Posted on 04/08/2006 10:23:27 AM PDT by Travis McGee
"The True History of the Southwest, 101"
The amount of historical idiocy and fallacies surrounding the history of the Southwest is staggering, chief among them the "Aztlan" fairy tales. What's the truth? How did the Spanish Europeans conquer the Southwest? The "conquistadores" (that means "conquerors") did it with the lance, and the lash.
For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico (which included present Arizona during the Spanish era) searching for the "lost cities of gold." One of his first actions upon meeting the natives was to burn 100s of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest--not with hugs and kisses! It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul- mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners today, who spin the "new bronze race of Mestizos" toro-mierda.
By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish rule. However, the distant provinces of the current US Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of independent but strife- torn Mexico. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south. Under Spanish rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indians. Under Mexican neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.
For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in this new power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been around for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal citizens in these regions. Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish-era standard of living. Mexican influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.
Increasingly, a growing America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via gigantic wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the SPANISH in these states subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER considered themselves "Mexicans" at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from SPANISH directly to AMERICAN.
So how long did Mexico City have even nominal control over the Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards until the arrival of the Americans. The SPANISH inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER transferred their loyalty to Mexico City, because all the received from the chaotic Mexican government was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.
Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, now American citizens, have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans stuck in Mexico. To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America they can never obtain in Mexico.
And now, we are supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there? From where does this absurd idea spring?
At what point in history did Indians and Mestizos from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest. The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There were no Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest who were marched to the border and driven into Mexico. It didn't happen. The SPANISH in the Southwest welcomed American citizenship, which brought stability, protection from Indian raids, and a vast increase in their standard of living with the increase in trade.
In sum, NO current inhabitants of Mexico have ANY claim on even one single inch of the Southwest!
NOT ONE citizen of Mexico is sneaking into the USA to reclaim property they were deprived of, NOT ONE.
They are criminal invaders and colonizers, pure and simple.
It's time Americans learned the true history, as a counter to the prevalent Aztlaner fairy tales.
Our Southwest is going to resemble the Balkans on steroids.
exactly. we better wake up. I pray to God Bush doesn't listen to the wishy washy wimps on this issue. mass deportations are in order around May. I pray our laws are enforced for once
Amen sister! I wanted to encapsulate the history, and it would have been too long if I had included Texas' unique origin.
That's right. It's a Trojan Horse immivasion.
A lot of bloodshed. The American future in the SW is surrender, or civil war.
But that is in the cities. Most of the counties of the Southwest outside of the big cities have a very deep "cowboy culture." These Americans are not sissies, and will not go quietly.
We will be in for a Bosnia type civil war, with the invaders controlling the cities, and the Americans controlling the land in between. It might become problematic in the cities, if, for example, their pipelines and powerlines are continually cut off.
I love that Hawaiian factoid!
They are entitled. Possession by right of conquest is recognized by the Law of Nations.
Spain abandoned the territories at issue, in some cases under the application of force by Mexico. Mexico, therefore, occupied some of the territory abandoned by Spain but claimed it all. However, Mexico was unable to maintain control over all it had claimed. Hence, some of the territory at issue was seized and held by Mexico by right of conquest, and some remained beyond Mexico's effective control. This latter, then, became unclaimed territory despite Mexico's assertion otherwise (a claim that connot be enforced has no standing).
When we (the US) won the war with Mexico, we settled the boundry dispute Texas had with Mexico, we claimed the territory abandonded by Spain, and took the balance of the disputed territories from Mexico by right of conquest (Texas, an independent nation for ten years, applied for admittance into the US and was accepted).
We hold these territories by right of conquest. Aztlan can claim these territories by right of conquest. At some point, one of three things will happen.
So not only did we beat them in a war, we paid them for the land in cash.
Case closed.
L
bttt
And part of the "deal" concluded with the treaty was that the victorious American forces would leave Mexico City and the rest of the territory we had taken during the war. That's a pretty good deal for them, we could have just kept it as a subjugated colony.
(Hisotrical fact: Mexico in 1846 had a much larger professional military than the USA. We whipped their a$$es back to their capital with hastily formed and trained volunteers and amateurs. Something they may wish to think about, should push come to shove again.)
The federal govt is at present on the path to surrender in the SW, but it may not happen very smoothly. There are millions of hardcore gringo cowboys in the SW who will not meekly pack up and leave. It will be a bloodbath, it will be Bosnia X 100.
Bookmarked
"You should write a book about this. :-p "
LOL! Yeah, I second the motion!
It's only about about 9 years for California and that's being charitable with regard to all but three, principal settlements.
1821 - Mexico declares independence from Spain. Spanish garrisons in California decommissioned (no money for troops in the boondocks) and rule relegated to Catholic Church through a string of missions.
1836 - Mexico City begins to secularize missions and begins to establish rule of civil law through the presence of Mexican troops and on-site governors. Secularization completed by 1839.
1842- Last Mexican governor dispatched to California. Home rule revolt, not involving non-Hispanic, white Europeans, or illegal, US immigrants, starts upon arrival and governor forced to flee in 1845. At that time California had about 100K natives, 9K Mexicans and 2K illegal immigrants from the US.
1845 - US begins to explore Alta California with both troops and warships.
1846 - Bear Flag revolt and war between Mexico and US.
1847 - Cahuenga Capitulation in January 1847
The Estados Unidos Mexicanos essentially had little or no control over California. the Catholic Church yes. The United Mexican States, no.
After some reasearch, my surmise is that Arizona and New Mexico were no different. There are simply fewer, independent, historical accounts to burst the Mexican myth of benign, close stewardship in those two states. Texas, of course, is another matter.
They are organizing on a massive scale. If they don't get what they want, it will probably turn violent, especially given the intentions of the leadership of this movement.
Here's what they are up to in my neck of the woods.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611553/posts
Not good my friends. Not good at all.
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.