Talk:Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Linguistic rights

To what extent does the treaty grant linguistic legal rights to residents of the relevent territories? (e.g. the express right to use Spanish on U.S. territory) --Dpr 07:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It says nothing about it. It says that the inhabitants of the surrendered territory get to choose between the two nationalities, and that the religious freedom of those who say will be respected, but nothing about language. –Hajor 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Spanish in the United States also confirms this. However, I asked the question because I believed (perhaps erroneously) that I had seen a references on Wiki stating that bilingual rights of some sort were guaranteed by the Treaty. My bad. Thanks! --Dpr 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Texas part of the Purchase?

The text states that parts of Texas were included in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but the map seems to indicate that only lands west of the Rio Grande were included

From Mexican Cession talk page:

I adjusted the edit regarding Texas. Although that area was specified as part of the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, it is not regarded as part of the "Mexican Cession" per se (at least by the U.S.), since the U.S. already had claimed it since December 1845, after the Texas Annexation. It's definitely worth mentioning, but not as part of the territory of the MC, since the term is a U.S. history term. -- Decumanus 22:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The view that the Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo don't include Texas is strictly POV since Mexico never recognized Texas independence, and the Treaty directly specified the international border along the Rio Grande. Since those very issues were in dispute in the rationale for war, they must be characterized from the standpoint of both sides if the article is to be fully accurate. Tmangray (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

From CalifBobby: In the 1950s I did some plant work for the US Department Of The Interior working off photo copies of the original maps of the Treaty of Hildago. The land that was purchased from Mexico was from the Pacific Ocean to just short of was is now Route 905, and from what is now the border to just short of the Imperial Beach Airport. On a regular Google map you can see the straightness of the top line of the green park area. Extend that line to almost the 905 and go down and follow the border and then back up to the top of the green area along the Pacific Ocean. As I spread seeds and buried some seeds for a few bigger plants I could see some evidence of the buildings of the mexicans prior to the Treaty of Hildago. In the photocopy of the treaty(photocopy in bigger book that contained the maps I was working with) that I read all the residents of that area were to be removed to the new mexican side of the border at the expense of Mexico. While I am here the Treaty of Hildago states that Mexico is to cede its claims to all those territories- not the territories themselves. Many now eliminate the part about the claims so that their readers will think that Mexico had possession of those territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalifBobby (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Where was it signed?

The treaty was signed by Nicholas P. Trist on behalf of the United States and three plenipotentiary representatives of Mexico on February 2, 1848, at the Villa of Guadalupe (today Gustavo A. Madero, D.F.), slightly north of Mexico City.

Wait- I thought that Distrito Federal and Mexico City were the same thing? So if the Villa of Guadalupe is in the Madero delegacíon, then its in the north of Mexico City, not north of Mexico City, right? - Eric 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Back then Villa de Guadalupe was north of Mexico City, as the city was far smaller than it is today. As far as I know the Distrito Federal and Mexico City were only equated in the 1917 Constitution, so the distinction is valid for the period. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Guadalupe Hidalgo?

Would it be stupid to ask why it was called what it was called. -Jim Bart

See above, or the article. But perhaps this says it best:

• On February 2, 1848 the Treaty was signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo, a city north of the capital where the Mexican government had fled as U.S. troops advanced.[1]

Lemme see if I can describe it better in the article. -Will Beback 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Channel Islands / Archipielago del Norte

The Channel Islands wasn't part of the treaty, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcmenal (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Current Map

This map depicts the Mesilla Strip dispute as being favorable to Mexico without any doubt. It must be changed to reflect differing opinions.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible merging with Mexican Cession article

Hey weren't the Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago basically the same thing? Thedrtaylor 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They cover the same topic. -Will Beback · † · 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, do not do this thing! The Cession is different from the history of the treaty itself!

I agree. These are not the same and should not be merged. Hesperian 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Expansion requests

• Cover the resulting boundary dispute after the signing of the treaty near Mesilla, New Mexico.
• Say how the citizenship question was eventually resolved.
• Say how the land-grant question was eventually resolved.
• Explain whether or not the Mexican government knew about and accepted the modifications made by the U.S. Senate.

