Replies

"First, let's get this real clear ~ ALL the Eastern Seaboard English colonies had Sea to Sea land claims going at the time of the American Revolution. These were ceded to the United States at the time of it's formation under the Articles of Confederation."

Several problems. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. At the time the English government illicitly granted sea to sea rights Spain already claimed a lot of the territory and had explored much of the Southern United States. (Where do you think the English got their maps?) Second, some of those sea to sea titles conflicted with each other. Third, the British government possessed the Ohio river valley after the American Revolution so the sea to sea claim was negated by that as well. (Pittsburgh is the site of the French fort where Lt. George Washington and the regiments he led were captured twice during the French and Indian war.)

"It's only because Spain was an ally that the US did not press it's Western land claims. However, after the Mexicans rose up against Spanish rule, all bets were off."

Two problems. The United States did not have legal Western land claims. The Spanish Western land claims existed before the English colonies even existed and before the United States came into existence. Second, have you ever heard of the Spanish-American War and the War with Mexico?

"Texas' claim to half it's own territory was questionable in light of earlier claims to the same territory by Georgia and South Carolina anyway."

Spain's claims and exploration came first. The Spanish missions existed in Texas before the English set foot in the New World, and the International Court of the time had already ruled in favor of Spain.

"Claims that the USA simply "took" or "stole" Mexican land are too simple and do not account for all the competing claims. Even the argument that Mexico was the legitimate successor state to Spain (in the territory ascribed to Mexico) is suspect inasmuch as it would be as easy to argue that Florida was the legitimate successor state to Spain for the same territory."

Except that it was in Mexico's possession.

I'll ignore the rest of your argument for now.

In 1541 two great explorations of what is now the United States and Canada took place. One was undertaken by Huguenots from France under Jacques Cartier and focused on the St. Lawrence. The other was undertaken by DeSoto, the richest man in the world, who employed many, many, many Spanish Protestants. (Recall that earlier that Pizarro had managed to loot the Inca Empire).

It would be difficult to believe these two expeditions were not coordinated in some manner, particularly since many of the principles had been schooled in Saumer, a town that became the site of the greatest of the Huguenot fortresses in the Religious Wars.

Many of my French ancestors ended up settling sites named in DeSoto's elaborate journals including the only place in the Ohio Valley that had any appreciable quantity of gold. They did this under the authority of the King of France and with the permission of their cousin, the King of Spain although at that time the King of Spain had ceded his claims to the Eastern Seaboard to his cousin, the King of England.

The Sea to Sea grants were given in good faith by the King of England (Scotland, etc.) because no one had yet taken a good look at the West Coast although the English already had as good a claim to California as anyone, and possibly more since Sir Francis Drake discovered San Francisco Bay in 1579.

As you no doubt recall, the King of Spain, hand in hand with his sister the Church, did not build a mission in California until 90 years later. Amazingly they all claimed serious problems with the weather. Cabrillo, who reported some West Coast adventures in 1542, left those reports behind. He also appears to have MISSED San Francisco Bay.

As you can see the early discoveries concerning the West Coast (the other end of the Sea to Sea claims) are shrouded in mystery and intrigue. But the only conclusion that can be drawn is that His Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, didn't have as clear a title to the West Coast as some today presume, and absolutely nobody can believe Cabrillo's claim that Southern California was racked with storms.

Not sure you understand the British presence in the Ohio Valley AFTER the American Revolution.

The Treaty of Paris allowed them to maintain forts there to protect their interests in the fur trade. They didn't OCCUPY the place.

Further, they, themselves, did not claim sovereignty over what we Americans called "The Northwest Territory". I know for a fact that the French in Vincinnes were all too happy to join with Clark and roll the Brits right out of the place.

After all there were more than a few White Coat escapees living around there who wanted nothing better than to smack the Brits around again one more time!

It was known that the Spanish, our allies, had claims to the Mississippi River, and presumably to everything to the West, but when Napoleon came along, he offered to sell it all to the US. Although there were some people who objected to our purchase on the basis that the Constitution didn't grant the right to extraterritorial acquisitions to the federal government, Jefferson had no problem with this. He knew already that the federal government had acquired land claims to the exact same territory from the States at the time of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, so all he really faced, Constitutionally speaking, was the purchase of a common law claim to land, not the land itself ~ after all, the US already OWNED the land!