« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Happy Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Day!

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  February 2nd, 2011 at 07:32 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

On this date in the year 1848, in the conquered and occupied Federal District of Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by representatives of US President James Polk and interim Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, ending the war between the two countries.

By every possible measure, the war ended as a decisive victory for the United States and a humiliating defeat for Mexico. As a result of the treaty, Mexico ceded all rights to territory north of the Rio Grande and the Gila River, including all of California, Nevada, Utah, and Texas, parts of Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Oklahoma, as well as the parts of Arizona and New Mexico not later bought in the Gadsden Purchase. From Mexico’s perspective, a perspective that recognized neither the revolutions in Texas and California nor the Annexation of Texas, the country lost over half of its prewar territory.


Mexican Cession from the Mexican side

The combined Gross State Products of CA, NV, UT, and TX in 2008 were, according to Wikipedia, approximately $3.27 trillion, as Texas and California were our two most productive states. The entirety of Mexico that year produced about $1.55 trillion, less than half of the Mexican Cession’s total output even when we exclude the partial states given up in the treaty.

Yes, it’s clear that the war was a terrible disaster for Mexico, a loss that to this date grates and shames their national ego, which is why we see the Reconquista movement today, as groups like La Raza weep at the contrast of the prosperity of northern Mexico-in-America versus the failure of southern Mexico-in-Mexico. After all, the land ceded to us was mostly empty. It was southern Mexico that had all the people. We built what we have today from next to nothing.

It’s no wonder that, as the US tried to negotiate a settlement with Mexico, many of Mexico’s elites asked the US simply to annex the entire country. Even then, the writing was on the wall about the fates of the two nations. And of course to this day Mexicans who long for prosperity and freedom come here, in such great numbers that we’re having trouble dealing with it.

In looking back at what has happened since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it becomes clear that our Constitution, our values, and our way of life that are critical to our prosperity we have enjoyed, even as petro-rich Mexico has lagged far behind.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Was no more a president than is Mubarek. The rightfully elected president of Mexico was deposed in a coup. This was the main impetus to the Texan independence movement. Most of the Tejanos had voted for the rightful president.

    So they sent Stephen Austin back to Mexico City to see if the new dictator would honor the previous government agreements, but instead he threatened to hang Austin, and so he got out of there as soon as he could.

  • Spiral

    Ulysses Grant served as a Lieutenant in the US-Mexico war and in the battle of Chapultepec. But he didn’t think the war was a just war. Many believed that the war was promoted by “the slave power” in order to gain more slave territory. Over the 12 years following the end of the US-Mexico war, the United States would nearly be torn apart over the question of whether the new territories would be governed on the basis of freedom or on the basis of slavery.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m not sure they both can be true at the same time.

    If Santa Anna took over the republic in a coup, then it’s hard to say that siding with Texas was all bad.

  • Spiral

    Well, Grant did say what he said. It’s debatable as to whether he was correct.

    Abraham Lincoln, serving as a member of the US House of Representatives, opposed the Mexican War.

    Again, Grant and Lincoln could have been wrong. But their opinions are well known to us.

    And there’s no question in my mind that the bickering over whether all this new terrirtory would be considered slave land or free land nearly caused the country to collapse when Lincoln was elected on a “no expansion of slavery into the Western Territories” platform in 1860, as the first successful Republican nominee for President. (John Fremont was the first nominee in 1856, but he lost to Buchanan.)

  • saintgeorgegentile

    May I suggest Bernard DeVoto’s “The Year Of Decision, 1846″
    One of my favorite histories of the time. If you have the time you may want to also try “The Course of Empire” and “Across The Wide Missouri”.

    Mr. Beck may believe that Manifest Destiny was wrong, I see it as inevitable.

  • Spiral

    On the other hand, I think the US and the world is much better off with the US in possession of all that conquered land than if this land belonged to Mexico. Mexico is still somewhat of a failed state, even if few Muslims live in Mexico.

    So, while Grant and Lincoln had some good arguments against the Mexican war, I think in the long run it was a positive thing that the US won the land.

    The same might eventually be said for the Iraq war. It might have seemed unjust to many people (though I supported the Iraq war) at the time. But in the long run the Iraq war might help get the Arab world out of the mess that it has been in for the past goodness know how many years.

    There has been a worldwide movement towards representative government in Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and East Asia. But the Arab world is the exception. Perhaps the Iraq war will, in the long run (I’m talking decades, perhaps) change that. Ooops. I’ve meandered way off topic.

