Prelude to a Mexican Invasion of Texas

[Darth Fanboy]

You're stuck in the early 1990s when they were still a new and exciting technology available only tob the developed nations - now anyone can operate them, the US just has an edge because of their hi-tech communications tech and infrastructure.

Or i'm not being serious, but then again that line was adapted from an old joke I used to tell about the Polish space program so....

[Andrew J.]

Mexico has no legal claim to Texas anymore. A corner stone of International Law is the power and ability to hold land. Whether we like it or night, Might Makes Right is still a fact of life.

Yeah, right. So if I forcefully evict you from your home, and for some odd reason, no one comes to your aid (police lines and 911 all are "engaged" for 170+ years), does that mean that you lose all your claims to what is righfully yours?
And if you bring some friends and their shotguns, but for some disastrous coordination mistakes and whatnot, you all get captured by my friends and me, and I -forcefully- make you sign a "treaty" while having some of my friends over at your old folks' place (say, "Alyeska City")...
Does that mean you effectively relinquish all claims to your home?

Potentially, yes. It's called adverse possession; if someone else starts using and controlling your land for long enough without you doing anything about it, they can become the rightful owners.

To address the actual issue here, the rule of international law that conquest is not a valid means of acquiring territory is a) relatively recent and b) not applied retroactively. To do so would require substantial redrawing of every national boundary, perhaps even the reconstitution of old states. For better or worse, national boundaries were frozen where they were around the time of the founding of the United Nations and can only lawfully be changed through mutual consent, regardless of the process that created them in the first place.

[Akkleptos]

To address the actual issue here, the rule of international law that conquest is not a valid means of acquiring territory is a) relatively recent and b) not applied retroactively. To do so would require substantial redrawing of every national boundary, perhaps even the reconstitution of old states. For better or worse, national boundaries were frozen where they were around the time of the founding of the United Nations and can only lawfully be changed through mutual consent, regardless of the process that created them in the first place.

Agreed. And, again... as I said before, it was our fault, as Mexicans, so divided against ourselves, so corrupt and weakened by decades of war. If unified enough, the only real problem would have been the Veracruz disembark, as we had no decent Armada to oppose the US forces... Actually, that was what won the war. From Veracruz to Mexico City. Had the Army been united, they would have kicked the Americans butts all the way back to Washington whilst singing "La Cucaracha", and then maybe establish a puppet state or something. But that would probably have been bad for the world, in the long run (think WWII, the Cold War... etc.). Remember, back then, the US were nowhere near being the Leviathan they are now.

Also, the Mexican ruling class was in fact so divided, that there was even a plan to establish General Scott as the new President of Mexico (to which, historical sources have it, he replied something like "Oh, but I want to be President of the US"). And one can't really blaim these types. Their efforts could be regarded as even "patriotic", in a weird sense. Tired of the domestic chaos, they thought American rule (or at least, an American president) could be just the thing to straighten things out in the country (of course, such thinking is seen as blasphemous by most people over here now). But I can understand the thought.

And I must insist in the point I made. Even though it's nice for us Mexicans to relish the historical bit that the Mexican Empire once spanned from Utah all the way South to Colombia, it's probably for the best that the US now has those territories (I'm not so sure about Central America, those blokes don't seem to be able to get their act together, except maybe Costa Rica and Panama)...

Again, having Tijuana, Reynosa, Monterrey, Nuevo Laredo and Juarez moved a few hundred miles up North wouldn't benefit anyone, it seems.

[K. A. Pital]

Had the Army been united, they would have kicked the Americans butts all the way back to Washington whilst singing "La Cucaracha", and then maybe establish a puppet state or something. But that would probably have been bad for the world, in the long run (think WWII, the Cold War... etc.). Remember, back then, the US were nowhere near being the Leviathan they are now.

How so? Mexico would simply replace the USA as the dominant power in the Americas. And who is to claim this would be worse than the USA today? It is simply too great a projection to claim anything. As far as culture goes, I do not see Mexico being inferior to the USA and I don't give two broken grosh for the idiots who rave about the inherent superiority of the Anglo-Saxon culture over those Spanish Arab Ivan Whatever people.

Even though it's nice for us Mexicans to relish the historical bit that the Mexican Empire once spanned from Utah all the way South to Colombia, it's probably for the best that the US now has those territories (I'm not so sure about Central America, those blokes don't seem to be able to get their act together, except maybe Costa Rica and Panama)...

