The US paid Mexico after winning the Mexican-American War, huh?

Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
We'll start making right by giving West Virginia back to the Shawnees, Delawares and Mingos.
That would be just and right, but hardly practicable.

And you forgot about the Cherokee.

Many WVians today (including me) are of mixed ancestry (Euro plus Native, and often black as well), and so justice might also be attained if the abuses against WV workers were rectified, and the damage done to the state by the timber and coal industries repaired.

A sort of Marshall Plan, perhaps...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,078
Santiago de Chile
After the War of the Pacific Chile had to give extensive economic concessions to Bolivia and geopolitical ones to Peru in the areas that were annexed by Chile after winning the war. The French even had to pay the Germans after the Franco-Prussian war a large indemnity (not to mentioned the Prussians literally had a parade through Paris), which was payed off shockingly quickly, even after losing Alsace-Lorraine.
These types of deals to get peace treaties signed were quite common at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,728
SoCal
The war was an atrocity. Mexico was attacked for no reason other than the desire of the Southern states to expand slavery territory Westward. The USA paid for the territory, though nowhere near what it was worth, to stifle international criticism of its imperialist crime against Mexico.

President James K. Polk, an extremely unpleasant individual, ran into Congress claiming Mexico had attacked Texas after in fact he'd sent Gen. Zachary Taylor over the internationally-recognized border (the Río Nueces, not the Río Bravo as Polk pretended). So, effectively, the USA attacked Mexico to create a pretext for the war.

This was no heroic affair. Mexico was still devastated from its own War of Independence against Spain, it had a much smaller population than the USA, and was incapable of confronting the USA militarily. In addition, the Mexican leader at the time was the mentally unhinged Santa Ana, today regarded by Mexicans as a traitor.

It was a dirty business, and the treatment of Mexican people in the stolen territory over subsequent generations was an ongoing human rights disaster.

The New England states wouldn't even send troops for Polk's bloody war, as they recognized it for what it was: a slaver's ruse.

I am related to this vile President Polk, but I don't let that obscure the truth about his perfidy. He was the protégé of Andrew Jackson, another dubious individual.

Let's not forget that the USA also sent troops into Mexico to intervene in its Revolution, the USA of course siding with the pro-oil-company Gen. Huerta, who was installed as President after Madero was assassinated with USA complicity.

USA owes Mexico a lot more than anything that has been paid so far. Start with a colossal apology.
TBF, though, none of the territory in the Mexican Cession other than the remainder of Texas actually subsequently became a slave state. AFAIK, not very many slavery supporters actually settled in the Mexican Cession territories.

Living space? Lebensraum?

Let's not forget there were already people living there. There is far too much of this attitude in here, that if the USA needs it, it's right to take it. USA interests matter, none other do. That is exactly the attitude which creates these problems in the first place.
The number of people already living in these territories in 1847 was extremely low. A couple hundred thousand at the very most, probably. Also, interestingly enough, Americans made the Mexican Cession territories so great that even a lot of Hispanics subsequently moved from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America to these territories. That's a large part of the reason as to why California is Hispanic-plurality today (even though it was only 6% Hispanic back in 1940) and why Arizona, Nevada, and Texas are very likely to eventually follow in California's footsteps in regards to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zip
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
TBF, though, none of the territory in the Mexican Cession other than the remainder of Texas actually subsequently became a slave state. AFAIK, not very many slavery supporters actually settled in the Mexican Cession territories.


The number of people already living in these territories in 1847 was extremely low. A couple hundred thousand at the very most, probably. Also, interestingly enough, Americans made the Mexican Cession territories so great that even a lot of Hispanics subsequently moved from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America to these territories. That's a large part of the reason as to why California is Hispanic-plurality today (even though it was only 6% Hispanic back in 1940) and why Arizona, Nevada, and Texas are very likely to eventually follow in California's footsteps in regards to this.
Do the numbers matter? How many Yanks were already living there? That does not alter the illegality of the invasion and land theft.

Made the territories great? The Mexicans who came there to work were always doing the worst-paid jobs and treated like 3rd-class citizens. Do you pretend this is all a benefit for them? By that logic, was slavery good for African-Americans? Did it civilize them?

If you study the Mexican situation, you know that people have migrated to the USA due to economic hardship. From Central America they come to escape violence, but from Mexico it's for jobs. There are sweatshop jobs in Mexico, working for USA corporations mostly, but they hardly pay enough to live on, especially with a family.

The USA controls the forces which push them over the border, and exploits their labor once they're here. Since the abolition of Jim Crow in the 1960's, employers have simply used illegal immigration status as a new form of Jim Crow by which they can keep a sector of the workforce working cheaply and without basic rights.