  • pilgrim

    No he did not use that exact phrase. He did have strong suspicions that the Mexicans did not attack first. He introduced “spot resolutions” to make the Polk administration provide proof of the spot where the Mexicans attacked first. His anti-war position was not received well by his constituents, and he only served for one term in the House.

  • aesthete

    Texas wasn’t particularly interested in holding up its end of the bargain, either: requirements to convert to Catholicism were generally ignored, as were demands not to bring slaves. Not to say that Texas was wrong for seceding from Mexico, just a quick clarification.

  • aesthete

    The Mexican-American War could not be justified under just war theory, and it was an expansion of the so-called “slave power” bitterly opposed by abolitionists at the time. All the same, I certainly don’t mind that land being under US control now, and I wish that the “slave power” had been successful in their attempt to make the terms of peace even more exigent in terms of land ceded: Jefferson Davis tried to get the northern states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and a couple of others, but was unfortunately unsuccessful. In retrospect, would have been better for the US to have that land than Mexico, no?

  • saintgeorgegentile

    Grant’s opinion had the benefit of close to 40 years of reflection (U. S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (New York, 1885), pages 22-24) while Lincoln’s opposition was contemporary. While I want to believe that Lincoln’s were based on principle, Polk was a Democrat, and therefore the opposition could also be at least politically motivated.

    How long will it take for the verdict to be delivered regarding our current policy in the Middle East to be known is anyone’s guess. My personal belief is that it takes at least 50 – 75 years for all pertinent information to be discovered and even then it may be too short.

  • Spiral

    And the US-Mexico war was a much less costly war in terms of blood and treasure than the American Civil War. Now, I think Lincoln was a great president, perhaps the best president this nation has ever had. But it is interesting that he was “anti-war” in the late 1840s but willing to deal with a ghastly war in the early 1860s.

    And he lost his own life in all the chaos of the Civil War. Wow.

  • Spiral

    Great weather. Great beaches. Ah, maybe someday Mexico will get its political, social, economic act together and take full advantage of its resources.

    But I agree. I wish that the US had ended up taking even more land from Mexico, as long as the rest of history would not have changed as a result.

  • Doc Holliday

    the US/Mexican war gets so little discussion that some confuse it with the Texas War for Independence.

    BTW, I good and entertaining historical fiction book on this war is called “Gone For Soldiers”, written by Jeff Shaara, the son of Michael Shaara, the writer of the great novel “The Killer Angels”.

    This is not “what if” , the events described did happen. It is call fiction because there is dialogue that can only be assumed by the nature of the historical resources we have. But it is still good stuff and very approachable for a mass audience.

  • Doc Holliday

    the invasion and defeat of Mexico was a great military achievement. This was noticed in Europe, and people were very impressed. Winfield Scott took and unsupported Armada through the Gulf of Mexico, landed, then took the Mexican capital.

    We were a little tough negotiations wise, because we defeated the enemy so completely. We don’t do that anymore and that is why wars go on and on with little achieved.

  • Doc Holliday

    leaders. They were all there as young lieutenants and Captains. Grant, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Longstreet. It is hard to fully understand the leaders of the Civil War without knowing the war which molded them.

  • JakePrime

    I think it is essential in understanding, not only the military and political lessons learned, but the blunders that went unnoticed against such a weak opponent. Many foolhardy mistakes were made, politically and militarily leading up to and early on in the Civil War that cost the country dearly. Much of this, I believe, is derived from poor political leadership causing the Mexican-American War and the ease with which the war was won. It was as close to a joke on the American side as any war, which mislead many to believe the Civil War would be the same.

  • Doc Holliday

    The Mexican troops were poverty stricken conscripts and truly used as cannon fodder. But the Mexican people did support Santa Anna in this war. I am not saying there was a fair election as we know them today, but they called the guy back, man they were dumb.

  • Doc Holliday

    the technology is always ahead of the tactics. This is particularly true in countries that do not fight many wars or have peace for long stretches of time, like the USA prior to 9/11.

    But sometimes I think people overstate the “foolishness” of Civil War Commanders. They did learn over time how best to use modern technology, this is particularly true of R.E. Lee. If you look at the breastworks and trenches around Richmond in 1865, it would look more reminiscent of WW1 than 1st Manassas.

  • pilgrim

    If by Europe you include the Brits, then I am not certain they were especially impressed. We got tough with Mexico, but this left our military too involved for us to do any tough negotiating with the Brits. The US northern border ended up a lot lower than the 54 40 campaign promise.

