America’s Southwest was conquered fair and square



The most striking images from the recent anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles depicted protesters defiantly waving the Mexican flag. Some commentators noted the irony: Why carry the flag of the very country you don’t want to be deported to? Others offered a darker interpretation — the flag wasn’t just a symbol of heritage but a claim. The message: California rightfully belongs to Mexico.

That sentiment echoes the increasingly common ritual of “land acknowledgements” on college campuses. Event organizers now routinely recite statements recognizing that a school sits on land once claimed by this or that Indian tribe. But such cheap virtue signaling skips over a key point: Tribes seized land from each other long before Europeans arrived.

The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.

Do the descendants of the Aztecs have a claim to California and the rest of the American Southwest? The answer is a simple and emphatic no. The United States holds that territory by treaty, by financial compensation, and, yes, by conquest. But the full story is worth examining — because it explains why Spain and later Mexico failed to hold what the United States would eventually claim.

The rise and fall of the Spanish empire

Spain launched its exploration and conquest of the Americas in the 15th century and eventually defeated the Aztec empire in Mexico. But by the 18th century, Spanish control began to wane. The empire’s model of rule — exploitative, inefficient, and layered with class resentment — proved unsustainable.

At the top were the peninsulares, Spaniards born in Europe who ran colonial affairs from Havana and Mexico City. They had little connection to the land or the people they governed — and often returned to Spain when their service ended.

Below them stood the creoles, locally born Spaniards who could rise in power but never fully displace the peninsulares.

Then came the mestizos — mixed-race descendants of Spaniards and natives — and, finally, the native peoples themselves, descendants of the once-dominant Aztecs, who lived in state of peonage.

Inspired by the American Revolution, Mexico declared itself a republic in 1824. But it lacked the civic traditions and institutional structure to sustain self-government. Political chaos followed. Factionalism gave way to the dictatorship of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who brutally suppressed a rebellion in Coahuila y Tejas.

Texas had long been a trouble spot. Even before independence from Spain, Mexican officials encouraged American settlement to create a buffer against Comanche raids. The Comanche — superb horsemen — dominated the Southern Plains, displacing rival tribes and launching deep raids into Mexican territory. During the “Comanche moon,” their war parties could cover 70 miles in a day. They were a geopolitical power unto themselves.

RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class

  Photo by: Prisma/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Anglo settlers in Texas brought their own ideas of decentralized government. When tensions escalated, they declared independence. Santa Anna responded with massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. But after his defeat and capture at San Jacinto, he granted Texas independence in exchange for his life. Mexico’s government refused to honor the deal — and continued to claim Texas, insisting that the border lay at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande.

How the Southwest was won

After the United States annexed Texas in 1845, conflict became inevitable. Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande and clashed with U.S. troops. President James Polk requested a declaration of war in 1846.

The Mexican-American War remains one of the most decisive — and underappreciated — conflicts in U.S. history. The small but capable U.S. Army, bolstered by state volunteers, outclassed Mexican forces at every turn. American troops seized Santa Fe and Los Angeles.

General Zachary Taylor pushed south, winning battles at Resaca de la Palma and Monterrey. General Winfield Scott launched a bold amphibious assault at Veracruz, then cut inland — without supply lines — to capture Mexico City. The Duke of Wellington called the campaign “unsurpassed in military annals.”

The war served as a proving ground for a generation of officers who would later lead armies in the Civil War.

Diplomatically, the war might have been avoided. The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.

Territory bought and paid for

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the conflict. Mexico ceded California and a vast swath of land that now includes Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up its claim to Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as the southern border.

In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States” and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. Mexicans living in the newly acquired territory could either relocate within Mexico’s new borders or become U.S. citizens with full civil rights. The Gadsden Purchase added even more land.

The United States gained enormously from the war at the expense of Mexico. Critics of the expansionist policy known as “manifest destiny,” including the Whigs and Ulysses S. Grant, called the result unjust. Some Southerners wanted to annex all of Mexico to expand slavery. That plan was wisely rejected, though the “law of conquest” made it a possibility.

Still, the U.S. paid for the land, offered citizenship to the inhabitants, and declined to claim more than necessary. In the rough world of 19th-century geopolitics, that counted as a just outcome.

