Texas Revolution and Mexican American War

What is now the southwest U.S. previously belonged to the vast Spanish Empire called New Spain – which stretched from South America, north to Oregon and east to the Mississippi River. The capital of New Spain was Mexico City. Spain mostly ignored the land that later became the USA, concentrating on mining silver and gold in other parts of the Empire.

In August, 1821, Mexico defeated Spain to become an independent nation. Sadly, nobody in Mexican leadership had the knowledge of America’s Founding Fathers on how to establish and govern a free society. Mexican society was harshly split by class and race. Most Mexicans had little education. The justice system and the political system were corrupt.

Mexico inherited a huge amount of land north of the Rio Grande River, in Texas, California and New Mexico but had very little control over it. Only one percent of the population of Mexico lived north of the Rio Grande River. In 1820, the population of Texas, a huge state, was only 2,000.[1] Indians mostly controlled the land.

Mexico recognized that claiming land without having people to settle the area made claims of ownership tenuous and your claims were open to challenge. In 1821, Mexico invited Americans into Texas on condition they become Mexican citizens, convert to Catholic and help control the Indians

While a majority of settlers were content with being Mexican citizens, most didn’t convert to Catholic or just went through the motions. In Mexico, all religions were outlawed except for the official religion – Catholic. As time went on, conflicting beliefs in the judicial system, culture, heritage and religion all caused problems. By 1834 there were about 30,000 Anglos in Texas.[2] Another estimate, prior to the revolution of 1836, showed about 38,000 anglos, Indians: 12,000, blacks: 5,000 and Mexicans: 3,500. [3]

Mexico blames the loss of Texas and the southwest US on imperialism by the U.S. This is not true.

Table of Contents
———————-
1. Five states secede from Mexico
2. Rebellion in Texas, Coahuila and Zacatecas
3. Conditions that caused the Texas Revolt
4. The Texas Revolution
5. Origins of the Mexican American War
6. The US decides to bring Texas into the Union
7. President Herrera overthrown, Paredes takes power
8. Mexico certain of victory
9. General Taylor’s Army goes to the Rio Grande River
10. Mexico starts the Mexican American War – 1846-1848
11. The Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
12. Mexicans claim American Land belongs to Mexico
13. Mexicans spewing hate on ‘Anglos’
14. Summary of all allegations by Mexico against the U.S.

—————————————————————-

1. Five states secede from Mexico

Due to the dysfunctional state of Mexican politics – and only 2 years after independence – five states in Central America declared themselves independent from Mexico – Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established. Constant infighting resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five states became independent nations without any interference from Mexico or threats of perpetual war.

——————————————————————————–

2. Rebellion in Texas, Coahuila and Zacatecas

As the years went by, Mexican officials began questioning the loyalty of American settlers. But Americans worked within the system – petitioning the Mexican government for changes in the law. The real issue was Mexican loyalty to their own country.

American settlers sided with the Mexican government in 1825, when Haden Edwards, one of the men bringing settlers to Texas, threatened to confiscate the land of anyone already living in the area unless they could present written deeds to the property. After multiple confrontations with Mexican authorities, on December 16, 1826, Edwards, his brothers, and 30 settlers issued a declaration of independence calling themselves the Republic of Fredonia. Stephen Austin sent 250 Texas militiamen to help the Mexican forces put down the revolt.[4]

Mexico’s first leader after independence was Agustín de Iturbide. He was crowned emperor by Congress on 19 May 1822. He abdicated on 19 March 1823 and fled to Europe. He returned to Mexico in July 1824, was arrested and executed.

In 1824, a mere three years after independence, the Mexican Congress, in a solemn address to the nation, stated that without virtue, liberal institutions would fail, revolution would follow revolution and anarchy would ensue.[5] As the years went by, politicians increasingly blamed all their problems on America.

Vice President Nicolas Bravo lead a revolt in Dec. 1827. It was put down in Jan. 1828. Bravo was expelled from the country while other mutineers were imprisoned.

Another revolt occurred over the results of the Presidential elections of Sep 1, 1828. The winner was Manuel Pedraza. Vicente Guerrero rejected the results and organized a revolution with Santa Anna and others. After rebels bombarded the National Palace, Congress annulled the election and made Guerrero President

Because Mexico was in massive debt, The U.S. offered to buy Texas in 1827 for $1 million and in 1829 for $5 million, but Mexico refused. By 1833, Mexico was becoming ungovernable. So Santa Anna was appointed President in May, 1833 to restore order. Since independence, Mexico had 44 governments in the first 33 years of the country’s existence.

3. Conditions that caused the Texas Revolt

Santa Anna became increasingly dictatorial and in 1835, he abolished the Constitution of 1824, abolished all state legislatures and centralized all power in Mexico City. Three states in Mexico revolted – Texas, Coahuila and Zacatecas. Only the Texas revolt was successful. Mexico vowed it would conquer Texas again, which resulted in the Mexican American War of 1846-48.

On May 11, 1835 Santa Anna’s Army crushed the revolt in Zacatecas with 2,000 civilians being killed. Fearing a similar fate, the governor of Coahuila, Agustin Viesca, disbanded the legislature on May 21.

On June 25, Viesca issued the following appeal: “Citizens of Texas, arise and take arms, or sleep forever! Your most cherished interests, your liberty, your properties, even more, your very existence depend on the changing whims of your most relentless foes.” [6]

4. The Texas Revolution

Hostilities started in Texas on Sep. 28, 1835. Santa Anna sent an Army detachment to seize a Cannon in the town of Gonzalez. The Texans refused to hand their cannon over and the Mexicans retreated.

On November 3, 1835, delegates from across Texas assembled at San Antonio to decide if Texas should continue to try and work with Mexican authorities or choose independence from Mexico. Known as the Consultation of 1835, they expressed allegiance to the deposed Constitution of 1824 and issued a declaration against Santa Anna and his military supporters, “who had by force of arms overthrown the Federal Institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social compact which existed between Texas and the other members of the Mexican confederacy.” [7]

At the Convention of March 1, 1836 Texans realized that independence was their only option. Texans hadenough of Mexico’s chronic political instability. The system was unworkable and could not be fixed. Texans saw the destruction Santa Anna had done to Zacatecas. Now Texas was under assault. The Alamo was currently being bombarded by Santa Anna. Texans voted for independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836.

Four days later, on March 6, Santa Anna’s Army overwhelmed Texans – and a small number of Mexicans defending the Alamo, with around 200 men fighting to the death.

On 20 March, 1836, 400 Texans surrendered near Goliad – and a week later were massacred on orders from Santa Anna, who then ordered their bodies to be piled up and burned.

