How Johnny Harris Rewrites American & Mexican History 

Voce e yankee malvado

US stole all America from Indians

Sorry my guy but Mexico was betrayed by one of the own that's how he lost the war and there's a picture of it too so don't even try 😂

but he did steal the work of Tom Mullaney

I'm gonna take this Land cause México cannot defend it, where have I seen this, ah yeah, Russia, but good thing now nobody agrees on that

Exactly. Just like treating colored people as superior races is just another type of racism. (Btw I'm not a White) Nobody's denying that the native Americans suffered a lot in the past, but that doesn't mean everyone should be treated as an incompetent crybaby just because their ancestors got harmed. I mean whose ancestors hadn't been victims, considering there're two world wars in our history?!

I mean, both of them don't really nail down Native American tribes well. The historical records, well, with what is legitimate, Indian Tribes behaved like city states. The Mexica (where Mexico comes from) had a city, Tenochtitlan, where a lot of tribes lived in. It had it's own Mayan district. Tribes acted as city states and there was a trade network going between South America and North America. Most tribes in North America have their own tamales or wrapped meals like those in Central America and South America. I barely started understanding Baja California tribes. A center of trade did exist in the Americas.

You can be a victim and a badass.

Natives were relatively peaceful compared to the European who would wage war for centuries

@@carlospichardo7615 They weren't relatively peaceful, learn history. Neither were European tribes, when they lived in the stone/chalcolithic age.

@Roniixx maybe revisionist history die

That should say “let revisionist History die” lol

@@starkilr101 History legends didn't debunk anything. He denied History. The US did steal from Mexico

The one who does not know history is this guy. The French still had colonies in North America like Martinique and Guadeloupe. And mexico did not steal Indian land. Northern Mexico was inherited from Spain. In fact, Mexico controlled less land north of the Rio Grande than even Spain.

Especially when it becomes very clear they intend to “virtue signal” their disapproval of actions of those who lived over one hundred and fifty years ago using todays metrics. Fun fact, he’s likely a Dem and they were the slave supporting party, just something many try to forget.

Everyone of these anti American so called historians, always sound gay AF, when it's a white male. Why? Because those that were creating what became the USA, were typically Christians and gays hate Christianity.

Or a liberal

@@briancrawford69Most teachers and college professors are liberals or leftists

I don't understand the problem. I'm taking APUSH and were diligently read Carl Degler's Books on US history. His information seems quite accurate.

@@michaeltnk1135 so most of the political spectrum

Very well stated!

Fair enough.

There is nothing complicated about theft. LOL

Wasn't theft@@jamisonmaguire4398

@@jacoblawson678 It was theft.

It's easy to say that when it was your country winning territory.

Why is he dangerous? It is just his opinion.

...and yet you get your researched off a reaction video. Prompt to you, you brave citizen man.

Just look his latter video "why china so damn big". He is indeed very dangerous

Dangerous because he understands a medium and has snappy editing? How can that be dangerous

@@petterteignesse5486 That channel is just one of millions on youtube. And those leftist channels blaming the US for everything are a dime a dozen. The Channels AJ Plus and Democracy Now and the Young Turks make that dood's channel look like Fox News.

Its ridiculous actually. My people were under the Ottoman Empire for almost 500 years/5 centuries. Imagine me moving to live in Istanbul now and being angry at modern Turks about it. I feel like people who live in currently poor countries simply refuse to take responsibility for their own government and blame it all on their invaders because its easier for them to just blame everything on others rather than own their mistakes and do something about it.

Not every European is good at winning war Turkiye, China, Vietnam, Australia, Japan are great too But yeah, obviously Austria, France , Britain, Rome , Poland too

And it's very goofy because Europeans are diverse and therefore not responsible for each others' achievements or failures. Individual European nations like Germany, France, England have been very influential but others like Moldova and Estonia have not, so it wouldn't make sense to blame all Europeans or worship them either. Better to judge individuals instead of groups is my belief.

Yes, it wasn't as economically focused as it's often presented. The biggest problem was persuading settlers to live there and, therefore, increase the Mexican government's claims on the land via more of it's citizens. Because the natives were quite hostile and dangerous, the gov't obviously had trouble doing so. In other words, they needed a permanent population of armed citizens to live there and fight for the land for them. Economic purposes were just a distant long-term hope in comparison.

Thats what I heard

Its true. In the three centuries before the war, Spain/Mexico was only able to settle a few places in Texas near the coast due to hostile Indians.

I read it too when it came out, the story of Daniel Boone's granddaughter's kidnapping, torture and murder by Comanches is told therein, though the author didn't mention that Daniel Boone's son had also been tortured and murdered by Shawnees.

Is true there’s a reason why Mexico after it’s in Independence invited Europeans mostly from Spain , France , Italy and some English to come and settled in the Northern states of Mexico by giving them free land . My ancestors came from the Basque Country from both the Spanish and French side and settled in Sonora , Mexico they were given free land and citizenship by the Mexican government in exchange they had to work the land while living on a hostile environment due to raids by Native Americans tribes , the land was very hard to work too due to the crappy weather conditions .