  • Doc Holliday

    The Duke of Wellington said of Winfield Scott after the war with Mexico “He is the greatest living soldier”.

    http://www.lone-star.net/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

    http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/1800sarmybiographies/p/winfieldscott.htm

    And here the Duke is quoted as saying Scott was the greatest living soldier and his campaign was unsurpassed in the military annals.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/james-k-polk-forgotten-great-2973

    Now I don’t know about you Pilgrim. But I think taking more of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and California was more important than a few more acres of tundra. JMHO

    .

  • pedrom

    ?????????????? And why does the author try to confuse the hard leftist Reconquista group (actually there are several of these little splinter groups) with the broader based La Raza group with which many centrist latinos identify? This kind of crap is counter-productive to conservatism.

  • Doc Holliday

    You either are an American or you are not. You either love this country or you don’t. I am all for Hispanics retaining some of their heritage such as cooking, language, etc. But the reality is there is NO La Raza? The Argentinians who are mostly European are the same race as those from the Dominican Republic who are afros? The wealthy Mexicans who are mainly of Spanish ancestry are the same race as the indigenous peoples who are mostly Indian?

    The problem with La Raza is it is a lie. There is nothing wrong with cultural pride even for people who knowingly leave their nation because they realize America is a better place. I don’t want everyone eating bologna on white bread with mayo. On the other hand, why does only the left look at people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character? America is supposed to be about the individual and his unalienable rights, skin color aside.

    Many Americans don’t realize this, but the Spanish speaking world is full of race bigotry. Those who are more caucasion are those with the power, they are the ones on tv.

    How does the list go? I think this will ring a bell

    1) Spaniards
    2) Argentinians
    3) Chileans
    4) white Mexicans
    5) Puerto Ricans
    6) Venezuelans
    7) Bolivians
    8) Peruvians

    this list is not all inclusive but you get my point. There is no La Raza, there is at best a Spanish speaking culture that is still extremely varied. But when you come to this country your job is to become an American. Nothing wrong with Thanksgiving turkey with empanadas, hell, it adds to our shared culture. But all I have seen from political La Raza is hate and divisiveness. Anyone who has been given the privilege to live in the greatest nation man has ever seen should be happy about it, not trying to separate people with a trumped up race not even accepted my modern science.

  • ltnowis

    Winfield Scott’s bold leadership won the war for us. People were getting tired of the war, and the troops had weak morale. He didn’t have enough men to protect his supply lines from Vera Cruz to Mexico City. So he took his army off the rails and lived off the land, marching to Mexico City. People said he would get eaten alive like Napoleon in Russia, and indeed he lost a pretty big portion of his army. But he made it in, and successfully stormed the various lines of enemy fortifications. When we marched in parade formation, there were men in torn uniforms with missing shoes.

    It may not have been a “just war,” but I make no apologies for creating the nation as it is today. I can hardly imagine this country without the Sierra Nevada or the Grand Canyon. Every Californian, Arizonan, Utahan, and Nevadan owes a debt of gratitude to the Americans who volunteered to fight for their country in the 1840s.

  • spinoneone

    Our Constitution guarantees property rights and the blessings of the other freedoms we enjoy, and has been in existance with some amendments for over 200 years. The Constitution of Mexico is on its ninth or tenth version and basically guarantees whatever the State wants it to guarantee. Corruption is rampant and the drug lords rule more territory than the Government in Mexico City. Oh, and did someone mention, 1848 was a pretty interesting year in Europe, too.

  • Next93

    I’ve seen some of the petroleum company operations in Calgary (51 degres north, according to wikipedia).

    Plus, we would have integrated into our national culture all of that amazing Canadian food, like…ummm, never mind.

  • pilgrim

    I also am not impressed with your last statement about a few more acres of tundra. Where is it written that we must choose one parcel of land or the other one? Why not really impress Europe and get both areas?

  • Next93

    The idea that having a Spanish last name automatically makes you part of a victim class and a Democrat is the worst sort of racial stereotyping. The Spanish empire once spanned nearly half the world, and thinking that everyone descended from that empire has the same set of political and social values is just moronic.

    Just imagine a Republican trying to equate a successful (and conservative) Cuban businessman living in exile from Castro’s Cuba with a member of an illegal alien drug gang based on nothing more than skin color and the number of vowels in the last name.