Texas was on the brink of defeat, but on April 21, 1836, Sam Houston’s Army of 750 men defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto River. Over 700 Mexicans were killed and 730 captured – including Santa Anna. Texas took advantage of Santa Anna’s incompetence to crush the Mexican Army.

After his capture, Santa Anna replied to a letter from former American envoy to Mexico Joel Poinsett: “ A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.” [8]

On May 14, 1836, while still a prisoner of Texas, Santa Anna signed the Treaties of Velasco that ended the war and made Texas an independent country. The Rio Grande River became the boundary between Mexico and Texas.

General Filisola, Santa Anna’s second in command took over, and despite considerable opposition from other officers, began withdrawing Mexican troops from Texas in accordance with the peace agreement signed by Santa Anna. But on May 20, the Mexican government declared the treaties Santa Anna had signed in captivity to be null and void. On May 28, the Mexican government ordered Filisola to maintain control over parts of Texas already conquered. However, his troops were in no condition to go on another offensive, and Filisola completed the withdrawal to Mexico, on the south side of the Rio Grande River.

Mexican General Filisola commented on atrocities committed against Texas during the war: “In our
opinion the blood of our soldiers as well as that of the enemy was shed in vain… The massacres of the Alamo, of Goliad, of Refugio, convinced the rebels that no peaceable settlement could be expected, and that they must conquer, or die…” [9]

On June 3, 1836, Santa Anna boarded a schooner for the trip back to Mexico. But a newly arrived
detachment of soldiers prevented Santa Anna from leaving and he became a prisoner again. Because of this second, unauthorized imprisonment of Santa Anna, some historians have declared that the US also broke the peace treaty with Mexico. While this is technically accurate, the Mexican government had already killed the peace treaties. [10]

Once Santa Anna was finally back in Mexico, he declared he had signed the treaties under duress as a prisoner of war. While this was certainly true, he could have refused to sign. Throughout history, the winner in a war dictates the terms to the loser. With the atrocities Santa Anna ordered he should have been executed.

5. Origins of the Mexican American War

The Mexican American War of 1846-48 was a continuation of the Texas War for Independence. Mexico vowed never ending war on Texas until they reconquered the land. Mexican politicians used Texas to unite Mexicans and divert attention from ongoing serious domestic issues. In January, 1838, President Bustamante addressed the Mexican Congress and said: “With regard to the Texas campaign, I will only observe that its prosecution is the first duty of the Government and of all Mexicans.” [11]

With Mexico refusing to honor the peace treaty, and threatening perpetual war on Texas, Texans in September 1837 voted for annexation by the US. Because of the slavery issue and fear of getting involved in a war with Mexico, Texas was not allowed to join the union.

Santa Anna regained power in October 1841. When Santa Anna opened Congress in 1842, he said regarding Texas: “If we wish to preserve an honorable name among civilized nations, it is essential that we employ all our energies and resources in combating without cessation, at any sacrifice and at all hazards, until our arms and our pretensions finally triumph.” [12] Up to 1842, Mexico had been too busy putting down revolts and their treasury was empty, so Mexico had no ability to attack Texas. [13]

On March 5, 1842, a Mexican force of 500 men invaded Texas and briefly occupied San Antonio, plundered the town and then fled back to Mexico.

On September 11, 1842, San Antonio was again captured by a force of 1500 Mexican troops. A Texan force sent to recapture San Antonio became involved in several bloody battles, including an engagement in what became known as Dawson’s Massacre. The Mexicans then retreated back across the Rio Grande but took a large number of prisoners to Perote Prison near Vera Cruz. [14]

In August 1843, Mexico’s secretary of relations, Bocanegra declared “…the Mexican Government will consider equivalent to a declaration of war against the Mexican Republic the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas with the territory of the United States; the certainty of the fact being sufficient for the immediate proclamation of war.” [15] In 1844, Santa Anna was given $4 million for war against Texas.[16]

In addition to the impasse over Texas, Mexico refused to pay compensation for damages done to US citizens – stalling for years. Unable to come to a resolution, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to have an international umpire decide what grievances were legitimate and for how much. Baron Roenne of Prussia was the ‘umpire.’ The commission ended on 26 May 1841. Mexico was held liable for $2,026,139. Mexico was to make 20 quarterly payments for 5 years but after 3 payments, on Apr, 1844, Mexico failed to make any more payments. [17]

Texas officials met with Mexico sporadically in an attempt to get Mexico to recognize Texas as an
independent country and negotiate over the border. Although the Texas Republic was now recognized as a sovereign nation by the US, France, Great Britain, Holland and Belgium, negotiations always failed.

Faced with imminent American annexation of Texas, the British Minister to Mexico, Charles Bankhead and the French minister to Mexico persuaded Texas to sign their Peace Treaty on 29 March 1845, in which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas, with boundaries to be determined with French and British mediation. But Mexico made changes and didn’t sign the document until 19 May, 1845, angering Bankhead. The British offer was finally presented to Texas, but it was too late. [18]

It is ironic that Mexico expected Spain to recognize THEIR independence, but Mexico refused to even consider this course of action for Texas. Spain recognized Mexico as an independent country in 1836.

6. The US decides to bring Texas into the Union

Texas began to explore other options. One was to align itself with Britain for protection from Mexico. Another option was to join with California and Oregon and form a new nation. British officials reported that a rebellion by Californians against Mexican misrule was imminent. [19]

Time had run out for the U.S. to make a final decision on Texas. In April 1844, the US agreed to annex Texas into the union. However, the Annexation Treaty lost in the Senate in June by 16-35. [120] Although a majority of the people of Texas were NOT slave owners, [21] the slavery issue and fear of getting into a war with Mexico doomed the Annexation Treaty.

But when James Polk won the Presidency in November, 1844 on a platform of annexing Texas and Oregon, President Tyler submitted a new treaty to Congress to bring Texas into the American Union. There was still opposition to admitting Texas but the greater fear was British expansion and Mexico’s continuing belligerence towards the U.S., which turned public opinion against Mexico.

