• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Mexico The Land of America?

Is Mexico The Land of America?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 26.3%

  • No

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Total voters
    19
Please explain what you mean by the term "Land of America."
 
Mexico used to be the United States back in the 1450s or something. But do you believe its true that Mexico used to be the United States?
 
Uh . . . what?
 
jr602az said:
Mexico used to be the United States back in the 1450s or something. But do you believe its true that Mexico used to be the United States?
Click to expand...

Well given that the US wasn't founded until the the late 1700s, I don't see how this could be possible.
 
jr602az said:
Mexico used to be the United States back in the 1450s or something. But do you believe its true that Mexico used to be the United States?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should give us all that land back.

And even though we traded the moon for easter island after darwin conquered it back in the 1540s, we should take that back too.
 
jr602az said:
Mexico used to be the United States back in the 1450s or something. But do you believe its true that Mexico used to be the United States?
Click to expand...

Can any one say, "History Challenged"?

You left out the option of "WTF?"
 
Does anyone have a clue what this means?

Further explanation, por favor.
 
I think you might be referring to when we were in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and we captured Mexico City, and took the land to the west of Texas, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, etc.

I remember in history talking about why we didn't in fact go on ahead, and conquer the rest of Mexico, and annex them. It was right before the Civil War (1861-1865), and the politicians decided to not, because of the sectionalist struggle in Washington. If we had decided to go on ahead and conquer Mexico, all that land would legally have been slave territory, as per the Missour Compromise of 1820. Now, given that there was building tension between the North and the South, it was decided to not follow up on our success west of Texas, and in Mexico City, and to stop the war.

Everything in the time period was about maintaining the balance between the North and the South in the Senate. Any attempt to break the balance gotanother compromise made. Example: Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Compromise of 1850.

If that is what you are referring to, as in should the US claim Mexico...

Militarily we could anytime we so wished, and there is no longer a political struggle in our country, but if we did so, there would be alarms going on all over the world. Basically, we should not claim mexico as ours, and we should not attempt to make them ours.
 
repeter said:
I think you might be referring to when we were in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and we captured Mexico City, and took the land to the west of Texas, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, etc.

I remember in history talking about why we didn't in fact go on ahead, and conquer the rest of Mexico, and annex them. It was right before the Civil War (1861-1865), and the politicians decided to not, because of the sectionalist struggle in Washington. If we had decided to go on ahead and conquer Mexico, all that land would legally have been slave territory, as per the Missour Compromise of 1820. Now, given that there was building tension between the North and the South, it was decided to not follow up on our success west of Texas, and in Mexico City, and to stop the war.

Everything in the time period was about maintaining the balance between the North and the South in the Senate. Any attempt to break the balance gotanother compromise made. Example: Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Compromise of 1850.

If that is what you are referring to, as in should the US claim Mexico...
Click to expand...
I think you may be on to something here.
Militarily we could anytime we so wished, and there is no longer a political struggle in our country, but if we did so, there would be alarms going on all over the world. Basically, we should not claim mexico as ours, and we should not attempt to make them ours.
Click to expand...

At this point in history, you could say the same about any country in the world..... or possibly the whole world at the same time, but who would want it? :mrgreen:
 
Skateguy said:
Lavender, with yellow stripes. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Which reply actually makes at least as much sense as the original post.:mrgreen:
 
I do belive that the sooner we "annex" Mexico, and Cuba, the better.
 
As opposed to the land North of the Rio Grande, the area south was populated by large numbers of non white Mexicans. That is the only reason we didnt keep the land. If we would have fought Canada, then we would have at least another 15 states.
 
OxymoronP said:
As opposed to the land North of the Rio Grande, the area south was populated by large numbers of non white Mexicans. That is the only reason we didnt keep the land. If we would have fought Canada, then we would have at least another 15 states.
Click to expand...

That is the only reason we didn't keep the land when we won the Mexican-American War?

I disagree, politicians were the primary reason. If we had conquered Mexico back then, the Southern Slave States would have had considerably more power in the Senate, enough to do what they wanted politically. That would have changed history, for the worse.
 
Skateguy said:
I do belive that the sooner we "annex" Mexico, and Cuba, the better.
Click to expand...

We very well cannot, because of the political backlash that would ensue. We've already had a war for Mexico (Mexican-American) and for Cuba (Spanish-American). If we didn't take them then, when we easily could have, then I think its better to leave things the way they are now.
 
repeter said:
That is the only reason we didn't keep the land when we won the Mexican-American War?

I disagree, politicians were the primary reason. If we had conquered Mexico back then, the Southern Slave States would have had considerably more power in the Senate, enough to do what they wanted politically. That would have changed history, for the worse.
Click to expand...

It was not because of sectional issues between north and south that the US didn't conquer all of mexico...those came later, as a result.

We did, after all accept the mexican cession, which was a huge chunk of land mostly south of the 36/30 parallel (of the missouri comp.).
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
That is the only reason we didn't keep the land when we won the Mexican-American War?

I disagree, politicians were the primary reason. If we had conquered Mexico back then, the Southern Slave States would have had considerably more power in the Senate, enough to do what they wanted politically. That would have changed history, for the worse.
Click to expand...
Or for the better, depending on which side of the Mason Dixon line one was on.
 
repeter said:
That is the only reason we didn't keep the land when we won the Mexican-American War?

I disagree, politicians were the primary reason. If we had conquered Mexico back then, the Southern Slave States would have had considerably more power in the Senate, enough to do what they wanted politically. That would have changed history, for the worse.
Click to expand...

Well your right, that was also a concern.
 
megaprogman said:
Why would that be?
Click to expand...
Simple really. with proper development, using the local Peoples, those Countries could be great money makers for all involved. There would be no need for them to come here, when they could prosper at home. Just bring them into the fold as it were.
 
other said:
It was not because of sectional issues between north and south that the US didn't conquer all of mexico...those came later, as a result.

We did, after all accept the mexican cession, which was a huge chunk of land mostly south of the 36/30 parallel (of the missouri comp.).
Click to expand...

After 1820, sectionalism dominated American politics. We accepted the Mexican Cession to a certain point. Had we wanted we could easily have gone ahead and conquered all of Mexico. The reason we didn't, was because there were brilliant politicians back then who would have seen the fatal shift in political power to the South.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom