DailyKenn: The Myth of "Stolen" Western States

DailyKenn.com | AbateHate.com | Facebook Group

Click ▲ to see larger image

To learn from history, one must first learn history.

When I was a little kid, I dismissed history as little more than random, meaningless numbers called "dates" that I was expected to memorize for no rational reason. Later, I cracked open a history book and found it interesting and the dates contextually meaningful.

What's more, knowing history allowed me to cut through the hyperbole of flawed ideologies and come to thoughtful conclusions. It also allows us to recognize counterfeit history when presented by those with an agenda.

That's why we need to know the basics of the Mexican-American War. There are those with an agenda who claim America stole western portions of the United States from Mexico. Many are not even aware there was a war, let alone a subsequent treaty and substantial financial compensation.

With that in mind, let's revisit the not-so-random dates of April 1846 to February 1848 and the Mexican-American War.

Your $8 monthly partner pledge helps us reach others & more ►

A revisionist narrative has gained traction that the United States "stole" vast swaths of its western territory from Mexico through deceit and unwarranted aggression. This claim often ignores the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (pictured in the above thumbnail) that came in the wake of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).

It's a manufactured controversy, apparently intended to prey on those who aren't familiar with history or prefer hyperbole instead of history. However, true history, in the form of treaties, financial compensation, and geopolitical realities, clears the air for those who care to learn.

It's akin to buying a home, then being accused of stealing it in spite of documentation.

Let's examine these facts:

First, the transfer of these lands was legally formalized.

Second, compensation was paid.

Third, the outcome was consistent with how borders have been redrawn throughout history.

The Origins: Colonial Claims and Mexican Independence

To understand the U.S. acquisition, we must first contextualize Mexico's own claim to the western territories. The lands—encompassing present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming—were originally part of Spain's colonial empire, acquired through conquest and subjugation of Indigenous peoples in the 16th-18th centuries.

Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, inheriting these vast, sparsely populated northern provinces, which were home to fewer than 100,000 Mexican citizens and controlled more in name than in practice. Indigenous groups like the Apache, Navajo, and Comanche dominated much of the region, often raiding Mexican settlements. Meanwhile, Mexico's central government was struggling with internal instability, including civil wars and economic woes.

This weak hold set the stage for American settlers, many invited by Mexico itself to populate Texas in the 1820s as a buffer against Native raids.

When tensions arose over issues like slavery (which Mexico abolished in 1829) and governance, Texas declared independence in 1836 after the Battle of the Alamo and San Jacinto, establishing the Republic of Texas. Mexico never fully recognized this, but the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845—after a decade of Texas sovereignty—escalated border disputes.

Critics who cry "theft" often overlook that Mexico's claims were themselves colonial inheritances, no more "original" than those of other empires.

In case you missed it: Mexico acquired the land from Spain in 1821 then sold it to the United States a mere 27 years later.

The Mexican-American War: Conflict, Not Conquest Without Consequence

The Mexican-American War erupted in 1846 following a border clash along the Rio Grande, which the U.S. claimed as Texas's southern boundary while Mexico insisted that the Nueces River was the rightful border.

The conflict was formally declared by Congress after Mexican forces attacked U.S. troops. While abolitionists and Whigs like Abraham Lincoln decried it as an unjust "war of aggression," it was not unilateral theft—it was a declared war between sovereign nations, common in the 19th century for resolving territorial disputes. President James K. Polk, an expansionist in the era of Manifest Destiny who wanted to acquire California and New Mexico, was not an opponent.

U.S. forces, under generals including Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, achieved decisive victories, occupying Mexico City by 1847. Yet, rather than annexing all of Mexico (a proposal floated but rejected), the U.S. pursued peace.

The resulting Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, formalized the cession of about 525,000 square miles—55% of Mexico's pre-war territory—in exchange for $15 million (roughly $580 million in today's dollars) paid in installments, plus the U.S. assuming $3.25 million in Mexican debts to American citizens. This was no paltry sum; at about 5 cents per acre, it was comparable to other land deals like the Louisiana Purchase (3 cents per acre from France in 1803) and the purchase of Alaska from Russia (2 cents per acre in 1867).

