this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
524 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The United States never wanted Mexico. Thus it bought the parts of Mexico that it's citizens were already moving to. It could have just taken it through conquest but it didn't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"bought"...

Again, you ignore the fucking war of conquest.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mexico fired first, they invaded the United States territory after slaughtering hundreds at the Alamo. They didn't expect the United States to respond and certainly didn't expect the border dispute to lead to the complete defeat of the Mexican military. What they didn't know is the vast innovations developed at West Point that crushed all opposition, mostly through military engineering innovation.

While Mexico was completely defeated and President Pierce took advantage of the situation, it was the actions of Mexico that led to their defeat. They invited war and lost. The United States had every right to take territory but it decided to make it a legal transaction of land instead and led to peaceful diplomacy going forth.

The acquisition of the west thus doesn't fall under conquest but a legal land transaction between governments. Same as the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty, and the Alaska Purchase.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

You mean the slavers who moved to Mexico and then fomented a rebellion?

Because that's what the Alamo was. It was slave owners moving to Mexico and then rising up in rebellion against the Mexican government when Mexico said, hey, slavery is illegal. Mexico outlawed slavery almost immediately after winning their independence from Spain.

Most importantly, Texas was not a part of the US until a decade after the slavers were defeated at the Alamo.

You have such a twisted view of history that I can only assume you were taught in either Florida or Texas.

The US then annexed Texas, and then Polk sent a diplomatic mission offering to buy more land. Mexico said no, so Polk Started a war and took the land anyway.

After the Mexican-American war, the US paid out a pittance in damages, but one of the terms of the peace treaty forced on Mexico was the revocation of all territorial rights of Texas, California, and everything in between.

A later administration then bought a small sliver of the border along New Mexico and parts of Arizona for an elevated price. Partially to smooth tensions with Mexico over the blatant war of conquest that was the Mexican-American war.