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

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

If that was all it wouldn’t be so bad, but we create bond issues and borrow against the non existent taxes so we can spend the money now.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM

IlikedAUH2O on May 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Now we just need to “discover” the lost part of the Torah chronicling the adventures of Moses in Mexico. I’ll be happy to get started on this, all I ask is 10%.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Most people don’t know that back in 1912, Hellmann’s mayonnaise was manufactured in England. In fact, the Titanic was carrying 12,000 jars of the condiment scheduled for delivery in Vera Cruz, Mexico, which was to be the next port of call for the great ship after its stop in New York.

This would have been the largest single shipment of mayonnaise ever delivered to Mexico…. But as we know….the great ship did not make it to New York….The ship hit an iceberg and sank …. and the cargo was forever lost….

The people of Mexico, who were crazy about mayonnaise, and were eagerly awaiting its delivery …. were disconsolate at the loss….

Their anguish was so great, that they declared a National Day of Mourning which they still observe to this day…. The National Day of Mourning occurs each year on May 5th…. and is known….of course….as Sinko de Mayo….

http://floppingaces.net/2013/05/05/sunday-funnies-237/

davidk on May 5, 2013 at 6:51 PM

in fact Mexicans are here in lands that once belonged to Mexico

Cincinnati, Ohio, once belonged to Mexico?

Who knew?

BuckeyeSam on May 5, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Mexicans and Palestinians. Think about it.

Wigglesworth on May 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I suppose we should return to our 1783 borders. I’m sure France thinks we completely stole the Louisiana Territory. Better yet, let’s return to being a British colony, we can live with the sheep.

tbrickert on May 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Ah, la Reconquista rears its ugly head!

NavyMustang on May 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Mexicans and Palestinians. Think about it.

Wigglesworth on May 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I’m not sure who has more guns.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:55 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

None of which will matter as long as the inmates still run the asylum.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Ot: Talledega going green flag. Boogity! 62 ta go!

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

And there’s a lot of people who now inhabit lands that used to belong to Prussia. Of course, there’s no longer a Prussia, but hey, why should that stop us from complaining about disenfranchisement?

FREE PRUSSIA!

Stoic Patriot on May 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Here’s a thought, the return of the reservation. If the indigenous Latin population wants to live under their own “Aztlan” rules or whatever. Of course then they’ll open casinos.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

What do the Pueblo, Apache, Comanche, and other native Americans have to say about who owns that land?

I suppose we should return to our 1783 borders. I’m sure France thinks we completely stole the Louisiana Territory. Better yet, let’s return to being a British colony, we can live with the sheep.

tbrickert on May 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Nah, we need to go all the way back to when the world maps didn’t show the New World, and marked the spot with these words:

“There be dragons here”

BobMbx on May 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

I’m sure we can have a debate over the motivations and strategies of Polk and the Eminent Domain doctrine

How can you have “a debate over over the motivations and strategies of…the Eminent Domain doctrine” when you’re totally clueless as to what it is?

Eminent domain is the government’s power to acquire private property for public purposes, having compensated the owners. Last time anyone checked, Mexico in 1846 was not private property.

Anyone who confuses Polk’s Manifest Destiny doctrine with Eminent Domain has no business offering opinions about American history.

bgoldman on May 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Anyone who confuses Polk’s Manifest Destiny doctrine with Eminent Domain has no business offering opinions about American history.

bgoldman on May 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Sarah’s commenting?

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I’m Cherokee, and I don’t bitch. Just sayin’. I don’t even get welfare or foodstamps. Didn’t go to Harvard as a minority. Hell, I’m 1/8th. Florida Cherokee.

I don’t want all of Florida, just a pad on the beach next door to the EIB Southern Command so I can harvest sea turtle eggs at night using bright lights. Mmmkay?

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I suppose we should return to our 1783 borders. I’m sure France thinks we completely stole the Louisiana Territory. Better yet, let’s return to being a British colony, we can live with the sheep.

tbrickert on May 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/03/16/Russian-Orthodox-group-wants-Alaska-back/UPI-66511363449118/

davidk on May 5, 2013 at 7:08 PM

My benign comment is moderated. C’mon…

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Let’s just hope the cyanobacteria never figure out that apparently everything belongs to them.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Yeah, I live in one of those lands and guess what, we pay the going rate. Doc, bricklayer, lawyer, cook. You get what you work for. BTW the town of White Settlement isn’t far from my house. The former overlords named it that so we kept it. I dare any gingos in the 50 States to name a town that today.

