Author to immigration reform opponents: “A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico”

posted at 5:01 pm on May 5, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

This morning I switched over to CBS in advance of Face the Nation while I was working and happened to catch the last half hour of CBS News Sunday Morning. One segment they featured was an “historical” piece focusing on the Mexican American war, featuring an interview with author Amy S. Greenberg. She published a book last year titled, “A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico.” As the title will probably tell you, she’s not approaching the subject as a fan of the Manifest Destiny doctrine. A transcript of the entire segment is available here.

“James K. Polk went to Congress and said American blood had been shed on American soil, but almost nobody except Americans claimed that the land where the blood was shed was actually American soil,” Greenberg said. “When Zachary Taylor marched his troops between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, he was marching through land which everybody, including the residents of that territory, believed to be Mexican land.”

“So they were basically looking for a fight?” asked Rocca.

“Absolutely. No question about it.”

I’m sure we can have a debate over the motivations and strategies of Polk and the Eminent Domain doctrine, but the host seemed to feel a need to make the conversation a bit more topical by bringing in the immigration reform debate. This is where the author really digs in her heels and finds her voice.

So how do Mexicans today view the war?

“Well, as a disaster,” said museum director Salvador Rueda. “Mexico lost half of their own territory.”

For Rueda, the end of the war was the beginning of a long love/hate relationship between Mexico and the United States over what is known to them as Invasion Americana — “American Invasion.”

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

I’m assuming the tone of the entire book runs along those lines. There seems to be a recurring theme in the author’s comments which seeks to tie the Polk era to more recent events. One excellent example was when she led off by saying, “There was no great ideological reason why we were going to war against Mexico. It was the first war that was started with a presidential lie.” It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see where she was going with that one, but the host chose not to follow up on it.

The book received a fairly glowing review from the Washington Post when it first debuted, but when Peter Hannford got hold of it for the Washington Times, some uncomfortable elements were pointed out.

The title of this book about the U.S-Mexican War (1846-47) gives away the author’s bias. It is lifted from a statement Ulysses S. Grant made in 1867, 20 years after the war ended.

The author, Amy Greenberg, is described on the jacket as “a leading scholar of Manifest Destiny.” It seems odd, therefore, that in this book she does not document the popularity of that concept among the people of James K. Polk’s time.

A theme running throughout the book is that Polk lied to Congress and the people, using a pretext to wage war. Ms. Greenberg also makes much of the point that this was the first case of one republic going to war with another. Ever since its independence from Spain in 1822, Mexico’s republican status was tenuous. There were constant power struggles among factions and frequent changes of president. One result was that possessions, notably Alta, Calif. (today’s state) had little oversight from Mexico. American settlers, the British and Russians all had designs on the real estate. Polk wanted to acquire California and was willing to pay for it.

If you’re looking for some interesting Sunday reading, go through both of those reviews. It’s a fascinating period of history, and while Greenberg has a lot of bias on display to answer for, the Washington Times piece includes plenty of salient points about the Polk administration, manifest destiny and the war with Mexico. It’s a good read.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Funny,, I thought we bought that land.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM

And lot of Mexicans live in land taken from Mayans.

So?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Why aren’t they equally pissed off at Spain?

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Now a lot of people live in a land that is being taken over by Mexicans… see Ca.

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Mexicans stole it from Indians. Why don’t they have to pay for their welfare while they run casinos?

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:09 PM

So how do Mexicans today view the war?

“Well, as a disaster,” said museum director Salvador Rueda. “Mexico lost half of their own territory.”

That might be some amount of displacement, as the more immediate result of the war was that their republic was overthrown by a Santa Ana dictatorship.

Count to 10 on May 5, 2013 at 5:09 PM

They adopted the religion of thier original conquerers, and maintain it. Not at all knocking Catholics of hispanic decent, but you can’t have it both ways.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Regardless of how we came into possession of the land, no one disputes that it is today sovereign US territory and has been for a very long time. Past ownership does not entitle Mexicans to invade the US to reclaim it. I doubt many are aware of the history of the land and are coming for economic reasons, not for land reclamation.

Charlemagne on May 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM

And lot of Mexicans live in land taken from Mayans.

So?