Yes

Yupp

Immediatly recognized it, i had done a report on it in middle school.

So he was basically right.

@@reharl4953 Nobody questions that the event happened.

I like men

@@Laksur_ this video was made 9 months ago, whete calling him out was less popular (or at least i thought, correct me)

@@Laksur_ ive never heard of this Johnny Harris guy before this video, i just came to watch a historic-revisionist get dunked on. so if you think this random guys name brought anyone here, youre hilariously wrong. dude...were HISTORY lovers, not fiction lovers.

@@nikoc8968 bro idek what's going on now

​@@Laksur_ I love men too

So the US offers Mexico a deal. Mexico invades. The US kicks Mexico’s ass, then the US pays Mexico for the land anyway? You have to be really anti American to see them as the bad guys here.

second rate citizens. They were stripped of their land and faced segregation, killings, and lynching by anglos until the Chicano Civil Rights movement. Mexican-American veterans were even denied medical services after world war 2. But let´s pretend we live in Disneyland.

Many of those Mexicans who became U.S. citizens were still eventually lynched and forced to lose the land they were promised to keep by a court that favored white settlers claim over theirs.

Although Mexico ceded Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México, the text of the treaty did not list territories to be ceded and avoided the disputed issues that were causes of war. Oh and it was signed under gun point, which makes it even more unofficial. Onto your next claim… that is chump change compared to the billions that USA is making off of the land’s resources. Lastly, the land grants were made to families who would automatically be granted U.S. citizenship in new territories gained by the U.S. However, the U.S. government didn’t protect many of those grants in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California and courts have routinely turned away complaints made by displaced Mexican families. Judicial proceedings were conducted in English, making it hard for Mexican families to fight court battles. White settlers began to encroach on Hispanic lands and local and federal authorities did little to protect Mexican residents from land seizures. Oh and don’t forget that Mexican-American were also deported on top of that.

Yes but they still stole our land, im New Mexican family been here before Jamestown, we owned vast grazing fields and after the war the Anglos stole our land using Bs like squatting laws despite the fact that the U.S. promised all Spanish and Mexican land grants and property rights would be respected.

It is happening in the reverse with the open borders under the Biden Administration. Those new "Americans" will eventually subvert many cities in many regions.

That policy was made by the spanish administration in early XIX century... When Mexico got independece many politicians knew the big mess that Texas could become, but the political inestability and an idealistic liberalism/federalism in the firsts presidents ignored the problem until it was to late

60 million illegals inside the USA. What could go wrong? OH MY!!!!

Now it's reversed

Solid gold hahaha!

War is epic Freedom is cringe Ignorance is based

​@Fred_the_1996 he who controls the spice controls the universe!

These words are sending Winstonian chill thru my spine...

Last words written in the book Just don’t let it happen. 🫣😉

Or just have more marriage from other countries

And they turned out to be the same place 😂

14th, 15th 16th C was the era of European conquest.

And that started with the Spanish? 😂😂😂

insane my dude, absolutely ahistorical and completely bonkers.

Dude, imperialistic attitudes from Mexico came almost completely from the descendants of elite Spaniards that didn't want to form part of Spain anymore, just like EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE CONTINENT. And it didn't have to do anything with race but with land and resource extraction (through any means necessary). Many politicians of the time knew that with enough time they could do good stuff (for themselves cough* corruption cough*) in the far states of Texas and California so they invested a lot to achieve that, though it seemed like not. And yes, you can count with your own hands the times that Mexico has really wanted a war with another country. Also, violence, although common, has not been the way of the country since its inception. It's a resource that has been used in necessity maybe too much in our history. A very difficult infection to take away. (Please note that I'm not an expert, but know enough to say that this is absolutely wrong).

While early XIX century mexicans were no angels to indigenous people, and the country was pretty much a PvP server for 100 years after gaining independence saying they had imperialistic ambitions on par with the US and the european powers is just factually wrong dude, the mexican empire lasted less than two years, because people wanted a republic, central america was both anexed (minus some resistance in el salvador) and separated peacfuly and mexico made a point of respecting their declaration of independence (with only a weird loyalist coup atempt on costa rica but that was mostly local and not mexican orchestrated), even Texas was mostly left alone for the better part of a decade after their independence war (tho they never recognized it, leading to the mexican american war), hell even yucatan proclaimed independence and eventually chose to join back, without all out war and subjugation from the mexicans

The diferrence is that spanish empire was a lot less bad compared to the brits but still not totally innocent

Neo-liberal and far-leftist.

​@@1685Violin Do you know what words mean?

@@maoistgonzaloitepolpotist7743 Yes. Far-leftists are people who support socialism, communism, and globalism. Are you going drag me into a game of semantics? I've been dealing with sophists who constantly move the goalposts for years whenever I point out their exact policies and positions.