-- Beland 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Map request

It would be helpful to have a map showing the three successor entities - California, New Mexico Territory, and Utah Territory. As noted above, the existing map needs to be altered to show the disputed area around Mesilla, New Mexico. -- Beland 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The organization was very much under dispute within the US until settled by the Compromise of 1850, so they were not successor entities at the time the treaty was signed and ratified. --JWB (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Valuation

Does anyone think it would be beneficial to put the dollar amounts in more understandable terms? Using an online inflation calculator, the 15M + 3.25M in 1848 dollars adjusts to 381.4M in 2006 USD. Worthwhile? --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The most appropriate valuation would be based on GDP. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE VALUATION INDICATED INT THE ARTICLE or in your comment. For national projects (wars, territory purchases, debt, large infrastructure) the GDP valuation is most relevant and the one a historian or historical economist typically uses. My guess is that this would put the purchase price up into the 100's of billions, and possibly more than current market value (ex improvements.) With this in mind, I doubt such a fact would survive in such a sensitive article so I would prefer eliminating any transformation to modern value. A second option is to state the treaty terms and point interested parties to an article on value, inflation, etc. (assuming there is one.) 69.125.146.118 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Noting GDP or GDP per capita or some relevant price statistics might be good, but doing a conversion yourself is not a good idea. If a reputable source does a conversion in the source, that might be relevant.

The US offered much higher prices for Cuba and parts of northern Mexico in that era, and that's relevant. --JWB (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The following statements should be cited or refactored to ensure that they are accurate and uncontroversial and do not represent only a single point of view amongst many:
1. "... the United States subsequently failed to honor." Linking to honour in that sentence also seems to be pushing a POV.
2. "little choice but to accept the United States demands, or risk total annexation of Mexico."
3. "the huge loss of Mexicos' northern territories"
4. "The amount of money given to Mexico for the territory annexed, half the amount the United States was willing to pay for it before the outbreak of war, was openly seen as a token gesture and a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. had used brute force to gain the Mexican land."
5. "the United States's appetite for territory was not satisfied"
Hesperian 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly endorce getting more citations for this article. However I would have to disagree with your following points:
1. It is poven fact that the US failed to respect property laws that it said in the treaty it would. However, yes, I will find citiations to back this up. As for Wikifing the word "honour", what you just claimed didnt even occur to me.
2. There was a large "all of Mexico" movement in the U.S. in those days, as unappealing as it may seem to someone in the year 2007. Again I will find references.
3. It was seen as a huge gain in the U.S., the opposite was true in Mexico. Self-evidently true.
4. Evidence is given in the form of the contemporary newspaper sentance... find other views and cite them is you want to present a differnt view from the time, thats fine by me.
5. Again, self-evident; and hardly POV or in need of citations. The Gadsden Purchase(an offical U.S. government action) was extremley controversial, and it involved gaining yet more Mexican territory. Other examples would be the Aroostook War, the gaining of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as Puerto Rico and possibly the Philippines after the Spanish American war. Also many Pacific islands could be used as examples of this too, I'm sure the list goes on.
Instead of just being a critic maybe you could contribute? Fennessy 04:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am contributing. Doesn't pointing out POV concerns count for anything? If you think I'm one of those Wikipedians who does nothing but go around criticising, but never actually builds the encyclopaedia himself, you would be mistaken.

1. Thanks, I think a reference is needed. The "honour" issue is just because there are multiple definitions of the word, and the connotations of the verb as used here, are not the same as the connotations of the noun, as used in the article honour. Linking to the article would therefore seem to imply not only that the U.S. didn't honour (verb) the agreement, but that the U.S. have no honour (noun). I have no doubt the U.S. would argue that there were various extenuating circumstances that relieved them of the obligation or ability to honour that agreement, so the suggestion that the nation therefore lacks or lacked honour would certainly be a point of view rather than a universally accepted fact.
2. Thanks, I think a reference is needed for the assertion that Mexico would have been totally annexed if they didn't agree to the dictated conditions.
3. This is worded a bit clumsily, but it probably isn't a big deal per POV. I'll withdraw.
4. I'm not convinced that that sentence backs up the claim that the sale was "a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. had used brute force to gain the Mexican land." This needs a direct reference, not a cryptic quote. I see what you're trying to say about it not being a freely negotiated sale, but "brute force" is a rather POV way of phrasing it.
5. Ah, that's the problem with OR, isn't it? - What is self-evident to you might not be to the next person. At worst, you are synthesising the U.S.'s various land disputes into a novel narrative that takes the point of view that the U.S. are greedy and immoral. At the very least, by referring to the U.S.'s "appetite" you are anthropomorphising it, which isn't really appropriate writing for an encyclopedia. More than anything else, I think this sentence needs to be refactored and referenced.