Limerick on May 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

You know the country is shot when La Raza talking points go mainstream. If only Americans had representation in Washington…

voiceofreason on May 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I’m a Native Texan and retired soldier.

The claim that Texas belonged to anyone except for the Comanche until at least the mid 1800′s is stretching reality. My g-grand uncle Thomas W Daugherty was a member of the select Congressional(Texas) Committee on internal(Texas) Indian relations from 1860-1862. The Comanche were still effectively contesting US/Texas control of Texas until 1870 launching War parties as Far East as the Dallas/Ft Worth area.

Further west the Apache were contesting US rule into the 1890′s. Mexico invited(begged for) American immigration in the 1820′s for the simple that the Comanche had a far and away superior military to Mexico and aside from a few isolated settlements there was no Mexican presence in Texas.

The fact is that the Comanche ruled Texas until the American Settlers were able to hold some, mostly North Eastern territory from the Comanche. Mexico had little to do with Texas until American settlers had started resolving the Comanche issue.

Linh_My on May 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM

There is is. Trail of Tears and all. I’ll vacate Tuscon if I can live next door to Rush. Capiche? live on turtle soup.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM

All this “give them California” talk is BS.

Let “them” return to their own country and make California a national park.

ignatzk on May 5, 2013 at 7:19 PM

What do the mexicans want? Are they jealous they don’t have casinoes? And tax free tobacco?

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Can you name one country that didn’t have someone else there before the current in-crowd kicked them out?

Limerick on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Mexicans are here in lands that once belonged to Mexico.”

And they should fall on their knees and thank us for saving them from the third world hellhole it would have been if they had kept it.

DrMagnolias on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Linh_My on May 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM

You’re correct. I knew a few Comanches and Apaches and they liked to talk about how their ancestors kicked Mexican butts back down to Mexico when they invaded. The land was taken, but not from Mexico.

Shay on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

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

A lot of people live in land that was taken from Aztecs.

yubley on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

davidk on May 5, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Thanks that just completed my evening. I need another drink.

tbrickert on May 5, 2013 at 7:24 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

God Bless The Great Republic of Texas…

workingclass artist on May 5, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Republic of Texas

this

Limerick on May 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Linh_My on May 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Not to mention that you and fellow Texans through the greatness of innovation and irrigation transformed what previously was desert separating cactus in places such as south and west Texas into an enormously productive example of what freedom, guts, effort and gumption can accomplish.

viking01 on May 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Quit modding my posts.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Can you name one country that didn’t have someone else there before the current in-crowd kicked them out?

Limerick on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Omnum Galli in tres partes divincit.

(Caesar had the gall Gaul to divide into three parts.)

“Oh, yeah! But aside from running water, education, peace, transportation and shelter just what have the Romans done for us?”

—— somewhat paraphrased Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”

viking01 on May 5, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Quit modding my posts.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

The b-word is tripping you up. A computer does it.

slickwillie2001 on May 5, 2013 at 7:34 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

Are you one of the Reconquistas? If not, then the comment was not aimed at you. There are many in the La Raza/Reconquista movement that DOES want something to do with Mexico.

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Ms. Greenberg also makes much of the point that this was the first case of one republic going to war with another

Rome vs. Carthage? They were both republics. Is this woman a historian or an ideologue?

dentalque on May 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Today Mexico is a cesspool of corruption and incompetence.

banzaibob on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

How’s that any different than Washington, DC?

bw222 on May 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

All this “give them California” talk is BS.

Let “them” return to their own country and make California a national park.

ignatzk on May 5, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Perhaps I should have made the original point more explicit by saying “give them Californians.” Anybody who can make that happen, and still keep the land, is welcome to try. I do like beaches.

rightmind on May 5, 2013 at 7:51 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

Well, that one was a little different, and happens to be true; not about evil Republicans, but it was a sovereign nation and the USA did usurp it. Not saying I would have done anything different, as it was a smart play strategically. However, there are plenty of Hawaiians that are still ticked, but not as many as there are bleeders that are happy to suck off the American tit.

yubley on May 5, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Losing wars has consequences.