@@1685Violin Neoliberal is when no liberal system apparently. Would you really call someone like Stalin or whatever a liberal lol?

@@1685Violin Neo-liberal is a fancy way to say an-cap. Therefore, neo-liberalism tends to be very close to conservative point of views. So you are either a neoliberal or a leftist, not both

School doesn't teach these things in depth at all.

​@@mizzkrazy1348 that's why we should dig deeper into history

Universities no longer educate, they indoctinate.

Woke is honestly just political bullshit, the reality is that history in school sucks Plain and simple

It’s so sad that just by saying that they’re “trying to teach true history” so many people just blindly believe their false claims

Yeah I remember 20-25 years ago people weren't this sensitive to minority groups. People did complain about this stuff but it wasn't anywhere near insane as it is today. And honestly this may be a cold take but I mean America conquered the west, everyone else lost. It's just like any other wars by other nations which has been going on since the dawn of time. I don't understand why America is suddenly worse off than other nations. Alexander the great conquered much of the middle east. Should they ask for reparations from Greece? Absolutely silly.

Research Pablo Freire. Literal Marxist indoctrination.

Total control through media and state

To summarize: This is the result of the "Long march through the institutions". Implemented by the Soviets and now helped by the CCP. The end goal is to revolutionize the States and collapse their standing in the world. Dividing the people along class lines didn't work in a free market society so they switched to race and mental illness. Now that a majority of institutions have been corrupted class struggle is now on the table. We are watching a slow-motion revolution and the creation of American style Marxism.

Why would you want to “understand” it? There is no understanding insanity.

Shhh don't tell true history just go with the lies...

Also, he made it seem like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (the Northwest Territory) were colonized by Americans. No, they were colonized originally by French Fur Traders. After the Seven Years War, the British won the Northwest Territory. However, after the American Revolution, it was seceded to the US. They just didn’t become individual states until later. People from the Northwest Territory even fought in the Revolutionary War even.

France invaded Mexico during the US Civil War

And better guns...

We were crippled by the french a few months ago that time we had low army numbers and many untrained peiple

@user-ni6ht7xo3i The American Army at the beginning of the war totaled 10,200 men, spread all over the continent, many fighting Indians. When war was declared in May 1846, Congress authorized raising the Regulars to 17,800. The War Department also requested volunteers from 10 states and accepted only13,200 though vastly more were available. Only a single regiment of cavalry was available at the beginning of hostilities and two more were organized. Also, only 4 regiments of artillery were available, but they included horse artillery, which the Mexican did not have. During the course of the war from 1846-July 48, some 43,000 regulars served but only 31 saw combat. So, your numbers are very far from correct my man. The Mexican Army began the war with 12 line regiments, three light infantry regiments, nine militia regiments, and 14 Coast Guard regiments. Another three regiments were raised when war was declared. In terms of cavalry, Mexico began with a large advantage, having nine-line regiments, five independent/heavy regiments and four independent squadrons of cavalry. There were another six regiments of militia cavalry and other squadrons of militia. The independent and heavy forces were lancers, something not seen in the US forces. Mexican artillery were divided into three foot and one mounted brigades of guns. Mexico had nothing equivalent to the American flying artillery Regiments. During the first battle of Palo Alto, 3700 men commanded by General Arista engaged some 2200 Americans. The US lost 55 troops to some 250-500 Mexican casualties. A second battle occurred not long afterwards at Resaca de la Palma, with similar casualties; The Americans lost 33 dead and 89 wounded to 168 dead, 228 wounded and 159 missing, plus the US captured 8 guns. General Arista retreated to Monterrey. where a considerably larger battle would take place several months later. General Taylor brought 6200 men faced by 10,000 Mexican forces under a new General Ampudia who waited in defensive positions for the US attack. Much maneuvering and fight happened until the Mexicans retreated to Monterrey proper, where battle ensued. The results proved bloody for the Americans who lost between 500-1000 men but forced a Mexican retreat and the capture of more artillery.

Add to the fact that the heartland of Mexico was far removed from the rest of the US, with natural borders (a large river and vast desert) separating these two areas. It would've been impossible for the US to effectively administer it, which in turn meant that they could only expect further headaches from it.

@@user-bz9sj8mh5d The U.S could’ve easily taken over the Mexican border states and especially Baja California

@@Student0Toucher Yeah, but the only ones of those with a more easily defensible position was Baja California. The Rio Grande made a perfect natural border to divide the nations, top that off with the fact that the northern Mexican states are desert and mountains means it'd have been a big expensive pain in the butt.