Don’t forget Spain, they took the land from someone, or the Turks, Ottomans, Greeks, Romans, etc…
Let’s just start all over from the beginning and give everything back to……….
Who gets it back?
Ah, the disenfranchised. That’s the ticket.

LeftCoastRight on May 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Mexico you lost.

CW on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Here’s my review of the book from Amazon.com:

Suppose you started a war by claiming the other side attacked you without provocation. And then your nation invaded that other country. And suppose that the nation was enthusiastically behind the government until it found the casualties were high and your troops were committing murders and atrocities. And people got war fatigue. The army became disillusioned. Then suppose an anti-war movement led by the opposition party came into being and held demonstrations. Members of congress got up and denounced the president for deceiving the people and invading an innocent country just for its resources. Those who supported the administration then call the anti-war demonstrators traitors and insist that no criticisms of the war or the troops should be allowed while the war is in progress. And suppose the anti-war demonstrators say the administration and president are war criminals. What would you think? Vietnam? Afghanistan? No, this is the Mexican War. That the story seems to consciously mimic modern times seems to suggest the author wanted it to be viewed just that way, even though, to her credit, she doesn’t directly make the comparison. So the question becomes, is the story she tells one sided? Certainly, as a professor of feminist studies it’s virtually certain that she’s on the far left. Other authors on the Mexican War take a more balanced approach, indicating, for example, that there was good reason to view the border with Mexico as at the Rio Grande, or that the vast regions of what is now United States territory were then practically devoid of Mexicans. Imagine the population of a small town spread over territory stretching from California to Texas. I think this is a well-written book and she makes clear her viewpoint, even if she doesn’t express it directly. But I’d recommend reading other books on the war to get a more balanced perspective.

NNtrancer on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo in Spanish), officially Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic,[1] is the peace treaty signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo between the U.S. and Mexico that ended the Mexican–American War (1846–48). With the defeat of its army and the fall of the capital, Mexico entered into negotiations to end the war. The treaty called for the United States to pay $15 million to Mexico and pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to $3.25 million. It gave the United States the Rio Grande boundary for Texas, and gave the U.S. ownership of California, and a large area comprising New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico or becoming U.S. citizens with full rights. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 38-14, against the Whigs who had opposed the war, rejected Manifest Destiny in general and rejected this expansion in particular.

hepcat on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

They basically already have Ca.

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

If we all push the reset button, it could get interesting.
Mexico can’t even handle the land they have now.
They keep tossing their poor to us so we can take care of them.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM

You sold it. We bought it. Get over it. I see it all the time here in Tucson. La raza students, ” I didn’t cross the border, the border crossed me”.

Ummm, no. You don’t want to assimilate? Leave. Go pluck chickens for ten pesos/day. Rejoin your culture of choice.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Author to immigration reform opponents: “A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico”

We are all familiar with your idiotic slogan, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.” You idiots used to proudly display that as if it were a smart thing to advertise. Take your stupidity and shove it. Mexico stole their land from the Spanish, after which, they were unable to hang onto it. Tough. You weren’t allowed to make a total disaster area of the South West as you did with everything else you;ve touched – though you’re catching up on that destruction, now.

We need a reincarnation of Polk to come back and beat the living sh!t out of Mexico, again. He is spinning in his grave seeing how America has prostrated itself in front of that pathetic, loser, third world nation that was always as resource-rich as America (with even better access to two oceans) but could never make anything but a sh!thole of the place. The contemporary Mexicans are getting worse yields with the old Aztec crops than the barbaric, violent, insane Aztecs did. That really says something.

BTW, did the traitorous little worm, Rubio, write a forward to this book. It’s his kind of thing, the despicable anti-American representative of Latino aliens. He needs to cross the border – once.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Mexico you lost.

CW on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

They will be the new civil rights class.
We stole and everyone will do all they can to give them stuff…oh wait, already doing thar.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:17 PM

OK, raze the cities, dig up the roads, plow over the airports, water treatment plants, sewage plants, power stations, hospitals, farms and give it back to them the way we found it.

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

And lot of Mexicans live in land taken from Mayans.

So?

