Does anyone worry that the American Revolution and the Mexican-American War were grossly unjust wars of aggression initiated by Americans?

[GEddie]

That is majority view.

That is the way the war is generally taught in schools in the USA, as far as I can tell.

In personal matters, is is clear that if Man A kills one son of Man B, and holds another son of Man B hostage until Man B deeds over his land to Man A, then the sale is not legal or valid at all, and no court in the world would enforce or uphold such a deal. Instead, Man A would be arrested and put on trail for murder, kidnapping, and theft.

By the standards of Catholic Just War Doctrine and by the standards of the Nuremberg Principles, I believe that President Polk was (beside being a forced slavery exploiter of his fellow human beings), a war criminal.

It seems noteworthy that there are no major monuments or memorials to the American victory in the Mexican-American War. It seems that the historians know too well what the nature of that war was. They know that that war was condemned by Abraham Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses S. Grant, and, years after the fact, was condemned by Theodore Roosevelt (who was not a peace-monger in general).

There are no victory monuments to the War of 1847 because, while such monuments are normally sited where the battles took place, nearly all of the fighting in that war took place within the territory of present-day Mexico.

The human losses to the USA having been relatively minor in the War of 1847, there was no drive to remember them afterward as there was for both sides in the Civil War, for example.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Well, maybe it would be a good thing. But being multilingual has not been all that much help in making the EU cohesive, has it? There actually might be some merit in a nation having a single official language.

The EU is in trouble because of financial, not cultural factors.

When the euro was at US$1.50 and Madrid, Dublin, etc, were boom towns, everybody admired the EU and their challenge was gaining member nations, not potentially losing them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

To answers the OP’s question, no, I don’t.

Okay.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Have you read the OT, particularly Genesis? God specifically and deliberately gave land to man.

Good point.

But Jesus did not promise or capture land for his followers. He specifically rejected the creation of earthly land-based religion. He said, “My kingdom * is not of this world.” John 18:36. In the same vein, Hebrews 13:14 says: “For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.”

Also, did God give or promise to give the sovereign Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico to the the USA? These states were two resource rich states in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States–the federal constitution of Mexico was generally modeled on the constitution of the USA). They were an integral part of Mexico. No one in Mexico was willing to give they up until the US Army and Marines occupied all the major Mexican cities and refused to leave until the lands were ceded.

By the way, in the Mexican-American war, only one of the combatants was an officially Catholic nation, and it was not the the USA. By contrast, the USA was and is a nation in which all its major federal government buildings in its capitol, Washington, D.C., have a cornerstone with overt and clear symbols of Freemasonry, an organization long deemed to be extremely hostile to the Catholic Church.*

 

[bearer]

Good point.

But Jesus did not promise or capture land for his followers. He specifically rejected the creation of earthly land-based religion. He said, “My kingdom * is not of this world.” John 18:36. In the same vein, Hebrews 13:14 says: “For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.”

Also, did God give or promise to give the sovereign Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico to the the USA? These states were two resource rich states in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States–the federal constitution of Mexico was generally modeled on the constitution of the USA). They were an integral part of Mexico. No one in Mexico was willing to give they up until the US Army and Marines occupied all the major Mexican cities and refused to leave until the lands were ceded.

By the way, in the Mexican-American war, only one of the combatants was an officially Catholic nation*, and it was not the the USA. By contrast, the USA was and is a nation in which all its major federal government buildings in its capitol, Washington, D.C., have a cornerstone with overt and clear symbols of Freemasonry, an organization long deemed to be extremely hostile to the Catholic Church.

What does it matter what the religious make-up of each nation was? Mexico is full of Catholics, but they were and are a Westphalian nation-state just like we were and are. Geopolitics, not religion, was the name of the game then as it is now in the Western Hemisphere. Your post, including the quotation from the Gospel, supports that.

Mexico fought us and lost. There’s no reason to give them the Southwest. They can claim territory for themselves, but if they can’t secure it, they might as well kiss it goodbye. That’s just common sense. Heck, they can’t even beat back the international narco-terrorists running the show south of the border today. What good would self-hating, politically-correct psuedo-righteousness accomplish?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Mexico fought us and lost. There’s no reason to give them the Southwest. They can claim territory for themselves, but if they can’t secure it, they might as well kiss it goodbye. That’s just common sense. Heck, they can’t even beat back the international narco-terrorists running the show south of the border today. What good would self-hating, politically-correct psuedo-righteousness accomplish?

Mexico couldn’t defend the southwest or California even in the 19th century.

Remember that Mexico declared its independence from Spain and fought over that. It is not only the U.S. that fought a war over its independence from a colonial power. So, we’re to uphold Mexico as virtuous but the U.S. as evil, for doing the very same thing?

Anglos were invited into Texas by the Mexican government because Mexico couldn’t defeat the Indians, particularly the Comanches, who actually ruled most of it. Indeed, the Comanches raided deep into Mexico proper, killing, torturing and enslaving, and the Mexican government couldn’t even protect its citizens there. Just as Mexico declared its independence from Spain, Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Ultimately, the Anglos in Texas (and not a few Mexicans) defeated the Comanches and other warring tribes.

