What does Sup Forums know about the Mexican War?

What does Sup Forums know about the Mexican War?

Other urls found in this thread:

mappingideas.sdsu.edu/CaliforniaAtlas/atlas/pages/26_gold_rush_routes.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Mexico gets into argument with the US over the Texas border
>decides to pick a fight with us over it
>loses the war+clay
>170 years later, CHIs and La Raza fags still mad
Something like that.

IDK but there's always one butthurt Mexican poster on here.

>Butthurt
Una cosa es eso y otra cosa es que los putos Españoles y Argentinos sean castrosos. Cómo me cagan.

Or how to lose every battle in a war and have your capital occupied when you have home field advantage and at least twice the number of men available to fight.

How do you possibly fuck up that bad.

For the Ameriburgers and other anglos here, this guy is calling Spaniards and Argentines annoying pricks.

>annoying pricks
Too kind, user. Annoying fucking cunts would be more fitting.

Sorry, I don't understand Spanish insults very well.

Anyway fuck Argentines.

You were not mistaken, I was just saying they deserve the worst of insults you can think of.
>Anyway fuck Argentines
Amen brother.

Try having half your states trying to secede. The Mexican army also had shitty equipment, huge shortages of ammunition and powder, and illiterate Indian conscripts who couldn't understand orders given to them by Spanish-speaking officers.

The United States had the only indigenous armaments industry in the Western Hemisphere, Mexico had to buy old surplus junk from Europe, much of it dating back to the Napoleonic Wars.

No, I'm not, I was giving this thread a chance to make it to 10 posts before chiming in just to spite the Amerilard gunning for me. The guy is seriously obssesed.

Nice bait thief

It was a thing that happened.

This is what should've been.

>chiming in just to spite the Amerilard gunning for me. The guy is seriously obssesed.
???

It isn't, it will never be, cry me a river.

You're a worm and your opinion is worth nothing

>bunch of shitty deserts and jungle
Why?

Texas area is sparsely populated, so the Mexican government provides incentives for US immigrants to settle and work the land. They happily do.
However, they don't pay their taxes, refuse Mexican influence, and the real thing that drove the conflict was that they refused to stop practicing slavery, which was banned in the Mexican constitution. Since they were refusing to pay taxes and refused to follow Mexican law, they eventually declared themselves independent, and Mexico retaliated. They fought hard but were eventually defeated, however then the US saw a chance to get a fuckton of land cheap and easily. They declared war on Mexico citing Texan as rightful US clay as a casus belli, and proceeded to curbstomp the army which was already battered from the rebellion. The US marched straight to the capital and sued for peace, annexing close to half of Mexico's land area, and also providing chump change for it which was nowhere close to recouping any losses, but it let the USA say "lol we didn't conquer it, we bought it :)". Salt ensued forever, and Mexico was crippled permanently. And in the eyes of the world, the United Mexican States became the joke of north america, forever the USA's bottom bitch.

You have to go back, Panchito

Mexico had tried 2x to reconquer Texas and failed. They should have just accepted reality and admitted that they lost the place. California probably would have also seceded in a few more years.

I learned Spanish in high school, but ok.

Hey there friend

>However, they don't pay their taxes, refuse Mexican influence, and the real thing that drove the conflict was that they refused to stop practicing slavery, which was banned in the Mexican constitution. Since they were refusing to pay taxes and refused to follow Mexican law, they eventually declared themselves independent, and Mexico retaliated.
Hol up there. Mexico may have banned slavery on paper, but the hacienda system was essentially slavery in all but name.

What really happened was that Mexico couldn't defend their remote northern territories and those Texan settlers were getting hammered by Indian raids. In 1833, a Texan delegation traveled to Mexico City to protest, but quickly became frustrated with the slowness and inefficiency of the central government. A cholera epidemic hit the capital then and caused yet more delays. So in short, the Texans quickly realized that Mexico was a borderline failed state and they wanted the fuck out.