Hesperian 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK look over the edits I have made and if you agree there is no perceived POV issue anymore, remove the neutrality disputed marker.Fennessy 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still doubtful about some points, especially the unreferenced "the United States's desire to expand its territory continued unabated", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Hesperian 11:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (Part 2)

The wikipedia article on the Mexican-American War, under the section regarding this treaty, states (again without citation) that Article X to honor Spanish and Mexican land grants was stricken prior to ratification by the Senate. Consequently, if true, the final version of the treaty as ratified by the Senate did not contain such a provision even if the version *submitted* to the Senate did. In this light, it would be grossly inaccurate to say that the U.S. "did not honor" Article X of the treaty. In any case, wikipedia currently has two conflicting articles on the same topic. One states that the treaty included a provision that was not honored, and the other states that said provision did not exist in the ratified version of the treaty. Both cannot be true, and neither bear citation. 70.223.35.28 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Anonymous nitpicker.

Well the fact is that the US didnt honour the version of the treaty that was agreed upon with the Mexican representatives, who were not consulted before the changes were made. Its still accurate to state that regardless of which US govermental body refused to include & choose to modify the mentioned articles. It would definately be a pro US POV edit to somehow claim that the US simply has the right to do whatever it likes. Fennessy 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No one's claimed that the United States has the right to do whatever it likes. However, the treaty was amended and ratified pursuant to US law, and was adopted in its amended form by the duly-appointed representative of the Mexican Government, Luis de la Rosa.DougRWms 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've begun to chip away at the flagrantly POV language of this article. Right now it reads like an amicus curiae brief on behalf of La Raza. The previous incarnation cited an (itself referenceless) web-page clearly biased on behalf of the losers of the war (i.e., Mexico). Also I've removed the POV assertion that the US failed to honor the treaty. The explanatory protocol (agreed to and signed by Mexico's representative) clearly recognizes the land titles in question, and I've amended the article to clearly reflect that fact.DougRWms 03:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DougRWms, but ignoring facts in-itself is POV. You deleted fully-cited statements and made a formerly neutral article into a pro-american POV article. Just because america doesnt come out of it looking good doesnt make an article POV. Discuss any and all future changes here to aviod this turning into an issue that will have to be mediated. Fennessy 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Its not really about making one country look good or the other, its about making the article present the facts. Usually when adjectives are heavily used, thats a red flag, such as "significantly","huge", "unwelcome", "desire", etc.... I'm all for keeping anything that is properly cited - such as the first diff here [2], but the latter part, especiallly under Effects seems to be completely unsourced and pretty POVish. Its not unlikely that Mexican citizens were unwelcome, and that the treaty put the entire area in dispute, but it needs to be sourced, and the adjectives need to be toned down - the facts are the facts - we're not here to make any determination as to the treaty's impact one way or the other, unless we have a reliable source telling us so. I think the revert should be reverted, and the first cite from War's End: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should be added, with any additional sources that appear to bolster the facts in Effects added as they are discovered. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fennessy, if you want to mediate your POV version of this article, please be my guest. Your constant use of loaded, POV language is not justified by citation to EQUALLY POV (and themselves referenceless) websites. I will continue to monitor this article, and remove your POV revisions. Please feel free to request mediation if you think it's appropriate.DougRWms 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't attack other editors. Like you, User:Fennessy is editing in good faith. Like I said above, I generally agree with your more neutral version, but I would encourage you to consider researching and enhancing the section discussing the aftereffects of the treaty on Mexican-US relations, which appear to be real, and do have a place in any reasonable discussion about the treaty (assuming proper sources, of course). - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CosmicPenguin, I fully agree with you about factual accuracy — however DougRWms has deleted such information in his edits. I have no problem with most of the revisions in the effects section(I actually got the anglo stuff from a textbook, not really POV at all), its the edits elsewhere that concern me the most. Fennessy 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DougRWms, your agressive editing style will not be tolerated on wikipedia. The references were all from eductional sources, as well as being factually acurate. If you continue to remove cited facts all you will do is end up being blocked for edit warring. I actually think you have added some relivant points to the article since yesterday, talk over my revisions here in a civil way so this doesnt escalate. Fennessy 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see so far, my changes to the article have been regarded as improvements by the relevant parties at Wikipedia. Although I grant that the US negotiator (who, according to the National Archive site I've referenced, was acting outside his authority) likely dictated the terms of the treaty, the website you cite for that "fact" is simply not reliable. As for honoring the treaty, the question certainly remains open as to whether the US honored the terms as expressed in the treaty as ratified. Nonetheless, the Protol of the ratified treaty makes clear that the land grants were to be honored. DougRWms 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The point that the peace treaty was "largely dictated by the United States to the interim government of a militarily occupied Mexico" is not contentious. To assert that the two participents were equal trading partners would be ridiculous. As for the US not honoring its obligations, that may well be contentious in some cases, but it deserves mention in the appropriate context. Fennessy 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt so far, but talk about further changes on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo article talk page. You are almost engaging in an activity known as edit warring Fennessy 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

