Mujus, it is interesting how quickly and intimately the Comanche integrated the horse into their culture. Comancheria was quite a large area that they controlled.

The irish constitution laid claim to the entire island of ireland. Untilmthe peace deal of '98 where the people voted in referendum to change that clause...

I don't know about any other constitutions...

"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."

Yes, I have. Polk's acquisition of most of the Oregon territory was probably the most impressive display of diplomatic finesse in American presidential history.

And no, the Mexican-American War was NOT a war of conquest. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Mexico didn't want half of their land to get forcibly purchased, then they shouldn't have pissed us off. *They* fired the first shots of the war. *Their* statement that an annexation of Texas would be tantamount to war was completely unreasonable, because they have no right to dictate what a sovereign state can or cannot do. *They* refused to receive the American diplomatic party sent to defuse the situation, which itself really is an act that is tantamount to war.

"Ignoring the fact that the 1st Texas Congress claimed the Rio Grande indicates an agenda driven interpretation instead of one based on historical facts."

Agenda driven interpretation like your revisionist white supremacy based one that ignores the treaty of 1828, ignores the fact that Texas itself recognized the same boundary Mexico recognized until their military prowess made them arrogant, ignores the fact that the US government recognized that line even in 1845, ignores the fact that the most pro-Polk of historians even recognize that this disputed area was not indisputably Texan, and ignores the fact that Mexico was in a state of war with the Texas secessionists at the time of Texas's incorporation. But it's only an "agenda driven" interpretation if it's one Emac disagrees with.

" *Their* statement that an annexation of Texas would be tantamount to war was completely unreasonable, because they have no right to dictate what a sovereign state can or cannot do."

Really, you're really going to make the argument that Mexico didn't even have the right to defend itself from secession & foreign annexation? You're so full of it. You'd never make any such statement if the shoe was on the other foot. You're nothing but a rah rah America propaganidst who thinks America never did a damn thing wrong.

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Mexico didn't want half of their land to get forcibly purchased, then they shouldn't have pissed us off. *They* fired the first shots of the war. "

America deliberately provoked the Mexicans and then used that an excuse. You really think it's justified to annex half of a country after deliberately placing encampments deep into disputed territory? You, again, are full of shit.

"And no, the Mexican-American War was NOT a war of conquest."

They just happened to annex all the territory they had been clamoring for for two decades, right after the Mexicans refused to sell it. Right. Keep the spin coming.

And really, if you refuse to meet with a diplomatic envoy that means a country should be able to invade or attack you?

Gear up for about 5 dozen wars from countries we refuse to negotiate with then, hoss.

I came to this thread to look for some quotes to read.

Was disappoint.

"Whales are dust" - Captain Planet Thucydides.

What about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase

@ Putin33

"Really, you're really going to make the argument that Mexico didn't even have the right to defend itself from secession & foreign annexation?"

Mexico attempted to defend itself from secession and failed, because Texas successfully asserted her declaration of independence. That makes Texas a sovereign state, with all of the privileges of one.

"ignores the fact that the most pro-Polk of historians even recognize that this disputed area was not indisputably Texan"

My whole argument is based on the assumption that the border was disputed. America asserted their claim to a disputed border with military occupation. I'm not trying to say that the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was Texan land. I'm just saying that it was disputed.

"America deliberately provoked the Mexicans and then used that an excuse. You really think it's justified to annex half of a country after deliberately placing encampments deep into disputed territory?"

In a word, yes. We gave Mexico every chance for a peaceful resolution the the question of California and New Mexico. They rolled the dice and lost, badly. You're also ignoring the fact that we reimbursed them for the land that we seized, which we didn't have to do.

"And really, if you refuse to meet with a diplomatic envoy that means a country should be able to invade or attack you?"

No. It just means that we gave them a chance at peace and they turned it down.

@ Thuc

You should know better than to open a thread with more than 50-60 replies, because it's going to be a trollfest.