California had been settled since the 18th century, there were roads, towns, and an economy there, and New Mexico had been settled for almost 200 years. Texas however was just wild Indian country and the Spanish never attempted to settle it because of the savagery of the Comanche and other tribes, aside from the mission at San Antonio. It was also never organized as a state or province in the colonial period. In 1824, Mexico created the state of Coahuila y Tejas and invited Americans to settle it since they couldn't populate the place themselves. Their hold over the region was virtually minimal with no army garrisons and SA being the only population center.

Doesn't matter. The white race is long gone.

The loss of California was also inevitable once the Gold Rush happened, war or no war. People would have streamed into the place by the thousands and Mexico had absolutely no way to stop them.

Bullshit. Texas had ~125,000 (non-Indian) people in it at the time of the Mexican-American War. California had like 10,000 non-Indians at that time.

They all went through Mexico, Veracruz-Mexico-City-Mazatlán-San Francisco, if the gold rush had hapenned while it was still Mexican territory Mexico would have made the call of who got to go. The alternative would have been a hellish trip through mostly Indian controlled territory with no certainty of how Mexicans would receive you, let alone f they would allow you to make any claims.

It's all worthless speculation but it cuts both ways.

You're right. Your statement is worthless speculation without a solid basis in geographical reality.

Actually that isn't true, the most common routes to California were over the Panama Isthmus and around South America.

Yes, 125,000 people in 1846, not when settlement started 20 years earlier.

It's all hostility man, no wit or humor left in you, man does your ass hurt

Those would both appear as unnecesarily long/dangerous routes, do you have sauce for that?

rude

mappingideas.sdsu.edu/CaliforniaAtlas/atlas/pages/26_gold_rush_routes.pdf

Some people went through Northern Mexico and New Mexico, but Panama and the ocean route around South America were the most commonly used ones. All of them were dangerous.

Las Malvinas son argentinas talking about being butthurt xD

The annexation of Texas to the US wasn't necessarily inevitable. Like Mexico, the US was a young country at the time and regional identities were stronger than national ones; most Texans were from the Southern US and did not strongly identify with the main basis of wealth and political power in the Northeast. At least in the beginning, they seemed willing to accept Mexican governance until they realized that Mexican governance is an oxymoron. Some others favored independence, even after the Texas Revolution, not everyone wanted to become part of the US, some people wanted to stay as an independent state.

Americans who'd visited Alta California knew that it had prime harbors and that Mexican control over the place was slight. The real concern was that one of the European powers, possibly Britain, would grab the place first.

It's kinda funny but while the Wikipedia article mentions the Mexican route it doesn't appear to give it much importance, can't tell if this is selective writing of history (the route is well attested on our history books) or of indeed the other routes were so widely used as you claim.

Maybe it wasn't political to cross Mexico in numbers or the expense was too high, but the road from veracruz to Mazatlán would have been as simple as riding a coach, peasants did travel all over by foot, in relatively safe lands and well worn roads with plenty of accomodation along the way, compare that to braving Cape Horn, nevermind the lenght of that journey, or a crossing lasting weeks through the Panamanian jungle on machete carved trails.

Either way the point stands Mexico had preferential access to California, so much so that the US later sought to acquire the mesilla in order to better acomodate the overland route.

Wasn't the main cause of the war the dispute over the Texas border?

we were supposed to get more land, but the diplomat the feds sent to mexico was a sympathetic pussy

And there were too many Mexicans in those lands, it isn't as clear cut as that. Those borders would have all but guaranteed a second war with Mexico

Sort of. The US Army moved into the disputed area after which Mexican troops followed. Both sides were eager to provoke a showdown. Mexican newspapers at the time were just as loud as American papers in calling for war and defending the national honor and all that bullshit, lest you think Mexico was simply the hapless victim of aggression.