Don’t forget Spain, they took the land from someone, or the Turks, Ottomans, Greeks, Romans, etc…

Let’s just start all over from the beginning and give everything back to……….

Who gets it back?

Ah, the disenfranchised. That’s the ticket.

LeftCoastRight on May 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM

And don’t forget Hawai’i!

I’ve no doubt O’bama grew up in Hawai’i being read bedtime stories by his Leftist mother and grandmother of how the evil American Republicans came in and “stole” Hawai’i from its rightful owners. He’s been believing that his entire life.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Now a lot of people live in a land that is being taken over by Mexicans… see Ca.

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Yes..I was born in mexifornia.
They took over..trashed it..
parts resemble mehico.
Mission accomplished.
AZ,NM,TX, too.

bazil9 on May 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So we annexed the ancient, 26 year old Mexican nation’s claim on some territory that had been its own independent nation for 13 of those 26 years. So therefore the land rightly belongs to the nonexistent nation of Mexico.

Expansionist, amoral American interests went up against expansionist, amoral, grasping, avaricious Mexican interests, and this is evil and racist because we won. If there’s one rule of post-60s academia, it’s that a loser has absolute moral authority of having been wronged. Even the Nazis (Dresden).

HitNRun on May 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Dumb comments like this are a staple of liberalism, most often when they don’t have a leg to stand on in a debate. What would the author have us do — give it all back? I can see letting Mexico have California, with every Californian who can’t escape by 24 hours before the transfer gets stuck to remain. And no, not any, Democrats are allowed in the US at all.

By Greenburg’s reasoning, China should go back to the Mongols, Iran can have back all the old Persian Empire, and how about be revitalize Rome, too? The Incas and other natives to Central America get back their territory and are given preferred status (Affirmative Action, anyone). Which, of course would mess with Greenburg’s notion of Mexico getting back California or other territory.

Liberals never think things through.

Liam on May 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

If we just give everything back to the animals and leave America, one and all, would that work?

The original inhabitants were the critters.

Why stop at minor land adjustments and recent claims.

The tree sloths want their hemisphere back!

profitsbeard on May 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

King George the third is gonna want his little piece of land back too…

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

…and they’re living on tax dollars that used to belong to Americans.

Russ in OR on May 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Author to immigration reform opponents: “A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico”

Fine, give them California and tell them to STFU. Californians that is. Their votes prove they hate this nation. Let Mexico deal with it all.

Bottom line: If the standard was land of one nation taken from another then Europe would be one interesting mess.

Note to Ms. Greenberg. Honey, national lines are drawn up by treaty. I’m sure somewhere in the archives of both our nation and Mexico City is the document that sets international boundries- even if both parties were not equal in the ability to dictate terms. That does not mean that the United States took land from Mexico whose boundries were, in fact, a result of the Spanish claiming portions of the New World for their own.

Happy Nomad on May 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

If we just give everything back to the animals and leave America, one and all, would that work?

The original inhabitants were the critters.

profitsbeard on May 5, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Leftists want the Earth to be returned to the original green slime. It’s professional courtesy, really.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

OK, raze the cities, dig up the roads, plow over the airports, water treatment plants, sewage plants, power stations, hospitals, farms and give it back to them the way we found it.

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Just send all of their ‘citizens’ to New Mexico/Arizona and don’t give them any welfare. Mexico will beg us to take it back, along with the parasites.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

As for Texas, the Mexican citizens of this great land (Anglo and Hispanic alike), revolted against Santa Anna when he ignored the constitution of Mexico to establish himself as dictator (sound familiar?). We won our independence from Mexico in much the same way as the original colonies won their independence from Britain. Unfortunately, unmanageable debt and an inability to defend against foreign threats (sound familiar) compelled us to later surrender our sovereignty and join the United States.

Mexico has no more legitimate claim to Texas than Britain has to the thirteen colonies. Hmmm. Come to think of it, giving the original colonies back to Britain might not be a bad idea.

Daryl on May 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Give-em Cali and lets call it a day-
deport them all their from all other states.
Deal?

(sorry to my cali cons here)

bazil9 on May 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM

We should re-look the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska, too.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

and Alaska, too.

