Comments by "Sea to Shining Sea12 Sea12" (@SeatoShiningSeaSea) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
The territories at a great distance from Mexico City, SW and parts Central America were not patriotic towards the young Republic. The SW territories population, Spanish colonists did not participate in Mexican independence or were part of the political dynamics between New Spain (to become Mexico) and Spain. The SW was claimed by Mexico after Spain abdicated the territories, neither Mexico or the SW Spanish colonists had loyalty's to one another as they were basically strangers, very distant, different geography, history, cultures. The United States saved the day for the sparse SW Colonial population who were not patriotic and sought independence from Mexico. They had relationships with the United States commercial trade via the Santa Fe Trail and mountain men trappers and American settlers. We need to ask, would Spain who was financially in trouble have sold the SW to the United States if not for Mexican independence. . Spain had already given up Florida and was working with M Austin to establish Spanish land grants to Americans in Texas. Spain was never able to colonize or control the northern wilderness isolated lands because of the thousands of unconquered Indians who were feared by all colonists. Later these Indians gave Mexico much grief. The SW Indians never acknowledged Mexico, attacking raids on Mexicans even siding with the United States. The SW latitude was closer to the United States and just happened to fall in Mexico's hands for a few years. One way or another, the the SW was destined to be part of the United States . It's just that three centuries earlier, Spain beat Great Britain and France on claims for the territories. Spain was constantly on watch for her northern territories intrusion against the French, Russia, Great Britain, setting up Spanish colonies in the far north as intruder outposts.
20
-
Magical Moments. The United States did defeat central Mexico -- via ships the U.S. military reached Vera Cruz and conquered it; then headed to Mexico City which was defeated and occupied by the United States over taking the nation, and flying the United States flag over Mexico's capital city. So the United States battled not just small groups of lightly armed men, but also battled the real patriotic Mexican army in central Mexico. Better weapons -- American S. Colt invented a weapon that was able to fire multiple times before reloading and a great asset towards United States military conquest. The United States was militarily well prepared for war on foreign soil. Mexico won independence during a time when Spain was at an all out war, threatened by Frence invasion in Spain during the Penisular War in Europe. A priority for Spain to save it's country back in Europe, its focus militarily and financially was in Spain not America. Mexico, since it's inception never had the world power, influence, financial resources, strategy, or able to build an empire as Spain once had. Ill prepared, young independent Mexico started the War, regardless of it's civil revolutions or unpreparedness. Polk was ready to battle a war started by Mexico, whether or not Mexico was weak or strong. The U.S.A. did in fact defeat all of Mexico, admittedly so. Read the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Part of the negotiations was the U.S. returning parts of Mexico back and purchased the northern territories. It never fails to amaze, all the excuses Mexicans come up with.
19
-
10
-
Jimmy Garcia I don't dream like you do. I hit the history books of which you know nothing of. The colonies in the new world has been referred to as America since before independence from Great Britain because their brothers lived in America. And close to two centuries later, at Independence became the United States of America while the neighbor later became Estados Unidos Mexicano's. Even Mexicano's typically looked to the United States as "los Americano's." It's just a historical fact that the United States is American. But common ignorance that all from Canada to Argentina are Americans as well. so I personally refer to the United States of America or United States citizens. People from the United States refer to being American because they are. So, yes Polk was the American president, even by Mexican standards in 1846 at war with los Americano's. Polk defeated the Mexican Republic in 1848, eventhough the United States of America was outnumbered on foreign soil, Polks great military flew the United States flag over Mexico City--typical conquest of a nation by war; been happening for centuries. The United States had the advantage of better weapons, strategic officers, unity, financial means. What did Mexico offer, internal revolutions. Get over it. Learn the history with an open mind. The Mexican government accepted defeat in 1848, it's time you do too.
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@skywolf2012 Another ridiculous excuse. Just when was the United States supposed to strike Mexico. A war would never have transpired waiting for Mexico to attain power. Mexicans would need to trek another million acres to reach the US as they always look north wishing to be Americans. As it stands, many Mexicans are bummed because the border is situated too far north. If in the 1500s, Spain had not claimed California, New Mexico/Arizona, and Texas, Mexico would be speechless on these territories as it is on Oregan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc., or if Spain had sold these problematic isolated wilderness distant territories situated in the far north, with only 2% of New Spains population, not to mention the thousands of uncontrolled, unconquered Indians prior to Mexican independence, Mexico would never have claimed the SW wilderness frontier which was easily defeated with hardly a battle or Mexican military anywhere in sight. These territories did not participate in Mexican independence or the political dynamics between the Mexico City and central core parts of New Spain and Spain. Or were they patriotic to the young Republic of Mexico after Mexican officials trekked north, to their new claimed quasi territory to replace Spains flag with Mexico's. Met opposition and were considered foreign strangers. Instead of assuming, folks need to learn American history.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
For starters, both nations went to war, which Mexico started on disputed land. The United States conquered Mexico, all of Mexico, flying the United States flag and occupying the land. Both nations signed a treaty agreement, under which the United States returned Mexico's core and heartland and paid Mexico fifteen million dollars for territories the United States wanted. The lands were obviously not stolen, rather the United States took the land by conquest at war. Mexico was a young nation, unstable and the SW was litterally another world, disconnected, very distant and unpatriotic; Mexico unable to control the heartland, much less the far off wilderness territories with thousands of unconquered Indians who hated Mexico trespassing their lands. Mexico sold additional land to the United States after the War, under the Gadson Purchase for another ten million. Mexico made out royally on territories they claimed after Mexican independence, lands not inherently Mexico. In fact there was hardly a Mexican living in the far north isolated California to Texas except for Mexican officials who traveled north to plant the Mexican flag and claim the land. Mexicans immigrated to border areas after the Mexican War, closer to 1900, establishing Mexican towns. . Mexican's had no need for the north until the United States took it. Stolen lands is nothing but woke culture history revison.