There won't be war with Iran anytime soon. Why not? Iran is negotiating. Withdrawing diplomats, which is what Mexico did after Congress passed a resolution to annex Texas, is exactly what countries do in preperation for war. It is interesting that Mexico had no troops north of the Rio Grande when Taylor moved south of the Nueces. It is also interesting that Mexico chose to cross the Rio Grande and attack the American forces on the north side of the river. Of course Mexico couldn't negotiate in any official capacity because they had withdrawn their ambassador. Spain took California, New Mexico, and Texas from the Native Americans by right of conquest and Mexico inherited them. In fact Spain had to conquer New Mexico twice because the Pueblos drove them out in 1680. Mexico invited Americans to settle in Texas because of the unrelenting attacks by the Comanche. Californios were unable to settle the central valley of that state because of Native American raids. So Mexico can hold land by right of conquest, but they can't lose land by right of conquest? Agenda driven double-standards simply don't stand up under scrutiny. Mexico can sign treaties and ignore them, the Treaty of Velasco for example, but the Republic of Texas and the United States are bound by any treaty they sign in perpetuity? Again an agenda driven double-standard. No other non-island nation has to define its borders in it Constutition, but it is a requirement that Texas do so? Another agenda driven double-standard. I wonder what Guatamala thought of Mexico annexing Chiapis? Mexico can annex Chiapis but the United States can't annex Texax? The double standards are endless when an agenda takes the place of common sense.

@thucy, they are at least quoting each other, out of admiration i suspect.

"Everything, literally everything was taken; they did not leave one kilogram of bread"--village of Strizavka, Rzhyshchev county, Kyiv region, commenting on the communists who perpetrated the Holodomor.

@emac so mexico inherited territory from spain, which was conquered in the 1500s and 1600s, but somehow this inherited territory is illegitimate because it was conquered by ancestors from hundreds of years previously? Mexico didn't "hold land by right of conquest"---as you pointed out, Spain was the one who conquered them. I guess since the current United States also lies completely on land of conquered Indian nations, it would also be okay for Canada to conquer the United States.


"Mexico can sign treaties and ignore them, the Treaty of Velasco for example."
You mean the treaty which wasn't even called a treaty until Polk decided to call it a treaty in 1846? You mean the treaty never ratified by the Mexican government, who declared Santa Ann had no legal standing? Nice try.

"It is also interesting that Mexico hose to cross the Rio Grande and attack the American forces on the north side of the river."
It's also interesting that the United States decided to move a large group of soldiers to a disputed border area---why else would they move there except to provoke an incident and then turn it into an expansionist war?

"No other non-island nation has to define its borders in the Constitution..."
No one said this. You're the only one insisting that Texas had previously claimed the area south of the Nueces. Simply the fact that this wasn't in the Constitution is fairly damning for those who claim this was Texan territory.

"Mexico can annex Chiapas but the United States can't annex Texas? The double standards are endless when an agenda takes the place of common sense."

Just shut up. You're the only one bringing up Chiapas. Just because the United States is being criticized for this annexation and aggression doesn't mean that that Mexican annexation is being condoned. Stop trying to derail the discussion. There isn't a goddamn agenda except that one which you are trying to perpetrate to convince yourself that the United States could never possibly be an aggressor.

"I get to go to a lot of overseas places, like Canada"--Brittany Spears

and my all-time favorite: comes from Miss Teen USA South Carolina in 2007 when asked why she thought 1/5 of Americans can't locate the United States on a global map:

I personally believe, that U.S. Americans, are unable to do so, because uh, some, people out there, in our nation don’t have maps. and uh…I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as…and, I believe they should uh, our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.

The soviets own census figures don't lie, unlike you, Puttster.

In Texas in 1824, Mexico inherited a colony that was disintegrating fast because of the relentless raids by the Comanche and Kiowa out of Commancheria. The Mexicans invited in Americans to stabilize the colony. The Tejanos and Texans who gained their independence from Mexico had an inheritance too. Chiapis that gained its independence from Spain and later Guatemala had an inheritance too. Guatamala inherited Chiapis from Spain, but then Chiapis gained its independence and was annexed by Mexico. Mexico inherited Texas from Spain and Texas won its indepence and was annexed by the United States.
President Polk inherited the borders that the 1st Texas Congress established, the Rio Grande was declared the southern border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Rocky Mountains. Once Mexico withdrew its ambassador from Washington negotiations ceased and actions began. Mexico has forces on the South side of the river and General Taylor moved to the north side opposite Matamoras where he attempted to reopen negotiations broken off by Mexico. The Mexicans crossed the river and attacked. Mexico declared war by action. Mexico lost the war it declared and signed a peace treaty recognizing that fact.
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.

In other news, President Polk was a badass motherfucker who didn't take shit from anyone, especially the British and Mexicans.

What are you compensating for?