How the fuck did the first Mexican Empire lose so much territory, were they fucking asleep or what?

How the fuck did the first Mexican Empire lose so much territory, were they fucking asleep or what?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siesta#Cardiovascular_benefits
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Empire

Probably because the northern territories were unpopulated as fuck and Mexico didn't have manpower or resources to hold onto them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War

>were they fucking asleep or what?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siesta#Cardiovascular_benefits

This, and also the mexican government was plagued by infighting between various factions since day one of its independence and the wars with Texas and the US only made it worse.

Big unpopulated "states" full of either savage natives or anglo scum, Mexico fucked his main industry (silver mining) during their independence war, was bankrupt, poor and barely a nation for 10 or 20 years, first Texas, then Yucatan, then Cali and finally everything else, it was quite a feat to remain as they are now.

because it was only "their" territory because they claimed it from Spain who claim it because why not. In reality they were never able to control it and often had their asses handed to them by western indians. Apaches were roaming deep into (current) Mexican territory raiding villages by the time of the Mexican-American war.

To partly counter this the Spanish and later Mexicans thought it would be a good idea to invite Anglo-Americans into their northern territories to tame the land. Of course this only resulted in them taking it over, seceding, and joining the US.

if I recall correctly, Texas and California were empty as fuck, but New Mexico was actually decently populated, the only lost territory that actually felt like a loss Mexican territory.

si, siesta.

Burqueno here, can confirm. There's still a shit ton of Colonial Spanish/Mexican influence, on everything from buildings, to street names, to food.

bc of native peoples and anglomerican cannibals:

...

...

Wasn´t Central america part of the empire?

diff viceroyalty
serio guey

that was the first Mexican empire, op is showing the first Mexican republic I believe

"claimed" territory is not necessarily held territory

the mexicans never established any significant presence outside a few scattered missions anywhere in territories now owned by the US

because mexicans are worthless and they never decided to expand and actually take all that great land up north. they only really owned it on paper

and virtually all of it was legitimately sold to the united states

>but New Mexico was actually decently populated
Only Santa Fe really. It was still massively unpopulated. Iirc, there wasn't even a 500,000 people between all of the modern American West, California and Sonora. We still are unpopulated as fuck desu.

Burque was tiny as fuck until the 20th century. US defense contracting kicked it into gear between the 20's and 40's.

Well, when it comes to the Texas Revolution, General Santa Anna literally was asleep before being captured.

Mexico was too big, if more had split off, they might've been able to centralize stably (imo). Also throwing out constitutions with every new administration really never gave the government a decent foundation.

Spain was what kept the viceroyalty united.After the independence,everyone wanted to go their own way,and multiple rebellions happened simultaniously both in the South and in Texas and California

The first mexican empire eneded in 1823, long before the independence of texas and the American-mexcian war.

To make a fair point, Santa Anna didn't had a professional army which could sustain battles without sleep. Still one of the most impressive generals the world has come to see.

Why did the cities, locations, and road names continue to have spanish names after the US took over?

Sorry I meant why were they labeled with spanish names (I'm assuming half the locTions with spanish names for eg in California didn't exist if the place was so depopulated when the Mexicans owned it)

What are you gonna do- change it? The U.S. never genocided Mexicans

A lot founders of the towns (most of whom were founded well after the Mexican Cession) were hispanics or wished to imitate the hispanic style. For example, in Four Corners, Colorado there's Durango, Cortez, and Dolores. All of these were founded well after the cession (1881, 1886 and 1900 respectively). They're also the exception, not the rule. Outside of New Mexico, the majority of towns are not named in Spanish, but instead really normal shit: Bakersfield, Grand Junction, Flagstaff etc.

The Bear Flag revolt also cost Mexico a lot of land, mainly the California, at which point it was absorbed into the U.S. during the Mexican-American war

Because even today, both Baja Californias are still considered as "I don't give a fuck but that's mine" from the goverment, while there are legal things in place preventing another power to take them, for the time being.

>Never genocide Mexicans
There weren't any Mexicans to begin with. Relative to the first American wave. They probably had death squats roaming about disappointedly saying, "welp, i honestly can't find any Mexicans, better chop down this redwood trunk and use it to do sounds squats" and these people became the first murderes of Indiana mistaking them for size-adjustable weight-training equipment.

It's funny, looking at that map and realizing Mexico could have had enough resources to truly put them up there.