Skip to main content

How did Mexico feel about Texas officially becoming part of the United States in 1845?

Mexico was very angry when the United States annexed Texas in 1845.  In fact, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the United States and threatened to go to war (though it did not carry through on that threat).  This was because Mexico felt that Texas was still part of Mexico.


Texas had been a part of Mexico for a very long time.  It was, of course, in the far north of that country and was not very heavily populated.  Because of this, the Mexican government, in essence, felt that the land in Texas was being wasted.  For this reason, Mexico started to implement policies to attract American settlers to Texas.  Before long, there were many more Americans than Mexicans in Texas.  This caused problems as the Americans generally did not want to become Mexican.  They felt their country was superior and they preferred to retain their American identities.  In the early 1830s, civil war essentially broke out in Mexico between people who wanted a strong central government and people who wanted more autonomy for the states.  The Texans took advantage of this civil war to rebel against the central government.  They won their war with Mexico and declared independence in 1835.


Even though Texas had become independent, Mexico did not really accept this result.  They continued to feel that Texas was part of Mexico.  (We might compare this to the present-day situation in which China insists that Taiwan is still a part of China.)  Mexico did not try to retake Texas, but when the US annexed Texas, Mexico was very angry.  Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the United States, which is often tantamount to war.  It also threatened to go to war.  Ultimately, the annexation did lead to war between the US and Mexico, but it was the US that started the war.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more