On March 1, 1845 Congress passed the joint resolution for annexing Texas.[22] Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S. Mexico’s minister in Washington, Juan Almonte, declared his country would maintain it’s claim to Texas “at all times, by every means . . . in her power.” [23]

Newly elected President James Polk defended admitting Texas into the Union in his March 4, 1845 inaugural speech: “I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. They are independent powers competent to contract, and foreign nations have no right to interfere with them or to take exceptions to their reunion. . .” [24]

On Apr 9, 1845, Almonte called the annexation of Texas as “an act of aggression the most unjust which can be found recorded in the annals of modern history.”[25] On July 4, 1845, Texas Congress accepted the US annexation offer and rejected Mexico’s offer. On July 21, 1845, President Herrera announced a resolution promising to declare war on the U.S. if American troops “invaded” Texas.[26] In the summer of 1845, Mexico gave formal notice to England and France that war was inevitable. [27]

On Oct 13, 1845, Texans voted to accept annexation into the US.[28] About 3900 US troops gathered at Corpus Christi to ensure safety for Texas.[29] On December 29, 1845, Texas became the 28th state.

7. President Herrera overthrown, Paredes takes power

On October, 1845, Mexico suddenly indicated a willingness to negotiate and the U.S. sent John Slidell, a man who spoke fluent Spanish to meet with the Mexican president, Jose Herrera. Slidell landed in Vera Cruz on Nov 30 and arrived in Mexico City on 6 December, 1845. He had full authority to resolve every issue between Mexico and the U.S. Unfortunately, the Herrera government was about to be overthrown, and in a futile attempt to save itself refused to meet with Slidell.

Herrera had ordered Gen. Paredes to take his army to the Rio Grande River and defend Mexico from a potential invasion. Instead, on Jan 2, 1846, Paredes conquered Mexico City and overthrew Herrera who fled for his life. On Jan 4th, Paredes took the oath of office as the new president with one stated objective – start a war with the U.S. and retake Texas. Parades claimed all of Texas to the Sabine River – which separates Texas from Louisiana.[30]

On Jan 12, 1846, Polk received word that negotiations had failed. Polk realized that war with Mexico was inevitable but kept Slidell in Mexico. On March 12, 1846, Paredes informed Slidell he could not meet with him. On March 21, Paredes declared Mexico “does not recognize the American flag on the soil of Texas.” Mexico began to mobilize for full scale war.(31)

Polk had instructed Slidell to try to buy N. Mexico and California from Mexico, but the offer was never made because neither Herrera or Paredes met with Slidell.

Slidell summed up his experiences with Mexico: “The most stubborn and malignant feeling seems to exist in the mind of every Mexican against the United States.”(32) “We shall never be able to treat with her on fair terms until she has been taught to respect us. . . here all amicable advances are considered as indicative either of weakness or treachery.” “Be assured that nothing is to be done with these people, until they shall have been chastised.” [33]

Mexico was in massive debt to Britain. After Paredes took power, he needed money to pay for his war with the U.S. Paredes proposed transfering California to England as security for a loan. This was considered an “indirect offer of sale.” Mexico would never be able to pay it back. [34]

Polk prepared to ask congress for a declaration of war. On Jan. 13, 1846, General Taylor was ordered to move his army from Corpus Christi to the north side of the Rio Grande River and prepare to defend Texas from a possible Mexican invasion. Taylor’s orders stated that “It is not designed, in our present relations with Mexico, that you should treat her as an enemy. . .” [35]

It should be noted that the issue of the Oregon Territory with Britain was settled peacefully after long and extremely difficult negotiations. Mexico refused to negotiate at all.

8. Mexico certain of victory

Paredes confidently believed his experienced army would crush the Americans and their small army. The Mexican Army had about 32,000 men, far more than the US Army.[36] Paredes army was very experienced in battle from many revolutionary wars in Mexico.

Many Mexicans believed their army was nearly invincible. Many international observers believed the U.S. would have a tough time defeating Mexico – and many thought the US would lose. The British minister in Texas, Captain Elliot, stated “They [US troops] could not resist artillery and cavalry in a Country suited to those arms.” The Spanish Minister in Washington, Calderon de la Barca, said “There are no better troops in the world, nor better drilled and armed, than the Mexicans.”[37]

Some foreign observers believed it would take 250,000 US troops to win. Other observers stated that it would be nearly impossible to defeat Mexico – a nation of over 7 million people with many rugged mountains. The ability of Mexico to wage guerrilla war against our supply lines would prevent us from massing sufficient troops to defeat the Mexicans deep in their territory. Mexico could outlast the U.S., while the U.S. would have to wage an extremely costly war, raise a large army and still not be able to defeat Mexico. Eventually the Americans would tire of the war, the casualties, huge military spending and make peace on Mexico’s terms.[38]

The US never believed victory over Mexico was a sure thing, which was why it took so long to allow Texas to join the union and why the U.S. bent over backwards to peaceably resolve all the issues. Mexico also hoped that Britain would help them win their war against the United States. Britain, which recognized the independence of Texas, refused to get involved in armed conflict. [39]

9. General Taylor’s Army goes to the Rio Grande River

Taylor’s army left Corpus Christi for the Rio Grande River on March 8, 1846. Despite the war rhetoric coming from Paredes, Polk still hoped to settle the disputes peaceably. General Taylor wrote a proclamation to the people of Matamoros in which he alerted them to his march and promised that his intentions were peaceful and he expected all issues to be settled by negotiation. Taylor also informed locals that the U.S. Army would pay for any damages done to their property and any supplies purchased from Mexicans would be paid “at the highest market price.” [40]

Despite these proclamations by General Taylor, Mexico made herself believe that Taylor was going to invade Mexico. This was just more self induced hysteria by Mexico and a way to maintain war fervor.

Taylor’s force of about 4,000 men arrived on the Rio Grande on March 28, 1846. Immediately, Mexico initiated a provocation, stealing 3 horses and taking two soldiers captive. General Taylor immediately contacted Mexican General Mejia and demanded horses and men be returned. [41]

Because Paredes had taken his army to Mexico City instead of the Rio Grande River, Mexico only had a force of 1913 men at Matamoros, though thousands of reinforcements were expected to arrive soon. If the U.S. had imperialistic ambitions, this would have been a perfect time to attack Mexico. [42]

Gen. Pedro Ampudia arrived on Apr 11 with about 2,000 additional troops.(43) and replaced Mejia. Ampudia sent a communication to Taylor: “I require you” to retire to the north side of the Nueces River within “twenty-four hours,” or “arms and arms alone must decide the question.” Taylor rejected Ampudia’s ‘order’ and replied that an envoy – John Slidell – had previously been sent by the U.S. to Mexico for that purpose to no avail and he would remain on the north side of the Rio Grande River pending orders from Washington. [44] Ampudia also ordered all American citizens evicted from Matamoros and sent to the interior of Mexico. [45]

Taylor viewed Ampudia’s letter as a declaration of war. This hostile note coming 3 days after Taylor was informed of Slidell’s final rejection by Paredes, raised the prospect of imminent war.

