Talk:Mexican Cession

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Inclusion of Texas[edit]

I adjusted the edit regarding Texas. Although that area was specified as part of the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, it is not regarded as part of the "Mexican Cession" per se (at least by the U.S.), since the U.S. already had claimed it since December 1845, after the Texas Annexation. It's definitely worth mentioning, but not as part of the territory of the MC, since the term is a U.S. history term. -- Decumanus 22:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Spot on! Thanks. –Hajor 23:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes. The view that the Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo don't include Texas is strictly POV since Mexico never recognized Texas independence, and the Treaty directly specified the international border along the Rio Grande. Tmangray (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mexican Cession" has been heavily used to designate an area bounded on the east by the Rio Grande on American maps of territorial expansion of the United States and as such the name should be documented as such. However the article should also mention that the upper Rio Grande in today's New Mexico and Colorado never formed a boundary between areas ceded and not ceded, or ceded at different times, by Mexico which ceded both banks of the upper Rio Grande at the same time in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, or a boundary between areas controlled and not controlled by the United States or Texas, as New Mexico including both banks was captured as a whole and then administered as a whole by United States forces early in the Mexican War, was never previously controlled by American forces, and was never controlled at all by Texan forces, which only even approached the area once in the spectacularly unsuccessful Texas Santa Fe Expedition.
The upper Rio Grande also did not figure in the Texas Annexation resolution which did not specify Texas's boundaries, nor in the incident starting the Mexican War, which happened far away in the disputed area between the Nueces and the lower Rio Grande where Mexican and American forces were both present. --JWB (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

I was thinking about changing the image used. This one looks better:

[1]

what do you think?

What's the copyright status of that map? It's a nice map, no denying that, but Decumanus's is GFDL. (Wikipedia:Fair use: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available"). –Hajor 18:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be merged with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Question about money[edit]

On the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo page, it says that the United States paid $15 Million for the Mexican Cession, but on the Mexican Cession article, it says that the U.S. paid $20 Million. Which is right?

Library of Congress page here: [2] says $15 Million so I'm editing it to reflect that.

Removed[edit]

Modern day ramifications[edit]

Currently in the Southwestern United States, there is a minority-based movement to reassert Mexican/Hispanic control over this geographic area. Activism is this regard overlaps to some degree with issues of illegal immigration [3]

I removed this info because it wasn't about the Mexican Cession proper and because it sourced FrontPage Mag, which is not exactly known for balanced coverage.--Rockero 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you reconsider. There is no question that certain Mexican/Hispanic nationalist advocates seek hegemony over the "Aztlan" area and those who reside there. And there is no question that "Aztlan" and the "Mexican Cession" are both referring to essentially the same geographic area. This article is about the Mexican Cession which is not an act like "succession", but rather it's a physical area. As for sources, perhaps you can help me find one you will accept? [4] Hdtopo 01:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the ADL [5], which is a reliable source, I'd say. Hdtopo 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth... We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent..." [6] Hdtopo 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't something like 1% of Mexico's population at the time live in the area? Furthermore, of that 1%, weren't the majority White Spaniards? And lastly, were the Aztecs even ever close to this area? Volksgeist 11:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention what happened to the population. Another example of Wikipedia's US-centric racist bias. Fourtildas (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Hdtopo: Discussion of the use of the term "Aztlán" for the territories ceded to the U.S. by Mexico is discussed in the article Aztlán. Your sources are a website dedicated to the denunciation of Antonio Villaraigosa (mayorno.com) and a denunciation of the "news" website La Voz de Aztlán. A link to Aztlán under "See also" is sufficient.
To Volksgeist: The figure most often quoted by historians is 200,000 Native Americans and 100,000 Mexicans in the Southwest at the time of the Cession. I'm not sure what percentage of Mexico's population it was. The Mexicans were not "pure white"; in fact, the settlement that became the city of Los Angeles was founded by Blacks and indigenous people. As for the Aztecs, their own legends place the land of their origin in "the North", but a specific locale is not given. Archeologists know that the Mexica were newcomers to the Valley of Mexico, and that their language is part of a family which has speakers in the U.S. and Mexico, so a southward migration is likely to have occurred. But what relevance does it have for this article?--Rockero 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citation please?[edit]