I bet the Russians would really like that back

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

We should re-look the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska, too.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Don’t forget Manhattan.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I say everybody should give back all the land they occupied from the beginning of time. Let’s all go back and cram ourselves together somewhere in Africa.

The Rogue Tomato on May 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Let’s see…these particular Mexicans, who can’t even get their own country in order, want to expand their northern border?

Yeah…that seems like a good idea… ::facepalm::

ProfShadow on May 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Uh, because that has nothing to do with today’s political parties, and they’d look like a bunch of morons?

KingGold on May 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Let’s see…these particular Mexicans, who can’t even get their own country in order, want to expand their northern border?

Yeah…that seems like a good idea… ::facepalm::

ProfShadow on May 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM

It’s less the Mexicans than it is white liberal Americans who think this way.

Liam on May 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I’ve no doubt O’bama grew up in Hawai’i being read bedtime stories by his Leftist mother and grandmother of how the evil American Republicans came in and “stole” Hawai’i from its rightful owners. He’s been believing that his entire life.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Especially at the elite high school he attended.

It’s why I’ve long advocated for the remaining American territories to make the choice. Become part of this nation or not. Puerto Rico, Guam, the USVI and the others.

No more half citizenship. If you want to be an American then make the commitment. Otherwise it is time to go your own way.

Happy Nomad on May 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

They basically already have Ca.

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Yes, but they want the benefits of having California remain in the United States (the state has 1/3rd of the country’s welfare recipients, for one) while not really being a part of the country. If they could fold California back into Mexico while still getting the benefits of being part of the United States, they would do it in a heartbeat.

In other words, they want reconquista with a blank cheque from American taxpayers.

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Uh, because that has nothing to do with today’s political parties, and they’d look like a bunch of morons?

KingGold on May 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Well, not really, it’s a pattern of the democrats being on the wrong side of history.
Just look at Lincoln, the KKK, civil rights act of 64. Just the racial card they all throw at us today.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Except the U.S. military.

http://militarybases.com/california/

MichaelGabriel on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I hear Cortez and Maximilian are in a lot of trouble as are Montezuma and his predecessors.

viking01 on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Uh, we liberated California. If we had any brains, we’d annex Mexico, enfranchise all of its citizens, and divide it into five territories each of which could choose to become states if it wished.

And they’d all have to learn English.

platypus on May 5, 2013 at 5:33 PM

My family has been in California since before it was a state. I like to say since before Zorro. Alta Ca, included nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and part of Colorado.

Do you think any one here wants to live in Mexico? F that. I haven’t been to Mexico since 2008 (we went to the bullfights).

On the other hand, California has been flooded by immigrants since they found oil. And after WW2, vets returning from the Pacific stayed, had a baby boom, and bought tract housing. But this was Mexico, and in many ways, still is.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 5:39 PM

They need more land to be corrupt, lazy, and otherwise completely immoral in?

tom daschle concerned on May 5, 2013 at 5:39 PM

A classic from the early 1970s, from “National Lampoon’s Radio Dinner”:

Give Ireland back to the Irish

Give Lapland back to the Laps

Give China back to the Chinese,

And give Yoko back to the Japs!

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM

“A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico”

…so the wrong people…are on the Reservations?

KOOLAID2 on May 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM

We need a reincarnation of Polk to come back and beat the living sh!t out of Mexico, again. He is spinning in his grave seeing how America has prostrated itself in front of that pathetic, loser, third world nation that was always as resource-rich as America (with even better access to two oceans) but could never make anything but a sh!thole of the place. The contemporary Mexicans are getting worse yields with the old Aztec crops than the barbaric, violent, insane Aztecs did. That really says something.

Good point. It has always amazed me how Mexico can be so pathetic. They are blessed with an amazingly resource rich and beautiful land. Anything resembling a decent government could turn that land into the one of the most prosperous and desirable countries in the world.

Daryl on May 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Yeppers.

bazil9 on May 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Good point. It has always amazed me how Mexico can be so pathetic. They are blessed with an amazingly resource rich and beautiful land. Anything resembling a decent government could turn that land into the one of the most prosperous and desirable countries in the world.

Daryl on May 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM

The corruption is mind boggling.

