161 years ago today: US conquers most of Mexico

[TechBear_Seattle]

On February 2, 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which formally ended the Mexican-American War.

In 1836, the Mexican state of Texas rebelled against Mexico and declared itself a sovereign republic. Texas then asked to be annexed by the United States; the request was denied because US Presidents Andrew Jackson and then Martin Van Buren feared the cost of war with Mexico. US President John Tyler reopened negotiations to annex Texas as a slave state in 1944, and statehood was formalized on December 29, 1845, with Texas becoming the 28th state.

Mexico had never recognized the Texas Republic, and still considered Texas to be a rebel state. When the bill granting statehood passed Congress on March 1, 1845, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US and began preparing a force to go in and subdue the rebellion once and for all.

The Texas Republic had claimed all land north of the Rio Grande, and the United States under President James Polk was only too happy to press that claim. In June, 1845, Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to begin reinforcing Texan troops, and by October, 1845, more than 3,500 Americans were manning forts along the Nunces River, which Mexico claimed was the Texas' southern boundary. Mexican forces set up camp along the southern bank, but made no move to invade.

Polk ordered a Navy squadron to the coast of California (then a state of Mexico), with orders to seize and occupy ports in the event Mexico declared war. He also sent a letter to Thomas Larkin, US Consul in Monerey (the capital of California) asking him to forment a "peaceful takeover" of California. Larkin encouraged explorer John Fremont to incite the "Bear Flag Revolt" in Sonoma, when a group of American settlers declared themselves an independent republic and appealed to the United States for protection.

In April of 1846, Polk ordered US troops to cross the Nunces and begin securing the area north of the Rio Grande. When the Mexican army responded, Polk claimed that Mexico, having crossed the Rio Grande and killed American soldiers, had declared war on the United States. On May 13, 1846, a joint session of Congress approved Polk's declaration of war against Mexico.

From the start, Mexico had problems with other states in revolt, almost no manufacturing infrastructure and mountainous terrain which hampered supply lines. The United States, on the other hand, had many volunteers, many factories to make guns and ammunition, a large agricultural base to supply food and better geography. The war quickly turned against Mexico, and within a year had begun negotiations for peace.

On February 2, 1848, peace was formalized with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The terms of this treaty, dictated by the United States, recognized Texas as US territory with its southern border being the Rio Grande. Mexico also ceded an additional 525,000 square miles to the United States, some 55% of Mexico's land not including Texas. This extended the US from Texas to the Pacific Ocean and would latter become the states of California, Nevada and Utah, along with most of Arizona and parts of Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico. (The Gadsen Purchase, signed by President Franklin Pierce on June 24, 1853, would add to southern Arizona and southwest New Mexico.)

Let's hear it for Manifest Destiny!


Edited to fix some small grammar and spelling errors.

[David Zephyr]

1. Abe Lincoln spoke out in Congress against our war for Mexico's land.

Lincoln, a profile in courage.

[Sequoia]

11. I'm reading about that incident right now in the book:

"The Lincolns: Potrait of a Marriage", by Daniel M. Epstein "they were only defending their land".

[bushmeister0]

14. Lincoln on the unitary executive

Lincoln wrote to his close friend William Herndon, who supported the war, that we should be wary of giving the President too much power:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,-- 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=2111&page=4

Ulysses S. Grant wrote "To this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations like individuals, are punished for their transgressions."

He thought the Mexican war led directly to the Civil War, that was our punishment.

[Zomby Woof]

41. Those are the most ironic words Lincoln ever wrote

His hypocrisy was stunning.

As for Grant, his Calvinistic musings are the product of a bourbon-soaked mind.

[bushmeister0]

42. He wrote the letter in 1836 as a congressman. He wasn't exactly thinking

at the time would be facing being surrounded by traitorous states in DC 20 some years later. And he didn't use his presidential powers to invade another country, he saved the nation. Bush, on the other hand, usurped power from all the other branches of government, ripped up the constitution and used Lincoln as the precedent. An important distinction you seem to have totally missed in this quote, which was the entire point of me posting it.

And, Grant's memoirs, edited by Mark Twain, are considered one the greatest American books of all time, btw.

Lincoln answered Grant's critics by quipping that if the drinking charges were true then: "Find out what brand he drinks and send a barrel to all our other generals." In any case, the drinking charge is historically inaccurate, promoted by southern sympathizers and Lincoln's enemies in the north. Licoln would have never passed over 200 other senior generals in the U.S. Army to appoint Grant as the first Lt. General since George Washington, if he thought there was any truth to the story.
History records he did pretty well against the very sober Marble Man, General R. E. Lee, also.

You simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[dbackjon]

2. Thank goodness for the War.

We should have insisted on getting access to the northern part of the Gulf of California as well.

[blindpig]

28. Refreshing to see an unabashed imperialists.

Most imperialists around here feel the need to hide their vile predilection under piles of righteous jive.

[dbackjon]

52. So Mexican Imperalists are better than American Imperalists?

[wuushew]

53. Did Mexico ever expand? How is it imperial?

For many groups, Mexican governence in California was far superior to that brought by American whites.

[blindpig]

54. Stupid game.

One that can be played ad infinitum. shall we blame Og the Caveman?

Nope, we're talking about the good ol' USA, the paragon of virtue, the city on the hill.

Previously committed injustice doesn't justify subsequent injustice.

[PVnRT]

35. America! Fuck yeah!

:eyes:

[indepat]

3. From sea to shining sea

:D

[mckara]

4. We Should Have Annexed All of Mexico

Both countries would be better off socially, economically, and culturally. Average Mexicans would probably have a better life with less subjugation by elites. Not that the United States doesn't suffer from the same problem, but the differences between the rich and poor would be less obvious if both countries were one.

[EFerrari]

8. It's not too late.

[Zywiec]

9. How is it that Canada on our other border is not in the same shape as Mexico?

:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. We have fought with the UK (and latter, sovereign Canada) over our border, several times

The Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the American Revolution, established the north east border of the United States, from what would become Maine (then, part of Massachussets) down to Lake Of The Woods.

The Jay Treaty of 1794 created a commission to explore and map a common border between the United States and British North America along the 49th Parallel. This commission discovered that the border created by the Treaty of Paris was in error and created the Northwest Angle, a penninsula of Minnesota that cannot be reached by land except by crossing through Canada.

The Aroostook War, an undeclared conflict between the US and Great Britain over the borders of Maine, existed between 1838 and 1839. While no shot was ever fired, tensions in the two countries ran very high, with armies raised and stationed along the border.

After the Mexican-American War, the US and UK again went fought about borders, this time the boundary between California and Oregon. The United Kindom claimed that its Columbia District extended south to the northern boundary of California, its previous border with Mexico. The US, however, claimed all the land north to the Russian border at 54 degrees, 40 minutes North. As with the Aroostook War, tensions ran high and troops were sent in by both countries to secure their claim to the land. Eventually US and UK negotiators agreed to compromise and maintain the existing border at the 49th Parallel.

The most recent border dispute came after the Alaska Purchase in 1867. Russia and the UK had long been at odds with where, exactly, the border was, and the US inherited this conflict. This never rose to the levels of the Aroostook War or the Oregon dispute, and was resolved by arbitration in 1903.

[Zywiec]

15. Thanks for the history lesson

My question was more on the line of why is one side of our border a third world country and the other first world?

[izquierdista]

18. Which is which?

Seriously, to look at some of the colonias along the US side of the border, there is plenty of third-world poverty in the US. Actually, Mexico is in the shape that it is because the Spanish colonized an indigenous people, whereas in the US the indigenous people were mostly wiped out. In Mexico, the elite live a life similar to their distant cousins in Madrid or Seville, while the majority of the population are left to fend for themselves on subsistence plots and subsistence jobs. The elite live in the first world, and the indios live in the third world. Kind of like what the "haves and the have-mores" have in mind for the US as well.

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. Oh, I thought you were asking a tough question

The issue comes down to how Great Britain and Spain viewed their colonies, and to a lesser extend to geography.

Great Britain wanted trading partners, and organized its colonies accordingly. Many early colonies were established as company charters and given a great deal of leeway in self-governance. Even after these charters were revoked and all the colonies became the personal demense of the Crown, colonial assemblies continued to have considerable say in colonial affairs. After losing most of their North American colonies in the American Revolution, Great Britain reorganized its remaining territories and ruled with a light touch, eventually granting Canada itself effective autonomy as a Commonwealth. Britain (by now the United Kingdom of England and Scotland) invested heavily in Canadian infrastructure and helped it to build its own industrial base. Most of Canada is flat and reasonably arable; this meant that Canada has been able to grow surplus food to feed its people and for trade, and railroads and other transportation systems were easy and inexpensive to build.