Also don't gloss over the fact that when it comes to annexing a territory, it normally takes 3 generations to get the area to be part of your nation and taking Mexico over making it part of the US also means you now flood the region in US laws. The last thing you want to do is give weapons to the area that hates you for being there. Also Mexico owed a lot of money to European nations at this time, I seriously believe France and UK would have problems with the US not paying off Mexican debt, then you add the fact that the civil war came after this. I can't imagine the hell Mexico would look like if annexed with all of this added to the chaos.

And, the US was originally only interested in the territories in the north. Taking on the entire empire would have been a huge, costly task and the US knew it.

The blonde guy works for the NYT, to remove his biases is asking too much of him

cause and causation is the approach that brings objective view to events when you go by hey this guy had a wishlist to do shit, is you gonna end up with a one sided view on shit if you look into that countries sociopolitical state in that time, you will see clearly the intentions of the involved countries and why they have chosen to do things as they did for example looking into ways a country tried to solidify their rule over a region, why that region is important? what caused it to be distabilizied? what are their intentions with said region?

Your asking a white European to not have any biases on European colonialism?

3 sides to every story: - your opinion - my opinion - the truth

Historylegends wripped Harris apart in a recation video to Harris American Mexico War video.

Of course you do 🙄

Zavala was a pathetic sell out that's why White texukker s "love" him.

Texans rebelled because their racist asses wanted to keep slaves after Mexico had prohibited them

Wow a whole ONE out of the the three of them was Mexican.

sure you do BS

Correction actually it was fremont polk sent who brought kit carson with him bc fremont was a famous explorer and carson was his sidekick but a amazing frontiersman.

To be fair Polk did promise to only serve 1 term

Do not forget the Mormons settling in Utah and the capture of Monterrey, California by the US Navy in 1842. Just imagine if the Mexican Navy had done that to New Orleans.

Carson and Fremont responsible for the genocide of the North American Natives.

California's history is even more messed up. First off Pancho Pico, the Last Californian Governor for Mexican and First Californian Governor for the US was waging a civil war against San Diego and Monterey (since those pueblos and Los Angeles recognized different people as the Governor of Alta California) and all three factions wanted to succeed form Mexico. Seeing the writing on the wall, Pancho Pico tried to sell California to Russia and Britain but we're refused because those governments did not want to fight the US in a war. These civil wars was what lead to the US Navy's preemptive conquest as a result of their misunderstanding what was happening in Californian Politics. Then right before the Mexican American civil war the Mexican Army was dispatched to California to prevent them from succeeding.

The crusty kid should have been informed enough to understand that New Spain was never Mexico or Mexican before European arrival or under Spain. Texas, New Mexico or California territories never participated in Mexican independence with other New Spain territories in what's today central Mexico. It was Mexico City and surrounding territories who battled Spain gaining independence to become Mexico. Mexico's first attempt at independence, under the 1815 constitution, neither Texas, New Mexico or California are documented as Mexico. New Spain was always separate territories, California, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana to Florida territories, many territories within what is today Mexico, Cuba, Central America, Caribbeans, Philippines , plus. The Rio Grande tributaries never sustained today's Mexico, its waters barely reached Chihuahua. 25 years prior to the Mexican War the lands belonged to Spain for 250 years. Any claim Mexico had was very brief and not historically Mexico. The California and SW populations were mandated Mexican citizenship becoming American citizens in 1848. It's all well documented by Spain, the United States and Mexico. There are even true stories not long ago by Spanish colonists from the SW homeland who actually lived under three flags. Spains flag, then a foreign soldier from far away comes with a new flag to inform they are Mexican citizens , a couple of decades later another soldier comes along announcing American citizenship under a new flag. Bet you don't celebrate Mexican Independence.....

Texas is and will be Mexican.

coahuila y tejas*

Much of South West From Southern California to Texas was not farmable land due to day soil. More over the bigger issue was the invasion of Mexico by France in 1860s. Look that up, it's very interesting.

Santa Anna didn't overextended, he was undesupplied, he requested supplies to the higher ups lots and lots of times but they never arrived

@@marlboroman2393 Actually it was Coahuila y Texas. The people who lived in Texas were tejanos. The people who lived in Mexico were mejicanos.

@@ontheroadwithtex7991 norteños* no one in coahuila, nuevo leon. or tamaulipas identified with the extensity of all mexico. i know cuz my roots go back to the founding of monterrey

Ironic.

@@leomate8301 "Irocally", Mexico had problems way back until the mexican independence. First Republicans and other Monarquists (resoluted in the 1824 constitution), then Federalists and Centralists (resoluted in the 1857 constitution), and finally Liberals and Conservatives (resoluted in the 1917 constitution). Its like when US changed its constitution from a confederation one to a federal one, but instead of deliberating and diplomacy it would had been taken my arms.

The U.S. revolution was unique in that it was an open rejection of the concept of inherited aristocracy.

@@reharl4953 yes, that's what I said. But still aristocrats (or rich families before the XX century), still existed and played a big role on US politics. I mean, in the civil war, who were the people that made their states secession? rich families from south that seen emancipation as a dread to their riches. So, yeah, US still remained as the empire its precursor was.

