ON THIS DAY in 1848, the USA stole half of Mexico for the price of a lot!

[L. Coyote]

SARCASM ALERT:

Will you celebrate the 160th anniversary of the US victory over Mexico
----squashing those bare-foot, hoe-wielding peasant terrorists and ending border intrusions forever! ---- :rofl:

Are you beaming with pride that Americans would go to such great lengths, overthrowing other governments, and stealing
their country to punish a fledgling independent nation for overthrowing the institution of slavery in the Americas?

=== NOTE: These quotes may be translations to Spanish and back. Nonetheless, they contain historical lessons:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable--a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world,"

Abraham Lincoln, speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, subject: The War on Mexico. Delivered January 12, 1848.

"The marching of an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and their property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity...the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President."
A. Lincoln, July 27, 1848.

"...refusing to accept a cessation of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, bearing all the expense, without a purpose or definite object."
President Polk.

====
Wow, sound familiar in any way?

On Feb. 2, 1848, the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty was signed. Mexico conceded Texas, California, and the Territory of New Mexico for 15 million pesos. Today that many pesos will buy $35,714.28 U.S.-- one cheap tract home.

Will the US pay more than a city lot value for Iraq's oil? :rofl:
Stealing half of Mexico for only $35K. Waahoooo! What a greeeeaaat reason to celebrate. :sarcasm:

Long live the free-booters and their slave-based empire!
Long Live William Walker! Long Live President Polk! :rofl:
Long live invading other countries and stealing everything! :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

1. Lincoln sounds a lot like Dennis. Pelosi would have made him apologise, too.

Poor Mexico, so far from God . .

[WinkyDink]

2. Can't say Bush doesn't know his history.

[Redbear]

3. Texas gained independence from Mexico in 1836 and became a US state in 1845

Texas was not given to the US by Mexico.

[Zynx]

18. I believe Mexico still had territorial claims on Texas that they conceded though.

[Ordr]

4. So....

...should we give it back?

[melm00se]

5. knee jerk reaction

will be "hell yes! get rid of those rednecks"

But if you look at what they contribute to the US economy you might take pause:

Texas GSP (GDP for a state) is ~8% of the US total GDP, it would be the equivalent of giving away NY or half of California.
They are the largest international exporter in the country ($117B)
Texas GSP makes them the 15th largest economy in the world

No matter how rugged and robust an economy is, losing that much production and capacity would be devastating.

[Ordr]

6. No, I agree with you.

I'm just not really sure, if indeed the land was "stolen", what, if anything, we could even do.
Strengthening our relationships with Mexico is probably the best bet in the long run.

[wuushew]

15. A weaker U.S. would logically lead to a weaker empire

on balance it might work out in the world's favor.

[Codedonkey]

19. Yes, give it back...

and throw Maine in there for good measure and lulz. :P

The people in Maine will be like "WTF?" and we'll be like "luuuuulz"....

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. Now that is funny.

Welcome to DU... :toast:

[Beausoleil]

7. I believe 15 million 1848 pesos would be worth

a lot more than 15 million 2008 pesos due to inflation and so worth a lot more than $35k US dollars.

The only dispute involving Texas had been the established border between Texas and Mexico. Mexico had recognized the Nueces River as the boundary, whereas Texas (and the US) recognized the Rio Grande. This was settled by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

[slackmaster]

9. The Mexican peso of that era was one ounce of silver

15 million 1848 pesos would be worth about $300 million today.

[Beausoleil]

27. wow

Definitely more than 15mil 2008 pesos!

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[slackmaster]

10. That's what happens when you lose a war

I'm glad my home is in the USA and not Mexico.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. Oh, I'm prooooud to be.... in the USA...

Wave on...

[L. Coyote]

37. Where are all the Indians from Ohio today? Not on the land the Bank of the United States sold

to stay afloat, and aid the survival of the bankrupt, fledgling U.S. government.

No sooner than the King's law forbidding invading the Indian Nations, nations with diplomatic relations with the Crown, the Revolutionary War heroes in the Ohio Company, a freebooter society, moved intop the Ohio Valley and took possession of their choice land grants.

Of course, they had to kill the Indians that would not MOVE ON!

