In this part of the series we move past the Age of Jackson and onto our expansion West…..this part is about the Mexican-American War and its implications…..
Maj. Sjursen looks at this conflict more than most hisztorians care to do so…..there is so much more to this conflict than the history textbooks want to give the student…..
Part 15 of “American History for Truthdiggers.”
The United States of America conquered half of Mexico. There isn’t any way around that fact. The regions of the U.S. most affected by “illegal” immigration—California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas—were once part of the Republic of Mexico. They would have remained so if not for the Mexican-American War (1846-48). Those are the facts, but they hardly tell the story. Few Americans know much about this war, rarely question U.S. motives in the conflict and certainly never consider that much of America’s land—from sea to shining sea—was conquered.
Many readers will dispute this interpretation. Conquest is the natural order of the world, the inevitable outgrowth of clashing civilizations, they will insist. Perhaps. But if true, where does the conquest end, and how can the U.S. proudly celebrate its defense of Europe against the invasions by Germany and/or the Soviet Union? This line of militaristic reasoning—one held by many senior conservative policymakers even today—rests on the slipperiest of slopes. Certainly nations, like individuals, must adhere to a certain moral code, a social contract of behavior.
Now you have a grasp on what Paul Harvey called “the rest of the story”….
Learn Stuff!
Class Dismissed!
Excellent historical detail, and interesting to see a former US Army officer looking at the ‘other side’ to both those conflicts.
Best wishes, Pete.
I like his stuff…it reminds me of Howard Zinn…..excellent historic look….chuq
Pete got some news about Brexit…..chuq
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-european-union-thresa-may-brexit-negotiators-have-agreed-a-deal-2018-11
https://www.businessinsider.com/dominic-raab-is-privately-pushing-for-no-deal-brexit-2018-11
Also reported here, but mainly about the refusal of both sides to accept what they see as a ‘sell-out’.
Thanks, chuq.
I appreciate you helping me understand….chuq
Pete I found another article….do not know if I will use it…..so maybe you will like it….chuq
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/naval/trent_affair.htm
Thanks, chuq. I had heard of this before, but it was more likely that the cotton industry was the real reason behind why Britain considered coming in on the side of the Confederacy. They feared tariffs if the Union won, and cotton supplies from the south were severely restricted by the civil war. However, the slavery issue sealed the decision not to intervene, as Britain had abolished slavery before 1840.
Thanx for filling in some blanks…..I shall keep an eye out for more stuff….chuq