Cagey Cajun: James Carville Compares David Hogg to Civil War Hero

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville likened DNC vice chair David Hogg to Civil War hero and former president Ulysses S. Grant—just hours after blasting Hogg's plan to primary the party's own incumbents as "jackassery of the highest level."

The post Cagey Cajun: James Carville Compares David Hogg to Civil War Hero appeared first on .

Lincoln, Davis, and a Biography Divided

The American Civil War was a war of dualities—North and South, Union and Confederate, slave and free—and never less so than when it comes to dual biographies. Pairing personalities—Lee and Grant, Lee and Jackson, Grant and Sherman, McClellan and Lincoln—has been one of the most unusual features of the limitless literature of the Civil War. Inevitably, the two wartime presidents, Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, have garnered their own large share of such double-barreled studies: Brian Dirck’s Lincoln and Davis: Imagining America, 1809-1865 (2001), Augustin Stucker’s Lincoln & Davis: A Dual Biography of America’s Civil War Presidents (2011), Bruce (and William) Catton’s Two Roads to Sumter (1963), Bruce Chadwick’s The Two American Presidents: A Dual Biography of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis (1999).

The post Lincoln, Davis, and a Biography Divided appeared first on .

How Trump Can Win Over Black Families Whose Communities Democrats Decimated

With a pro-family agenda that benefits not only black Americans but all Americans, Trump can usher in a historic shift that is long overdue.

I Wonder Why Leftists Leave Comanche Imperialism Out Of Their Performative Land Acknowledgments

The story of the Comanches and the Red River War, whose 150th anniversary we mark this year, shows the absurdity of the 'noble savage' narrative.

What Would America’s Five General-Presidents Say About The Ukraine War?

The Ukraine war is dragging on with no strategy to end it in sight — it's exactly the kind of conflict American leaders who have fought and won wars would disapprove of.

The Best Historical Analog For Liz Cheney Isn’t Lincoln. It’s Colin Kaepernick

Liz Cheney and Colin Kaepernick lost their jobs for the same reason: They were incapable of doing what they were hired to do.

Liz Cheney compares herself to Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant after losing primary: 'Their courage saved freedom'



Rep. Liz Cheney (R) seemingly compared her situation to those that former Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant triumphantly faced during the Civil War.

Cheney lost the Wyoming Republican primary by nearly 40 points, an even larger margin than polls had predicted.

What did Cheney say?

Speaking to supporters in Jackson, Wyoming, Cheney reminded them that Lincoln lost congressional elections before being elected to the White House.

She said of Lincoln:

The great and original champion of our party, Abraham Lincoln, was defeated in elections for the Senate and the House before he won the most important election of all. Lincoln ultimately prevailed, he saved our Union and he defined our obligation as Americans for all of history.

Speaking at Gettysburg of the great task remaining before us, Lincoln said, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and a government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."

After taking shots at former President Donald Trump and his supporters, Cheney invoked Grant and heroic actions he took on the battlefield as a Union general in the Civil War.

Cheney explained that Grant, in the face of heavy fighting and mass casualties, refused to retreat during the Battle of the Wilderness in May 1864.

"Refusing to retreat, he pressed on to victory," Cheney said. "Lincoln and Grant and all who fought in our nation's tragic Civil War, including my own great-great-grandfathers, saved our Union. Their courage saved freedom.

"And if we listen closely, they are speaking to us down the generations," she continued. "We must not idly squander what so many have fought and died for."

  Watch what Cheney told supporters after losing Wyoming GOP primary www.youtube.com 

Earlier in her speech, Cheney reminded voters that she won the 2020 GOP primary with 73% of the vote, an even greater amount than Cheney's opponent, Harriet Hageman, won on Tuesday.

According to Cheney, she "could easily have done the same again," but "it would have required that I go along with President Trump's lie about the 2020 election."

"That was a path I could not and would not take," Cheney vowed. "No House seat, no office in this land is more important than the principles that we are all sworn to protect, and I well understood the potential political consequences of abiding by my duty."

Anything else?

Meanwhile, Cheney confirmed early Wednesday that she is considering a presidential campaign.

"That’s a decision that I’m going to make in the coming months. I’m not going to make any announcements here this morning. But it is something that I am thinking about, and I’ll make a decision in the coming months," she said on NBC's "TODAY" show.