You seem to be under the impression that you have the authority to dictate that I get your permission to edit out your POV slant on this article. That's simply not the case. You are entitled to your take on history; however, your personal viewpoint is not appropriate in the article. On reflection I believe that your take on the genesis of the treaty--although worded to sound as negative toward the US as possible--is supported by reliable citations. I continue to add NPOV information to the article from reliable sources. DougRWms 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am under no such impression. But believe it or not your not the first person to disagree with something on wikipedia. It's how you go about dealing with it that matters, and the way people choose to conduct themseleves. On reflection some of the language used may have given you the impression that the US is being potrayed in a negative light, but the deletion of referenced material you just dont like the sound of is way out of line, whatever way you slice it. Fennessy 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep modifying the paragraph about the Senate's changes to the treaty. You make it look like the Senate has authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate treaties, which is not the case. They couldn't call up Mexico an ask them if the changes were all right; it would have been a violation of their constitutional mandate. The fact that the changes were made is a matter of record, and is clearly stated in the passage. DougRWms 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The senate was selective in what it choose to keep, and Mexican considerations were blocked out. Its not POV to mention that no one told the Mexican representatives of this before the Protocol of Querétaro. But whatever it's really no big deal Fennessy 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that there are two fundamentally different points of view on this subject, and a question of fact remains as to who is correct. Doug is incorrect about the Senate's negotiating prerogative. The Senate has broad investigative powers, and may summon people before it without restriction, unlike the judicial branch, which is restricted to hear cases and controversies that are brought before it. This Senatorial power, coupled with the Constitutional requirement that the Senate must approve all treaties by a 2/3 majority, form a mandate of the Senate's input into treaty content which would require a constitutional amendment to override.

On the reverse side of the coin, Fennessy seems to imply that Senate ratification is the final step in treaty ratification, which is not exactly the case. Once a treaty receives "advise(sic) and consent" in the Senate by a 2/3 majority, this is sufficient for the treaty to become U.S. law in terms of being enforcible against Americans in U.S. courts, thus unilaterally binding Americans in American courts. However it does not bind foreign sovereigns unless and until they also ratify the treaty officially. Thus, Senate "advise(sic) and consent" is not so much a final step in the supranational ratification of a treaty, but more like a condition precedent to the possibility.

As to the fundamental discrepancy of fact, there are two versions of history proffered here, neither of which can be absolutely proven correct. The U.S. version of the historical facts differs with the Mexican account. In place of POV judgments, it seems fitting to present both accounts, under separate headings in the same article so as to allow the reader decide for himself or herself whether to accept one side or the other, to reject both accounts, or to conclude that the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides. Since there are no more and no less than two conflicting historical accounts, I don't think it would be improper, nor would it be a NPOV no-no, to present them both, with proper disclosure.

