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.
Yes, I guess that you have to stress that Spanish/Mexicans were bad to Indians to give ground to the illegal occupation of California by Americans.
To be fair and balanced, the Americans had their own bit of dark history in the handling of the peaceful Modoc Indians of Northern California. Early in 1848, the same year California was officially ceded by Mexico, gold was discovered at Sutter Mill, CA, and there was a wild scramble for access routes to the gold fields. This brought the new arrivals in conflict with Indian tribes who had never before seen a white man. In a series of unfortunate misunderstandings, one in which the Modocs were wrongly thought to have attacked a wagon train, white volunteers mistakenly killed several innocent Modocs, while the guilty Shasta Indians were in hiding. This quickly "turned this small and peaceful tribe into a fierce a band of killers as ever fought in the West." *
The Modoc chief, Keintpoos, tried to find peaceful means to settle their disagreements with the whites, but several violations on both sides had poisoned relations. Several hot-head Modoc warriors made Keintpoo's job even more difficult. Finally, in 1864, the area of of Lost River valley had become so populated by immigrants that the government ordered the Oregon superintendent of Indian affairs to remove all Modoc and Klamath Indians to a joint reservation. This was clearly a violation of promises made to the Modocs that they could continue to live in Lost River. The Klamaths were the long-time enemies of the Modocs, so the arrangement was doomed to failure from the start. Life was miserable for the Modocs, and Keintpoos led some of his tribe back to their village at Lost River.
When attempts were made by the military to return the Modocs back to the reservation, the situation deteriorated rapidly and blood was shed. Several engagements ensued over many months, and as many as a 1000 men and a howitzer battery were brought up to dislodge and remove the entrenched Modocs. Finally, "after days of terrific artillery bombardments the Modocs surrendered," but not before many died on both sides. Several of the Modoc leaders were jailed and later hanged, including Keintpoos. The remaining Modocs were removed to Indian Territory. For the number of people involved, it was one of the most costly wars the U.S. ever fought.
*Note:The above quotes were taken from Dee Brown's The American West.
You have to remember, as one poster pointed out, just how far California was from Madrid. It was literally half a world away and Spain's hold on California was tenuous, at best. That their territories in the New World could not be held is demonstrated by the fact that they had lost them all within a couple of hundred years.
Also, the missions hugged the coast because of access to the sea for provisioning and help and because the interior (what we now call the San Joaquin Valley) was a desolate wasteland of sand and scrub brush which people didn't even travel through without risking death.
As for the Indians? It's fashionable now, from this distance, to fault the European's for their treatment of the natives (often with good reason), but we should never forget that those people really did think they were doing the right thing by the natives. The White Man's burden wasn't just a phrase from the history books; it was a legitmate task they felt obligated by their Faith to undertake.
To be fair and balanced, the Americans had their own bit of dark history in the handling of the peaceful Modoc Indians of Northern California. Early in 1848, the same year California was officially ceded by Mexico, gold was discovered at Sutter Mill, CA, and there was a wild scramble for access routes to the gold fields. This brought the new arrivals in conflict with Indian tribes who had never before seen a white man. In a series of unfortunate misunderstandings, one in which the Modocs were wrongly thought to have attacked a wagon train, white volunteers mistakenly killed several innocent Modocs, while the guilty Shasta Indians were in hiding. This quickly "turned this small and peaceful tribe into a fierce a band of killers as ever fought in the West." *
The Modoc chief, Keintpoos, tried to find peaceful means to settle their disagreements with the whites, but several violations on both sides had poisoned relations. Several hot-head Modoc warriors made Keintpoo's job even more difficult. Finally, in 1864, the area of of Lost River valley had become so populated by immigrants that the government ordered the Oregon superintendent of Indian affairs to remove all Modoc and Klamath Indians to a joint reservation. This was clearly a violation of promises made to the Modocs that they could continue to live in Lost River. The Klamaths were the long-time enemies of the Modocs, so the arrangement was doomed to failure from the start. Life was miserable for the Modocs, and Keintpoos led some of his tribe back to their village at Lost River.
When attempts were made by the military to return the Modocs back to the reservation, the situation deteriorated rapidly and blood was shed. Several engagements ensued over many months, and as many as a 1000 men and a howitzer battery were brought up to dislodge and remove the entrenched Modocs. Finally, "after days of terrific artillery bombardments the Modocs surrendered," but not before many died on both sides. Several of the Modoc leaders were jailed and later hanged, including Keintpoos. The remaining Modocs were removed to Indian Territory. For the number of people involved, it was one of the most costly wars the U.S. ever fought.
*Note:The above quotes were taken from Dee Brown's The American West.
It's interesting that the piece you quoted says absolutely nothing about the cold-blooded murder of Gen. Canby and other members of the peace negotiatiators by Capt. Jack and his followers. It's as if it never happened.
Whatever the reason for the war in the first place, the Modoc's had retreated into the lava fields south of Tule Lake and fought the US Army to a standstill. The war never was popular as opinion generally supported the Modoc's position and, when Canby was appointed as Commander of the region, he was getting decidely mixed signals from Washington. Fight or negotiate? Nobody was sure, so Canby acted upon what he thought was best (since the war wasn't going well for the Army anyhow) and contacted Capt. Jack, offering a negotiation session at a place of his chosing. Capt. Jack agreed and, in spite of being warned of the danger, Canby went in good faith.
