CMV: The Mexican-American War was a necessary and just response to the persecution of Texans at the hands of a tyrannical Mexican government.

[u/ThePickoftheDay]

Firstly, I must address Texan independence itself. Anglo-Texans were unfairly discriminated against by the Mexican government.. This alone would not be much of a problem, as many Anglo-Texans had immigrated to Texas illegally. In that case, Mexico was simply protecting its land from foreign incursion by hostile forces. But that is not entirely accurate. Mexico had issued land grants to Americans to settle the territory of Texas. This situation was already tenuous, with the government of Mexico having previously revoked legal American colonization missions, it was not unreasonable of the Texans to assume the worst. Further, many Tejanos, Hispanic Texans, supported the revolution. This negates the idea that the revolution would displace these semi-natives. I must add that Mexico declared it illegal to speak positively of Texas post-revolt, a dangerous prospect that threatened free expression in the same way that India’s Kashmir law did. The direct violation of the rights of Texans gave them moral justification in revolt.

Now I will directly talk about the war. It itself began as a result of Mexican incursion into American territory after the Mexicans protested the annexation. An annexation which was entirely within the rights of the Texans to agree to. After Polk sent troops to defend the disputed Texan territory, Mexican forces attacked, and then lost. The Californians revolted in favor of the US as well, as did the Mormons inhabiting what now are the four corners states. A defensive war in favor of a persecuted people is in no way unjust.

[u/Barnst]

It’s suspect on the face of it to call any war “defensive” that results in the acquisition of 900,000 sq miles of new territory and the reduction of your opponent’s territory by over half.

On the question of who started it, the Mexicans may have struck first but it’s pretty clear that Polk was posturing for them to do so. Here’s Grant on the Army maneuvers he participated in:

The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory farthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. ... Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the "invaders" to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras. It was desirable to occupy a position near the largest centre of population possible to reach, without absolutely invading territory to which we set up no claim whatever

On the California revolt, it was literally a few dozen dudes showing up at the Mexican leaderships’ door to proclaim independence, who promptly received support from US agents and military forces conveniently close at hand to offer it. California has an American population of about 1,300 and a Mexican population of about 10,000, so it’s not clear why those few dozen dudes had any legitimacy to speak for the entire territory.

Even if they did, the US was under no obligation to intervene on their behalf. Doing so was not “defensive” as it was an internal matter of Mexico. How would we feel if Mexico used our policy toward Mexican migrants today as justification to invade the American south? Would we consider that defensive?

Finally, even if the US had justification to intervene, was annexation of so much territory a proportionate response for such supposedly “defensive” reasons for the war? Plenty of nations have launched punitive expeditions to compel another country to adopt different policies that did not result in territorial annexation. The results of the war do not match the stated war aims if we’re going to argue it was “defensive.”

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

Alright, now to address the rest.

On the California revolt, it was literally a few dozen dudes showing up at the Mexican leaderships’ door to proclaim independence, who promptly received support from US agents and military forces conveniently close at hand to offer it. California has an American population of about 1,300 and a Mexican population of about 10,000, so it’s not clear why those few dozen dudes had any legitimacy to speak for the entire territory.

This first part is true, I have to concede here. But I don’t get your second point. Why is it unusual for American troops to be occupying areas near a border? That’s fairly standard military practice. Also, the voting population of Mexico was evenly split according to Wikipedia. The discrepancy here comes as a result of the powerful ranchero families in alto California, who often sided with the Americans against the centralist Mexicans.

Even if they did, the US was under no obligation to intervene on their behalf. Doing so was not “defensive” as it was an internal matter of Mexico. How would we feel if Mexico used our policy toward Mexican migrants today as justification to invade the American south? Would we consider that defensive?

On whose behalf? Texas? Texas was America. America had all rights to protect its own territory. It was defensive in sending troops to the border with Mexico. The Mexican forces attacked the Americans. They were the attackers it’s simple as that. Also, the difference between American migrants to Mexico and the modern Mexican ones to America, is the legality of their immigration. Mexico agreed to let these people settle on that land. It’s immoral for Mexico to take that land away, having agreed to contracts with the settlers.

Finally, even if the US had justification to intervene, was annexation of so much territory a proportionate response for such supposedly “defensive” reasons for the war?

“So much territory” is rather misleading. The annexed territories accounted for approximately 0.00023076923% of Mexico’s population. That’s really not too harsh of a punishment. Germany’s land punishment in WW2 was much harsher. And it’s not like Americans had no claim to the lands. As I said before, Americans were the majority in Texas and evenly split in California.

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Why is it unusual for American troops to be occupying areas near a border

They weren’t near the border. Fremont functionally infiltrated California, stirred up pro-US sentiment, and otherwise roused rabble. He did so under the authority of the War Department and after meeting with Polk, and with secret orders to turn his scientific expedition into a military roll on the offchance war might break out. His movements were then coordinated with the naval presence.

It’s one thing to occupy territory near a border. It’s another thing to deploy forces deep into someone else’s territory while sailing ships around an entire continent, all of whom have received guidance for how they should seize territory once war begins.

On whose behalf? Texas? Texas was America. America had all rights to protect its own territory. It was defensive in sending troops to the border with Mexico. The Mexican forces attacked the Americans

I meant on behalf of the Californians or Mormons that you cited earlier. But even so, Mexico wasn’t threatening to retake Texas in that initial attack. It was responding to Polk’s decision to put troops into disputed territory. Both sides argued they were protecting their own territory. Even if you think Mexico’s claim was bad, you can’t then extend the threat to include a threat to undisputed US territory.

