U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-16-2016, 11:47 PM
 
9,389 posts, read 3,183,058 times
Reputation: 4449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by karstic View Post
Spain had a far more powerful manifest destiny, more land and gold, so did France, Belgium, England.....but what I'm trying to state here and what was experienced in our long history is that those vast expanses are ALWAYS lost in the long run.

the U.S.A. wasn't set up or run like Spain, France, Belgium or England.


Spain couldn't hold their colonies because of their culture and system they ran for centuries in those colonies that is felt today in Latin America and it shows with their problems today.


U.S.A is not losing any of the territories we got from wars and treaties because we treat those territories and the people in it totally different than the other Empires of Europe did to their colonies.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2016, 02:35 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,720 posts, read 4,338,852 times
Reputation: 1856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
U.S.A is not losing any of the territories we got from wars and treaties because we treat those territories and the people in it totally different than the other Empires of Europe did to their colonies.
The Philippines.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 17,784,537 times
Reputation: 11103
The legality of Mexico's claim to those territorities was dubious to say the least. To actually have a legal right demands an infrastructure, administration, protection and active involvement in the area. Mexico had none of it. They didn't develop the territories at all, it hade a couple of thousand citizens, and not even elementary police or military protection for their own citizens.

Though it's not exactly the same thing, think a mining claim. You claim, pay for the claim, and you have to start your mining operation in a reasonable time, or you will lose your claim. Mexico claimed, but did nothing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 05:49 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 713,822 times
Reputation: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
The legality of Mexico's claim to those territorities was dubious to say the least. To actually have a legal right demands an infrastructure, administration, protection and active involvement in the area. Mexico had none of it. They didn't develop the territories at all, it hade a couple of thousand citizens, and not even elementary police or military protection for their own citizens.

Though it's not exactly the same thing, think a mining claim. You claim, pay for the claim, and you have to start your mining operation in a reasonable time, or you will lose your claim. Mexico claimed, but did nothing.

They were within the legacy left from Spain. In the case of California, it was a very rich territory with very rich ranchers and were very organized, including local infrastructure. They also created a society composed by Criollos, Irish and many Americans that arrived before and accomodated to that type of society. Griffith himself was a Californio.

If you read the book Old California, it will dispel all the propaganda of squatters.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 17,784,537 times
Reputation: 11103
Quote:
Originally Posted by karstic View Post
They were within the legacy left from Spain. In the case of California, it was a very rich territory with very rich ranchers and were very organized, including local infrastructure. They also created a society composed by Criollos, Irish and many Americans that arrived before and accomodated to that type of society. Griffith himself was a Californio.

If you read the book Old California, it will dispel all the propaganda of squatters.
A massive territory with around 8000 non-native people organised with local infrastructure? How could that be possible? It's you who is spewing propaganda.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 12:57 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,720 posts, read 4,338,852 times
Reputation: 1856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
The legality of Mexico's claim to those territorities was dubious to say the least. To actually have a legal right demands an infrastructure, administration, protection and active involvement in the area. Mexico had none of it. They didn't develop the territories at all, it hade a couple of thousand citizens, and not even elementary police or military protection for their own citizens.

Though it's not exactly the same thing, think a mining claim. You claim, pay for the claim, and you have to start your mining operation in a reasonable time, or you will lose your claim. Mexico claimed, but did nothing.
So, do you likewise support the 19th century Russian conquest of what is now Kazakhstan?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 01:30 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 713,822 times
Reputation: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
A massive territory with around 8000 non-native people organised with local infrastructure? How could that be possible? It's you who is spewing propaganda.

Around 30000 non-natives organized with local infrastructure and cities. Some vast organizations such as misines, aqueducts, cities such as Los Angeles, etc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 02:20 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,315 posts, read 3,035,331 times
Reputation: 9820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
The legality of Mexico's claim to those territorities was dubious to say the least. To actually have a legal right demands an infrastructure, administration, protection and active involvement in the area. Mexico had none of it. They didn't develop the territories at all, it hade a couple of thousand citizens, and not even elementary police or military protection for their own citizens.

Though it's not exactly the same thing, think a mining claim. You claim, pay for the claim, and you have to start your mining operation in a reasonable time, or you will lose your claim. Mexico claimed, but did nothing.
By 1842 there were almost 47,000 non-native residents in New Mexico alone. Santa Fe was over 200 years old by then. Acequias, missions and roads were well established. A trade accommodation was reached with the Comanche tribe who traded in Taos. Gold was discovered in New Mexico in 1826 but the government was capable of maintaining control over mining. When Texas mounted a feeble attempt to assert a claim on New Mexico the party was captured and sent off to Mexico City. Spain, and then Mexico, had a solid claim and exercised authority. It was a far-flung outpost community with farms and villages up and down the Rio Grande valley that worked with some autonomy...but it became difficult to manage when Mexico tried to centralize authority in Mexico City.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,900 posts, read 7,913,009 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by karstic View Post
Nobody asked them, they were just guests. De fuera vendrán de quienes de casa te echaran....."give somebody an inch and they take a mile".
Beg to differ - they were invited because the Spanish (subsequently the Mexican) government couldn't persuade enough of their own native citizens to settle in the wild & dangerous undeveloped northern lands. When the gringos arrived, they became citizens of Mexico.
Of course the majority of them didn't "assimilate" like the Mexican government desired. Some did, like Stephen Austin.
If the Mexican government hadn't turned into an autocratic dictatorship, then the Texas Revolution would not have occurred when it did. The Texans & Tejanos weren't the only ones unhappy with Santa Anna. Seems the citizens of Zacatecas objected also, and thousands wound up being slaughtered the bloody hands the dictator.
There is a reason the Texans' battle flag at the Alamo was the Mexican Tri-color with "1824" on it (in support of the Mexican Constitution of 1824).

As for the large influx of immigrants (illegal & legal) in recent decades - what makes anyone except extremists think those good folks want to revert the Southwest back to the corrupt government & poverty they escaped from?

People need to chill, our descendants will all be brown eventually anyway.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2016, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 17,784,537 times
Reputation: 11103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
So, do you likewise support the 19th century Russian conquest of what is now Kazakhstan?
No, because Bukkhara and Khiva were actual functioning societies.

(In truth; I don't care.)
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top