Like I said, what is the superiority of the U.S. dominance, and what would fundamentally change if it was Mexico the superpower of the West? As it is, the USA hasn't given Mexico much help, and outside of places like Puerto Rico the USA has been nothing but trouble for South America.

[Akkleptos]

How so? Mexico would simply replace the USA as the dominant power in the Americas. And who is to claim this would be worse than the USA today? It is simply too great a projection to claim anything. As far as culture goes, I do not see Mexico being inferior to the USA and I don't give two broken grosh for the idiots who rave about the inherent superiority of the Anglo-Saxon culture over those Spanish Arab Ivan Whatever people.

Interesting point, indeed.

You see, as much as Marxists hate it (and I am not at any length claiming you're one ), wealth is not to be "distributed", but rather, "created". And Americans have been good at (if anything) creating wealth. They have quite decent work ethics (I've worked for Americans, yes), and a culturally-acquired sense of right-and-wrong, and a very decent sense of civility (like standing in que) that Mexicans, even up to today, are still learning.

Such things go a long way, especially when you know that what you make off your land is yours, and is not going to be taken away by the Big Government, to serve some unknown purposes. So it's understandable the Anglo-Texans weren't so agreeable regards new taxes from Mexico City.

What I mean is... A huge Mexican Empire might not have been as useful in the two World Wars, or during the Cold War, as were the USA.

(okay, I'm not especially proud to admit that, but it's more tan likely the truth)

[Thanas]

How so? Mexico would simply replace the USA as the dominant power in the Americas.

Why? The USA would not really be impacted because Mexico is in no state to annex anything besides Texas, which did not matter for a long time.

[K. A. Pital]

How so? Mexico would simply replace the USA as the dominant power in the Americas.

Why? The USA would not really be impacted because Mexico is in no state to annex anything besides Texas, which did not matter for a long time.

Well, to begin with, Texas has a quarter of U.S. crude and shitloads of mineral wealth, which would matter a lot once both nations start entering the industrial age. Texas was IIRC around a third of U.S. oil production in 1940. Mexico controlling Texas from the XIX century onward would have immense consequences for the industrial level of the USA, industrial development of the USA and Mexico, not to mention all wars.

The USA might not even ever become the naval and industrial superpower we know it now, being kicked in the groin and losing resources which were critically important in the 1900-1940 period.

They have quite decent work ethics (I've worked for Americans, yes)

So did I, but what I realize is that American work "ethics" are a product of the recent past, and their industrial work system which is fairly efficient and, in essence, a part of the factors that propelled them to superpower, is a child of the Taylor revolution in labour time and operations management. Which are all rather recent things and tightly connected to America's industrial development - no industry, no industrial culture. America did not have them at the time it fought Mexico. So if Mexico was the one to develop faster, it might be Mexican work culture and Mexican management system we'd be looking at today. Like I said, the consequences of an event that happened so long ago would be hard to predict adequately.

[Kane Starkiller]

Agreed. And, again... as I said before, it was our fault, as Mexicans, so divided against ourselves, so corrupt and weakened by decades of war. If unified enough, the only real problem would have been the Veracruz disembark, as we had no decent Armada to oppose the US forces... Actually, that was what won the war. From Veracruz to Mexico City. Had the Army been united, they would have kicked the Americans butts all the way back to Washington whilst singing "La Cucaracha", and then maybe establish a puppet state or something. But that would probably have been bad for the world, in the long run (think WWII, the Cold War... etc.). Remember, back then, the US were nowhere near being the Leviathan they are now.

US had 10 million people in 1820 while Mexico had 6.6 million. By 1850 US had 23.5 million people and a GDP of $42.5 billion while Mexico had a population of 7.7 million.
In 1820 US GDP was $12 billion in 1990 dollars while GDP of Mexico was $5 billion. By 1870 US GDP was $98 billion while Mexican GDP was $6 billion.
US was booming demographically and economically and they had a "manifest destiny" to reach the Pacific. I don't see how Mexico could've beat back US expansion no matter how unified it was. Maybe some battles would have gone differently and dates or years would change but ultimately US would have what it wanted.