3
-
3
-
Spaniards did not take over Mexican lands. Spaniards claimed lands to become numerous territories developing into New Spain: California, New Mexico, Texas to Florida, todays Mexico (Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Nueva Viscaya, Nueva Navarra, kingdoms of Galacia and Yucatan etc), Central America, Cuba, Philippines, Caribbeans which later became nations or parts of a nation such as the United States, Mexico etc . Mexico/Mexicans did not get their start until 1821, three hundred years after Spain claimed territories occupied by numerous Indian tribes who never identified as Mexican. You've got New Mexico history upside down as well as Mexican and U.S. history. The young Republic of Mexico claimed New Mexico for only 25 years known as the Mexican Period 1821-1848. In fact New Mexico predates Mexico by over 250 years. New Mexico got it's name and identity about 1550, Mexico didn't get it's name till 1824 during which time it's citizens became Mexican. You can just simply refer to a map of New Spain's territories back before the United States and Mexico became nations. Most northern New Mexicans still relate to Spain as the motherland and refer to themselves as Spanish. Hispanic is a 1970s Census Bureau classification which was rarely used until a politician of Mexican descent was elected governor of New Mexico about 2000, coinciding with millions of mass Mexican migration into the United States, consequently "Hispanic" become a main stream term almost overnight in the United States starting about twenty years ago. "Hispanic" is a generic U.S., late 20th century political term, pertaining to persons from Spanish speaking countries, says the US government, "Hispanic" implemented for data collection under President Nixon by Mexican American immigrant government bureaucrats. And people from Latin American countries become "Hispanic" overnight, once they enter the U.S. border. Hispanic was rarely heard of before approx the year 2000 mass migration, most of it illegal. And Hispanic is pretty much unknown outside of the U.S. Latin Americans identify by their country of origin. Northern New Mexicans identified as Spanish American until this Hispanic nonsense. Back tracking to the Mexican Period, Mexican identity was forced on it's citizens but was frowned on by most northern New Mexico with a few exceptions like Taos's Padre Martinez and Albq Gov Armijo and his cohorts. Most New Mexicans were not true patriots to a foreign Mexico hundreds of miles away. Historically a Mexican is insulted by being identified as Spanish, and they do not pay tribute to Cortez who conquered the Aztec. likewise, a northern New Mexican is insulted by a Mexican identity and hold festivities for Spaniards Devargas and Onate... After all the 400 years homeland is the Territory and Kingdom of New Mexico, not Mexico. Historically, Mexican citizen's 1824 identified with their Indian blood. Historically Northern NMs identified with Spanish blood and Spanish culture, inherently so, as in the SW there was not much contact with the Indian as in other parts of New Spain where the Indian was conquered , the Spanish and Indian merged cultures to become a mestizo people. Mestizo is unheard of in northern NM by both the Indian tribes and Spanish. Each stick to their cultural identity going on 423 years of Spanish colonization.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@skylarkuznetsov2354 Texas won the San Joaquin battle leading to becoming independent of Mexico. United States did not support Texas initially. As an independent Republic of Texas, Texans had the right to join the United States, France, Great Britian or Mexico if they wanted. Texss was no longer under the 12 year yolk of Mexico. That's the freedom of independence regardless of any prior connection to a nation. If Mexico wants Texas back because of 12 years, then Spain should get Texas back over 275 years. Nevertheless, United States won the War, so as Texas had been claimed by France, Spain or Mexico in the past, it's now part of the United States under the terms of a legal Treaty. Besides, Mexicans did not occupy Texas at that time. With out going to the existing conditions of that time, history can be misconstrued.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great comments. Our ancestors lived violent harsh lives. Too many judge an ancient world with modern day lens. I may add that in addition to Cortez and Columbus intercepting for the better, Casas Laws of the Indies addressed human rights for the American Indians under Spains governing rule, Spain viewed the Indian as human while the America English viewed them as savage. Spain awarded legal land grants to the Pueblo Indians existing lands in New Mexico as early as 1700, recognized by the federal courts late in the 1800s. The United States came through as early 1831, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the obligation of the federal government to safeguard the welfare of the Indians leading to BIA, federal Acts and laws to protect their rights. Nothing is perfect, there are always issues. But had European not intervened, where would the natives be today. For sure, U.S. Indians would not be awarded the enormous amounts of federal funding their tribes receive annually, education, jobs, enterprises, or attain prestigious awards in the artist community. It all takes generations.
2
-
@historyliker6375 Historically Texas was a territory which had belonged to Spain for over two centuries. In fact all of New Spain from California to Florida, today's Mexico, Central America, Cuba, were all territories under Spain including Philippines and Caribbeans. Americas claim to Texas was not baseless, Texans won the battle of San Jacinto and gained their own independence and republic while Santa Ana ripped Mexican Constitution under his dictatorship. As California and SW were not historically Mexico, neither the U.S or Mex had an inborn right to claim the territories. They were the far north territories, unincorporated and disconnected from the young Mexico proper. Basically quasi goverened by Mexico, unpatriotic, and had about as much need for Mexico as Mexico for the SW. Mexicans were considered strangers in the distant isolated north by the Spanish settlers Spain had placed in the north two centuries earlier. No man's land except for the unconquered Indians. Mexico permitted American settlers in the wilderness unpopulated, isolated Texas, to serve as a buffer population against the Comanche.
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's right. During Mexican occupation of California and SW 1824-1848, the indigenous Indians to those lands claimed neither Mexico or United States or Spain before that 1598-1821. Indians were uncontrollable and answered to no one. The exception were the Pueblo tribes 1600 who were conquered, Catholicized and had some contact with the Spanish, yet lived in their own villages and goverened their own Pueblo, permission granted by the Spanish Crown. Catholic missions were built in CA by the Spanish 1780 but Spain was unsuccessful in converting the Indians. Mexico of 1824 made it way to the northern territories of California New Mexico /Arizona Texas which were very distant, an isolated wilderness because Spain abdicated these land as the young Republic gained independence claiming the provinces. The Mexican was unwelcome, considered strangers, rebelled against and the northern Indians were at war with the young nation of Mexico hating Mexicans bitterly. Enslaving and killing the enemy was a standard 16th century ancient practice, the Indians commonly took part in these atrocities against enemy tribes. Judging ancient barbaric practices with modern day lens is just not very level headed.
Early on about 1530 the Spanish used a different tactic to convert the thousands ofAztec in Mexico City. The Spanish created a story involving Tonantzin the Aztec venerated mother diety, and young Aztec boy who saw her image on Tonantzins temple on Topeyac hill as the holy venerated European Catholic Goddess, Our Lady of Guadalupe, which the Aztec commonly observed worship of this Catholic saint by the Spanish. Thousands converted, over time replaced the Aztec rite with Catholicism, yet both venerated mother dieties. Topeyac Hill is still the venerated site for Our Lady of Guadalupe/Tonantzin by mestizo Catholics and Aztecs.