Spain wanted resources that could be exploited, and organized its colonies accordingly. The Vice-Royality of New Spain was set up as a collection of fiefs, granted by the King of Spain to nobles who ruled as autocrats. The job of these aristocrats was to extract as much wealth as possible for the Crown, and to impose the Roman Catholic faith on the population. Relatively few Spaniards emigrated to the New World, leaving the rulers to make heavy use of indigenous populations and usually under terms that were effective slavery. Much of the land was rocky and mountainous, not fit for the agricultural techniques of the day, and it also made transportation infrastructures difficult to build and maintain.

Also, there is the matter of history. Canada transitioned almost seamlessly from a collection of British colonies to a British Commonwealth, allowing its resources to be funneled into development. In contrast, the Mexican Revolution was a bloody conflict that ran from 1810 to 1821. Almost immediately, Mexico fell into near civil war between forces that wanted to enforce the 1821 constitution and its federalist republic, and those that wanted to create a unary state with a strong, centralized government. This conflict led several of Mexico's southern states to seceed and form the Federal Republic of Central America (now Guatamala, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.) The humiliating losses of the Mexican-American War exacerbated Mexico's civil unrest, and it would not be until the second half of the 20th Century that Mexico had sufficient peace and prosperity to begin large scale industrialization.

[SteelPenguin]

23. It's all about the colonization

Look at the descendant colonies of different countries and where they are today, and much of it can be shown to be an influence on how the mother countries treated their colonies.

Canada and the U.S. were controlled by the English and French. Mexico by Spain. The same can be seen in Africa, but much clearer as they're much closer to colonial times. The British in africa built railroads, roads, infrastructure, etc, and the countries that were former colonies of England are in much better shape than others. Compare to the Belgian Congo for instance. Belgium was notorious with it's colonies. They did nothing but exploit them and in turn when they achieved independence they had nothing but the results of being brutally oppressed for generations.

Mexico's condition compared to Canada is a direct result of being colonized by Spain, rather than another country. Just to be clear also, this doesn't have anything to do with what Spanish people themselves are like. Only to how the Spanish in the past treated their colonial possessions.

[mckara]

33. Canada Was Included in Manifest Destiny

We just couldn't convince the Canadians to agree with our notions.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. As I remember from high school history...

(I grew up in Tucson, Arizona, so this stuff was taught to us from early grade school onward)

There actually was some discussion of conquering Mexico and annexing the whole thing. Such talk was quickly quashed by the US power elite, who feared giving citizenship to millions of non-white, non-English speaking people (sounds familiar, no?) The northern Mexican territories were sparsely populated and could -- and were -- "cleaned" fairly easily. The mountainous and much heavily populated southern territories, however.... In the end, it was deemed sufficient to extend the US to the Pacific.

[mckara]

36. That is Probably Correct

Although, I haven't read anything supporting that argument. My master degree is in military history, and we didn't delve much into the Mexican War, and the social implications of annexing Southern Mexico. As you know, Americans of that period were not known for their acceptance of people and religions different than their own.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. Americans have NEVER been known for their acceptance of different people and religions

What are you talking about, "Americans of that period"?

[mckara]

47. That's a Bum Rap...

Certainly, we continue to have turmoil as different ethnic groups establish their presence in American society. Yet as our motto states, out of many, we are becoming one. What other nation became a melting pot where every ethnic group has opportunities to succeed? We had our problems and we aired them out publicly. We have bigots are bigotry in our society, but our creed remains the same: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We improve with each succeeding generation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. Let's start with the near genocide of the indigenous peoples

Then there is slavery and the heritage of racism it left behind. Anti-Catholic sentiment. Laws that forbade Latinos from owning property and which forceably "repatriated" many native born citizens to Mexico. Lynch mobs that murdered blacks, Asians, Latinos, Irish, Poles and Italians. President Woodrow Wilson's endorsement of the 1915 silent movie Birth of a Nation, which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as America's saviors, and the Klan marching en masse on September 13, 1926 in Washington DC as a respectable organization to large, cheering crowds. The genuine concern as to whether presidential candidate John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would be able to run the country without being controlled by the Vatican. The ongoing bigotry against gays, blacks, Latinos and Muslims.

Please do not confuse the rhetoric of the American Revolution with reality: the two have very rarely met.

[mckara]

50. Yes, And the Republic Continues to Evolve and Progress...

If you want to merely get into a pissing contest about historical atrocities, I can list more than the ones you offered. You condemn yourself when you condemn modern culture. It's your responsibility to make the world a better place before you die, and you're not seeing the whole picture.

Our nation has been the home of good people who carried Freedom's Holy light, and bad people who have committed horrific atrocities. You have seen the bad, but excluded the goodness of our people.

