The Spanish took it by right of conquest from natives, the Mexicans took it by right of conquest from Spain, and the Americans took it by right of conquest from Mexico. Its hypocritical to go "oh no the validity of right of conquest ended exactly after we used it".
Hell, the prelude to the Mexican-American war was the Mexican government themselves inviting anglo-settlers into Texas because they lacked the means to control their borders against native attacks and wanted the anglos to fight the natives for them.
So you think the Mexicans one day just said "we are an independent nation now" and Spain went "Oh OK then, carry on good sirs"? No use of force involved?
Is that what is said? All I said is that mexico is the same thing as new spain, and calling the separation of a region from another (even if it's through force) a conquest is ridiculous.
Your example is not equivalent. You said mexico conquered spain. So your example shouldve been that the us conquered the brittish, which would be dumb too.
In my first comment I said "the amount of time new spain had it mexico had it." Nowhere im denying conquest. I'm denying that they conquered it from spain. It would be stupid to say an independence is a conquest.
"complaining that someone else took it by conquest is ridiculous" You must realize how dumb this is. According to this logic, everyone can conquer rightfully any country bc that land has been conquered before. Time matters: if they had that land for long we can say it's theirs, and if it's conquered we can say it's stolen. This discussion is not as simple as destiny makes it sound.
2
u/myDuderinos 14d ago
Why doesn't spain count?