How does Britain feel about U.S. independence day?

[RichUK]

So how many years did the British Empire have ownage over the US, I?m no good at history.

 

[FleshLight]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: ElFenix
my question is... if the british living here don't complain, then why the faq do mexicans complain about 1836 in texas?

Probably because the British gave up on trying to invade our country while the mexicans are still trying and doing a damn good job.

You do realize of course that some parts of the US were stolen from Mexico right? Namely Texas....

Not that I condone the influx of illegal aliens....

Whoa dude, I usually like you and all that jazz but you may need to break open a history book. Texas fought it's own war of independence against Mexico - remember that Alamo thing? The Republic of Texas was it's own country for ten something years then applied to statehood in the U.S. In no way did the US go down to what was then the territory of Texas, slap some Mexican guys around and "stole" the land. After becoming a state, Texas "gave" a huge chunk of land to the US government as a sort of payment of debt from loans that the Republic of Texas incurred. Texas originally compromised something like half of what is now New Mexico, Colorado, and up into Idaho (I believe) - all of it fought for.

Yes, I am aware of all that.

I guess it boils down to what your definition of stealing is.

Hell, for that matter, the whole damn country was "Stolen" from the natives.
Or at least the majority of it was. I guess we DID "pay" for Manhattan Island. And no doubt things were offered up for other small pieces of it. But if you are pointing a gun at someones head when you offer them a pittance for something and they sell it, well most courts would still considerer it stealing.

Even by that logic the US didn't steal Texas. The people living in Texas stole it from Mexico and gave it to the US.

I thought the settlers living in Texas refused to convert to Catholocism, which pissed off the Mexicans and triggered the Mex-American War. Then we kicked Santa Ana's ass and then we paid $30M or something for Texas and Cali.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: blahter
To USA,
Happy Birthday

Love,
Gran

Fixed.

 

[Legend]

They probably cared back then, but not now. Remember Britain used to occupy a huge portion of the world about 100 years ago. They gave up a lot willingly. We would have detached at one point, unless in some crazy scenario they moved their capital to the US back in the mid 1700s.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: ElFenix
my question is... if the british living here don't complain, then why the faq do mexicans complain about 1836 in texas?

Probably because the British gave up on trying to invade our country while the mexicans are still trying and doing a damn good job.

You do realize of course that some parts of the US were stolen from Mexico right? Namely Texas....

Not that I condone the influx of illegal aliens....

Whoa dude, I usually like you and all that jazz but you may need to break open a history book. Texas fought it's own war of independence against Mexico - remember that Alamo thing? The Republic of Texas was it's own country for ten something years then applied to statehood in the U.S. In no way did the US go down to what was then the territory of Texas, slap some Mexican guys around and "stole" the land. After becoming a state, Texas "gave" a huge chunk of land to the US government as a sort of payment of debt from loans that the Republic of Texas incurred. Texas originally compromised something like half of what is now New Mexico, Colorado, and up into Idaho (I believe) - all of it fought for.

Yes, I am aware of all that.

I guess it boils down to what your definition of stealing is.

Hell, for that matter, the whole damn country was "Stolen" from the natives.
Or at least the majority of it was. I guess we DID "pay" for Manhattan Island. And no doubt things were offered up for other small pieces of it. But if you are pointing a gun at someones head when you offer them a pittance for something and they sell it, well most courts would still considerer it stealing.

Even by that logic the US didn't steal Texas. The people living in Texas stole it from Mexico and gave it to the US.

I thought the settlers living in Texas refused to convert to Catholocism, which pissed off the Mexicans and triggered the Mex-American War. Then we kicked Santa Ana's ass and then we paid $30M or something for Texas and Cali.

WTF, is that what they teach you crazy Yankees??!!

Like most revolutions it is sort of complicated with many reasons and opinions. Some of which include that General Santa Anna overthrew the previous government and annulled many of the existing land grants, so basically American settlers in Texas lost their land and/or property rights. Additionally the US government did want Texas and offered to buy it from Mexico, but Mexico refused the offer. Then, in a sort of odd ironic way, with the influx of immigration from the US to Mexico, Santa Anna was concerned with too many Americans in the state and further repressed or otherwise removed any legal rights those settlers had. then Mexican troops were stationed in the Mexican state of Texas, which caused a lot of distrust and corruption and so forth, which just fueled the flames. If I recall correctly the last straw was when some soldiers attempted to take away a cannon that some town had, which was their only source of protection. . . or something like that.

So the settlers and Mexican citizens in revolted, lost some battles, won some battles then became the Republic of Texas. Mexico, though, never recognized Texas and kept insisting that Texas was indeed part of Mexico and tensions kept rising. So the US wanted Texas as a state, and Texas needed the "security" that came with being part of the US - not to mention the debt that the Republic piled up - so the votes were cast and Texas became a state.

So then the US Army was able to step in and assist the Texas army to totally resolve the boundary disputes in what became the Mexican-American War. Also, I believe, resulted in gaining the California territory which is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I am sure Google can provide better answers than what my feeble mind remembers.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: RichUK
So how many years did the British Empire have ownage over the US, I?m no good at history.

About the same number of years that the US has had ownage over the UK

 

[SouthPaW1227]

You do realize of course that some parts of the US were stolen from Mexico right? Namely Texas....

Have you been to Texas? It's not an American state. Seriously, it is OVERRAN with Mexicans. If I had to list states from attractive to least attractive in which to reside, Texas would be DEAD LAST. New Mexico a close second-to-last.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Yes, I am aware of all that.

I guess it boils down to what your definition of stealing is.

Hell, for that matter, the whole damn country was "Stolen" from the natives.
Or at least the majority of it was. I guess we DID "pay" for Manhattan Island. And no doubt things were offered up for other small pieces of it. But if you are pointing a gun at someones head when you offer them a pittance for something and they sell it, well most courts would still considerer it stealing.

Unfortunately you can't judge the past by todays standards. The concept of right and wrong evolve over time. The concept of Might Makes Right was still in full effect back then, and the courts of the day would have declared it perfectly legal. Even though it's considered wrong by todays standards, that's the whole reson the constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

My favorite example, which I've probably brought up a thousand times, is the Sioux petitioning the courts to get the Black Hills back. They claim that the government "stole" it from them in 1876 and that the Supreme Court should give it back. Yet by that definition, they also "stole" it in 1765, which is when Chief Standing Bear "discovered" it. Before then, the Crow and Kiowa were living there. If you apply modern laws to that situation, who gets the land? How far back do you go?