Capt. Jack and several of his men carried hidden weapons to the meeting and, on signal from Jack, opened fire on the peace delegation from point blank range, killing Canby and several others.
Naturally, the result of such outrageous treachery was a grim determination to settle the Modoc's hash once and for all. They did.
My facts are correct I can assure you. The battles you describe were during the open state of hostilities between Mexico and the U.S (the aforementioned Mexican American War). The morality of the war is probably beyond the scope of this topic (but it is a good topic), but I see nothing illegal. Mexico ceded California to the U.S. in the Treaty of Hildago.
------
No, those battles weren't part of that war. Yes, Californianos were the legal tenants of those lands. They identify themselves up to this day as Californianos or Californios.
If you see nothing illegal about invading a land that it's not yours, and stealing the land from legal owners with scams, then you perceive the world as a jungle in which the stronger prevails.
Anyways, colonialism doesn't work in the long run, we know a lot about that, and all those lands (California, Texas, Nuevo Mexico, Arizona and Florida) will revert to their owners in the long run.
My facts are correct I can assure you. The battles you describe were during the open state of hostilities between Mexico and the U.S (the aforementioned Mexican American War). The morality of the war is probably beyond the scope of this topic (but it is a good topic), but I see nothing illegal. Mexico ceded California to the U.S. in the Treaty of Hildago.
------
No, those battles weren't part of that war. Yes, Californianos were the legal tenants of those lands. They identify themselves up to this day as Californianos or Californios.
If you see nothing illegal about invading a land that it's not yours, and stealing the land from legal owners with scams, then you perceive the world as a jungle in which the stronger prevails.
Anyways, colonialism doesn't work in the long run, we know a lot about that, and all those lands (California, Texas, Nuevo Mexico, Arizona and Florida) will revert to their owners in the long run.
Right of conquest is well established in history and international law. The natives of California are hardly the first, or the last, to be dispossessed by a superior power. If history isn't anything else, it IS a relentless record of conquest and subjegation. You may rail against that all you like, so have others, but that's the nature of the beast and it's not going to change.
As for those people getting their land back? In the first place, what people? Who were the original residents and how did they come to have it? After all, so far as history knows, there were NO original residents of the Western Hemisphere. We all came from somewhere, so which early group gets to claim ownership and by what right? Would be the Mongolian's who crossed the land bridge with Asia, or the Egyptian's or Danes who apparently sailed here long before Columbus? Why doesn't Columbus have a claim? In Mexico, are you talking about Mayan's or Inca's or someone else?
Trying to right every "wrong" done someone by a stronger people would ultimately dispossess every human being on earth and force us all back to our ancestral homelands. Thank you very much, but I don't want to live in Scotland.
I'm just stating that colonialism does not work anywhere. Those foreign invaders living in foreign territory that conquered that land by sheer force will also be dispossesed, probably in less than a century.
The natives and owners of California, Texas, etc, are not the Spanish, Mexicans or Indians, but the offsprings of the Three Cultures.
I'm just stating that colonialism does not work anywhere. Those foreign invaders living in foreign territory that conquered that land by sheer force will also be dispossesed, probably in less than a century.
The natives and owners of California, Texas, etc, are not the Spanish, Mexicans or Indians, but the offsprings of the Three Cultures.
If you think we are simply going to pack up and leave because California and the Southwest is majority Hispanic of Mexican descent you are horribly mistaken.
Quote:
It's interesting that the piece you quoted says absolutely nothing about the cold-blooded murder of Gen. Canby and other members of the peace negotiatiators by Capt. Jack and his followers. It's as if it never happened.
That's because Dee Brown had an agenda. It's even more obvious in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
Colonialism doesn't work? We seem to have held on to ours longer than your century time frame. So have other countries, though they're not now usually called colonies.
Not to mention that the nation our interloping, European forefathers managed to create here is still going pretty strong and it hasn't yet reverted to British or French control.
The Modocs were not a peaceful tribe.They had a warrior culture and were feared by other tribes.Starting in 1847 they raided emigrant parties.In 1852 they wiped out an entire train of 65,only taking captive one man and two girls.The conduct of Keintpuash (Captain Jack) and the events of the Modoc war have been well documented.Post #13 summarizes the treacherous murder of General Canby and several others.
No, those battles weren't part of that war. Yes, Californianos were the legal tenants of those lands. They identify themselves up to this day as Californianos or Californios.
If you see nothing illegal about invading a land that it's not yours, and stealing the land from legal owners with scams, then you perceive the world as a jungle in which the stronger prevails.
Anyways, colonialism doesn't work in the long run, we know a lot about that, and all those lands (California, Texas, Nuevo Mexico, Arizona and Florida) will revert to their owners in the long run.
OK at this point I am going to ask you to prove your statement. I find no evidence of armed conflict between "californianos" or the mexican authorities and American settlers in California before the mexican american war. There was the bloodless "Bear Republic" revolt, it did not involve combat, and even that occured during the war.
So California will revert back to the "owners" huh? I hope you don't define the "owners" as the mexican government, who managed the provinces for a sum total of only 2 decades out of the 13,000 or so years since man crossed the artic land bridges and settled in the region.
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.
