It’s also possible that our government lied about us actually paying them, and that the Mexican government lied that we didn’t pay them, both cases being in history books, school textbooks, and/or government publications.
I haven’t seen anything in any English publication contradicting the claim, but only just now realized I’ve never checked a Spanish language publication to see what their claims are.
Edit: Actually it’s a bit of both. America did purchase it, but under duress. However, Mexico’s claims were relatively sketchy, as they’d basically done the same “we got here first so it’s ours” schtick that they accuse America of having done.
It sounds like there were some forced seizures that shouldn’t have happened of specific land plots against specific people.
The complainants will talk about how “Mexico City is too far from California. It couldn’t be defended.” 1800 miles. DC is 2600 miles. Meanwhile, they had almost no people living there. Saying they’re totally wrong on their claims probably isn’t correct, but saying that they’re anywhere near pretty close to correct is also way off target.
The Mexican government sympathetic view still seems incorrect, but it’s interesting to see that there’s some validity to it. In that same way, there would likely also be some validity and some incorrectness on our future looking back if they took it back. Still, if they were smarter, they’d prefer to stay in our jurisdiction, rather than tribally seeking to restore it to Mexico’s.
Venezuela was also a slice of Paradise. Widespread corruption and sin can ruin even the nicest real estate, as can currently be seen in the US as well, but we have a far better foundation to rebuild on than Mexico does, even in California. They can feel free to FAFO and be as stupid as they want, though.
It’s also possible that our government lied about us actually paying them, and that the Mexican government lied that we didn’t pay them, both cases being in history books, school textbooks, and/or government publications.
I haven’t seen anything in any English publication contradicting the claim, but only just now realized I’ve never checked a Spanish language publication to see what their claims are.
Edit: Actually it’s a bit of both. America did purchase it, but under duress. However, Mexico’s claims were relatively sketchy, as they’d basically done the same “we got here first so it’s ours” schtick that they accuse America of having done.
It sounds like there were some forced seizures that shouldn’t have happened of specific land plots against specific people.
The complainants will talk about how “Mexico City is too far from California. It couldn’t be defended.” 1800 miles. DC is 2600 miles. Meanwhile, they had almost no people living there. Saying they’re totally wrong on their claims probably isn’t correct, but saying that they’re anywhere near pretty close to correct is also way off target.
Some sources:
The Mexican government sympathetic view still seems incorrect, but it’s interesting to see that there’s some validity to it. In that same way, there would likely also be some validity and some incorrectness on our future looking back if they took it back. Still, if they were smarter, they’d prefer to stay in our jurisdiction, rather than tribally seeking to restore it to Mexico’s.
Venezuela was also a slice of Paradise. Widespread corruption and sin can ruin even the nicest real estate, as can currently be seen in the US as well, but we have a far better foundation to rebuild on than Mexico does, even in California. They can feel free to FAFO and be as stupid as they want, though.