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.
Sorry, those states are Mexico, United States but Mexico, you can´t change that as the Mexican identity is stronger and older and part of the US.
No, two hundred years ago, Mexican identity was weak and this was exploited by talented American military commanders.
At the time of the Mexican American war, the colonial missions in California were still flying imperial Spanish flags and Baja California had been annexed by Mexico (Spain had intended to keep it).
Likewise, Mexican national identity was weak amongst New Mexico Hispanics and even weak in some parts of Mexico proper such as conservative, pro Spanish Guadalajara which refused to send aid in the defense of pro Mexican Mexico City. All in all, weak Mexican national identity contributed to the ability of small numbers of American soldiers and militia being able to capture a lot of territory very quickly.
150 years ago..and American invasion took place 30 years after independence...You are describing the situation in Mexico 30 years before the invasion.
They captured a lot of territory because they were scarcely populated. Mexicans were scarce and Americans bred like rabbits. Sounds familiar?
Spain at that time was in a worse condition than Mexico, if there were Spanish flags in California is because Californios and Mexicans never cared much for flags...and Spain had no pull to claim Baja California when the same Spain was being torn apart by an intermittent civil war that lasted from 1812 to 1939.
150 years ago..and American invasion took place 30 years after independence...You are describing the situation in Mexico 30 years before the invasion.
They captured a lot of territory because they were scarcely populated. Mexicans were scarce and Americans bred like rabbits. Sounds familiar?
Spain at that time was in a worse condition than Mexico, if there were Spanish flags in California is because Californios and Mexicans never cared much for flags...and Spain had no pull to claim Baja California when the same Spain was being torn apart by an intermittent civil war that lasted from 1812 to 1939.
No, it is the situation that existed during the war. Mexican independence was not well received by everyone living in what became Mexico. At the time of the war, the California missions were still flying imperial Spanish flags.
Yes, the northern territories claimed by Mexico (many of the hispanic residents did not identify as "Mexican") were sparsely populated. This also contributed to the American success. So did the non Mexican attitudes of local Hispanics.
As for "breeding like rabbits", my guess is that both Mexicans and Americans at the time had high birth rates.
Mexican history in this part of the borderlands is a footnote. Maybe it is different in Texas and California.
That said, there are a lot of recent Mexican arrivals in New Mexico these days, especially Albuquerque, so maybe a new story is being written, but to broad-brush the traditional culture of northern New Mexico as a people wrested from their 'rightful heritage as loyal Mexicans' is ahistorical.
Yah. The pattern of governance (civil & religious) in Spain & in the Spanish New World was a concentration of power @ the center - Mexico City, in the case of the Viceroyalty. That is where the elites congregated, that was the center of government & finance, culture, religion, education, literature - everything. The periphery was always relegated to the also-rans, & so border issues were mostly malignly ignored.
The various central governments in Mexico City tried to beef up the military & religious & settler presence on the northern border - when they could focus beyond the Zócalo - the authorities were aware of the trade inroads being made by US commercial interests. But the centralized nature of Spanish foreign policy & economics made decision-making @ the strategic level far too slow, compared to the US/entrepreneur model. The Native Peoples & military & settlers in NM fought vendettas, took children & women as prisoners, slaves, hostages, concubines & sometimes wives - & the violence was unremitting. Against that backdrop, & occasional rebellions & revolts by the Native Peoples, importing yanquis looked like a better idea than doing nothing.
No, it is the situation that existed during the war. Mexican independence was not well received by everyone living in what became Mexico. At the time of the war, the California missions were still flying imperial Spanish flags.
Yes, the northern territories claimed by Mexico (many of the hispanic residents did not identify as "Mexican") were sparsely populated. This also contributed to the American success. So did the non Mexican attitudes of local Hispanics.
As for "breeding like rabbits", my guess is that both Mexicans and Americans at the time had high birth rates.
Again...the American invasion took place 30 years after the war of Mexican independence.
There were parts of Mexico that did not feel Mexican, but that`s part of the Spanish legacy and not American business. At that time and now there are parts of Spain that do not feel Spanish, it has been like that during more than 1000 years.
Yah. The pattern of governance (civil & religious) in Spain & in the Spanish New World was a concentration of power @ the center - Mexico City, in the case of the Viceroyalty. That is where the elites congregated, that was the center of government & finance, culture, religion, education, literature - everything. The periphery was always relegated to the also-rans, & so border issues were mostly malignly ignored.
The various central governments in Mexico City tried to beef up the military & religious & settler presence on the northern border - when they could focus beyond the Zócalo - the authorities were aware of the trade inroads being made by US commercial interests. But the centralized nature of Spanish foreign policy & economics made decision-making @ the strategic level far too slow, compared to the US/entrepreneur model. The Native Peoples & military & settlers in NM fought vendettas, took children & women as prisoners, slaves, hostages, concubines & sometimes wives - & the violence was unremitting. Against that backdrop, & occasional rebellions & revolts by the Native Peoples, importing yanquis looked like a better idea than doing nothing.
Yah. The pattern of governance (civil & religious) in Spain & in the Spanish New World was a concentration of power @ the center - Mexico City, in the case of the Viceroyalty. That is where the elites congregated, that was the center of government & finance, culture, religion, education, literature - everything. The periphery was always relegated to the also-rans, & so border issues were mostly malignly ignored.