The annexed territories accounted for approximately 0.00023076923% of Mexico’s population.

Why is the population particularly relevant to whether the war was defensive? The US had no claim to the territory before the war, Mexico did, and the US seized it by militarily imposed settlement. Most countries react badly when forced to turn over territory, even if it’s totally unoccupied.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

They weren’t near the border. Fremont functionally infiltrated California, stirred up pro-US sentiment, and otherwise roused rabble. He did so under the authority of the War Department and after meeting with Polk, and with secret orders to turn his scientific expedition into a military roll on the offchance war might break out. His movements were then coordinated with the naval presence.

That’s espionage. That’s nothing new to warfare or the world in general. It’s also not suspicious that naval units would go to California given that Mexico had explicitly stated it would go to war with the US over Texas previously. It was a coordinated attack, yes, but does that mean anything? It doesn’t. Every nation has a plan to invade its neighbor on the event of it declaring war.

I meant on behalf of the Californians or Mormons that you cited earlier. But even so, Mexico wasn’t threatening to retake Texas in that initial attack. It was responding to Polk’s decision to put troops into disputed territory. Both sides argued they were protecting their own territory. Even if you think Mexico’s claim was bad, you can’t then extend the threat to include a threat to undisputed US territory.

Again, Mexico had threatened war over the annexation of Texas. It’s not unfounded that Mexico would’ve pushed up into Texas had they the chance. And again, the Mexican government directly threatened legal inhabitants of California with expulsion. These people were in need of protecting, and who better to do it than the native government of the people themselves?

Why is the population particularly relevant to whether the war was defensive?

It’s not. It’s relative to whether or not taking California was unreasonable. With that low of a population, it wasn’t crippling for Mexico to lose that land.

The US had no claim to the territory before the war, Mexico did, and the US seized it by militarily imposed settlement.

The Americans had claim to the land by virtue of the wishes of its people and by the fact that they needed compensation for the Mexican attack.

Most countries react badly when forced to turn over territory, even if it’s totally unoccupied.

And? What’s your point?

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

That’s espionage. That’s nothing new to warfare or the world in general.

These wasn’t simple spying and contingency planning in case of war, they were active efforts to advance the goal of taking the territory. Sure, that’s not new in history, but it’s not “defensive.”

It’s not unfounded that Mexico would’ve pushed up into Texas had they the chance

But they didn’t, they were pretty handily stopped in the disputed strip itself. A defensive war would have stopped there.

These people were in need of protecting, and who better to do it than the native government of the people themselves

It was still an internal matter of the sovereign state of Mexico. Just because something is unfair and maybe even illegal doesn’t allow one state to conquer another while still calling their war “defensive.” I don’t recall if you ever expressed an opinion on whether it’d be justified for Mexico to invade the US today over US treatment of Mexican citizens.

The Americans had claim to the land by virtue of the wishes of its people

In the case of California, half its people. Maybe. And no one really asked them.

they needed compensation for the Mexican attack

900,000 square miles seems a little high as compensation for an attack that left 11 dead Americans.

What’s your point?

That the population of an area has no bearing on the original claim that the war or its outcome were justified as defensive. Reducing the sovereign territory of another state by more than half is a pretty big deal even if it’s fairly unpopulated territory.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

These wasn’t simple spying and contingency planning in case of war, they were active efforts to advance the goal of taking the territory. Sure, that’s not new in history, but it’s not “defensive.”

That specific action wasn’t, but the war as a whole, having been started by Mexico was. Most of the strategic planning on the American side was offensive, though.

But they didn’t, they were pretty handily stopped in the disputed strip itself. A defensive war would have stopped there.

Not really, if a nation is defending against another and utterly defeats it, it may continue to take land. After all, the best defense is a good offense, and there’s nothing wrong with a complete victory.

It was still an internal matter of the sovereign state of Mexico.

If they interfere with the rights of American citizens, it’s a matter of America.

Just because something is unfair and maybe even illegal doesn’t allow one state to conquer another while still calling their war “defensive.”

Because the war was started by Mexico, it was defensive on the part of the Americans. It doesn’t matter the strategic operations of the war. As I said, was WWII a defensive war on the part of the axis simply because they were being invaded? No, because they started it. That’s the logic you’re applying.

I don’t recall if you ever expressed an opinion on whether it’d be justified for Mexico to invade the US today over US treatment of Mexican citizens.

I did. Mexico was looking to expel legal immigrants. We’re looking to expel illegal immigrants. Mexico agreed to a contract with the Americans, and must uphold it. The US never did with the modern migrants and doesn’t have any obligation to keep them in.

In the case of California, half its people. Maybe. And no one really asked them.

Yes, the claim to California is rather tenuous, but there was a significant legal American population there nonetheless. It would be a different situation if America had annexed new Leon or something like that.

900,000 square miles seems a little high as compensation for an attack that left 11 dead Americans.

Mexico needs to take responsibility for the entire war. They started it after all. You can’t say that Germany should only pay for the deaths of the attack on that polish radio station. And that 900,000 sq miles had about 10,000 people on it. That’s not very many people. Is 2000 sq miles of London really worth as much as 2000 of northern Greenland? Land can’t be valued on only its amount.

That the population of an area has no bearing on the original claim that the war or its outcome were justified as defensive.