Additionally, in order for the reader to have the full perspective, I believe that it is also crucial to include language that discloses that Mexico never actually held these territories as an independent nation for more than a handful of years. Rather, the lionshare of Spanish (and I do mean "Spanish") dominion of the territories covered by the treaty was under Spain proper. Specifically, it is crucial to point out that Mexico lost these territories to the U.S. shortly after Mexico gained independence itself from Spanish dominion. To fail to point out this fact makes it seem to an otherwise uninformed reader that the United States just one day decided to conquer lands held for centuries by Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.197.107 (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

the opening sentence of this Article is the MOST POV sentence I have ever seen in WP. The CHOICE of what goes into the topic paragraph can be POV in the extreme, as it is here. "The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo in Spanish) is the peace treaty, largely dictated by the United States[1][2] to the interim government of a militarily occupied Mexico City, that ended the Mexican-American War (1846 – 48)." Dehing a veil of these facts neing arguably true (and I do nbot address that issue here) the SELECTION of these cahractgerizations, which DO NOY differ from 95% of all ends of all wars in history, is a conscious choice to imply that this treaty was a violation of international law, or ethics or whatever. Let's take as look at WP re the "Peace Treaty" with Japapn a the end of WW2... does it have have all the superfluous text re "largely dictated by the United States to the interim government of a militarily occupied [capital city]"? No. The quoted text ought be removed and treated below, How about Lee's surrender to Grant (the CSA did not surrender that day, the Army of Northern Virgina did, after the US had destroyed the CSA capital. SteveO1951 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Desire to increase its territory continued unabated while Mexico's economic problems continued..."

Yes indeed, here we go again. The above is not illustrative language; it is POV language. As Fennessy insisted on pointing out elsewhere in the article, Mexico accepted the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo partly out of a fear of total annexation. Had the US desired to have the lot of Mexico, such would have been done. To attempt to cast the Gadsen Purchase--yes, that's "purchase," as America bought it--as exploitation of poor, defenseless Mexico is POV. DougRWms 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"the United States's desire to expand its territory": Manifest Destiny was at its height during this period; suggest you read that article which has detailed coverage. If the treatment in this article needs modification, it is not to suggest that the US was disinterested, but that further expansion had become the focus of not only intense interest, but also of sectional conflict, with much of the North opposing further Southern expansion, especially after the possibility of further Northern expansion had been closed off.

"Mexico's economic problems presisted" (sic): True and hardly controversial.

"Border disputes continued, leading to the Gadsden Purchase in 1854 and William Walker's Republic of Lower California filibustering incident in that same year.": This was introduced in your rewrite, intentionally or not. All sources I can find agree that acquisition of a southern railroad route was the major motivation for the Gadsden Purchase. Walker's raid had nothing to do with boundary disputes.

"the controversial Gadsden Purchase": There is a whole section Gadsden Purchase#Controversy detailing this. --JWB 08:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very poor argument. Yes, the U.S. could have attempted toal annexation of Mexico. But it mainly would have been punative as holding such a vast territory with a relatively tiny U.S. army wouldn't have been productive. And the gloating manner in which you bring it up isn't doing you any favors. No one is casting the Gadsen Purchase as explotation, but stating facts such as a wide spread desire in the U.S. to gain the territory bought in the purchase, Mexico's ruined economy, & the highly controversial circumstances of the purcase(Mexico never even got all of the agreed money from the U.S. for the purchase) is factually accurate. If you can find reliable sources that prove otherwise then be my guest to bring them up, until then you really don't have a leg to stand on. Fennessy 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Given your determination to make this article POV and anti-American, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you any more. I'll simply revert your POV changes back to NPOV and be done with it. DougRWms 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Your addressing two people here. If you delete fully referenced material one more time, I will report you to an administrator. Your edits have not only become counter-productive, they actually damage the article. Fennessy 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Something that is overlooked — some basic, self-evident (!) history that is overlooked when America-bashers take Mexico's (pre-war) borders and territories as a given — and as a sacred realm inherently and indisputably belonging to the Mexican people: North of the United States (in the 19th century and today), Canada stretched (and stretches) from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. South of the United States (in the 19th century and today), Mexico stretched (and stretches) from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Why on Earth should the United States not have access to both seas as well?! Doesn't those countries' encompassing the continent witness to a type of Manifest Destiny (even under another name or expression, or under no name at all) entertained by the British and the Spanish in decades (and centuries) past, in which their men, citizens, and soldiers, moved Westwards (taking the lands from whoever owned it (the Indians) in the process)?!

