@ Putin33

I forgot that you cannot be bothered by facts, but I'll provide some anyway

1) Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln were both of the opposite political party as President Polk
2) Henry Clay was a leading "war hawk" and screamed for war against the British, yet opposed the war against Mexico, despite the fact that Mexico had repeatedly refused to respect America's sovereignty by refusing to receive our diplomats and slaughtering American soldiers on American soil.
3) Abraham Lincoln challenged President Polk's version of the events, despite the fact that the Thornton Affair is a well-documented battle on the American side of the border between US dragoons and Mexican infantry.

Do you say that because Chechens are Muslims? So you mean it's OK to slaughter Muslims. Real nice, Putin33, real nice. Your execution list must be pretty long.

@Emac - trying to argue truth with Putin is like trying to walk through a brick wall. As for a Ukranian holocaust, you will note that Putin consistently points to **ONE** single politician as his claim for denial. ONE person...a POLITICIAN....normally the type of argument, from the type of person, the Putin would disdain. But....because it supports the cause of his oppressive, brutal philosophy, suddenly ONE person is all it takes to refutes mounds of data...

Don't waster your time with PUTIN>>>THE BAD TROLL! Putin, you Commie gay-hater (because we've proven that Commies hate gays, Putin...), Putin, you fucking genocidal, thought-controlling TWIT...GO TO YOUR FUCKING ROOM. BAD TROLL.

I agree Krellin. The thread has to contain the truth about the Holodomor though to expose him as a denier and willfully ignorant.

"Do you say that because Chechens are Muslims?"

No, I say that because your Chechen "victims", you know, those poor souls who hold thousands of children hostage and tried to impose a caliphate on Dagestan through an armed invasion are openly allied with OBL's crew. But I guess it's cool now to just run around calling everything 'genocide'. Nevermind the children of Beslan that your heroes targeted. I guess ethnic Russians don't count for much.



" So you mean it's OK to slaughter Muslims."

"The thread has to contain the truth about the Holodomor though to expose him as a denier and willfully ignorant."

Willfully ignorant, indeed, by quoting fascists like Yuschenko and genocidal anti-semites like Proudhon. Or self-hating racism & slavery apologists like Sowell. Or Robert Conquest's fraudulent census scam. You've really 'exposed' me, buddy.

"1) Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln were both of the opposite political party as President Polk"

So what? Van Buren opposed the war also, and he was a Democrat. Many people had problems with how Polk misled the country into war.

"Henry Clay was a leading "war hawk" and screamed for war against the British, yet opposed the war against Mexico, despite the fact that Mexico had repeatedly refused to respect America's sovereignty by refusing to receive our diplomats and slaughtering American soldiers on American soil."

Texas wasn't American soil. Mexico had claimed it and didn't recognize the incorporation into the Union and had threatened war over it in 1845. Texas was a province in revolt against Mexican authorities. When Texas was annexed America became a belligerent in an ongoing conflict. The territorial dispute was never settled. The fact is the United States marched across the Rio Grande boundary and invaded Mexico proper, passing over the Texas line (without any Congressional authority) that the Americans knew Mexico considered to be the border, and violating a treaty that had been signed by the US government in 1828.

The first battles between the two armies (Ras occurred well after Taylor's army had violated Mexican sovereignty by constructing a fort on the Rio grande, and it is clear as day from the fact that America annexed a massive portion of Mexico that 'defense of territory' was just a ruse used for a war of conquest.

"Many people had problems with how Polk misled the country into war."

What a load of shit. Polk never told anything less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 16 American dragoons were killed by the Mexican Army in the disputed area between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers. That's what Polk told Congress and he wasn't bullshitting.

"Texas wasn't American soil. Mexico had claimed it and didn't recognize the incorporation into the Union and had threatened war over it in 1845. Texas was a province in revolt against Mexican authorities. When Texas was annexed America became a belligerent in an ongoing conflict."