The American government paid for the territory, much the same manner you would purchase real estate.

Moreover, the treaty protected Mexican residents: They could choose U.S. citizenship with full rights or relocate to Mexico, with over 90% opting to stay.

Land grants were to be honored, though later U.S. courts invalidated some due to fraud or incomplete records—a point of legitimate grievance, but certainly not evidence of theft. The treaty was ratified by both governments: the U.S. Senate (38-14) and Mexico's congress, as a pragmatic choice to end the war and stabilize finances.

Subsequent Agreements and Norms of the Time

Further undermining the "stolen" narrative is the 1853 Gadsden Purchase, where Mexico voluntarily sold an additional 30,000 square miles in southern Arizona and New Mexico for $10 million to facilitate a southern transcontinental railroad. This was a straightforward transaction, not coercion, proving continued diplomatic relations rather than outright enmity.

The 'stolen land' myth is relatively new. At the time, no one considered it stolen.

Historically, territorial changes via war and treaty were the norm, not the exception. The U.S. itself lost territory to Britain in 1783 after defeat, and Mexico had seized lands from Spain. As one analysis notes, "Winning territory by force of arms is not stealing land," especially when formalized by treaty and payment.

If we apply modern morals retroactively, nearly all borders outside The Garden of Eden (metaphorically or literally)—from Europe to Asia—could be deemed "stolen." The true original inhabitants, Native American tribes, were displaced by both Spanish/Mexican and U.S. expansion, complicating any simplistic victim-perpetrator dichotomy. And, before that, indigenous peoples had been displacing each other for millennia.

Addressing Counterclaims: Why the "Theft" Narrative Persists

Proponents of the theft claim argue the war was provoked by U.S. expansionism, citing Polk's failed purchase offers and the Thornton Affair as pretexts. They highlight post-treaty injustices, like the erosion of Mexican-American land rights through legal challenges. These are sometimes valid critiques of U.S. policy, and, nearly always feigned as "racist" on the part of white Americans, but never Mexicans (many of whom were also of European ancestry). But they do not equate to theft of the territories themselves.

Granted, the war's morality is debatable—Ulysses S. Grant later called it "one of the most unjust ever waged"—but the War Between the States or "Civil War" was also considered an unjust war, and still is. Oddly, those on the left who taunt "neo-Confederates" claiming, "You lost. Get over it," never say the same about the Mexican-American War.

Legality under international law of the time holds: Treaties end wars, and compensation was provided.

In California, for instance, many residents welcomed U.S. rule amid Mexico's chaos, with Mexican notables including Mariano Vallejo supporting American annexation for stability and economic growth.

Conclusion: It Was A Legitimate Acquisition

The western states were not "stolen" from Mexico; they were ceded through a ratified treaty following a war, with substantial payment and citizenship protections.

Reframing the war as theft ignores historical context, compensation, and the era's geopolitical standards; much of which holds true today. True reconciliation requires undistorted historical reality. By understanding this nuanced history, we can move beyond myths toward informed dialogue.

The Gold Rush soon after bolstered U.S. control, but this was post-treaty development, not causation for theft.

Post script: Villa de Guadalupe Hidalgo is a historical northern neighborhood of Mexico City.

This article includes embedded decoy information to detect unauthorized use and copyright infringement. Reproduction is permitted only verbatim and in full, with all links preserved and attribution clearly given to DailyKenn.com and AbateHate.com.

Questions and answers:

1. Q How long did Mexico hold the land it sold to the USA?

A 27 years

2. Q What years was the Mexican-American War fought?

A 1846 - 1848

3. Q How many Mexicans lived in the area just prior to the war?

A About 100,000

4. Q How much did America pay Mexico for the land?

A $580 million in today's dollars

5. Q What treaty was signed formalizing the sale?

A Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

6. Q How much land was sold/purchased?