lifeisadreamMexi Go, Mexico State Mexico16,713 posts
Conrad73: seems it hasn't happened quite like you think!LOL ....sorry cut to fit Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24,250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US. To say the US stole all that land in the Southwest is a flat-out lie.
North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848. By Seymour V. Connor and Odie B. Faulk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
David J. Weber, Book Review Editor Historians write books for many reasons.
Some revise previous interpretations, others open new paths, while a majority simply repeat old views and prejudices.
Seymour V. Connor and Odie B. Faulk fall into the last category. They have written a book that purports to accomplish two goals:
to demonstrate that Mexico must be held responsible for the War of 1848 and to prove that Justin H. Smith, author of the two-volume work on the Mexican War, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1920, still remains the bible on the subject.
In the opinion of Faulk and Connor, their study merits the title of revisionist history because, as they claim, recent historiography, by placing the blame for the War on the United States, distorts the facts.
Faulk and Connor are mistaken on both counts. With one or two exceptions, American historians have embraced uncritically the myths that Smith called facts more than four decades ago.
Further, no scholar has put together a serious study of the Mexican War since Smith published his books in 1919. Even the obvious neglect of the War by historians has passed virtually unnoticed, a fact acknowledged by the authors. In itself, that mystery merits serious discussion -- if not the War itself.
In casting stones at the ghosts of nonexistent revisionist historians of the War (perhaps the target is the lonely Glenn W. Price?) and blessing Smith anew, the authors bless a host of misconceptions that should have been laid to rest decades ago: the Mexican belief in the superiority of their military, the heroic defense of the Alamo before "vastly superior forces" (p. 13), the validity of claims of American citizens against Mexico in the era before 1840, the unimportance of Polk's interest in California as a cause for hostilities, and the logic of Texas' claim to the Rio Grande boundary. To buttress their opinions, Faulk and Connor employ descriptive words that leave little doubt in the mind of the "un" American reader as to where their feelings lie. Mexicans are "patriotic zealots" (p. 27) when they react to the American annexation of Texas; when President Tyler signs the joint resolution for the acquisition in 1845, Almonte, the Mexican representative, "screamed", and "demanded his passport and stormed out of Washington" (p. 20); and Goroztiza's opinions are a "diatribe against the United States" (p. 18). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stripped Mexico of half of its territory, but, if we can believe the authors, it left intact the "honor of Mexico" because "It had not been necessary to beg for terms."
Despite their strong views on the War, Faulk and Connor do not use footnotes and rely completely on previously published works. In short, the strength of their book lies not in the text, which merely repeats the story popularized by Smith and fellow believers, but in the 91 pages of analytical bibliography at the end of the study.
However, a true "revisionist" study of the War requires careful study of Mexican archival sources not included in the bibliography."
lifeisadreamMexi Go, Mexico State Mexico16,713 posts
zaheerrana: heloo my friend god you bless
What are you doing?
Do you have anything to say? Press the quote button to address the person you wish to.
psygnar: you should have this sign in your garden
Nidifugous: Yes, exactly. California engaged in what is today considered genocide. State-sponsored killing. Cali offered 10 cents per scalp to be paid to every Indian-killer. Still, to this date, they have not acknowledged that genocide happened here. That says a lot about what kind of a country this is. Quick to condemn others, but not prepared to sweep the dirt from their own front door. I can't think about this stuff too much because it makes my blood boil.
It is as you say, it happens in other countries now. Religion, money and power...
Unfortunately, economic gains are a big part of thee equation or I should say they are the equation.
Humanity is into the path of economic growth and people care not to question it.
A life,
Be American Be Greenlandic Be Australian Be Italian Etc
Each one life ought to be protected and saved and they are as valuable as any one.
