5 ms·

Since US stole 1/2 of Mexico from the Mexicans. 1847... Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time. What's with the downvotes, not as if

by x5n1 11y ago

Since US stole 1/2 of Mexico from the Mexicans. 1847... Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time. What's with the downvotes, not as if it's not true.

msoad 11y ago
This is not relevant
toomuchtodo 11y ago
Because history isn't relevant to the discussion.
alanpost 11y ago
Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which defined the Mexico--United States border, was agreed to by both parties.
- x5n1 11y ago
  At gun point. And no Mexico did not start the war, America stole a bunch of their territory, Texas, by annexing it. Texas, the Lone Star Republic which essentially wanted to be its own country. That usually leads to war.
  - adventured 11y ago
    That's correct. Mexico lost the war they started, and as the weaker nation in the conflict they had little other rational choice than to agree to the peace treaty terms in question. Mexico has no greater claim over that land, than did Spain before it. You might as well say Mexico stole nearly all of their current land from native tribes that existed there thousands of years ago.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      > war they started To paraphrase Lincoln: "can you inform us of the actual spot on our soil where US blood was spilled?" https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/images/resolution-page-1.gif https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutio...
    - tosseraccount 11y ago
      Thornton Affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair Mexico attacked and defeated America. At first.
  - charonn0 11y ago
    It was a war after all.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Texas seceded/rebelled, and became its own republic, as did Rio Grande, Yucatan, parts of Zacatecas, Jalisco, and Tabasco (and then Alta California after the USA got involved). So yeah, "Mexico" didn't start the war. Santa-Anna, the specific person, started all those ensuing wars when he suspended the constitution and centralized power, pissing off just about everyone more than an arm's length from Mexico City. The only rebel republic that survived the retaking effort is the one that allied itself with the USA. Had Mexico not gone to war with Texas and the USA, it is very likely it still would have lost all that territory to rebellion. The secession tension grew into Mexico's first civil war (Reform War of 1857-1861), which ended just as the USA-CSA civil war (1861-1865) was starting. And if we're talking "at gun point", Guadalupe-Hidalgo was negotiated with USA occupying Mexico City. There was serious consideration given to annexing all of Mexico. Really, one major reason Mexico still exists at all is good ol' USA racism: all those Indians and mixed-race people would get to vote and elect their own representatives. Also, would the Mexican states be slave states or free states? So the USA pretty much just took only as much land as it could fill up with free white people, and paid off the loser. And so they each got to have their own separate civil wars, instead of one big one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vox_mollis 11y ago
Annexing and then winning the ensuing war is largely how territories have been claimed throughout human history. Fair purchases are the rare, and recent, exception. Singling out the US as some sort of unprecedented evil for doing what everybody else has always done is likely the cause of the downvotes.
- x5n1 11y ago
  > Singling out the US as some sort of unprecedented evil for doing what everybody else has always done is likely the cause of the downvotes. Touchy. I never did that. But you assume. I am simply pointing out that the Western States were Mexican. So for Mexicans to come to America to inhabit them is only natural. Human immigration is also as old as human history. It's the Americans who have a problem with the Mexicans. Mexicans have no problem with the fact that the US stole a bunch of their territory a mere 150 years ago. They allow millions of Americans in to their country each year.
  - nostromo 11y ago
    > Western States were Mexican The Apache would like a word with you.
    - tosseraccount 11y ago
      My apache says "301 Moved Permanently"
    - davidw 11y ago
      For that matter, Oregon, Washington, etc... were never Spanish or Mexican, although Spain did try to establish a colony in what is now British Columbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_de_Nuca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_de_Nuca I can't imagine how miserable it must have been for people used to generally warm and sunny climes to try and eke out an existence in such a cool, wet, northerly place.
  - adventured 11y ago
    > Western States were Mexican. So for Mexicans to come to America to inhabit them is only natural That's an inherently collectivist premise. You're claiming that people are somehow connected to, or tied to arbitrary geographic boundaries. It's absurd and an insult to the people that live there. You might as well claim that Americans of Irish heritage, are inherently prone to want to return to Ireland, as if drawn by some kind of ancestral magnet. That's obviously not the case. Or you could just skip to the logical conclusion on your premise: Mexicans must all return to Africa, it's only natural since that's where all of humanity originated.
mikeash 11y ago
From what I can find, somewhere under 100,000.
WildUtah 11y ago
"Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time" About 2-300k total population in CA, NM, AZ, NV, UT, and CO. That was well under the population of several native tribes on the same land. And the ones in NM were not even officially Mexicans; they were loyal to the Spanish crown and refused to pay taxes to Mexico City. When General Kearny arrived in Santa Fe '46, there was a parade instead of a battle because Mexico and the Navaho would have to stop raiding them now they were American. The Mexican claim to America's southwest was just a line on a map -- total indefensible and non credible. In fact, it was just like America's border enforcement today.