>Those borders would have all but guaranteed a second war with Mexico
the borders we got kind of did too...
I cant imagine a smaller mexico would have attacked a larger usa, unless there was an armed revolt in the south

heh if we had gotten more of mexico, maybe the csa would have won...

Santa Anna also revoked the 1824 Mexican Constitution, this was another thing that drove the Texas settlers to revolt.

In fact, an initial gold discovery was made in 1841 by two Californios. However, the amount of gold found then was small and the Mexican authorities kept it mostly hush-hush because Mexico had inherited Spanish mercantilist policies which discouraged free and open trade with other nations, and in the aftermath of the Texas Revolution, they were loathe to encourage more settlers and possible separatist movements.

The 1849 Gold Rush was international news, there was no way in hell Mexico could have prevented a mass influx of Americans and other nationalities to California.

Im ready for the eventual war with separatists in the next couple decades. Fucking greedy politicians and their love of cheap labor

>Im ready for the eventual war with separatists in the next couple decades
Only a couple left wing CHI students at Berkeley care about Aztlan faggotry.

With large popular support from the population in those regions? The French set the second Mexican empire to the very purpose of counterbalancing the United States, they could have certainly managed more popular support of they had made it about restoring core regions, which that badly drawn map of yours cut into. So a revolt by locals, the French, Austrian and Belgian forces that fought in Mexico pus the Mexican forces that opposed them plus Napoleon III and his navy. And maybe all of this in the middle of your civil war.

You're making way too many asumptions about how things would have worked out, maybe Spain would have offered to restore the 1812 constitution and gotten Mexico back at a time when it was still capable of defeating the United States, maybe liberal redentists from Europe, the sort that unified italy under Garibaldi, could have attempted a revolution in North America. Maybe a deeply agrieved Mexico takes up the banner of reconquista and fights a guerrilla war allied with Indian tribes who get promised their own nation. Maybe rather than the CSA some hybrid of Mexican-American culture rises up against the US to fight slavery, etc.

They didn't know in the 19th century how things would turn out and the US wasn't a world power then but a frail young nation which could just as easily have balacanized if it had gotten too big. As things worked out Guadalupe-Hidalgo turned out to be stable borders but things could have turned out differently even in that scenario, what if the Zimmerman telegram had arrived not in the middle of the Mexican revolution but to a post-Porfirian state willing and able to ally with the Germans?

>taking land rightfully lost in a war is "thieving"
spics are insufferable

>As things worked out Guadalupe-Hidalgo turned out to be stable borders

In the long run, yes, but a huge portion of the Southwest was wild Indian country, it took many more decades for the US to populate and settle the place enough to admit them as states. So American control over the region at first was not a not more substantial than Mexican control had been.

Even California constituted a possible breakaway region for years (and Texas did break away in the Civil War by seceding), one reason for the Trans-Continental Railroad was to bind the distant West Coast to the main population centers of the US more closely.

Im sure they said something similar everywhere else you have large areas of one ethnicity in the majority. We were those people 200 years ago and Mexicans will want that land back.

I typed this pretty poorly. When you have areas that were taken from an ethnic group, and are at the present and in the future going to be almost identical to the country that land was taken from, old feelings will reignite and there will be war, or some push for repatriation of land.

My family came here from Guadalajara and I want nothing to do with Mexico, it's a fucking shithole that people leave for a reason.

>and the US wasn't a world power then but a frail young nation which could just as easily have balacanized if it had gotten too big
And it almost did in 1861.

It won't happen, a collapse of the US would be required for something like that to occur, and even in that scenario, Southwest US would rather become an independent nation than joining back Mexico.

>Southwest US would rather become an independent nation than joining back Mexico

Hell, Mexicans and CHIs actually rather detest each other and they form separate gangs in prison.

CHI

There's no apetite in Mexico to support anything like that and Mexico today is strictly pacifist. This is in fact one of the reasons there will never be a North American Union, to Mexicans accepting the burden of your foreign policy would be a non starter.

What you will have is an increasingly empowered latino minority who unlike the Chicano dumb fuck will retain enough ties to Latin America and Mexico specifically to push for peaceful relations. It's one thing Americans have never really appreciated about Mexico, we are not a threatening or hostile neighbour, at least not in geopolitic/military terms.

>What really happened was that Mexico couldn't defend their remote northern territories and those Texan settlers were getting hammered by Indian raids. In 1833, a Texan delegation traveled to Mexico City to protest, but quickly became frustrated with the slowness and inefficiency of the central government. A cholera epidemic hit the capital then and caused yet more delays. So in short, the Texans quickly realized that Mexico was a borderline failed state and they wanted the fuck out.

Mexico (and indeed most of Latin America) has been forever cursed with the legacy of the Spanish colonial system which was designed to enrich the grandees at the expense of most of the population being slaves. It wasn't a culture that lent itself to a middle class society forming as did the British colonies.

People leave Mexico due to economic reasons, not out of disgust for ones country. Your parents and you have pride in your country. Youd have to be a real self hater to think otherwise, thats why la raza and chicanoism is so popular, and cant be put aside as a non factor.

You dont think 5-6 states that were taken from you having rebellions/trying to secede would collapse the us? In every scenario the US would be fucked. Chicanoism could be branched out to include all latinos in the us, and with a large population from mexico itself youd have a soviet like amount of boots that can be mobalized and eventually outlast a US effort to put the rebellion down.

Today Mexico is pacifistic. Tomorrow it is opportunistic and ready to move ahead. And why accept foreign policy when by 2050 youll be 1/3rd of the country and most likely control a large piece of political positions. Bodies equal power.

>Even California constituted a possible breakaway region for years (and Texas did break away in the Civil War by seceding), one reason for the Trans-Continental Railroad was to bind the distant West Coast to the main population centers of the US more closely.

Today SoCal contains most of the state's wealth and population. Not so in the 1850s when the Gold Rush brought a horde of settlers to NorCal. The south didn't have gold in in and had a far smaller Anglo population, as well as most of the Californios. There were attempted secession movements in the early years of California statehood where SoCal tried to split off into a separate state.

>rightfully gained by conquest

t. Von Panzerflasche

Put down the bong and stop browsing Sup Forums, dude.

Oh no, it's one of these threads.

How about telling me how i'm wrong instead of making a no effort post. Also i'm not Sup Forums

>People leave Mexico due to economic reasons, not out of disgust for ones country. Your parents and you have pride in your country. Youd have to be a real self hater to think otherwise, thats why la raza and chicanoism is so popular, and cant be put aside as a non factor.
I love how white campus lefties from Tumblr claim to speak for me.

I'm not a leftist dude. I'm a son of immigrant parents who left a shithole just like you, and I dont speak bad about it

>we won the war fair and square

This is true though. Even if you argue that Texas belonged rightfully to Mexico and we took it from them, they decided to fight us for it and lost. Badly.

t. you're entitled to fight if you think you've been wrong, but don't complain about the results afterward

It's kind of like how 90% of feminists are rich daddy issues women who've never been "oppressed" in their life.

>You dont think 5-6 states that were taken from you having rebellions/trying to secede would collapse the us? In every scenario the US would be fucked

We had 11 states try to secede once. That was taken care of nicely. Five to six would be trivial.

No man, you're reading too far into it, Mexicans care about improving life standards and that's it. In 2050 Mexico will be the world's 5th or 6th largest economy and we'll be pushing the exact same agenda the EU does today except solely through soft power.

Why risk our neutrality? No one outside the continent will ever attack us on just you people will never allow something like Russia's or China's military parked across your border and there's no one else in the continent aside from you that's strong enough to threaten us, Canada or Brazil will never have the resources to occupy Mexico.

Yoyur country's interventionism has shaped our nation to oppose precissely that, as long as the United States remains the world's foremost power we will likely remain commited to peace, That's not going to change within our lifetime.