lifeisadreamMexi Go, Mexico State Mexico16,713 posts
Conrad73: seems it hasn't happened quite like you think!LOL
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War, was signed on February 2, 1848, by Nicholas P. Trist, for the United States, and by a special commission representing the collapsed government of Mexico. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. The United States in turn PAID MEXICO $15,000,000, assumed the claims of American citizens against Mexico, ($3.25 Million) recognized prior land grants in the Southwest, and offered citizenship to any Mexicans residing in the area. Then a few years later, the US BOUGHT the land that is now Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for another 6 million dollars. After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, border disputes between the United States and Mexico remained unsettled. Land that now comprises lower Arizona and New Mexico was part of a proposed southern route for a transcontinental railroad. US President Franklin Pierce was convinced by Jefferson Davis, (Later the First President of the Confederate States of America) then the US Secretary of War, to send James Gadsden (who had personal interests in the rail route) to negotiate the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico. Under the resulting agreement, the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million. There was a problem with the money, however: Even though the agreement specified $10 million, the US Congress only agreed to pay $7 million. When the money finally arrived, in Mexico City, $1 million was found to be lost, thus making $6 million the amount Mexico actually got for the sale of that land. Hey, they set the priceā¦ we PAID it! Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24,250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US. To say the US stole all that land in the Southwest is a flat-out lie.
Since you paid for the land Conrad would you happen to know where is that one missing million dollar?
lifeisadream: The time, any one you like.Thanks in advance and great weekend!
suppose the best way for a country to own land is because the people voted the right to own land, to them. also some strong man / conqueror can claim it and or give it to the people who helped him conquer.
in the north america, tomas jefferson the 3rd president bought the lousianna purchase w federal money, then it was often given to the puplic or was sold cheap or homesteaded.
i guess the country would need to own the land for the roads and the parks?
lifeisadreamMexi Go, Mexico State Mexico16,713 posts
Still_Waters10: suppose the best way for a country to own land is because the people voted the right to own land, to them. also some strong man / conqueror can claim it and or give it to the people who helped him conquer.
in the north america, tomas jefferson the 3rd president bought the lousianna purchase w federal money, then it was often given to the puplic or was sold cheap or homesteaded.
i guess the country would need to own the land for the roads and the parks?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
....sorry cut to fit
Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24,250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US.
To say the US stole all that land in the Southwest is a flat-out lie.
North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848. By Seymour V. Connor and Odie B. Faulk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
David J. Weber, Book Review Editor
Historians write books for many reasons.
Some revise previous interpretations, others open new paths, while a majority simply repeat old views and prejudices.
Seymour V. Connor and Odie B. Faulk fall into the last category. They have written a book that purports to accomplish two goals:
to demonstrate that Mexico must be held responsible for the War of 1848 and to prove that Justin H. Smith, author of the two-volume work on the Mexican War, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1920, still remains the bible on the subject.
In the opinion of Faulk and Connor, their study merits the title of revisionist history because, as they claim, recent historiography, by placing the blame for the War on the United States, distorts the facts.
Faulk and Connor are mistaken on both counts. With one or two exceptions, American historians have embraced uncritically the myths that Smith called facts more than four decades ago.
Further, no scholar has put together a serious study of the Mexican War since Smith published his books in 1919. Even the obvious neglect of the War by historians has passed virtually unnoticed, a fact acknowledged by the authors. In itself, that mystery merits serious discussion -- if not the War itself.
In casting stones at the ghosts of nonexistent revisionist historians of the War (perhaps the target is the lonely Glenn W. Price?) and blessing Smith anew, the authors bless a host of misconceptions that should have been laid to rest decades ago: the Mexican belief in the superiority of their military, the heroic defense of the Alamo before "vastly superior forces" (p. 13), the validity of claims of American citizens against Mexico in the era before 1840, the unimportance of Polk's interest in California as a cause for hostilities, and the logic of Texas' claim to the Rio Grande boundary. To buttress their opinions, Faulk and Connor employ descriptive words that leave little doubt in the mind of the "un" American reader as to where their feelings lie. Mexicans are "patriotic zealots" (p. 27) when they react to the American annexation of Texas; when President Tyler signs the joint resolution for the acquisition in 1845, Almonte, the Mexican representative, "screamed", and "demanded his passport and stormed out of Washington" (p. 20); and Goroztiza's opinions are a "diatribe against the United States" (p. 18). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stripped Mexico of half of its territory, but, if we can believe the authors, it left intact the "honor of Mexico" because "It had not been necessary to beg for terms."
Despite their strong views on the War, Faulk and Connor do not use footnotes and rely completely on previously published works. In short, the strength of their book lies not in the text, which merely repeats the story popularized by Smith and fellow believers, but in the 91 pages of analytical bibliography at the end of the study.
However, a true "revisionist" study of the War requires careful study of Mexican archival sources not included in the bibliography."