Much of the excerpt seems to be poorly written unless it's that parts are missing or something. I write poorly sometimes but I'm not making money from a University publisher, and I never have even graduated high school. There are other histories from other periods, other sides perhaps even, that paint a portrait of deceipt, unfair dealings, broken agreements and so forth essentially starting at how the territory was simply invaded illegally which is about how most countires or empires add territory anyway. But as I say, Santa Ana was an awful character himself and faced with choosing between him or joining the union a great many finally went with joining the union even though they regretted it not long after. The U.S. acted from the beginning as if it's manifest destiny was to rule as much of N. America as possible such as in the war of 1812 and populating and developing the west. Law always came after the fact, retroactively (and to make the history books look good if you don't look too closely).
Well, the land has been pretty valuable which had been part of Spanish America, and they took it from the natives in the first place in any case, even more gruesomely then the later northern Europeans. But it seems a bit odd outside the U.S. sometimes to have people in places with Spanish names like Nevada and Texas and California complaining about being invaded by Spanish speaking people. In Canada the English beat the French but we allowed them to keep their language officially and maybe the U.S. should have done the same, or at least for the historically Spanish states.
|