[El Pinko]

11. Alas, if only the Mexican European Invaders had kept it instead of the American ones.

It always makes me laugh to hear people talk about CA and TX "really belonging to Mexico" - like somehow THEY were more entitled to steal it from the natives than we were.

[aquart]

21. Yeah. When they dig up indian cemeteries from conquistador times...

An astonishing number of skeletons have old collarbone breaks. You get that from being kicked while you are kneeling.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. And yet, I don't hear folks on DU doing anything to give back Indians their tribal land

to still-surviving Indian nations that was stolen from them,

As is their right -- and our duty.

No, better to protect Monsanto and rural redneccks and their all important GDP...

SCOTUS set a precedent for this in the railroad decision... a railroad
cannot be prosecuted for siezing and destroying private land if the US
economy depends on the success of their enterprise for profits.

[Lance_Boyle]

38. and where do you live, Mr. Ghost?

I'll follow you in the line to give up my home and property to mollify the guilt you think I should feel.

[L. Coyote]

39. Mexico is a Nation of NATIVES! Do they look Irish to you, or something?

The only difference between a Mexican and an American Indian is what English-speaking Americans choose to call them.

Was Geronimo a Mexican until after the conquest?

[slackmaster]

46. Most Mexicans are Mestizos

Was Geronimo a Mexican until after the conquest?

He was born, lived, and died an Apache. He never regarded himself as Mexican.

[Johonny]

12. I'm not sure

The Mexican government of the 19th century was anything to write home about.

[wuushew]

13. Slavery was abolished in Mexico long before its violent death in the U.S.

n/t

[slackmaster]

14. Formally it was abolished there in 1810, but human trafficking is still a big problem there

They only banned it, they did not stop it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. It's still a problem here, too, if you want to get technical. nt

[slackmaster]

20. Yes, but not nearly to the extent it is in Mexico

And the Mexican poor are a whole lot poorer than USA poor.

[L. Coyote]

41. We could borrow their slogan: "Viva la America! Muera el mal Gobierno!"

"Viva la America! Muera el mal Gobierno!" -- "Long live America! Death to bad Government!"
The famous Cry of Dolores, Padre Miguel Hidalgo y Costillo, Sept. 16, 1810.

FROM: JUAN OLD CHEVY AND JACKASSES TO THE ANGELS
or ANAHUAC AL DEDO
http://www.jqjacobs.net/writing/fa_part2.html

............

I entered this adjacent museum, a National History Museum gallery about the Mexican revolutions, beginning with Father Hidalgo's cry. Hidalgo was named the first Captain General of the American Nation. On Oct. 19, 1810 he decreed, "Siendo contra los clamores de la naturaleza el vender a los hombres. Queda abolidas las leyes de la esclavitud." My translation: "It is contrary to nature to sell men. The laws of slavery are abolished." Hidalgo also decreed the abolition of tributes and large estates and ordered the lands returned to the native communities. He was shot by the authorities by firing squad in Chihuahua on July 30, 1811. The citation against Hidalgo reveals much of history. It begins: "We, the Apostolic Inquisitors against Heresy, Depravity, and Apostasy, in the City of Mexico, states and Provinces of this New Spain, Guatemala, Nicaragua, The Philippine Islands, their Districts and jurisdictions by Authority Apostolic, Royal and Ordinary, Etc..."

Another priest, Father José María Morelos, replaced Hidalgo and a constitutional decree for the Liberty of Mexican America was signed on Oct. 22, 1814. Morelos was captured and imprisoned. On Dec. 22, 1815 he was shot. In April of 1817 Francisco Javier Mina arrived from Spain where he had fought against King Fernando VII. His brilliant leadership was short-lived as was he. On Nov. 11, 1817 he was executed, shot in the back by firing squad.

The 1820 "Plan de Iquala," the plan of the three guarantees, proclaimed the independence of Mexico. The three guarantees were: 1) Union of all its inhabitants, 2) As the only religion the Catholic Church, 3) The Imperial Crown would go to King Fernando VII of Spain or a member of his dynasty. On July 21, 1822 Iturbide was crowned Emperor Augustín I in the Mexican Cathedral. Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana proclaimed a republic. Troops sent to battle Santa Ana by King Augustín joined the rebel forces. Eventually the newly crowned Emperor was captured. Two days before the second anniversary of his coronation Augustín I was shot. The Federal Constitution of the United States of Mexico was approved by a Constitutional Congress on Oct. 4, 1824.