Province in revolt? What is this shit? Texas had its own damned government for ten years before the American annexation. Texas was its own sovereign nation in 1846 when it was annexed, not a "province in revolt".

"The fact is the United States marched across the Rio Grande boundary and invaded Mexico proper, passing over the Texas line (without any Congressional authority) that the Americans knew Mexico considered to be the border, and violating a treaty that had been signed by the US government in 1828."

American forces never crossed the Rio Grande until after war was declared. They crossed the Nueces, which put them in the disputed area between the Nueces and Rio Grande. The military was asserting its legitimate claim on a disputed tract of land.

"The first battles between the two armies (Ras occurred well after Taylor's army had violated Mexican sovereignty by constructing a fort on the Rio grande, and it is clear as day from the fact that America annexed a massive portion of Mexico that 'defense of territory' was just a ruse used for a war of conquest."

The area north of the Rio Grande was considered by the Americans to be American land. As such, they have a right to put military installations on the aforementioned land. Mexico violated America's sovereignty when they crossed the Rio Grande.

The Mexican-American War was NOT a war of conquest. If Mexico didn't want to lose half of their land, then they shouldn't have pissed us off.

President Polk signed the paper officially annexing Texas into the United States in December of 1845. General Zachary Taylor did not cross the Nueces River until early 1846 and did not arrive at the Rio Grande until March 28, 1846. The Republic of Texas claimed the Rio Grande as its southern border since its inception and the United States annexation recognized that claim. When Zachary Taylor marched south of the Nueces he was marching into territory claimed by Texas for a decade.

After the annexation of Texas the first nation to break off diplomatic relations was Mexico.

When the Mexicans in Matamoras saw Taylor marching towards the Rio Grande the Mexicans began building earthworks on the south side of the Rio Grande. Taylor and one of his junior officers, U.S. Grant, observed “new fortifications” nearly every morning on the south side of the Rio Grande as they camped awaiting a Mexican response to their request for a parlay. In light of this antagonism Taylor ordered the building of Fort Texas on the north side of the Rio Grande in territory claimed by Republic of Texas since she won her independence.

Mexican General General Pedro de Ampúdia finally replied to Taylor’s parlays by sending a representative who ordered Taylor to withdraw north of the Nueces. Taylor refused. When Mexican forces began crossing to the north side of the Rio Grande claimed by the Republic of Texas since the Battle of San Jacinto Taylor sent the 2nd Dragoons to oppose the enemy.
On April 24, 2846 General Mariano Arista ordered General Anastasio Torrejón to attack the 200 men of the 2nd Dragoons with 500 Mexican troops. The Americans withdrew after losing 63 men. The Mexicans initiated the attack on the north side of the Rio Grande.

2846 is 1846. I would have provided links but since no one is providing them there was no reason.

ha! I just remembered threads can be muted, seeya!

I'm glad Emac, so-called human rights warrior, is now spending his time defending American aggression and annexation of huge swaths of Mexican territory. And yes it was a war of conquest. Polk wanted to purchase Mexican land, including the port of San Francisco. Mexico refused. So Polk decided to find an excuse, an excuse that kept changing as he went along, to attack Mexico and take it by force.

This whole revisionist history is really rich. I mean Polk and his goons wanted to fight Mexico as early as the Texas slaver revolt in '36, but sane Democrats prevailed. The idea that the skirmishes caused Polk to invade and annex huge portions of Mexico is Neo-Confederate horseshit.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon"

Napoleon Bonaparte

I notice neither of you bothered to mention the Treaty of 1828, which recognized US claims to Texas. US incorporation of Texas was completely illegal and a violation of Mexican sovereignty.

Have either of you two warmongers heard of “54 40 or Fight”. Yeah, that was Polk's campaign slogan in '44. He wanted to annex the Oregon, the West, and Texas all at the same time. But this wasn't a war of conquest? And I'm an astronaut.