Taylor rushed to prepare for hostilities. Taylor had the Navy blockade the Rio Grande river making resupply for the Mexanicas difficult. When Ampudia objected, Taylor reminded him that the blockaid was the “natural result of the state of war so much insisted on by the Mexican authorities as actually existing …” (45)

Ampudia had a reputation for needless cruelty. He had executed a man named Francisco Sentmanat in 1844 and fried his head in oil for display in the public square of San Juan Batista. The locals had a strong dislike for Ampudia and petitioned Paredes for a change in leadership.[46] On Apr 15, Ampudia was replaced by General Arista. Ampudia was now second in command.

10. Mexico starts the Mexican American War – 1846-1848

In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista who commanded the Mexican force along the Rio Grande River: “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.”(47) On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven Americans were killed and the rest taken prisoner. Mexico got the war they wanted.

On Apr 23, 1846, two days BEFORE the Mexican Army attacked Taylor’s troops, Paredes declared the war had already begun. “Our general. . . has demanded from the commander-in-chief of the American troops that they retire to the other side of the Nueces River, the ancient boundary of Texas, and the demand has been refused. . .” “From this day defensive war begins,”(48)

The Nueces River is about 125 miles north of the Rio Grande River. Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River until Ampudia’s demand of April 11. Mexico never put the border up for discussion. President Polk received a report of the ambush on May 9. On May 13, Congress declared war on Mexico.

Before Congress could declare war, two more battles took place on the north side of the Rio Grande – at Palo Alto on May 8 and Resaca de la Palma on May 9. The U.S. Army, commanded by General Zachary Taylor, won both battles, losing just 50 men. Mexico lost over 1,000.

Initial U.S. strategy was to defend Texas and then attack across the Rio Grande into Mexico and to conquer the Mexican territories of New Mexico and California. This, it was hoped, would persuade Mexico to negotiate a permanent peace with the U.S. By August, 1846, California and New Mexico had been conquered. But with Mexico still refusing to negotiate, a heated debate took place in Washington on how to prevent this war from dragging on indefinitely.

General Taylor’s opinion was that we had already conquered enough territory to pay all of our monetary claims against Mexico, and we should just stop the war and force Mexico to undertake any future offensive operations. Many in the U.S. favored this idea.[49]

Ultimately, this idea was rejected. Such a plan was precisely what the Mexicans, whose ancestors had fought the Moors of Spain for hundreds of years, desired. It was this policy of endless war against Texas that had caused Texas to join the American Union for her own defense. Endless war with Mexico would have required a large military force and eroded national resolve. By November, Polk realized Mexico had to be conquered. U.S. forces would have to occupy or threaten Mexico City and it would be best to approach it from the Gulf coast, taking the same route Cortez followed three centuries earlier when the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. [49]

On March 1847, General Winfield Scott made his amphibious landing near Vera Cruz with about 12,000 men. Unable to maintain a secure supply line, Scott lived off the land. Mexicans eagerly sold Scott all the food and supplies he needed because the U.S. Army paid in cash.

In June it was learned that Santa Anna claimed he could end the war. The U.S. was to send him $10,000 in cash so that he could influence the necessary people. The money was given to Santa Anna, but he kept it for himself. [50]

Over the next 5 months, the American Army, with less then 15,000 men decisively defeated the Mexican Army in battle after battle. On September 13, 1847, Scott’s men entered Mexico City. Santa Anna fled the country. The war was over.

11. Aftermath of the war

After over a decade of insults and obstinate refusals to negotiate, Mexico had finally been put into a
position where it had no choice but to finally make a deal. In a country with about 7 million people, a tiny American Army had taken control of the capital city, the main port of Veracruz, many major cities and ports, arsenals, forts and even the mines in Mexico plus all the territory north of the Rio Grande River – Upper California and New Mexico. The state of Yucatan had refused to send any men to fight the Americans. Most native Americans felt no desire to defend Mexico.

Unlike so many other conquering armies, the U.S. treated civilians with respect, paid their just bills, took care of wounded Mexican soldiers and did not pillage the riches of Mexico – primarily Catholic Churches. Captured Mexican soldiers where treated well.

Ulysses S. Grant, later to become a general in the Union Army during the Civil War, served with distinction as an officer in the Mexican American War. He remarked: ”…the people who remained at their homes fraternized with the “Yankees” in the pleasantest manner. In fact, under the humane policy of our commander, I question whether the great majority of the Mexican people did not regret our departure as much as they had regretted our coming. Property and person were thoroughly protected, and a market was afforded for all the products of the country such as the people had never enjoyed before.” [51]

12. The Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

If Mexico had recognized Texas independence 10 years earlier, this war could have been avoided. While no American president would go to war over monetary claims against Mexico, once Mexico started the war, there had to be consequences. Compensation in the form of land became the policy. Polk said on Dec 7, 1847, “It is well-known that the only indemnity which it is in the power of Mexico to make in satisfaction of the just and long-deferred claims of our citizens against her and the only means by which she can reimburse the United States for the expenses of the war is a cession to the United States of a portion of her territory.” [52] The war cost the U.S. $180 million. [53]

By the end of the war, Mexico only had 8,109 men left in their army [54] and the country was broke. The US could continue to occupy these cities indefinitely because the vast majority of the Mexicans were content to live under US occupation. The average Mexican had it better living under the US military than under their own corrupt government. Some Mexicans wanted the US to annex ALL of Mexico so it would have good government. [55]

This realization by the ruling class in Mexico meant that it was time to make a deal so the “hated” gringos would go home. On Oct 20, 1847, negotiations to end the war were started with Pena y Pena, the head of the interim government and a moderate who wanted peace. The negotiations continued slowly til the end of January, 1848, when the Mexican side accepted the new boundaries but demanded $30 million for the territory. The US negotiator, Nicholas Trist, turned this down, but on Feb 2, 1848, agreement was reached and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, ending the war.

The treaty gave the U.S. California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received $15 million and the U.S. assumed Mexican debts of $3.25 million owed to American citizens. As Bernardo Couto, one of the negotiators put it, The treaty not only prevents any increase of our losses by a continuation of the war, but recovers the greater part of that which was subjected to the arms of the conquerors; it may be more properly called a treaty of recovery rather than one of alienation….” “It can hardly be said that we lose any power, since that which we cede is almost all uninhabited and uncultivated.” [56] U.S. troops were withdrawn from Mexico by August 1848.