=========
The whole history, in short, follows. http://www.jqjacobs.net/writing/fa_part2.html

[Johonny]

17. well

that's great. I was thinking of the general issue of the countries lack of stability throughout the time period is slightly more important to the topic. On other words it's pretty likely California and the other states would have ended up like Texas. The Mexican government had little power to hold these territories and more American settlers were very likely to be coming into these areas.

[happyslug]

23. And as late as 1864, the US Army was willing to sell Navajos into Slavery in Mexico.

In 1864, Brigadier General Kit Carson (The only American General I have ever read about who could not read and write) was ordered to put down the Navajo nation, which he did. At the end of the Campaign he mentioned to his superior about selling the Captured Navaho's as Slaves in Mexico, as had been the practice in the Southwest since Spanish times. Kit Carson's superior deny the suggestion on the grounds it was by 1864, becoming the practice that it was illegal to have slaves in the US, and therefore it was illegal to sell people as slaves even in a country where the practice still existed.

I point out Kit Carson's offer, for it shows that Slavery still existed in Mexico in the 1860s, 40 years after Slavery had technically been abolished by Mexico. Slavery (and several of its near cousins such a peonage) would survive in practice in Mexico, till at least the Reform Revolution of the 1910-1920 period (Some people claim it lasted even longer, but it was a lot harder to keep someone in slavery after 1920). The problem after 1912 was the last such slaves escaped from their master whenever Rebels appeared in their Area. The continuance of Slavery and peonage in Mexico after 1820 was one of the reason for the revolution of 1912-1920 as it had been during the 1854-1859 Mexican Revolution and Subsequent French occupation. Slavery took a long while to die out in Mexico it survived two subsequent revolutions and two foreign invasions. It took Mexico almost 100 years to finally get rid of Slavery (and its near cousin peonage).

In the US, Segregation and sharecropping treated the freed blacks NOT much better then Slaves, but the blacks could (and did) organize openly (Most often in Black Churches). Till the 1890s most blacks voted in the South (It was in the 1890s that blacks started to be denied the right to vote). Thus it was better to be a freed slave in 1880 then a Mexican peon at the same time period. Starting in the 1890s you had a slow, but steady, movement of blacks to the North. This was do to the fact they were free and could leave their old homes, unlike the Mexican Peon who had to have permission of his master to leave. The Landowners in both the South and Mexico tried to keep the blacks and peons on their land but that was legally hard to do in the US, but easier in Mexico.

Thus to point out that Mexico legally freed their slaves decades before the US freed its slaves without looking into HOW the laws freeing the slaves were enforced, is meaningless if, as records do show, Mexico ignored that ban on Slavery whenever it was convenient. The devil is in the detail, and here Mexico had a long and difficult time ending slavery.

[L. Coyote]

42. One of the resources gained by the War on Mexico was new territory to hunt slaves

Across the Southwest continuously from the conquest until abolition of slavery, armed groups moved back and forth, from slave market to slave market in the Santa Fe or Los Angeles areas, selling captured (non-Christian) Indians.

[L. Coyote]

40. YES, they did. The very first thing the Revolution decreed was an end to slavery,

to put an end to non-secular authority (the Church), and to start a civil registry.

The opposition to the revolt was largely founded on land control and labor control.

[happyslug]

22. in 1848 Pesos equal US Dollars, and Gold was $20 an ounce in both Countries.

Given that gold is now almost $1000 an ounce (It is a few dollars less but not much) when in 1848, Mexico, like most Countries, was trying to keep its Peso at 20 pesos to the ounce. Since that time BOTh the US and Mexico has had inflation, Mexico more then the US, but both currencies have dropped in valve.

The problem is we can NOT look at the Dollar and the Peso as they are today, but what were they worth in 1848. The best (but not the most accurate) way is to look at the price of Gold. Another way is to look is at daily wages (Roughly a Dollar or a Peso a day in 1848). Thus we paid more than $35,714.28 (or roughly 35 ounces of Gold) for what is now the American Southwest.