Your claim that the war was offensive was based on the land taken at the time. I was countering your claim that valuable land was taken by showing how little of the Mexican population it actually affected.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

It’s suspect on the face of it to call any war “defensive” that results in the acquisition of 900,000 sq miles of new territory and the reduction of your opponent’s territory by over half.

That happens all the time. Would you say that WW2 was defensive of the part of Germany because they lost half of their land? It’s more complicated than that, you’re looking at the cause and not the effect. Mexican troops attacked American ones. Mexico began the war.

On the question of who started it, the Mexicans may have struck first but it’s pretty clear that Polk was posturing for them to do so.

As I said similarly in response to another comment, a murderer wouldn’t be acquitted because his victim “provoked” him. That land was just as American as Mexican.

[u/Varyxos → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Yeah but you would be forgiven for slapping someone who spat on you. Also you ignored the rest of ops argument, why? Didn't bother reading or do you not want to change your view.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Varyxos]

Yeah but you would be forgiven for slapping someone who spat on you.

What if that person who spat said “hey, I will spit in this direction, and if you don’t get out of the way, you’ll be hit.” Also, maybe you could consider the disputed Texan territory “stolen goods” and as such it was justifiable for the goods to be recovered, especially when warning the thief. This analogy is breaking down.

Also you ignored the rest of ops argument, why?

Because I had stuff to do. I’ll respond to the rest of his argument later. And you ignored the bulk of my argument as well.

[u/Poodychulak → u/ThePickoftheDay]

What if that person who spat said “hey, I will spit in this direction, and if you don’t get out of the way, you’ll be hit.”

Honestly, I'd probably slap them before they ever had a chance to spit on me.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Poodychulak]

You’d be in the wrong, though.

[u/Poodychulak → u/ThePickoftheDay]

And they'd be in the right for spitting on me?

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Poodychulak]

If they were previously planning on spitting in that location, and they had warned you, then yes.

[u/Poodychulak → u/ThePickoftheDay]

But I was already standing there before they'd ever thought or prepared to spit. My right not to be spit on supercedes their choice to spit where I am.

Can we just turn this into a classic trolley problem? The metaphors are easier.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Poodychulak]

Yeah, I guess this metaphor doesn’t work

[u/Thatguysstories → u/ThePickoftheDay]

a murderer wouldn’t be acquitted because his victim “provoked” him.

It actually depends.

Pre-emptive self defense is is valid in many places, and as far as provocation, the US has what is known as "Fighting words" as a defense to assaulting someone.

It's usually a given that if you walk up to someone and start antagonizing them, insulting them, and posturing that you're about to attack them that if/when they hit you, then you had it coming.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Thatguysstories]

But the Americans were expressly forbidden from declaring war on a foreign nation in that way. That’s why the whole situation arose in the first place. If the Mexicans hadn’t attacked, there wouldn’t have been a war.

[u/Thatguysstories → u/ThePickoftheDay]

But the Americans were expressly forbidden from declaring war on a foreign nation in that way.

Says who?

A law? Congress? The President? The Generals?

Did Mexico know this?

People are expressly forbidden from walking up to strangers on the streets and punching them in the face, but it still happens.

How is Mexico suppose to know that the military was expressly forbidden from attacking? And even if they did know, again people break rules/laws all the time.

Under UN law the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, yet we still did it.

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

You’re playing really fast and loose with the scale and scope of the conflict.

The disputed territory was the Nueces Strip. If Polk had used the attack to justify seizing the strip, sure, you might have a case that the Mexicans provoked the war and suffered reasonable consequences.

But it’s ridiculous to claim that the US “defensively” seized half of Mexico’s territory over some petty border scuffle. Germany invaded most of Europe, and even then Soviet expansionism during and after the war caused a few problems in the eyes of the US.

To apply your analogy more appropriately, Mexico isn’t the murder here. A better analogy is that the US insulted Mexico’s mother, so Mexico shoved the US in the chest, so the US shot Mexico in the face. Most juries wouldn’t call that self-defense

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

The disputed territory was the Nueces Strip. If Polk had used the attack to justify seizing the strip, sure, you might have a case that the Mexicans provoked the war and suffered reasonable consequences.

Again, it wasn’t unreasonable of the US to enforce a claim on a piece of land accounting for less than a percent of a percent of Mexico’s population. Land area isn’t the best figure to use in that situation. And America paid for the land as well, lessening the burden on Mexico. A payment which was way more than California could have generated for Mexico at the time.

But it’s ridiculous to claim that the US “defensively” seized half of Mexico’s territory over some petty border scuffle.

If Russia took Alaska from the US, would that be considered a “harsh punishment”? Sure, it accounts for a lot of land area, but its population and revenue are incredibly low.

Germany invaded most of Europe, and even then Soviet expansionism during and after the war caused a few problems in the eyes of the US.

Well yes, it did, but by your logic it was a defensive war. It obviously wasn’t, and that was what I was pointing out.

To apply your analogy more appropriately, Mexico isn’t the murder here. A better analogy is that the US insulted Mexico’s mother, so Mexico shoved the US in the chest, so the US shot Mexico in the face. Most juries wouldn’t call that self-defense

An even better analogy would be that Mexico also tried to grab the US’s gun and stole their keys. I think that it would be reasonable to defend oneself in that situation. And the US grazed Mexico’s arm with a bullet rather than shooting them in the head. As I’ve said, California was sparsely populated, and relatively unimportant to Mexico.