Social Darwinism led many people down the wrong path when their worldview envisioned a struggle between nations, cultures, and races. The eugenics movement refined and propagated the differences between people, which ultimately led to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Literally, from the ashes of Hitler's victims, the world realized the fallacies of hateful discrimination against humans based upon racial and cultural differences. After the war, even with their arguments completely discredited, social Luddites continued the irrational arguments of their forefathers, but their voices become more distant as time passes.

History unlearned is history repeated, and it is our task to teach our children historical lessons. Humans believe in redemption and the human race can be redeemed with education and patience. Every cloud does have a silver lining.

[ensho]

5. my 2 Officer great uncles went from Wash. D.C. to fight the Mexicans

one took his wife with him and she had her 1st child in Mexico. one brought back a small silver stiletto in a silver sheath, supposedly given to him by a Mexican friend.

I've always been anti war so always had reservations about these uncles.

one of these great uncles was one of the engineers that built Flagler's railroad down the keys and thus to Cuba. he also worked on the first railroad through the jungle of Brazil.

one uncle abandoned his daughter, the other was a womanizer and suspected family sex abuser. he got malaria in Mexico and had bouts of it the rest of his life. which is ok with me.

they grew up 8 blocks from the Capitol.

just a little history of the Spanish American war time.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. The Spanish-American War was a totally different conflict

That war ran from April, 1898 to August, 1898 and was motivated by American expansionists wanting to enforce the Monroe Doctrine (basically, kick Europe out of the Western Hemisphere) and create a US trade route across the Pacific. It was sparked when the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor. The United States claimed that it was a Spanish attack and declared war. Spain, weakened by civil conflicts at home, was unable to support its territories and they fell to American agression. When the war ended, the US had conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

When Samuel Clemens wrote The War Prayer, it was about the Spanish-American War.

[ensho]

21. gosh, I didn't know we fought them twice, where have I been?

thanks for filling me in

[bushmeister0]

45. Would you care for a third? (If we're just speaking of invading Mexico, not war with the Spanish.)

Don't forget Woodrow Wilson's "Punative Expedition" against Pancho Villa:

"The Punitive Expedition into Mexico that the United States Government undertook in 1916 against Mexican Revolutionary leader Pancho Villa threatened to bring the United States and Mexico into direct conflict with one another. However, careful diplomatic maneuvering by Mexican President Venustiano Carranza and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson successfully resolved the crisis.
Pancho Villa, the Mexican revolutionary leader who controlled much of northeastern Mexico during 1914 and 1915, experienced military setbacks after breaking with the Carranza government and being subjected to a U.S. arms embargo.

The Wilson Administration supported Carranza as the legitimate Mexican head of state and hoped that U.S. support could end Mexican political instability during the revolutionary period. Prior to the Mexican Revolution, the U.S.-Mexico border had been only lightly policed. The instability of the revolution led to an increased U.S. military presence, while U.S. citizens along the border often sympathized or aided the various factions in Mexico. As part of a campaign against U.S. interests in Northern Mexico, Villa's forces attacked U.S. mining executives in Mexico on January 9, 1916, provoking public anger in the United States, especially in Texas. Pancho Villa's forces then raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, on March 9, 1916, resulting in the death of sixteen Americans and much larger casualties for Villa's forces.

In response, the Wilson Administration decided to order a punitive raid into Mexico with the goal of capturing Pancho Villa. Because of earlier, more minor raids, Wilson had already considered ordering an expedition a cross the border, and so directed Newton Baker, the Secretary of War, to organize an expedition specifically to pursue Villa. Wilson also attempted to mollify Mexican President Venustiano Carranza by claiming that the raid was conducted 'with scrupulous regard for the sovereignty of Mexico.' Nevertheless, Carranza regarded Wilson's actions as a violation of Mexican sovereignty and refused to aid the U.S. expedition . . . "

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/108653.htm

[underpants]

6. This is a really interesting part of history. "Polk's War" is eerily similiar

to Iraq

15 years later the French (with UK and Spanish support) tried to take over the whole country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

There appeared to be some interest in the US taking over ALL of Mexico too
"All Mexico"

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which was also claimed by Mexico, paving the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico," particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.<28>

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of Manifest Destiny like John L. O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of Manifest Destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.<29>

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of Manifest Destiny: on the one hand, while racist ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, were a lesser race and thus not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated," as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Racism was used to promote Manifest Destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, racism was also used to oppose Manifest Destiny.<30>

The controversy was eventually ended by the Mexican Cession, which added the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the "All Oregon" movement, the "All Mexico" movement quickly abated. Historian Frederick Merk, in Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (1963), argued that the failure of the "All Oregon" and "All Mexico" movements indicates that Manifest Destiny had not been as popular as historians have traditionally portrayed it to have been. Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent "mission" of democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a very small (but influential) minority of Americans. Merk's interpretation is probably still a minority opinion; scholars generally see Manifest Destiny, at least in the 1840s, as a popular belief among Democrats and an unpopular one among Whigs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement#.22All_Mexico.22

[Occam Bandage]

7. I highly doubt you'll find any pacifist who really believes, in their heart of hearts,

that everyone would be better off if the United States returned California to Mexico.

