Why didn't the US get the texas...?
818686
I will have to ask the man who works at the Alamo. He protrays Davy Crockett and if anyone knows it will be him, he is a Alamo Historian......Will get back with ya if I can get an answer.
105103
The United States never had any empire full stop.\nThey never claimed other countries as their own.
371670
I have changed mine since it was deregulated.  There are still issues to deal with, but it is getting easier to deal with....\n\nSince it was Bush's state, that must be why it is sooo good!\n\nJust remember this...  Most of our armed forces come from TX.   Texas can live without the USA... The USA can not live without Tx.
176444
The governer of Texas, Sam Houston, was vehamently opposed to Texas seceding from the Union. Ultimately, the state's government felt that the states were giving up too much control over their affairs to the Federal government.
965073
I never thought Texas would be able to make the conversion to a free society this quickly. I'm not surprised Perry won. Perhaps by 2008 we can make some progress. God bless Texas! I miss you  Ann Richards!!!!
572074
one suggestion is to not overlook the question of slavery as it relates to the Alamo.  One of the things usually ignored in the great "struggle for Texan Independence" from oppressive Mexican dictator Santa Ana is that one of the main "oppressions" that really upset the Texicans was the fact that Mexico had abolished slavery and king cotton had reached Texas and the rich land owners were not willing to do without their slaves.
1032680
we cannot help it -- TEXAS, of course!....just kidding...
369848
No.  After the Mexican-American war Mexico ceded most of the land that makes up New Mexico to the United States.  The rest of the territory was purchased from Mexico (the Gadsden Purchase) around 1853.  The land remained a U.S. territory until New Mexico became a state.\n\nBTW, I think Billy the Kid was from New York originally anyway, so for him it's a moot point.
217776
The battle of the Alamo was the texas settlers trying to keep land the mexican govt gave them as a grant if they would settle the land. Santa Ana, ignored the government as he had a lot of power, and wanted the texans to be mexican citzens, that is the short of it, the whole story is too long for here
653544
mexician and american war 158 years ago.  only i am not so sure you can invade, mexician troops were riding across the rio grande into texas, which had won its independence.\n\nat the same time, the folks in CA declared indpendence from mexico as well.
233516
It was ceded to the US in 1819 (Adams-Onis Treaty).  The Spanish turned it over after the US renounced all its claims to Texas.
162097
I'm not sure with the dates, but there are some ones:\n\n1) Independence war from Spain (1810-1821) WON!\n2) Spanish attempt to reconquer Mexico (1829) WON!\n3) Mexico-Texas war (independence) (1835)Betrayed... lost :(\n4) "Cake's war": Mexico v.s. Spain, England and France... lost!!! That was mostly a financial war, so we had to pay a lot of debts... (1838)\n6) USA Intervention (1846) ... LOST (what did americans really wanted???!!! Gezz!!!)\n5) French Intervention (1864) WON!!!Whoa!!! Napoleon III, the ruler of the world, sure learned his lesson!!! Plus, we're the first (and perhaps only) american country who killed an Emperor (Maximilian of Habsburg).\n6) Mexican revolution (1910-1920). WON? LOST?... who knows??? Yeah, the civil war. We had a dictatorship... so we're still arguing if the revolution was favorable or not.\n7) USA's invasion to Veracruz Port (1914). LOST!!! What??? Mexican polices arrest an american officer for carrying a weapon without permission and uncle sam's answer is to blow up an entire city??? Gezzz!!! (Well, I guess the Empire was really worried Mexico had excellent relationships with Germany and Japan and awesome military technology before 1st. World War started ;))\n8) Second world war (1942). WON!!! Yup. Mexico, humbly but firmly collaborated with the north american armies. Because of collaborating with winner's wing, we had economical growth after the war ended.
350449
The Southwest belongs to the United States. It has since the 1800s. Why all of a sudden, are people claiming it belongs to Mexico? If Mexico wants it, then Mexico can just try to fucking take it. I'll be waiting for them, along with millions of other service members and armed citizens.
260155
There is a historical president in the The US taking over Latin American countries for other purposes than just to rule them. The best example is the Mexican American war. It was mainly a war over the border of Texas. US said it was the Rio Grand, Mexico said it was the Brazos river. So we fought a war all the way to Mexico City. We took over Mexico. But we didn't want Mexico we just want Texas and the other half of the nation. And that's what we got. Plus puppet governments are easy to run than local state government. Hope this helps.
574813
Really up on your history, aren't you?\n\nThe Spanish stole land from the native Americans, the Mexicans stole land from the Spanish, and the Texans stole land from the Mexicans.\n\nSo, what do you consider "sad?"\n\nIt's sad a bunch of drunks, gamblers and drifters who got trapped in the Alamo (because they were drunk) have attained hero status. \n\nBut, they did give the Texican thieves a rallying cry against the Mexican thieves.\n\nMexicans have no more claim to land in N. America than does anyone else, they weren't the original inhabitants and never had a legitimate claim to the land.\n\nAnd still don't.