13. Mexicans claim American Land belongs to Mexico

Mexico’s false land claims against the U.S. start with the Treaty of Tordesillas – signed in 1494!! This Treaty, brokered by Spanish born Pope Alexander VI, declared Spain had the right to claim all of the New World except for Brazil, which was colonized by Portugal. This treaty ignored all other countries and the rest of the world ignored this treaty. The mind set this 500 year old treaty produced is why many Mexicans believe they have the God ordained right to ignore the border between the U.S and Mexico and take political control of parts of the U.S. People in Mexico are put out that they lost their massive land holdings in N. America. But you can’t change facts. Mexicans ignore all subsequent treaties.

In 1803, the US bought a huge amount of land from France that became known as the Louisiana Purchase. This land had been under Spanish rule from 1763 until October 1, 1800, when Napoleon persuaded a reluctant King Charles IV of Spain to cede Louisiana back to France.

In 1819, Spain signed the Adams-Onis Treaty, which ceded Florida to the US and settled other boundary disputes.

In May 1836, Santa Anna provoked a rebellion in Texas, Coahuila and Zacatecas. Only the rebellion in Texas was successful. Texas became an independent country. Mexico vowed never ending war on Texas so Texas joined the U.S. in 1845 for protection from Mexico. Mexico then attacked the U.S.to start the Mexican American war in 1946. Mexico lost the war and the southwest U.S.

In June, 1854, the U.S. acquired the southern third of Arizona and parts of New Mexico to build the southern transcontinental railroad, which became known as the Gadsden Purchase. Many people believe that Mexican leader Santa Anna was bullied by the US into selling this land for building a railroad. This is NOT true. Santa Anna WANTED to sell this land because he was desperate for money – again.

The treasury was empty and there was a $17 million deficit. Mexico was still in massive debt to international lenders and Santa Anna had different factions that had to be paid off. Another Mexican state – Guerrero – had rebelled against the central government and this had to be put down.[57]

Santa Anna originally agreed to sell 45,000 square miles for $15 million. Congress only wanted enough land for a railroad and reduced the amount of land purchased down to 29,670 square miles for $10 million. When the money was sent to Santa Anna, he promptly stole $700,000 for his personal use. [58] In July 1855, Santa Anna was broke and tried to sell more Mexican land but the U.S. wasn’t interested.

In August, Santa Anna claimed Gadsden made it very clear that the US was going to obtain the territory they needed for a railroad “one way or another.” (59) Obviously not true. Congress reduced the amount of land purchased in the first treaty and now Santa Anna wanted to sell more land which proves he was not bullied by the US. Santa Anna was a very gifted liar.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. has legal ownership of all U.S land. CASE CLOSED.

14. Mexicans spewing hate on ‘Anglos’

Because of this false info on the Texas rebellion and Mexican American War, activists preaching hate and lies have sprung up since the 1950s and started political movements. Over the past several decades, these movements have toned down their rhetoric and joined the democratic party. The books written by these misguided activists are still promoted in schools as part of the ‘civil rights’ curriculum. Here are some examples of the radical nature of the Chicano movement.

In 1994, Californians voted on Proposition 187. This was a response to increasing illegal immigration, crime and costs to the taxpayers. The state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed by 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by La Raza, the morally clueless Clinton administration and other anti-American hate groups.

—————————————————

Art Torres, former state senator and Chairman of the California Democratic Party from 1996 to 2009 spoke at UC Riverside in Jan. 1995:

“Que viva la causa! It is an honor to be with the new leadership of the Americas, here meeting at UC Riverside. So with 187 on the ballot, what is it going to take for our people to vote – to see us walking into the gas ovens? It is electoral power that is going to make the determination of where we go as a community. And power is not given to you — you have to take it. Remember: 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. And people say to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, ‘Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?’ And I tell my white colleagues, ‘because you’re going to need them.’” [60]

—————————————————

Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of the Brown Berets, para-military soldiers of Aztlan movement:
“. . . We’re here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we’ve been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it’s always been ours, and we’re still here, and none of this talk about deporting. If anyone’s going to be deported it’s going to be you!”

“You old white people, it is your duty to die. Even their own ethicists say that they should die, that they have a duty to die. They’re taking up too much space, too much air. . .” [61]

———————————————————

Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales (1928 – 2005), was portrayed as a civil rights leader in the media and public schools and colleges. Nothing could be further from the truth. An examination of Gonzales’s autobiography – Message to Aztlan – proves he was an ethnic supremacist who promoted ethnic separation, domination and xenophobia. Gonzales also uses the Treaty of Tordesillas to declare legal title to the Southwest US.

“We are all heirs to the land. We, the mestizo, the Indian, and of Spanish birth, owners of the Southwest by precedent and by legal title.”(p 80)

“Nobody can destroy the spirit of our people. And they can kill individuals, they can shoot us down in the streets, and they have. They can throw us in their jails, but they cannot destroy an idea of a philosophy, and they can never destroy love, because we’re going to win. We’re going to beat them, whether it takes this generation, the next generation, or the next generation. We’re going to win. Viva La Raza! Viva La Raza Libre! Viva Aztlan Libre!”(p 89) [62]

——————————————————–

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund) is another hate group.[63]
MALDEF was co-founded in 1968 by Mario Obledo and Pedro Tijerina. Obledo was interviewed on radio in California in 1998. He wants White People to go back to Europe.

Obledo: “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.”

Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.” [64]

Unbelievably, Obledo received the Medal of Freedom from morally clueless Bill Clinton.

————————————————————

Reies Tijerina, a very influential Mexican-American racist from the 1950s who rose to prominence in the 1960s. The media portrayed Tijerina as a civil rights leader. He referenced the Treaty of Tordesillas to justify forcing all Anglos to move back to Europe! Tijerina’s autobiography – They Called Me “King Tiger” – contains an astounding number of factual errors. [65][66]

“I would limit myself to talking about the struggle for the land, the land that belonged to my people since the signing of the Treaty of Tordecillas on June 7, 1494.” (p 218)

“The Jews are fleeing to their land since 1947. And if the Anglo helps us, one day he’ll have to do the same, because we have roots here and the Anglo doesn’t.” (p 39)

Tijerina’s goal was to return ‘Aztlan’ to Mexico. “Soon, our brothers in Mexico will know that our dreams are their dreams. We are the bones and Mexico is the spirit. And this is the hour for the bones and the spirit to join. We are going to be the bridge to unite true Mexico with abandoned Mexico.”(p 212)

——————————————————–

David Sanchez was born in East Los Angeles in 1950. He founded the Brown Berets in December, 1967 and became their ‘Prime Minister.’ Sanchez has been portrayed as a civil rights leader in the media and US history textbooks in public schools and colleges. Nothing could be further from the truth. [67]

An examination of Sanchez autobiography – Expedition through Aztlan – proves that he is a hate monger and an ethnic supremacist. This book has many factual errors.