It was not unusual for official correspondence and dispatches to take a year travelling from Santa Fe to Chihuahua and then Mexico City and returning as a response from the central government. Here is an interesting description and history of "the Chihuahua Trail" that was the only tie that New Mexico had to the outside world until the Santa Fe Trail opened. New Mexico Office of the State Historian | places
The Mexican government generally ignored New Mexico as much as possible but it was apparently able to exert control over discovery of gold in the Ortiz Mountains in 1828 and there was no swarm of outside prospectors as occurred in California some twenty years later. The Santa Fe trail was operating at that time.
The church exerted daily authority on the individual level more than the government. When Kearny arrived in Las Vegas with his army in 1846, he issued a proclamation that mentioned the problems the New Mexican settlers were having with the central government but made a special effort to quell any fear that the Catholic church would be replaced.
....From the Mexican government you have never receivedprotection. The Apaches and Navajoes come down from the mountains and carry offyour sheep, and even your women, whenever they please. My government will correctall this. It will keep off the Indians, protect you and your persons andproperty; and I repeat again, will protect you in your religion. I know you areall great Catholics; that some of your priests have told you all sorts ofstories- that we should ill-treat your women, and brand them on the cheek asyou do your mules on the hip. It is all false. My government respects yourreligion as much as the Protestant religion, and allows each man to worship hisCreator as his heart tells him best. The laws protect the Catholic as well asthe Protestant the weak as well as the strong; the poor as well as the rich. Iam not a Catholic myself- I was not brought up in that faith; but at leastone-third of my army are Catholics and I respect a good Catholic as much as agood Protestant. There goes my army- you see but a small portion of it; thereare many more behind- resistance is useless “Mr. Acalde, and you two captainsof militia, the laws of my country require that all men who hold office underme shall take the oath of allegiance I do not wish, for the present, untilaffairs become more settled, to disturb your form of government If you are prepared to take oaths ofallegiance, I shall continue you in office, and support your authority.
Not directly, no. But the colonies - except that Spain's efforts in the Viceroyalty can't really be called colonies. It was more administrative - with the conquistadores in first place, followed by administrators, priests, Roman Catholic hierarchy. The ordinary colonists tended to be Spanish men @ arms, who were awarded lands in return for their service, & expected to improve the lands & raise families. (But very few Spanish women came over.)
Mexico & Spanish America inherited this pattern - which is why scholars who study Spanish America usually wind up going to Spain to study the archives there, & the models from Spain directly, rather than through their reflections in the Americas. The British colonies, although late, were people looking for either economic or religious or political freedom. & they brought their families with them, & took their chances.
With more localized civil control, the British colonists tended to do better than their Spanish counterparts - & once the British acclimatized & learned which crops to grow, how to plant, etc., they eventually did much better than their Spanish counterparts, because the Spanish model (for the administrators) was to make a pile of money & go back home to be a big shot.
The British-model colonists tended to want to stay in the colonies & grow the economy & their family fortunes. The Spanish model was more about cashing in & returning home with as much loot as possible. Very different models, with very different outcomes. (The relative lack of labor in the British colonies in what became the US also had enormous consequences. Mexico @ the time had large populations of Native Peoples - who the Spanish either allied with or conquered & turned them into a labor force.)
Again, we are not talking about Spain. Spain was defeated, then came the Republic of Mexico.
Thirty years later, the Republic of Mexico was invaded by the United States.
Spanish colonization was a great success with a highlight before the arrival of Pilgrim squatters. As such, much older...almost 450 year old.
If the US ever arrives to that age, it will be in far worse shape than Latin America due to lack of cohesion and identity.
Your history is all wrong, Spanish settlers married with Spanish women because it was the only way to have legitimate and baptised children and inheritors. Mestizos were always ilegitimate. Conquistadors remained in Mexico. Cortez's descendants live in Mexico and still have large properties, etc.
Spanish were ousted by "criollos", Spanish born in Mexico that controlled the economy but not the political power, no political rights.
Your history is all wrong, Spanish settlers married with Spanish women because it was the only way to have legitimate and baptised children and inheritors. Mestizos were always ilegitimate. Conquistadors remained in Mexico. Cortez's descendants live in Mexico and still have large properties, etc.
Spanish were ousted by "criollos", Spanish born in Mexico that controlled the economy but not the political power, no political rights.
Main article: Casta Español and Mulata with their Morisco children.
"Following the Spanish conquests, new ethnic groups were created, primary among them the Mestizo. The Mestizo population emerged as a result of the Spanish colonizers having children with indigenous women, both within and outside of wedlock, which brought about the mixing of both cultures. Many of the Spanish colonists were men with no wives and took partners from the indigenous population.
"Initially, if a child was born in wedlock, the child was considered, and raised as, a member of the prominent parent's ethnicity. (See Hyperdescent and Hypodescent.) Because of this, the term "Mestizo" was associated with illegitimacy. Mestizos do not appear in large numbers in official censuses until the second half of the 17th century, when a sizable and stable community of mixed-race people with no claims to being either Indian or Spanish appeared, although, of course, a large population of biological Mestizos had already existed for over a century in Mexico."
(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL.)
An interesting topic. We should probably start a new thread, if you want to pursue.
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.
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.
Models have consequences