Catholic work ethic

Not our fault that you have no knowledge of basic geography.

>and at least twice the number of men available to fight

Actually no. The US Army reached a peak strength during the war of 78,500 men (although we never actually had more than 10,000 on the field of battle). Mexico could muster at most 40,000 men. A large part of the country was in rebellion against the central government and/or refused to fight for it.

There was not a huge amount of resistance to the US Army by the civilian population, during the occupation of Mexico City it was noted that Americans paid for things with cash while most Mexican soldiers had no money at all and had to rely on barter. In northern Mexico, Zachary Taylor's army was welcomed by the locals in the hope that we'd better protect them from Indian raids than their own country was capable of doing.

Your army invaded a country which had just won its independence a few years back, impoverished, institutionally weak, and politically divided, there was no other possible outcome.

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory." Ulysses S. Grant

"the fuck out" implies getting out of mexico, not taking the land with out. they were foreigners allowed to immigrants. you can just declare independence when you are not part of the state.

>Your army invaded a country which had just won its independence a few years back, impoverished, institutionally weak, and politically divided, there was no other possible outcome.

Yes well, your ruling class were out for a fight. They should have known better than to go to war with a country that had over twice the population (20 million Americans in 1846 versus 8 million Mexicans), didn't have multiple separatist movements going on, and which was capable of supplying its own military gear instead of buying Europe's hand-me-down junk.

Mexicans in the southwest that fought with the Americans were treated like shit and sometimes even deported to the country they fought against

>and at least twice the number of men available to fight.
>How do you possibly fuck up that bad.
Mexico was bankrupt and politically divided

>What does Sup Forums know about the Mexican War?
it caused the Civil War.

Grant was a known Mexiboo and years later at the end of the Civil War wanted to help Juarez drive out the French. The truth is, a lot of Americans were not in favor of the war, but almost every war we've fought had people who opposed it, even the American Revolution. If Gallup polls had existed in 1776, probably 60% of Americans would have preferring staying a British colony.

Of course plenty of Mexicans didn't want to fight the war either as evinced by the multiple separatist movements. When Valentin Gomez Farias took over as president, he attempted to negotiate with the United States but was quickly denounced as a traitor and overthrown. This resulted in Santa Anna returning to power and massively blundering the war, thus leading to the US Army taking Mexico City.

iir Lincoln was heavily targeted during his presidential campaign for not supporting the war, right?

It could have been all avoided since as I said, Mexico had lost Texas and wouldn't accept reality. James Polk also offered to purchase California but they wouldn't take his offer either even though they had to have known that California would have been lost as well in a few more years.

No it wasn't an issue at all in 1860, we had much bigger concerns then.

but why would they accept? it's hardly the mexican governments fault for not wanting to sell their land

then was it when he was still in illinois?

>it's hardly the mexican governments fault for not wanting to sell their land

As I said, control over anything north of the Rio Grande was virtually nil, the locals were in a state of rebellion (this applies to the populated areas like California) and as soon as the Gold Rush happened, forget about it. American settlers would have swarmed California and probably one of the European powers make a grab for the place (it did after all have excellent natural harbors).

So Mexico should have been smart enough to know that there was no realistic chance of holding onto California and Texas, but they not only didn't want to acknowledge this, they were eager to fight us for it. They did and they lost. The end.

There were rumors that Britain was either planning to take California for themselves or else Mexico might sell it off to them instead of the US. The European powers were definitely keeping their eye on Western North America at this time and contemplating what they could potentially do there.

>So Mexico should have been smart enough to know that there was no realistic chance of holding onto California and Texas

The USSR should have been smart enough to know there there was no realistic chance of holding onto Afghanistan.
France should have been smart enough to know there was no realistic chance of holding onto Algeria.
Portugal should have been smart enough to know there was no realistic chance of holding onto Angola
Great Britain should have been smart enough to know there was no realistic chance of holding onto the 13 colonies.

what exactly is your point? that a country should just give up it's land because forces are working to take them away?