*recognized Mexican control over Texas

"Province in revolt? What is this shit? Texas had its own damned government for ten years before the American annexation. Texas was its own sovereign nation in 1846 when it was annexed, not a "province in revolt". "

Do you have any clue what was going on ever since Texas unilaterally declared independence? It's not as if Mexico packed their bags and went home after that happened. Hell, an armistice wasn't signed until 1843. After which time Mexico never gave up its claim to Mexico, and asserted an annexation by the US would be tantamount to an act of war.

"Preceding this period, and for some time thereafter, the western boundary of the United States was in doubt. Negotiations between the United States and Spain from 1803 until 1819 culminated in the Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits, 1819, 8 Stat. 252. Under this treaty, the boundary "between the two countries" was in relevant part established along the west bank of the Sabine, 8 Stat. 254; the United States relinquished all of Texas [410 U.S. 702, 705] west of that boundary in exchange for Florida and the Spanish claim to the Oregon Territory; and it was provided that all islands in the Sabine belonged to the United States.

The United States renewed its efforts to acquire Texas, and when Mexico declared its independence from Spain in 1821, the United States began negotiating anew for the purchase of Texas. In the Treaty of Limits, 1828, 8 Stat. 372, the United States and Mexico recognized the boundary "between the two countries," id., at 374, on the west bank of the Sabine as established in the 1819 treaty with Spain. 2 Texas declared its independence from Mexico in 1836, 1 Laws, Republic of Texas, 3-7, in Gammel's Laws of Texas 1822-1897, was recognized as an independent nation by the United States in 1837, Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., 2 Sess., 83, 270, and in 1838 the Sabine boundary agreed upon with Spain in 1819, and with Mexico in 1828, was adopted by the United States and Texas, 8 Stat. 511. 3 The Sabine boundary remained unchanged when Texas was admitted as a State in 1845, 9 Stat. 108."

The Sabine boundary meaning the provocation by Taylor was an act of armed aggression against sovereign Mexican territory. Americans had long recognized the Sabine boundary, but Texas after 1836 decided they wanted to expand their claim to the Rio Grande, which the US didn't recognize until 1845.

*never gave up its claim to Texas

This is ridiculous. The Mexican-American War was a war of aggression blatantly and admittedly undertaken for the purpose of territorial expansion. This wasn't a defensive war--remember "Manifest Destiny"? Texas had been independent for nine years, and Mexico had warned the United States that annexation of Texas could easily cause war; the annexation was essentially asking for war. And the Texan "Rio Grande boundary" people are so fond of bringing up wasn't included in the congressional act which annexed Texas because then the annexation measure may not have been able to pass. Also, what about the heavily armed group of "explorers" led by Fremont sent into California by the president; this was an obvious attempt to "encourage" a revolt by native Californians. The original Texan settlers had rebelled, not for "liberty," but because Mexico had emancipated the slaves and the Texans considered themselves racially superior to the Mexicans. Polk had explicitly campaigned on an agenda of expansionism, and he and other Southern Democrats continued in this vein, and caused the war in order to expand potential slave territories for the continued economic growth of the slave system and incease Southern power of the "slave states" in the U.S. Congress.

The Texas state constitution made no claim to this 'Rio Grande' border, either. Funny, that. Even vehemently pro-Polk revisionist historians (like Justin Smith) don't make the absurd claim that gunfighter and the learned historian Emac make, that this boundary was indisputably territory.