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.
rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

They basically already have Ca.

sandee on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Yes, but they want the benefits of having California remain in the United States (the state has 1/3rd of the country’s welfare recipients, for one) while not really being a part of the country. If they could fold California back into Mexico while still getting the benefits of being part of the United States, they would do it in a heartbeat.

In other words, they want reconquista with a blank cheque from American taxpayers.

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Good point.
Like creating a gun control bill and expecting to use it for political expediency?

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Uh, because that has nothing to do with today’s political parties, and they’d look like a bunch of morons?

KingGold on May 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM

WADR, Golden King, my point, inexpertly stated, was that today’s Lo-Fo’s and schoolchildren have utterly no idea of the damage that the Democrat Party has foisted upon America for generations.

The Mexican-American War
Defending the institution of slavery
Ripping the US apart (secession) and 4 years’ effusion of blood (War Between the States)
Ku Klux Klan terror
Segregation de jure and de facto
Woodrow Wilson’s domestic terror during WWI
FDR’s profligate spending and assault upon Federalism
Johnson, Carter, Clinton, etc. etc. etc.

Come to think of it, it’s not just the media to blame, it’s the public school system, as well. Just an attempt at balance and fact is all we conservatives ask. . .

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Except the U.S. military.

http://militarybases.com/california/

MichaelGabriel on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

It’s not just the bases, the technology is developed in California. Lockheed’s Skunkworks, Virgin aerospace, etc. Then it’s trucked out to area 51 and blown up.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Daryl on May 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM
The corruption is mind boggling.

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

So well said Daryl.
I have been many times..all over..
and Darwin is right.

bazil9 on May 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Except the U.S. military.

http://militarybases.com/california/

MichaelGabriel on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I’m a big fan of the military, but if I could transfer millions of liberals to a 3rd world hellhole? Show me where to sign.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Yes, but they want the benefits of having California remain in the United States (the state has 1/3rd of the country’s welfare recipients, for one) while not really being a part of the country. If they could fold California back into Mexico while still getting the benefits of being part of the United States, they would do it in a heartbeat.

In other words, they want reconquista with a blank cheque from American taxpayers.

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

No one in California wants anything to do with Mexico. We’re the world’s twelfth largest economy. We could buy Mexico, sell to Guatamala, and make money on it.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Mexico stole their land from the Spanish, after which, they were unable to hang onto it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Well, you fail to mention the French and Maximillian, but hey, who am I to bring real history into this?

You are right, they were “unable to hang onto it”. It is worth reading General Grant’s autobiography to understand both how and why Mexico lost that land.

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Pancho Villa call your office…..

viking01 on May 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?

socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

If it’s a Republican, it’s the’s GOP’s fault.
If it’s a Democrat, it’s AMERICA’s fault.

thebrokenrattle on May 5, 2013 at 5:59 PM

OT, but …
If you missed it Fri, Fox News Reporting: ‘See No Evil – The Kermit Gosnell Case’ w/BretBaier, it re-airs Sun 9p, 12a

pambi on May 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

WOULD YOU PEOPLE PIPE DOWN ON GIVING LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS BACK?????

Our government has a really looney record on that basis.

On September 7, 1977, the treaty was signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of Panama. This mobilized the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal so long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal. The treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway. The Panama Canal remains one of the chief revenue sources for Panama.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:26 PM

darwin on May 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

WOULD YOU PEOPLE PIPE DOWN ON GIVING LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS BACK?????

Our government has a really looney record on that basis.

On September 7, 1977, the treaty was signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of Panama. This mobilized the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal so long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal. The treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway. The Panama Canal remains one of the chief revenue sources for Panama.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

They’re kidding!
We are going to invade Mexico and throw all the debris into Bolivia. They like socialism, eat it up then.
Oil and beaches.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Mexico has a beautiful coastline and oil. They have plenty of interior space for their citizens and farmland. Even though this is true they are impoverished. If they still had all the land they claim should be theirs, that land would be just an extension of the poverty they have now.

Rose on May 5, 2013 at 6:04 PM

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Now imagine if we could have convinced Panama to take UCB as part of the deal, students, professors, and all.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Of course that project was a snap and hardly any Europeans or Americans died and Colombia surely could have done it themselves excepth they were probably early environmentalists or something!