393479
Stephen Fuller Austin (November 3, 1793 – December 27, 1836), known as the "Father of Texas," led the Anglo-American colonization of the region. The city of Austin, Texas and Austin County, Texas are named in his honor. It is ironic that Austin is known as the "Father of Texas," since he certainly never started off with any intention of breaking Texas away from Mexico, though he certainly supported such at the end.\n\nAustin's plan for a colony was thrown into turmoil by the independence of Mexico from Spain in 1821. Governor Martínez informed Austin that the junta instituyente, the new rump congress of the government of Agustín de Iturbide, refused to recognize the land grant authorized by Spain, based on a new policy of using a general immigration law to regulate new settlement in Mexico. Austin traveled to Mexico City and managed to persuade the junta instituyente to authorize the grant to his father, as well as the Law signed by the Spanish Emperor on January 3, 1823. The old Imperial Law offered heads of families a league and a labor of land, 4,605 acres (19 km²), and other inducements. It also provided for the employment of agents, called empresarios, to promote immigration. As empresario, Austin himself was to receive 67,000 acres (270 km²) of land for each 200 families he introduced. According to the law, immigrants were not required to pay fees to the government. This fact soon led some of the immigrants to deny Austin's right to charge them for services at the rate of 12½ cents an acre ($31/km²).\n\nWhen the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín de Iturbide, abdicated in March 1823, the law was annulled once again. In April 1823, Austin induced the congress to grant him a contract to bring 300 families into Texas. In 1824 the congress passed a new immigration law that allowed the individual states of Mexico to administer public lands and open them to settlement under certain conditions. In March 1825 the legislature of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas passed a law that was similar to the one authorized by Iturbide. The law continued the system of empresarios, as well as granting each married man a league of land, 4,428 acres (18 km²), with the stipulation that he must pay the state thirty dollars within six years.\n\nBy late 1825, Austin had brought the first 300 families, now known in Texas history as the Old Three Hundred, to the grant. Austin had obtained further contracts to settle an additional 900 families between 1825 and 1829. He had effective civil and military authority over the settlers, but he was quick to introduce a semblance of American law - the Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas was agreed on in November 1827. Despite his hopes Austin was making little money from his endeavors; the colonists were unwilling to pay for his services as empresario and most of the money gained was spent on the processes of government and other public services.\n\nHe was active to promote trade and to secure the good favor of the Mexican authorities, aiding them in the suppression of the Fredonian Rebellion of Haden Edwards. However, with the colonists numbering over 11,000 by 1832 they were becoming less conducive to Austin's cautious leadership, and the Mexican government was also becoming less cooperative - concerned with the growth of the colony and the efforts of the U.S. government to buy the state from them. The Mexican government had attempted to stop further U.S. immigration as early as April 1830, but again the skills of Austin had gained an exemption for his colonies.\n\nThe application of the immigration control and the introduction of tariff laws had done much to dissatisfy the colonists, peaking in the Anahuac disturbances. Austin then felt compelled to involve himself in Mexican politics, supporting the upstart Antonio López de Santa Anna. Following the success of Santa Anna the colonists sought a compensatory reward, proclaimed at the Convention of 1832 - resumption of imm
317353
Technically, Spain at time owned the area from Texas all the way to California and all the way up north to Oregon. When the Mexicans won their independence from Spain in 1823, I believe, they inherited what was then New Spain or as its known, "Nuevo Espana". And yes, it did include Colorado. But in the 1840s, America wanted to expand all the way westward and Americans were moving to modern-day Texas. The Americans wanted Texas to become American. Mexico actually encouraged American immigration to the region because of two major reasons. The first region was the Texas territory of what was then Mexico was underpopulated with a few missionary outposts. Second of all, the citizens they had in the area the more government revenue they could have gotten. The allure of the Texas territory was the gold rush. However, the Mexicans had one caveat about American immigration to the region. The Mexicans outlawed slavery. The Americans felt that since they were paying taxes to the Mexican governnment that the Mexican government should just mind their business. (Sounds familiar)\n   Fast foward, Mexico sent troops to the Texas area to keep the Americans in line. The Americans fought against the Mexicans and defeated Mexico at the battle at the Alamo. Mexico had no choice but to give Texas its independence. It is important to note that Texas was an independent nation. Later the Americans bought about 1 million acres from Mexico called the Gadsen Purchase. It is also important to note that Mexico's hold over the far-flung reaches of their possessions north of the Rio Grande was weak at best. \n But the United States won the New Spain territory or after Mexican independence, New Mexico via the Mexican-American war. Technically to say that America belonged them isn't true as Spain only colonized Mexico in 1509. Simple subtraction find the western US belonged to Mexico(1848-1823) only 25 years. It belonged to Spain for (1823-1509) 314 years.