[Skgoa]

You see, as much as Marxists hate it [...], wealth is not to be "distributed", but rather, "created". And Americans have been good at (if anything) creating wealth. They have quite decent work ethics (I've worked for Americans, yes), and a culturally-acquired sense of right-and-wrong, and a very decent sense of civility (like standing in que) that Mexicans, even up to today, are still learning.

Such things go a long way, especially when you know that what you make off your land is yours, and is not going to be taken away by the Big Government, to serve some unknown purposes. So it's understandable the Anglo-Texans weren't so agreeable regards new taxes from Mexico City.

Are you prepared to back these claims up or are you just talking out of your ass?
I mean the claims that 1) Marxists hate the creation of wealth and 2) the american culture is inherently better than the mexican one.
IMHO the first claim shows absolute ignorance of Marx's theories. And regarding 2), even if we only look at the parts of the respective cultures that influence productivity, the rate at which work is outsourced from the US to Mexico indicates that the situation can't be as clear cut as you present it.
... oh and the last bit I bolded is hilarious, considering both countries we are talking about are democracies.

[Akkleptos]

1) Marxists hate the creation of wealth

That's just silly, of course. I could have been clearer, though: ignorant Marxists -the kind we get here in Mexico, anyway- won't admit that wealth has to be created, rather than just distributed (with all which that entails).

2) the american culture is inherently better than the mexican one.

Not in every single little aspect, no. But consider this: Mexicans (The New Spain, back then) waited until Spain itself was conquered by Napoleon, then declared themselves independent only to pledge loyalty to the ousted Spanish king, Ferdinand VII. And then some of them thought "hey, this would be a good time to become an independent Empire. And then we could invite some chap from an European royal house to be our Emperor, FTW". So, the Colonial period lasted from circa 1521 all the way to 1824, when the last of the Spanish troops were driven out.

In the 13 Colonies, apparently it took only some extra "taxation without representation" (ok, some of it dating back to as far as 1733, but you see the point), and in 1776 they declared themselves independent (as a Republic). 34 years before the New Spain.

EDIT: FTW part. And "before"

[K. A. Pital]

That's just silly, of course. I could have been clearer, though: ignorant Marxists -the kind we get here in Mexico, anyway- won't admit that wealth has to be created, rather than just distributed (with all which that entails).

I doubt Mexican Marxists are all that ignorant. The creation of capital, after all, was never excluded as a priority even in classical Marxism. The only way they could be that ignorant is if they adhere to some version of Maoism, which puts political goals ahead of industrial ones.

Not in every single little aspect, no. But consider this: Mexicans (The New Spain, back then) waited until Spain itself was conquered by Napoleon, then declared themselves independent only to pledge loyalty to the ousted Spanish king, Ferdinand VII. And then some of them thought "hey, this would be a good time to become an independent Empire. And then we could invite some chap from an European royal house to be our Emperor, FTW". So, the Colonial period lasted from circa 1521 all the way to 1824, when the last of the Spanish troops were driven out. In the 13 Colonies, apparently it took only some extra "taxation without representation" (ok, some of it dating back to as far as 1733, but you see the point), and in 1776 they declared themselves independent (as a Republic). 34 years before the New Spain. EDIT: FTW part. And "before"

Yeah, a string of rather stupid political decisions. But how does this make their culture worse? One could argue that the earlier abolition of slavery in Mexico proves cultural superiority versus the then-USA. It pays to see the greater picture, though - do Mexicans with proper education and financial support demonstrate anything worse than Americans of the same position? I doubt it. I think Mexican culture is not a relevant factor when we're talking about development. Culture is a byproduct of material conditions, more often than not.

[Akkleptos]

The only way they could be that ignorant is if they adhere to some version of Maoism, which puts political goals ahead of industrial ones.

That might be it. I must admit that my notions of the different flavours of socialism and comunism are very rusty at best.

In any case, these people adhere to a series of backwards beliefs about big State spending as a panacea, trade protectionism, ill-understood nationalism, and others that have plagued the Latinamerican Left since who knows when.

Regarding Mexican culture's almost inherent flaws, are corruption, fierce individualism (e. g. Mexico pretty much only stands out in individual sports in the Olympics) and a general lack of sense of community ("I'd rather not do this, but it's going to be beneficial for all of us, later on"; or "Laws? Laws are meant to be broken, if you know how to get away with it")... etc. All of these are well documented.

See for example the Labyrinth of Solitude, by Nobel awarded poet Octavio Paz; or the very interesting Distant Neighbours, by Alan Riding.

