The Mexican-American war was entirely justified...

The Mexican-American war was entirely justified. Texas wanted to be annexed by the US and Mexico couldn't properly govern the other land we took. They could only be persuaded with military force.
The Mexican-American war is also the most important war in US history aside from the Revolutionary war, and should technically overshadow the Civil War with it's importance.
Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/5495
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I think only far-right Mexican nationalists disagree.

I don't know much about it, could I get a quick rundown

>Mexico invites white American to Texas to fight the Indians for them
>Mexico changes the immigration laws without telling anyone
>Mexicans get butthurt that Americans are breaking secret immigration laws
>Santa Ana, dictator of Mexico, basically turns Mexico from a federal republic into a personal dictatorship
>Texas declares independence in 1836
>Mexico chimps out and fights Texas until 1838
>Texas wants to become an American state but is denied until 1848
>Mexico pretends they never signed the treaty concerning Texan independence
>picks a fight with America even though they couldn't even defeat Texas alone
>Mexico gets curbstomped so bad that Mexico City is captured
>during this time California declares independence
>US buys the northern half of Mexico even though we just kicked their ass in a war and there were basically no Mexicans living in the area
>Mexicans retroactively claim they've been living in the American SW the whole time

What about the border incident that some suspect the US caused

America put 3,000 men in disputed territory that was disputed because of how asshurt Mexico was about Texas
Then Mexicans decided to charge cavalry into a group of Americans there

Mexico seems stupid

I suppose you could call the whole California thing a case of genocide by immigration if white genocide is real

Their country was in complete political turmoil during the whole fiasco
It got so bad that during the war, Mexican generals would intentionally lure each other into ambushes and traps just because of how divided they were internally

Haha this war justified?

This war was controversial at the time for a reason:

>Provoke an attack from the Mexicans to justify an invasion.
>U.S. president having a clear agenda to take Mexican land by any means.
>Hundreds of war crimes.
>Unpopular public support at home.
>...ect...ect

It is also one of the benchmarks(along with the Monroe Doctrine) of the anglo-american superiority complex.
Even if you could say the US was justified and not motivated by racism its still retroactively considered one of the worst instances of "anglos" bullying "latinos"

t. 7th grade 'Texas History' teacher

>Controversial
>Unpopular public support at home
Even the people who disagreed with it admitted it was necessary and just wanted it over with sooner

its always funny when some la raza retard claims "muh rightful clay" like a stormfag, completely unaware that all mexican citizens who lived in the areas we took stayed there and just became US citizens.

Its also funny when they cry about losing it, as if making that land into livable and decent states is a worse fate than it being part of a giant drug war shithole that is mexico

>Even the people who disagreed with it admitted it was necessary
This doesn't accord with what I've read. Numerous figures like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant would speak against the war as not only unjust but unnecessary.

Firstly those were politicians and not the general populace, "public support". Secondly Lincoln spoke out against the war after it had already ended and he was already President.
I can't attest to the other critics but Lincoln certainly was not vocal during the conflict.

>Secondly Lincoln spoke out against the war after it had already ended
No, he spoke out against it as a junior congressman of Illinois even going so far as to say the skirmish that began the war took place incontestably on Mexican soil.

polk did nothing wrong

historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/5495

>On January 12, 1848 Abraham Lincoln, a Whig congressman from Illinois, gave a speech questioning the Mexican-American war that he believed was “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced.” A month earlier Lincoln, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, introduced the “Spot Resolutions” that asked President Polk to submit evidence that the initial cause and the first battle of the war was indeed fought on American territory.

My mistake. I thought you were referring to his in-private rant where he went off the deep end about the war, I concede on the note of post-war criticism.
Regardless a selection of politicians do not ring out as "public support" in my eyes. The Mexican War 1846-1848 by Jack Bauer has sources on the general public being largely indifferent, excited, or at worst complacent for the war's end.

>1848
>war crimes

Most Mexican nationalists are leftist. The right is full of pro USA sellouts.

Support was along sectional lines. The South supported it and the North protested against it because they saw it as a move by Polk to favor the Slave states with further lands for westward expansion to tip the balance of power even further against themselves. They were correct desu. But they were also triggered that Polk didn't support Northern expansionism in British colombia at the expense of the British.

>picking a fight with a politically unstable weak dictatorship
>picking a fight with a superpower
Gee I wonder why

>whites complain about the mexican fifth column
>when in reality they were the fifth column

really bordered my walls

Americans had no qualms doing so in 1812. Plus, British presence wasn't necessarily strong in Western Canada and the US im betting was better organized than in 1812. Also, Polk was actually annexing Texas and Canada on the grounds that the British were trying to put those lands within their orbit and possibly their empire (true for Texas, less true for California). I suppose its good policy to attack them indirectly, but it was a policy with 100% benefit for the slave south and almost 0% benefit to the North

>Americans had no qualms doing so in 1812

Maybe the experience of that war might have convinced them that doing again would be unwise? You fucking faggot?

Britain was in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars in 1812. Gee I wonder why the US thought they had a better chance at winning the war

Mexican here

Fuck you, that war led up to a whole half a century of internal war and strife while fighting off more foreign invasions which ultimately took away our potential as a regional power.

Eat shit spic, you're our eternal bitch now

>Mexico changes the immigration laws without telling anyone
Care to explain what secret changes are you talking about?

