Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share What if Mexico Had Won? (EP.45)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
What if Mexico Had Won? (EP.45)
Summary
Personal freedom, opportunity, and an honest and non-meddling government mean far more to a society and it’s success than geography, climate and natural resources. Everyone, perhaps especially those who live south of our border, should be happy that Mexico lost the in 1848.
Links and References
The Dinner Table
“Give A Man A Fish…”
Contact
Please do reach out with comments or questions. You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.
Transcript
In the Mexican American war of 1846 to 1848, the US took New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas and Western Colorado from Mexico. And the US and Mexico are both the better for it. As is the rest of the world. Yes, I believe that President Polk picked the fight; he basically started the war. And at the time, the war was highly controversial, with Ralph Waldo Emerson famously not paying taxes to support what he saw as an unjust war. He wound up in jail, chiding his friend, Henry David Thoreau, for not being similarly committed. “Why are you here?” asked Thoreau of his friend while visiting him in jail. “Why are you not here?” responded Emerson, challenging his friend for continuing to pay taxes that in part supported the war.
Neither Thoreau nor Emerson could see what we see now. By picking--and winning--the fight, the US added huge amounts of land and resources, bringing them into a democratic, capitalist society with relatively little corruption and organized crime. And, at the same time, the US took that land away from Mexico, preventing the land, the people on the land, and the resources from winding up as part of a country, Mexico, with a failed economy, massive government corruption and even more massive organized crime--the drug cartels. With its fortuitous defeat, Mexico became smaller, and the US bigger. A key benefit is that fewer people now need to escape from a smaller Mexico, and have a larger US to escape to. If Mexico had the lack of foresight to lose, a much larger number of people would be trying to escape into a smaller US.
Let’s deal with a couple of possible counter arguments:
We “stole” the land.
If Mexico had been allowed to keep states like Texas and California, they would have done as well with them as the US did.
Let’s take the arguments in turn:
The “stolen” argument. We took it from the Mexico after the Mexicans had taken it from the people who already had lived there for many, many decades. Just as we did in the US. There’s no moral high ground here.
Then there is the “Mexico would have done as well” argument. This one is easy to expose. Take a look at San Diego and Tijuana; they share the same geography, climate and ocean, yet they are starkly different. San Diego is an open, free city, with an annual per capita income of $31K. Tijuana is a cesspool of drugs and crime, with an annual per capita income of $843. San Diegans have 37 times more income, yet live a few miles away. No one is trying to sneak across from San Diego to live in Tijuana. Why? Personal freedom, economic opportunity, personal safety and a relatively corruption free government. When the US took those several states away from Mexico, these huge advantages accrued to that entire geography that was taken. Would anyone seriously want California, Texas and the rest of the “stolen” states to be subject to the same corruption, economic devastation and major gang control as exists in Mexico today? What would the world--not just North America--be like if that many more people from South of our border--and all over the world--were trying to come into a dramatically smaller America?
View all episodes
By Will LudenSummary
Personal freedom, opportunity, and an honest and non-meddling government mean far more to a society and it’s success than geography, climate and natural resources. Everyone, perhaps especially those who live south of our border, should be happy that Mexico lost the in 1848.
Links and References
The Dinner Table
“Give A Man A Fish…”
Contact
Please do reach out with comments or questions. You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.
Transcript
In the Mexican American war of 1846 to 1848, the US took New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas and Western Colorado from Mexico. And the US and Mexico are both the better for it. As is the rest of the world. Yes, I believe that President Polk picked the fight; he basically started the war. And at the time, the war was highly controversial, with Ralph Waldo Emerson famously not paying taxes to support what he saw as an unjust war. He wound up in jail, chiding his friend, Henry David Thoreau, for not being similarly committed. “Why are you here?” asked Thoreau of his friend while visiting him in jail. “Why are you not here?” responded Emerson, challenging his friend for continuing to pay taxes that in part supported the war.
Neither Thoreau nor Emerson could see what we see now. By picking--and winning--the fight, the US added huge amounts of land and resources, bringing them into a democratic, capitalist society with relatively little corruption and organized crime. And, at the same time, the US took that land away from Mexico, preventing the land, the people on the land, and the resources from winding up as part of a country, Mexico, with a failed economy, massive government corruption and even more massive organized crime--the drug cartels. With its fortuitous defeat, Mexico became smaller, and the US bigger. A key benefit is that fewer people now need to escape from a smaller Mexico, and have a larger US to escape to. If Mexico had the lack of foresight to lose, a much larger number of people would be trying to escape into a smaller US.
Let’s deal with a couple of possible counter arguments:
We “stole” the land.
If Mexico had been allowed to keep states like Texas and California, they would have done as well with them as the US did.
Let’s take the arguments in turn:
The “stolen” argument. We took it from the Mexico after the Mexicans had taken it from the people who already had lived there for many, many decades. Just as we did in the US. There’s no moral high ground here.
Then there is the “Mexico would have done as well” argument. This one is easy to expose. Take a look at San Diego and Tijuana; they share the same geography, climate and ocean, yet they are starkly different. San Diego is an open, free city, with an annual per capita income of $31K. Tijuana is a cesspool of drugs and crime, with an annual per capita income of $843. San Diegans have 37 times more income, yet live a few miles away. No one is trying to sneak across from San Diego to live in Tijuana. Why? Personal freedom, economic opportunity, personal safety and a relatively corruption free government. When the US took those several states away from Mexico, these huge advantages accrued to that entire geography that was taken. Would anyone seriously want California, Texas and the rest of the “stolen” states to be subject to the same corruption, economic devastation and major gang control as exists in Mexico today? What would the world--not just North America--be like if that many more people from South of our border--and all over the world--were trying to come into a dramatically smaller America?