2
-
Not all Mexicans agree with lame excuses. . The War was not connected to Canada, rather to Texas. Spaniard issues were resolved a decade prior to the War. Regardless of both new nations situations, war is acquisition of land. Just as parts of New Spain battled and acquired what became Mexico after 300 years under Spain, , the United States battled Mexico, conquering and taking ALL of Mexico after only 25 years, flying the United States flag over Mexico. Nothing was stolen. There was no U.S. invasion. Mexico fired the first shot on disputed territory. Blood was shed on both sides. The United States was not to blame for Mexicos weak internal problems-steming from racism and an inconsistent and a tyrant ruling power. Not all Mexican citizens were patriotic to the young Mexican republic. It was in central Mexico where the major battles and national patriotism held ground. The distant territories were claimed by Mexico -- California, SW, parts of Central America areas which were not involved with Mexican independence, its peoples were disconnected, yet were mandated Mexican citizenship, but most were not patriotic to the young nation, the northern territories were easily overtaken by the U.S. Nevertheless Mexico lost the War it started,. Mexico unable to govern it's people/country and needed the twenty five million dollars acquired through the H. Guadalupe and Mesilla Treaties more than it needed a barren wasteland controlled by thousands of unconquered raiding Indians out in the vast wilderness which Spain claimed but had little control over. Stolen lands is nothing but radical left wing revision history. The situation was standard as wars go; land claims, disputes, war, conquest, border. Treaties and purchases were already in practice by the United States goverenment. This War was no exception no matter how you twist it. And after the War, Mexicans were still battling among themselves , many escaped during the Mexican Revolution. That Mexico was able to claim California plus SW was pure luck. Spain had already transferred over Louisiana and Florida and was in the process of allowing land grants to Americans in Texas. California, New Mexico/AZ, Texas were basically Spains northern outposts establised to ward off the Russian and French from intruding Spains claimed lands. Up north, Spain did not conquer the majority of Indians, barely colonized or developed, sparsly financed the territories which had remained a distant isolated wilderness. Had Mexico not gained independence, Spain would have treatied the US/northern Spanish border lands to the United States as they were too distant from New Spains core which was where Spain focused it's interests. Historically the northern rivers did not feed into today's Mexico, the Colorado and Rio Grande pooped out in Chihuahua and Baja California northern edge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mauri7782 the Iberian Peninsula has been occupied since BC, and populated by Celts, Visigoths Germanics, Roman's and other ancient tribes. And gone through, like other countries in Europe, different stages of development. The Arabs invaded about 700 AD and influenced not only Spain but into France and Italy. Arabs/Moors were educated and influenced by peoples from the highly developed Orient. They established themselves in parts of Spain, enriching it in philosophy, medicine, music, splendid mosque buildings developing into a civilization of power, influence, authority and prosperity, patios, garden's, public baths, grand palaces, numerous libraries, universities, an exotic environment ; while other capitals in Europe still had haphazard primitive mansions, dirty streets, squalid hovels, etc. Spain's kings were educated and rose to power, thus King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were a world power. Establishing grand European building, Christian religious orders, cathedrals, universities, education, libraries in America, Mexico City, Spain a great empire. The fall of Spanish America is inclusive of many factors, for one, Spain claimed too much isolated territory it was unable to control, too many internal revolutions among races the Spanish merged into it's culture and vice versa, leading to cultural national complexities. The Spanish, in truth, Latin America is primarily Indian, while the Spanish claimed Islands are primarily African. Spain discovered Tenichitlan, better known as Mexico City, left in in ruins to be rebuilt by the Spanish. . Had Great Britain found the Aztec, they'd have done the same, killed them and would have displaced the Indians just as they did in the United States east coast. The Spanish as vile as life was in the 16th C, at least viewed the Indians as humans. Not the English. In fact by the time the English settled Jamestown, Spanish law prohibited abuse of the Indians. The Spanish were no different from the Indian -- warriors, invaders, worshipped a diety, raped, pillaged, killed their own and back in time, no one had sanitary values. People lived with nature and bathed when the opportunity presented itself. In fact, the Spanish were civilized, had superior weapons, conquered the Indian by stategy. And were in shock at the Indians piercing the heart and eating the human flesh of their own. There were Spanish as well as Indian who were less than moral, as there were Spanish as well as Indian who were astute and born leaders. Looks like you overlooked alot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There were no old Mexican families. California was colonized by Spain, Spanish colonists. Mexicans did not enter the picture until after 1824, primarily Mexican officials to remove Spains flag and plant Mexico's new flag, during the Mexican Period of 25 years, same with New Mexico and Texas. Arizona was not colonized by Spain during the 275 year Spanish Period of the southwest. Mexico did not colonize the SW or conquer the SW Indians. Mexicans did migrate north after Mexican independence and established towns in U.S /Mexico border areas, after the Mexican American War. Even during the 25 year SW Mexican Period 1824-1846, it was primarily Mexican goverenment officials who came north quasi goverening the SW. Most Californians were Spanish colonists since 1770, having conficts with the newly arrived Mexican officials, and later the Californians, were protected under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, were allowed to stay in California and become United States citizens. California shortly became a state, under the U.S. flag, Mexico was defeated and headed back to Mexico. State of California was compromised of both Spanish and English speaking legislators, proceedings were carried out biligually, with interpreters for a decade or so. Same in New Mexico, except under a Territorial Period until becoming a state in 1912. Texas was similar but had gone to war with Mexico and became Independent Texas by Anglo settlers. In fact Anglo Americans had settled the SW in 1821 before Mexicans. And the Mexican goverenment brought Mexicans north to battle Americans in California and Texas during the war. New Mexico and parts of California were easily defeated without battles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The land actually belonged to northern tribes as Comanche, Apache, Navajo, Mohave, Ute, Caddo, Pueblo, Cherokee, etc. They have always been up north, what is today the United States and still are. Mexico tried expansion of the SW after independence from Spain, but had no control over it. They were foreign Invaders to the SW and the northern Indians fought Mexico off. MX lost the land after 25 years. Mexican people took their land back--What land, their land is in Mexico.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interpret the Treaty as you wish, but Treaty or not, the United States conquered all of Mexico, the United States army occupied Mexico flying the United States flag over it's capital, Mexico City. No Treaty was required to take over the land. Victor always takes the spoils, human rule of law back in the previous centuries. Payment for conquered land was unheard of as well as returning parts of the land, wasn't Mexico fortunate... Lands were not stolen and with that mentality, Mexico stole the it's lands from Spain. And Indians stole from Indians. Some Mexicans make s big deal of SW lands claimed by Mexico for all of twenty five years, it was as easy land grab in the far north which Mexico never did control. The lands actually belonged to northern SW Indian's, hundreds of tribes who hated Mexico. The Apache actually sided with the United States and scratched their heads at the United States paying millions of dollars for lands that were not Mexico. The Comanche left Chihuahua in shreds. And raids continued after the War was over. Mexico was bitterly hated by northern tribes who protected their inherent lands. Bottom line, the United States SW was not historically Mexico, Mexico crossing ancient borders was short lived.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xavi4694 The SW was isolated because it was very far in the northern wilderness, from other parts of New Spain. And impossible for Spain to colonize, not only because of the unconquered Comanche, but other tribes. SW became territories of Mexico by a land grab, expansion, after Mexico's independence. All of the territories were different parts of New Spain, by different claims by explorations taking about 60 years. Upon Mexican independence, the very distant territories and SW inherent Indians were mandated Mexican citizens, foreign Mexicans considered estranjeros when they headed north to claim the land. SW was different geographically, culturally, history, political and Indians who hated Mexico. Keep in mind the far north did not participate in Mexico City area politics or the wars for independence between specific territories of New Spain and Spain.