The immigration laws were clear, all americans moving to mexico would have to sign permits where they would get lands as long as they became catholic and agreed to not own slaves, muricans didnt like this so they plotted a revolt so that they could get away with their preferred way of living.

>Texas wants to become an American state but is denied until 1848
>Mexico pretends they never signed the treaty concerning Texan independence

The treaty was explicit about texas being unallowed to join the united states, the ones breaking the treaty were texans (aka americans) ignoring the treaty

>(mexico)picks a fight with America even though they couldn't even defeat Texas alone

The borders of texas clearly established its limits around the nueces river as many maps from the era show, america moved its troops further south until they reached the bravo river, this was an illegal take on the land and they knew it using texan as an excuse.

>US buys the northern half of Mexico even though we just kicked their ass in a war and there were basically no Mexicans living in the area

They had to legitimaze their take over the land somehow, if there was a legal document proving they now owned the land, that was enough. Honestly its hard to tell how much of this would have worked had the mexican president not been a fucking megalomaniac that charged head first into battles like an idiot.

you sure about that mate?

Wait, if I move just one State north I wont have to deal with all these fucking wetbacks?
New Hampshire here I come.

Oh don't worry your wife's son will always be there to remind you about the brown spices.

I'm glad Veeky Forums is making a difference

mexican reconquista best century of my life

Yeah man, Leave
You are just making easier to us to take it back

I don't have a wife

You never had MA, and as far as I'm concerned you can take this shithole.
Escaping smelly loud thugs is only part of the reason moving seems like such a good idea.

>Massachussets
>Mexican

Just wait white boi

half of all hispanics are just white people getting scholarships

I don't know if i should belive you
The university in the US is expensive af, at least here in Mexico it just cost you a finger and not an eye

Friend of mine last name is O'Reilly, tall ginger. His grandpa is Cuban, he marked Hispanic down. Other friend of mine often bragged about his German heritage. But his grandmother was Dominican so he marked Hispanic. These are like 2 of dozens of white hispanics who mark hispanic for scholarships. Like you cannot tell these people are hispanic unless their last name is Lopez and even then they could be Spanish. Once you consider that the hispanic population falls by a lot in the US

*dozens of white hispanics I know, there a millions of white hispanics who say they're hispanic in the US for scholarship

>Mexico pretends they never signed the treaty concerning Texan independence
They never did. The "Treaty of Valasco" wasn't a treaty. It wasn't even called a treaty until Polk took up the issue as a specious pretext to take by force what he was denied by bargaining. A legal treaty must be ratified to be in effect, this is true for both America and Mexico. Even if the president signs his name on a treaty it's meaningless until the senate consents to the document by a 2/3rd vote, thus ratifying it and making it a binding legal document. A notable example in American history is the Treaty of Versailles ending WW1 which was never ratified by the US despite being partially penned by President Woodrow Wilson himself who campaigned himself to death trying to drum up support for it.

The 'Treaty of Valasco' was signed by Santa Anna while he was still held as a prisoner of war by the Texas army. For perspective, not even a regular contract would be found valid in court signed under such conditions, it's called "duress". By the end of the war Santa Anna was already deposed as head of state and the document was never ratified by the Mexican government. That the "Treaty" was a treaty in anything but name requires a willful ignorance.

Stay mad wetback you're not getting it back you're lucky we paid you

epic

>It doesn't count as surrendering if you surrender after you've lost
Haha what a fucking idiot you are Sanchez

>paid
Don't worry, the mexican gene is already creeping back in the south, by then we wont need to claim it as it will be ours in everything but name.

Keep sucking that cheeto president of yours while you can

I'm not even mexican you twit. This episode in American history comes up in Howe's "What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of American 1815-1848" part of the Oxford book series on American history. I read it like 2 years ago.

How long is going to take for the next mexican-american president?

Oxford has a funny definition of losing a war then.
>It didn't count as a loss because he was forced to surrender!
That's fucking war

It's not a "treaty" if it was signed under duress and was never ratified by the government.

>Under duress
>Losing the war
That's the point of war

Moron, being captured midway through a war isn't the same as total military defeat.

>Capture the fucking leader of the opposition
>That isn't ending the war!! They could still fight with their soul leaders captured and objectives lost!
Fucking delusional.

It doesn't matter. Most of these states are already majority Hispanic and will be reconquerored by Mexico thanks to immigration.

>Ees but minor defeat
>Minor?! Your leader's captured!
>.. no he es not
>Who's that then?
>.. hees word do not count
>You liar!

Any war you can win is justified, just as long as you are a nation of greedy, self-righteous, yet dishonorable bastards.

>tfw If the mexican president back then had not been so stupid leading the front lines the revolts would have been quickly crushed.

Fucking santana

I feel like you can only carry this opinion if you're under the impression that Mexico is some backwards uncivilized land inhabited entirely by primitives and not a modern state with its own constitution.

The episode is like if James Madison was captured in the war of 1812 and signed a document saying everything west of the Appalachians that was formerly british territory is now theirs again in exchange for his release. Nobody in the American government would dream of considering it a legitimate treaty or treat it as so, but when it's a Mexican head of state that's captured somehow people start thinking its legitimacy is beyond reproach and the Mexican government which had nothing to do with it is 'welching' on their agreement. It's so silly honestly.

Santa Ana was a freemason agent