[zipplewrath]

26. Not all processes are reversible

Pacifists would argue that the US shouldn't have taken it to begin with. Being a pacifist doesn't mean that one believes you can undo a wrong. It means believing you shouldn't do it in the first place.

[EFerrari]

31. Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Cool. Sounds Like We Totally Kicked Ass!

:toast:

[wuushew]

17. Are you being sarcastic?

:shrug:

[PVnRT]

34. No.

[arcadian]

19. All Hail the American Empire!!!

[EFerrari]

24. OT: that flag is one of the most compelling protest images ever.

I think I need to buy one.

[Blue_Tires]

30. it's been around awhile

i saw it in adbusters like 9 or 10 years ago...

it really needs to be updated -- a lot of those corporations are a lot less relevant than they were a decade ago...

[bushmeister0]

20. California Über Alles?

Something I wrote back '05 about the brief immigrant rights uprising of that year, it seems to fit into this thread somehow:

"(An) historical fact that people should keep in mind is the preemptive war that president Polk started in 1846 against Mexico, which was waged in part to get more land for the southern slave interests and to increase their political and economic influence versus the richer north. The war cost the U.S. $27 million and 27,000 dead over two years and ended when the Marines marched into the Halls of Montezuma and forced the Mexicans to give up half their territory for $15 million. Presently, California is such a rich state that it would be the fourth or fifth richest country if it was on its own. Imagine if Mexico still had it and most of the south west. Probably, we wouldn't be too worried about illegal immigration from Mexico."

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2006/05/workers-unite.html

[NutmegYankee]

32. Imagine if the Catholic Church embraced Birth Control.

"Probably, we wouldn't be too worried about illegal immigration from Mexico."

[bushmeister0]

43. What?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you accusing me of racism, or are you a rscist?

I was simply point out that if Mexico was as large as it was before the Mexican War, it probably wouldn't be in the messed up state it's in now. Even if it was mismanaged, as it has been all these years, the money it would have would more than offset the incompetence. Hell, just look at the US. Any other country would be bankrupt and on the verge of revolution if it wasn't for our dominate postion in the world.

[NutmegYankee]

49. Nothing to due with race. But was a jab at the Church.

Overpopulation and the stress placed on jobs and food supply are part of the problem. I was jabbing at the Catholic Church for their opposition to birth control.

[Raskolnik]

22. Mexico conquered that land fair and square! n/t

[blindpig]

27. Mr Polk's War

What that account leaves out is that the war was instigated by the Polk administration. Polk & Co delivered a series of over the top diplomatic insults to Mexico calculated to provoke, and it worked.

It was all about expanding slavery, quite a twofer for the national reputation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Nope, I didn't leave that out

In April of 1846, Polk ordered US troops to cross the Nunces and begin securing the area north of the Rio Grande. When the Mexican army responded, Polk claimed that Mexico, having crossed the Rio Grande and killed American soldiers, had declared war on the United States. On May 13, 1846, a joint session of Congress approved Polk's declaration of war against Mexico.

I had forgotten that the order to provoke a war was preceeded by insults and unreasonable demands to give up and go home, though. But yes, there was no doubt that Polk instigated the war. Regarding slavery, it was one of the reasons why Texas rebelled: the Mexican Constitution of 1821 outlawed slavery, upon which the Texas economy relied heavily.

[NeedleCast]

37. US President John Tyler reopened negotiations to annex Texas as a slave state in 1944

Errr, typo?

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. Yeah, should have been 1844 n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

40. As a Tejano, I'm glad it happened.

Wonder how things would have been had we annexed all of Mexico?

[WolverineDG]

44. If you were born south of the Nueces River

you were born in "occupied Mexico." So I was once informed when telling someone I was born in Corpus. :grr: But that's okay; had McCain won, that attitude might have come in handy. ;)

dg

[SoCalDem]

46. The Absolut map..

[Jack_DeLeon]

51. I prefer Tito's Vodka myself...

made in Austin, TX.