Ellis on May 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Losing wars has consequences.

Ellis on May 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Repeat every time someone brings up this topic.

DrMagnolias on May 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Can you name one country that didn’t have someone else there before the current in-crowd kicked them out?

Limerick on May 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

The always-coming Utopia.

Where everyone is a one-eyed king.

(State-sharpened stake mandatory.)

Achieving the Progressive ideal- shallow, obedient mammals with clever leaders to masterfully milk them.

profitsbeard on May 5, 2013 at 8:21 PM

The Mexicans claimed all sorts of lands that the Spanish had claimed, that they had no real control off. For example they claimed what is today Texas was theirs yet by the time of the Mexican-American War they had lost part of that land in the Texas Revolution and the rest under the control of the Comanche. In fact the Comanche had been in charge of the large areas of what is today Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma and basically had pounded almost every other native tribe in the area in wars and had made a joke of the Mexican Army during the Comanche-Mexican wars fought between the 1820s to 1870s. The Comanche basically turned Northern Mexico into a waste land. During the Mexican-American War many Mexicans in Northern Mexico actually welcomed the American Army with the hopes they would do a better job of stopping Comanche raids than the Mexicans had done, although frankly the American Army had only slightly better luck.

The truth was the Republic of Texas and the U.S. military had a harder time fighting against the Comanche (and feared them more) than the Mexicans and only at last defeated them due to disease and long drawn out wars by the 1870s. I only point this out because it seems Mexican authors and historians, along with many progressive revisionist American historians always seem to leave out that the native populations in these areas never recognized the Mexican claims (or the Spanish for that matter) and in the case of tribes like the Comanche were actually a greater obstacle to westward movement than the Mexican claims were. It is also interesting that the Mexicans treated the Native populations in these areas and in Mexico worse than the Americans did. Funny how they always leave part that out too…

The point is the situation was far more complicated than progressive historians make it into.

William Eaton on May 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM

I will say this in all my naivite. I do not know why they don’t want to make Mexico more like it was in our image ( the U.S.) if they want to come here so bad, wouldn’t you stay and make your own country which you think is superior to the U.S. into a more democratic more free place with a better economy? If the U.S. were to Annex MORE of Mexico, it would be a better place.

Fleuries on May 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

So who had Mexico before the Mexicans? And who took it? And what if the Mexicans did somehow take some American land back, would we then be able to say they now have land that once belonged to Americans? If not, then how far back do we go with this? Do we give Great Britain back to the Germans? The Romans? The Danish? Should we make Mexico give its lands back to the native peoples who lived there before the Spanish arrived? By rights, following their own logic, Mexicans shouldn’t even exist–it’s all Spain’s fault. Do we give America back to Great Britain? Or to the native peoples who were here before the British arrived? Or to the Danes who appear to have been here before the Brits? The absurdity of such arguments are absurdly absurd.

Fuzzy on May 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Fortunately there are other, more credible histories, including Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States.

Mexico coveted land, too, including the return of Texas; and various Mexican strategists and European observers believed Mexican armies would be at Washington, D. C. in a short period of time.

The Treaty, which ended the war, paid Mexico $15 million dollars for the land annexed to the U.S. Not a bad bargain on Mexico’s part, considering an American army then occupied Mexico City.

The Southwest was not stolen; Mexico wanted war, too. But the liberal media refuses to countenance any evidence that runs counter to their narrative — “justice requires amnesty.” No one yet, however, has provided anything like a compelling argument for this narrative. So, now they have taken to manufacturing history.

EastofEden on May 5, 2013 at 8:26 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

Are you one of the Reconquistas? If not, then the comment was not aimed at you. There are many in the La Raza/Reconquista movement that DOES want something to do with Mexico.

Resist We Much on May 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

If Amnesty creates thirty million new Americans, most of them Mexican, hispanics will end up with a critical mass adequate to form a hispanic party. The nutball LaRaza types are most likely to end up leading it, and they will swing the truncheon of ‘reunification with Mexico’ to intimidate the rest of the USA into giving them anything they want.

Think ‘Canada and the PQ on steroids’.

slickwillie2001 on May 5, 2013 at 8:34 PM

FREE PRUSSIA!