In the Forward by Armando Morales, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, LA doesn’t even know basic history. “In Aztec language, Aztlan literally means the “white land.” Aztlan refers to the northwest provinces of the “Aztec empire which we know today as the southwestern part of the United States.”

NOT true. The Aztec empire was centered around modern day Mexico City in central Mexico. The Aztec empire was not close to the Southwest US. It was the Spanish who destroyed the capital city of the Aztecs and built Mexico City on the ruins. (p VII)

————————————————————————

15. Summary of all allegations against the U.S.

Historical revisionists have made many false claims against the U.S., misleading a lot of Americans and nearly all Mexicans. It is vital we follow the facts concerning these two wars.

1 – The U.S. did NOT steal the southwest U.S. from Mexico. This land, like all land in the New World, was historically Indian land. The Spanish stole it from the Indians and then lost this land to the U.S. after being defeated in the Mexican American War.

———————————————————

2 - There was no American conspiracy to steal Texas away from Mexico. Some historians claim that Americans moved to Texas to instigate a revolution at the first opportunity. To believe that thousands of poor immigrants moved to Texas as part of a vast conspiracy to steal Texas away from Mexico is ludicrous. [68]

While some settlers had this in mind, this was a minority view. Most Americans settled in Texas because land was far cheaper then in the US. Also, the minutes of public meetings, town councils, and committees of correspondence, as well as private letters, provide extensive proof that until the summer of 1835 most Americans were content being citizens of Mexico. [69]

It took Texans a long time to give up on Mexico. Most Texans were so apathetic they didn’t join the Texas army until Santa Anna’s Army was moving into Texas! The first attack on Texas was on Sep. 28, 1835 in the town of Gonzalez.

It wasn’t until the Convention of March 1, 1836 that Texans realized that independence was their only option. Texans had enough of Mexico’s chronic political instability. The system was unworkable and could not be fixed. Texans saw the destruction Santa Anna had done to Zacatecas. Now Texas was under assault. The Alamo was currently being bombarded by Santa Anna. Texans had no choice. On March 2, 1836, Texans voted for independence from Mexico.

To claim that the Texas revolution occurred because of Anglo settlers conveniently ignores the fact that many states in Mexico rebelled against the central government in Mexico City and these states had few if any Americans. Texas was NOT the first state to win its independence from Mexico. With the rebellion of so many Mexican states, it just might be the fault of the government of Mexico.

The US was neutral during the Texas rebellion, refusing to send US Army forces to help Texas. Although young men were recruited from the United States and supplies were purchased in the US, it was not the deciding factor in the surprise victory of Texas forces over the Mexican Army at San Jacinto. If the US had grand designs for acquiring Texas, the logical step would be to support the Texans since there was no reason to believe that Texas would be successful in their revolt without outside help.

The revolt in Coahuila, Zacatecas and Texas was the direct result of Santa Anna establishing a dictatorship – not an issue contrived by Texans so they had an excuse to revolt. What made the Texas rebellion unforgivable from Mexico’s point of view was that the central government was defeated by an Anglo army, not by fellow Spanish, as was the case of the five central American states that seceded from Mexico in 1823.

————————————————————–

3 – Negotiations with Mexico over Texas were useless. Mexico refused to accept the loss of Texas. Mexican pride could not accept the fact that a bunch of outnumbered farmers, ranchers, businessmen and adventurous young men from the U.S. had defeated the Army of Mexico. But this colossal stain on Mexican pride could be fixed if Mexico reconquered Texas. Mexico considered Texas a breakaway province and wanted it back.

————————————————————

4 – Mexico started the War. Mexican President Herrera wanted to negotiate a peace deal, but he was overthrown by General Mariano Paredes in January, 1846. Paredes sole objective was to start a war with the U.S. Anyone in Mexico who wanted a peaceful resolution was branded a traitor.

In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista who commanded the Mexican force along the Rio Grande River: “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.” On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven Americans were killed and the rest taken prisoner. Mexico got the war they wanted.

In Oct 1847, a pamphlet written by Mariano Otero, editor of El Siglo XIX and Senator from the state
of Jalisco, appeared. Otero wrote: “The American forces did not advance to the Rio Grande until after
the war became inevitable, and then only as an army of observation.” In 1847, Santa Anna admitted that Mexico desired to go to war with the U.S., as did the minister of relations in 1849. In December, 1847, General Arista declared, “I had the pleasure of being the first to begin the war.” (70)

————————————————————

5 – Mexico HAD to start the war! Mexican politicians put themselves into a corner with 10 years of
diatribes against America and incessant calls for war which kept the people in a war frenzy. They had
to attack the U.S. or be viewed as a traitor. After 10 years demanding war, it was time for the U.S. to confront Mexico: Accept the fact you lost Texas and negotiate or start the war you keep saying you want. Because Mexico started the war does not prove the U.S. provoked Mexico. It proves Mexico chose war over negotiations.

Some critics claim US peace efforts prior to the Mexican Americans War were disingenuous – designed to fail. Actually it was the other way around. Mexico was disingenuous.

——————————————————–

6 – Mexico’s belligerent attitude towards other countries. The U.S. was not the only country having problems dealing with Mexico. British diplomat Ashburnham said: “There is scarcely one foreign power with whom they have had any relation, which has not had more or less cause to complain of the iniquity and persecution to which its subjects here have been exposed.” (71) Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay claims on behalf of their citizens. The US was more patient with Mexico then it should have been – to the point that Mexico viewed our patience
as weakness. Although the US had legitimate reasons to use military force against Mexico over the
grievances, no president wanted a war with Mexico and Congress never pushed for one either.

Mexican stalled for years over money owed American citizens. Mexico finally agreed to make 20 quarterly payments for 5 years, starting April 1843. But after making 3 payments, Mexico stopped payments.

—————————————————————

7 – Critics claim that moving U.S. troops to the Rio Grande River was intended to provoke Mexico into attacking the U.S. This is bogus reasoning and ignores facts. Who was provoking who?? How could the U.S. be responsible for provoking a war with a country that had repeatedly declared war on the U.S., refused to negotiate, vowed to conquer Texas and was putting an invasion force on the border?

General Taylor notified Mexican authorities that the U.S. Army was coming to the north side of the Rio Grande River but only as an army of observation. Taylor stressed his intentions were peaceful. Taylor’s army left Corpus Christi for the Rio Grande River on March 8, 1846. If you are going to war with another country, you do NOT tell them where you are going and when.