by x5n1 11y ago

Since US stole 1/2 of Mexico from the Mexicans. 1847... Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time. What's with the downvotes, not as if it's not true.

msoad 11y ago

This is not relevant

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Because history isn't relevant to the discussion.

alanpost 11y ago

Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which defined the Mexico--United States border, was agreed to by both parties.

x5n1 11y ago
At gun point. And no Mexico did not start the war, America stole a bunch of their territory, Texas, by annexing it. Texas, the Lone Star Republic which essentially wanted to be its own country. That usually leads to war.
- adventured 11y ago
  That's correct. Mexico lost the war they started, and as the weaker nation in the conflict they had little other rational choice than to agree to the peace treaty terms in question. Mexico has no greater claim over that land, than did Spain before it. You might as well say Mexico stole nearly all of their current land from native tribes that existed there thousands of years ago.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    > war they started To paraphrase Lincoln: "can you inform us of the actual spot on our soil where US blood was spilled?" https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions/images/resolution-page-1.gif https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutio...
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    Thornton Affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair Mexico attacked and defeated America. At first.
- charonn0 11y ago
  It was a war after all.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Texas seceded/rebelled, and became its own republic, as did Rio Grande, Yucatan, parts of Zacatecas, Jalisco, and Tabasco (and then Alta California after the USA got involved). So yeah, "Mexico" didn't start the war. Santa-Anna, the specific person, started all those ensuing wars when he suspended the constitution and centralized power, pissing off just about everyone more than an arm's length from Mexico City. The only rebel republic that survived the retaking effort is the one that allied itself with the USA. Had Mexico not gone to war with Texas and the USA, it is very likely it still would have lost all that territory to rebellion. The secession tension grew into Mexico's first civil war (Reform War of 1857-1861), which ended just as the USA-CSA civil war (1861-1865) was starting. And if we're talking "at gun point", Guadalupe-Hidalgo was negotiated with USA occupying Mexico City. There was serious consideration given to annexing all of Mexico. Really, one major reason Mexico still exists at all is good ol' USA racism: all those Indians and mixed-race people would get to vote and elect their own representatives. Also, would the Mexican states be slave states or free states? So the USA pretty much just took only as much land as it could fill up with free white people, and paid off the loser. And so they each got to have their own separate civil wars, instead of one big one.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vox_mollis 11y ago

Annexing and then winning the ensuing war is largely how territories have been claimed throughout human history. Fair purchases are the rare, and recent, exception. Singling out the US as some sort of unprecedented evil for doing what everybody else has always done is likely the cause of the downvotes.

x5n1 11y ago
> Singling out the US as some sort of unprecedented evil for doing what everybody else has always done is likely the cause of the downvotes. Touchy. I never did that. But you assume. I am simply pointing out that the Western States were Mexican. So for Mexicans to come to America to inhabit them is only natural. Human immigration is also as old as human history. It's the Americans who have a problem with the Mexicans. Mexicans have no problem with the fact that the US stole a bunch of their territory a mere 150 years ago. They allow millions of Americans in to their country each year.
- nostromo 11y ago
  > Western States were Mexican The Apache would like a word with you.
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    My apache says "301 Moved Permanently"
  - davidw 11y ago
    For that matter, Oregon, Washington, etc... were never Spanish or Mexican, although Spain did try to establish a colony in what is now British Columbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_de_Nuca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_de_Nuca I can't imagine how miserable it must have been for people used to generally warm and sunny climes to try and eke out an existence in such a cool, wet, northerly place.
- adventured 11y ago
  > Western States were Mexican. So for Mexicans to come to America to inhabit them is only natural That's an inherently collectivist premise. You're claiming that people are somehow connected to, or tied to arbitrary geographic boundaries. It's absurd and an insult to the people that live there. You might as well claim that Americans of Irish heritage, are inherently prone to want to return to Ireland, as if drawn by some kind of ancestral magnet. That's obviously not the case. Or you could just skip to the logical conclusion on your premise: Mexicans must all return to Africa, it's only natural since that's where all of humanity originated.

mikeash 11y ago

From what I can find, somewhere under 100,000.

WildUtah 11y ago

"Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time" About 2-300k total population in CA, NM, AZ, NV, UT, and CO. That was well under the population of several native tribes on the same land. And the ones in NM were not even officially Mexicans; they were loyal to the Spanish crown and refused to pay taxes to Mexico City. When General Kearny arrived in Santa Fe '46, there was a parade instead of a battle because Mexico and the Navaho would have to stop raiding them now they were American. The Mexican claim to America's southwest was just a line on a map -- total indefensible and non credible. In fact, it was just like America's border enforcement today.