Mexican War: America Stole Northern Mexico Thesis

Figure 1.--This painting was titled 'Comanche Lookout'. The artist was U.S. Army Captain Arthur T. Lee. He painted it in the 1850s. Lee depicts a group of Comanches observing a caravan as it travels through the Trans-Pecos valley. The painting is sometimes associated with the Battle of Devil's River, an 1857 skirmish between the U.S. Army cavalry and Comanche warriors defending Comancheria.

Mexican scholars and American university professors (almost all left-wing have America ideologists) subscribe to the United States stole northern Mexico thesis. We constantly here this accusations. from left-wing professors that now dominate American historiography. Now for something to be stolen it has to have been in the person or entity in the first place. Territorial claims are based on four primary factors: 1) historical continuity, 2) colonial claims, 3) actual possession, and 4) population. There are major issues with the Mexican claims on all four accounts. They simply do mot validate the accusations of theft. So let's examine the historical record:

Terminology

Historians are supposed to be neutral, dispassionate reporters. Providing the facts and not making moral or other value judgements. Such judgements are up to the reader if he chooses to make them. In the lengthy struggle between Rome and Carthage or Rome and the Celts are there really moral judgements to be made? But of course most historian have biases which they show to varying degrees. And in our relatively recent history, one can not escape moral judgements in looking at the NAZI and Japanese tyrannies. Historians who claim America 'stole' northern Mexico are showing a bias. 'Stole' is a value laden terms. Notice that we do not say Rome stole Italy from the Etruscans or modern humans stole Europe from the Neanderthals. Or the Bantu stole Africa from countless weaker tribes. Or the Comanche stole Comancheria from several weaker tribes that were there first. Stole is a value judgement not a fact. And actually if you look at the situation in a factual matter, not at all appropriate for the American Southwest. Especially as the Spanish of you accept the idea of rightful possession did actually steal Mexico from the Amer-Indian peoples as past of the Conquista (15th century) . And at the time of the Mexican-American War, Mexico was still in the hands of the Creoles--primarily descendants of the Spanish invaders. And this would not begin to change until the Mexican Revolution (1910-20).

Factors Establishing Rightful Possession

Historically there is no such thing as 'rightful possession'. Historians do not argue that the Picts rightfully possessed Scotland. Or the Germans Germania. Or the Manchus rightfully possessed Manchuria. But in our modern ages as borders became more fixed, many with an ethnic foundation, the idea of rightful possession has emerged. So as it concerns the American Southwest which was formerly northern Mexico, let's look at the facts to determine if the term 'stole' is justified. There ares several key factors used to justify the term 'rightful possession'.

Historical Continuity

None of the great per-Colombian Meso-American empires extended their zone of control into the areas of northern Mexico annexed by the United States. This included the powerful Aztec Empire, which the Mexicans see, as their historical origins. We see Aztec imagery on their flag, coat of arms, and coins. The Aztecs controlled large areas of central, but not northern Mexico.

Colonial Claims

Mexico's claims to its northern states (the Southwestern area annexed by the United States) were based on Spanish colonial claims. And the colonial claims were justified by the so called 'right of discovery'-- the initial basis for European colonialism. Simply stated, discovery of territory previously unknown to European Christian nations gave the discovering nation title to that territory against all other European nations, and this title could be perfected by possession. Based on this doctrine, Mexico held claim to the northern lands that had been claimed by Spain. But isn't it interesting that the same left-wing Marxist scholars that despise everything about European colonialism (except Soviet colonialism) are happy to use colonial claims if they can be directed against the United Stares.

Actual Possession

Mexico did not actually physically possess most of the northern lands. Rather they held scattered small pueblos, missiones, and presidios (forts) with small garrisons. The Spanish garrisons were very small. We have had difficulty finding the actual size of these garrisons. But one account describing the garrison at what is now San Francisco as 'a few dozen'. This by no means gave them actual possession of the vast area of northern Mexico. And this was shown by the fact that Spanish garrisons put up virtually no resistance to American forces seizing the area during the Mexican American War (1846-48). The battles that occurred were all south of the Rio Grande which Mexico was in possession of and the Mexican Army actually resisted the American advance. Who actually possessed and occupied the vast area were Native American tribe like the Comanche, Apache, Yaqui, and countless others.

Population

The Tejanos rose In rebellion against the royalist Spanish Government supported by filibustering Americans as part of the Independence war. Santa Anna was only a young junior officer still supporting the Spanish, but he observed the Spanish/Mexican tendency for mass execution. And the brutal suppression which that followed influence Tejano attitudes toward the central government. The Mexican population in the area annexed from Mexico was very small. Even the few towns were tiny. Spanish San Francisco peaked at 1.500 (1815) and fell precipitously after independence. 【SFgenealogy】 In addition the population in these towns were not all Mexican and included many Americans. The Mexican population in Texas which the Mexican-American War was fought over was very small, less than 10,000. 【Hardemann】 And this included many assimilated Native Americans and mestizos. And this population was not sympathetic to he Mexican Government. The Tejanos (Mexicans in Texas) revolted (1811) and had been brutally suppressed. The population of Texas shifted as American were allowed to settle After the Texas War for independence (1835-36), the population was 35,000 Anglos and their slaves and 3,500 Tejanos. 【Calderón】 The Anglos were centered in East Texas. The Comanche along may have numbered some 20,000 people.and that was just one tribe, mostly in Texas. It was the Comanche that dominated Texas--the area was known as Comancheria. Mexican control was limited to a few scattered pueblos, missiones, and presidios. Natives Americans strongly out numbed both the Mexican and American population combined in the annexed area. Now it may be true that the Americans may have stolen the annexed area from the Native Americans, they clearly did no steal it from the Mexicans also can be accused of trying to steal it from the Native Americans. Buthey are no because left-weing historians only want to make value judgements against America.

Sources

Calderón, Roberto R. "The evolution of Tejano politics in Texas: A historical overview."

Hardeman, Lyman, "Population growth from Early Texas settlers," Texas Proud (December 7, 2020).

SFgenealogy

Created: 9:15 AM 11/9/2025
Last updated: 9:16 AM 11/9/2025