Talk:Mexican Cession

message: I was thinking about changing the image used. This one looks better: 
what do you think?
:What's the copyright status of that map? It's a nice map, no denying that, but Decumanus's is GFDL. (Wikipedia:Fair use: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available"). –Hajor 18:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Could you the main proponents of the first paragraph get some citations please? History as I've understood it, that was all Mexico. And I seem to remember there were numerous US citizens, including congress members who opposed the Mexican-American war as imperialist.  
I am concerned with this line all claims to territories and treaties with New Spain became officially void in the United States, making the land free to those who could claim it and hold it.  Leaving aside fact that there were already Nations present on lands that New Spain and Mexico attempted to claim as theirs. But the quote in italics is like saying once the Soviet Union fell, all the land of the 15 former republics was up for grabs. True, the republics did not leave over night and the conflicts in Chyechnya and Dagestan claim to be still about the dissolution of the Soviet Union which might seem to support the italicized sentance.  However it seems traditionally when a regime falls, one that takes its place usually inherits lands controlled by the predecessor. 67.53.78.15 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)  Yes, the first two paragraphs are false and need to be rewritten.  According to the history book I have on hand, the Adams-Onís Treaty between the US and Spain set the border which continued to be recognized by the US and Mexico, excepting some wrangling in the southern Texas area.  Texan independence changed things as well, but the idea that the US did not recognize Mexico or its borders is simply incorrect. Additionally, the exact area annexed after the Mexican War, the reparations and why they were paid, is not as simple as described here. There's a detailed analysis of the post-war debates over how much of Mexico to annex in D.W. Meinig's book The Shaping of America, vol. 2.  If I find the time and energy, I'll try to fix this page.  If nothing else, Mexico did not "concede" the land, they ceded it / it was annexed. Pfly 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And, it looks like the page was better as of this edit  -- the next edit in the history is where the weird and untrue claims come from -- and from a now non-existent user whose only contribution to wikipedia was that one edit to this page. Perhaps the old (and referenced!) text can be reinserted by someone with a few minutes. Pfly 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah I just reverted to the old edit -- it didn't look like anything of great value had been added since then. Pfly 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: citation please?

message: This map depicts the Mesilla Strip dispute as being favorable to Mexico without any doubt.  It must be changed to reflect differing opinions.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Map

message: I think this article should probably include something about the issue of slavery being reawakened in the US after this cession.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Question of Slavery 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Every once in a while when discussing the issue dealt with in this article I always come across the notion that the Mexican Cession was somehow a purchase rather than a conquest; as if Mexico sold this territory disregarding the significant fact that Mexico had been at war with the United States for 2 years solely for the purpose of fulfilling the U.S. land grabbing rationalization of Manifest Destiny. This article itself makes the erroneous implication that the 15 million given to Mexico were for the lands acquired by the U.S. According to archives.gov "The United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 "in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States" (see Article XII of the treaty)." Then PBS.org states: "On his own initiative, Trist offered an indemnity of $15 million, judging that this would gain acceptance for the treaty among those who felt that the United States had already paid enough in "blood and treasure."" An accurate analogy to Mexico's situation, and the circumstances in which 55% of Mexican territory was "sold" to the U.S., can be made of any "donations" given to a mugger as he holds a gun into your ribs. This article needs to reflect reality or we will have more ignorance being disseminated. The 15 million given to Mexico was more an incentive offered by Trist or a sort of indemnification than a payment for a legitimate purchase. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a cession, not a purchase: a robbery. 177.228.68.6 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cession or Purchase? 

message: Re edit by SmackBot (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 20 May 2010. I saw this problem right away [the citation from google books]. I just don't like sloppy, had to fix it.1archie99 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought bots were supposed to fix rambling url's  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mexican Cession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060929200726/http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls1-1_02.pdf to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls1-1_02.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introductory section appears to have been vandalized as of 4/20/2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertOfWords (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have changed the text in the section 'Subsequent organization and the North-South conflict' about David Wilmot and the Wilmot Proviso. To say it was 'created by Republican Party Senator David Wilmot' is misleading. In the 1840s Wilmot was not a Republican (and the party did not exist for about another decade) and was not a Senator (until 1861), but was a serving member of the House of Representatives. I have rephrased to remove the errors. Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Senator" David Wilmot