1
-
@xavi4694 Rubbish, Spain had claimed too much territory left in shreds, while it put much of it's strength and finances in colonies from Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Ports were in Vera Cruz, Cuba, Florida, Spain. In time, Spain had legally given up Florida and Louisiana and was in the process of negotiating land grants in bordering Texas territory with M Austin, to American settlers, just before Mexican independence -- Spain most likely would have sold the north SW in time, too much uncontrolled territory in the United States/Spain borders, home to thousands of unconquered SW Indians. Spain no longer held world power. Spain had not strong armed the distant SW Indians, mixed or merged with them to become one people, as with the Aztec and other tribes during earlier colonization in New Spain Aztec territory and Indians from those areas. Spain was fighting a war in Europe against France to save Spain so America was secondary, putting her focus and finances in Europe, loosing the last grip in north America continent. If New Spain belongs to anyone it would be Spain who also lost territories from California to Florida, Cuba, Caribbeans, Philippines, Central America. All of these New Spain territories were ruled by Spains viceroy in Mexico City. New Spains lands should be returned to Spain; in Mexico's case, it stole the lands from Spain. Mexico was just one of New Spains many territories. The New England colonies should be returned to Great Britain to your reasoning. Mexico lost distant autonomous territories in war, unincorporated colonies it did not need, after a legal U.S. conquest and legal real estate purchases. Not to mention the United States occupied Mexico after conquest, flying the United States flag over Mexico; followed by both young republic western world nations signing a legal treaty, negotiating a legal border. Land dominance was power in that era... Look at Mexico, it tried imperialism, grabbing the SW, lost to a greater power. Had Mexico been powerful, won it's War, it would have gloated in taking much of the United States lol. The problem for some Mexicans factions is the border, which is too far north excluding many materialistic, jealous Mexicans from U.S. citizenship. Traitors to Mexico. Always looking north.... Mexico did not need the SW in 1848, anymore than Spain had; and the SW likewise certainly did not need disconnected Mexico. The SW was bridging ties with Americans via the Santa Fe Trail, Americans had already settled in NM and California before independence. MX spent the money foolishly on internal revolutions, new Constitutions, dictatorship and just couldn't get it right for it's citizens. You're still back in the 16th C. And now you want Russia to do the dirty work for johnny come late Mexico. The United States built the SW, is a world power and will fight for the red, white and blue for her rightful lands. What makes you so sure imperial Russia won't take Mexico for herself. You know Russia had her eyes set on the Pacific coast back in the 1700s. Spain stood in the way....since when are Mexicans not racist, they are racist to their own, much more are they racist towards Americano's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The SW for centuries belonged to Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Piute, Shasta, Mohave, Caddo, plus a host of United States Indian tribes today. They were out in the distant northern vast wilderness lands claimed by Spain during later explorations. These hundreds of tribes controlled the lands, were never conquered by Spain. During the 25 year Mexican Period they were territorial enemies, battled with independent Mexico and weren't owned or controlled by any nation until the SW land were claimed by the United States who finally conquered them and placed in reservations. This was 300 years after Spain claimed the distant and isolated territories, unable to develop due to fierce warrior tribes. Both the United States and Mexico became nations and began movement into the SW simultaneously. Spain had negotiates Louisiana to France; and Florida to the United States and was opening up Texas to American settlers by the time Mexico gained independence. Mexico had the same problem as Spain in the removed SW, except it didn't have the political power, patriotizm, influence or finances Spain once had in the SW over a handful of Spanish colonists; and Mexico was not in control of the unincorpoated SW lands. The inevitable War ensued between both nations,; U.S. conquest, purchase, treaty and a negotiated border. Lands were not stolen, you need to go back to the standards and language of those days of which "stealing lands" was unheard of. Conquest was the accepted standard for centuries. Stealing is 20th C history revionists indoctrination.
1
-
1
-
I agree with most of your post. The European monarch looked look at the map after it had been outlined by cartographers after exploration, this is how monarchs knew their claims. Spain explored the many territories, claimed and named them for Spain. Same as Great Britain and France. The era was focued on European conquest, not legitimacy, in the New World. Spain first explored unknown lands, claimed the lands (New Spain), conquered them, later the King (as documented) issued land grants on those territories legitimately under Spanish Law. Today, the NM Pueblo Indians Spanish land grants are protected under United States federal law because of Spains legitimately awarding those lands to these tribes in 1700. But your spot on regarding Mexico in relation to the very distant SW and the United States commercial trade and American settlers since 1821. The distant northern SW was claimed and colonized 1600 by Spain very early in American to serve as outposts colonies. By1800 Spain gave up Florida and Louisiana to the United States; and before Mexican independence, Spain had given M Austin permission for land grant settlements for Americans at a time when the United States was moving west. Spain most likely would have sold the SW Spanish border lands to the United States. In time the SW would have separated from Mexico as Central America. The SW was never connected to today's Mexico, except that it was part of New Spain, as Florida, Mississippi areas. Disconnected by distance, history, tribes, culture, politics. Mexico never had a presence in the SW, imperialistic, Mexico grabbed the SW after Spain abdicated the territories but did not control the autonomous unincorporated SW provinces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@catalyst439 Totally agreed, the Mexican American War happened long ago and there have been conflictd as well as unity between both nations. It is Mexican factions who are the trouble makers, many Mexican American Chicano immigrants, history revionists who promoted stolen lands and Mexicans who make too much of California, Texas, New Mexico/Arizona territories which were not historically Mexican but for the brief 25 year SW Mexican Period, whose populations, be they Indians or Spanish Colonists, were not patriotic towards the young Mexico whose goverenment officials came to the isolated and distant north to claim the lands, met rebellion and were considered estranjeros, and wanted independence from Mexico. Well, the United States saved the day, they became United States citizens under the Treaty of GH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jersey plug claims debunked in the last comments. Unlike todays Mexico Indians, most SW tribes were far removed from the Spanish and did not speak Spanish. Even the Pueblo Indian who stayed in their ancient Pueblo villages, lived in close proximity and allied with the Spanish against raiding Indians such as (Apache), preserved their indigeniuos language and religion, to date, even though they were Catholicized and influenced some by the Spanish and were given authorization by Spain for each Pueblo to self govern their tribe with the self appointment of tribal governor's, still in practice, to date. And recognized even by President Lincoln 160 years later. Unlike the Indians in what is today Mexico, the SW Indians kept their tribal identity, to date, because they were never part of the miniscule Spanish society or was the Spanish society part of theirs, nor did either become a mestizo culture because in the SW the Spanish and Indian did not generally mix. Most Spanish blood was not mixed as the Spanish and Pueblo lived apart practicing their separate cultures. The Apache Navajo Ute Comanche were raiding unconquered enemies even amongst themselves, whose contact with the Spanish was rare. Some Indians knew a little Spanish as some knew a little English. During the Spanish Colonial era, the longest period in the SW, 1598-1821 the SW was not Mexico. Had Spain not claimed the territories of California, Arizona/ New Mexico and Texas back in the 1500s, making those territories parts of New Spain, the young Republic of Mexico of 1824 would be speechless without claim to the territories which were literally a world away, over a thousand miles from Aztec territory. A different geographic area, different Indians, culture, politics and history. In fact, during the Pueblo Revolt, these New Spain indigenous northern Indian tribes chased the Spanish off to El Paso, away from their territory, satisfied the Spanish were gone and off their inherent lands. Ancient borders talk. You are wrong, the SW Indian did not speak Spanish or consider themselves Mexican even during the brief 25 year Mexican Period. They were unconquered, followed no rules much less the Mexican Constitution hehehe... They were bitter enemies to the young independent Mexican republic in awe of the United States paying 15 million dollars to Mexico for lands the Indians knew were not historically or inherently Mexico. In fact the centuries long SW Spanish colonists refused to ally with the Mexican army against the Comanche, the feared Comanche who in turn attacked Chihuahua leaving it in terror -- and shreds.. . Those from Chihuahua and beyond towards the south had no roots in what is today the United States. The Rio Grande tributaries never nurished the Aztec, pooping out in the outskirts of Chihuahua. If you want to return lands where will you start, migration has been since the beginning of time, this tribe took from that tribe and that tribe took from the other, centuries of taking and squatting and on and on.... Indians were not centralized or one people under one government. Oh, since your moral principles are that of returning, the Amerindian should return to Asia, as like the rest of us, they are in truth not indigeniuos to America... Shouldn't the Mexican government return indigeniuos lands to the Mexicans Indians? Make them sovereign lands as the United States government has done with tribal lands. Conquest has always been and who knows what the future will bring..
