Lessons from the Mexican-American war.

National Review ^ | Jul 6, 2006 | William Hawkins

[A. Pole]

From 1824 to 1830, promises of cheap land and tax breaks attracted Americans to settle in Texas on the condition they become Catholic and swear allegiance to Mexico. But the number of American colonists eventually began to alarm the Mexican government, which in 1830 prohibited future immigration and tried to coax its own people to move north. Still, illegal American farmers, ranchers, and merchants kept coming.

Open borders bump

[GregB]

Open border over my dead body!!!

[jocon307]

"The name of the University of Tennessee's athletic teams –"The Volunteers" – is linked to this episode."

Very interesting, I'd always wondered where that nickname came from. Thanks for posting this and enlightening me. The rest of the article is very interesting too. I think the Mexican-American war is not properly understood. At least not here in Yankee-land where I live.

[Incorrigible]

I have to admit I was fairly ignorant of the war with Mexico and the Independence of Texas until only recently. With that new understanding, I have to admit that the illegal border crossing does indeed look like an invasion sponsored by the Mexican government and not a benign work program.

[Incorrigible]

I agree Jocon! I didn't learn anything about it in Horace Mann School!

[Chi-townChief]

We should have annexed all of Mexico along with Cuba in the later Spanish-American War.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Annexing Mexico would have made all Mexicans Americans. Imagine what a voter base the Democrats would have!

"Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad."

[Chi-townChief]

With a lot of manufacturing and retirees moving down Mexico way, they just might have surprised you and became sun-belt "red states" but I guess we'll never know.

[B-Chan]

JAMES K. POLK
(Flansburgh/Linnell)

In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the vote was cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

[ops33]

My great-great-great-great grandfather served in the Mexican-American War. He was a private in Company F, 1st Regiment of South Carolina Volunteers. His service records I obtained from the National Archives make very interesting reading. In 1996 I discovered he was buried without a headstone. With copies of his service records I was able to get the VA to place a veteran's headstone on his grave.

[Owen]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/games/border-patrol.html

[VOA]

I think the Mexican-American war is not properly understood.

Agreed.
I was suprised how good the series was that PBS did on The Mexican-American war.

Until I saw it, I didn't know that Mexico City was taken by less than 10,000
US troops coming up THE SAME ROAD from Veracruz that Cortez had also taken.

How embarassing...defeated by small armies coming up the same road.
About the only exuse is that after 300 years, the gradees of
Mexico City had forgotten about that Cortez guy.

I was suprised that some Mexican or illegal-immigrant rights group
didn't get that PBS production squelched. Or outright turn it into
a lesson into historical revision.

[Uncle Hal]

Very good post. Thanks.

[Strategerist]

Individual Mexican troops fought well and bravely, and there really wasn't any sort of obvious technical advantage to American weapons - the leadership of Santa Anna was simply atrocious. Though the Mexicans can look themselves in the mirror for who is at fault in putting him in power over and over again.

Other interesting thing about the War is the Europeans expected the Mexicans to win. When Scott cut off his supply lines and dove to Mexico City, Wellington said "Scott is lost."

[Strategerist]

The rest of the article is very interesting too. I think the Mexican-American war is not properly understood. At least not here in Yankee-land where I live.

War of 1812 is the same way.

Basically, the War of 1812 was a US attempt to conquer Canada, which failed rather miserably. This isn't covered in school. The fighting along the Canadian border tends to be completely and utterly ignored - and that's where the vast majority of the war was fought.

The whole impressment of sailors thing was a cover. Virtually all the sailors being impressed were from New England, yet New England congressmen voted against the war (and later even threatened to secede in protest) while the war got its support from the South and West in districts where there were few or no sailors - they saw the war as an opportunity to take Canada while the British were occupied with fighting Napoleon.

[VOA]

Individual Mexican troops fought well and bravely, and there really wasn't
any sort of obvious technical advantage to American weapons - the leadership
of Santa Anna was simply atrocious.

Good amplification.
I wasn't trying to disparage the Mexican trooper.
The PBS show did highlight the infighting of the leaders of Mexico
(and between the Mexican generals) that spelled defeat.

IIRC, commentary from a Mexican artillery officer was read about how
his begging for artillery to be put on hill near a choke-point was
ignored. (I think US troops was able to take it the hill before the Mexican
officers realized their stupidity)

Yeah, the small US army had one great ally...corruption and
politics on the other side.

[norton]

Great post - lots of nuggets

[RoadTest]

I don't know about anybody else, but I need these history lessons. Thanks much.

[Clintonfatigued]

I'll bet that the textbooks in Mexico don't mention that even after achieving a total victory over in the war, the United States agreed to pay the Mexican government a huge amount of money to compensate for the costs of war, and also that the occupation of Mexico was very brief. In fact, the United States withdrew all of its troops from Mexico within a few years and didn't interfere with its domestic politics.

How many other conquering nations have treated a defeated enemy in such a way?