I think what is frustrating for us on these historical discussions is dealing with this sense of inevitability, it's like you people still believe in manifest destiny. Granting you were correct for argument's sake California would have been susceptible to a big push by the Federal government eg stationing troops to fight the Indian wars with acompanying troop of merchants, prostitutes, etc. The territory was sparsely populated enough that would have a had a huge impact, especially since it was culturally Mexican already. 20-30,000 troops for something like a decade to later be for the most part dispersed in the territory would have done it and these would have been resources easily available to Mexico had it not been fighting the Texas insurrection.

The one big mistake Mexico made was allowing American settlers and not seeing through what are in hindsight dangerous associations between them and US politicians, specifically Samuel Houston.

I've made this point several times, seccesion is treason, Texians never made an atempt to fight Mexico City like loyal Mexicans seeking the support of their countrymen, they didn't love the nation they swore allegiance to nor its people. That men of the same generation did not allow the CSA to secede shows they did hold loyalty as a value and they did believe in a country's right to put down rebels despite their owbn claims to self determination. It's a double standard.

People who defend the values and principles of the Texian rebels have no business demanding loyalty to their nation from legal migrants or opposing separatist movements

wealthy Californios(Mexicans in California were actually of a mind to join with the U.S. after rebelling against mexico, just as Texas did.
but during the Bear Flag rebellion many of them were arrested by American settlers and their lands were taken during the gold rush years

>The Mexican army also had shitty equipment, huge shortages of ammunition and powder, and illiterate Indian conscripts who couldn't understand orders given to them by Spanish-speaking officers

Some of the Mexican generals were very good actually but the men and equipment they had to work with were trash-tier Accounts of the war report that a lot of their cartridges and artillery shells were defective and didn't work when fired.

The last surviving American veteran of the war died in 1928 at the age of 98; he had joined the Navy as a teenager. Mexico's record-keeping was shit so nobody knows when their last veteran died.

The one big mistake Mexico made was allowing Santa Anna back into the country after being exiled

If i had a time machine id shoot him in the face, Goddamn idiot had the fucking audacity to call himself the "Napoleon of the West"

>The one big mistake Mexico made was allowing American settlers and not seeing through what are in hindsight dangerous associations between them and US politicians, specifically Samuel Houston

>but during the Bear Flag rebellion many of them were arrested by American settlers and their lands were taken during the gold rush years

I covered that in Some of SoCal's population also favored the Confederacy during the Civil War, but geographical distance made sure that joining with them was impossible. Pio Pico, the last governor of Alta California, had never accepted American governance, he preferred that Britain take California instead.

>I've made this point several times, seccesion is treason, Texians never made an atempt to fight Mexico City like loyal Mexicans seeking the support of their countrymen, they didn't love the nation they swore allegiance to nor its people. That men of the same generation did not allow the CSA to secede shows they did hold loyalty as a value and they did believe in a country's right to put down rebels despite their owbn claims to self determination. It's a double standard.

There isn't a double standard though, you didn't have the ability to prevent half your territory from seceding, we did. The winner writes the history books.

That I'll grant was also a big mistake. No Mexican should have ever afforded him the privilege of life after he allowed himself to be captured alive.

Santa Anns was a shit tactician, he should have never even been in Texas in the first place but allow his much more capable subordinates to handle Texas. That man was to a large extent singlehandedly the ruin of the nation, he spent lavishly on a lifestyle befiting a European monarch but could not effectively manage neither the country nor the armed forces.

it's fucking shameful, they were literally fighting to become Americans, but were imprisoned by men from the country they wanted to join.

And FWIW, the US government wavered on annexing Texas for years because it would add another slave state to the Union. In the end, the concern over some European power gaining a foothold in Texas was what spurred annexation of it. If we didn't go for it, Britain or France might get there first.