Spain had an empire, the difference is that an empire is a sovereign state made up of many countries or cultures that are ruled by a single individual, usually an emperor or empress. A kingdom is made up of land from the same region or territory that is ruled by a king or queen.

Very well stated.

At one time all you had to do was plant a flag in some place and claim it's yours. But if you can't defend what you claim is your territory, someone else may take it away. Did Spain or Mexico have any more legitimate claim to that land, considering it was already populated by natives when they arrived? If you say US stole it, then you have to admit Spain stole it. But, whatever...what's interesting is some people are still upset about it even though everyone involved is dead.

@@johng4093 bueno, entonces no se porque se molestan con los migrantes, que poco a poco van reconquistando esos territorios, no somos nosotros los que lloriqueamos pidiendo levantar un muro para detener la inmigracion.

​@@johng4093 Try to justify it however you want, you stole land, but you will never be able to get the Mexicans out of there, no matter how tough the immigration laws are, the Mexican always find how To get away with it.

​@@johng4093eso es lo que diría un pirata anglosajón. Luego se preguntan por qué los odian.

You are so right. Generally people not take into consideration the perspective of the time. You need to go back to that era to get a better understanding of history.

Context is everything. And as they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

Thoose places with mexico would be a shithole

NADIE los perdonamos por eso, los únicos que los perdonaron fueron a los que se les olvido lo que paso.

Mis ancestros peliaron contra EU. Las generaciones han pasado y ahorita estoy en Wisconsin. History is amazing. Viva Mexico 🇲🇽 and long live America 🇺🇸 🤙🏻

@@makutas-v261 jajjajajajajajajjajajjaja imaginate tener un odio por algo que tu no viviste, y no no vivimos las consecuencias de la guerra vs estados unidos, igual odias a españa verdad?

viva la republica de texas.

Uma coisa é os Estados Unidos e outra coisa é a AMÉRICA

My family is descended from early spanish settlers in southern Nevada. After Mexico got its independence they became Mexican but had a similar mindset as of the Texans. The government was weak and their was no central authority.

Well, do not forget some American soldiers turned turn coat and fought for Mexico. They are called the SAint Patricks Battlalion. Incredible how the US forgets about 800 soldiers that switched sides.

@@juanisaac5172 in fairness they were Irish. Though the Mexican American war, is a pretty forgettable war in us history,

@@Rammkommando Here is the interesting thing about it. They were not all Irish. Some were of German and British stock. And a handful of US citizens also deserted. That is what US historians do not tell you. That war is the only one I actually remember where large amounts of US troops deserting and actively fighting their ex-comrades. The Civil War is something else.

Most high school/college teachers do not engage their students in any meaningful manner for the most part. Because they think kids are bored by history they blow it off themselves and just hand out an assignment sheet and a chapter from a textbook to write the answers from, whether they understand it or not. It's sad because there are so many lessons to be learned from history that would help our nations prevent problems that come up. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a desire to understand history: The Lessons of History, by Will and Arial Durrant. He is a well respected and scholared historian who wrote serious volumes of history books, and then for the rest of us, gave us the aforementioned book that is a condensed iteration of his work.

This level of breadth and depth of information is way above what would ever be taught in high school. The past is long and complicated, and the world is vast. Most of us just learn a few facts that are most adjacent to our own lives. I'd go as far as to say that our History Legend here has probably read far more than would be "taught" in a college History degree.

"than" is a comparative verb, "then" is a time based verb, I don't know why Americans have it so hard to understand. 🤷

School is a gyno centric institution. Better to study the subjects you want to on your own.

He’s got a severe case of white American guilt

That is an amazing point.

When you think about it most Mexicans are mestizo, mixed natives. It essentially it's the same case with most people the US government calls "Hispanic".

Mexico never took any land from the natives educate yourself

@@kayvan671 He wasn’t Mexican, he was from Spain

It's absolutely hilarious when Russians have to argue *in favor* of Americans, despite geopolitical opposition, for the sake of unbiased history because Americans now want to gain EU approval for whatever reason lol.

@@CantoniaCustoms Pretty sure he's French.

​@@jeffk464 he Canadian. French Canadian I'm 99% sure.

They split away from the first Mexican EMPIRE in 1823

@@ytstuff180 yup

Meanwhile when they tried to leave

Yup,Nicaragua was the first to separate from the First Mexican Empire, Honduras,El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the other former colonies of Mexico soon left as well.

Viva Mexico!!

His newest videos pretty much backs your comment up.

Jefferson Davis a Senator at the time and future Conference presidential also advocated for the all Mexico movement. But Northerners and Southerners were both white supremacists that didn't want to live with mixed race catholics. Northerners also didn't want to lose the balance of power because of the Missouri compromise would have admitted Mexican states as slave states.

It's because he wants to paint the U.S. at the time as racist which it was but that part in the video was disingenuous.

