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.
I think Mexico is working hard at retaking CA...simply by occupation. So why would they sell it to us?
Mexico NEVER truly occupied or controlled California! EVER.
In 1832, when Mexico gained its independence, the governor of California was a Spaniard with loyalty to the crown. He had less than 150 soldiers at his disposal and the vast majority of them were spread out through the 21 missions.
Mexico went through several decades of utter disorder where they failed to have a stable government. With that lack, they sent incompetents to be governors of California that did such a miserable job that the mission system turned to ruin and ex-soldiers and merchants were given great numbers of land grants. They fought among themselves and there was no true "government" of the Territory of California - which included Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
They only ones who truly found a way to take advantage that California provided were the Americans who entered the land and did was the Mexicans either did not know how to do and simply felt was beneath them.
And, with the utter mess California is in - I doubt Mexico wants anything to do with it.
Commander Du Pont wrote "The country is completely quieted, and, from what I can learn and from personal observations, I am impressed with the belief that all men of substance and respectability would decidedly prefer the American government, and will be much mortified should the territory not be included in the treaty. "
Ex-Lieutenant E. Gould Buffum wrote:"Never in the history of wars among civilized nations was there a greater piece of injustice committed, and the United States deserves for it the imprecations of all who have a sense of justice remaining in them. The probability is that some ignorant scribbler, who had cast his eyes upon the rugged rocks that girdle her seacoast, had represented Lower California as a worthless country, and, that, forgetting justice and good faith, our government left this compromised people to suffer at the hands of their own."
But USA set the boundary at it's present position in an effort to end negotiations quickly and terminate the war.
===============
BTW it is interesting that you would use the word conquer with regard to Mexican immigrants. History is completely clear that it was the USA which conquered Texas and the American Southwest. It is also clear that the Kingdom of Hawaii was conquered. I am not advocating returning these lands, but you can't change history.
Sorry about that but the boundary between Alta and Baja California was set by the Spanish governor in 1804.
Mexico NEVER truly occupied or controlled California! EVER.
That is incorrect.
Those territories were part of the First Mexican Empire under The Treaty of Córdoba and later territories of Mexico when the government change as Mexican Republic.
Those territories were part of the First Mexican Empire under The Treaty of Córdoba and later territories of Mexico when the government change as Mexican Republic.
He is touching upon the fact that the Mexican government failed to establish itself in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado in any significant way. The Mexican governnment was notoriously unstable, lasting on average eight months before falling or being overthrown. In addition to this, California was very poor and barely peopled by Mexicans. Attempts to attract settlement by Mexicans ended in abysmal failure, and instead attracted large numbers of Americans. Mexico (and Spain's) claims to California mostly amounted to lines drawn on a map. Much like France's claims to Missouri and Iowa.
Those territories were part of the First Mexican Empire under The Treaty of Córdoba and later territories of Mexico when the government change as Mexican Republic.
I DID NOT say that California WAS NOT part of Mexico!
I said Mexico NEVER CONTROLLED California!
There were less than 120 presidial soldiers for the entire area, and over a hundred of them were at the missions. When Mexico DID send soldiers to California, they were all CONVICTS, some of whom were sent to a "penal colony" on a channel island. The remainder were so rowdy and uncontrolled that they were sent to Baja California.
Californians formed militias to protect themselves from the disorder created by the ouster of Spain.
You should also get your Mexican history straight. The first decades of an independent Mexico were absolutely turmoil with one leader after another emerging and then being replaced. Yes, General Iturbide - who was once a senior officer supporting the Spanish viceroy - was elevated to president and then emperor. But, this was a new nation with no experience in self-governing.
Santa Ana is a perfect example. A political officer who worked himself up to the ultimate position of emperor was just one of many.
He is touching upon the fact that the Mexican government failed to establish itself in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado in any significant way. The Mexican governnment was notoriously unstable, lasting on average eight months before falling or being overthrown. In addition to this, California was very poor and barely peopled by Mexicans. Attempts to attract settlement by Mexicans ended in abysmal failure, and instead attracted large numbers of Americans. Mexico (and Spain's) claims to California mostly amounted to lines drawn on a map. Much like France's claims to Missouri and Iowa.
Thank you. Well stated and very true.
Constant efforts were made to attract settlers to California. All failed.
The problem was that they were accustomed to peonage in which Indians were virtually slaves of the upper classes. They came expecting the same thing but were thwarted by the Franciscans who would not let them leave the missions to become slaves.
However, when Mexico managed to take the missions away from the friars, the Indians gave up their lands and in most cases entered peonage to the upper classes who had been granted lands.
Mexico's law on commerce were an abomination and prevented California from becoming the economic success it became under American control. Those same laws have held back Mexican progress ever since.
You should also get your Mexican history straight. The first decades of an independent Mexico were absolutely turmoil with one leader after another emerging and then being replaced. Yes, General Iturbide - who was once a senior officer supporting the Spanish viceroy - was elevated to president and then emperor. But, this was a new nation with no experience in self-governing.
And who take advantage of that?
You don't come and tell me USA do it better.
Increasing population in California is explained by the gold rush, not because of government policies of the United States, at that time the Wild West was no man's land.
Increasing population in California is explained by the gold rush, not because of government policies of the United States, at that time the Wild West was no man's land.
Actually, gold was discovered in California in 1812 and there was a brief silver "rush" in the Los Angeles area in 1814.
The Gold Rush started because John Sutter - a Swiss hustler - made a lot of noise and managed to make a whole lot of $$$ by spreading the word of how easy it was to get rich there.
And the USA had already taken California as a territory.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, is a sad and sick individual.
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.
