The Mexican American War

[plan_D]

http://www.geocities.com/cvallence00...ssignment.html

The origins of the war can be debated endlessly, although most will affirm that the majority of the fault lies with The United States and its expansionistic tendencies. Manifest destiny was a popular doctrine that had been circulating in the US for some time. It involved the belief that Americans had a divine right to bring the western hemisphere under their influence because of their superior level of industry and culture. The western hemisphere was their domain, to be controlled by the US for the well being of all involved. Indeed, before and throughout the duration of the war there were some that actively advocated the annexation of all of Mexico, in the belief that Mexicans could never govern themselves for their own good.

The Mexican American War, another war for the expansion of America.

And what justified the Spanish Mexican, who ruled over the indian and part indian mexicans with an iron hand, ownership of the territories in question? Simply because the Spanish got there first and put their flags on it?

[BombTaxi]

Thats not the point RG The point is that whoever had a right to Mexico, it wasnt the US, and they shouldnt have steamed in and invaded it.

Thriugh all of these threads, you've avoided the question at hand: was the USA imperialist in it's 19th century foreign policy? The answer is YES. The USA grabbed land and opressed people, just like Britain and France before you, and just like Germany and Japan after(and Im not talking about either World War here). Rather than paint the USA as crusaders saving the oppressed from the corrupt Europeans, just realise that there were very few altruists behind these wars.
Even the assumption that these people needed to be saved makes a clear statement about the contempt that must have been felt for them and for Europe. Could they not save themselves? Or were they not rebelling because they didnt need to? Is it just possible that the Cubans had to be 'liberated' by the US because they had no need to rebel themselves? Maybe they were quite content under Spanish rule? They've certainly done no better since.
You cannot assume, RG, that an American invasion is better than a European one (which is essentially the point you are implying in the post above). Just because policy is American does not, and never will, make it a de facto 'good thing'.


EDIT:Re-reading this post, (which I made at 7.30am before heading off to my exam), I would just like to make it clear that am neither anti-American or suggesting that America is in any way 'worse' than Spain. However, I am interested to see whether RG feels he can justify this invasion in terms of America 'liberating' Mexico from European rule.

I would agree the USA was "imperialistic" when it came to North America. It is the rest of the world where this was not so. The USA has taken no perminent colonies anywhere. It has never sought political dominion over forieng peoples, with the possible exception of Hawaii, outside of North America.

As for Europe not having needed saving... do you deny that the USA did indeed step in and save the European democracies in both WWI and WWII?

And your understanding of the history and politics of Cuba, Peurto Rico, and the Phillapines is horrible Bombtaxi. Do some reading and then post again.

Little hint... the Cubans had been involved in a war of indepance with Spain that took up the better part of the previous 30 years before the USA intervened on behalf of the revolutionaries in 1898. The US then occupied Cuba for less than 3 years while they estabilished a government. After the USA withdrew, Cuba descended into a bloody civil war, and in 1906 the USA again occupied Cuba to re-establish the peace and negotiate a new government, but it left too soon (less than a year). Cuba was not sufficiently developed to support a democracy, once the USA left corruption ran rampant within the "democratic" government of Cuba.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

Again, the U.S was just as imperialistic as all European nations were before it. Enough said.

[Medvedya]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

The USA has taken no perminent colonies anywhere.

Oh....

The islands of Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas; Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, and Palmyra Island.


They all sound nice or interesting places to visit as well!

Originally Posted by Medvedya

Oh....

The islands of Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas; Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, and Palmyra Island.


They all sound nice or interesting places to visit as well!

How can you call Midway - an Island with no indiginous population, a colony? LOL

Most, if not all of the territories on your list have never had popular independance movements. They'd rather be under American protection than on their own.

[plan_D]

That's besides the point, RG. They are colonies of America when you stated that the U.S has no colonies.

Originally Posted by plan_D

That's besides the point, RG. They are colonies of America when you stated that the U.S has no colonies.

You are quibbling over language. Clearly what I've always meant by "British style colonialism" is the conquering and subjugation of foriegn cultures in order to enforce favorable trade.

And there is a difference between a protectorate and a colony.

Peurto Rico cannot be considered a colony, because it isn't one.

[plan_D]

Don't miss out the other lands America claimed through war, RG.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

How can you call Midway - an Island with no indiginous population, a colony? LOL

Most, if not all of the territories on your list have never had popular independance movements. They'd rather be under American protection than on their own.

Not for protection. Because they get all the benifets of living under the US but dont pay taxes. I know this is true, my friend who is in the army with me is from Peurto Rico and he tells me why they would rather not be independent. Its all becuase of what they get, and dont have to give anything.

[renrich]

Let us suppose for a moment that the Mexican War of 1846-48 had never happened and in an even wilder supposition say that Mexico had reconquered Texas. That would leave the US without Texas and California and some other less consequential states. It is very likely then that the allies would have lost the Second World War because Texas and to a lesser extent California furnished the bulk of the oil used by the allies in WW2 to fight the war. With Mexico in control of Texas and California it is questionable as to whether the oil in the East Texas field would have even been discovered by 1941.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Medvedya

Oh....

The islands of Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas; Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, and Palmyra Island.


They all sound nice or interesting places to visit as well!

This is a very uneducated comment. I am sure that all of the above mention places could easily withdraw from the US sphere of influence by simply voting to leave. That capability is not called "permanent colony". I know that there has been some effort in Puerto Rico to become independent but no vote has ever passed. No one will stop them if they do. They do not because they know that people all over the world would love to emigrate to the US but can't. They have all the benefits of being American without any drawbacks.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

Let us suppose for a moment that the Mexican War of 1846-48 had never happened and in an even wilder supposition say that Mexico had reconquered Texas. That would leave the US without Texas and California and some other less consequential states. It is very likely then that the allies would have lost the Second World War because Texas and to a lesser extent California furnished the bulk of the oil used by the allies in WW2 to fight the war. With Mexico in control of Texas and California it is questionable as to whether the oil in the East Texas field would have even been discovered by 1941.

Just imagine what would have happened in WWII if the South had succeeded in establishing its own nation! Or better yet, what would WWII look like if the Persians had won the Battle of Salamis? The reality is that none of these things happened. While it is interesting to discuss associated changes in history like how would WWII have progressed if Germany had won the
Battle of Britain, going too far back into history provides too many variables to dissuss reasonably.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Mexican American War
The Mexican American War, another war for the expansion of America.

And without apologies! As undesirable as it is, expansion is a human trait. If it isnt, then we need to divide geographical areas by DNA tests corresponding to who were the "first" inhabitants. The current day Mayans have a lot of territory coming to them! Perhaps the Aussie Abboes would like some prime land back too.

Divine right? Phooey! It's economics. At the time of the War, only a few Ranch's and Pueblos were established. Solitary Mexican settlers had ranch's that were millions of square acres. It was feudalistic.

I currently reside in, as La Raza refers to it, "Occupied Mexico". Much thanks to the forward thinking individuals who plucked it from those who underestimated the potential of this wonderful land and its bountiful geography!

VIVA ZACHARY TAYLOR!!! ARRIBBAAA!!!!!!!!!