Stoic Patriot on May 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

While we’re at it, I call on the Turks to end their illegal occupation of Constantinople.

JimLennon on May 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Mexicans have less claim on Alta California, which their Republic (before Santa Ana threw out the 1824 Constitution to make himself dictator) had nominally held for only 27 years following Mexico’s independence from Spain, than the remaining indigenous peoples of the Valley of Mexico (puros indios, not the ruling mestizos and criollos who are descended from the Spaniards) have on the Valley of Mexico, which their ancestors had ruled for roughly 90 years (with the formation of the Triple Alliance) before the arrival of the Spaniards.

Oh… and ¡Feliz Cinco de Cuarto!

de rigueur on May 5, 2013 at 8:38 PM

When was the last time that more Mexicans than Americans lived in what is now Texas?
http://perceptionasreality.blogspot.com/2011/05/tejas-to-texas-status-popuation.html

mjbrooks3 on May 5, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I’m a Native Texan and retired soldier.

The claim that Texas belonged to anyone except for the Comanche until at least the mid 1800′s is stretching reality. My g-grand uncle Thomas W Daugherty was a member of the select Congressional(Texas) Committee on internal(Texas) Indian relations from 1860-1862. The Comanche were still effectively contesting US/Texas control of Texas until 1870 launching War parties as Far East as the Dallas/Ft Worth area.

Linh_My on May 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Sorry for being redundant. I missed your comment on the Comanche before I commented. I thought nobody had mentioned them yet.

Also people forget Geronimo got his start as a war leader because it was the Mexican Army (not the Americans) killed his mother, wife and children in the 1850s. He said…

Late one afternoon when returning from town we were met by a few women and children who told us that Mexican troops from some other town had attacked our camp, killed all the warriors of the guard, captured all our ponies, secured our arms, destroyed our supplies, and killed many of our women and children. Quickly we separated, concealing ourselves as best we could until nightfall, when we assembled at our appointed place of rendezvous—a thicket by the river. Silently we stole in one by one: sentinels were placed, and, when all were counted, I found that my aged mother, my young wife, and my three small children were among the slain. There were no lights in camp, so without being noticed I silently turned away and stood by the river. How long I stood there I do not know, but when I saw the warriors arranging for a council I took my place.
Geronimo’s story of his life (1909)

I guess those Mexicans were not the peace loving folks wronged by “American imperialist” the progressives and Mexican historians claim after all…

William Eaton on May 5, 2013 at 8:47 PM

We should take the rest of Mexico and call it Greater Texas. Mexico belongs to us.

Punchenko on May 5, 2013 at 8:51 PM

The end result of all this ‘give-it-back-to-the-original-inhabitants’ garbage it that we all end up living in the Great Rift Valley.

This will probably piss off the current inhabitants.

trigon on May 5, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Amy S. Greenberg

Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Women’s Studies

Education:
PhD, Harvard University, 1995
BA, University of California, 1989

Ah, “women’s studies” and a credential from Harvard. Now it all makes sense.

Punchenko on May 5, 2013 at 8:57 PM

So how do Mexicans today view the war?

“Well, as a disaster,” said museum director Salvador Rueda. “Mexico lost….

Yes, yes you did. Now shut up.

James on May 5, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Today Mexico is a cesspool of corruption and incompetence.

banzaibob on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

How’s that any different than Washington, DC?

bw222 on May 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Not much. That would explain how our economy is tanking

banzaibob on May 5, 2013 at 9:09 PM

I see it all the time here in Tucson. La raza students, ” I didn’t cross the border, the border crossed me”.

Those must be some really old students.

myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM

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.”

Then, clearly, we left the job unfinished.

Onward to Mexico City then. Bring American law, order, justice, values and LANGUAGE to our neighbors down south, so desperate for a better way of life…

JohnGalt23 on May 5, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I will say this in all my naivite. I do not know why they don’t want to make Mexico more like it was in our image ( the U.S.) if they want to come here so bad, wouldn’t you stay and make your own country which you think is superior to the U.S. into a more democratic more free place with a better economy? If the U.S. were to Annex MORE of Mexico, it would be a better place.
Fleuries on May 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I’ve always said we should annex the whole muthafukka and save the illegals the trip. Besides, the Mexican southern border is small enough that even the current administration couldn’t screw up defending it…

affenhauer on May 5, 2013 at 9:44 PM

William Eaton on May 5, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Thank you for adding intelligent comment to a very much ignored bit of history.