1
-
@jersey plug claims debunked in the last comments These cases are reviewed under U.S. Indian law, and are determined by the federal courts. You contradict yourself, you want evil U.S. government to "return" lands to the Indians, yet turn the other way excusing Mexicos government taking away or stole Indians lands and feel that they are not due their sovereign lands or reparations. This is hypocrarcy. Mexico and the United States equal in European exploration and claimants of territories, colonization and treatment of the Indians, and 200 years later inherited lands and peoples in the nations they founded off colonization. U.S. lands formally under Spain as Florida and Louisiana, even Texas were negotiated, purchased, Treaty'd, and borders changed. Same with Mexico, who you could very well say stole Mexico from Spain or New Spain, immoral... So the lands rightfully belongs to Spain having flown it's flag in the SW for approx 250 years. Before Spain it was claimed by whichever tribe claimed the land at that time, the tribe who had taken from a weaker tribe, who took from a weaker tribe for inhumanly generations. Who morally need to return to Asia. The young Mexico, same as Spain negotiated a Purchase and Treaty by Western standards with the United States after an undoubted conquest. And another, the Gadson Purchase after the War. A SW population that was forced Mexican citizenship in 1824 were Mexican citizens fo only 25 years, the SW Mexican Period . 25 years does not make a Mexican, especially if not Mexican historically and becoming US citizen inn1848. This population became U.S citizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under Spains governance there were no Mexicans or Mexico. The population were Peninsulares, Crillos, Espanol, mestizo, Indian and mulatto from New Spain which they identified by territory or location, consistent with still existing genealogical records as Spain documented everything. New Spain maps do not chart Mexico.
Mexicans are citizens of the Republic of Mexico per it's 1824 Constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicano's. Like the United States of Americans, Mexicans citizens are diverse -- Indian, European, Asian, Cuban, Middle East etc. Mexicans are racist since it's inception in 1824. You need look no further than the powers that be, Crillos, took Indians lands never to return anything, and your hypocracy questions the United States...
Obviously you are ignorant on Mexican and SW history, making up your own and trust biased and racist Mexicans version of history which they twist and turn, claim a non-existent Atzlan and ancient Mexico with borders up to no end that never existed. And even level headed Mexicans are grateful to the United States and historical facts. SW libraries are filled with Spains documentation on New Spain. Excellent unbiased SW historians who have given their lives examining the volumous writing pertaining to the SW in Mexico, Spain, and the SW. It's not only libraries, but a living history is still existing in Spanish Colonial USA.
1
-
The populations in the territories were not Mexican, there was no Mexico in 1519. "Mexico" is derived from the "mexica" Aztec tribes, which obviously were not the only tribe in New Spain. New Spain was occupied by violent enemy tribes who helped Spain overthrow Aztec Montezuma. Aztec territory was limited to the valley of Mexico (Mexica) in Tenichitlan area renamed Mexico City by Spain. As conquerors of the territories, they belonged to Spain whose flag, religion, language, culture, governing power overruled the Indian. After independence, it is widely established that Mexico City never did surpress revolutions, it's the other way around, revolutions is the history of Mexico which was ruled by Crillos, mestizos, Indians all in conflict and detrimental to the young Mexico.
Mexicans are citizens from Mexico, period. Just like US Americans are citizens of the US; Canadians are citizens from Canada; Cuban's citizens of Cuba. Yes, the Indian in Mexico is racist--anti Spanish and anti American, the mestizo is kinda in the middle, favoring the Indian blood . You have a problem with the United States and are pretty hypocritical. Most likely a racist pretentious do gooder radical left history revionist. Good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some idiots make a mountain out of a mole hill. 25 years, 10 for Texas is nothing during a brief period after Mexico barely became a nation and didn't know south from north. Nothing was stolen from Mexico, the indigenous California and SW Indians still live in their ancient lands, in fact are proud sovereign nations within the USA and are not crying over stolen lands. As far as Mexican Indian tribes, after independence 1824, their own Mexican goverenment took their native lands, stole them in fact, left them nothing... Go back to your country is correct. Any idiot knows that Mexicans ancestors were never or even near California, SW, Nevada, or Colorado and migrated to the USA border areas decades after the Mexican War 1848. Americans had already settled in California and SW almost a hundred years before Mexican migration. History 101.
1
-
@alaska8429 Spain did not treaty over California or SW to independent Mexico. Mexico claimed the territories, yet these territories were not involved in independence from Spain, on the other hand, Russia already had outposts in California, having explored the Pacific coast at least two centuries earlier. Spain abdicated the territories and Mexico claimed. Mexican officials were considered strangers in these territories causing revolutions, the population seeking independence and had developed relationships with Americans upon their settling in the west along with commercial trade via the Old Santa Fe Trail Missourians and mountain men fur trappers/traders. These territories were just sparse population out in the middle of nowhere for over two centuries, but not unknown to either the United States or the young Mexico, previously under Spain but was disconnected from other parts of New Spain in distance, isolation, history, culture, politics, geography, tribes etc. In fact, Spain was unable to develop a camino to New Orleans from NM because of the feared Comanche. While the United States goverenment was well aware of the Spains borderland neighbors and had relations to Spain who agreed to American settlers in Texas before independence. By this time Spain had lost it's empire and probably on it's way to selling the west as it had already lost Florida and Louisiana.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnJohn-yp5vp Return to who, none of those people are around. Civilization changes, even the Indians the European found were nomadic. They were not in those locations two hundred, five hundred, eight hundred years earlier and if the European had not come, the Indians likely would have migrated to different places. America is gigantic, most lands were not claimed by any tribes, too many barriers inaccessible by foot as rivers, mountains, deserts, swamps, enemy tribes; escaping drought, tornados, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes and enemy tribes; so get over it, people were not nice in ancient times, people, tribes were very violent. Thank the lucky stars you lifetime is is not survival for the day, back then they had survival skills, took life as it came--no cry babies over what was out of their control. Life went on. You're and ungrate, everything is done for you. You wouldn't survive in the world of yesteryear as did your ancestors, they weren't wimps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rebecamarinanunezcarrasco8912 yeh right..... then why are NM and AZ over flowing with unwelcome Mexicans who only look north, sneaking in illegally--sent their children on dangerous journies with total strangers across a cactus thirsty desert through Mexico, selling themselves to violent cartels to many times get raped and risk getting killed, just to cross the border into dusty NM and AZ, where they have no respect for law and order and live off crime and depend on the US goverenment system for survival. NM and AZ are not only dusty, they have rivers and mountains and are part of the richest country in the world, the greatest goverenment the world has ever known. In fact, the USA ended WWII with the atomic bomb created in the spectacular beautiful northern mountains of NM by the greatest scientists in the world. Where was Mexico on the world stage during the World War, selling tamales, sombreros and dire poverty ridden beggers on the streets of Mexico City. If not for their rich great neighbor to the north, Mexico would still be a third world country be it Juarez or Vera Cruz and everywhere in between.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GodEmperorEnjoyer I'm self-educated on New Mexico history by excellent SW historians for about 20 years. And continue learning. California and Texas histories are similar to NM as they all were all far northern isolated outposts installed by Spain to guard against French or Russian intrusion during the over two centuries Spanish Colonial Period. The territories were claimed by Mexico after 1824, basically Mexican intrusion, Mexican citizenship mandated, only until the United States came along. The SW was distant and not connected by geography, cultures, Indians, history, politics to Mexico. The connection was basically the language and SW was part of New Spains territories, which included up to Florida, Cuba, todays Mexico, plus. The SW was very distant from other New Spain, Spain was very strict, permission required for travel which was seldom and by caravan. So in reading some of these posts, I kinda hang on to every word, as there is a lot of misinformation out there, like the original poster, was way off and hopefully will learn something about the indigeniuos from California which he assumed were Mexican.
1
-
@global-awarenessnetwork5315 sounds as if in your second post, you are referring to the mestizo mix, which is different from indigenous Indians. Basically in the Spanish Colonial SW which was colonized approx 75 years after colonization in Mexico City areas, apprx 1000 miles away, was established culturally differently from earlier colonization in other parts of New Spain; plus Spains laws, Casas Laws of the Indies were better enforced by this time, for protection of the Indians. So the SW Spanish populations were not generally mixed with the Indian to become a mestizo culture as in earlier colonization closer to Mexico City.
