|
Posted on 08/11/2004 10:39:29 PM PDT by SAMWolf
|
|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support. The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer. If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions. We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.
|
|
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.  As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence. At the time of the war, Mexico had a highly unstable government. The federal constitution of 1824 had been abrogated in 1835 and replaced by a centralized dictatorship. Two diametrically opposed factions had arisen: the Federalists, who supported a constitutional democracy; and the Centralists, who supported an autocratic government under a monarch or dictator. Various clashing parties of Centralists were in control of the government from 1835 to December 1844. During that time numerous rebellions and insurgencies occurred within Mexican territory, including the temporary disaffection of California and the Texas Revolution, which resulted in the independence (1836) of Texas.  Jose Joaquin Herrera In December 1844 a coalition of moderates and Federalists forced the dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna into exile and installed Jose Joaquin Herrera as acting president of Mexico. The victory was a short-lived, uneasy one. Although Santa Anna himself was in Cuba, other Centralists began planning the overthrow of Herrera, and the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845 provided them with a jingoistic cause.  James K. Polk The U.S. annexation of Texas, by a joint congressional resolution (Feb. 27-28, 1845), had caused considerable political debate in the United States. The desire of the Texas Republic to join the United States had been blocked for several years by antislavery forces, who feared that several new slave states would be created from the Texas territory. The principal factor that led the administration of John Tyler to take action was British interest in independent Texas. Indeed, anti-British feeling lay behind most of the expansionist policy statements of the United States in this period. James Polk won the 1844 presidential election by advocating a belligerent stand against Britain on the Oregon Question. Once in office he declared that "the people of this continent alone have the right to decide their own destiny." About the same time the term Manifest Destiny came into vogue to describe what was regarded as a God-given right to expand U.S. territory. The term was applied particularly to the Oregon dispute, but it had relevance also to California, where American settlers warned of British intrigues to take control, and to Texas. As early as August 1843, Santa Anna's government had informed the United States that it would "consider equivalent to a declaration of war . . . the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas." The government of Herrera did not take this militant position. It had already initiated steps, encouraged by the British, to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, and although Santa Anna's lame-duck minister in Washington broke diplomatic relations with the U.S. government immediately after annexation, in August 1845 the Herrera government indicated willingness to resume relations. Not only was the Herrera government prepared to accept the loss of Texas, but it also hoped to lay to rest the claims question that had plagued U.S.-Mexican affairs since 1825. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on interminably.  Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna Fearing that American patience was running short, Herrera seemed determined to settle the issue. He requested that the United States send a minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, and President Polk appointed John Slidell. Slidell's authority, however, may have exceeded Herrera's intentions. Slidell was authorized to purchase California and New Mexico from Mexico and to settle the Texas boundary, which was a source of dispute even with the Mexican moderates. While the Republic of Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as its boundary, the adjacent Mexican state of Tamaulipas claimed the area north of the Rio Grande to the Nueces River.  John Slidell By the time Slidell arrived in Mexico in December 1845, the Herrera government was under intense fire from the Centralists for its moderate foreign policies. The Centralist strategy was to appeal to Mexican national pride as a means of ousting Herrera. During August 1845 their leader, Mariano Parades y Arrillaga, began to demand an attack on the United States. When Slidell arrived, Herrera, in an effort to save his government, refused to meet with him. A few days later (December 14), Parades issued a revolutionary manifesto; he entered Mexico City at the head of an army on Jan. 2, 1846. Herrera fled, and Parades, who assumed the presidency on January 4, ordered Slidell out of Mexico.  Cavalry soldier and Infantry Lieutenant, US Army Regulars, 1847. Courtesy of the US Army Center for Military History After the failure of the Slidell mission, Polk ordered Zachary Taylor to move his army to the mouth of the Rio Grande and to prepare to defend Texas from invasion. Taylor did so, arriving at the Rio Grande on Mar. 28, 1846. Abolitionists in the United States, who had opposed the annexation of Texas as a slave state, claimed that the move to the Rio Grande was a hostile and aggressive act by Polk to provoke a war with Mexico to add new slave territory to the United States.  Mariano Parades y Arrillaga Whatever Polk's precise intentions were, for the Centralists in Mexico the annexation of Texas had been sufficient cause for war; they saw no disputed boundary--Mexico owned all of Texas. Before Taylor had moved to the Rio Grande, Parades had begun mobilizing troops and had reiterated his intention of attacking. On April 4 the new dictator of Mexico ordered the attack on Taylor. When his commander at Matamoros delayed, Parades replaced him, issued a declaration of war (April 23), and reordered the attack.
