Should the USA Annex Mexico?

DTOM wrote:

living in america isn't a right. it's a privilege.

Please explain what this means. What did you do to earn the priveledge of living here?

i'm a citizen by birth. and i consider myself lucky.

but of course, you latch on to the least important part of what i said. again.

The fact is, many of us wouldn't be here if our ancestors didn't break the law to get here.

All of the territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers was disputed territory. Mexico had never acknowledged the Texan claim to the territory, and this was well known at that time throughout the United States. Go back and read the portions of Grant's Memorirs which i quoted.

MM, you're just makin' it up as you go along.

As early as August 1843, Santa Anna's government had informed the United States that it would "consider equivalent to a declaration of war . . . the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas." The government of Herrera did not take this militant position. It had already initiated steps, encouraged by the British, to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, and although Santa Anna's lame-duck minister in Washington broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. government immediately after annexation, in August 1845 the Herrera government indicated willingness to resume relations. Not only was the Herrera government prepared to accept the loss of Texas, but it also hoped to lay to rest the claims question that had plagued U.S.-Mexican affairs since 1825. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on interminably.

Libs always want to make problems seem more complex than they really are. You're either here illegally or you aren't. 0 or 1.

Cool, target practice.

Setanta wrote:

All of the territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers was disputed territory. Mexico had never acknowledged the Texan claim to the territory, and this was well known at that time throughout the United States. Go back and read the portions of Grant's Memorirs which i quoted.

MM, you're just makin' it up as you go along.

WRONG!!!!!!

From my link,which you apparently have not read,we get this....

Quote:

As early as August 1843, Santa Anna's government had informed the United States that it would "consider equivalent to a declaration of war . . . the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas." The government of Herrera did not take this militant position. It had already initiated steps, encouraged by the British, to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, and although Santa Anna's lame-duck minister in Washington broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. government immediately after annexation, in August 1845 the Herrera government indicated willingness to resume relations. Not only was the Herrera government prepared to accept the loss of Texas, but it also hoped to lay to rest the claims question that had plagued U.S.-Mexican affairs since 1825. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on interminably.

So,as you can see,the Mexican Govt DID recognize Texas's independence,they were also willing to talk.
Your claim that Mexico didnt recognize Texas's claim is flat out wrong.

Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot. The fact is, annexationists wanted more territory than they could possibly lay any claim to, as part of the new acquisition. Texas, as an independent State, never had exercised jurisdiction over the territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico had never recognized the independence of Texas, and maintained that, even if independent, the State had no claim south of the Nueces. (emphasis added)

After the annexation of Texas, newly elected President James K. Polk set out to acquire the Mexican province of California. American expansionists wanted California in order to have a port on the Pacific Ocean, which would allow the United States to participate in the lucrative trade with Asia. Furthermore, Mexico's hold on its distant province was weak, and American expansionists feared that California would eventually be acquired by Great Britain, which, according to the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, was a threat to U.S. security. In 1845, Polk sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico to purchase California and New Mexico for up to $30 million.



Slidell's arrival in Mexico caused political turmoil after word leaked out that he was there to purchase additional territory and not to offer compensation for the loss of Texas. The Mexicans refused to receive Slidell, citing a problem with his credentials. Slidell returned to Washington, D.C. in May 1846. Polk regarded this treatment of his diplomat as an insult and an "ample cause of war", and prepared to ask Congress for a declaration of war. (emphasis added)

Mexico of course did not like the idea of its breakaway province becoming an American state, and the undefined and contested border now became a major international issue. Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. Both nations sent troops to enforce the competing claims, and a tense standoff ensued. On April 25, 1846, a clash occurred between Mexican and American troops on soil claimed by both countries. The war had begun.

With the United States inheriting the Texas Republic's claim to the Rio Grande, President Polk ordered Taylor to take up a position on the river. Polk, a proponent of Manifest Destiny, was determined to take control of the disputed territory and, if possible, lay claim to California. Many Americans objected and believed the United States to be morally wrong. A young lieutenant in the expedition, Ulysses S. Grant, would later write that he had a "horror of the Mexican War" but did not have the "moral courage to resign."

MEXICAN WAR. The conflict between the United States and Mexico in 1846-48 had its roots in the annexation of Texas and the westward thrust of American settlers. On assuming the American presidency in 1845, James K. Polk attempted to secure Mexican agreement to setting the boundary at the Rio Grande and to the sale of northern California. What he failed to realize was that even his carefully orchestrated policy of graduated pressure would not work because no Mexican politician could agree to the alienation of any territory, including Texas.

Frustrated by the Mexican refusal to negotiate, Polk, on January 13, 1846, directed Gen. Zachary Taylor's army at Corpus Christi to advance to the Rio Grande. The Mexican government viewed that as an act of war. On April 25 the Mexican troops at Matamoros crossed the river and ambushed an American patrol. Polk seized upon the incident to secure a declaration of war on May 13 on the basis of the shedding of "American blood upon American soil." Meanwhile, on May 8 and 9, Taylor's 2,200-man army defeated 3,700 Mexicans under Gen. Mariano Arista in the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.

cjhsa wrote:

Cool, target practice.

You still haven't posted a picture of a big gun... but talk like this is almost as good.

Your thoughts?

cjhsa wrote:

Your thoughts?

It'd be the best thing that could happen for the average mexican. You'd have to start by executing every politician, every police official, and every military official above the rank of private.

http://michnews.com/e/Pro_Illegal_Signs.gif

Just thought I'd post the URL behind the pic, so people who might care can see what trash is being posted. [..] If you come here and post "pro illegal" crap you might as well pledge your allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and Fidel Castro while you're at it.