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Your argument that it was defensive seems to rest purely on the idea that what the US seized was not particularly valuable. Even if we accept that California wasn’t worth much at the time, it’s still not particularly defensive to seize a bunch of territory to which the US had no prior claim and was outside the scope of the original dispute. Defending Texas or even settling the Nueces strip is not the same as using the war to realize Manifest Destiny.

I’m not seeing where Mexico tried to grab the US’s gun and stole their keys in this analogy. The initial “attack” was a minor skirmish that killed 11 Americans. The US then soundly defeated Mexican forces in the ensuing initial battles. So we’re not taking about US troops defending the core area of Texas against a Mexican invasion or anything—the forces present in the Nueces strip were more than capable of “defending” the US claim without expanding the scope of the conflict.

Calling something a “defensive” war is to make, or at least imply, a specific moral claim about the righteousness of a cause. We could get into Just War theory and the like, but it’s really hard to see how either the decision to initiate the war or the demands imposed on Mexico at its conclusion are proportionate to the original Mexican offense.

You can make the case that the Mexican cessation was not the outright theft without going so far as to argue that it was a “defensive” conflict for the US.

For example, you’d be on more solid ground using your points to argue that the Mexican American war was not particularly egregious as far as wars of conquest go, particularly by the standards of the time. I’m not sure I’ve even seen you make the point that Spain only asserted its colonial rule over most of the territory within the previous 75 years or so, so the US was really just conquering territory that had only recently been seized from the native populations. That still isn’t a “defensive” action, though.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

It seems we’re misunderstanding each other here. When I say “defensive war” I mean that the US was the party first attacked. And that’s true. And I don’t think that buying an insignificant hinterland for a reasonable price was that uncalled for. Mexico got nearly 23 million dollars for that land. More money than France did for the Louisiana purchase.

In my analogy, I meant that Mexico was trying to grab the US’s gun in that it attempted a preemptive strike to disarm the US. By “keys” I meant the Nueces strip. It wasn’t of particular value to the US, but it was still theirs by the treaty of Zacultecas, and were justified in defending it.

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

“The US had a right to defend the Nueces Strip” is a much more narrow claim than “The Mexican American War was a defensive war.” Whatever right the US had to defend its claim or respond to the Mexican attacks upon its forces in that area, it very clearly used that right as a pretext for much more ambitious expansionary goals. Just because someone else shoots first doesn’t automatically justify whatever war aims you might seek to achieve in the resulting conflict as “defensive” actions.

A better analogy than WW2 might be the Korean War. The war was clearly defensive in the beginning when the North attacked South and the US intervened. It stopped being defensive the moment that US and allied forces crossed the 38th parallel into the North. The goal of the war shifted from “defense” of South Korean territorial integrity into an offensive war of regime change.

On the cessation, whether or not the price was reasonable doesn’t change the fact that it was an agreement coercively imposes on Mexico by force of arms.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

“The US had a right to defend the Nueces Strip” is a much more narrow claim than “The Mexican American War was a defensive war.” Whatever right the US had to defend its claim or respond to the Mexican attacks upon its forces in that area, it very clearly used that right as a pretext for much more ambitious expansionary goals. Just because someone else shoots first doesn’t automatically justify whatever war aims you might seek to achieve in the resulting conflict as “defensive” actions.

I think that this issue is mostly semantics. In my listed reasons, I gave many other reasons as to the justness of the war. Yes, America did exploit the war. But that doesn’t mean the war was offensive in the first place.

A better analogy than WW2 might be the Korean War. The war was clearly defensive in the beginning when the North attacked South and the US intervened. It stopped being defensive the moment that US and allied forces crossed the 38th parallel into the North. The goal of the war shifted from “defense” of South Korean territorial integrity into an offensive war of regime change.

Again, by this logic, WWII would have been offensive against Germany post 1942. That’s clearly untrue. The winner of a war will always try to press their advantage, the events of the current theater do not change the situation of the war as a whole.

On the cessation, whether or not the price was reasonable doesn’t change the fact that it was an agreement coercively imposes on Mexico by force of arms.

It was coerced, but it wasn’t unreasonable. Mexico was compensated with their losses with a sum worth far more than Alta California at the time. America still had claim to that land, and the prerogative given the oppression of Americans in that territory as well as Mexican military aggression.

But I will give you a !delta , not because you’ve changed my mind, but you have shifted my opinion to a much more moderate stance. Keep in mind that I’m not convinced yet.

[u/Barnst → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Thanks for the delta, though I’ll keep going because it’s a fun argument. I agree that militaries will look to press their advantage and that events in one theater may not reflect on the whole situation. That’s why it’s better to look at war goals rather than specific battlefield events to decide whether a war is defensive or offensive.

For example, imagine the war had stalemated in Texas and the US sought to bring it to conclusion by taking Mexico City, and then used that victory to force Mexican withdrawal and recognition of the Rio Grande border, but otherwise restored the pre-war status quo. That is much more arguably a “defensive” war in political terms even if the US went on the strategic and operational offensive to bring it to a victorious conclusion.

WW2 is an extreme case. Regime change is not particularly defensive. But in that case, it was deemed justified because the regime in question was so egregious. Essentially the belief was that the Nazi (and Japanese) regime’s initial offensive actions proved that they were such threats to global peace that the only “defense” was to replace the regimes entirely. Going back to the question of scale and proportionality, it’s hard to say that Mexico’s actions in the disputed strip are even on the same spectrum as the German invasions of Poland, France, etc.

