Posted on 05/02/2006 3:48:34 PM PDT by persephone35
The Aftermath of War Vast New Territories by Robert W. Johannsen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
What did the Mexican War mean to Americans in the mid-19th century? The answer reflects the nature and character of mid-century America itself. Americans were reaching out beyond their border. Advancements in transportation and communications technologies were dissolving the nation's geographic and cultural isolation. Commerce expanded and travel increased as interest in exploration carried Americans around the globe. The war was a "window" through which Americans saw a strange and exotic land of alien manners, customs, and attitudes. Many were convinced that America would never be the same.
Some observations of the war were more pragmatic. The "Democratic Review" noted that the war's end meant the "reduction of our enormous expenses by the withdrawal of the army, and the cessation with it of the excessive jobbing which has been so long going on" (May 1848). After the treaty was ratified, some critics of the war acquiesced, that the war had shown "that a people devoted to the arts of peace, possessing free political institutions, can vanquish a military people, governed by military despots" ("Merchant's Magazine," April 1848).
Some critics predicted that the "impenetrable mountains and dry narrow valleys" of California and the "trackless, treeless and utterly uninhabitable" New Mexico would prove useless, threatening the nation's frontier settlements and draining the national treasury. Some believed that Mexico rid itself of worthless land and received $15 million from the U.S. for the sacrifice.
Vast new territories had been incorporated as part of the United States. On July 4, 1848, the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo by the Mexican Congress arrived at the White House. That same day the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was dedicated.
Robert C. Winthrop, Congressman from Massachusetts and Speaker of the House of Representatives, delivered the dedication oration. The occasion, he noted, marked "the precise epoch at which we have arrived in the world's history and in our own history." A war against a foreign foe had been won, and he paid tribute to the "veterans of the line and the volunteers." The "great American-built locomotive, 'Liberty'" moved "on the track of human freedom, unimpeded and unimpaired; gathering strength as it goes; developing new energies to meet new exigencies," with a swiftness that "knows no parallel." By the end of the day, the dedication of the monument became even more symbolic that anyone had expected. "This great anniversary," declared on citizen, "has never come in, with more of enjoyment to be thankful for, and more of promise to cheer and encourage us."
Never before had American independence been "more joyfully commemorated." The accomplishments of "our brave and magnanimous army in Mexico" recalled the struggles of the Revolution of Independence and the leader of that revolution now stood forth as the "founder of an empire" which would soon eclipse anything that the "world has heretofore produced."
...and they still do. I vacationed in Northern AZ last year and it sure was apparent that the Native Americans pretty much ran the show.
No problem with that, other than the inability to have a beer for three days.
Thank you for expounding the historical facts. Any authors you recommend on this topic?
This is fascinating but not very useful to refute the argument of the illiterate invaders among us. More useful would be research into what the newspapers and government of Mexico were saying at the time, both privately and publicly.
I won't hold my breath, since I suspect that the only existing legitimate government in Mexico which could legitimize the final settlement of the war were laughing all the way to the bank...
Analyzing an event 150 years old by today's Political Correctness is naive at best, fraudulent at worst.
So... no, it's not really their land.
They can only understand force; the force of numbers, in their case. I would caution them to not push it.
So was it annexed after winning a war, or was it bought?.
If we gave it back , we would see Tijuana-like enclaves replacing all the major southwest cities. AND we would have to deal with "immigrants " sneaking into Des Moines
"Si usted desea leer este mensaje en inglés, aprieta uno."
Let me get this straight: Leerin' at who?
One author that is probably not an historical author is Larry McMurtry, not only will you have fun reading him you will gain a little insight into the real history of the west. Other authors that are historical slip my mind right now but will look them up and get back to you!
Yea, that's a drawback.. and what the hell do we do with the socialist Americans immigrating from Mexifornia? We surely don't need them to pollute the Interior red states.
Yep, the only course is to drive the invaders out.
The Azrecs did severely oppress their neighbors, especially the Toltecs and Texcocos, against whom they waged wars for the taking of captives by the tens of thousands to be sacrificed to Huitzilopoctli and other demon gods.
In fact, that's how Hernando Cortes defeated the Aztec Empire: with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Toltecs and Texcocos.
There, fixed.
If you get out a map and look even half heartedly, you will see that most of Arizona is soverign Indian land.
Extremely large sections of Arizona will hve to be taken from the Indians if they want to Mexicanize it.
The solution is to invade and recapture all of Mexico. Winfield Scott and Robert E Lee did it once in the 1840's and we should send Tommy Franks to do it again.
We can then sort it all out with Mexico as a territory.
"So was it annexed after winning a war, or was it bought?"
Quein sabe?
Oh wait, that's Tonto's line.
Well, it sure wasn't "Kemo sabe". Our Indians spoke better Spanish than that.
Answer to question: We won it in a war, and we then paid for it. It's ours.
I think right now we need to find a few politicians with enough gonads to say that directly to Fox.
Considering there were only 4000 Mexicans living in ALL of California at the time, defense was not much of an option.
The natives from the Shoshone-Bannock reservation can't have alcohol on the reservation, so they come into Pocatello and Chubbuck to get drunk. Nothing like a whoopin', hollerin', spittin' nasty native in the back seat of a squad car. They put spit hoods on them because they are given to spitting on police officers...drunk or not. The natives tend to forget that they need a valid driver's license when driving off the reservation. Cars have to be registered and insured too. You don't want to be on Yellowstone avenue between the bars and the reservation at closing time. You're likely to be run down by a drunk native speeding to the reservation with the headlights off. Lots of fun.
Actually you are wrong. We invaded and captured all of Mexico and allowed it to return to Mexican soverignty minus the states under discussion.
They have a precedent of keeping land they can't defend. President James K Polk set it.
Читать
*Snicker*
Too late. Happening yesterday, today and tomorrow too.
The American army drove the Mexican army all the way to Mexico City. The Mexican government in exile negotiated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo establishing the current boundaries of the United States southwest. We paid them $15 million compensation for damage to Mexican property. We didn't annex it. It was ceded in a legal, binding treaty with both governments.
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.