The argument for acquiring California and other Mexican territories often centers on historical claims, economic potential, and cultural ties. Proponents believe that these areas can enhance national resources, foster economic growth, and strengthen geopolitical influence. However, it's essential to recognize the complexities of such claims, including ethical considerations, the impact on local populations, and international relations. Ultimately, any discussion about territorial acquisition should prioritize diplomacy and respect for sovereignty.
The California territory took a vote to decide if California should become a state.
Germany was interested in becomes allied with Mexico. Germany promised Mexico territory it lost during the Mexican-American war (Texas, Utah, parts of California) should they form an alliance.
The manifest destiny was the United States should stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This was realized during the Polk administration when the US annexed California and the Mexican territory in between.
look on a map it should be the whole south-west territory around mexico. but they already had sertain states in that area but not the whole state.(I think). California, Arizona and New Mexico.
Mexican
Mexican is always capitalized but not the people. It should be--- Mexican people.
This is how u should use territory: Our enemy has gotten into our territory.
What kind of territories to create in the new lands. Should the status be created by Congress or should Popular Soverignty be permitted. How many states should be created and how to draw their borders.
To defend you God-given right to own slaves. Not really, but that was the main reason of the Mexican-American War; and unless you had your share of lands in California or Texas, you were basically supporting a war for rich slave owners. See related questions.
Yes, Mexican is always capitalized because it is a proper nou n.
because it should
No they should not.