Comments by "Sea to Shining Sea12 Sea12" (@SeatoShiningSeaSea) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interpret the Treaty as you wish, but Treaty or not, the United States conquered all of Mexico, the United States army occupied Mexico flying the United States flag over it's capital, Mexico City. No Treaty was required to take over the land. Victor always takes the spoils, human rule of law back in the previous centuries. Payment for conquered land was unheard of as well as returning parts of the land, wasn't Mexico fortunate... Lands were not stolen and with that mentality, Mexico stole the it's lands from Spain. And Indians stole from Indians. Some Mexicans make s big deal of SW lands claimed by Mexico for all of twenty five years, it was as easy land grab in the far north which Mexico never did control. The lands actually belonged to northern SW Indian's, hundreds of tribes who hated Mexico. The Apache actually sided with the United States and scratched their heads at the United States paying millions of dollars for lands that were not Mexico. The Comanche left Chihuahua in shreds. And raids continued after the War was over. Mexico was bitterly hated by northern tribes who protected their inherent lands. Bottom line, the United States SW was not historically Mexico, Mexico crossing ancient borders was short lived.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xavi4694 The SW was isolated because it was very far in the northern wilderness, from other parts of New Spain. And impossible for Spain to colonize, not only because of the unconquered Comanche, but other tribes. SW became territories of Mexico by a land grab, expansion, after Mexico's independence. All of the territories were different parts of New Spain, by different claims by explorations taking about 60 years. Upon Mexican independence, the very distant territories and SW inherent Indians were mandated Mexican citizens, foreign Mexicans considered estranjeros when they headed north to claim the land. SW was different geographically, culturally, history, political and Indians who hated Mexico. Keep in mind the far north did not participate in Mexico City area politics or the wars for independence between specific territories of New Spain and Spain.
1
-
@xavi4694 Rubbish, Spain had claimed too much territory left in shreds, while it put much of it's strength and finances in colonies from Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Ports were in Vera Cruz, Cuba, Florida, Spain. In time, Spain had legally given up Florida and Louisiana and was in the process of negotiating land grants in bordering Texas territory with M Austin, to American settlers, just before Mexican independence -- Spain most likely would have sold the north SW in time, too much uncontrolled territory in the United States/Spain borders, home to thousands of unconquered SW Indians. Spain no longer held world power. Spain had not strong armed the distant SW Indians, mixed or merged with them to become one people, as with the Aztec and other tribes during earlier colonization in New Spain Aztec territory and Indians from those areas. Spain was fighting a war in Europe against France to save Spain so America was secondary, putting her focus and finances in Europe, loosing the last grip in north America continent. If New Spain belongs to anyone it would be Spain who also lost territories from California to Florida, Cuba, Caribbeans, Philippines, Central America. All of these New Spain territories were ruled by Spains viceroy in Mexico City. New Spains lands should be returned to Spain; in Mexico's case, it stole the lands from Spain. Mexico was just one of New Spains many territories. The New England colonies should be returned to Great Britain to your reasoning. Mexico lost distant autonomous territories in war, unincorporated colonies it did not need, after a legal U.S. conquest and legal real estate purchases. Not to mention the United States occupied Mexico after conquest, flying the United States flag over Mexico; followed by both young republic western world nations signing a legal treaty, negotiating a legal border. Land dominance was power in that era... Look at Mexico, it tried imperialism, grabbing the SW, lost to a greater power. Had Mexico been powerful, won it's War, it would have gloated in taking much of the United States lol. The problem for some Mexicans factions is the border, which is too far north excluding many materialistic, jealous Mexicans from U.S. citizenship. Traitors to Mexico. Always looking north.... Mexico did not need the SW in 1848, anymore than Spain had; and the SW likewise certainly did not need disconnected Mexico. The SW was bridging ties with Americans via the Santa Fe Trail, Americans had already settled in NM and California before independence. MX spent the money foolishly on internal revolutions, new Constitutions, dictatorship and just couldn't get it right for it's citizens. You're still back in the 16th C. And now you want Russia to do the dirty work for johnny come late Mexico. The United States built the SW, is a world power and will fight for the red, white and blue for her rightful lands. What makes you so sure imperial Russia won't take Mexico for herself. You know Russia had her eyes set on the Pacific coast back in the 1700s. Spain stood in the way....since when are Mexicans not racist, they are racist to their own, much more are they racist towards Americano's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The SW for centuries belonged to Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Piute, Shasta, Mohave, Caddo, plus a host of United States Indian tribes today. They were out in the distant northern vast wilderness lands claimed by Spain during later explorations. These hundreds of tribes controlled the lands, were never conquered by Spain. During the 25 year Mexican Period they were territorial enemies, battled with independent Mexico and weren't owned or controlled by any nation until the SW land were claimed by the United States who finally conquered them and placed in reservations. This was 300 years after Spain claimed the distant and isolated territories, unable to develop due to fierce warrior tribes. Both the United States and Mexico became nations and began movement into the SW simultaneously. Spain had negotiates Louisiana to France; and Florida to the United States and was opening up Texas to American settlers by the time Mexico gained independence. Mexico had the same problem as Spain in the removed SW, except it didn't have the political power, patriotizm, influence or finances Spain once had in the SW over a handful of Spanish colonists; and Mexico was not in control of the unincorpoated SW lands. The inevitable War ensued between both nations,; U.S. conquest, purchase, treaty and a negotiated border. Lands were not stolen, you need to go back to the standards and language of those days of which "stealing lands" was unheard of. Conquest was the accepted standard for centuries. Stealing is 20th C history revionists indoctrination.
