Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Who knew this site could be so educational? I didn't know the history of the Free City of Danzig, but I read the article you linked to this page. Thanks.
I don't know if Texans would see a parallel. Chances are Texans are taught a version of history that puts their actions in a positive light. "General Santa Ana was a dictator that took over Mexico. We had the right to fight for our rights, so we declared outselves independent." Blah, blah, blah.
But, you know, these land grabs--which ARE reprehensible--are so much a part of American history that it doesn't shock me. It occurs over and over.
California is a similar example, and again, the target was Mexico. To make a very long story short, California was also part of Mexico in the 1840s. There were some Americans there, but not many when the decade started. But American ships had traded in California since the late 1700s and some Americans had made it to California over land or by ship around Cape Horn. But getting to California from what was then the U.S. was a long and difficult journey across thousands of miles of wilderness. So there weren't many Americans there. But stories about California had filtered back to the U.S.--the fertile soil, the mild climate, and on and on. Certain powerful interests in the U.S. wanted California. Anyway, a war was trumped up and the U.S. went to war with Mexico in the mid-1800s. Mexico, being a much weaker nation at the time, lost. And as a result, Mexico was forced to give up about 1/3 of its territory at the time to the U.S. in the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War. And, of course, that was the point. It was HUGE chunk of land, and out of it was carved several states including California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. So, again, Mexico lost territory to its stronger and expansionist northern neighbor.
It's intersting to note--at least intersting to me--that at the same time there was a land dispute with Britain over the Oregon Country--what is now the northwestern corner of the U.S. and the southwestern corner of Canada. Britain and the U.S. had been jointly occupying the territory, both sending settlers. But again, some expansionist forces in the U.S. wanted the whole territory to be American. So they encouraged the U.S. government to start a war with Britain and take it. But Britain wasn't Mexico. And the U.S. government was smart enough to realize that Britain would have probably kicked our asses. So, in the case of the British, we negotiated instead of threatening a fight. The U.S. got some of what it wanted, but not all. And the result was the present boundary between the U.S. and Canada at the 49th parallel in that area.
(Edited by Sandia 16/10/2005 10:35)
I don't know if Texans would see a parallel. Chances are Texans are taught a version of history that puts their actions in a positive light. "General Santa Ana was a dictator that took over Mexico. We had the right to fight for our rights, so we declared outselves independent." Blah, blah, blah.
But, you know, these land grabs--which ARE reprehensible--are so much a part of American history that it doesn't shock me. It occurs over and over.
California is a similar example, and again, the target was Mexico. To make a very long story short, California was also part of Mexico in the 1840s. There were some Americans there, but not many when the decade started. But American ships had traded in California since the late 1700s and some Americans had made it to California over land or by ship around Cape Horn. But getting to California from what was then the U.S. was a long and difficult journey across thousands of miles of wilderness. So there weren't many Americans there. But stories about California had filtered back to the U.S.--the fertile soil, the mild climate, and on and on. Certain powerful interests in the U.S. wanted California. Anyway, a war was trumped up and the U.S. went to war with Mexico in the mid-1800s. Mexico, being a much weaker nation at the time, lost. And as a result, Mexico was forced to give up about 1/3 of its territory at the time to the U.S. in the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War. And, of course, that was the point. It was HUGE chunk of land, and out of it was carved several states including California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. So, again, Mexico lost territory to its stronger and expansionist northern neighbor.
It's intersting to note--at least intersting to me--that at the same time there was a land dispute with Britain over the Oregon Country--what is now the northwestern corner of the U.S. and the southwestern corner of Canada. Britain and the U.S. had been jointly occupying the territory, both sending settlers. But again, some expansionist forces in the U.S. wanted the whole territory to be American. So they encouraged the U.S. government to start a war with Britain and take it. But Britain wasn't Mexico. And the U.S. government was smart enough to realize that Britain would have probably kicked our asses. So, in the case of the British, we negotiated instead of threatening a fight. The U.S. got some of what it wanted, but not all. And the result was the present boundary between the U.S. and Canada at the 49th parallel in that area.
(Edited by Sandia 16/10/2005 10:35)
Posted: 10:31 Oct 16 2005 
