Not nearly what it means to you because I acknowledge how the country came to be, something you’d prefer to hide from.
Well, it is obvious that Mexico was legitimate in your eyes… an other sovereign nations that you think are proper or can you reach back far enough in history to legitimize all nation states?
She was killed by an illegal alien ! Does you hate of this nation and it’s citizens some how blind you to the truth ?
Kate is gone . America her friends and her family have been cheated out of a lifetime of experiences and memory’s because of what ?
Kate is dead so some farmer / business can abuse illegal labor insure wages wont raise and you don’t have to pay the real price of a orange .
Is it worth it I think Kate would say no Fuck NO !
There you go again. You can’t defend your position without falling to personal attacks. You come here constantly accusing the US government of all manner of domestic crimes, shipping our jobs over seas, killing our unions. What is it that drives your hatred of America???
You invite personal attacks… you never actually share any real thoughts, you just attack other peoples positions. If you want people to start attacking your positions… have some and from my point of view… you don’t like the United States of America very damn much…
You really believe that’s why Kate is dead? Btw, is criticism of America and our system fair game, or does it equate to hatred thereof. Because you seem to be very selective on this.
You know damn well he was let off by a California jury. I bet you think OJ was innocent. Even his lawyer knew he did it.
I do not know that. But that’s quite a charge.
That may be, but I stick with it.
As you may. Of course I’m going to assume that you weren’t a jury member and privy to the whole trial.
I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I’ve seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I’m writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.
I agree with you.Both sides were present during jury selection, It wasn’t done by a lottery system. There are verdicts that we don’t always like but we have to accept them. There isn’t a better legal system in the world.than ours.The state didn’t prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Correct, and it’s designed to protect the innocent. Which is why one colonial stated that it’s better for ten guilty men to walk than for one innocent to be incarcerated.
It is near that you are remiss and failed history.
Mexico had alleged possession of the America SW for 25 years or so and you think they still own it.
Talk about hypocritical.
On April 25, 1846, Mexican cavalry attacked a group of U.S. soldiers in the disputed zone under the command of General Zachary Taylor, killing about a dozen. They then laid siege to an American fort along the Rio Grande. Taylor called in reinforcements, and–with the help of superior rifles and artillery–was able to defeat the Mexicans at the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.
Does it ever cross your mind how borders are derived??? Perhaps if you understood the history of our southern border, you’d feel differently about Mexicans. For example, you probably are unaware that the southern border of Texas was never settled at Texas independence. Mexico claimed it to be the Neuces River and Texas claimed the Rio Grande. The strip of land between them was disputed territory. Failing an attempt to purchase New Mexico and California from Mexico, acknowledgment enough who owned it, President Polk ordered troops to establish a garrison inside the disputed territory on the north bank of the Rio Grande to provoke a Mexican attack. The US has a long history of such provocations.
Mexico severed relations with the United States in March 1845, shortly after the U.S. annexation of Texas. In September U.S. Pres. James K. Polk sent John Slidell on a secret mission to Mexico City to negotiate the disputed Texas border, settle U.S. claims against Mexico, and purchase New Mexico and California for up to $30 million. Mexican Pres. José Joaquín Herrera, aware in advance of Slidell’s intention of dismembering the country, refused to receive him. When Polk learned of the snub, he ordered troops under Gen. Zachary Taylor to occupy the disputed area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (January 1846).
Most Whigs viewed Polk’s motives as conscienceless land grabbing. Indeed, from the outset, Whigs in both the Senate and the House challenged the veracity of Polk’s assertion that the initial conflict between U.S. and Mexican forces had taken place in U.S. territory.
LOL, information light.
The U.S.-Mexican War—(1846-1848):
The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of “Manifest Destiny”; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country’s borders from ‘sea to shining sea’. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.
CAUSES OF CONFLICT:
The war between the United States and Mexico had two basic causes. First, the desire of the U.S. to expand across the North American continent to the Pacific Ocean caused conflict with all of its neighbors; from the British in Canada and Oregon to the Mexicans in the southwest and, of course, with the Native Americans. Ever since President Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, Americans migrated westward in ever increasing numbers, often into lands not belonging to the United States. By the time President Polk came to office in 1845, an idea called “Manifest Destiny” had taken root among the American people, and the new occupant of the White House was a firm believer in the idea of expansion. The belief that the U.S. basically had a God-given right to occupy and “civilize” the whole continent gained favor as more and more Americans settled the western lands. The fact that most of those areas already had people living upon them was usually ignored, with the attitude that democratic English-speaking America, with its high ideals and Protestant Christian ethics, would do a better job of running things than the Native Americans or Spanish-speaking Catholic Mexicans. Manifest Destiny did not necessarily call for violent expansion. In both 1835 and 1845, the United States offered to purchase California from Mexico, for $5 million and $25 million, respectively. The Mexican government refused the opportunity to sell half of its country to Mexico’s most dangerous neighbor.
