How Bernie Sanders would reverse the outcome of the Mexican–American War within a single year

[riverdale-74]

This is not meant as a scare tactic or as some kind of joke. This post reviews a position paper on the official Bernie Sanders for President website, to demonstrate that he would reverse the outcome of the Mexican–American War within a single year.

https://illegal-immigration.com/news/bernie-sanders-mexican-american-war

[mortarman]

I never agreed with the final outcome of that war, anyway. We won that war. We should have never given Mexico back. Our southern border should be at the 7th Parallel North an' not the Rio Grande'. A much shorter stretch to build a wall across an' defend.

 

[mountaineer]

We won that war. We should have never given Mexico back.

We never act like conquerors, though, e.g., Japan, Germany, the various Indian nations.

[mortarman]

We never act like conquerors, though, e.g., Japan, Germany, the various Indian nations.

Well we keep getting accused of being imperialistic by the Left-wing Fascist Agenda. If we were really that imperialistic Fido Castro would have prolly parlayed a not so spectacular career as a relief pitcher for various minor league teams into a career as a low rent bambulance chaser in Santiago in the State of Cuba.

 

[mountaineer]

Indeed. It's beyond intellectually dishonest for leftists to call the US "imperialistic." Must be all that gubmint schooling. 

[skeeter]

It ain't only Mexico we've been giving the west to.

[sneakypete]

Indeed. It's beyond intellectually dishonest for leftists to call the US "imperialistic." Must be all that gubmint schooling. 

@mountaineer

Well,the fact that they are all "natural-born fools" has to be a large part of the equation. You can explain all sorts of things to them,but you can't make them understand what you are saying.

[sneakypete]

It ain't only Mexico we've been giving the west to.

@skeeter

When are we going to "man up" and call this what it really is,namely a "War on White People"?

[skeeter]

@skeeter

When are we going to "man up" and call this what it really is,namely a "War on White People"?

I gotta be frank I struggle with the moral aspects of it constantly. But somewhere some bureaucrat decided to change my home into something culturally unrecognizable and I'm having difficulty accepting it. All I see around me are different tribes where before there was at least some social or cultural cohesion.

And I get it - I'm a pariah for thinking these thoughts.

In every other instance of demographic displacement in history of mankind we're supposed to feel sympathy for the displaced culture. Except here.

[mortarman]

@skeeter

When are we going to "man up" and call this what it really is,namely a "War on White People"?

Always has been butt that isn't PC. As heck. What real American cares about PC?

 

[PeteS in CA]

I never agreed with the final outcome of that war, anyway. We won that war. We should have never given Mexico back. Our southern border should be at the 7th Parallel North an' not the Rio Grande'. A much shorter stretch to build a wall across an' defend.

 

We never act like conquerors, though, e.g., Japan, Germany, the various Indian nations.

Somehow I suspect that The Bern, like (I think) most Americans are unaware that by the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US paid Mexico some $18M plus interest in gold or silver for what became the SW US, basically unknown land (the treaty was negotiated without knowledge of the discovery of gold in California). Further, the US assumed debts Mexico owed from the Texas War of Independence (debts adjudicated by Britain in arbitration) and also agreed to pay for supplies taken and damages done from/to Mexican farmers and farms (i.e. not battle damage).

I suspect most Americans (possibly excepting many/most Texans, ) are unaware of the fact that what sparked the war was Mexico's repeated incursions into Texas territory, as it was defined by the Treaties of Velasco.

[mystery-ak]

I think this belongs in Opinions....

[sneakypete]

In every other instance of demographic displacement in history of mankind we're supposed to feel sympathy for the displaced culture. Except here.

@skeeter

That's because White People are uniquely bad. Despite being a minority of the world's population,white people are responsible for the creation of modern civilization,and almost all of the modern advances in technology.

BAD WHITE MAN=BAD ORANGE MAN

And frankly,I flat don't give a damn if some clueless fool wants to call me a racist.

[Fishrrman]

sneakypete wrote:
"When are we going to "man up" and call this what it really is,namely a "War on White People"?"

Please take a moment to read this, posted by me 14 years ago, at this location:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1676833/posts?page=99#99

And this, also posted by me, 13 years ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2061495/posts?page=24#24

[TomSea]

If Bernie is universally rejected as he should be, the Democrats are looking at a party largely destroyed and maybe they'll pursue more moderate policies, go towards the center.  That can be called wishful thinking too but I think it's a possibility. I hope all of the Dems prove to be unpopular ahd the party is overhauled.

[Absalom]

I suspect most Americans (possibly excepting many/most Texans, ) are unaware of the fact that what sparked the war was Mexico's repeated incursions into Texas territory, as it was defined by the Treaties of Velasco.