Indians came to what is now America centuries ago, the most popular theory is years of migration from the Bering Strait southwards. There is evidence of sea farriers from Polynesia and elsewhere, many Mexicans and Mormons believe Indians are the lost tribes of Israel. Indians do not share the same religious beliefs but share an Asian DNA and pheno type. So it appears there was migration from north to south in America. DNA can show from far north to south America. But also, after 1521, Spanish ships went from Cuba to Vera Cruz, to Peru and back to Spain. Most likely capured Indians were on those ships. Then later, the Philippines New Spain became part of mix.
Nevertheless in the ancient world there was no Mexico, Indians were nomatic, did not share a common culture. No Mexico, no Mexican Indian prior to 1821. The young Republic of Mexico was named Estados Unidos Mexicano's or United States of Mexicans in which the young Republic claimed the Spanish SW . But the SW Indian did not claim Mexico, in fact they bitterly opposed Mexico as they inherently knew they were not Mexican. Most historians refer to New Spain as Mexico. And confuse the issue. There was no Mexico back in the 16, 17, 18 centuries yet historians and educators have been irresponsible, in failing to teach or focus on New Spain or its localities/territories. According to many historians/educators it was "Mexico" using a modern day nation, yet Mexico did not exist if you go back to that era. In those days the territories identified by "New Spain" or its localitis -- as Mexico City, Vera Cruz, Cuernavaca, Zacatecas, Nuevo Mexico, Nueva Galacia, California etc. Additionally, New Spain maps do not chart Mexico, the maps chart territories. Geneology Catholic documents do not record anything Mexico, folks were born or died in Mexico City, Zacatecas, Santa Fe, Asturias, etc and the many towns in New Spain or Spain. Historians have failed to refer to New Spain, or only use it in passing, instead constantly use Mexico as if Mexico had been a country for centuries leaving folks misinformed and confused. Historians failure to properly teach Mexico's birth in 1824 does not make SW Indians Mexican. The SW indigenous inherently know their tribes and they know they were never Mexican regardless of Mexico claiming the territories for 25 years. 25 years does not make tribes Mexican which was a new identity in 1824, especially in the far northern territories who were totally disconnected from central Mexico. The tribes never conformed to Mexico, most were uncontrolled and unconquered, considering Mexico an intruder on their lands. Mexico/Mexican is educators errouous doing. There was no Colonial Mexico as many historians would want us to believe, it would have been Colonial New Spain, governed by Spain, approx 1524 - 1821. There are Mexican educators who try to pass off a Mexican people, goverenment and explorations, during the Spanish period. Unfortunately for them, Spain documented everything and the records show Spain influenced government-- Penisular (Spains )power, Spanish language, European Catholic religion who controlled New Spain. Spains caste system was Peninsulares (born in Spain), Crillos (Spaniards born in America), mestizo, Indian, but no Mexican. Mexico became independent from the motherland after 300 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edmundoespinosa6974 Wrong....Mexicans migrated to the United States after the Mexican American War about 1880 establishing Mexican settlement towns along the historically unpopulated (except for raiding Indians) border wilderness areas, thousands of acres, after the United States quelled the raiding Indians.... . In fact Americans settled in California and New Mexico in 1821, before Mexicans; and the Mexican Constitution provided land grants to American settlers in Texas relying on Americans to serve as a buffer against the Comanche in unpopulated and barren Texas. In truth all Europeans were intruders, the blood was mixed and indigenous Indians are true heirs. In the SW it would be the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Yaqui, Mohave, Shasta, Piute, Cherokee, Choctaw, Caddo, Pueblo, Ute plus a host of other United States tribes. Mexicans are citizens of Mexico since 1824 under it's constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicano's creating it's independent nation and flag. Lost the Mexican War to the United States, loosing part of it's territory in the distant, isolated quasi lands SW which Mexico had only claimed after independence for only 25 years, the SW Mexican Period. During which foreign Mexican government officials came north, were considered strangers in the very distant SW and faced opposition by both the Spanish Colonists and SW Indians who bitterly hated Mexico and its new trespassers into tribal northern lands. My comment of a few hours ago was deleted making the point that Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Pueblo were enemies to one another, much moreso to the Indians from far off distant south. 500 years of European colonization has mixed the indigenous blood in America with Spanish, as well as English and French blood. Mestizo for the Spanish, Metis for the English and French. So the flimsy justification that mixed blood Mexicans are true heirs to the SW is rubbish. The gringo mated with the Spanish and Indian decades before the American Territorial Period in the SW and even prior to Mexican SW intrusion after independence from Spain. The SW indigeniuos Indians never acknowledged Mexico, in fact the SW Spanish colonists refused to ally with the outsider Mexican army to fight the Comanche who fiercely attacked Chihuahua leaving it trembling and in shreds. United States Indian tribes claim their lands as sovereign. Mexican indians indigeniuos to what is today Mexico, have every right to claim their lands stolen by the Mexican government as soverign as they are the actual heirs of those lands, go for it... and leave out the SW, whose Indians, geography, history, culture, politics - Spanish colonial era was far remote from Mexico. in fact, the SW took no part in Mexican Independence from Spain. Heirs would be only those of full blooded Indian blood, but heirs is bygone. After 500 years of historical events, the Amerindian is Europeanized, many of mixed blood since European colonization, and would be lost without the contributions the European brought. Let's quit with the hypocracy, the SW tribes get outrageous amounts of federal funding annually, reparations, federal protection under the courts and Pueblo Indians were able to keep their land grants issued to them under Spains laws in the 18th C, recognized by United States Indian laws, oh and the higher- ups are prominent Americans today thanks to the power and money Uncle Sam has provided them...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The intent was not to expand the United States, the intent was for Manifest Destiny, The United States wanted only California, New Mexico/ Arizona, Texas, territories which were only quasi Mexico and offered a purchase price before the war. . The United States conquered, then took total control of all of Mexico upon defeat, and then returned half of Mexico, the heartland and core, of which Polk had no interest in. In fact Mexicans did not even live in these barren wasteland territories, Mexicans were hundreds of miles to the south. Putin and Polk have no similarities, neither do the Mexican War and Putin's attack on Ukraine.
Expansion --- Mexico took the southwest (CA, NM, AZ, TX) and Central America as an imperialist nation. Short lived, 25 years. The territories were not historically Mexico. Moral of the story, Russia of the 21century and the United States of the 19th century have nothing in common.
1
-
Back in the 16th century, lands were not stolen. They were conquered -- centuries before the European invaded America -- lands were trampled, sacked, raided, attacked, slaved, abused and genocide was committed by Indian tribes againt enemy tribes who already occupied the land. Land went from this enemy tribe to that enemy tribe for centuries. Additionally there is much more land in America never claimed by any tribe than occupied lands. Barriers, inaccessible such as mountains and rivers and more land than people. There was no such as stealing, human rights was not the standard of ancient days, war was. There were no rules, people were violent, they invaded and conquered and just survived or were butchered. Stop judging from 21st century lens. Even in the 21st century, laws do not control human instincts, humans are greedy and violence still abounds.