Linh_My on May 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Well, that one was a little different, and happens to be true; not about evil Republicans, but it was a sovereign nation and the USA did usurp it. Not saying I would have done anything different, as it was a smart play strategically. However, there are plenty of Hawaiians that are still ticked, but not as many as there are bleeders that are happy to suck off the American tit.

yubley on May 5, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Not quite how it happened. Hawaii was weak as an independent nation and Russia and Japan were knocking at the door. They appealed to the British for protection/ annexation. They refused and the US stepped in. So … not an invasion or an example of brutal imperialism.

Those idiots in Hawaii, who think that everything was peachy before the haole, forget that they almost became extinct through long tribal warfare. The have a lot to thank the west for their intervention.

virgo on May 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM

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

We are going to revisit a war that ended over 160 years ago to justify legalizing illegal immigrants and making them citizens?

Why not just advocate giving the land back to Mexico? It makes just as much sense.

farsighted on May 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Liberals. God bless ‘em.
I look forward to the day when conservatives and liberals can live side by side in peace and harmony – with them on one side of the wall and conservatives on the other side of the wall.

justltl on May 5, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Make that a double wall. I wouldn’t want any libs escaping over into the conservatice side. shudder

justltl on May 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Mexico saw a chance to recover Texas in 1846. People today view the war as if it had been fought between the nations as they are today. In fact Mexico had an experienced professional army of more than 60,000. The US Army was less than 18,000, strung out from Atlantic forts to Fort Snelling. The Mexicans believed, with good cause, that they would win a conflict before the US could marshal its resources. Mexico also saw a victory as a way of reinforcing their fragile control over California and the other lands north of the Rio Grande. Mexico wanted war and believed they would win.

xkaydet65 on May 5, 2013 at 9:59 PM

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

I’m one of them. So what?

myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I watch that show just to take the temp of anti-US propaganda and was even shocked at the degree of partisanship of this woman.

They also gave a glowing, unopposed review of the Smithsonian’s exhibit on Jefferson and Slavery. A statue of him with the backdrop of all the first names of his slaves. That’s it, the entire gist of Jefferson. Slaves. We are of course paying for this out of taxes and indoctrinating all visitors with it. Wonder why everybody hates us.

I eagerly await their denouncement of Woodrow Wilson and his racism and FDR of his.

PattyJ on May 5, 2013 at 10:38 PM

My ancestors, Clovis Man and Folsom Man want their lands back from the Anasazi and Hohokam invaders, who want their lands back from the Mogollons and Mimbres invaders, who want their lands back from the Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni and Ute Invaders, who want their lands back from the Mexican invaders, who want their land back from the American invaders.

Oh, and my Neanderthal ancestors want their damn lands back from the damned Cro-Magnon invaders.

Oh, and the apes want their lands back from the Australopithecus Invaders.

LegendHasIt on May 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM

In fact Mexico had an experienced professional army of more than 60,000. The US Army was less than 18,000, strung out from Atlantic forts to Fort Snelling.

Yeah….All of Europe expected the Mexican army to thrash the Americans.

We had much better officers and financial means to get the resources needed to win.

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

I’m one of them. So what?

And if the southwest USA was still part of Mexico nothing would have changed culturally or politically for Mexico. We still would have been resourceful enough to succeed because of the differences in our cultures and politics.

And Mexicans would still desire to get here any which way they can for the opportunities that still wouldn’t exist in Mexico.

hawkeye54 on May 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Why not just advocate giving the land back to Mexico? It makes just as much sense.

They’re pretty close to getting part of it back already, based on demographics, if they really wanted to. Trouble is, they’d lose out on jobs and our generous public handouts.

Mexico doesn’t want the land back just yet, because a huge income stream would be lost to it in the transfer of land title.

hawkeye54 on May 5, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Mexico also saw a victory as a way of reinforcing their fragile control over California and the other lands north of the Rio Grande. Mexico wanted war and believed they would win.
xkaydet65 on May 5, 2013 at 9:59 PM

And another thing that they incorrectly assumed was that their ‘subjects’ who lived in those regions would fight on their side to be repatriated to Mexico. However the vast preponderance of them chose to become ‘Free Americans’ rather than serfs of the Mexican dictators.