Wikipedia says the payment in 2005 terms, was a little less than $300 million, given that Americans had probably out populated the Mexicans in the area for about 20 years that is not that high (and that most of the Area was still under the control of Native Americans NOT the Mexican Government in Mexico City NOR the local Mexican population). This is true even if you exclude Texas (Which had the highest number of Americans in the lands taken from Mexico).

Since Mexico became independent of Spain in 1819, the trade routes of New Mexico had shifted to St Louis from t he further and harder to get to Mexico City. This brought in a lot of Americans into New Mexico, many moving on to California (Mostly Northern California, where the Russians had been the European Power in the Decades before Annexation, in fact Sutter of Sutter Mills fame, purchased his Mill where he found the gold, from the Russian Fur Company NOT the Mexican Authority in San Fransisco). San Francisco was Mexican, but the Russian were the power NORTH of that point. Americans moved from the Interior in the period prior to the Mexican War, unlike the Russians and Mexican who tended to move in from the Coasts (this does NOT include the Mormons who were already planning to move to Utah where both the US and Mexican Governments had little or any reach).

Just a point that the 1848 nd 1853 purchases of land from Mexico was NOT the start of the movement of Americans into the US Southwest, but more an acknowledgment that Americans had for 20 years treated it as part of the US as far as trade was concern. Legally, what is now the American Southwest was Mexican in those 29 years since Mexican Independence, but in reality it had already become part of the US. All the war with Mexico did was changed the legal ownership of that area, nothing more.

For more on the Purchase on Land from Mexico see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession

[EFerrari]

24. I imagine the people that died or were driven off of their land would disagree. nt

[happyslug]

25. They were NOT that many non-indians in the whole area.

Southern California had the largest set of population and that stayed Mexican till the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s. Whites concentrated in the Gold Fields of Northern California and into the Central valley south of Sacramento.

Furthermore you do read of Mexicans still in the American Southwest all through the late 1800s, no one ran them off, the whites just outnumbered them

Now Texas is a slightly different problem, for the Texas Rangers were NOT only good at getting their man, they drove a good many Mexicans off Land some other white claimed. You do hear such stories elsewhere but most of the Mexicans had always been peon (Subject to peonage) before the adoption of the Post-CiviL war Amendment which not only outlawed Slavery but outlawed Peonage. A lot of Mexican land owners no longer could keep their peons on their lands, and without workers the land was worthless. The Peons stayed and prospered, the upper class Mexican had to either adopt to how things were done in the US or went home to Mexico.

Now a problem did exist, the US Government retained the right to sell any land in the Southwest (Excluding Texas) unless the owner could show he or she had a valid land grant from Mexico after 1821, or Spain prior to that date. Such "Spanish land Grants" were an endless source of litigation in the Southwest, especially in Southern California after the Southern Pacific was built. The only thing that caused more problem was water rights (The Indians Caused less). This was especially bad after the Homestead Act of 1864 was passed, it applied to the Southwest and people wanted acreage along the Rivers do to the fact it was Desert. That was the areas where a lot of Land grants also covered, thus the problem.

While I can NOT say Mexicans did NOT see their land taken by whites, at times it was, but the real issue was had been the Mexican right to the land? Many had been tenants not owners, and as tenants to a landlord who did NOT want to contest ownership, lost whatever rights they had when the owner sold his rights or gave up his rights.

My point was their discrimination? yes, was land taken? Yes, was it most of the land the Mexicans were actually using? probably no. The US did recognize the rights of Mexicans in the Southwest, it had to by treaty. The real issue was HOW could a Mexican prove his claim? That was in Court and he had to hire a Lawyer to get to court. The courts did protect Mexican Property Rights, if he claim reached the Courthouse, many did not, but most did and were protected (If documentation existed).

people forget the registration of property ownership in the Courthouse is an American Invention, Europe did NOT do it in the 1800s, while we in the US did. If your right was registered with the Court your rights were safe, but most Mexicans did NOT register their rights for when Mexico held the land you did not have to. In the Untied States we registered Deeds and other land transactions in out Courthouses, something it took the Mexican a while to learn, but once learned applied.