1
-
1
-
@Chasstful Back in the 1500s, an era of European exploration into the new found continent, and territorial claims, legalities, were not considered. The 1600s/1700s SW was basically northern outpost Spanish colonization was to fend off the French and Russians. This was European colonization during the earliest of days in what is today the United States, out in an isolated and very distant New Spain wilderness, difficult to recruit settlers in a harsh environment with raiding Indians constant attacks. Spain put little finances or interest in the SW outposts. And had given up Florida and Louisiana to the United States by 1800. Loosing it's world power and riches, had permitted American settlers in Texas. Likely would have sold the SW as it had claimed too much territory too the north unable to manage with thousands of unconquered Indians. By this time the United States was a young nation, heading west and in close proximity to the SW. Spain had helped the United States during the American Revolution with finances and Spanish troops from Cuba and colonized California to keep out the Russians, preventing Russian claims in the west. Yes, Spain established a political and economic infrastructure out in the isolated wilderness of New Spain. The SW Palace of the Governor in Santa Fe is the oldest capital building in the United States. And created a local economic system as well in a very distant and isolated part of New Spain lasting 250 years. The colonies in San Antonio and California had political systems as well. These populations were another world from those territories in the Mexico City areas, were not involved in the political dynamics between New Spain and Spain and did not participate in Mexican independence. They were far removed, different geography, culture, history, politics, and Indian tribes. And only considered themselves Mexican after independence by mandate. The Treaty of G Hidalgo followed the SW history and did not remove it's centuries Spanish population from the homeland, instead they became United States citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bernard Butler. The Catholic Church. They believed it God, but coveted the gold. But that was back in the 16th C. All were violent. Propaganda will point out the positive and dismiss the negative in all groups of people. The truth is that all humans are the same. There are the good and the bad, all love and hate, discriminate, have instincts, all had enemies, the powerful killed their own, invaders took the land, all had slaves to do the backbreaking labor, all had the privileged and unprivileged, all worshipped super natural dieties. Since the beginning of recorded history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ancient nations were there from the start. Unlike Mexico which evolved from different parts of New Spain. New Spain evolved from different Spanish explorations, Spain claiming lands in north America starting with Spanish named Vera Cruz 1519, to Mexico City, Compostela, and other locations early on in the New World. Moving south, more discoveries for New Spain. All becoming Spains territories. Later in the mid 1500s, Spain explored the unknown lands to the far north; California, Texas, New Mexico incorporating new territories to New Spain. Able to reach strange unihabitable lands and fight the Indians with the horse and guns. Since ancient times there was no nation of "Mexico" extending into the United States. In North America as much of the world, the mountains feed into river tributaries sustaining inherent or common peoples/tribes into the valleys below or inborn or native nations. The Rio Grande of the SW never sustained the Aztec or tribes from today's Mexico. It poops out on the northern edge of Chihuahua. Ancient borders talk. The Treaty of Guadalupe border decision was pretty much on the side of ancient history, with inherent tribes remaining on their side of the 19th century border. New Spain was many territories, from California to Florida, todays Mexico, Central America, Cuba, Philippines, Caribbeans, Pacific coast to Canada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The United States offered Mexico 25 million dollars years befoe the war and before anyone knew of the gold. The United States paid 15 million dollars after the war, plus Mexico took another 10 million dollars for the Gadson Purchase five years later. Pretty good real estate money for Mexico who stole the land from Spain 25 years earlier. Spain isn't crying, why are you. Spain never found the gold after 275 years, Mexico never found the gold after 25 years, United States American settlers found the gold within one year. Finders keepers, loosers weepers lol. It's not the United States fault Mexico squandered the millions on it's elite, and revolutions, giving nothing to it's people and stole the lands from the Indians. And since after the Mexican War, many Mexicans look only to the prosperous north, which for centuries, a distant strange barren land they never had any need for if they even knew it existed, until the United States took it by the Wars conquest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rebecamarinanunezcarrasco8912 Who is confusing stuff..... I'm not confused. I don't conflate Spains 300 years powerful empire ruling over this area of New Spain, ending in 1821. History is clear on these New Spain territories gaining independence from Spain, establishing it's own nation, Mexico, over territories claimed by Spain and at Independence point in history established it's own government under los Estados Unidos Mexicano's; it's citizens at this time became Mexican under it's newly created Constitution and flag 1824. Backup, Spain conquered the Aztec in 1524 with help of enemy tribes who allied with Cortez to overthrough Montezuma. It was not genocide, it was disease and wars among tribes killing off each other along with typical of that day conquest of lands around the globe, in this case European conquest in the Americas. Abuse of the natives did not last up to 1821. Many of those Aztec and other tribes had become a mestizo population after 300 years. One thing for sure, Indians were not united or One People back in 1492. They were enemy warriors and committed genocide, tribes killed off and abused enemy tribes, which happened for centuries throughout the world. Mexicans or Aztecs or whatever you call yourself, are not special beings on this earth, neither are anyone else. People have migrated since the beginning of time, and most are not original to where they now live including the Indians of America.
1
-
1
-
@xavi4694 Of course, the powers that be were mixed blood in Mexico, because the Spanish far more than the English and French interbred with the Indian in the American continent. Both the US and Mexico engaged in African slavery as nations of European colonization .... So then, Mexico freed the slave before the United States,, hmm. Well the United States had to go through a horrendous Civil War before ending slavery. The United States powers that be were not mixed blood as Mexico's. So it's no wonder slavery ended quickly in Mexico, the Spanish, Indian and Black were all one people after three centuries.... Nevertheless neither nation had clean hands. Racist is racist, you can't sugar coat Mexico, the dirt is there, can't hide it . lol....