Mexico would have had a war over California no matter what. It was no more able to populate and settle California than it was to do it in Texas. Again, of course, Mexico wrested a very shaky claim to California from Spain. Many Spanish people in California did not (for good reason) want to be ruled by Mexico, and sometimes rebelled. But the Russians were coming into California from the north, and eventually Mexico and Russia would have come into conflict. Ultimately, of course, the U.S. claimed and settled California.

There are no certain yardsticks for determining “right to settle” otherwise nearly uninhabited lands like Texas and California were. But capability of holding and settling it can reasonably be thought of as one.

And what reason is there to admire the situation of peoples living under Mexican or Russian rule in the 19th century versus that of people of the U.S.? Both Mexico and Russia were autocracies, in which the privileged owned everything and ordinary people owned little or nothing and, due to birth, had no possibility of it in the future. Both Mexico and Russia are still like that, and people today crack their heads trying to figure out why it’s so, notwithstanding that the historical cultures of both should make it no surprise to anyone. One thing the U.S. did is allow its people to earn and own wealth, and its current population and wealth attest to the superiority of that kind of arrangment, despite its flaws and current threats to it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What does it matter what the religious make-up of each nation was? Mexico is full of Catholics, but they were and are a Westphalian nation-state just like we were and are. Geopolitics, not religion, was the name of the game then as it is now in the Western Hemisphere. Your post, including the quotation from the Gospel, supports that.

One thing the U.S. did not do, despite all this Masonry business, was to officially forbid Catholic worship, and it certainly did not hunt down and kill priests and nuns as the Mexican government did in the early part of this century. Yes, there were places and times when Catholics were persecuted. But it was not the policy of the whole nation. One cannot sensibly argue that Mexico is somehow a “Catholic nation” or superior in its tolerance of religion to the U.S. Remember when Pope JPII visited Mexico? It was a bit of an embarrassment because it was still illegal then for Catholic clergy to appear in public in clerical garb. Knowing it had a problem on its hands, the Mexican government looked the other way for the pope’s visit. But it’s important to remember that the pope was breaking Mexican law when he visited there and appeared in his popes’ robes.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

One thing the U.S. did not do, despite all this Masonry business, was to officially forbid Catholic worship, and it certainly did not hunt down and kill priests and nuns as the Mexican government did in the early part of this century. Yes, there were places and times when Catholics were persecuted. But it was not the policy of the whole nation. One cannot sensibly argue that Mexico is somehow a “Catholic nation” or superior in its tolerance of religion to the U.S. Remember when Pope JPII visited Mexico? It was a bit of an embarrassment because it was still illegal then for Catholic clergy to appear in public in clerical garb. Knowing it had a problem on its hands, the Mexican government looked the other way for the pope’s visit. But it’s important to remember that the pope was breaking Mexican law when he visited there and appeared in his popes’ robes.

The anti-Catholic government policies in Mexico came later, decades after the Mexican-American war, during what is called the “Mexican Revolution.” That took place from about 1910 to 1929. The war in which the U.S. invaded and occupied Mexico with the aim of annexing the Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico was from 1846 to 1848. The Mexican Revolution was inspired by the same Marxist thinking that inspired the Bolshevik revolution in Russia during this same period. Thus, the anti-Church element. Sadly, the Church’s leaders in Mexico in that time period and before almost always sided with the cruel, manipulative, anti-democratic, exploitative, racist tiny upper class of rich Mexicans who had white skin like Europeans. That was another reason the Mexican Revolution was so anti-Catholic. The anti-Catholicism was wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Thankfully, since the Vatican II Council, the Church is now committed to supporting the rights of the mass of the poor people against the cruelties and exploitation of the tiny few rich.

During the time of Mexican-American War, the Catholic Faith was still the official religion of Mexico, as stated in its federal constitution. By contrast, the Freemasonic-inspired U.S. Constitution dishonors and rejects God by making no mention of the Catholic Religion, no mention of Jesus Christ or his Heavenly Father.

It is also a fact that President Polk and many of the other key leaders of the U.S. at the time of the Mexican-American war were Freemasons. Just as Freemasonry was a key factor in the American Revolution, so it was in the Mexican-American War. Some historians have discussed how there was a Freemasonry vs. Catholicism element to the the Mexican-American War. There is a museum in Brownsville, Texas which has a recreation of a Masonic temple and celebrates the role of the Freemasons in Texas in the winning independence from Catholic Mexico and in helping the U.S. government conquer and annex the Mexican states of California and New Mexico.

The Mexican-American War also has a major Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery element. Mexico never allowed slavery it is entire history.

The main reason that the Americans living in the Mexican state of Tejas (Texas) sought and won independence from Mexico in 1836 was because Mexico was finally attempting to enforce the law against slavery in that state.