Could you the main proponents of the first paragraph get some citations please? History as I've understood it, that was all Mexico. And I seem to remember there were numerous US citizens, including congress members who opposed the Mexican-American war as imperialist. I am concerned with this line all claims to territories and treaties with New Spain became officially void in the United States, making the land free to those who could claim it and hold it. Leaving aside fact that there were already Nations present on lands that New Spain and Mexico attempted to claim as theirs. But the quote in italics is like saying once the Soviet Union fell, all the land of the 15 former republics was up for grabs. True, the republics did not leave over night and the conflicts in Chyechnya and Dagestan claim to be still about the dissolution of the Soviet Union which might seem to support the italicized sentance. However it seems traditionally when a regime falls, one that takes its place usually inherits lands controlled by the predecessor. 67.53.78.15 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him/her --Wise Sage150 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, the first two paragraphs are false and need to be rewritten. According to the history book I have on hand, the Adams-Onís Treaty between the US and Spain set the border which continued to be recognized by the US and Mexico, excepting some wrangling in the southern Texas area. Texan independence changed things as well, but the idea that the US did not recognize Mexico or its borders is simply incorrect. Additionally, the exact area annexed after the Mexican War, the reparations and why they were paid, is not as simple as described here. There's a detailed analysis of the post-war debates over how much of Mexico to annex in D.W. Meinig's book The Shaping of America, vol. 2. If I find the time and energy, I'll try to fix this page. If nothing else, Mexico did not "concede" the land, they ceded it / it was annexed. Pfly 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, it looks like the page was better as of this edit [7] -- the next edit in the history is where the weird and untrue claims come from -- and from a now non-existent user whose only contribution to wikipedia was that one edit to this page. Perhaps the old (and referenced!) text can be reinserted by someone with a few minutes. Pfly 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I just reverted to the old edit -- it didn't look like anything of great value had been added since then. Pfly 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Map[edit]

This map depicts the Mesilla Strip dispute as being favorable to Mexico without any doubt. It must be changed to reflect differing opinions.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong, the Cession did not include the islands in the Pacific Ocean. JC 12:48 1 Ag 2008 (PST)

According to the National Atlas of the United States the islands in the Pacific Ocean were part of the Cession. If you have a source for a different opinion I would like to check it out. My source: http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/nationalatlas/usacqup020.tar.gz Kballen (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Question of Slavery[edit]

I think this article should probably include something about the issue of slavery being reawakened in the US after this cession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cession or Purchase?[edit]

Every once in a while when discussing the issue dealt with in this article I always come across the notion that the Mexican Cession was somehow a purchase rather than a conquest; as if Mexico sold this territory disregarding the significant fact that Mexico had been at war with the United States for 2 years solely for the purpose of fulfilling the U.S. land grabbing rationalization of Manifest Destiny. This article itself makes the erroneous implication that the 15 million given to Mexico were for the lands acquired by the U.S. According to archives.gov "The United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 "in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States" (see Article XII of the treaty)." Then PBS.org states: "On his own initiative, Trist offered an indemnity of $15 million, judging that this would gain acceptance for the treaty among those who felt that the United States had already paid enough in "blood and treasure."" An accurate analogy to Mexico's situation, and the circumstances in which 55% of Mexican territory was "sold" to the U.S., can be made of any "donations" given to a mugger as he holds a gun into your ribs. This article needs to reflect reality or we will have more ignorance being disseminated. The 15 million given to Mexico was more an incentive offered by Trist or a sort of indemnification than a payment for a legitimate purchase. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cession, not a purchase: a robbery. 177.228.68.6 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought bots were supposed to fix rambling url's[edit]

Re edit by SmackBot (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 20 May 2010. I saw this problem right away [the citation from google books]. I just don't like sloppy, had to fix it.1archie99 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mexican Cession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

The introductory section appears to have been vandalized as of 4/20/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertOfWords (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Senator" David Wilmot[edit]

I have changed the text in the section 'Subsequent organization and the North-South conflict' about David Wilmot and the Wilmot Proviso. To say it was 'created by Republican Party Senator David Wilmot' is misleading. In the 1840s Wilmot was not a Republican (and the party did not exist for about another decade) and was not a Senator (until 1861), but was a serving member of the House of Representatives. I have rephrased to remove the errors. Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican_Cession&oldid=1214160821"