the lands ceded by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo. How quickly that large loss of territory is forgotten, and how long the grudge over lands held only a decade or so more.
As to "First you declare unambiguously that Mèxico had NO idea where the boundaries might be. " I had said “And the USA could not have “recognized your boundaries” in 1821 as Mexico had no idea what it’s boundaries were”.
"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."
Clearly Mexico never claimed all of that, and in fact the various Central American portions started off as part of Mexico, but proclaimed their independence over several years. Was that “Imperialism”?"
Note I didn’t say that Mexico didn’t know any boundaries at all, but that* Mexico still had no idea what it’s boundaries were in 1821,* as indeed in 1821 Mexico still was thinking that it’s border to the south ended at Panama. Is that or is that not true?
I was well aware of Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, and it’s limitations. However, that treaty was signed with** Spain**, not Mexico.
Nor have I claimed the map was in any way bogus.
The area in question really was stateless. Mexico had nearly no political or military control over the area. Possibly the real control rested with the Comanche, in some areas. wiki "The northern provinces grew increasingly isolated, economicaly and politically, due to prolonged Comanche raids and attacks. New Mexico in particular had been gravitating more toward Comancheria. In the 1820s, when the United States began to exert influence over the region, New Mexico had already begun to question its loyalty to Mexico City. By the time of the Mexican-American War large portions of northern Mexico had been systematically raided and pillaged by the Comanches, causing impoverishment, political fragmentation, and a general frustration with the inability, or unwillingness, of the Mexican government to curb the Comanches. [6]" Of course, the Comanche did resist US rule. I don;t understand why Mexico had a better claim to that area than the actual native inhabitants.
In California, the Californios resisted Mexican rule.
Mexico’s legal right to the area rested solely on the fact that that area was also at one time part of Virreinato de Nueva España. However, it had not been part of Mexico until after the revolution, and even then, as I said- Mexico had nearly no control over the area. But much other area- including Central America- was also part of Virreinato de Nueva España, and only a few thought that Mexico really owned that area.
That’s true. The USA did like to take advantage of loopholes, etc.
He doesn’t agree with you either. Where, exactly, does he use the word “fabrication”?
As I said, the US used some questionable justifications as a pretext for war. But they were not “fabricated,” that is, entirely invented out of whole cloth. Lincoln spends considerable time disputing the alleged justifications found in various documents and precedents. If these had been simply made up, or fabricated, he would not have needed to spend so much time disputing them.
Personally, I agree that the US did not have justification to go to war, and was looking for any convenient pretext. If it had not been that particular case, the US, being an expansionist power, would have found something else.
Hehe. Thanks.
I would say, BTW, that Lincoln and many other Federalist-types were rather unhappy with the war against Mexico. They didn’t really want it in the first place, and actually sympathized to a considerable degree with Mexico. Not many remember that the negotiator sent to end the war was a Whig who ignored recall orders in order to cut a treaty taking much, much less Mexican land than originally demanded.
I have to disagree with you on this point, DrDeth. The date of independence may vary between legal systems.
So yes, from the perspective of the British legal system, the US were only independent after the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
However, from the perspective of the American legal system, the US were independent as of July 4, 1776.
There was a series of court cases in both Britain and the UK after the revolution that considered this point, and the two court systems came to different conclusions. Each conclusion was valid within that court system.
Also, as a political matter, the US dates its independence from 1776.
Don’t know why he would need to use the exact word “fabrication” but will the word “lie” suffice?
"Congressman Lincoln and some of his fellow Whigs had a very different opinion of the president, Manifest Destiny, and the war. (Polk was a Democrat.) Lincoln believed that Polk had started the war based on a lie. On two notable occasions, Lincoln questioned Polk regarding his motives for going to war. Lincoln once took the House floor and asked Polk to prove that the Mexicans had crossed national borders in order to draw first blood on U.S. soil. This is what Polk claimed was the reason for the Mexican War. Upon addressing the president, Lincoln said: “Let the President [Polk] answer the interrogatories I proposed… Let him answer fully, fairly, candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember, he sits where Washington sat; and so remembering, let him answer as Washington would answer… so let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation.”
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/abraham_lincolns_opposition_to_the_mexican_war
No. It is clear from the material that has been posted already, including the Lincoln speech that you linked to, that there was existing documentation and precedent for the US claim; it was not a fabrication.
You seem so easily convinced. Did Bush’s WMD story convince you as well?
What has been posted on this thread has been mainly some superficial Wiki info. Nothing in depth on the years preceding the hostilities and the US’s determination in acquiring the territory it sought. What’s a little lie about Mexico invading the US if that is all it takes? The US after all was destined by God to control the territory. Even Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s had mentioned consolidating North America for whites. Something like " the color line should stop at the Rio Grande".
Polk’s lies were meant to soothe the American conscience. You are the ones always wearing the white hat. In your mind, that is. That need exists even to this day.
You continually distort both what I and other posters have said. I have repeatedly said the alleged rationales were questionable. I also said, above:
What I have also said is that the pretext did exist in the form of pre-existing (if questionable) claims; it was not fabricated in the sense of being entirely made up for the occasion. And your own cites demonstrate this.
You would make more headway in this discussion if you would address what people actually have said, rather than putting words in other people’s mouths.
Look at it this way- if Mexico had not given up Alta California and etc in the Treaty- for a handsome sum of cash- Mexico would have fallen into complete bankruptcy.