LegendHasIt on May 5, 2013 at 10:50 PM

And another thing that they incorrectly assumed was that their ‘subjects’ who lived in those regions would fight on their side to be repatriated to Mexico. However the vast preponderance of them chose to become ‘Free Americans’ rather than serfs of the Mexican dictators.

A lot of them didn’t like either country. They fought the Spaniards, they fought the Mexicans and they fought the Americans.

myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Who exactly are we supposed to give the land “back” to?

The U.S. took it from Mexico. 20 years earlier Mexico took it from Spain. Spain took it from the Native Americans. The Native Americans took it from other Native Americans.

Who were the very first occupants of the land, and how do we identify their descendants?

myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM

myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 10:55 PM

I was, of course referring to the ‘peon’ settlers from Mexico, The Spanish Land Grant families etc. Not Athabascans and the like.

LegendHasIt on May 5, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Today Mexico is a cesspool of corruption and incompetence.

banzaibob on May 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM

.
How’s that any different than Washington, DC?

bw222 on May 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

.
Good point ……. let’s go get the rest of Mexico.

listens2glenn on May 5, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Who were the very first occupants of the land, and how do we identify their descendants?
myiq2xu on May 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Probably Clovis Man as I mentioned above. But who knows, there could have been earlier ones.

And as to identifying their Descendants …
Maybe Elizabeth Warren could help us out.

;-)

LegendHasIt on May 5, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Mexicans and Palestinians. Think about it.

Wigglesworth on May 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I’m not sure who has more guns.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Well here’s a clue: we’re not arming the Palestinians.

HiJack on May 5, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Well here’s a clue: we’re not arming the Palestinians.
HiJack on May 5, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Give Barack, Brennan and Hagel time. They can’t work on arming Everyone else, and disarming us all at the same time.

LegendHasIt on May 5, 2013 at 11:30 PM

As soon as this has been dealt with it will be time to hand the Oregon Territories back to Canada!

batman on May 5, 2013 at 11:31 PM

It’s been pretty well determined that the Clovis People came from Europe and were killed off when the Mexicans’ Asian ancestors came here. Europeans just had a reconquista to claim what was theirs.

Buddahpundit on May 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM

The Mexicans might have a change of heart if we offered them back California with an irrevocable agreement to include with it Nazi
Pelozi, Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters.

jdeg2 on May 5, 2013 at 11:35 PM

All I got to say, is F**k Off, We Won It Fair and Square!

lonestar1 on May 5, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Regarding other posters’ mention of the Comanche, the Spanish and later Mexican state governments claimed areas that they had never had control of due to the other Native American nations as well. A good example of this can be seen in the various emigrant and cattle drive trails that crossed the Southwest.

The Old Spanish Trail and Gila River Trail were the original ones that later became the Goodnight-Loving Trail and the Chisholm Trail. They looped far north and south of the area often claimed as part of “Aztlan” by reconquista enthusiasts today. The reason being that in its own time, the area they are calling Aztlan was properly known as Apacheria. It encompassed most of modern Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas.

The Apache took a dim view of anybody entering their lands for over a thousand years. They successfully denied entry to the Aztecs, the Inca, and also the other Civilized Tribes that they were next door to. (“Apache” is itself a Comanche word- it means “enemy”.)

The Spanish had only marginally more success, due to gunpowder- which the Apache quickly learned to make from them. Not to mention learning the proper use of modern (for the time) military tactics and technology. As one Spanish officer put it in the early 1700s, Spanish cavalry could not break an Apache infantry line, and Apache cavalry consistently smashed Spanish infantry formations.

The Mexicans had no more success, barely managing to hold on to Spanish-founded missions and towns, under constant interdiction by the Apache until well into the 19th century. In short, the Mexican claim on “Aztlan” is largely based on ahistorical over-romanticism.

The settlers moving west, and the cattle herders moving their beeves to the railheads, had better sense. They just made sure to steer clear of Apacheria, period. It’s not a coincidence that the Arizona and New Mexico territories were the last major areas to become states in that region, in January and February of 1912 respectively. (It actually took that long to get the Apache to go along with the idea.)