|
"The problem is those men over there never quite seem to be the enemy."
Longstreet to Lee on the morning of day 2 of Gettysburg
From the "Killer Angels"
I've watched the movie and read the book so many times I've got blocks of dialogue memorized.
It is an archive of motivational posters from WWII including one featuring a General Patton quote to the effect it is the highest calling to fight in defense of your country.
He recalls the late sixties loading a ship with ordnance for Vietnam over the course of six days, being especially careful with 500 lb. bombs.
Between the ship and the bar were "VW bugs full of hippies" who had every delusory account of "napalming lines of uniformed schoolchildren".
The "aid and comfort" given our enemy then and now by the lying likes of the Cambodian Shambo Jean-Fraud Commie remains an account to be settled.
The Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo featured in our 1998 3d District contest. Specially elected Congressman Redmond (VRWC member who voted for all four articles in December 1998) advocated revisiting the treaty's original beneficiaries since divested of holdings guaranteed therein.
The current infiltration by Mexican special ops pushing ice cream wagons with tinkling bells casts an uneasy shadow on the sesquicentennial of the peace.
"I suppose I shall not have time or opportunity to write to you again before we have met the enemy . . . I am sensible that I am going surrounded by dangers of all kinds, but I am going in the discharge of my duties, and God . . . will protect me, and if I fall it will be by His Will. . . ."—February 12, 1847
The Khmer Rouge used these weapons against the ill-fated Kerry Kambodian Kaper of Christmas Eve 1968.
On the other bank of the MeKohn the Vietnamese answered back with kazoos and recorded hamster cries played at high decibels.
Thanks for the quote Valin.
LOL. It's great!
Indeed.
I'm afraid I've got some bad news.
AL SADR WOUNDED IN NAJAF
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1147472,00.html
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al Sadr has been wounded in fighting in Najaf, according to reports.
Earlier it was reported American forces stormed the home of the radical Shi'ite cleric.
Well maybe bad isn't quite the word I'm looking for, let's try happy..good joyous..yippee..goody goody gumdrops, might be closer to what I really mean.
And I wish they'd stop calling him a "cleric" he's NOT. What he is is a snot nosed little punk with delusions of adequacy.
He looks...concerned...I would be to.
Good night all.
Thanks Valin. I'm gonna have to try and catch it.
I only read the book once but have seen the movie at least a dozen times. IMHO, best Civil War movie ever made.
Evening Phil Dragoo.
Thanks for finding the picture of "Old Sacramento"
Looks like some more books to add to my reading list.
Patton would have despised a man like Kerry and slapped the crap out of him, but then there would have been nothing left of Kerry.
Shi'ites have already expressed anger at the major US-led assault.
They have warned that the violence could spread to other parts of the country and damage the entire political process in Iraq.
Yeah, yeah! The "Arab Street" will rise in anger, yada, yada, yada.
WHAM BAM SLAP SOCK POW
Thud.
[Kerry out for the count with x's in his eyes.]
Imo, he's not "wounded" enough. ;-)
I'd pay money to see that.
On Pay-Per-View it would replace FReepathons forever.
BTTT!!!!!!
Morning Matt. Poland stopped the Islamic invasion once before, glad to have you along this time.
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.