​@TADD on DDAT Name a country that wasn't racist at the time?

@@supremecaffeine2633 As far as I know, none. I only mentioned the U.S. because of the context of the video.

So why did Vicente Filisola march into the region on Iturbide´s orders? his army of 600 (later 2,000) men fought against Salvadoran forces after marching into Guatemala and almost looting the city. Nicaragua and Costa Rica also suffered imperial aggressions.

I'd argue the Monroe Doctrine established that the U.S would at the very least be formidable. By 1823, the US was powerful enough to announce that any new colonization efforts would be seen as a threat. While it didn't say they would protect the Americas or wage war against the orient if they proceeded to colonize, it deterred Europe. There were definitely exceptions, and also I'd add that America was definitely unable to enforce it by 1823. Regardless, the doctrine did prevent European colonization to an extent.

@@pulsar2049 The Monroe doctrine happen 20 years after the Louisiana Purchase. And 2 years after Napoleon's death.

@@xdanbo1859 Yes, but I'm arguing that the US already was quite powerful by the early 1800s, I consider 1823 still in the early range.

The French and Indian war was won by Britian they also claimed the Louisiana Purchase. Britain and France's claim to Louisiana was weak at best, especially France, so they did the smart thing they sold. It was obvious the US was going to settle the Louisiana purchase. Britian did try to maintain the Louisiana purchase with the Indian coalition and the war of 1812. They lost and the Indian territory in the American Midwest and the Louisiana territory became undisputed US territories.

@@JJ-qh5dn At the end of the French and Indian War (part of the larger Seven Years War), Spain was ceded Louisiana not the British.

ikr

Then he makes a big speech on how the other guy didn’t mention the intricacies of the Mexican war…. only to say he won’t either because it’ll take an hour 🤦🏻‍♂️

Amen 🙏

the only things museums leave out is the mutilated bodies of friends and comrades and eternal screaming of pain and agony with a spice of despair what you get in museums is an apprecation of the tech, what we can achieve as humans, but it leaves out the fact that war is hell, what these master pieces do to people

Looks like he got his misinformation off the internet written articles by biased history revionists...

I was confused for a sec because you said "the French are still in America today." I thought you meant the States lol Before anyone says it, and I know people will because Europeans are obsessed with this. Go tell a Canadian and/or a Mexican who live in those countries that they're American and see what happens lol

@@someretardontheinternet There really isn’t any French in the America, French Canadian doesn’t really count and if it does, there are a ton of French speaking people in Louisiana.

You mean "French descendants" if you were stuck in the United States you would eventually become mixed and you would have had to forfeit your allegiance to which ever European empire, or kingdom to remain a United States citizen. Why they're labeled as "Neutralized Citizens".

15 technically

To this day, the US government has not ordered the killing of so many people by execution. 50 Irish Americans in the US Army that defected to Mexico was shot in a firing squad or a hung. From the gallows

I just watched a movie about those Irish Americans, anything that the US does, that could cast it in a negative light, doesn't make American History books.@@19ate4

​@@19ate4Of course, in the Philippines they did that many times

Mexico stupidly attacked the US and violated the terms of the Velasco treaty. The US did not attack Mexico. Mexico's claim to the land ceded was weak at best (it wasn't theirs to lose). The US returned the land that is now Mexico after they conquered Mexico in the war. The 16 million was a gift the US did not need to give but it did ensure a lasting border.

It's a radical left woke culture indoctrination. The USA was in position to take all of Mexico, but set out to get only what it wanted. California, New Mexico/Arizona, Texas. Manifest Destiny. In fact what is Mexico today is returned lands by the USA under the Treaty of GH.

Eww, are there pics of it?

@@BadBoyBobby85 Silly Bob - are you serious? it's a joke - wild front ear is wild frontier. or are you just yanking Alex's chain? 😄

Other letters from Mexican soldiers say Crocket and several other defenders were captured and executed at the Alamo.

Ba dump tsssasss.

Mexico City was taken by the US Army, not the Marines. I know Marines were involved, but we're talking a few hundred Marines compared to 20,000 Soldiers. Aside from that, you're correct. A lot of veterans, including career officers, of the Mexican-American War went on to fight in the Confederacy.

Reverse manifest destiny in todays age !

@@dealwithittv9049 Just California. No one wants that place in the US anyways lol

Mexicans were fighting with outdated equipment and Mexico only had 25,000 soldiers while the u.s had 120,000+.

I would not say they find much resistences.. my country was in a mini internal war (we had just ended a big independence war against spain), it´s known that they ran out of ammo, fought with very outdated weapons and outnumbered in almost every battle. Ulysess Grant himself said Mexicans were unprepaired cause of lack of a formal military training, USA already had one military school wich name I dont remember, But he said that Mexican would make great soldiers if they had proper training.. I think he said that also cause he felt guilty after the war

These weak feminine WOKE activists need to learn what the ancient Right Of Conquest means....