I can only claim a common sense knowledge of history unlike Putin who claims vast personal knowledge based on first hand research in a plethora of national archives. A number of interesting facts Pedro de Ampúdia had his men on the south side of the Rio Grande in March of 1846, not near the Nueces. The 1st Texas Congress fixed the southern border of the Republic as the Rio Grande River from the Gulf of Mexico to its source in the Rocky Mountains. Article 3 of the Treaty of Velasco states that Mexican troops will evacuate Texas and pass to the south side of the Rio Bravo del Norte. Governor Mirabeau B. Lamar offered to end Mexico's claim to the land between the Nueces and Rio Grande in 1841. Any argument that insists that Texas never claimed the land south of the Nueces to the Rio Grande simply isn't factual in light of the historical facts and evidence.
The United States allowed an independent republic, Texas, to join the United States by mutual agreement, and how could this be seen as hostile to Mexico since major European powers like France and Holland recognized Texas indepence in the first few years of the Lone Star Republic.
Mexico of course had its own problem because it has conquered southern states like Chiapis who did not want to be part of Mexico, and threatened force to keep California and New Mexico from declaring independence after Texas won her independence. "Mexico" as the creators of the independent nation that began in the 1820's was claiming land people who disputed Mexico's claim.

Here's a link to a book I'm reading now, on the Comanche Indians. It contains many reference to Texas history, and even points out that one reason the Mexican government welcomed Anglo immigrants to sparsely populated Texas was to serve as a buffer between them and the Comanches. http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/B0076TKX9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334551650&sr=1-1

It's called Empire of the Summer Moon and I'm finding it very, very interesting.

Thank you Mujus. It is an interesting book. Apprciate the link and tip.

The so-called "Treaty of Velasco" was never ratified nor recognized by the Mexican government. It was a sham "treaty" that was only called such by Polk, to justify his aggression. Santa Anna had no standing whatsoever to sign any such agreement, as he was held captive and was forced to sign it. But once again our human rights hero thinks nothing of taking someone prisoner and forcing them to sign a document without authority from their own government.

"Any argument that insists that Texas never claimed the land south of the Nueces to the Rio Grande simply isn't factual in light of the historical facts and evidence. "

Why didn't their own constitution say so? Why didn't any American President recognize this border before Polk? Why did the US sign the Treaty of Limits? Why did they recognize the Sabine boundary even after the Texas revolution?

"The United States allowed an independent republic, Texas, to join the United States by mutual agreement,"

You can't enter into such an agreement without the consent of the party who owned Texas - which was Mexico. Mexico never recognized any Texas independence, and was in a state of armed conflict with the Texas slavers.

"and how could this be seen as hostile to Mexico since major European powers like France and Holland recognized Texas indepence in the first few years of the Lone Star Republic. "

Gee maybe because they never consented to Texas independence, was fighting them with arms over it, and warned the US that any annexation/incorporation would lead to war. Who cares what Europeans did, as they had no regard for the sovereignty of non-European states. Especially France, who some years later tried to impose some bogus monarch on Mexico by force of arms. Good standard that. I love how the commie bashers have no problem with this kind of naked aggression when it comes to the United States.

"Mexico of course had its own problem because it has conquered southern states like Chiapis who did not want to be part of Mexico, and threatened force to keep California and New Mexico from declaring independence after Texas won her independence."

Oh heaven forbid, a country 'threaten force' to preserve their own territorial integrity from a bunch of slaver squatters, as opposed to the US outright using force to annex huge swaths of another country, with your thunderous approval.

As for Chiapas, in 1824 they held a referendum in which union with Mexico was approved. How this is justification for America annexing half of Mexico by force of arms is beyond me.

It has to be 'interesting', afterall, absolutely devoid of Comanche sources, depicts them as brutal, barbaric, cultureless savages. Scant historical documentation of any kind. The perfect kind of "history" book for the likes of Emac, who is desperate to find justifications for why non-whites should be slaughtered and their lands annexed for American gain.

"Why didn't their own constitution say so?"

Isn't that a bit of a red herring, Putin? What constitution DOES mention the country's boundaries? The Texas Constitution didn't mention them at all, nor does the US Constitution, nor any other constitution of which I'm aware.

Semck83, the 1st Texas Congress that met after the Texas Constitution was ratified defined the border. Ignoring the fact that the 1st Texas Congress claimed the Rio Grande indicates an agenda driven interpretation instead of one based on historical facts. An agenda driven interpretation is fine just as long as it isn't misrepresented as a historical interpretation.