President Polk’s was a slave holder from the South. His aim was to extend slavery the lands captured and annexed from Mexico, and to thereby give the Slave States a decisive majority in the U.S. Congress, so that slavery would be secure in the USA and last forever.

To me, this isn’t all just ancient history. The reason some people don’t want Catholics to make valid, sound, Catholic judgments about the past is that they don’t want Catholics to make valid, sound, Catholic judgments about the PRESENT.

There are men like President Polk afoot today. And, thankfully, there are men like Abraham Lincoln around today too to oppose and condemn the President Polks of our era, just as Lincoln opposed and condemned the original President Polk in 1847 and 1848.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The American Revolution was not completely about taxes, per se. There were many factors involved, such as the treatment of American citizens by the British at the end of the French and Indian War (i.e., with contempt, when the Americans had gained a sense of national pride at the end of the war), the fact that the Americans had no representation in Parliament to debate these taxes, and the fact that the Americans had developed a sense of nationalism apart from Britain, and began to feel they weren’t really “British” citizens any more. Britain was actually exploiting the colonists, restricting their trade to Britain alone, and stopping them from growing to anything besides a “colonial” status. The British also prevented the colonists from expanding west of the Appalachian mountains (though they had good reason for doing so, the colonists did not like this, as they felt they had earned these lands during the war). The Revolutionary War was not necessarily unjust.

I wanted to add that I mainly put in my two cents because we just finished the year in my History class, and all this information is fresh in my head.

I agree. I learned a lot just from reading the Declaration of Independence because it lists the reasons for the actions taken by the people in the colonies. If the charges levelled against King George, as listed in that document, are true, he was certainly a despot and tyrant, and, if so, the colonies had good reason to revolt.

Everyone should read that document from beginning to end just to gain an understanding of what the people in the colonies were going through.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I dunno… Maybe we would be better off if California were back in Mexico.

Only southern California, please.

 

[estesbob]

In his Memoirs U.S. Grant said the Civil War was Gods punishment on the country for the Mexican War.

 

[GEddie]

In his Memoirs U.S. Grant said the Civil War was Gods punishment on the country for the Mexican War.

And in his second inaugural, Lincoln hinted that it was God’s punishment for slavery. They were probably both, in part, right.

ICXC NIKA

 

[estesbob]

And in his second inaugural, Lincoln hinted that it was God’s punishment for slavery. They were probably both, in part, right.

ICXC NIKA

Lincoln’s second inaugural was one of the most poignant speeches ever given.

 

[iloveangels]

If this is all you have to worry about, then you are a lucky dude indeed.

 

[GEddie]

Only southern California, please.

You assume that the Mexicans want it back.

 

[GEddie]

One thing the U.S. did not do, despite all this Masonry business, was to officially forbid Catholic worship, and it certainly did not hunt down and kill priests and nuns as the Mexican government did in the early part of this century. Yes, there were places and times when Catholics were persecuted. But it was not the policy of the whole nation. One cannot sensibly argue that Mexico is somehow a “Catholic nation” or superior in its tolerance of religion to the U.S. Remember when Pope JPII visited Mexico? It was a bit of an embarrassment because it was still illegal then for Catholic clergy to appear in public in clerical garb. Knowing it had a problem on its hands, the Mexican government looked the other way for the pope’s visit. But it’s important to remember that the pope was breaking Mexican law when he visited there and appeared in his popes’ robes.

I think you meant “early part of the last century” (ie, the 1900s).

While violence has been increasing in Mexico since 2000, it has not taken the form of antireligious persecution.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tabycat]

This might seem slightly off topic but have you ever considered the hypocrisy america has become in todays age in retrospect to the times of the revolution? Americans fight against the British using guerrilla tactics for a unified separate nation from the british commonwealth and they are labeled “freedom fighters”. The Irish fight against the british using guerrilla tactics to fight for a unified nation separate from the british commonwealth (or united kingdom if you prefer) and the american government labels them as “terrorists”.

It just seems hypocritical for me. America is riddled with double standards. I don’t fault the people living here of course. But as always, our government is to blame. What else is new?

During the American Revolution was one of the few times that all (or at least most) Irish, Catholic and non-Catholic, agreed on any thing.

 

[gus]

While researching an ancestor who fought in the Frencn &Indian War. I came across a history of Fairfield Ct.
The British periodically demanded colonial troops for a 60 year period to enhance there colonial objectectives.
The colonies rejected this continued Militarism.
This also was a cause of the war of 1812
So the American Revolution could be viewed as a defensive
War.
The Mexican War not so much.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

If this is all you have to worry about, then you are a lucky dude indeed.

Yes, dude, I am a lucky dude. Muchas gracias for the reminder.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

While researching an ancestor who fought in the Frencn &Indian War. I came across a history of Fairfield Ct.
The British periodically demanded colonial troops for a 60 year period to enhance there colonial objectectives.
The colonies rejected this continued Militarism.
This also was a cause of the war of 1812
So the American Revolution could be viewed as a defensive
War.
The Mexican War not so much.

Interesting.