Yes, Mexico City under Spain was the first to bring European buildings, Catholic Churches, schools, libraries, hospitals. education to America, the only and very sophisticated and impressive City in the 1500s in America.. Arab conquest, introduction of culture and education influenced Spain to became one of the most prominent in Europe after the 8th century. Close to the 15th C, after Spains reconquest, racism was a primary concern in Spain with degrees of blood an issue -- purisima de la sangre, or pure blood -- a attitude the Spanish brought to America. A different people (they) in ones land is by nature racist. Mexicans, many anti Spanish, should be proud of their heritage instead of looking north wanting to be Americans, illegally at that.... It's as if they missed the boat with Americas border just too dang far to the north... Yea, right, Mexicano's are living so peacefully together; in fact, they never have lived in peace together. And escaping Mexico since the 1910 Mexican Revolution. Why don't they fix their own country instead of wanting to fix the US..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MiloSatori Boy, what an exaggeration lol... Apparently you're lacking in United States history. And I'm not talking tacos. The United States is a melting pot. Its influenced not only by Europe but many cultures as well. The President, Constitution, the laws, Supreme Court, White House, Congress, Senate, democracy and a republic-by and for the people, treaties, the greatest country in the world. The structure and foundation, all part of the culture. None of these came from Mexico. Immigrant Peoples entering our borders bring a little something from the homeland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the United States conquered all of the Mexico at it's infancy, seized the young Republic, flying the United States flag over Mexico City. The Treaty of GH ,1848 was not signed by Santa Ana, negotiations were approved by Mexicos legislation; the United States and Mexico terms were the border; return half of Mexico, it's heart and core; and an anomaly purchase of fifteen million dollars for conquered territories of California, New Mexico/Arizona, and Texas. The Gadson Purchase was under a separate Treaty of Mesilla, 1854 for another ten million dollars for additional land negotiated by both nations, Santa Ana representing Mexico's government in the sale. Since when does a president need the people's permission, further more the Mexican people did not even exist in out in the wilderness Mesilla, which was very distant in the unknown north in 1854, Spains lands that were never colonized or occupied under Spain government or later even under Mexicos government, Mesilla a waste land that no Mexican was going to cry over back in the day... Mexico did not need Mesilla, but it was ready to grab ten million dollars be it Santa Ana or any other government official involved in negotiations. But's interesting how northern tribe Apaches questioned the millions of dollars sales, knowing that the SW, their home was not really Mexico. Mexico was a Johnny come late to California and the SW, showing up after Mexican independence after 1824. The history of the world is raids, attacks, wars, conquest and acquisition of land for centuries. Nothing new under the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@averageboi5195 mexicans started the war on disputed land, texas defeated mexico in the san jacinto battle, mexico refused to recognize texas independence. if polk strategized take over of the sw, he was within national rights . call it american imperialism, the united states was far fro the first, even mexico expanded it's territories by imperialism, claiming the sw and parts of central america after spain abdicated the very distant new spain territories after mexican independence from spain. mexico did not control the isolated unincorporated sw, it's focus was on it's core and heartland. interestingly the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo young nations, followed ancient history and ancient borders, placing inborn tribes in on their natural side of the 1800s border. as the new nation of the united states moved west, and towards the pacific, close to new nation of mexico, the u.s. ran into the sw tribes territories. prior to european intervention, north america was just tribes running into each other to later become european territories, then american nations with disputed borders and treaties, wars, purchases, to iron out those borders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are a host of indigenous United States Indian tribes Apache, Navajo, Pueblo, Ute, Comanche, Yaqui, Caddo, Paiute, Shawnee, Shasta, Mohave, Cherokee, Chactow to name a few that claim their soverign lands in the United States and no one considers them illegal. Not only that, inherent US tribes get crazy amounts in federal funding from "White supremacists" annually and their commercial enterprises are funded by the United States tax payers. Illegal, they are not... In fact, they are rated the highest as a satisfied group of citizens in the United States, gee I wonder why...😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogerq1025 America, as we call it today was an environment of atrocities; wars, raids, captives, genocide, slavery, rapes, cannabols, slicing out hearts etc among tribes before the European came who was just a different enemy. The European fighying spirit was no different from a tribal life except more civilized. Spain did not sell Mexico, Santa Anna was a Mexican citizen at the time of the Mexican War. Spain, in New Spain was a different era of 300 years and monarchal rule. Later, Santa Anna was not a monarch representing Spain, he pretty much represented himself. Mexico became a western nation under Santa Anna which was established as a Republic similar to the United States. It was Mexico who sold the northern lands to the United States. You are rewriting history, no wonder, you sterotype all of Europe who you pretty much hate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@esexavo First of all, Spain and Mexico are not one and the same. There are many Spanish named places in Latin America and the United States, named by Spain, including in today's Mexico. The Adams Onis Treaty/Florida Purchase transaction took place before Mexican independence and totally unrelated to Mexico which did not yet exist before Mexico became a nation in 1824. Neither Florida, California, New Mexico or Texas were involved or interested in Mexican independence. The Spanish population in Florida were sent there in ships through Cuba and just a small population of Spanish colonists, Spanish American stayed in Florida, most ended up in Cuba. Cuba is the connection to Florida, not Mexico. The American Revolution took place in the 1770s, the English colonies gained independence and became the USA close to half a century before parts of New Spain became Mexico. As I said, Mexico was a Johnny come late, had nothing to do with Florida and Mexico had little to do with CA, NM and TX. Just that the young Mexico tried imperialism after Spain abdicated the lands and grabbed the distant territories. In fact, during New Spain and Spains wars 1810-1821, Spain was negotiating it's Texas colony with M Austin to provide land grants in Spanish Texas to America settlers. Your history version is all turned around. "Rightfully Mexican territory". ridiculous, now that's a good belly laugh. It's nothing racist, just New Spain's, Spanish Colonial history lasting 300 years, prior to the short lived 25 years Mexican Period in California and SW. Obviously Florida was never part of the Mexican Period--there's not a legitimate historian who would claim this nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are Mexicans as well who stand by the American version. This version of events is lacking in dates and is misinformation on American settlers in the west. The United States not part of the British empire was not subject to Great Britains former mandates. They had every right to ignore the British as an independent nation. So that line was useless come 1776. This version skips over Spains agreement with M Austin for American land grant settlements in Texas. Because of Mexican independence Spanish land grants did not transpire. Later Austin's son continued the quest on land grants for Americans which were granted by Mexico with an ulterior motive, the feared Comanche. . Americans did not rent land from Mexico. American Texans developed Texas agriculturally as there were no Mexicans to the far north territories of Texas, NM, AZ. CA. Interesting the Texas Indians, as well as California and New Mexico Arizona Indians were neither Mexican or United States tribes because these northern territories which Spain barely colonized due to isolation and distance served as outposts to guard New Spain against French and Russian intrusion. Because these warrior Indians were not conquered, the Spaniards lived in fear which contributed also to just a handful of Spanish colonists. So there you are, these indigenous tribes out in the middle of nowhere were no nations people, meaning they were not Mexican because their inherent lands historically weren't in Mexico. History talks. Mexico acquired it's territories through battles with Spain for independence. California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas Spanish populations were not involved in independence or connected culturally or historically to Central New Spain territories who fought for independence. Mexico claimed those disconnected wilderness territories mandating Mexican citizenship on the sparse population. And these SW natives hated and fought off the Mexicans. CA, NM, AZ quasi territories were easily won over in the Mexican War. Slavery may have been illegal but the Mexican goverenment was lax in the rules. Mexico failed to control the influx of Americans, along with Mexico granting the states autonomy and inconsistent rules and rulership leading to the Alamo. By this time it was the American settlers who had connected to the land, they toiled the Texas soil owned the land granted to them by Mexican gov. . Disputed land is just that, disputed. Then comes war. Don't know what they teach in Mexico lindo, but this video is not historically well presented.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interestingly, the northern New Mexico colonists refused to ally with the Mexican army to battle against the Comanche, also did not warn Mexicans of a up coming Comanche attack in Chihuahua.
Since early on in New Mexico 1598, the Spanish colonized in Pueblo Indian territory. north central NM. The Spanish and Indian lived apart, each preserved their separate cultures, and did not merge to a Mestizo culture as in Mexico. The Spanish had little contact with the raiding Indians as Apache and Navajo and the Pueblo allied with the Spanish .
New Spain was many separate territories. What is today Mexico was hundreds to over a thousand miles from the Territory of New Mexico, a different world. A different geography, history, politics, culture, Indians and Spain was deeply stamped in the heritage of northern New Mexico which was no part of the political dynamics between Mexico City and Spain. After Mexican officials came north after 1824, they were met with rebellion and considered strangers. The young Mexico had patriotic issues with all of the SW. And with the Indians as well. The histories of California, New Mexico/Arizona, Texas territories are similar as they were later explorations in the distant far north, to become part of New Spain; isolated, uninhabitable due to terrain and Indian attacks; basically non colonized by Spain except for a few Spanish colonies. Communication to other parts of New Spain was rare as these territories were isolated colonial communities, distant outposts to ward of French and Russian Intruders in the interest of Spains claims. New Mexico got its name 1560 over two centuies before Mexico got its name 1824. Northern New Mexicans along with American settlers became Mexican citizens after 1824 for 25 years under the Mexican Period, becoming US citizens after the United States Territorial Period 1848. Prior to 1824 there was no Mexico or Mexican.
1
-
1
-
1