The second basic cause of the war was the Texas War of Independence and the subsequent annexation of that area to the United States. Not all American westward migration was unwelcome. In the 1820’s and 1830’s, Mexico, newly independent from Spain, needed settlers in the underpopulated northern parts of the country. An invitation was issued for people who would take an oath of allegiance to Mexico and convert to Catholicism, the state religion. Thousands of Americans took up the offer and moved, often with slaves, to the Mexican province of Texas. Soon however, many of the new “Texicans” or “Texians” were unhappy with the way the government in Mexico City tried to run the province. In 1835, Texas revolted, and after several bloody battles, the Mexican President, Santa Anna, was forced to sign the Treaty of Velasco in 1836 . This treaty gave Texas its independence, but many Mexicans refused to accept the legality of this document, as Santa Anna was a prisoner of the Texans at the time. The Republic of Texas and Mexico continued to engage in border fights and many people in the United States openly sympathized with the U.S.-born Texans in this conflict. As a result of the savage frontier fighting, the American public developed a very negative stereotype against the Mexican people and government. Partly due to the continued hostilities with Mexico, Texas decided to join with the United States, and on July 4, 1845, the annexation gained approval from the U.S. Congress.
Mexico of course did not like the idea of its breakaway province becoming an American state, and the undefined and contested border now became a major international issue. Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. Both nations sent troops to enforce the competing claims, and a tense standoff ensued. On April 25, 1846, a clash occurred between Mexican and American troops on soil claimed by both countries. The war had begun.
DESCRIPTION OF CONFLICT:
The Mexican-American War was largely a conventional conflict fought by traditional armies consisting of infantry, cavalry and artillery using established European-style tactics. As American forces penetrated into the Mexican heartland, some of the defending forces resorted to guerrilla tactics to harass the invaders, but these irregular forces did not greatly influence the outcome of the war.
After the beginning of hostilities, the U.S. military embarked on a three-pronged strategy designed to seize control of northern Mexico and force an early peace. Two American armies moved south from Texas, while a third force under Colonel Stephen Kearny traveled west to Sante Fe, New Mexico and then to California. In a series of battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de Palma (near current-day Brownsville, Texas), the army of General Zachary Taylor defeated the Mexican forces and began to move south after inflicting over a thousand casualties. In July and August of 1846, the United States Navy seized Monterey and Los Angeles in California. In September, 1846, Taylor’s army fought General Ampudia’s forces for control of the northern Mexican city of Monterey in a bloody three-day battle. Following the capture of the city by the Americans, a temporary truce ensued which enabled both armies to recover from the exhausting Battle of Monterey. During this time, former President Santa Anna returned to Mexico from exile and raised and trained a new army of over 20,000 men to oppose the invaders. Despite the losses of huge tracts of land, and defeat in several major battles, the Mexican government refused to make peace. It became apparent to the Polk Administration that only a complete battlefield victory would end the war. Continued fighting in the dry deserts of northern Mexico convinced the United States that an overland expedition to capture of the enemy capital, Mexico City, would be hazardous and difficult. To this end, General Winfield Scott proposed what would become the largest amphibious landing in history, (at that time), and a campaign to seize the capital of Mexico.
On March 9, 1847, General Scott landed with an army of 12,000 men on the beaches near Veracruz, Mexico’s most important eastern port city. From this point, from March to August, Scott and Santa Anna fought a series of bloody, hard-fought battles from the coast inland toward Mexico City. The more important battles of this campaign include the Battles of : Cerro Gordo (April 18), Contreras (August 20), Churubusco (August 20), Molino del Rey (September 8) and Chapultepec (September 13). Finally, on September 14, the American army entered Mexico City. The city’s populace offered some resistance to the occupiers, but by mid-October, the disturbances had been quelled and the U.S. Army enjoyed full control. Following the city’s occupation, Santa Anna resigned the presidency but retained command of his army. He attempted to continue military operations against the Americans, but his troops, beaten and disheartened, refused to fight. His government soon asked for his military resignation. Guerrilla operations continued against Scott’s lines of supply back to Veracruz, but this resistance proved ineffective.