Pretty much. The great Pueblo revolt showcases that the Mexicans weren't chubby with the southwestern tribes.

Yup, and he's part of the group of North Americans and Western Europeans that actively dump on their countries and cultures because they think they need to feel shame for what a minority of their people's ancestors did concerning colonialism

@@romanfan250 The Mexicans government is really good hiding native history when that history is not convenient, read about the caste wars in the yucatan penninsula.

Yup.. You summed it up with the right words. Since he is a woke activist, he knows well the skills of clickbait and algorithm boost.. f*** the historical details, none of his target audience is even gonna look or notice. I mean.. I get a feeling that they feel so good because they are watching a video how the US stole from Mexico but by the time we realize that it was part of the Mexican EMPIRE and people were just invited because nobody else wanted to have any business there, woke people already forgot about the title and are just waiting for the video to end because of their well known super-human attention spans. I mean, watch it just so you could tell people "Anyway, I watched this in-depth documentary on how the US wrecked and destroyed Mexico.. I couldn't believe what pieces of s*** we always were" Anyway, I find this video interesting and love that I have a guide to help me to avoid traps.. there are a lot of facts I didn't know .. I csn tell you a great deal about Slavic and Balkan history and how our tribes fought each other.. We made it ,like, a popular game that every now and then we still enjoy a nice, friendly, genocidal brawl with our neighbors.. We're all like brothers here

United States conquered all of Mexico. Took the land. Winner takes the spoils. And returned half of Mexico, the part the United States did not want. Gun point, ridiculous lol

Still culturally Anglo-Saxon

FIVE OF THE FOUNDER FATHER'S * WELSH *???. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿👍

@@nesepo umm... no. that goes against the definition of Anglo-Saxon lol. I'm Scottish, we are Celtic and in no way anglos

@@eugenekrabs2805 I know, but the rest of the world refers to the english speaking countries as the Anglo-Saxon countries. All byproducts of the British empire. Even though is not the same ethnicity and you speak Gaelic, you are part of the commonwealth unfortunately

@@nesepo Equating the terms British empire and Anglo-Saxons is another good example of making a mockery of history. The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic tribes that invaded what is now England. Wait, so the colonizers were themselves colonized? My little brain is about to explode!

Heh, I think the one you were taught makes more sense (or cents I guess if I wanted to be punny). The British government could have just let settlers be killed, or to be really Machiavellian, pay Natives to take out settlers. Most likely though, the answer was both taxes and prevent war.

American history always emphasizes the tax issue because "taxation without representation" is the main justification for fighting for independence. In reality, there was no tax as we know it today, with the US not introducing income tax until 1909. Instead, the tax was mostly import/export duty on goods, which you could say is a bit like sales tax, but not really since the people moving the goods around pay the duty ahead of time and whether they pass that on to customers is up to them. There was also a tax on paper products, but once again it was the people making and selling the items paying the tax, and you wouldn't expect frontier people pushing west of the mountains to need much paper. So the settlers moving west of the mountains wouldn't be paying a substantial amount of tax anyway.

Sounds to me like a sketchy hypothesis. In Pontiac' War, the British Army, and colonial militias, confronted the native confederation organized by Chief Pontiac. While the British eventually prevailed on the battlefield, King George III was dismayed by such violence. He imposed a Royal Ordinance, prohibiting colonists from settling in the then-"Ohio Territory." So without winning on the battlefield, the tribes managed to win a political victory.

2/ King George III preferred a benevolent policy toward Native Americans. He established a well-funded endowment for the benefit of Canadian Natives.

Sounds like a plan

Eso suena a pura conveniencia

ikr

That type of attitude is the highest form of Arrogance.

That's how a lot of Western liberals treat non-white people - like they are dumb children.

It’s called the white savior complex. They do this Africa and Asia too.

Mexican for a 25 year period. Mexico's first constitution 1815 did not include California, New Mexico (Arizona) or Texas as Mexico. Those territories were not involved in Mexican independence from Spain. Some Navaho and other California and SW tribes may have Spanish names, most were unconquered and had little contact with the Spanish and never acknowledged Mexico or identified as Mexican. In fact no one in these territories identified as Mexican until after 1821 much less the unconquered Indians who were never controlled by either Spain or Mexico. To date these northern tribes, Ute, Comanche, Shasta, Piaut, Pueblo, Apache, Kiowa plus hundreds of other tribes had little contact with the Spanish , did not and still do not identify as Mexican or mestizo, in fact many are 100% Indian. Going back to the era, from a better perspective, as for the Spanish settlers, those who lived during approximately 1821 to 1848, take a few years before and after, lived under three flags. Up to 1821 the historical flag of Spain, then some foreign soldier from very far away comes along and tells them they are now Mexican and changes the flag. A few years later another soldier comes along and tells them they're American, a new flag. True story..