We hardly spent any US gov’t money:

The U.S. purchase of the French concession for US $40 million included the Panama Railroad. Further, it was estimated that French excavation of about 30,000,000 cu yd (23,000,000 m3), primarily in the Gaillard Cut (then called the Culebra Cut), was of direct use to the U.S. construction effort and was valued at about $1.00 per 1 cu yd (1 m3), or $30,000,000. The remaining usable French equipment, engineering surveys, etc., were valued at about $10,000,000 more.[16]

All italics from Wikki…

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Comment of the Day™ (I hate Yoko).

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Mexico has a beautiful coastline and oil. They have plenty of interior space for their citizens and farmland. Even though this is true they are impoverished.

Rose on May 5, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Not only that but Mexico abuts the richest nation in all of human history. But, instead of taking advantage of that and doing lots and lots of business all Mexico has ever wanted to do was get their people to breech our border and cause problems with us. Mexico knows how to waste resources and miss opportunities like few others.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM

They don’t want the land they lost, they want the improvements the American people made on it since.

Texas was made by cattle drives, and the flooding-in of people to Galveston that pushed people out Spindletop-ways to where oil was discovered. Galveston, and later Houston, were made by American trade with Latin America. Later improvements came from the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems.

California was made by some guy named Sutter (nombre no es Mexicano, no?) building a mill, and later explorers discovering gold there. It was made by Edison and his moving picture camera. It was made by ports for American trade over the Pacific. Later improvements were made by the University of California system.

All of these involved American improvements, that likely would not have happened had these lands remained Mexican. Mexico has port cities for trade, and could not populate those parts of the continent enough for someone to stumble onto the mineral wealth.

Sekhmet on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Mexican history starts in 1810 when they declared independence from Spain. Their history is full of changes in leadership and outright government takeover, Santa Ana and Diaz becoming dictators are good examples.

Mexicans forget the land they still own was once part of the Aztec empire until the Spanish showed up and took over. They also conquered the Chiricahua,Ute, Southern Pawnee,Cheyenne,Apache, Comanche,Kickapoo,Navajo and a hundred other tribes which are here in the United States.

The Mexicans forget that after the Civil war was over, the US was able to pressure France to get out of Mexico. The decision was made easier when the French lost the battle of Puebla in 1862, known today as Cinco de Mayo.

Americans of Mexican descent have better opportunities in the US then they do in Mexico. They have a better living standard, cleaner water in most areas that stays on 24/7 unlike Mexico where they shut the water off to conserve. We have not been perfect but we have been better stewards versus what would happen if the lands were still in Mexico’s hands.

Today Mexico is a cesspool of corruption and incompetence. The Mexican people live in fear everyday of being kidnapped, extorted or even murdered, it is no wonder Mexicans want to come to the US both legally and illegally since it is the only outlet they have.

Add all the charity we have given Mexico during disasters and they have little to complain about.

banzaibob on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Funny,, I thought we bought that land.

[wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM]

Yeah, $15M but not only that but we agreed to pay off all the claims against Mexico by people in those territories, which was another $3M.

As for losing half their own territory due to the Mexican-American War, that seems a stretch. California had been itching to secede since the 30′s and briefly went independent just prior to the war. Texas had left in 1836, IIRC, with a lot more territory than the territory represented by the current state of Texas.

Heck, as part of the treaty we gave a good portion of Californios back to Mexico.

Dusty on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I want to do a real estate deal to make a few bucks with Mexico.

1) We get options on 8,000 square miles of Northern Mexico.

2) We talk to the Saudis et al. and ask what they will pay if we get the Jews out of Israel.

3) We tabulate the purchase money for the entire land area of Israel, cut in the Jews if they will move to Northern Mexico and start closing the deal.

VOILA! We have a secure southern border. Mexico makes a few bucks and the Mideast conflict is over. We keep the difference and pay off our debt.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

And Hitler said that a lot of land Poles were living in was taken from Germans. And actually, it was after WWII. Does this person want another war and whose side would the Gang of Eight be on? Mexico’s or would they switch sides?