Taylor arrived on the Rio Grande on March 28, 1846. Immediately, Mexico initiated a provocation, stealing 3 horses and taking two soldiers captive.(41) General Taylor immediately contacted Mexican General Mejia and demanded horses and men be returned. Taylor also wrote letters to both civilian and military authorities at Matamoros, expressing his desire to “enter into any arrangements to secure the peace and harmony of the frontier” until the US and Mexican governments could reach an official accord. Taylor also informed locals that the U.S. Army would pay for any damages done to their property.(40)

Despite these proclamations, Mexico made herself believe that General Taylor was going to invade Mexico. This was just more self induced hysteria by Mexico and a way to maintain war fervor.

—————————————————————–

8 – Mexico did NOT attack Texas over a boundary dispute. Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River until Taylor’s army arrived at the Rio Grande River. The Nueces is about 125 miles north of the Rio Grande. If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the U.S. and negotiate a deal. The obvious truth was that Mexico was NEVER going to negotiate over the Texas border since that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico. Mexico intended to conquer all of Texas.

———————————————————–

9 – Polk did NOT want a war with Mexico. The U.S. Army was untested against a conventional army. Many foreign observers believed the U.S. would have a tough time defeating Mexico – and many thought the US would lose.

Some observers believed it would take 250,000 US troops to defeat Mexico – a nation of over 7 million people with many rugged mountains. The ability of Mexico to wage guerrilla war against U.S. supply lines would prevent the U.S. from massing sufficient troops to defeat the Mexicans deep in their territory. Mexico could outlast the U.S. Eventually the Americans would tire of the war, the casualties, huge military spending and make peace on Mexico’s terms.

Polk publicly stated numerous times he wanted a diplomatic solution to the Texas issue. (72) If Polk was planning to go to war with Mexico, he would have begun a massive build up for the military, but he did not. (73)

—————————————————————–

10 – Texas did not violate the Treaty of Velasco that ended the war. After Texas released Santa Anna from captivity, he was about to board a schooner for the trip back to Mexico when a newly arrived detachment of soldiers took Santa Anna prisoner a second time. Because of this second, unauthorized imprisonment of Santa Anna, some historians believe the US also broke the peace treaty with Mexico.

While this is technically accurate, the Mexican government had already killed the peace treaties. Even if Santa Anna had returned to Mexico as originally planned, neither Santa Anna nor the Mexican government had any intentions of keeping the peace agreement signed with Texas.

——————————————————————

11 – The U.S. Army treated local Mexicans better then their own government. Locals refused to sell supplies to their own army because they were “paid” in promisory notes – which were worthless. Mexican officials were enraged when Mexicans eagerly sold food, supplies and horses to the American Army which paid in cash.[40]

The fact that a small American Army of less than 15,000 was able to control a country of 7 million people proves a lot of Mexicans were not that interested in fighting the “hated” Americans. If all of Mexico had mobilized, an army of over a quarter million men could have been raised.

—————————————————————-

12 – Mexicans believe the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was too harsh on Mexico. So the issue today is: Even if Mexico was 100% to blame for starting both wars – which they were – did the US have the right to take almost half of Mexico’s territory? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!! Here’s why:

Mexico was certain they could defeat the U.S. But Mexico lost every major battle. To have beaten Mexico as badly as we did, conquered most of their country including the capital city, and then told them they must accept Texas as part of the US, which it already was, and then retreated back to the U.S. would not have been fair for us or the men who died and the rest who went through hell to attain victory. We would be inviting another attack by Mexico. Mexico had to suffer consequences – either monetarily or with land. Mexico had no money.

Now put yourself in Mexico’s shoes. Your army has been repeatedly defeated, nearly the entire country has been conquered, and the consequences are – nothing!! Just be nice and don’t threaten Texas again! In a machismo society like Mexico, would they sit back and say ‘OK’ or would Mexicans think we Americans are unbelievably gullible. Mexico would hold Americans in contempt for conquering their country and not making them pay a price for their warmongering.

The cost of this war was $180 million. [74] The only way Mexico could reimburse the United States for the cost of the war was a payment of land to the United States.[52]

This land only became important to Mexico AFTER they lost it! Spain had numerous plans to colonize Alta California since the early 1600s. But after over 200 years, California was sparsely settled. California had a scatteredf population of not more than 15,000 whites and 24,000 Indians. [75] Only one percent of Mexico’s 7 Million people lived north of the Rio Grande River. The rest lived south of the Rio Grande. Obviously, most Mexicans had no desire to settle on the land north of the Rio Grande.

—————————————————-

13 – Most Mexicans believe that if they had kept ownership of the land north of the Rio Grande – the south west U.S. – these areas would be economically prosperous like they are now. This is delusional thinking. These areas became prosperous because they belong to the US, not Mexico. Had these lands stayed under the control of Mexico, they would not have helped Mexico prosper. All that would change is that constant revolutions – Santa Anna ran Mexico 11 different times – widespread poverty, a disastrous economic system, bad health care, political turmoil and murderous drug cartels would be in a country twice as large as it is now. Even more illegal immigrants would be coming into our considerably smaller country looking for jobs.

———————————————————–

14 – Was this war about Manifest Destiny? This war was not a fulfillment of an abstract concept known as ‘Manifest Destiny.’ Mexican States rebelling against the central government in 1836 was a result of Santa Anna establishing a dictatorship.

Immigrants went to Texas and California for free land. Immigrants to Texas got one league (about 4500 acres) for free and immigrants to California got 11 leagues (about 50,000 acres) for free. If a settler bought unoccupied land in the US, you paid the federal government $1.25 per acre.[76]

It’s important to recognize that Spain/Mexico, like many other countries, had their own version of
“Manifest Destiny.” Spain’s “manifest destiny” was to conquer all of the New World (except for Brazil) for Spain and Catholicism. Incredibly, Spain wanted more then just the New World. In 1513, Vasco Balboa claimed the entire Pacific Ocean and all lands adjoining it for Spain. Although Balboa didn’t know it, he claimed modern day United States, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Japan, Korea, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia – all for Spain.

These land claims by Spain were meaningless. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it – land they had a difficult time putting people on – the U.S. was expanding based on a growing population.

————————————————————

15 – Was the U.S. just beating up on a weaker country? Following the war, a segment of American
society came to this belief. The only reason this viewpoint was credible was because the U.S. won so decisively. Prior to the war, Mexico was certain they would win. The truth is that in most every battle, the difference between victory and defeat for the U.S. was VERY small. The U.S. Army was always outnumbered by large margins. With a mistake here and there, America could easily have lost the war.

