Save Our State - Mexican Consulate Now Claiming Mexico Aided In US Civil War

Save Our State (http://www.saveourstate.info/index.php)

- Immigration (http://www.saveourstate.info/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Mexican Consulate Now Claiming Mexico Aided In US Civil War (http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=5794)

Mexican Consulate Now Claiming Mexico Aided In US Civil War

Shameless, sickening hijacking to promote mexicans and cinco de mayo as an American holiday, as well as making claims that they fought in the US Civil war

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ry/5demayo.png

Oops ! Little confusion ????

Well it seems that there is actually a great abundance of information that says Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Latinos did in fact fight with the US in Our civil war. The above poster says Latinos fought. I don't see anything about the Country of Mexico being involved. I think the reference is to individuals participating privately.

Mexico, at the time, was actually deeply involved in it's own civil war. On May 5Th, 1862 they defeated the French.

I think, also, that history will show that the USA was actually involved in assisting Mexico in kicking the French out and assuring Mexico's independence.

It never stops. My ancestors fought the Civil War on both sides, I'll see if they can get back to me and let me know if this is true.

And meanwhile ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_Battalion

Quote:

....

The Saint Patrick's Battalion (Spanish: Batallón de San Patricio), formed and led by Jon Riley, was a unit of 175 to several hundred immigrants (accounts vary) and expatriates of European descent who fought as part of the Mexican Army against the United States in the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848. Most of the battalion's members had deserted or defected from the U.S. Army. Made up primarily of ethnic Irish and German Catholic immigrants, the battalion included Canadians, English, French, Italians, Poles, Scots, Spaniards, Swiss, and native Mexicans, most of whom were Roman Catholics.[1] Disenfranchised Americans were in the ranks, including escaped slaves from the American South.[2] The Mexican government offered incentives to foreigners who would enlist in its army: granting them citizenship, paying higher wages than the U.S. Army and the offer of generous land grants. Only a few members of the Saint Patrick's Battalion were actual U.S. citizens.

Members of the Battalion are known to have deserted from U.S. Army regiments including: the 1st Artillery, the 2nd Artillery, the 3rd Artillery, the 4th Artillery, the 2nd Dragoons, the 2nd Infantry, the 3rd Infantry, the 4th Infantry, the 5th Infantry, the 6th Infantry, the 7th Infantry and the 8th Infantry.[3]

The Battalion served as an artillery unit for much of the war. Despite later being formally designated as infantry, it still retained artillery pieces throughout the conflict. In many ways, the battalion acted as the sole Mexican counter-balance to U.S. horse artillery.

....

The American Civil War was from 1861 to 1865 and it should be mentioned that Texas took the side of the Confederacy because many settlers in the area were slave holders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetibbe (Post 20107)

The poster is just one more crock of crap among a mountain of Aztlanista crap.

I recall some Tejanos did fight for the confederacy in Texas (something David Hayes - Bautista would avoid discussing), but I don't believe it went much farther than that. I would have to see that "abundance of information" for myself and verify the sources.

The Mexicans didn't really kick the French out. I see it loosely as a Viet Nam style of defeat - French public opinion didn't back it; the French treasury was hemorrhaging due to the effort to install and prop up Austrian Archduke Maximilian as Mexican emperor; Maximilian wound up being even more liberal than Mexican President Benito Juarez thus alienating the Mexican monarchists who invited Maximilian to the "party"; Even though Juarez was nearly driven into Texas, local groups of bandidos independently conducted a non cooperational form of guerrilla warfare wherever the French Army wasn't actually standing; a potential European war concerned Napoleon III; Maximilian's father in law, King Leopold of Belgium, withdrew support for Maximilian; the United States was concluding its Civil War and was making noises to France about the Monroe Doctrine.

Juarez hung on by the skin of his teeth.

The May 5 battle of Puebla was lost to the French due to stupid French arrogance, and no other reason.

Cinco de Mayo is not celebrated in Mexico. The first noises I know about it being celebrated in America was about the time the Chicano movement started. It's never been a big deal in the local barrios, and it wasn't even thought of around here until there was talk in the 1960's about Cinco de Mayo celebrations in Los Angeles.

Cinco de Mayo is all about profit for beverage companies as well as Aztlanista propaganda points - both piggy backing on "any excuse for a party" mentality.

Further proof that the words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are basically meaningless.

Civil war Admiral David Farragut is now "Latino".

His father was born on the Spanish island of Minorca to Catalan (province in Spain) parents.

His mother's family is described as Scottish.

David Farragut was born in Campbell Station, Tennesee in 1801.

Farragut had no Latin American ancestry.

Putting it another way, Hernan Cortes, another deceased white man with European ancestry (born in Extramadura province, Spain in 1485), is also Latino - only more so.

The same loons might say that the Aztec Empire stretched into Canada because Michigan sounds like Michoacan.

I'd like to hear David Hayes-Bautista weasel around the fact that if David Farragut and Hernan Cortes are both Latinos they are both automatically heroes to the Tan Klan according to that line of reasoning.