VorDaj on May 5, 2013 at 6:11 PM

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

I like where you are going with this. We may have to relocate a few temples and all, but the surrounding scenery looks close enough I think it just might work.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM

We are going to invade Mexico and throw all the debris into Bolivia. They like socialism, eat it up then.
Oil and beaches.

AllahsNippleHair on May 5, 2013 at 6:03 PM

… and cheap beer!

viking01 on May 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM

All of these involved American improvements, that likely would not have happened had these lands remained Mexican. Mexico has port cities for trade, and could not populate those parts of the continent enough for someone to stumble onto the mineral wealth.

Sekhmet on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

If that is true why do we have Latins claiming that they built the US and we would be NOTHING except for gold the British pirates stole from Spain?

And they were here first?

If we gave back the canal you could make a case that we own nothing.

Better pass Amnesty FAST. Before they get a good lawyer.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM

f* mexico

dmacleo on May 5, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I believe a lot of the immigration debate that’s going on now operates in a vacuum, where people are not realizing that in fact Mexicans are here in lands that once belonged to Mexico.”

Yeah, like New York, and Vermont, and Minnesota, and North Dakota.

Amy Greenberg sounds like that other nut, going around saying “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”

Conveniently forgetting the Gadsden Purchase, of course.

GarandFan on May 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM

OT, but how come there’s no thread on the news that the entire administration lied about Benghazi?

It’s the lead on Fox.

Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration’s explanation of the Benghazi, Libya, attacks in the immediate aftermath of the fatal strikes, amid mounting evidence that suggests the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans.

Read more

BacaDog on May 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Mexico knows how to waste resources and miss opportunities like few others.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Sadly, we are learning from them.

Daryl on May 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Not only that but Mexico abuts the richest nation in all of human history. But, instead of taking advantage of that and doing lots and lots of business all Mexico has ever wanted to do was get their people to breech our border and cause problems with us. Mexico knows how to waste resources and miss opportunities like few others.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Do you have any idea of the hundred of billions of dollars we send into Mexico for drugs? I would say they’re taking one hell of an advantage.

Sekmet

Actually California’s fortune was made by J Paul Getty, Armand Hammer, and John D Rockefeller, meaning Getty Oil, Occidental Petroleum, and Standard Oil. California has produced more oil than we’ve ever seen gold.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Manifest Destiny has a complicated history. But at least some part of that history has the Democrats of the time (which I agree have little to do with today’s Democrats) adopting the concept in support of slavery and as an agrarian counterbalance to the Whig industrialists of the Northeast.

bobs1196 on May 5, 2013 at 6:19 PM

We could buy Mexico, sell to Guatamala, and make money on it.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yes, but buy it with what exactly? One party rule there has left the state broke so many times that I have lost count.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Looking at the sad state of former Spanish colonies, those people “that live in land that was taken from Mexico” should be damn grateful that they ended up on the side that’s a former British colony.

slickwillie2001 on May 5, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Yes, but buy it with what exactly? One party rule there has left the state broke so many times that I have lost count.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 6:19 PM

This is the best part. California becomes a country and Sacremento starts printing money. Californios, or Disney Dollars, something like that.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM

OT, but how come there’s no thread on the news that the entire administration lied about Benghazi?

It’s the lead on Fox.

BacaDog on May 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM

See the Hot Gas Sunday Morning Talking Heads thread. There was also a Headlines thread about it but that has now moved off the front page.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Profit.

Check land values in Israel. Viz: Tel Aviv has the country’s most expensive housing, with an average price of owner-occupied dwellings of ILS1,953,200 (US$516,056) in Q3 2012. It was followed by Jerusalem at ILS1,557,600 (US$411,534) and Sharon at ILS1,443,800 (US$381,467). From Global Property Guide available on the web — with thanks.

Then look at Northern Mexico. Well, I’ll let you guess.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo in Spanish), officially Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic,[1] is the peace treaty signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo between the U.S. and Mexico that ended the Mexican–American War (1846–48). With the defeat of its army and the fall of the capital, Mexico entered into negotiations to end the war. The treaty called for the United States to pay $15 million to Mexico and pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to $3.25 million. It gave the United States the Rio Grande boundary for Texas, and gave the U.S. ownership of California, and a large area comprising New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico or becoming U.S. citizens with full rights. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 38-14, against the Whigs who had opposed the war, rejected Manifest Destiny in general and rejected this expansion in particular.

hepcat on May 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

That was one of Ron Paul’s first NO votes.