I'm not saying that in certain cases Mexicans (individually or in small teams) have bested their similars from other countries. But, as a people, we do have this millstone of a cultural baggage to deal with.

[Simon_Jester]

Note that today, many people diagnose the US as having some of the same problems- particularly that rabid-individualist breakdown of the "enlightened self-interest" meme.

1) Marxists hate the creation of wealth

That's just silly, of course. I could have been clearer, though: ignorant Marxists -the kind we get here in Mexico, anyway- won't admit that wealth has to be created, rather than just distributed (with all which that entails).

Whereas, say, the Soviet communist system was good about this: say what you will about the Stalinist era, the Soviets did do a very extensive job of creating an industrial base for Russia. They knew that national strength depended on wealth-creation.

In Mexico, as in much of Latin America, Marxism became heavily tied up with the idea of land reform. With the majority of the population living as peasants and tenant farmers on land owned by wealthy individuals, the most resonant message communists could spread among the peasantry was that of redistributing land. Since land was still the main form of wealth in what was essentially a pre-industrial economy, you got a school of communism that emphasizes redistribution and that, when in power, doesn't really have the right mindset to promote industrialization.

[Broomstick]

Mexico has no legal claim to Texas anymore. A corner stone of International Law is the power and ability to hold land. Whether we like it or night, Might Makes Right is still a fact of life.

Or does Poland still have a valid claim against Russia for land changes during World War 2? Sorry. The US has sole legal authority and right over Texas, Mexico has no valid claim as they lost the land in war to the US and the US has held it for an extended period of time while governing it.

Minor nitpick -

The United States did not take Texas from Mexico. Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836, then decided to join the United States in 1846.

(Note that other parts of the southwestern United States were taken directly from Mexico, but this does not apply to Texas and parts of the Republic of Texas that were later incorporated into other states.)

[Akkleptos]

In Mexico, as in much of Latin America, Marxism became heavily tied up with the idea of land reform. With the majority of the population living as peasants and tenant farmers on land owned by wealthy individuals, the most resonant message communists could spread among the peasantry was that of redistributing land. Since land was still the main form of wealth in what was essentially a pre-industrial economy, you got a school of communism that emphasizes redistribution and that, when in power, doesn't really have the right mindset to promote industrialization.

I wanted to edit that, but it's just so very on-the-spot that I couldn't. Yeah, that's the thing. Mexico is now a country in which 80%+ of the population are urban dwellers. Yet these outdated ideas are a large component of these ignorant Marxist-Maoists whatchamacallit's "ideology". Ideologies are stupid. They're just an excuse for people not to think, I say

Take the very example of Mexican farming: In the northern, originally scarcely populated areas, where only gung-ho pioneers ventured (Spaniards, at first, then creoles and enterprising mestizos later), farming is booming. Whereas in the south, with all the "ejidos" (communal property, almost Indian-style with a dash of socialism), they have to rely government hand-outs to make ends meet, for the most part.

[K. A. Pital]

Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836

Did Mexico ever recognize it, though? Because a de-facto win only becomes a true victory after proper recognition. Otherwise it's just a recipe for a new war (which is, incidentally, exactly what happened).

Yeah, that's the thing. Mexico is now a country in which 80%+ of the population are urban dwellers. Yet these outdated ideas are a large component of these ignorant Marxist-Maoists whatchamacallit's "ideology".

Well damn. This is ridiculous. When did the Mexican left reach top strength, incidentally? Was it not during the 1960s, when agrarian socialism was a "hot idea", touted by some as even superior to the "flawed" industrial-urbanistic Soviet socialism? Pardon for being so uneducated about the Mexican left - most of the stuff I read about concerned nations further to the South - Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, etc.

[Broomstick]

Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836

Did Mexico ever recognize it, though? Because a de-facto win only becomes a true victory after proper recognition. Otherwise it's just a recipe for a new war (which is, incidentally, exactly what happened).

Eh, yes and no. The Republic of Texas said its southern border was the Rio Grande (still is, in fact) but Mexico said the border was the Nueces River so there was always some on-going dispute about borders. The fact that Mexico was discussing where the border lay at all sort of implies they recognized some sort of Texas entitty. The Treaties of Velasco were signed in 1836 between Texas and Mexican general Santa Ana. On the other hand, the government of Mexico never ratified the treaty.

