Whose to blame for the Mexican-American war

No it wasn't

I mean they were pissy but it wasn't that specifically that sparked the conflict.

Polk unilaterally sent a division of US troops, not only into the 'disputed territory' (which by all rights belonged to Mexico, any kind of settlement based on international law would have come down in their favor), he sent them BEYOND the Rio Grande into Mexico Proper and ordered Zachary Taylor at the head of the expedition to blockade the river (technically an act of war in its own right).

Even after this Mexico protested but ordered its troops to refrain at all costs from potentially provoking the American troops. Unfortunately for Mexico some of its troops found themselves into a deadly altercation with some American dragoons out on patrol and Polk would use this minor skirmish as evidence before congress to Declare War. Notable opponents to the war included a young congressman Abraham Lincoln who insisted that the Americans died on Mexican soil and should have never been there in the first place, Ulysses Grant, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun.

Fucking leftist cuck

epic troll

Mexico for claiming land they never settled.

What about the multiple times Mexico invaded Texas to try and retake it? Do those just get a free pass for invading a separate country?

Texas wasn't a separate country.

>which by all rights belonged to Mexico
completely wrong. Santa Anna was the de facto leader of mexico when he surrendered to the texans and negotiated the treaty of velasco. The cucks back in mexico city claimed the treaty in its entirety wasn't valid because santa anna was a prisoner and yet they had exiled him from the country. It was clearly a power play on the part of the mexican government to consolidate political power in the wake of santa anna's defeat

You do not understand how treaties work. Signing a piece of paper is not the same thing as ratifying a treaty.

It was recognized by France, Great Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, The Hansa, the Federated Republic of Central America, and the Republic of the Yucatan.

Not only that but Mexico rejected all diplomatic efforts by Texas and later the United States to try and settle the dispute. Choosing instead to plug their ears and cry at the top of their lungs that "Tejas is ours!" Even though when they had controlled it, it was more Comanche than anything else.

Well, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna promised the Americans he'd arrange a deal to purchase land between the USA and Mexico if they sent him back there. He then promised the Mexicans he'd lead Mexico's army to victory against the USA if he was appointed as a general again, and that he wouldn't try to seize power like last time. He subsequently broke both deals, became de facto head of state of Mexico, and then led them into a humiliating defeat against the USA. After which he was forced to sell the land he said he would sell in the first place except with 30,000 fewer people alive.

So him, probably.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Texas
Wikipedia is saying otherwise.

The Mexican state was in a precarious position where the act of 'selling away land' could have easily brought down the government so its no wonder they were being recalcitrant to US offers to take it off their hands. Saying they won't play ball is hardly a moral justification for simply invading their land and taking it by force.

>US went to war just to get a discount
So what you're saying is Black Friday isn't new

Cultural Assimilation doesn't matter if brown people ask for it.

You're missing my point. The mexican government back in mexico city, who had no dog in the fight and no legal authority on the matter since santa anna was the head of government when the treaty signed, refused to even recognize that the treaty was in fact a treaty that ended hostilities between Texas and Mexico(santa anna)

It actually was working for the texan landowners that dealt directly with the mexican government. It stopped when those guys would then sell the land on to new settlers who didn't have to interact with the government all that much and instead relied on the original landowners as government authority

*spanish and later mexican governments

>refused to even recognize that the treaty was in fact a treaty
Nobody acknowledged the bogus 'treaty' until Polk came along and forced the issue. It literally wasn't even referred to as a 'treaty' until Polk was president. The government in Mexico was totally within their legal rights.

>two sides fight in an armed conflict
>thousands of casualties
>one side defeats the other
>representatives from both sides sign a document that sets terms for the end of hostilities and retreat of the defeated army
>terms are for the most part followed through
>this is somehow not a treaty nor recognized as a treaty

What do you mean? All of the nations I listed had some form of relations with Texas, and Wikipedia supports that.

Once again though, Mexico had done the very same thing to Texas. And moreover, the rejected offer to buy the disputed land with Texas wasn't rejected because it would be destabilizing to Mexico, it was because they were not offering Mexco any money for Texas itself, which was already a state.

Legal recognition isn't the same thing as any kind of de facto diplomatic relations. Besides Russia, those countries dealt with Texas in some form or another, but did not legally recognize or formally open diplomatic relations via embassies. It's an important distinction because it shows how shaky the legal position of Texas was.

It was nonetheless some form of recognition. Also, several of those nations were in the process of opening up formal relations but stopped when it became clear that Texas was going to be annexed by the United States.

With all due respect, Mexico's legal position as a whole wasn't much less shaky than Texas. Texas wasn't the first state to revolt agaisnt Santa Anna's new government, they weren't the last, and they weren't the only successful one either.