A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[Kuciwalker]

You probably should have read the responses to his post...

[Ned]

MtG, you seem to acknowledge, then, that Polk did offer to buy the California, etc., and to settle the issue of the disputed territory peacefully before the Mexicans invaded. You must think Polk a fool for not preparing for war given the Mexican position that if Texas was annexed there would be war.

As to whether the outcome was a forseeable victory by the US, given our performance in the war of 1812, I don't think our victory was all that assured.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I've got a dollar that says they're all Republicans.

I've got 10 that says they're al white!l

[Mr. Harley]

Thanks, MtG, I always have to break out my books on the Mexican-American War, as I don't have everything memorized in date order.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

We need to have our history books updated. The atrocities against Natives, Mexicans, and in the Phillipines should be explained in more detail.

Unfortunately, a school board wouln't dare put it in lest they piss of conservatives who will start calling said school board America-haters by even contemplating that the great US of A was BAD sometimes.

[Kuciwalker]

I think Odin also needs to read the other posts in this threads... since his whinge is demonstrably false.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Odin


Unfortunately, a school board wouln't dare put it in lest they piss of conservatives who will start calling said school board America-haters by even contemplating that the great US of A was BAD sometimes.

Where did you go to school. Even at my all white southern school with a graduating class of 74 kids, we learned all about those things. And I graduated over ten years ago. Just because they didn't spend the whole school year telling how horrible we are as Americans doesn't mean we didn't learn about them.


edit. I said all about. In reality, there was only enough time to go over even important things such as the Civil War very briefly. Started with the revolution went through the war of 1812 and the Mexican War. From there covered the civil war through reconstruction all the same chapter. Visited the Spanish American war and went on through the 20s. There just wasn't much time to stop and talk about how horrible we are. Don't even ask about world history in high school. Mrs. Tinkle wasn't a propaganda distributer hired by the goverment to indoctrinate teens to be mindless citizens, She was a middle aged woman tring to compress years of American history into a 50 minute class after lunch.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, you seem to acknowledge, then, that Polk did offer to buy the California, etc., and to settle the issue of the disputed territory peacefully before the Mexicans invaded. You must think Polk a fool for not preparing for war given the Mexican position that if Texas was annexed there would be war.

As to whether the outcome was a forseeable victory by the US, given our performance in the war of 1812, I don't think our victory was all that assured.

I have to agree with Ned. Texas asked to be annex and since it was an independent state it really wasn't any of Mexico's business. That Mexico threatened war with the US (a larger, more populus, and richer country) over the matter was pretty foolish. The US naturally responded by pre-planning for the war and so a chance to sieze vast amounts of land as part of the war's conclusion. Polk did in deed have expansion on his mind but he negotiated with the stronger British on the US-Canadian border so he could put al of his attention on using and abusing Mexico in the coming war.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think Odin also needs to read the other posts in this threads... since his whinge is demonstrably false.

I was talking about things like the war with Mexico, which is too often gloried as "Us saving Texans from the evil Mexican opressors" when reality was the settlers violated thier promises they gave to the mexican government for the right to setle there. It had more to do with protecting Anglo-Texan slaveowners than anything else.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


I was talking about things like the war with Mexico, which is too often gloried as "Us saving Texans from the evil Mexican opressors" when reality was the settlers violated thier promises they gave to the mexican government for the right to setle there. It had more to do with protecting Anglo-Texan slaveowners than anything else.

Hah, the original war had nothing to do with any "violation" of promises, Odin. It had to do with what we now call "States Rights." Santa Ana changed the constitution from one patterned along the lines of the US to one patterned along the lines of Spain. This reduced Texas from a state to an adiministrative province.

Two Mexican states revolted. Texas and one other. Santa Ana dealth with the other state first, then turned his eyes on Texas. When he was defeated, he conceded Texas independence and the border at the Rio Grande. However, this "treaty" was not approved by the Mexican legislature, prolonging the war until the US ended it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
I was talking about things like the war with Mexico, which is too often gloried as "Us saving Texans from the evil Mexican opressors" when reality was the settlers violated thier promises they gave to the mexican government for the right to setle there. It had more to do with protecting Anglo-Texan slaveowners than anything else.

And that's one of the things previous posts have mentioned are taught about in high school...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And that's one of the things previous posts have mentioned are taught about in high school...

Then you are being taught an anti-American lie. The cause of the revolt was the change in status of the state. The Mexican invasion was a result of the revolt, not something else.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Hah, the original war had nothing to do with any "violation" of promises, Odin. It had to do with what we now call "States Rights." Santa Ana changed the constitution from one patterned along the lines of the US to one patterned along the lines of Spain. This reduced Texas from a state to an adiministrative province.

Two Mexican states revolted. Texas and one other. Santa Ana dealth with the other state first, then turned his eyes on Texas. When he was defeated, he conceded Texas independence and the border at the Rio Grande. However, this "treaty" was not approved by the Mexican legislature, prolonging the war until the US ended it.

If you're talking about the Texan war for independence then actually it was about the abolition of slavery. Santa Anna, a former slave himself, outlawed slavery at which point those states controlled by slave owners revolted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Then you are being taught an anti-American lie. The cause of the revolt was the change in status of the state. The Mexican invasion was a result of the revolt, not something else.

The cause of the war was desire for territorial expansion, nothing more.

[MrFun]

I have to agree with some others in here -- the education of American history has significantly improved.

The kind of history that Odin and others are lambasting had only been taught with older generations, going back before the changes were made.