1
-
1
-
I agree with most of your post. The European monarch looked look at the map after it had been outlined by cartographers after exploration, this is how monarchs knew their claims. Spain explored the many territories, claimed and named them for Spain. Same as Great Britain and France. The era was focued on European conquest, not legitimacy, in the New World. Spain first explored unknown lands, claimed the lands (New Spain), conquered them, later the King (as documented) issued land grants on those territories legitimately under Spanish Law. Today, the NM Pueblo Indians Spanish land grants are protected under United States federal law because of Spains legitimately awarding those lands to these tribes in 1700. But your spot on regarding Mexico in relation to the very distant SW and the United States commercial trade and American settlers since 1821. The distant northern SW was claimed and colonized 1600 by Spain very early in American to serve as outposts colonies. By1800 Spain gave up Florida and Louisiana to the United States; and before Mexican independence, Spain had given M Austin permission for land grant settlements for Americans at a time when the United States was moving west. Spain most likely would have sold the SW Spanish border lands to the United States. In time the SW would have separated from Mexico as Central America. The SW was never connected to today's Mexico, except that it was part of New Spain, as Florida, Mississippi areas. Disconnected by distance, history, tribes, culture, politics. Mexico never had a presence in the SW, imperialistic, Mexico grabbed the SW after Spain abdicated the territories but did not control the autonomous unincorporated SW provinces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@catalyst439 Totally agreed, the Mexican American War happened long ago and there have been conflictd as well as unity between both nations. It is Mexican factions who are the trouble makers, many Mexican American Chicano immigrants, history revionists who promoted stolen lands and Mexicans who make too much of California, Texas, New Mexico/Arizona territories which were not historically Mexican but for the brief 25 year SW Mexican Period, whose populations, be they Indians or Spanish Colonists, were not patriotic towards the young Mexico whose goverenment officials came to the isolated and distant north to claim the lands, met rebellion and were considered estranjeros, and wanted independence from Mexico. Well, the United States saved the day, they became United States citizens under the Treaty of GH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jersey plug claims debunked in the last comments. Unlike todays Mexico Indians, most SW tribes were far removed from the Spanish and did not speak Spanish. Even the Pueblo Indian who stayed in their ancient Pueblo villages, lived in close proximity and allied with the Spanish against raiding Indians such as (Apache), preserved their indigeniuos language and religion, to date, even though they were Catholicized and influenced some by the Spanish and were given authorization by Spain for each Pueblo to self govern their tribe with the self appointment of tribal governor's, still in practice, to date. And recognized even by President Lincoln 160 years later. Unlike the Indians in what is today Mexico, the SW Indians kept their tribal identity, to date, because they were never part of the miniscule Spanish society or was the Spanish society part of theirs, nor did either become a mestizo culture because in the SW the Spanish and Indian did not generally mix. Most Spanish blood was not mixed as the Spanish and Pueblo lived apart practicing their separate cultures. The Apache Navajo Ute Comanche were raiding unconquered enemies even amongst themselves, whose contact with the Spanish was rare. Some Indians knew a little Spanish as some knew a little English. During the Spanish Colonial era, the longest period in the SW, 1598-1821 the SW was not Mexico. Had Spain not claimed the territories of California, Arizona/ New Mexico and Texas back in the 1500s, making those territories parts of New Spain, the young Republic of Mexico of 1824 would be speechless without claim to the territories which were literally a world away, over a thousand miles from Aztec territory. A different geographic area, different Indians, culture, politics and history. In fact, during the Pueblo Revolt, these New Spain indigenous northern Indian tribes chased the Spanish off to El Paso, away from their territory, satisfied the Spanish were gone and off their inherent lands. Ancient borders talk. You are wrong, the SW Indian did not speak Spanish or consider themselves Mexican even during the brief 25 year Mexican Period. They were unconquered, followed no rules much less the Mexican Constitution hehehe... They were bitter enemies to the young independent Mexican republic in awe of the United States paying 15 million dollars to Mexico for lands the Indians knew were not historically or inherently Mexico. In fact the centuries long SW Spanish colonists refused to ally with the Mexican army against the Comanche, the feared Comanche who in turn attacked Chihuahua leaving it in terror -- and shreds.. . Those from Chihuahua and beyond towards the south had no roots in what is today the United States. The Rio Grande tributaries never nurished the Aztec, pooping out in the outskirts of Chihuahua. If you want to return lands where will you start, migration has been since the beginning of time, this tribe took from that tribe and that tribe took from the other, centuries of taking and squatting and on and on.... Indians were not centralized or one people under one government. Oh, since your moral principles are that of returning, the Amerindian should return to Asia, as like the rest of us, they are in truth not indigeniuos to America... Shouldn't the Mexican government return indigeniuos lands to the Mexicans Indians? Make them sovereign lands as the United States government has done with tribal lands. Conquest has always been and who knows what the future will bring..