But seriously, can someone calculate the present value of $15m? That’s over twice what we paid the Russians for Alaska.

slickwillie2001 on May 5, 2013 at 6:24 PM

And this:

California tax revenue yields multibillion-dollar surplus
State coffers contain about $4.5 billion more than expected in personal income tax payments. Business taxes have also rebounded, signaling an economic recovery.
May 02, 2013 By Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Author to immigration reform opponents: “A lot of people live in land that was taken from Mexico”

Also “The Nazis didn’t cross the Czech border, the Czech border crossed them” by Liberal “logic.”

Glenn Jericho on May 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Thanks Del.

Just wondering, been busy today.

BacaDog on May 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

VOILA! We have a secure southern border. Mexico makes a few bucks and the Mideast conflict is over. We keep the difference and pay off our debt.

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Read The Yiddish Policeman’s Union.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:29 PM

If she’s talking about Texas, she’s full of it. We were invited to settle by the Mexican government, and when we got tired of their crap and their micromanagement, we revolted, and got our independence.

Ward Cleaver on May 5, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Actually California’s fortune was made by J Paul Getty, Armand Hammer, and John D Rockefeller, meaning Getty Oil, Occidental Petroleum, and Standard Oil. California has produced more oil than we’ve ever seen gold.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Agriculture in CA dwarfs the oil fields. Oil production (assuming $100 per bbl crude) roughly produces about $18 Billion worth of crude per year, before expenses (500,000 bbl. per day).

in 2011…the state’s 81,500 farms and ranches received a record $43.5 billion for their output last year, up from the $38 billion reached during 2010. California remained the number one state in cash farm receipts with 11.6 percent of the US total. The state accounted for 15 percent of national receipts for crops and 7.4 percent of the US revenue for livestock and livestock products.

California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. The state produces nearly half of US-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Across the nation, US consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.

And going after oil has a problem as Chuck DeVore notes:

The oil tax hike is an interesting idea. California’s Monterey Shale formation, which is largely under private land, likely holds more than 15 billion barrels of oil, or about two-thirds of America’s shale oil reserves. Unfortunately, Golden State politicians aren’t likely to easily allow the oil to be brought to the surface; they’re considering curbs on fracking and other unreasonable environmental roadblocks. As much as California’s elected class craves oil revenue, they’ll soon find that it’s hard to tax what isn’t produced.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM

“…As much as California’s elected class craves oil revenue, they’ll soon find that it’s hard to tax what isn’t produced.”

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM

As if that’s stopped Democrat politicians before. Though the oil can’t be brought out, they can always say it’s there and has value, therefor the land is worth more. And Bingo, a new tax!

I never underestimate the deviousness of politicians to get more money.

Liam on May 5, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM

The thing is that they’ve been pulling oil out of the California ground since around 1890, sparking the real estate boon in Los Angeles.

I don’t think we became an agricultural center until after the Dust Bowl, which I think they used to play in Oklahoma.

The big holdup on agriculture was water. Mulhuland and Doheny we busy stealing all the water the could find.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Why is it that the helpful National Media never mentions that it was the Democrat Party that started the Mexican-American War? And why is it that the Washington Republicans never mention it, either?
socaguy on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Because the democratic party WERE the conservatives of the time. The south? All the southern stageshow today republican? Yeah they democrats. And all those elitist leftist northern democrats of today you guys demean? Yep, Republicans. And we didn’t all just migrate and trade locations.

The conservatives of today WERE the “democrats” you want to lay Blake at the feet of, whiteout any seeming shred of reality helping to shade your desire.

Genuine on May 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

*all the southern STATES now republican

Genuine on May 5, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Give them California, we keep Texas, everybody wins.

[rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM]

The h3ll with that. They can do exactly what we did with the Treaty of Hildago, pay us the fairly assessed current value of the territory and assume all the claims that California residents have on the US government.

Oh, yeah, and we want payment in gold and silver just as we did. None of that funny paper stuff people use nowadays.

Dusty on May 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3