[muawiyah]

Interesting way to rewrite the history of Mexico. First, let's get this real clear ~ ALL the Eastern Seaboard English colonies had Sea to Sea landclaims going at the time of the American Revolution. These were ceded to the United States at the time of it's formation under the Articles of Confederation.

It's only because Spain was an ally that the US did not press it's Western land claims. However, after the Mexicans rose up against Spanish rule, all bets were off.

Texas' claim to half it's own territory was questionable in light of earlier claims to the same territory by Georgia and South Carolina anyway.

Claims that the USA simply "took" or "stole" Mexican land are too simple and do not account for all the competing claims. Even the argument that Mexico was the legitimate successor state to Spain (in the territory ascribed to Mexico) is suspect inasmuch as it would be as easy to argue that Florida was the legitimate successor state to Spain for the same territory.

Then there's the Northern border ~ the deportees from Acadia in Louisiana certainly are due some consideration, and possibly the return of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Niagara district in Ontario, and other chunks of various other Canadian provinces.

And what about the Portuguese colony in Labrador and Newfoundland? Certainly they have primacy over other claimants.

I'm waiting patiently for mine before I'll consider yours, eh?!

[FederalistVet]

"First, let's get this real clear ~ ALL the Eastern Seaboard English colonies had Sea to Sea land claims going at the time of the American Revolution. These were ceded to the United States at the time of it's formation under the Articles of Confederation."

Several problems. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. At the time the English government illicitly granted sea to sea rights Spain already claimed a lot of the territory and had explored much of the Southern United States. (Where do you think the English got their maps?) Second, some of those sea to sea titles conflicted with each other. Third, the British government possessed the Ohio river valley after the American Revolution so the sea to sea claim was negated by that as well. (Pittsburgh is the site of the French fort where Lt. George Washington and the regiments he led were captured twice during the French and Indian war.)

"It's only because Spain was an ally that the US did not press it's Western land claims. However, after the Mexicans rose up against Spanish rule, all bets were off."

Two problems. The United States did not have legal Western land claims. The Spanish Western land claims existed before the English colonies even existed and before the United States came into existence. Second, have you ever heard of the Spanish-American War and the War with Mexico?

"Texas' claim to half it's own territory was questionable in light of earlier claims to the same territory by Georgia and South Carolina anyway."

Spain's claims and exploration came first. The Spanish missions existed in Texas before the English set foot in the New World, and the International Court of the time had already ruled in favor of Spain.

"Claims that the USA simply "took" or "stole" Mexican land are too simple and do not account for all the competing claims. Even the argument that Mexico was the legitimate successor state to Spain (in the territory ascribed to Mexico) is suspect inasmuch as it would be as easy to argue that Florida was the legitimate successor state to Spain for the same territory."

Except that it was in Mexico's possession.

I'll ignore the rest of your argument for now.

[Travis McGee]

Not to mention that if we are going to go back beyond the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and other signed agreements between both parties where Mexico was PAID for the land, then we must say that Spain and then Mexico never "owned" the land, since they therefore had stolen it outright (no treaty, no payment) from the various Indian peoples.