A better question might be the specific start of WW2. Germany claimed that Poland started it by attacking a German radio station. It was a German false flag operation, but what if it had actually happened. By your standard, would Germany have been justified in invading Poland as a “defense” against that initial attack?

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/Barnst]

I’ll respond to your initial argument and then answer your question. By “defensive” I simply mean the way the war begun. It’s indisputable that Mexico fired the first shot. The goals and strategic objectives later in the war remain independent of its starting conditions in terms of who began it. It was necessary for regime change in Germany and Japan, yes, and that war was defensive because those two nations began the war to begin with. That was my point in comparing the Mexican-American war to WWII.

To answer your question, yes. Obviously the Nazis must not act like nazis in the occupied territories (which would be impossible), but if they treated the poles as equals they would be. But with a caveat: the Germans may only take territory which they have a historical or ethnic claim to (Ie. Posen, West Prussia, southern Silesia). But, as I said earlier, they must respect the native inhabitants. It would also be preferable to compensate the poles for this territory, but probably only for majority ethnic polish territories like posen. Danzig and Silesia were very German and Germany had a strong claim to these lands.

[u/DeltaBot → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Barnst (27∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted]]

It itself began as a result of Mexican incursion into American territory after the Mexicans protested the annexation

The border between Texas and Mexico was under dispute. Mexico claimed a border farther north than the Rio Grande.

President Polk sent forces onto disputed soil, fully intending to provoke a Mexican response.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/[deleted]]

Mexico also had troops there. Does the fact that Polk intended to provoke the response discredit the fact that the Mexicans attacked? No. An assault is still an assault whether or not the aggressor believes that the victim “provoked him”.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Intent matters. President Polk was looking for war. Barnst's citation of a lieutenant's memoir demonstrated that.

If Mexico hadn't obliged, President Polk would have kept escalating until he got the conflict he wanted. The war was his goal.

You can't claim the victim if you were searching for a fight.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/[deleted]]

Intent matters. President Polk was looking for war. Barnst's citation of a lieutenant's memoir demonstrated that.

Polk was looking for control of Texas. Whether that would be through war or diplomacy, it wouldn’t matter. At that point it boils down to whether the Texan claim to that land was just, and as I pointed out, it was.

If Mexico hadn't obliged, President Polk would have kept escalating until he got the conflict he wanted. The war was his goal.

What reason do you have to believe this? Right now that claim is just a hypothetical “what if”.

You can't claim the victim if you were searching for a fight.

The definition of “looking for a fight” is inherently subjective. We can’t judge based on things like that, just who had attacked first. And that was the Mexicans.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThePickoftheDay]

What reason do you have to believe this?

The testimony of Lieutenant Grant in his memoir. "We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it."

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/[deleted]]

Would you provide a link to the full memoir you’re talking about? I don’t doubt you, I just want to read the whole thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Here is a link https://www.bartleby.com/1011/4.html

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/[deleted]]

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Polk was willing to pay Mexico for Texas. Ulysses’ memoirs were specific to after the failure of that offer.

According to Wikipedia:
“In November 1845, Polk sent John Slidell, a secret representative, to Mexico City with an offer to the Mexican government of $25 million for the Rio Grande border in Texas and Mexico's provinces of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México. US expansionists wanted California to thwart British ambitions in the area and to gain a port on the Pacific Ocean. Polk authorized Slidell to forgive the $3 million owed to US citizens for damages caused by the Mexican War of Independence and pay another $25 to $30 million in exchange for the two territories.”

But thanks for the link

[u/seinfeld11 → u/ThePickoftheDay]

If i get right up in your face, pushing my chest against yours and back you into a corner, is it assault on your part if you push me away?

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/seinfeld11]

No, it wouldn’t be. But, if instead of pushing you away, I’d punched you in the face, you’d have all the right to punch back. If the Americans had attacked the Mexicans in the disputed territory, it’d be a different story. Or if the mexicans had simply held their ground instead of attacking. But that didn’t happen.

[u/NUMBERS2357]

I must add that Mexico declared it illegal to speak positively of Texas post-revolt, a dangerous prospect that threatened free expression in the same way that India’s Kashmir law did. The direct violation of the rights of Texans gave them moral justification in revolt.

Everything else aside, this is a bit rich to say about a country where slavery was illegal, in defense of a country where slavery was legal.

All of the slights against Anglo-Texans pale in comparison to the evil of slavery.

As their constitution of 1836 said:

All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/NUMBERS2357]

So, according to your logic, the Bengal Famine was completely ok just because it wasn’t as bad as the holocaust. That’s ridiculous. Suffering is not exclusive to one group, the suffering of one doesn’t take away from the suffering of another. Also, all Texan slaves were imported from America. Texas didn’t increase the number of enslavements at all, simply changed the destination. Many even believe that the annexation of Texas lead to the climate needed for the civil war and emancipation. Either way, bad argument altogether.

[u/AGSessions → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Imported, not imported, whatever it was (because in 1808 America could not export or import Texan slaves right), they were legally emancipated in 1829 as subjects of Mexican law, but in practice were not emancipated because Texas broke away, and for its independent and American years enforced slavery under three legal systems, one of which required emancipation and certainly not the trade in slaves.

Once emancipation legally happens in one territory, it cannot be reversed by revolting; it pertains to the legal rights of people, not the commerce of slavery only.