There is no way to put a happy face on this, as if the invasion and occupation of Mexican territory was somehow a benevolent act by the USA
 

Zip

Jan 2018
478
Comancheria
That's a large part of the reason as to why California is Hispanic-plurality today (even though it was only 6% Hispanic back in 1940) and why Arizona, Nevada, and Texas are very likely to eventually follow in California's footsteps in regards to this.
As an Irish-American Catholic transplant to Texas I think the sooner the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
As an Irish-American Catholic transplant to Texas I think the sooner the better.
You may be aware of the history of Irish immigrants drafted to fight in the "Mexican War". They saw the USA Army invading and abusing Catholic Mexicans and many switched sides, becoming the famous "Batallón San Patricio", part of the Mexican Army resisting the USA invasion.
 

Zip

Jan 2018
478
Comancheria
You may be aware of the history of Irish immigrants drafted to fight in the "Mexican War". They saw the USA Army invading and abusing Catholic Mexicans and many switched sides, becoming the famous "Batallón San Patricio", part of the Mexican Army resisting the USA invasion.
I'm well aware of the San Patricios.

Nobody was drafted to fight in the Mexican War; it was fought by volunteers in state regiments and by the Regular Army, a professional force .

The Irish are a martial race and the American Regular Army contained a large number of Irish immigrants, many of whom had previously been Regulars in the British army; British regiments stationed in Canada steadily leaked deserters who crossed over and joined the American army for better pay and conditions (and in much of the 19th Century a majority of the rankers in the British army were Irishmen, who soldiered not only in Irish regiments such as the 28th, 87th, 88th and 89th but also in English and Scottish regiments). It was deserters from the American Regular Army who made up the base of the San Patricios. I suppose some these men were double deserters--from the British army to the American and then from the American to the Mexican.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,728
SoCal
Do the numbers matter? How many Yanks were already living there?
Other than in Texas, I don't think that there were that many of them there. However, a lot of Yanks did want to move there.

That does not alter the illegality of the invasion and land theft.
International law doesn't matter very much without bayonets to enforce this, though. Also, in any case, I'm unsure that what the US did in that war was actually contrary to the international law of that time.

Made the territories great? The Mexicans who came there to work were always doing the worst-paid jobs and treated like 3rd-class citizens. Do you pretend this is all a benefit for them?
Well, it was apparently motivating enough for them to move here in the first place.

By that logic, was slavery good for African-Americans? Did it civilize them?
Slavery was certainly wrong and extremely immoral, though I don't know if slaves in the US lived better than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa. They might have been better fed, though this is merely a guess on my own part. That said, though, US blacks nowadays certainly do live much better than Sub-Saharan blacks do--with the possible exception being the chronic crime rates in many black neighborhoods in the US. Interestingly enough, I suspect that a huge number of Sub-Saharan blacks (possibly a couple hundred million and growing) would want to move to the US if they were actually given the chance to do this.

If you study the Mexican situation, you know that people have migrated to the USA due to economic hardship. From Central America they come to escape violence, but from Mexico it's for jobs. There are sweatshop jobs in Mexico, working for USA corporations mostly, but they hardly pay enough to live on, especially with a family.
Yes, hence my point about even blue-collar life in the US being much more lucrative than it is in Mexico.

The USA controls the forces which push them over the border,
Which forces are those?

and exploits their labor once they're here. Since the abolition of Jim Crow in the 1960's, employers have simply used illegal immigration status as a new form of Jim Crow by which they can keep a sector of the workforce working cheaply and without basic rights.
That's certainly a very good point. However, that's an argument in favor of legalizing illegal immigrants and granting them normal status, no? Also, thankfully this problem is going to be reduced over the generations due to birthright citizenship--unless of course we'll continue seeing a huge stream of illegal immigrants come here. That's the problem, isn't it--even living as an illegal immigrant in the US is probably better than living in Mexico or Central America (unless one is rich or at least relatively financially secure, of course).

There is no way to put a happy face on this, as if the invasion and occupation of Mexican territory was somehow a benevolent act by the USA
I'm not so sure about that. I mean, the Mexicans and Central Americans who come to the US and especially their descendants (due to birthright citizenship) are going to be able to vote for politicians who are going to aim to improve their quality of life--for instance, by legalizing illegal immigrants, creating a stronger social safety net, creating stronger worker protections, et cetera. In fact, this is a large part of the reason as to why US states in the Southwest are rapidly becoming more and more blue over the last couple of decades.