Was America justified in the Mexican-American war?

>>1674157
Was Mexico justified in the Mexican-American war?

>>1674157
I mean... we have evidence that the initial troop contact happened on American soil, not Mexican, with Mexican troops firing on American ones so... yeah, it was justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair

>>1674157
Not really. But it doesn't really matter because at the time conquest of another's land for resources was still deemed an acceptable practice

>>1674166
I thought the argument was that the area was disputed territory and America provoked Mexico.

>>1674179
The Mexicans continued to push past the "disputed" area after the Thornton affair. To say they were "provoked" and not the aggressor is disingenuous. Even the rhetoric of Mexico, before the conflict began, was to restore the border to the Sabine River which is the Texas-Louisiana Border. It was an attempted expansion by Mexico to retake Texas and it failed miserably. The US was absolutely justified in the Mexican-American War.

>>1674183
Er I should say they attempted to push past it. American counter-attack halted them.

>>1674157
From their pov, yes.

They built a fort on their land and said fort was attacked by mexican troops in an action sanctioned by the Mexican government. Furthermore mexican troops completely aware of their actions, ambushed and killed US troops with fully malicious intent and on American soil.

>>1674165

From their pov, yes.

US troops built a fort on mexican land, in an action sanctioned by the US government thereby invading mexican territory. Furthermore they would patrol Mexican territory armed and in full uniform.

>>1674157
I think two issues often get conflated. The US may in fact have been justified in the Mexican war itself, if you consider that the precipitating incident was a Mexican incursion onto US soil. This, however, is a separate question from whether Texas's secession from Mexico in the first place was ever justified. (I'm inclined to say no)

>>1674251
>Mexican incursion onto US soil.
Not according to them.

>>1674157
It was all the fault of the Eternal Texan

>>1674274
>NOSOTROS BUEN NINOS
>NO HICIMOS NADA

>>1674157
>mexico invades america
>americs wins

>>1674291
Haha

Memes!

>>1674291
That isn't really good grammar

>ERAN BUENOS NINOS
>NO HICERIERON NADA

>>1674352
Yours is they, mine is we. Different statements, but my grammar is probably fucked because I am not a spic.

>>1674352
> No squiggle over the N

Barbarian savage.

>>1674361
>"lol dude speaking spanish is only for spics! I'm definitely not saying that because I'm a worthless anglo who is too inept to even contemplate the possibilities of speaking another language. Instead I'll just talk crap about any language other than english so that I give myself a false sense of superiority."

>>1674364
Do you think I'm going to bother with the tilde in a shitpost.

>>1674361
Well, I was trying for

>they was good boys
>they din do nuffin

But in Spanish.

>>1674321
>americans try to scape of slavery of USA
>in mexican territory they are free of slavery
>texas full of americans for that reason
>Santa anna a traitor who sell the mexican territory to USA

No.

>>1674393
>Mexican Texas
>Free of slavery
Are... are you retarded?

>>1674399
Yes mexican texas was free of slavery you retard mongolic shit, until texas revolution in 1836 when texas become part of USA.

>>1674459
Blatantly fucking false

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas#Mexican_Texas

The whole reason Texas seceded was because Mexico kept ratcheting down on slavery in the state.

>>1674459

well, legally it was. In practice many American slaveowners took their slaves with them when they moved to Mexican Texas. Because it was against the law, Mexico did try to clamp down on it, which (among other things, like American immigrants refusing to become Mexican citizens as required by law for foreign settlers) caused the Eternal Texan to seceede. Mexico, unfortunately, was too militarily inept to stop them.

While I think Mexico did have an intial good causus belli against Texas, by the time of the Mexican-American war Texas had been separate from Mexico for several years, first as an independent republic and then as part of the US. It was certainly Mexico's strategic desire to reclaim its lost lands, but by the 1840s I don't know that the territory in question could still be said to be 'Mexican' or even 'disputed.'

>>1674500
>Texas had been separate from Mexico for several years
10

10 years.

>>1674195
+1 for fairness and accuracy

>>1674500
There was also a large racial element to the secession. Not surprisingly for slaveowners who constantly spoke of the 'natural superiority' of the white Anglo-American race, mamy American immigrants to Texas hated being legally equal to mestizo Mexicans, let alone answerable to mestizo government officials. Soon after Texan independence, various local and Texas-wide laws were passed forbidding "Mexicans" from owning land, holding public office, etc, despite the fact that some latino Mexicans had fought on the Texan side during the war. (Like many on the northern frontier, they had little love for the distant and interfering government in Mexico City.)

>>1674510
nitpicking much?

>>1674552
I'm just saying the logic doesn't really follow.

>>1674572
I don't see how it doesn't. I have a clear justified cause of war to reclaim a rebellious province when it breaks away. If I wait 10 years, though, then I'm now the aggressor and instigator of the conflict.

>>1674157
Daily reminder that the reason the war started was because
>Whites moved to foregin country
>Refused to assimilate
>Chimped out
>Decided to make their own state.

>>1674976
Because you said the land was mexican to begin with despite having been "mexican" for a grand total of 15 years, then went on to say that in 1846 it couldn't be considered "Mexican" anymore because of the 10 years it was independent.