Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the historical reality is that we (the USA) took Texas and California by means of illegal conquest, pushed and funded by those with aims to expand slavery (of blacks and whites). America, use infiltration and subversion to topple foreign government from within? Shocking! The reason why we got so good at it during much of the 20th Century, is because we had a lot of practice...
So what? History doesn't matter anymore? Sonoma Proclamation was cited as if it held some kind of authoritative status. It doesn't. Never did. As to "New California", good luck. There is a process dictated by the Constitution. Unless there is plan to abolish the Constitution, there won't be a "New California." However, Californians could and should retake control over their state.
No you are factually wrong that we took Cali and Tex by conquest. What we took by conquest was AZ and New Mex and paid mexico for those lands. Tex and Cali were sovereign nations that had declared independence before becoming US states. Yes Vali was done in a shorter time but it was not illegal. Also mexico had some .... how do I say it ... immigration problems
Wrong. Texas was legally part of Mexico, a sovereign nation only having recently gained its independence from Spain. While some Americans immigrated to Mexico (Texas) with good intentions, agreed to abide by Mexican law and did, many American trouble makers also went to Mexico (Texas), particularly with their slaves, in order to incite a rebellion and get Texians to break away from Mexico. War mongers. Filibusters. And it worked. Doesn't matter if some Texians "declared independence", their claims of having rights being "abused" were bogus. Pro-slavery powers got pissy because Mexico outlawed slavery, so they invented bullshit excuses to incite some locals and newly immigrated American "ex-pats" (in many cases, properly read "profiteers") to rebel against a lawful government. California was a similar case, with filibusters already anticipating Polk's illegal war with Mexico (itself an extension of the Texas "Revolution," similar to how the War of 1812 was more a less an extension of the American Revolution) and again inciting a small number of American "immigrants" to overthrow the Mexican government in California. Fremont knew the consequences, and wrote a letter of resignation from the US Army to avoid acquisitions of direct American instigation. But just like the New Orleans Grays at the Alamo and American "agents" in Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii, it was quite obvious that Americans were there to ignite powder kegs, regardless of whether or not they were doing so under official government orders.
Polk's instigated war against Mexico was the failure of John Slidell to "purchase" California and what is now Arizona and New Mexico. And by purchase, I mean, claim that Mexico owed the US millions of dollars and that debt would be forgiven if Mexico turned over the land. Mexico of course refused. So Polk ordered Taylor to move US troops into the disputed Texas border territory (which even under the coerced treaty Texas signed with Santa Anna, was recognized as Mexican land) and boom, WE again instigated a war. Why? For territorial gain. Conquest. Why? Gold. Access to the Pacific. More land to expand slavery and for the slave powers to maintain/gain political control over the federal government (southern Democrats).
Yup, the US bullied Mexico and got Arizona, New Mexico and California as the result of a war of conquest. Only the southern portions were attained legally purchased, but by that point, what was Mexico going to do, try to defend itself again and lose another war? Btw, check out Mr. Gadsden, a shit of a fireating slaver.
Point is, the timeline of "Manifest Destiny" is quite long, and all of these events are connected, were planned and executed by powerful people behind the scenes, for their own benefit... casualties and destruction be damned.
A war that Polk illegally instigated, for the sole purpose of land conquest, to gain gold, trade route access and more potential slave territory. See Lincoln's speech in Congress condemning it. One of the best indictments of a president every made.
Again, hate to be the buzzkiller, but for most of the 19th Century, we were the baddies.
So you don't mind that your country bullied another country, essentially stealing land and resources? What's worse, stealing elections or stealing countries?
You don't mind that countless thousands and millions of well meaning Americans were duped into supporting the nefarious self-serving scheming of a small group of evil shitheads? I'm proud of my country too, but will condemn evil when there was evil.
Sounds more like you're just incredibly ignorant of some of the ugly parts of American History, and don't like having to come to grips with these uncomfortable truths which were kept hidden from you by your "history" propagandists...