Why, of the three massive countries on the North American continent, should the United States alone — its only working democracy (at least in the mid-19th century) — be relegated to the Eastern half of the continent, squeezed in on three sides by the two others?! Why must Americans alone be — constantly (!) — browbeaten for allegedly "lusting" after — "tut, tut…" "how scandalous!" "It's an outrage!" — the lands of the Indians, of the Mexicans, and of the Canadians, when the "lands" of the Mexicans and of the Canadians ("their" lands) are made up of territories that both of the latter (and/or the Spaniards and the Brits) also took from the Indians (violently or otherwise)?! (Just askin'…)

Oh, and I haven't even gotten into the late 18th-century expectation, by many in the circles of the British and Spanish crowns, that the young United States would not endure but that it (and its lands) would fall back into their respective country's orbit; or into expectations by a number of Santa Anna's officers (with an army four times the size of America's) who spoke of marching on (and capturing) Washington, D.C. Asteriks (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Information on the Lower Border

Does anyone have any information on how the lower border of the land area was determined (the part that borders the Gadsden Purchase)? It does not appear to follow any natural landmarks (i.e. rivers or mountain ranges).. zimmhead 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just did some external searches and found that the lower border was chosen based on the path of the Gila River, which doesn't really exist beyond Phoenix anymore. Any suggestions as to where (or if) this information should be put? zimmhead 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm0who0net (talk • contribs)

arbitrate arbitration

I am led by google to suspect that article twenty-one refers to arbitration. Please do write about this.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Population?

The article says 20% of Mexicans lived in the ceded territory, and yet the History of Mexico article says about 7000 Californians and 56000 New Mexicans out of 8,000,000 were there, which is far lower than 20%. Can anyone shed light on this? Jcchat66 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1850 population census schedules and supplementary estimates reveal that more than 80,000 Mexican Americans constituted about twenty percent of the enumerated population of the American Southwest in the mid-nineteenth century. Most were natives of the Southwest, and most lived in areas where they had been born. The greatest concentration was in New Mexico Territory. --JWB (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That maybe so, but the article puts it as if 20% of the total population of Republic of Mexico had lived in the territories that were ceded to the United States. This is must be incorrect since 80 000 people definitely didn't make up 20% of the population of Mexico. I don't have the data for population of Mexico at the time, but New Spain article states that the population of New Spain, most of which later became Mexico, was 5 to 6.5 million in 1810. Even considering border changes, population of Mexico must have been millions, out which 80 000 people would make only a marginal part. Unless anyone has anything to argue against this, lets move the 20% thing from the article. Or better, find out the pre American-Mexican war population of Mexico and estimate how large percentage of the population of Mexican was then lost U.S. due the treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.31.186 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the population number include Indians? I believe it must since other sources say that the Californio population of California was about 6,500 at the time of the American conquest, almost all of whom were on the Spanish Mission Trail, now known as the 101 (except for south of downtown LA, where it was reposted as the 5). It's a little disingenuous to refer to the Navaho, Apache, Hopi and the other tribes as Mexican citizens, since they neither spoke Spanish nor paid taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

non-substantive stuff

The second and third paragraphs in the introduction are disjointed, and the third may need to go. However, people more knowledgeable than I am seem to care enough about this article that I wouldn't feel comfortable fixing it. How what the war is called in Mexico and the fact that it is culturally sensitive there don't seem to have anything to do with how long it was held or who lived there—or at least there is no explanation for the connection. The third paragraph doesn't seem to relate to either of the paragraphs surrounding it. Perhaps some transitions and explanations of how the concepts relate would make the intro flow better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.156.171 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed part of the second paragraph and an entirely new third paragraph that was apparently added to provide balance. Undocumented POV comments not covered elsewhere in the article certainly don't belong in the lead and it is doubful whether they belong in this article at all. I'm sure there are more appropriate articles to discuss 21st Century Mexican-American relationships. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral edits

