Legacy Of Hate Analysis
Legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico’s NorthWest
1. The chapter started off with the author explaining how the USA invaded and Mexico and not the other way around; many Euro-Americans are offended and ignorant at this fact. Even the author’s history professor told him he was lying about the USA invading Mexico. The author’s purpose is to show the people of the history behind Mexico and USA. As Mexico separated from the Spaniards and were finally at their own, it was hard for them build a nation that would unite them since Mexico was made up of many races mostly Native Americans. Because Mexico was busy trying build a nation their hold on Texas was not stable. The USA begin to expand their territory with states like Florida, central Illinois, southern Georgia, they wanted more land, especially Texas. The USA began to invade Texas claiming it theirs and later on began to invade other lands from either Mexico or Latin America. This contributed to Mexico’s bankruptcy and the dependence they have with their military leaders, whom they believe would set things back in order.
2. At the beginning Mexico allowed white colonist to migrate to Texas as …show more content…
One major point the chapter made was how the “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” was not honored by the United States. Like I mention earlier the treaty was made because Mexico lost the war and had no other choice but sell half their land for $15 million. The treaty also protected Mexican citizen’s rights, land titles, and religion. Mexicans had to choose in a year whether to stay in the United States or to leave for their homeland, about 2,000 left. However, even though Trist signed the treaty, U.S call the treaty worthless because supposedly Trist did not have the authority to so. “What is amazing is that Polk’s diary clearly shows that he considered the treaty valid” (Acuna, 52). The United States considered Mexicans apart from the dominant race. The obligations the treaty made to the United States were nearly all
1. The chapter started off with the author explaining how the USA invaded and Mexico and not the other way around; many Euro-Americans are offended and ignorant at this fact. Even the author’s history professor told him he was lying about the USA invading Mexico. The author’s purpose is to show the people of the history behind Mexico and USA. As Mexico separated from the Spaniards and were finally at their own, it was hard for them build a nation that would unite them since Mexico was made up of many races mostly Native Americans. Because Mexico was busy trying build a nation their hold on Texas was not stable. The USA begin to expand their territory with states like Florida, central Illinois, southern Georgia, they wanted more land, especially Texas. The USA began to invade Texas claiming it theirs and later on began to invade other lands from either Mexico or Latin America. This contributed to Mexico’s bankruptcy and the dependence they have with their military leaders, whom they believe would set things back in order.
2. At the beginning Mexico allowed white colonist to migrate to Texas as …show more content…
One major point the chapter made was how the “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” was not honored by the United States. Like I mention earlier the treaty was made because Mexico lost the war and had no other choice but sell half their land for $15 million. The treaty also protected Mexican citizen’s rights, land titles, and religion. Mexicans had to choose in a year whether to stay in the United States or to leave for their homeland, about 2,000 left. However, even though Trist signed the treaty, U.S call the treaty worthless because supposedly Trist did not have the authority to so. “What is amazing is that Polk’s diary clearly shows that he considered the treaty valid” (Acuna, 52). The United States considered Mexicans apart from the dominant race. The obligations the treaty made to the United States were nearly all