Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Los Angeles, Go Fix Mexico
Think and Ask ^ | March 2006 | Jeffrey Allen Miller

Posted on 03/26/2006 4:39:05 PM PST by John Filson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-150 last
To: Pa' fuera
So where'd the Aztecs come from?

Some would say "Hell", but that's another issue.

141 posted on 03/28/2006 5:15:04 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Your "historical American claims" can be reduced to the royal charter of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, that included lands that were part of the French and Spanish Colonial Empires (they included St. Agustine and Santa Fe), and that neither the Carolinas nor Georgia settled until the 19th

Indeed, Mexico is not Spain, but it's independent New Spain, just like USA is not England but the independent 13 colonies

Even in the case that the claims were valid, they were relinquished in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the borders of the United States are fixed in the Mississipi. Article 2

After the American Revolution, it was accepted that the land claims would only involve the lands between the Appalachia and the Mississipi River here

when Mexico was created as a nation state and demanded the cession of lands and wealth on the part of Spain

New Spain was recognized as an Independent country in the Treaty of Cordoba in 1821, they changed their name afterwards to the "Mexican Empire". The colony of New Spain included the Northern Provinces of Alta California, Tejas y Nuevo Mexico and the Spanish Governors of those provinces pledged allegiance to the new governement, to think that there was no continuity between New Spain and Mexico is just foolish

Treaty of Cordoba

142 posted on 03/28/2006 10:09:59 AM PST by waiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

Viva la Reconquista!! (Uber Puker)


143 posted on 03/28/2006 10:20:43 AM PST by samcgwire ("I voted for President 'Better Than Kerry'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waiver
Again, the misrepresentation of the Treaty of Paris. The United States was not "recognized" ~ rather, each of the 13 colonies was recognized INDEPENDENTLY.

Makes a big difference when you try to compare their situation to that of Mexico, and Mexico was not exactly "New Spain" ~ whole buncha' places fall under that name, and they all obtained independence at different times.

None of the former colonies, once it was recognized as an independent state, was required to respect ANY of the deals that may or may not have been agreed to by the Brits.

144 posted on 03/28/2006 11:35:58 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: waiver

Use of the Misssissippi was under Spanish control. Don't read more into that than is really there.


145 posted on 03/28/2006 11:37:49 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

he Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,

Mexico is not exactly New Spain, but the "Mexican Empire had the same territory, before Central America got independent in 1824

I'm just pointing out that:

1.- Independent New Spain got renamed to Mexico, and they had possesion de facto and de jure of Alta California, Tejas and Nuevo Mejico

2.- Even if USA had a valid claim to California , something that only you seem to believe, they never used it, instead they tried to buy the land from Mexico from 1824 to 1845, accepting de facto that Mexico was the rightful owner, and when the war started in 1846, they used a latter claim of Texas

146 posted on 03/28/2006 12:07:11 PM PST by waiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: waiver
Good idea to check out who the Presidente of Mexico was when the buyout was tried.

Look, whether or not the US needed to use pre-existing sea to sea claims to justify acquiring California, it does not follow that a failure to assert such claims meant they didn't exist. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, as independent nation states, certainly acquired all rights they might have had previously with the Treaty of Paris.

You have to read it carefully ~ where it says UNITED STATES, that refers to a country that went out of existence upon the signining and ratification of the Treaty of Paris. It was resurrected with the Articles of Confederation.

Even as negotiations were underway the Buel family was preparing to betray Spanish interests to all of Florida.

147 posted on 03/28/2006 12:12:04 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero

I agree with you, when I said come here, I meant come here legally.


148 posted on 03/28/2006 3:53:33 PM PST by RedwM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
As far as I know the buyout was tried by Monroe, Jackson and Polk

The claims didn't exist because even USA acted as if they were not valid, and even if the southern states had claims from sea to sea before the Treaty of Paris, they renounced to them in that Treaty, which fixed the borders

Article 2:

And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands...

After that, the states would limit their claims to the Mississipi River, and that was the land they surrendered to the Federal Governement.

149 posted on 03/29/2006 4:36:08 AM PST by waiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: waiver
No ~ North Carolina, for example, did not become the United States at that time.

The treaty was a scam, cleverly negotiated by Ben Franklin to screw the Europeans, which, of course, it ultimately did.

Mexico didn't sign the treaty.

150 posted on 03/29/2006 4:42:29 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-150 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson