Not sure what distinction there is between "core" and "frontier" here that transforms the latter into terra nullius.
AHC: American Colonies in Africa
- Thread starter General Mosh
- Start date
Not sure what distinction there is between "core" and "frontier" here that transforms the latter into terra nullius.
The latter may not have been terra nullis, but given that Mexico was compensated financially for the cession, it's no less valid than the Louisiana Purchase.
Is there a source for this? Also, California was granted statehood within a year of annexaton to the United States
A change, but I'm not really convinced the US wasn't pursuing "a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world" prior to 1898. Not taking colonies - but that's more a matter of how much distinction there was between the Old Territories and the New Territories (in absence of better terms for the division in place in such cases, as there's no "motherland" as opposed to "colonies" in these sorts of empires), rather than a lack of the motives that drove colonial acquisition.
It (both Russian and US expansion) arguably echoes the Roman Empire as far as empire building goes.
The war and bloodshed part makes a rather substantial distinction between an exchange of territory for ready money vs. conquest secured by peace treaty.
I'm not saying that makes the US doing acts of Evil, but it was certainly doing acts of aggression (whatever one makes of the issue of the pre-war border, 1846-1848 went well beyond the issue of whether or not the Rio Grande was the border between Texas and Mexico) and expansionary policies at another country's expense.
So I think saying the US didn't have any interest in "Mexico proper" is at best nitpicking and at worst dismissing the vast area of territory the US was very interested in that had been Mexican prior to 1846.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Are you joking? Look at Mexico’s history.
Also, California was granted statehood within a year of annexation to the United States
Yes, and? That proves my point.
Should be easy for you then. There are circumstances where it happened after the fact, but the independence of the Central American Republics suggest that this was not universally so with Mexico.
No, it undermines it. If Alta California was being groomed for Mexican statehood, what was the hold up?
But your failure to make a distinction also overlooks the other republican empire, France.
I guess then that the Germans were right to think of their natural border being on the Meuse then, if gains by war are ill-gotten.
The fact is that the United States won the war; the purchase legitimized the cession further, as victors in war rarely purchased to that time lands to which victory in war entitled them.
And, I disagree with your point; border wars often end up being about more than just the initial point of dispute. Given how exactly California went down, it was hard for the U.S. to not make an attempt to gain the area in the peace treaty.
France seems to have had both colonies and the idea of places it claimed were part of the metropolitan area (the locals being less convinced) in much the same way the US frankly seems to have done somewhat OTL, and could easily do more in an ATL where it looks outside NA sooner.
Frankly, I think "natural border" when it comes to (say, between Germany and France) is a term used to make "what we want" sound like you have a right to it. So where Germany thinks the natural border is means almost nothing to me as far as rightful or unrightful. Especially given that the border between "German" and "French" (as in the peoples) has shifted since the terms first meant anything.
And the purchase doesn't change that the lands were taken by force, by a war waged for the purpose of taking those lands.
My point is not that this was atypical, but that the US was fighting a war to expand its borders, not defend them.
And that California happened the way it did doesn't make the US uninterested in any territorial gains.
The war was waged for the settlement of the Texas border. The further cession was paid for. You said yourself that the war was fought over Texas. The areas paid for in the cession were by design areas where few Mexicans actually lived.
The war was waged for the conquest of territory by the United States. It stopped being about the Texas border as opposed to expansion sometime in 1847 at the latest.
And "few Mexicans" living there: And what does that have to do with the US's imperialistic ambitions?
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_expansionism.html
Frankly that this could not have extended to the US claiming colonies, to draw this back to the original point of contention, seems very shaky indeed.
Last edited:
It has everything to do with your response to my point about France versus Germany.
Also, the war enduring has nothing to do with the peace terms as narions seldom seek in the peace terms everything then held, and the Mexican War was no exception.
The war enduring isn't the problem. The war being fought well beyond anything conceivably defensive in nature on the part of the United States turns it into a war of American expansionism.
Liberia is the only mainland Africa portion I could see, aside from that some of the Islands like Cape Verde (which IMO is more Euro-African), Sao Tome and Principe or maybe I could see in a situation where America has some need for a strategic or economic base for the region, though how willing Portugal would be to selling them I don't know.
Actually, now that I think about it, if America did'nt go for the Philippines (which the government and military at the time thought was impossible, and were really only gained by sheer luck) and focused on the Atlantic I suppose part of the Treaty ending the war might include the island of Bioko (formerly Fernando Po) if it was captured or if America demanded it in return for Spain keeping something else.
Actually, now that I think about it, if America did'nt go for the Philippines (which the government and military at the time thought was impossible, and were really only gained by sheer luck) and focused on the Atlantic I suppose part of the Treaty ending the war might include the island of Bioko (formerly Fernando Po) if it was captured or if America demanded it in return for Spain keeping something else.
I don't know; carrying the border to include Alta California prevents Mexico from claiming the Oregon Country. Also, this "counterpoint" of yours fails to rebut what I've said.
If that's "defensive", the term has no meaning except propaganda. And it certainly has nothing to do with the border that was supposedly relevant to the start of the war.
And I'm not sure what exactly you're expecting to rebut. Yes, few Mexicans lived in the area the US took from Mexico. What does that have to do with anything in regards to whether US was aggressive or defensive or imperialistic or content with what it had or anything except that those areas were lightly settled at the time?
Well i for one agree how can you call America a colonial power... just ignore the native Americans...trail of tears never heard of it....statehood for everyone, though not the natives, Go back to your reservation.
Come on mate, as a brit i have no worry in saying Britain was a disgusting colonial power, and like america it set its colonies on the road to independence (only like America, once it became unprofitable)
All countries have dark pasts, but we have to accept that, and remember, for those you forget or ignore are doomed to repeat...
TFSmith121
Banned
There was a brief movement in Mexico after 1848 to ask Scott
There was a brief movement in Mexico after 1848 to ask Scott to serve for 4-6 years as what would have amounted to the director of a receivership; the expectation was that 15,000 mercenaries could be raised to serve under Scott's command as a police/defense force, and the exit strategy was to pass command over to a Mexican government by 1854.
Sounds outlandish, but similar things happened elsewhere; does open some interesting possible futures for an "Americanized" Mexican administration, at least in the 1850s.
As far as American imperialism (in the overt sense) goes, I think part of how the historical reality is presented in the US is how (relatively) minor an element it was in the American experience (both in reality and myth); while their respective "Empires" had a tremendous impact (economically, politically, and otherwise) on Britain and France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, the various US insular territories (the commonwealths of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, especially) did not, other than the importance of the PI to the Pacific War.
Although in its day, "he served on Samar, sir" was viewed as akin to Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, it didn't last; very few Americans had direct experience in or with the PI or PR in the 1900-1940 period, and after then, both territories simply got subsumed into the national understanding of WW II, and then in 1946, the PI was independent (in the context of the budding Cold War, but still).
The PR's legal status is really seen as an afterthought by most Americans, I think, especially since all Puerto Ricans have been US citizens (as opposed to nationals) since 1917. A legitimate question is if PR gained independence as an republic, how many American citizens would take out "PR" citizenship exclusively, how many would seek dual citizenship, how many would say "no thanks," and how would those born in the future on the island, or to PR parents, be classified.
Self determination would suggest independence for PR, the USVI, US Samoa, Guam, and the Micronesian commonwealths should be the default, but there would be significant legal issues to unwinding any of them from the US.
Best.
There was a brief movement in Mexico after 1848 to ask Scott to serve for 4-6 years as what would have amounted to the director of a receivership; the expectation was that 15,000 mercenaries could be raised to serve under Scott's command as a police/defense force, and the exit strategy was to pass command over to a Mexican government by 1854.
Sounds outlandish, but similar things happened elsewhere; does open some interesting possible futures for an "Americanized" Mexican administration, at least in the 1850s.
As far as American imperialism (in the overt sense) goes, I think part of how the historical reality is presented in the US is how (relatively) minor an element it was in the American experience (both in reality and myth); while their respective "Empires" had a tremendous impact (economically, politically, and otherwise) on Britain and France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, the various US insular territories (the commonwealths of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, especially) did not, other than the importance of the PI to the Pacific War.
Although in its day, "he served on Samar, sir" was viewed as akin to Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, it didn't last; very few Americans had direct experience in or with the PI or PR in the 1900-1940 period, and after then, both territories simply got subsumed into the national understanding of WW II, and then in 1946, the PI was independent (in the context of the budding Cold War, but still).
The PR's legal status is really seen as an afterthought by most Americans, I think, especially since all Puerto Ricans have been US citizens (as opposed to nationals) since 1917. A legitimate question is if PR gained independence as an republic, how many American citizens would take out "PR" citizenship exclusively, how many would seek dual citizenship, how many would say "no thanks," and how would those born in the future on the island, or to PR parents, be classified.
Self determination would suggest independence for PR, the USVI, US Samoa, Guam, and the Micronesian commonwealths should be the default, but there would be significant legal issues to unwinding any of them from the US.
Best.
Last edited:
The Mexican cession is pretty overt. We're talking about half of what was Mexican territory at the time, for God's sake, and a not insubstantial part of the modern US.
It's not as cleanly separate as say, India, but that doesn't make it a less significant part of the American experience.
It's not as cleanly separate as say, India, but that doesn't make it a less significant part of the American experience.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Mexican-American war is seen differently, however;
Fair or not, control of the continent where the US sits is different than overseas possesions; the US-Mexican confrontation over the Southwest is seen as:
a) a fight between two "Western" nation states; and
b) over territories which, unlike the Phillippines or Cuba or Puerto Rico (or India, for that matter) were not densely populated and, frankly, wide open for "someone" to settle (tough for the Navajo et al, but part and parcel of the treatment of the native societies by EVERY Western Hemisphere nation, north and south); and
c) part and parcel of the same motivations that led to independence, the conquest/acquistion/purchase of the Old Northwest and Old Southwest in the 1780s-90s, the Lousiana Purchase, Florida, the Oregon Country settlement, and - if anyone thinks of it - the Gadsden Purchase (which in its own right raises the issue of how Mexico saw the north as something worth fighting for), as well as Alaska and Hawaii.
One thing to keep in mind, I think, in terms of the "continental control" line of thought in US thinking is that between Europe and South America, there were plenty of ongoing examples of what multiple and (relatively) equally powerful nation states on a single continent were likely to lead to...
Undoubtedly it was unabashed great power politics, but it was also nothing out of the norm of thinking in those terms. "Manifest Destiny" was not unknown in South America, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere in this period, even if it was known by other names...
"The strong did what they could, and the weak suffered what they must" was hardly unknown in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Best,
Fair or not, control of the continent where the US sits is different than overseas possesions; the US-Mexican confrontation over the Southwest is seen as:
a) a fight between two "Western" nation states; and
b) over territories which, unlike the Phillippines or Cuba or Puerto Rico (or India, for that matter) were not densely populated and, frankly, wide open for "someone" to settle (tough for the Navajo et al, but part and parcel of the treatment of the native societies by EVERY Western Hemisphere nation, north and south); and
c) part and parcel of the same motivations that led to independence, the conquest/acquistion/purchase of the Old Northwest and Old Southwest in the 1780s-90s, the Lousiana Purchase, Florida, the Oregon Country settlement, and - if anyone thinks of it - the Gadsden Purchase (which in its own right raises the issue of how Mexico saw the north as something worth fighting for), as well as Alaska and Hawaii.
One thing to keep in mind, I think, in terms of the "continental control" line of thought in US thinking is that between Europe and South America, there were plenty of ongoing examples of what multiple and (relatively) equally powerful nation states on a single continent were likely to lead to...
Undoubtedly it was unabashed great power politics, but it was also nothing out of the norm of thinking in those terms. "Manifest Destiny" was not unknown in South America, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere in this period, even if it was known by other names...
"The strong did what they could, and the weak suffered what they must" was hardly unknown in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Best,
Last edited:
None of which is an excuse for historians, including members of this chat, to describe it as if it was not imperialistic expansion on the part of a powerful country dominating a less powerful country. American attitudes viewing the US's history through a lens where we're too special and liberty-respecting for imperialism is a shameless bit of dishonesty even if we don't count the Native Americans.
"Not out of the norm" is precisely the point. It was out of exactly the same kind of thing that built all other empires.