I probably read too much WP:ANI, but I wanted to try to head off any edit wars before they started. The article has a tendency to waver back and forth, and thats understandable due to the strong nationalistic feelings and the overall vagueness of the times. I tried to reflect a neutral position in my edit - at most, we can say that the treaties were interpreted by both sides without any determination of which was right or wrong. And even if Polk didn't go looking for a fight, nearly every scholar agrees that he didn't shy away from it. Thanks. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The material about property rights in the intro I feel is pretty bullet proof. Minor rewording of certain parts is whatever really — this should be included though. ʄ!•¿talk? 03:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Percent of Mexicans in 1850?

This passage is questionable: "There were approximately 80,000 Mexicans in the areas of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas during this period and they made up about 20% of the population." Who made up the other 80%? As a matter of Mexican law, all the indigenous peoples were Mexican citizens. The point needs to be clarified. Tmangray (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Largest Purchase?

Was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the largest purchase of land by the US, or was it the Louisiana Purchase? Renddslow (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Renddslow

It depends on whether or not your recognize Texas as American territory prior to the war or not. The Louisiana Purchase was for 828,800 square miles of territory. The Mexican Cession, not including Texas, was 525,000 square miles. However, the lands claimed by the Republic of Texas amounted to 389,166 additional square miles. Add them together and you get 914,166. My view has always been that Texas was legally part of the U.S. at the start of the war, as Texan independence was internationally recognized by several nations, including some of the world's Great Powers, prior to Texas' choosing to join the U.S. By that interpretation, the Louisiana Purchase is by far the largest land purchase in U.S. history. The Alaska Purchase of 1867, which added 586,412 square miles, ranks second. Jsc1973 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The territories ceded under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were not a purchase at all. Those territories were conquered, the 15 million given to Mexico was more of a token for war reparations than an actual purchase based on the land's true value. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The reparations interpretation is not supported by the provided source. Mexico arguably wasn't Mexico at the time either, as several parties were vying for power and a couple states were independent, and much of the land was still in aboriginal Amer-indian control. The US won some battles and then paid one faction enough to give them control long enough for the US to consolidate its hold on the new territory. The purchase and the fiction that Mexico was some semblance of what is considered the country today is the interpretation supported by the treaty. It gave the veneer of international legitimacy both to the US purchase and to the "Mexican" faction that sold it. --68.35.2.8 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This question -- the identity of the largest single land acquisition in the history of the USA -- is even more complicated than stated by the others. Not only had Mexico refused to recognize the loss of Texas until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but even if one were to concede that Texas was already in the hands of the USA, the boundaries of Texas at that time were controversial. Additionally, there is ambiguity surrounding the extent of the Louisiana Purchase. Not until the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 was the boundary between the Louisiana Purchase and New Spain clarified -- and the Spanish interpretation prior to that date was different from the interpretation of the USA by orders of magnitude. The clarified boundary in the Adams-Onis Treaty was more favorable to the USA than to New Spain, but still represented a substantial reduction -- perhaps 5-10% -- in the territory included in the Louisiana Purchase, as compared to the previous interpretation of the USA. And since the same treaty also included major concessions from Spain to the USA in West Florida, one is faced with the additional question of whether those lands, for that reason, became part of the Louisiana Purchase.

So ... by common usage in the USA, the "Mexican Cession" does not include any part of the land claimed by Texas, since all that land is understood as having been USA land before the Mexican-American War. And yet, the land acquired by the USA in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo includes (in a sense) more than just the "Mexican Cession," since Mexico had not agreed to the loss of Texas before that time. And furthermore, the Texas land claims included substantial territory that the USA had originally regarded as part of the Louisiana Purchase, but had been excluded from Louisiana -- and returned to New Spain -- by the Adams-Onis Treaty. For that reason, the possibility exists to interpret the Louisiana Purchase as being smaller than usually understood. So there is ample room to regard either the Louisiana Purchase or the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as the largest single land acquisition in the history of the USA. The history is too messy for this question to have an unequivocal answer. Paul (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

                      In no sense was the treaty a purchase

Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico?

