No, México had at no time troops north of the Río Rojo or east of the Sabines ... so the one-word answer to your question is - no ... the scout patrol of cavalry that was used as pretext for stirring US public opinion against mexicanos was barely north of the Río Bravo, well south of the Nueces which had been the southern limit of lands to which that slaver snake Austin had signed agreements .... remember i said, check out the rivers, gave you plenty of search terms, you didn't do your homework did you ... lemme guess, answer to that also would be no
History did not begin 2 march 1836, and it did not end 2 february 1848 .... before that period there had been blatant theft and ethnic cleansing in the provincia of Tejas, and following that period there came theft and ethnic cleansing in the provincias of Alta California and Nuevo México, the latter in direct unilateral anglo abrogation of Artículo VIII of the treaty of GH [principally, other artículos violated as well] ... it was not until late in the nineteen fifties before surviving chicanos were permitted to get an education or own their house ... there is somewhere on the net a story of a guy who had won some major US medal in WWII, and when he came home he could not get a cup of coffee in a restaurant ... brown man, you see, and a católico
'The casualty rate was thus easily over 25 percent'
For los Niños Héroes and los San Patricios the casualty rate was one hundred per cent ... if price is to be the measure then i guess the good guys really won after all, eh
'Spanish. Now just who was it they conquered .... Indian part of mestizo? Did it push it any other Indians'
So here you revert back to the right of conquest, where in your opening you were trying to justify ethnic cleansing on the bullshit grounds they pumped into your head in school ..... fine then - yes the spanish came and conquered, and yes the mexica had largely been derived from a people who had come from the north ... their language, btw, is the largest surviving core tongue to the language family called uto-azteca, and yes that uto- part is in fact from the same root as the name of the current US 'state' of Utah
This all simply places you again where you always end up - with your contention that might makes right, corollary being that conquest is good and a thing to be encouraged ... why you feel the need to jump to value judgments on these things before finding out any facts on the actual events, i do not know .... perhaps, as i have suspected before, because it stimulates more typing that way |