Already it had no way to secure and protect it’s northern areas- those areas would have fallen prey to banditry and Indian raids- or they would have seceded on their own(note that several areas already had declared independence, and others had plans to). Most of that area would have fallen like a plum into the USA’s hands anyway- at no cost.
Meanwhile, Mexico as we know it would have disintegrated into anarchy, chaos and banditry. Quite likely, there’d be no Mexico as we know it today. It’d be smaller, and in even worse shape economically.
The ideal thing would have been for Mexico to accept America’s original offer of nearly twice the money for less land . However, Mexico’s government was not stable enough to allow this (and Santa Anna was not sane enough to accept it), even though many wanted it. They had to be “forced into it”.
It was better in the long run both for the residents of those territories and for Mexico itself.
We are so blessed to have such caring neighbors. I really can’t believe the arrogance in your post.
It’s probably past time to send this from GQ to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Read about the state Mexico was in during that period.
wiki “*Political divisions inside Mexico were another factor in the U.S. victory. Inside Mexico, the centralistas and republicans vied for power, and at times these two factions inside Mexico’s military fought each other rather than the invading American army. Another faction called the monarchists, whose members wanted to install a king (some even advocated rejoining Spain) further complicated matters. This third faction would rise to predominance in the period of the French intervention in Mexico.”
*
*The federalists asked Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna to overthrow Bustamante and he did, declaring General Manuel Gómez Pedraza (who won the electoral vote back in 1828) as the “true” president. Elections took place, and Santa Anna took office on 1832. Constantly changing political beliefs, as president (he was president eleven different times),[7] in 1834 Santa Anna abrogated the federal constitution, causing insurgencies in the southeastern state of Yucatán and the northernmost portion of the northern state of Coahuila y Tejas. Both areas sought independence from the central government. After negotiations and the presence of Santa Anna’s army eventually brought Yucatán to again recognize Mexican sovereignty, Santa Anna’s army turned to the northern rebellion. *
Several states went into open rebellion: Coahuila y Tejas, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments, the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatan, and the Republic of Texas. Only the Texans defeated Santa Anna and retained their independence. Their fierce resistance was possibly fueled by reprisals Santa Anna committed against his defeated enemies.
*The Republic of Yucatán (Spanish: República de Yucatán) was a sovereign nation in North America that existed from 1841 to 1848. It encompassed the present Mexican states of Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán, which during the Spanish domination were the colonial Captaincy General of Yucatán, under New Spain, but separated from the Viceroyalty of Mexico…The attitude of the Mexican President Herrera led the January 1, 1846, the Departmental Assembly of Yucatán, Yucatán declared independence from Mexican territory once again.
*
OK, now go to a map of Mexico. Mark off Coahuila, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas (and Chiapas). How much do you have left?
"Between 1822 and 1860 there were more than fifty changes of President and the actual form of government was changed no less than ten times. These fluctuated between total anarchy and outright dictatorship. In the same period there were over 140 military coups."
I’ll point out that no matter how tenuous the claims of Prez Polk were to start the war, war was still inevitable, as Mexico refused to recognize Texas independence, and had plans to retake Tejas. Mexico refused to even discuss the issue:
"Mexico was not inclined nor in a position to negotiate. In 1846 alone, the presidency changed hands four times, the war ministry six times, and the finance ministry sixteen times.[7] However, Mexican public opinion and all political factions agreed that selling the territories to the United States would tarnish the national honor.[8] Mexicans who opposed open conflict with the United States, including President José Joaquín de Herrera, were viewed as traitors.[9] Military opponents of de Herrera, supported by populist newspapers, considered Slidell’s presence in Mexico City an insult. When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell in order to peacefully negotiate the problem of Texas annexation, he was accused of treason and deposed. After a more nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga came to power, it publicly reaffirmed Mexico’s claim to Texas
This led to this attack “*On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the U.S. officer who was in command.”
*
Whether or not it was the Nueces River- or the Rio Grande- that was the border with Texas, it made no mind, as Mexico was prepared to go deeper into Texas to reclaim it. So, as wiki sez- **war was inevitable.
**
Note that today, we look upon this as almost an act of suicide, that Mexico could not sanely attack the USA. But back then, the USA was not a world power. It had little respect, and today would be considered a “3rd world nation”. Last war the USA was in was 1812, and there the USA barely managed a draw.
Two reasons:
-
The Spanish got there first. It’s not as easy conquering established, civilized colonies as it is to conquer practically-virgin territory sparsely inhabited by Stone-Age primitives. (No disrespect to the First Nations, but they were all living in the Stone Age when Columbus landed.)
-
The Spanish conquered thickly inhabited territory, which remained thickly inhabited after independence. The Brits/Americans expanded in America by settling their own people on the land and displacing, not enslaving, the natives. It would have disrupted that model to extend it to Latin America. Puerto Rico has been U.S. territory since 1898 and is still not a state of the Union, because, when it was annexed, it was already full up, no room for Anglo-American colonists to change the essential character of its Latin Catholic Spanish-speaking society; PR still is not part of the American ethnocultural nation and never will be. (Individual Puerto Ricans can join it – but only be emigrating to the mainland.) It would be the same with Mexico if Mexico had ever been annexed.
Good points. I completely missed the socio-ethnocultural points you bring up.