-----------------------
Malarkey.
The immediate cause of War war our annexation of Texas;
a Spanish Colony for 300 years till 1810, then part of Mexico.

[PeteS in CA]

-----------------------
Malarkey.
The immediate cause of War war our annexation of Texas;
a Spanish Colony for 300 years till 1810, then part of Mexico.

Sigh ..... The 1836 Treaties of Velasco - they're online, so you can read them - which recognized Texas' independence defined the border between Mexico and Texas as the "Rio Grande del Norte". In violation of the treaties, Mexico subsequently claimed the border was the Nueces River, and consequently claimed about 2/3 of Texas (drawing an arbitrary line north from the origins of the Nueces). Mexican incursions into Texas' territory pre-dated Texas becoming a state, some by at least several years, but Texas lacked the ability to defend its treaty border.

About two weeks after Texas became a state, President Polk sent US troops to defend the Rio Grande border (January, 1846), in light of years of Mexican incursions into Republic of Texas territory and after the Mexican President claimed territory to the Sabine River - far more than previously claimed - basically all of Texas. Some 3 months later, a large (1500-2000) Mexican force crossed the Rio Grande into the US and killed or captured an 80-man US force that had been sent to scout reports of some sort of crossing. Unlike the Republic of Texas, the US had the means to defend its territory and did. This Mexican invasion of US territory and the "Thornton Affair" sparked the Mexican-American War.

[Absalom]

Sigh ..... The 1836 Treaties of Velasco - they're online, so you can read them - which recognized Texas' independence defined the border between Mexico and Texas as the "Rio Grande del Norte". In violation of the treaties, Mexico subsequently claimed the border was the Nueces River, and consequently claimed about 2/3 of Texas (drawing an arbitrary line north from the origins of the Nueces). Mexican incursions into Texas' territory pre-dated Texas becoming a state, some by at least several years, but Texas lacked the ability to defend its treaty border.
About two weeks after Texas became a state, President Polk sent US troops to defend the Rio Grande border (January, 1846), in light of years of Mexican incursions into Republic of Texas territory and after the Mexican President claimed territory to the Sabine River - far more than previously claimed - basically all of Texas. Some 3 months later, a large (1500-2000) Mexican force crossed the Rio Grande into the US and killed or captured an 80-man US force that had been sent to scout reports of some sort of crossing. Unlike the Republic of Texas, the US had the means to defend its territory and did. This Mexican invasion of US territory and the "Thornton Affair" sparked the Mexican-American War.

--------------------------------------------
In 1519, Spain landed in the Aztec, Maya, Olmec lands of the New World.
In 1821, Spain departed and Mexico, which occupied Texas, declared its independence.
In 1836, The Treaties of Velasco were intended to end internal hostilities between
              Mexico and Texas and NOT to confer independence on Texas.
              As NEITHER treaty was ratified by the Mexican Govt, they had no force of law!!!
In 1845, Pres. Polk annexed Texas which triggered the Mexican War.
A binding Treaty exists when BOTH parties agree to its terms and conditions, Not one of them.
Try the Britannica.

[PeteS in CA]

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/velasco-private-1.html

Secret Treaty

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, General in Chief
of the Army of Operations and President of the
Republic of Mexico, before the Government established
in Texas, solemnly pledges himself to fulfill the
stipulations contained in the following Articles, so
far as concerns himself.

Art. 1.

He will not take up arms nor cause them to be
taken up against the People of Texas during the pres-
ent War of Independence.

Art. 2d.

He will give his Orders that in the shortest time the
Mexican Troops may leave the Territory of Texas.

Art. 3d.

He will so prepare matters in the Cabinet of Mexico
that the Mission that may be sent thither by the Govern-
ment of Texas, may be well received, and that by means
of negociations all differences may be settled and
the Independence that has been declared by the
Convention may be acknowledged

Art. 4.

A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be estab-
lished between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the
latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/velasco-public-1.html

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that he will not take up arms nor
will he exercise his influence to cause them
to be taken up against the People of Texas during the present
War of Independance--

--2d--

All hostilities between the Mexican & Texian troops wiill
cease immediately both on land & water--

3d

The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas
passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte ...
...
9th

That all Texian prisoners now in possession of the Mexican Army
be forthwith released & furnished with free passports to return to
their homes in consideration of which a corresponding number of
rank & file now in posession of the Government of Texas shall
be immediately released -- The remainder of the Mexican prisoners
that continue in posession of the Government of Texas to be treated
with due humanity any extraodinary comforts that may be
furnished them to be at the charge of the Government of Mexico.--

One can play word games, but the bottom line is that the President of Mexico in 1836 recognized that Texas had its own government and pledged to get the full government of Mexico to recognize Texas' independence. Santa Ana's violation of the treaty he signed doesn't make the treaty non-existent. Nor does it change the fact that Texas functioned as an independent republic for nearly 10 years - 10 years in which Mexico made no effort to take and hold Texas territory - and as a functioning independent republic Texas negotiated its annexation into the US as a state. What started the Mex-Am War was Mexico making yet another raid on Texas territory and the US responding more decisively than Mexico anticipated.

