Talk:José Antonio Carrillo

terminology "Mexican-American War"

I don't agree with the Anglo-American terminology "Mexican-American War"... when Great Britian ( I love that arrogant, esoteric self title), in their attempt to reclaim lands that were theirs, invaded Anglo-America in 1812, America called it the British invasion or the war of 1812, not the British or English-American War, England, after all, is Anglo-America's first cousin......I think due to Anglo-American nature, when they invaded the Spanish or Mexican lands, they somehow gave their consciousness a legimitacy to include their oponent's name, somehow almost justifying them as a willing participant...all told, they were Anglo-American agressions against peaceful peoples that were sovereign and did not seek armed conflict. California was Spanish domain for 317 years with the last 28 (1820-1848) as a Republic under an almost non-existant rule from Mexico City. Anglo-Americans knew of the gold discovered in California and while spewing their arrogant retoric of Manifest Destiny, led by the Anglo-American President Polk, they were going to take California from the Californios no matter what. California, not Texas, or any other of the then Mexican lands north of the Rio Grande, was the real reason for that war of agression, Hence, in reality, it should rightfully be called "The American Agression of 1846-1848". user:donDeigo

Perhaps that is so, but we aren't here to change things, only to reflect what is current usage. -Will Beback · † · 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, current usage, according to my daughter's 4th grade social studies reader by Rena Korb in public schools in Pasadena, CA, states this event as "Conflict in the American West," "Mexican-American War," "Invasion of Mexico," "Conquest of New California," "Conquest of New Mexico," "Conquest in the Heart of Mexico," and the generic "United States Expansion in the Southwest."

I would most heartily support U.S. Invasion and Conquest of Mexico as a more suitable name for this war campaign, as it seems to reflect "current usage" as of March, 2015. I'm sure there are similar names in academic tracts. MiztuhX (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Casulty count

According to the 1888 published account from Bancroft, 4 US marines died in immediate action, and an additional 10 died later of their wounds...all were buried on Snake Island, now Terminal Island. this count brings the American fatalities for this battle to 14 (fourteen) DonDeigo 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Antonio Carrillo. 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/20120102074700/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm

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) 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)