just sent an email to the secretary of the mayor of San Juan de Puerto Rico

[Deepwaters]

There are actually places around here (and I live in northern CA mind you) where you have to speak Spanish, nobody speaks English. But if Mexican imigros are learning French rather than English as a second language that's not bright; there are very few native French speakers in CA.

Interestingly enough, for a long time it was indeed illegal for Native Americans to have guns, or rather, for white people to sell them guns. And that was the real reason for the War of 1812, the British were providing firearms and ammunition to the Indians, which made conquering the west more difficult and dangerous.

Anne Rice wrote a novel about the French-speaking creoles of New Orleans before the Civil War, called The Feast of All Saints. Best thing she ever wrote IMO.

I don't think an official language would violate the First Amendment. We just don't have one nationally is all. A ban on speaking some other language would, but that would be absurd anyway.

Hey, we didn't steal California from Mexico, we bought it! "And as an extra incentive, we'll even evacuate our troops from Mexico City. You can't say no to that!"

[ajaccio corsica]

hi
history reminds that the only territories the US bought were french louisiana and alaska, all the others were stolen to great britain, spain, or mexico
most of the americans admit it, actually first of all those territories were stolen to the natives
cheers

[Deepwaters]

I was admitting it, AC. I guess sarcasm just didn't translate properly.

The U.S./Mexican War is an interesting tale of duplicity. Who fired the first shot? Mexican troops, but they fired on U.S. troops who were in territory claimed by both countries due to two competing treaties ceding Texas independence, and the U.S. government knew this and intended the troops to be fired upon. Did the U.S. purchase the territory from Mexico? Yes, in the sense that money was paid, but it was a sale made under duress.

The sentence in quotes in my last post was intended to convey that.

[OGRE]

Originally Posted by ajaccio corsica

hi
history reminds that

If you can't defend it, you lose it.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by OGRE

If you can't defend it, you lose it.

History is made by human beings with self-awareness and consciousness, though. It's not unreasonable to hold them accountable for their actions.

[ajaccio corsica]

hi
yep, I understood what you wanted to say, those kinda stuff were common in the 19th century, it's difficult to judge them with a modern 21st century point of view though
the french tried to establish a monarchy in mexico using an austrian emperor called maximillian during the us civil war
it was completelly stupid and of course it didn't work
I know a guy who got a diploma on a wall of his home: "campagne du mexique", one of his ancestors was in the french imperial navy and served there in 1862
cheers

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Did the U.S. purchase the territory from Mexico? Yes, in the sense that money was paid, but it was a sale made under duress.

The sentence in quotes in my last post was intended to convey that.

Yes, it's an interesting history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

Don't forget the Gadsden purchase too, a couple years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase

Apparently so unpopular in Mexico that it forced Santa Anna from power.

Santa Anna had a very interesting life and, among other things, was apparently partially responsible for the introduction of chewing gum into the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio..._de_Santa_Anna


Sorry, waaaaay off topic....

Originally Posted by OGRE

If you can't defend it, you lose it.

I'm sure that, say, Poland wouldn't have been too happy about that sentiment on Sept. 1, 1939. In general, I think the winners tend to be more agreeable to your sentiment than the losers.

[ajaccio corsica]

hi
santa anna lost a leg during "the pastry war" kinda comedy that happened in 1838 when looters destroyed the store of a french who lived there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War
in 1863 queen victoria sent troops to canada and planned to attack the union army from there
she asked napoleon III to open a west front using marechal bazaine's troops who were butchering juarez's army in mexico
both of them supported the confederation but the french parliement refused, argueing it was already a lost cause
they sent money and weapons though, "le revolver à broches Le Mat" was a regular weapon in the confederate army
historians remind that about 70% of the french army fought abroad between 1850 and 1870: italy, northern africa, crimea, indochina, china, mexico
actually queen victoria didn't trust her neighbor, that's why she thought it was more interesting to occupy the french army far away from europe
she decided to attack china for business reasons in 1863, she asked napoleon III to join her by sending troops, of course he accepted but then he realized he didn't have any reason to attack china
then he asked his spanish wife who answered: you're a christian emperor, it's your duty to protect roman catholicism everywhere in the world, there are missionaries in china and you gotta defend them
I supposed he said something like good deal, god deal maybe, fact is he asked the emperor to establish roman catholicism as the official religion in china after the battle of pelikao and the looting of the summer palace by french and british troops
there's an interesting french novel about "l'expédition des 20,000" called "la vallée des roses"
it's about this war with a chinese point of view, invaders are called "barbarians"
cheers

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by ajaccio corsica

in 1863 queen victoria sent troops to canada and planned to attack the union army from there
she asked napoleon III to open a west front using marechal bazaine's troops who were butchering juarez's army in mexico
both of them supported the confederation but the french parliement refused, argueing it was already a lost cause

This sort of thing is the main reason why President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It's an interesting executive order, in that it purports to free the slaves but actually freed none; it declared that the slaves in areas still in rebellion would be freed once Union troops had taken over there. Two Union states, Maryland and Kentucky, allowed slavery, and it didn't free the slaves there, nor in Confederate state territory already occupied by Union troops, e.g. New Orleans.

What it did do, was to redefine the war as one over slavery rather than simply over the right of secession. Slavery had already been outlawed in Britain and France, and it would have been very unpopular in Europe to go to war against the U.S. in defense of the right to own slaves. So the Proclamation helped keep Britain and France from recognizing and openly helping the Confederacy. As long as it was just a war between the Union and the Confederacy, the Union had to win.

[Youpidou1]

One of the best movies made to match the timeline we are talking about now..."Gangs of New York." That has to be the best movie I have ever seen in my life.