@Kat-fq4ei The resistance of natives in Texas discouraged Spaniards, or Mexicans, from settling there. Mexicans managed to establish a brief presence in New Mexico a few years before the British founded Jamestown in 1,597. Natives later drove the Mexicans out of New Mexico, who weren't able to establish themselves there again for another ~14 years.

@@Kat-fq4ei History experts have been doing new research and they are discovering all kind of documents discrediting most of the things you are claiming. The research will be coming out next year 📜

@@quarefremeruntgentes This is ridiculous, historically speaking. Spain did not recognize its Spanish Colonial settlers as Mexican. Spains caste system was Peninsulares, born in Spain; crillos, children or offspring of Peninsulares born in New Spain; mestizo , mixed European and Indian, mulatto, of black mix.... but no Mexican. New Spain Catholic Church records from the Colonial era document those baptized/marriage/deaths in Spain or New Spain as Españoles, mestizo, Indio. But not Mexican. You are totally way off in New Mexico , founded by Spain under J de Onate, a crillo Spaniard, establishing San Gabriel 1598 in northern NM and first capital in todays USA by Spanish settlers under Spains rule; ten years later the capital was moved to la villa de la santa fe de San Francisco de Assi, known as la villa or Santa Fe, back in 17, 18th centuries. All of this wording came from Spain, not the New World. 1680 the Pueblo Revolt and the Spanish were exciled away from the indigenous Pueblo Indians territories in northern NM after 80 years by the Indians, to uncolonized El Paso which was in New Mexico in the 1600s. El Paso was abandoned after the northern NM settlers left and was not in Texas at that time. These same Spanish colonists returned back to northern NM twelve years later under Gov Don Diego De Vargas from Spain in 1692 during which New Mexico was reconquered, resettled; with colonists, governors, towns, agriculture, vineyards, herds, European culture, soldiers, Church, Spanish land grants even awarded to conquered Pueblo Indian tribes. So to date, descendants of Spanish settlers have been in northern New Mexico for over 400 years, today USA. And non immigrants , rather are in their homeland.... The oldest continued USA government building, Palace of the Governor is in Santa Fe, the oldest annual festival in today's USA is in Santa Fe, la Fiesta de Santa Fe in honor of northern New Mexico patron saint, La Conquistadora, who returned with the Spanish after the Revolt. These were Peninsular or crillo governors and governed and controlled by the Crown of Spains viceroy in New Spain Mexico City, as well as all other many New Spain territories-- territories of California, Texas, Nueva Galacia, Nuevo Leon, Nuevo Estramadura, Mexico, Yucatan, Navarra , Cuba, today's Central America, Caribbeans, Philippines, Louisiana to Florida, etc. They all were governed in Mexico City by Spain and the viceroy. New Mexico just one territory of many in New Spain, the Kingdom of NM was populated by Spanish settlers during the SW Spanish Colonial Period 1598-1821; followed by the very brief 26 year Mexican Period 1821-1846, Mexican citizenship; to become 1848 US Territorial Period and US citizens going into statehood 1912. There was no Mexican or Mexico until 1821 under Mexico's 1824 constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicanos. All citizens became "Mexican" in 1824, in what became the Republic of Mexico, including Anglo settlers who lived in the young Mexico... This isn't history 101, it's 6th grade history. And there is significant documentation by Spain on New Spain historical records during the 300 years Spanish Colonial era housed in museums and libraries in Spain, Mexico City, Santa Fe. The only "Mexico" when Spain invaded in what they named Vera Cruz 1519 was a couple hundreds miles inland, Tenochtitlan, Aztec Montezumas kingdom, renamed "Mexico City" by Spain. Tenochtitlan was mexica Aztec territory or valley of Mexico, limited to what is central Mexico today, Spain named this territory Mexico, (a no brainer as it was Aztec mexica territory) surrounded by many other territories. All claimed by Spain, one by one after each exploration over several decades. Aztec were basically Indians, not Mexicans... your Mexican version, probably taught by Chicano Studies history revionists, is totally upside down, inside out. By the way, Mexicans were not colonists in New Spain Spanish era, 1525 historically speaking, the European Spanish Peninsulares/crillos were the colonists..... The Aztec mexica indigenous were not in control of anything, Spain was the political rule, Church, finances, infrastructure, government, horses, weapons, settler. Not Mexicans...

@@georgeocampo4275 Disclaiming what, exactly.....

I believe there is a whole documentary here on youtube that debunks lies made up to make Columbus look bad. Also who do you mean by "yall"?

@@kaleb5926 y'all=you all/you lot, usually used in the southern US, can you link it please??

The British would still have given birth to the USA.

The British only came because they found out it existed because of other countries

@@juanantonio7435 Yeah the Spanish appeared a century before British colonization. The British appeared so late, they actually thought the Mississippian Mounds were built by ancient Canaanites/Egyptians. When the Spanish just outright visited and documented them, before they were abandoned.