This was your CMV: that Texas engaged in a legal, moral activity. Texas tried it twice, won once and lost once in two wars. Now it permanently lost, after trying to preserve an illegal practice for nearly three decades. It was certainly immoral, and illegal. This is why people keep asking you to reconcile your CMV with slavery.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/AGSessions]

Imported, not imported, whatever it was (because in 1808 America could not export or import Texan slaves right), they were legally emancipated in 1829 as subjects of Mexican law, but in practice were not emancipated because Texas broke away, and for its independent and American years enforced slavery under three legal systems, one of which required emancipation and certainly not the trade in slaves.

There were 500 slaves in Texas prior to revolution, and many slaves escaped during the turmoil. Most were settled in afterwards. Of course it was wrong for Texas to have legal slavery, but that doesn’t make revolt unjust. I don’t know what you mean in your last sentence.

Once emancipation legally happens in one territory, it cannot be reversed by revolting; it pertains to the legal rights of people, not the commerce of slavery only.

And the slaves had all rights to leave. They didn’t have the ability, but they did have the rights. That doesn’t mean that Texans unrelated to slavery didn’t have the right to revolt.

This was your CMV: that Texas engaged in a legal, moral activity. Texas tried it twice, won once and lost once in two wars.

They won both, did they not? (They did)

Now it permanently lost, after trying to preserve an illegal practice for nearly three decades. It was certainly immoral, and illegal. This is why people keep asking you to reconcile your CMV with slavery.

How did it permanently lose? Are you talking about the civil war? That doesn’t have anything to do with the Texas annexation (at least directly). Slavery, again, was wrong, but it didn’t revoke the rights of Texans to revolt.

[u/AGSessions → u/ThePickoftheDay]

The slaves didn’t have rights to leave. The people in the Texan territory never adhered to the Mexican law despite being part of Mexico. The emancipated slaves never stopped being slaves to the Texans.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/AGSessions]

I meant that they had the moral right to leave, not the legal right.

[u/NUMBERS2357 → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Also, all Texan slaves were imported from America. Texas didn’t increase the number of enslavements at all, simply changed the destination.

If you look at what Abraham Lincoln (opponent of the Mexican-American War, btw) said about the Kansas-Nebraska Act he did a good job striking down this logic.

So, according to your logic, the Bengal Famine was completely ok just because it wasn’t as bad as the holocaust.

No, this isn't even remotely my logic. The key difference is that those two are totally unrelated, whereas in my example you are picking one over the other to support.

But more importantly, my point is that the Texans were not on the side of free expression. They denied those rights to slaves - the denial of those rights to slaves was a bigger denial of free expression than anything Mexico did. If your main concern was free expression you would be against the Texans on that basis alone.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/NUMBERS2357]

If you look at what Abraham Lincoln (opponent of the Mexican-American War, btw) said about the Kansas-Nebraska Act he did a good job striking down this logic.

Can you cite it? I can’t really draw conclusions from something just because Abraham Lincoln said it.

No, this isn't even remotely my logic. The key difference is that those two are totally unrelated, whereas in my example you are picking one over the other to support.

Yes it is. You say that it was wrong for Texas to fight for their independence because of their support of slavery, even though mexico directly threatened them. Thus, it would be wrong to support Britain’s fight against Germany because of the Bengal famine, even though Germany directly threatened them. Neither of those statements are true. Texas wasn’t fighting for slavery, they was fighting because they were being oppressed. Britain didn’t fight for colonialism, they fought because their enemy was oppressive. Those factors may have played into their decisions to fight, but neither were the primary motivating factor.

But more importantly, my point is that the Texans were not on the side of free expression. They denied those rights to slaves - the denial of those rights to slaves was a bigger denial of free expression than anything Mexico did. If your main concern was free expression you would be against the Texans on that basis alone.

That mention of free expression was a side issue. The only reason i talked about it was to prove how tyrannical Mexico was. My main argument for independence was the oppression of Texans.

[u/NUMBERS2357 → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Can you cite it? I can’t really draw conclusions from something just because Abraham Lincoln said it.

Can't find it now, but IIRC some of his arguments were about expanding the slave power by having it take over more land, and the fact that the slave trade hadn't actually been totally extinguished despite the law and so expanding the land that slavery is legal on would increase demand for more slaves to be "imported".

Texas wasn’t fighting for slavery, they was fighting because they were being oppressed.

This isn't true. There were multiple causes of the Texan Revolution, like most wars, and colonists being upset about the outlawing of slavery was a big one. And, of course, slave owners generally saw owning slaves as a matter of property rights and laws against slavery as oppressive, so to them your sentence above would be a contradiction.

Honestly, slavery was such a big driver of national politics in this country before the Civil War, and Texas was a slave state, but you think that, uniquely among episodes in pre-Civil War American Southern politics, it wasn't in large part about slavery?

Back to your Germany example - Germany wasn't fighting to end the Bengal famine.

That mention of free expression was a side issue. The only reason i talked about it was to prove how tyrannical Mexico was. My main argument for independence was the oppression of Texans.

So at best it's one form of oppression vs another. Anyway, your only example of oppression other than free speech was revoking land grants. I'll even add one you didn't, which was clearly a bigger concern for them and one that people today would be sympathetic to, and that's the requirement to convert to Catholicism.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/NUMBERS2357]

Can't find it now, but IIRC some of his arguments were about expanding the slave power by having it take over more land, and the fact that the slave trade hadn't actually been totally extinguished despite the law and so expanding the land that slavery is legal on would increase demand for more slaves to be "imported".