Real history does not support the delusions of those who lust after “reclaiming the Stolen Territories”.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 5, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Heads Texas goes to the Karankawas, Tails the Commanche get it.

lonestar1 on May 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM

Hey, I don’t mind if California is given to Mexico, as long as all their residents become citizens of Mexico and lose US citizenship.

lonestar1 on May 5, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Free Minerva from brutal, imperialistic Tongan oppression and the revanchist machinations of the petite-bourgeois Fijians !!!

elgeneralisimo’s inner cynic would say given that…

The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave.

But not every apparatus of compulsion and coercion is called a state. Only one which is powerful enough to maintain its existence, for some time at least, by its own force is commonly called a state. A gang of robbers, which because of the comparative weakness of its forces has no prospect of successfully resisting for any length of time the forces of another organization, is not entitled to be called a state. The state will either smash or tolerate a gang. In the first case the gang is not a state because its independence lasts for a short time only; in the second case it is not a state because it does not stand on its own might. The pogrom gangs in imperial Russia were not a state because they could kill and plunder only thanks to the connivance of the government.

This restriction of the notion of the state leads directly to the concepts of state territory and sovereignty. Standing on its own power implies that there is a space on the earth’s surface where the operation of the apparatus is not restricted by the intervention of another organization; this space is the state’s territory. Sovereignty (suprema potestas, supreme power) signifies that the organization stands on its own legs. A state without territory is an empty con­cept. A state without sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.Omnipotent Government – Ludwig von Mises

… with the exceptions of the very limited area of influence around the larger settlements, Mexico existed only as lines on a map in regards to Indian territory. And just as the would be Minervians learned, unless you got guys with guns to back up your talk, all you can really do is grievance monger after the fact…

elgeneralisimo on May 5, 2013 at 11:42 PM

…European observers believed Mexican armies would be at Washington, D. C. in a short period of time.

EastofEden on May 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I’m pretty sure the Europeans were bowled over by the Mexicans’ fabulous uniforms. That’s what did it.

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2013 at 12:01 AM

It amazes me, the mania of Mexicans to turn the parts of America they fled to get away from Mexico, into Mexico.

Rebar on May 6, 2013 at 12:04 AM

I don’t know about Texas but the history taught regarding Calif. which I learned too, being inhabited by Mexicans is simply untrue. The Spanish were there but no Mexican’s. Spanish soldiers were encouraged to marry indigenous Indians. Sometimes given a stipend to help. There are a lot of Spanish/American Indians who think they are Mexican. Not true. Americans all the way.

Read Bancroft’s Works published 1845. The military records which account for who came to Calif. by name are very well documented. University of Calif.system has them now.

CW20 on May 6, 2013 at 12:11 AM

And what right has Mexico to this land? The Mexican revolution didn’t happen until 1910 (one of my great great grand uncles rode with Pancho Villa). California’s been an American domain since 1846.

danielreyes on May 6, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Read Bancroft’s Works published 1845. The military records which account for who came to Calif. by name are very well documented. University of Calif.system has them now.

CW20 on May 6, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Surprisingly, early Peublo census show a large number of intermarried and mulato (do we still use that word?) families, along with the Spanish troops.

danielreyes on May 6, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Let’s imagine a Mexican California. Commercials for the iTelefono by Manzana?

No, I’m not seeing it.

danielreyes on May 6, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Funny thing how the land we evil white Americans ‘stole’ from Mexico is now part of the richest nation the planet has ever seen. A land where we have an epidemic of poor people getting fat. A land where we at least TRY to throw drug dealers and prostitutes (tough luck liberaltarians) in jail and keep the streets safe for upright taxpaying citizens.

And what about the land they still own? Oh, fancy that, it’s now a drug-infested socialist rathole that everyone who isn’t part of the elite is desperate to leave.

To rephrase an old saw, which way are the illegal immigrants going by the tens of millions, fool?

MelonCollie on May 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM

CW20 on May 6, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Most of the Mexicans that lived in Texas fought alongside the Anglos. Santa Anna had revoked the Mexican Constitution and was attempting to become a dictator.

Linh_My on May 6, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3