The statement,"Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico...", is somewhat confusing to me. For instance, if Nevada was a part of the country of Mexico, then after a treaty, it suddenly changes to American territory, how can you state that the people who lived in what was known to them as Mexico had a choice to return to Mexico or become a US citizen? How can you return to somewhere where you have never been? The only way these people could return to Mexico would be to return to what they knew as Mexico, which includes the regions which were lost in the treaty. Lastly, "Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico," is a statement that recognizes a gain without recognizing a lost. The annexed territory of the US is also the lost territory of a country, which was not exactly a bargain to the Mexican people. I believe that this article should be worded differently to depict a more accurate view of history. The way that it is written sort of distorts the the reality of what exactly happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaccooper (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

the policy was clear enough to everyone at the time. Mexicans lived in compact small communities and the word reached everyone. everyone had one year to decide. If you wanted to be a Mexican citizen you left what had now become US territory and went South. If you wanted to stay in place you would became a US citizen. Mexico set up a complex system of grants of land inside Mexico to those who decide to remain Mexicans. see The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict By Richard Griswold del Castillo pp 62ff Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719062738/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1819.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1819.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921220950/http://library.uta.edu/usmexicowar/moduleresult.php?module_id=4 to http://library.uta.edu/usmexicowar/moduleresult.php?module_id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Truthful" is a matter of opinion. WP editors are not opinion writers

Rather than get into an edit war, I'll post this here. I undid the first posting of an edit by User:2806:2f0:7000:116b:6409:d3d5:e1a3:c38 because it's unsourced personal opinion, includes an unsourced quotation, and looks like original research. The accompanying explanation was "(I added truthful information with no intention of offending anyone). The same user re-posted the same text on "23:56, 5 October 2021". WCCasey (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Colorado and Wyoming

The treatment of Colorado and Wyoming in this article is truly confusing. At the time of writing, the lead states that what would become the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, along with portions of modern New Mexico and Arizona, were given to the United States in the treaty.

The section "Terms" states that the Mexican Cession consisted of "all of present-day California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, and western portions of New Mexico and Colorado."

The section "Results" states that only California, Nevada, Utah and (part of) Arizona were ceded definitively, while parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma and New Mexico were ceded "depending upon interpretation".

The section "Terms" also discusses the importance of the Rio Grande, suggesting that the Mexican Cession was West of the river and Texas was East of the river. A quick look at a map of Colorado (e.g. Map_of_Colorado_NA), shows that the large majority of Colorado is North of the Rio Grande watershed and thus cannot be said to be either East nor West of the river. The article History of Colorado states that "the lower portion" of Colorado was ceded in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I do not know whether this is the "southern portion" or the "lower elevation portion", and the latter makes no sense anyway since Colorado is divided between the Colorado, Mississippi and Rio Grande watersheds, and thus its "lower elevation portions" are spread around the outside of the state. That article also makes no claim that any part of Colorado was at any point part of Texas. It thus seems absolutely clear that at least some of the state of Colorado was ceded by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that it is thus wrong to include Colorado under the heading of "depending upon interpretation". The "depending upon interpretation" also lacks any reference or any description of what the interpretations are.

Later in the article there is a mention of Wyoming, which was not referenced in any of the sections above. The article Wyoming also claims that part of Wyoming was indeed part of Mexico. Given that the lower border of Wyoming is 41 degrees N, and the upper border of Mexico prior to Guadalupe Hidalgo was 42 degrees N, it appears that a small but significant part of Wyoming between those latitudes was indeed affected by Guadalupe Hidalgo.

I am well aware of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable secondary sources, but I do not have any on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for what it's worth, states in a short article on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the states involved were "Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah". No mention of Wyoming. CMV512 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Rjensen (talk · contribs) Sorry to bother you, but I have seen your name a lot on pages about the territorial history of the United States. Can you help with this?CMV512 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The solution is to use reliable SECONDARY sources -- here are some 1) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28Treaty%20of%20Guadalupe%20Hidalgo%29 2) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28History%20of%20Wyoming%29 and 3) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28History%20of%20Colorado%29 Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)