[Absalom]

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/velasco-private-1.html
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/velasco-public-1.html

-----------------------------------------
Round 3!
The Mexican Government made two compelling arguments why the Velasco Treaties were worthless:
1. Lopez de Santa Anna was a prisoners of war when he signed and therefore he was coerced!
2. The Mexican Senate, rejecting both, never signed either document.
   (by analogy, our Senate must ratify all Treaties for them to be valid.)
A reflection.
Abraham Lincoln openly criticized the odor of politics that was at the root of the Mexican War!
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

-----------------------
Malarkey.
The immediate cause of War war our annexation of Texas;
a Spanish Colony for 300 years till 1810, then part of Mexico.

You left out that Texas was sovereign after it was part of Mexico.

There was something called the battle of San Jacinto that created the Republic of Texas.

Whether Mexico agreed with the terms Santa Ana signed on his surrender or not, he was the head of state and his army decisively defeated.

So the immediate cause of the Mexican American war is not that Texas came into the Union but that the successor government of Mexico refused to honor the surrender made by its military and government commander. 

[Absalom]

You left out that Texas was sovereign after it was part of Mexico.
There was something called the battle of San Jacinto that created the Republic of Texas.
Whether Mexico agreed with the terms Santa Ana signed on his surrender or not, he was the head of state and his army decisively defeated.
So the immediate cause of the Mexican American war is not that Texas came into the Union but that the successor government of Mexico refused to honor the surrender made by its military and government commander.

-------------------------------
Repeating:
* The land we label Texas was part of Spain's New World Territory.
* When Spain went back home in 1821, Texas was Mexican territory.
* As Santa Anna was a prisoner, his signature was coerced; more importantly
   the Treaties were never ratified by the Mexican Senate, making them invalid.
* Polk's annexation of Texas was the trigger for the Mexican War.   PERIOD!!!!!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

-------------------------------
Repeating:
* The land we label Texas was part of Spain's New World Territory.
* When Spain went back home in 1821, Texas was Mexican territory.
* As Santa Anna was a prisoner, his signature was coerced; more importantly
   the Treaties were never ratified by the Mexican Senate, making them invalid.
* Polk's annexation of Texas was the trigger for the Mexican War.   PERIOD!!!!!

No period.

Your refusal to accept what almost every history book legitimizes as Texas independence and sovereignty does not mean it did not happen.

Seems you also refuse to surrender in the face of signing surrender documents just like Mexico.

Except we will not fight another war on this one, as I know who once again will win.

[sneakypete]

No period.

Your refusal to accept what almost every history book legitimizes as Texas independence and sovereignty does not mean it did not happen.

Seems you also refuse to surrender in the face of signing surrender documents just like Mexico.

Except we will not fight another war on this one, as I know who once again will win.

@IsailedawayfromFR

For some odd reason non-whites seem to think whites ended up running the world,DESPITE ALWAYS BEING A MINORITY,because they are "swell dancers" or some such nonsense.

All that talk about having a revolution and taking over will get VERY quiet once it's "nut cutting time". PART of the reason the white man dominated the world is because by nature the white man likes to organize things for more efficiency,and he likes laws that promote a peaceful society where people are free to manage their own lives.

They ignore the other part of the white man's basic character at their own peril. Slow to really anger to the point of violence compared to other people,and unbelievably aggressive and brutal when push comes to shove.

Keep pushing and find out. You are almost there.

[Absalom]

No period.
Your refusal to accept what almost every history book legitimizes as Texas independence and sovereignty does not mean it did not happen.
Seems you also refuse to surrender in the face of signing surrender documents just like Mexico.
Except we will not fight another war on this one, as I know who once again will win.

----------------------------------------
My source is Britannica, not the usual suspects banging their tin pot.
While Texan independence and sovereignty happened, the issue is how.
The signing documents were coerced from a prisoner and NEVER accepted
by the Mexican Senate!!!
I'll stand w/Abraham Lincoln who campaigned on this issue in 1848; receiving
loud criticism from the promoters of Polk's annexation. Admittedly, Lincoln had
an ax to grind as Texas created another large slave State.