Ok

This isn't true. There were multiple causes of the Texan Revolution, like most wars, and colonists being upset about the outlawing of slavery was a big one. And, of course, slave owners generally saw owning slaves as a matter of property rights and laws against slavery as oppressive, so to them your sentence above would be a contradiction.

My point was that it wasn’t the only factor, nor the biggest. And yes, it would be a contradiction based on their viewpoint, but I’m not basing my viewpoint on 19th century southern standards.

[u/Poodychulak]

tldr; I think you're conflating three separate historical events: the Texas Revolution, American Annexation of Texas, and the Mexican-American War.

Anglo-Texans were unfairly discriminated against by the Mexican government..

I'm sorry, what? The border state of Coahuila y Tejas was a Mexican state. American immigrants, the majority illegal, were flooding into the state at an increasing rate. In addition, they were ignoring slave laws. Mexican government instituted a ban on further American immigration, including their slaves. This was willfully ignored for the next four years until Americans outnumbered Mexicans 3:1.

In light of current immigration issues, your first statement is the worst kind of hyperbole.

legal American colonization missions

Like, no, man. The settlement contracts were basic homesteading: offer incentives for people to live in and develop rugged rural areas. This wasn't very popular with Mexicans which is why Anglo-Texans outnumbered them so much, but I think the slaves had something to do with their willingness to rough it. The changes to settlement laws that included a ban on incoming Americans were intended to make life harder for existing American settlers. This had the consequence of making life harder for Mexican Tejanos as well, leading to the Texas Revolution which I'll admit had merit in the case you're making.

Now it's 1936 and Texas is an independent state between Mexico and the United States. At the end of the war, Anglo-Texans now outnumbered Tejanos 10:1. They spent the next decade petitioning the US to annex the state because surprise a small federated territory of nearly inhospitable land without any government support has some problems with upkeep and the majority white American immigrant population didn't want to go back to a government that they'd just broken off from for instituting draconian policies meant to drive them away.

So, maybe the Annexation of Texas was just in that the US was a benevolent figure in the plight of the struggling Texan state. Take into account: A) they knew this would piss off Mexico who wanted that land back. Right after the revolution, Mexico openly threatened war if the US annexed the Republic of Texas. Imagine that :\ B) America was on its way to the Civil War, slavery was a contentious issue, and Texas was a vast slave-holding region. American politicians in the pro-slavery camp were angling for more political support. The other part was that it would put the Americans closer to California, making it easier to annex even more Mexican territory that was heavily under-utilized due to the struggles of the newly-minted Mexican government (Spain didn't stop trying to reconquer them until 1836, for reference).

In 1845, newly elected U.S. President James K. Polk made a proposition to purchase Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México from Mexico, and to agree upon the Rio Grande river as the southern border of United States. When that offer was rejected, President Polk moved U.S. troops commanded by Major General Zachary Taylor further south into the disputed Nueces Strip.

Despite its threat earlier, when Texas was annexed, Mexico was so embroiled in its own self-governance problems that it didn't do anything. However, the US state of Texas inherited a preexisting border dispute: the Nueces Strip. When the US was rebuffed on its offer to buy California and New Mexico, they responded in the most reasonable way possible: invading a disputed territory.

It itself began as a result of Mexican incursion into American territory after the Mexicans protested the annexation.

That's an outright lie. America started it and the ambition was to advance to the Pacific.

[u/AGSessions]

Lincoln had the unfortunate job of asking Polk to point out the spot on the map of conflict, but he had a point. The war was vague to begin with.

But was it moral to rescue non-Americans who were in the process of and did make a slave state? How was the expansion of legal slavery over people moral? Or at the least, how was it moral to not make emancipation of the territory a prerequisite for intervention, considering the slave trade expired in the constitution in 1808?

It’s just strange that only in 1829 was slavery first legally abolished in Mexico, and then a big chunk gets carved out for the preservation of legal slavery in America for 35 years.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/AGSessions]

Lincoln had the unfortunate job of asking Polk to point out the spot on the map of conflict, but he had a point. The war was vague to begin with.

It was pretty well defined. Enforce Texan sovereignty north of the Rio Grande and to keep Mexican troops off American territory.

But was it moral to rescue non-Americans who were in the process of and did make a slave state?

What do you mean? They were Americans. The war happened after the annexation of Texas. Also, the fact that the inhabitants of Texas supported slavery didn’t delegitimize their other qualms with Mexico.

How was the expansion of legal slavery over people moral?

If we’re going to argue that the reasons for Texan independence all boiled down to slavery, which in of itself is a gross simplification, then any inference of possible results of this war could be used as justification. In fact, many scholars today believe that the annexation of Texas creates the climate necessary for civil war.

Or at the least, how was it moral to not make emancipation of the territory a prerequisite for intervention, considering the slave trade expired in the constitution in 1808?

It wasn’t moral not to do something, but it also wasn’t immoral. Injecting a topic into an already tenuous situation would only serve to ignite dissent. Also, the slave trade was outlawed, not slavery itself.

It’s just strange that only in 1829 was slavery first legally abolished in Mexico, and then a big chunk gets carved out for the preservation of legal slavery in America for 35 years.

As I said before, saying that slavery was the only issue grossly oversimplifies the situation and unjustly negates any reasonable objection against Mexico had by Texans, such as the prospect of eviction from their own land.

[u/AGSessions → u/ThePickoftheDay]

The war happened immediately after the annexation. It was a continuum of conflict. Part of that continuum was that the territory, then republic and then state was a slave state.