    For that matter, just imagine a conservative group calling itself “The Race”.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    It would have made America a diverse multi-culti nation 100 years sooner. The consequences of this, if any, I leave to your imagination.

  • streiff

    check the meaning of the word.

    I don’t see how being against this type of nonsense is any more harmful to conservatism than being against the KKK.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    My goal was to put up a fun, mildly interesting historical post that would troll some people.

    Mission Accomplished.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Mexico was still refusing to recognize one of our own states as our territory. That was a problem.

  • Spiral

    So, it might not have made America a diverse multi-culti nation 100 years sooner. A lot of that territory was thinly populated.

  • JakePrime

    I definitely agree. It just took a little while to hone their tactics and realize what kind of war they were dealing with.

  • Doc Holliday

    are worth California, why don’t you compare the GDP’s of the two areas? How long after the war was the California Gold Rush that help build out this nation.

    You also call the Duke of Wellington a a liar, when discussing military tactics. Look, we usually get on, I don’t want to argue with you, but the facts are on my side here, and it is not close. I did not bring up Canada, you did. I was talking about the US Mexican war and nothing else.

    Winfield Scott was one of the greatest American generals of all time. His only misfortune was winning an overlooked/unpopular war and that he was too old and fat for the Civil War. Yet he did devise the Anaconda Plan, which imo did help win the war once Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were unleashed.

  • Doc Holliday

    call it fate, whatever. We tried three times and failed three times. If Arnold could not do it, know one was going to do it. Also, our anti-Catholic prejudice doomed our chances in Quebec.

  • aesthete

    that we avoided tense relations with the UK. 54’40 or fight was perilously close to becoming reality. In that sense, it was better to go to war with a third-rate crumbling “empire” in the New World, than to do so with the Anglo powers, whose alliance with us paid dividends later on. (Also, I do think that poor relations would have made it difficult for us to purchase AK later on, so we have to take that into account, as well.)

  • pilgrim

    I never said any unkind words about Scott or any other Mexican War generals. I never said we should have taken more land from Canada instead of land from Mexico. I never called the Duke of Wellington a liar when discussing military tactics. The reason I used the phrase 54 40 or fight in the title is because it is the slogan that Polk used to win the election. It was Polk not me who first brought up Canada, You gave the answer to my question when you replied to Next93. We did not take those additional acres of land from Canada because we could not win that war, but we could certainly win a war to grab more land from Mexico. Let me be clear I am not at all upset about the victory and additional land grabbed from Mexico. You are entitled to have your opinion that our victory over Mexico impressed Europeans a lot. Please try not to accuse me of things that I have never said.

  • Doc Holliday

    and by history I mean it is important and the facts are there. I admit I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the 54-40 or fight issue. I see that Polk did use it in his campaign, but he later realized compromise was the most prudent move. Certainly this young nation was better off not fighting a two front war.

    I don’t doubt that the Canadian areas of the former Oregon Territory were valuable. But this in no way influenced the Duke of Wellington’s view of Winfield Scott. The fact of the matter is that the victory over Mexico, particularly how it was achieved, was a great achievement in the art of war and force projection.

    You know, we can do the what ifs if you want. What if we did go to war with Britain over the 54th parallel? I wonder if they would have been more likely to join forces with the Confederacy in 1861?

  • pilgrim

    I do respect your military history knowledge. I could Google or I can ask you if Duke of Wellington or any other Brit admired the military tactics and achievement of Andrew Jackson in the battle of New Orleans.

  • Doc Holliday

    I only mentioned the Duke of Wellington because he did not go around lavishing praise on other nation’s generals. His comments about Scott were quite singular in their lavishness.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    these united states makes him great in my book.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    successful maneuver outside Mexico City

  • Doc Holliday

    Scott considered him the greatest of his lieutenants. In fact Scott offered Lee command of the Federal Army at the start of the Civil War, high praise indeed.

  • pilgrim

    If General Jackson had not won the battle of New Orleans we might be singing God Save the Queen instead of My Country Tis of Thee. His smaller army of frontiersmen with their Kentucky long rifles defeated an army that had just finished defeating Napoleon.

  • Doc Holliday

    other than the military art or personal character. And that is ok, ’nuff said.

  • aesthete

    fought after the peace treaty was signed? All the same, Old Hickory’s victory was impressive, indeed.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    they may well have reconsidered their new strategic position and abrogated that treaty. The victory at nola was huge in many ways.

  • pilgrim