On February 2, 1848, The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was signed, later to be ratified by both the U.S. and Mexican Congresses. The treaty called for the annexation of the northern portions of Mexico to the United States. In return, the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million to Mexico as compensation for the seized territory. The bravery of the individual Mexican soldier goes a long way in explaining the difficulty the U.S. had in prosecuting the war. Mexican military leadership was often lacking, at least when compared to the American leadership. And in many of the battles, the superior cannon of the U.S. artillery divisions and the innovative tactics of their officers turned the tide against the Mexicans. The war cost the United States over $100 million, and ended the lives of 13,780 U.S. military personnel. America had defeated its weaker and somewhat disorganized southern neighbor, but not without paying a terrible price.
Something new and historical: Want to learn how to drive a tank? Check out these tank driving experiences.
CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT:
1. The United States acquired the northern half of Mexico. This area later became the U.S. states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. 2. President Santa Anna lost power in Mexico following the war. 3. U.S. General Zachary "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor used his fame as a war hero to win the Presidency in 1848. A true irony is that President Polk, a Democrat, pushed for the war that led to Taylor, a Whig, winning the White House. 4. Relations between the United States and Mexico remained tense for many decades to come, with several military encounters along the border. 5. For the United States, this war provided a training-ground for the men who would lead the Northern and Southern armies in the upcoming American Civil War.
UNIQUE FACTS OR TRENDS:
1. This war featured the first major amphibious landing by U.S. forces in history. 2. The defeat of Mexico was the first time a foreign enemy force occupied the capitol of the nation. The French would also occupy Mexico City in the 1860's. 3. Despite early popularity at home, the war was marked by the growth of a loud anti-war movement which included such noted Americans as Ralph Waldo Emerson, former president John Quincy Adams and Henry David Thoreau. The center of anti-war sentiment gravitated around New England, and was directly connected to the movement to abolish slavery. Texas became a slave state upon entry into the Union. 4. One interesting aspect of the war involves the fate of U.S. Army deserters of Irish origin who joined the Mexican Army as the Batallón San Patricio (Saint Patrick's Battalion). This group of Catholic Irish immigrants rebelled at the abusive treatment by Protestant, American-born officers and at the treatment of the Catholic Mexican population by the U.S. Army. At this time in American history, Catholics were an ill-treated minority, and the Irish were an unwanted ethnic group in the United States. In September, 1847, the U.S. Army hanged sixteen surviving members of the San Patricios as traitors. To this day, they are considered heroes in Mexico. 5. In Mexico, a special day is remembered to celebrate the bravery of the teenaged military cadets at the military academy at Chapultepec Castle, which was attacked by Scott's army on September 13, 1847. "Dia de Los Niños Heroes de Chapultepec" ("day of the boy heroes of Chapultepec), is commemorated every year on the anniversary of the battle. Ordered to retreat by their Commandant, these young cadets joined the fight- the boy heroes who are honored every year are the four teenaged cadets (Francisco Marquez, the youngest, was thirteen years old!) and their lieutenant squadron leader, Juan de la Barrera, (the oldest, age 20), who lost their lives in that battle. Share 2.5K
United States-- 13,780 dead, many more wounded. Mexico-- Much higher than the U.S. total. One figure put Mexican casualties at approximately 25,000.
Ok, that’s history. We are in 2018 and we have a sovereign nation and definitive borders. If you want every nation to somehow give land back, sue Rome. And Assyria. And Greece. And Babylon. Point being is that every nation, tribe, gathering of people’s has always conquered other people and took their land. (shrug)
I’m not saying that. I’m simply showing you from the history (encyclopedia brittanica) that it’s pretty ridiculous to incite a war with Mexico, take their land at gunpoint and then call them illegal for being on it. Anyway, just look at the numbers that are here and California’s sanctuary status. It really doesn’t matter what we want.
My point is this: all land belonged to somebody else at some point in time. However, that doesn’t give Mexico the right to be causing problems by invading our borders. Their racist group “La Raza” is on par with the ideology of the KKK. This nation doesn’t need any more lawn care workers, fast food workers, or alley junk trawlers. How come we never get doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, etc. from there? We only get more of,what we already don’t need more of.
Classic, everybody does it and always has so it must be right. Anyway, why has the United States made such a stink about Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait or Russia’s annexation of Crimea, if it’s just what nations do. I think you miss, deliberate or otherwise, the hypocrisy.
And you make mine, that there is no sovereignty unless you can defend it, shrug.