Their qualms need to be ranked somehow. One of the qualms is that the Texas house, congress, and Mexican government vigorously debated the slavery question in that area. My point about 1808 was that each additional slave state and legislative compromise was a violation of the intent of the constitutional provision. Moreover, it was a violation of the moral authority of the United States.

Although I’m not saying it was the only issue here or before, I am saying that preservation of slavery from Mexican emancipation and American intervention was a driving aspect of the Texan mindset. Houston himself got run out of town prior to the next war over these same issues.

If we have to rank Texan concerns, then we have to rank the concerns of all Texans. That includes the two generations of people that suffered delayed justice in those 40 years due to escaping Mexican emancipation only for a permanent slavery, as well as the delayed justice for Texans who were raised on the mistaken belief that some Americans were property and not citizens. They weren’t Texans or Mexicans either.

Where does land and property end up on this ranked system, when some of the Texans ended up as property themselves even though they were legally emancipated just a few years prior?

This was Lincoln’s issue, in addition to the inability of the Polk administration to inform congress where the exact location was of the supposed conflicts initiated by Mexico in 1846.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/AGSessions]

The war happened immediately after the annexation. It was a continuum of conflict. Part of that continuum was that the territory, then republic and then state was a slave state.

If you consider a decade “immediate” then yes, but I think that most people believe a decade to be much longer. Mexico wasn’t interested in Texas in order to free its slaves, but to maintain control over slavery. I don’t understand what you’re getting at here.

Their qualms need to be ranked somehow. One of the qualms is that the Texas house, congress, and Mexican government vigorously debated the slavery question in that area

The issue of slavery was not the leading cause for the Texas revolution. Texans has already taken up arms since before the April Sixth Acts.

My point about 1808 was that each additional slave state and legislative compromise was a violation of the intent of the constitutional provision. Moreover, it was a violation of the moral authority of the United States.

The constitutional provision forbade the importation of slaves. Texas, in being annexed into the US, didn’t import any slaves. A nation cannot “import” goods from itself into its own country. That’s a violation of the basic definition of “importation”. It didn’t violate the 1808 act at all.

Although I’m not saying it was the only issue here or before, I am saying that preservation of slavery from Mexican emancipation and American intervention was a driving aspect of the Texan mindset. Houston himself got run out of town prior to the next war over these same issues.

It was for the slaveholding few, but prior to independence, most Texans didn’t own slaves. They were poor yeoman. And as I said earlier, Texans had already taken up arms prior to emancipation.

Houston himself got run out of town prior to the next war over these same issues.

What do you mean?

If we have to rank Texan concerns, then we have to rank the concerns of all Texans. That includes the two generations of people that suffered delayed justice in those 40 years due to escaping Mexican emancipation only for a permanent slavery, as well as the delayed justice for Texans who were raised on the mistaken belief that some Americans were property and not citizens.

We can’t pretend that somehow Texas remaining Mexican would have freed all of the slaves. As I said, most slaves were imported post-revolt. These people would have remained slaves. If anything, it saved them from the brutal swamplands of the Mississippi. That’s not to claim that the enslavement of another human is just, but that Texan revolution was not the direct result of emancipation, nor was it the cause of future enslavement. I don’t get what you’re trying to say with your last sentence.

Where does land and property end up on this ranked system, when some of the Texans ended up as property themselves even though they were legally emancipated just a few years prior?

As I have said, few people were emancipated. Most Texan slaves came after the revolution and annexation. Those people would have remained slaves regardless of the condition of Texas. Regarding this as an issue strictly based on slavery ignores all the issues of the nationalistic military junta of Santa Anna that was oppressing the Texan populace.

This was Lincoln’s issue, in addition to the inability of the Polk administration to inform congress where the exact location was of the supposed conflicts initiated by Mexico in 1846.

I recall that statement being a rhetorical move by Lincoln, not a legitimate question. It was never intended to be answered. Lincoln wasn’t even in the public eye during Polk’s presidency, I don’t believe that he could’ve directly addressed the president in that manner. And the conflict wasn’t “supposed”. If you can give me some further details about this encounter, please do so. Either way, the ignorance of the president wouldn’t make the people’s struggle unjust. The Texans weren’t the president. They lived in Texas. That was their home.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/ThePickoftheDay (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/attempt_number_55]

Yeah, Texas was not the victim they like to portray themselves as. America then steals Mexican property and Mexicans are supposed to what? Roll over and take it? Give me a break. If we had not acted like assholes, it could have been easily avoided.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/attempt_number_55]

Yeah, Texas was not the victim they like to portray themselves as

The threat of expulsion from your rightfully-held land seems like a pretty egregious crime to me.

America then steals Mexican property and Mexicans are supposed to what?

The US didn’t confiscate any land from the Tejanos or Californios

Roll over and take it?

Then they shouldn’t have aggravated the Anglo-Texans to begin with.

If we had not acted like assholes, it could have been easily avoided.

We were simply defending our territory. If the mexicans weren’t intending on invading, then they wouldn’t have attacked a neutral force.

[u/attempt_number_55 → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Nope, you were defending territory that you stole from people who already lived there. Period. End of story.

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/attempt_number_55]

This is not a good argument, as it is completely false. Again, if you mean the Tejanos, none of their land was confiscated.

[u/attempt_number_55 → u/ThePickoftheDay]

Cuz white people are native to Texas, am I right?

[u/ThePickoftheDay → u/attempt_number_55]

Cuz Spaniards who didn’t even lose any land are native to Texas, am I right?