1
-
@jersey plug claims debunked in the last comments These cases are reviewed under U.S. Indian law, and are determined by the federal courts. You contradict yourself, you want evil U.S. government to "return" lands to the Indians, yet turn the other way excusing Mexicos government taking away or stole Indians lands and feel that they are not due their sovereign lands or reparations. This is hypocrarcy. Mexico and the United States equal in European exploration and claimants of territories, colonization and treatment of the Indians, and 200 years later inherited lands and peoples in the nations they founded off colonization. U.S. lands formally under Spain as Florida and Louisiana, even Texas were negotiated, purchased, Treaty'd, and borders changed. Same with Mexico, who you could very well say stole Mexico from Spain or New Spain, immoral... So the lands rightfully belongs to Spain having flown it's flag in the SW for approx 250 years. Before Spain it was claimed by whichever tribe claimed the land at that time, the tribe who had taken from a weaker tribe, who took from a weaker tribe for inhumanly generations. Who morally need to return to Asia. The young Mexico, same as Spain negotiated a Purchase and Treaty by Western standards with the United States after an undoubted conquest. And another, the Gadson Purchase after the War. A SW population that was forced Mexican citizenship in 1824 were Mexican citizens fo only 25 years, the SW Mexican Period . 25 years does not make a Mexican, especially if not Mexican historically and becoming US citizen inn1848. This population became U.S citizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under Spains governance there were no Mexicans or Mexico. The population were Peninsulares, Crillos, Espanol, mestizo, Indian and mulatto from New Spain which they identified by territory or location, consistent with still existing genealogical records as Spain documented everything. New Spain maps do not chart Mexico.
Mexicans are citizens of the Republic of Mexico per it's 1824 Constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicano's. Like the United States of Americans, Mexicans citizens are diverse -- Indian, European, Asian, Cuban, Middle East etc. Mexicans are racist since it's inception in 1824. You need look no further than the powers that be, Crillos, took Indians lands never to return anything, and your hypocracy questions the United States...
Obviously you are ignorant on Mexican and SW history, making up your own and trust biased and racist Mexicans version of history which they twist and turn, claim a non-existent Atzlan and ancient Mexico with borders up to no end that never existed. And even level headed Mexicans are grateful to the United States and historical facts. SW libraries are filled with Spains documentation on New Spain. Excellent unbiased SW historians who have given their lives examining the volumous writing pertaining to the SW in Mexico, Spain, and the SW. It's not only libraries, but a living history is still existing in Spanish Colonial USA.
1
-
The populations in the territories were not Mexican, there was no Mexico in 1519. "Mexico" is derived from the "mexica" Aztec tribes, which obviously were not the only tribe in New Spain. New Spain was occupied by violent enemy tribes who helped Spain overthrow Aztec Montezuma. Aztec territory was limited to the valley of Mexico (Mexica) in Tenichitlan area renamed Mexico City by Spain. As conquerors of the territories, they belonged to Spain whose flag, religion, language, culture, governing power overruled the Indian. After independence, it is widely established that Mexico City never did surpress revolutions, it's the other way around, revolutions is the history of Mexico which was ruled by Crillos, mestizos, Indians all in conflict and detrimental to the young Mexico.
Mexicans are citizens from Mexico, period. Just like US Americans are citizens of the US; Canadians are citizens from Canada; Cuban's citizens of Cuba. Yes, the Indian in Mexico is racist--anti Spanish and anti American, the mestizo is kinda in the middle, favoring the Indian blood . You have a problem with the United States and are pretty hypocritical. Most likely a racist pretentious do gooder radical left history revionist. Good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some idiots make a mountain out of a mole hill. 25 years, 10 for Texas is nothing during a brief period after Mexico barely became a nation and didn't know south from north. Nothing was stolen from Mexico, the indigenous California and SW Indians still live in their ancient lands, in fact are proud sovereign nations within the USA and are not crying over stolen lands. As far as Mexican Indian tribes, after independence 1824, their own Mexican goverenment took their native lands, stole them in fact, left them nothing... Go back to your country is correct. Any idiot knows that Mexicans ancestors were never or even near California, SW, Nevada, or Colorado and migrated to the USA border areas decades after the Mexican War 1848. Americans had already settled in California and SW almost a hundred years before Mexican migration. History 101.
1