A famous American of that time, General Ethan Allen Hitchcock, one of the finest strategists of the day, felt the US did not have the manpower necessary to defend Texas from Mexico – much less launch
offensive operations. In his diary of 26 March 1846 – BEFORE the war started – he states: “Our force is altogether too small for the accomplishment of its errand. . . [77] The ‘errand’ was to defend Texas from the Mexican invasion.

—————————————————————-

Sources:

1 – The Spanish Frontier in North America, Yale Western Americana Series, David J. Weber (1992), p. 299.
2 – Recovering History, Constructing Race: (2001) Manchaca, Martha pp. 172, 201
3 – Texas Revolutionary Experience, (1992) Paul Lack pp. 255
4 – Recovering History, Constructing Race: Manchaca (2001), p. 199 or The Republic of Texas, 1821 to Annexation in 1846 Clarence Wharton. p 57-61

5 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p. 57

Justin Smith was born in 1857 in New Hampshire; died 1930 in Brooklyn, New York. Educated at Dartmouth (B.A. 1877; M.A. 1881) and Union Theological Seminary (1879-1881). Smith worked for Charles Scribner’s Sons publishers 1881-1883 and Ginn & Co. 1883-1898 (becoming a partner in 1890); he was Professor of Modern History at Dartmouth 1899-1908. He resigned his professorship in 1908 to pursue historical research, and published The Annexation of Texas in 1911 and The War with Mexico in 1919.

For the latter he received the Pulitzer Prize in 1920 and the first Loubat Prize in 1923. From 1917 to 1923 Smith was chairman of the Historical Manuscripts Commission of the American Historical Association. Smith is regarded as the most thorough researcher of the war. Smith declared that nine tenths of the material he used in the preparation of this work was new information. His search extended to the archives of Great Britain, France, Spain, Cuba, Columbia, Peru, American and Mexican states and Mexican cities.

Smith examined over 100,000 manuscripts, 1200 books and pamphlets and 200 periodicals. Smith talked or corresponded with as many of the veterans as he could reach and spent more than a year in Mexico. All of the material used by Smith to write his book takes up 7 linear feet at the Benson Latin American Collection at the University of Texas at Austin. This information is from the Preface of the War with Mexico, vol 1. (1919), Justin H. Smith.

6 – Myths, Misdeeds, and Misunderstandings, (1997) Jaime E. Rodriguez O. and Kathryn Vincent p. 71 7 – The Mexican War, Edward Mansfield – pub. 1849, p12
8 – http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org/santaanna.htm
9 – “A Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of Its Defenders,” Amelia Williams, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, July 1933. p 37 http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101094/m1/45/?q=filisola
10 – Republic of Texas by Clarence Wharton, pub 1922, pg 151
11 – The Annexation of Texas (1911), by Justin H. Smith pg 414
12 – The Annexation of Texas (1911), by Justin H. Smith pg 415
13 – The Annexation of Texas (1911), by Justin H. Smith pg 38
14 – https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/salado-creek-battle-of
15 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.84
16 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.53 17 – Claims As a Cause of the Mexican War, by Clayton Kohl, pub 1914, p30-42
18 – British interests and activities in Texas, 1838-1846 by E. Adams, pub 1910, p210-213
19 – British Interests and activities in Texas, 1838-1846 by E. Adams, pub 1910, p 242.
20 – The Annexation of Texas (1911), by Justin H. Smith pg 273 21 – A Review of the Causes and Consequences of The Mexican War. by William Jay, pub1849, p 88
22 – https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/annexation/part5/question12.html
Also Claims As a Cause of the Mexican War, by Clayton Kohl, pub 1914, p 57.
23 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.87
24 – http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/texts/15polk1.htm
25 – The Annexation of Texas (1911), by Justin H. Smith p 423
26 – Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 18
27 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.154.
28 – https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/annexation/part5/question12.html
29 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.143
30 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.100
31 – Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 46
32 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p. 102. 33 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.135
34 – https://www.militarymuseum.org/ProposedBritisColonialization.pdf by Engelson, p146
35 – Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 92-93
36 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.157
37 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.105,106
38 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.109
39 – British interests and activities in Texas, 1838-1846 by Ephraim Adams, pub 1910, p224-225.
40 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.146
also: Story of Mexican War by Henry p 40,41
41 – Our Army on the Rio Grande, by Thomas Thorpe, pub 1846, p16.
42 – Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 98.
43 – Story of Mexican War by Henry. p 46
44 – Our Army on the Rio Grande, by Thomas Thorpe, pub 1846, p27-29, 30 – 35
45 – Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 112.
Also: Justin Smith V1 War w Mex, pg 149
46 – So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848 (1989) John S. D. Eisenhower pg 63
47 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.155
48 – The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, by George Rives, pg. 141,142
49 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith pgs.347-349
50 – http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h41-mex8.htm
51 – Personal memoirs of U.S. Grant … Vol 1 (1885) By Ulysses Simpson Grant p.118
52 – Claims As a Cause of the Mexican War, by Clayton Kohl, pub 1914, p 72.
53 – The Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War by William Jay, pub 1849 – p241-242
54 – The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 by George Lockhart Rives p.592
55 – Fifty Years in Camp and Field by W. A. Croffut, pub 1909, p 308-309
56 – https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=560 57 – Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 88
58 – Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 89,90
59 – Slavery, Scandal and Steel Rails by David Devine. Pub 2004, p 53
60 – Audio of Torres: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Torres.mp3
61 – Audio of Cebada: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Cebada.mp3
62 – Message to Aztlan by Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales, Published in 2001
63 – Maldef – https://www.americanaction.us/civil-rights-racism/maldef/
64 – Audio of Obledo: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
65 – https://www.americanaction.us/book-reviews/they-called-meking-tiger/
66 – They Called Me “King Tiger” by Reies Lopez Tijerina.
67 – Expedition through Aztlan by David Sanchez – Pub. 1978
68 – Texas Revolutionary Experience, (1992) Paul Lack pp.
69 – Texas Revolutionary Experience, (1992) Paul Lack pp.
70 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p 155
71 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.74
72 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p 132
73 – War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p 133
74 – Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War by William Jay. pub 1849, p 241-242.
75 – Story of the Mexican War by Robert Henry p 29
76 – North America Divided by Seymour V. & Odie B. Faulk Connor, pub 1971 – p 9
77 – Fifty Years in Camp and Field by W. A. Croffut, pub 1909, p 213.

June 2024