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the historical reality is that we (the USA) took Texas and California by means of illegal conquest, pushed and funded by those with aims to expand slavery (of blacks and whites). America, use infiltration and subversion to topple foreign government from within? Shocking! The reason why we got so good at it during much of the 20th Century, is because we had a lot of practice...
So what? Old history. Has no bearing on the discussion about moving to New California.
So what? History doesn't matter anymore? Sonoma Proclamation was cited as if it held some kind of authoritative status. It doesn't. Never did. As to "New California", good luck. There is a process dictated by the Constitution. Unless there is plan to abolish the Constitution, there won't be a "New California." However, Californians could and should retake control over their state.
No you are factually wrong that we took Cali and Tex by conquest. What we took by conquest was AZ and New Mex and paid mexico for those lands. Tex and Cali were sovereign nations that had declared independence before becoming US states. Yes Vali was done in a shorter time but it was not illegal. Also mexico had some .... how do I say it ... immigration problems
Wrong. Texas was legally part of Mexico, a sovereign nation only having recently gained its independence from Spain. While some Americans immigrated to Mexico (Texas) with good intentions, agreed to abide by Mexican law and did, many American trouble makers also went to Mexico (Texas), particularly with their slaves, in order to incite a rebellion and get Texians to break away from Mexico. War mongers. Filibusters. And it worked. Doesn't matter if some Texians "declared independence", their claims of having rights being "abused" were bogus. Pro-slavery powers got pissy because Mexico outlawed slavery, so they invented bullshit excuses to incite some locals and newly immigrated American "ex-pats" (in many cases, properly read "profiteers") to rebel against a lawful government. California was a similar case, with filibusters already anticipating Polk's illegal war with Mexico (itself an extension of the Texas "Revolution," similar to how the War of 1812 was more a less an extension of the American Revolution) and again inciting a small number of American "immigrants" to overthrow the Mexican government in California. Fremont knew the consequences, and wrote a letter of resignation from the US Army to avoid acquisitions of direct American instigation. But just like the New Orleans Grays at the Alamo and American "agents" in Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii, it was quite obvious that Americans were there to ignite powder kegs, regardless of whether or not they were doing so under official government orders.
Polk's instigated war against Mexico was the failure of John Slidell to "purchase" California and what is now Arizona and New Mexico. And by purchase, I mean, claim that Mexico owed the US millions of dollars and that debt would be forgiven if Mexico turned over the land. Mexico of course refused. So Polk ordered Taylor to move US troops into the disputed Texas border territory (which even under the coerced treaty Texas signed with Santa Anna, was recognized as Mexican land) and boom, WE again instigated a war. Why? For territorial gain. Conquest. Why? Gold. Access to the Pacific. More land to expand slavery and for the slave powers to maintain/gain political control over the federal government (southern Democrats).
Yup, the US bullied Mexico and got Arizona, New Mexico and California as the result of a war of conquest. Only the southern portions were attained legally purchased, but by that point, what was Mexico going to do, try to defend itself again and lose another war? Btw, check out Mr. Gadsden, a shit of a fireating slaver.
Point is, the timeline of "Manifest Destiny" is quite long, and all of these events are connected, were planned and executed by powerful people behind the scenes, for their own benefit... casualties and destruction be damned.
There was a war and Mexico lost. Nothing illegal about that, and I am of Mexican origin.
A war that Polk illegally instigated, for the sole purpose of land conquest, to gain gold, trade route access and more potential slave territory. See Lincoln's speech in Congress condemning it. One of the best indictments of a president every made.
Again, hate to be the buzzkiller, but for most of the 19th Century, we were the baddies.
Don't care, I love my country and don't mind how we got this land.
I am proud of my home.
So you don't mind that your country bullied another country, essentially stealing land and resources? What's worse, stealing elections or stealing countries?
You don't mind that countless thousands and millions of well meaning Americans were duped into supporting the nefarious self-serving scheming of a small group of evil shitheads? I'm proud of my country too, but will condemn evil when there was evil.
Sounds more like you're just incredibly ignorant of some of the ugly parts of American History, and don't like having to come to grips with these uncomfortable truths which were kept hidden from you by your "history" propagandists...