As I stated before the number of Mexicans in the Southwest was quite small, smaller than the White Population even before 1848. The few cases of land theft (and land was stolen from Whites and Blacks especially in Texas) does NOT mean it happened to everyone. Most of the Stories we know is do to the subsequent litigation, where the Court often recognize the rights of the Mexicans IF THEY HAD THE PAPERWORK TO SHOW THEIR RIGHT TO THE LAND. Most of the cases we do have reflect the increase value of land once a railroad went through an area. Railroads thought nothing of claiming land held by another under they land grant rights (Which would lead right up to a legal case, with the Railroad paying for the best claim to the land that could be bought). The late 1800s was a rough time, but the Mexicans were NOT treated any harder then the Blacks and poor whites, the upper class was on a war with everyone that makes today's rich look communistic in comparison. Rough yes, racial discrimination, no the rich were riping everyone off at that time period.

[EFerrari]

26. I can't stand to read this minimizing of other people's loss and death.

This is the same mentality that got us into Iraq.

Save it.

[mulsh]

28. totally ignoring history got us into Iraq, the above post is pretty

accurate. If you had gone to Oakland schools you would have probably known the above information.

[Elspeth]

29. Maybe that's why it had to be erased by looting the museums

and destroying Mesopotamian history.

[EFerrari]

30. No, the framing is skewed. And you're right. I went to Cupertino schools

and got into trouble for putting a whipping post in my sugar cube California Mission project.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. "Slavery could be mutually beneficial in some instances for Negros with little access to resources"

-- Louisiana State History textbook, New Orleans, 2000 (paraphrased)

[mulsh]

49. the nuns who taught me would have loved you.

very nice touch that whipping post.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. They were only indians, sfexpat -- not the "people" he claim to be worried about.

:sarcasm:

[L. Coyote]

43. Everyone in the Southwest was a Mexican before 1848. It was Mexico!

You write: "number of Mexicans in the Southwest was quite small, smaller than the White Population even before 1848."

Where was there a single white in the SW before the War on Mexico? Name one.

[slackmaster]

45. Read up on people like Juan Bandini

He was born in Peru in 1800, the son of an Italian sea captain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Bandini

Everyone in the Southwest was a Mexican before 1848.

Not even close to true.

Read about the Californios in general at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californio

[techtrainer]

52. Remember the Alamo

"Where was there a single white in the SW before the War on Mexico? Name one."

Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, et al. at the Alamo in 1836.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. In mexico the war is called the "American Invasion War"

not the Mexican/American War or the war of 1848

[slackmaster]

44. The side that WINS a war has the privilege of naming it

Although it is not uncommon for sore losers do things like call the American Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression".

[zorahopkins]

47. Manhattan, Louisiana, Alaska

Manhattan Island was bought (so the story goes) for $24 worth of trinkets.

Alaska was bought for 3 cents per acre.

The Louisiana Purchase was another steal -- literally.

The land of the present day USA was stolen without compensation or, like Texas, California, Manhattan, Louisiana, and Alaska, purchased at way below market value -- in essense, stolen.

We all bear the guilt of living on stolen land.

[L. Coyote]

50. The USA does not even know how many Nations they totally exterminated by genocide

You are correct, "We all bear the guilt of living on stolen land.," and also we bear the burden of reconciliation for past injustices.

The USA seems incapable of admission of any crimes in the nation's past. Yet, the very nation was built on illegal conduct, genocide and conquest of many hundreds of other Nations to steal their territory.

The USA does not even know how many Nations they totally exterminated by genocide, and seems not to care in the least, except aboput the forgetting and obfuscation of this reality.

[kineneb]

48. (Irony warning) and the Mexicans are buying SoCal back, piece by piece

a fact which I find vastly amusing. Mind you, many of those are of Mexican ancestry and are US citizens, but they are returning... heh.

NorCal native; I don't mind who comes here, as long as they bring good food. I will happily share my ancestral "Schnitzel mit Kartoffeln und Sauerkraut" with them.

[Xenotime]

51. As a gesture of good will, the next administration should grant a part of it back.

It would definatly make us look better in the eyes of the world.

[L. Coyote]

53. How about taking down the wall? Allow Mexicans with valid passports a visa.

Why doesn't the USA allow brown Mexicans into the USA, but white Europeans are allowed in?

Is the USA a racist government? It seems so, on the face of the regulations!