So, there was some idea that Texas had defeated the Mexican army and was independent, but it wasn't full recognition. And, as you point out, it did trigger war 10 years later when Texas became part of the US. (The Mexicans say it was forcibly annexed, the Americans and Texans say they voted and chose to become part of the US). The US, of course, recognized Texas as a separate nation. France formally recognized it in 1839, and eventually Belgium, the Netherlands, the Republic of Yucatan, and possibly some others did so as well. I don't think the UK formally recognized them yet had a Texan Embassy in London.

When the prospect of American annexation became a real possibility THEN the Mexican government started moving to formally recognize Texas as an independent entity with France and the UK offering to mediate the lingering disputes over borders but it was too late, annexation became a fact before the Mexican government could act.

It's hardly the first time the independence of a break-away has been under dispute. We have nations today that aren't recognized by a lot of other nations (Israel). It's a little disingenuous to say the Republic of Texas didn't exist, though. It's not disputed that the Confederate States of America existed even if it wasn't formally recognized by most, only lasted four years, and was unable to maintain its independence by force of arms from the nation it broke away from. Texas defeated the Mexican army (Akkleptos has covered that disorder and inefficiencies in the Mexican government at the time had something to do with that) and set up and maintained an independent government for 10 years.

So, yeah, it's legal existence is fuzzy at best but it's hard to argue it wasn't an independent country in practice. A prime motivation for joining the US was solving the massive debt problem the Texan government had (apparently running huge deficits is NOT a new problem for Texas. Nor is looking to someone else to make up the shortfall a new solution for them.), it wasn't because they felt they needed protection from Mexico. Clearly, there was some notion in Mexico of bringing Texas back into the fold but the more time went by the less likely that was going to happen.

If Akkleptos has any additions, corrections, or differing perspectives from the Mexican viewpoint I urge him to add them to the discussion. I tried hard to be objective but it can be difficult what with living in the US and being steeped in a biased viewpoint all my life.

[Akkleptos]

If Akkleptos has any additions, corrections, or differing perspectives from the Mexican viewpoint I urge him to add them to the discussion. I tried hard to be objective but it can be difficult what with living in the US and being steeped in a biased viewpoint all my life.

Thanks. I have very little to add. The Official History (or "Bronze History" as some historians jokingly call it) here in Mexico skips over these matters as if it were a bed of burning coal, mentioning very little of the underlying circumstances in Mexico, Texas and the US. But according to the actual historical sources (and plenty of specialised books), it essentially goes the way you put it, as far as I can tell (I must say I'm no expert, of course).

It is worthy of notice that the fact no military action was taken immediately after the fact was mostly due to multiple factions warring for power in central Mexico, liberals vs conservatives, this group of generals vs that other group of generals, etc.

The expansionist tendencies of the US were spotted and noted as early as 1783 by the Count of Aranda, who -in a secret report to the Spanish Crown- said something like (I'm translating from Spanish):

"Tomorrow it'll be a giant, as its constitution solidifies, and later on an unstoppable colossus in those regions... Religious freedom, the ease to settle people throughout immense territories and the advantages offered by that new government, will summon farmers and artisans from all nations... And in a few years we will see that colossus I spoke of rise to its feet."

Now, what the Count of Aranda suggested the King of Spain was to voluntarily set the American (as in "America", the continent) provinces free and form in their stead smaller independent -but "fraternal"- kingdoms. Yes, sort of the way England did. But the Crown said nay.

Fast forward to 1812: Luis de Onís, Ambassador of Spain to the US, wrote from Philadelphia:

"Day after day the ambicious ideas of this Republic develop more and more, and more and more are its hostile plans against Spain confirmed"

Of course, what Onís meant by "Spain" was of course, the New Spain, now Mexico. By this year, the original independent revolt in Mexico had been pretty much suffocated.

The extent of the US' territorial pretentions is detailed by Onís:

"Your Excellency has already been informed, through my correspondence, that this government has set out to draw its limits no less than on the mouth of the Río Bravo, following its course all the way to the 31°, then drawing a straight line to the Pacific Sea... Such a plan might appear delusional to any sensible person, but it makes it no less real that the project exists."

So, yeah, nothing was new. It's just that nobody wanted to be worried with such matters when they were defending/fighting for the Central Government (another of the terrible consequences of Mexico's extreme centralism)...