Posted on 05/02/2006 5:46:47 PM PDT by Tactical
Mexico in the 19th Century
Many presidents, generalisimos, emporers, dictators, etc. came and went, which brought a long period of instability that lasted most of the 19th century.
During this period, many of the mostly unsettled territories in the north were lost to the United States. Mexico had a population of about 8,000,000 in 1846 of which about 60,000 lived in the northern territories--mostly in New Mexico (53,000) and California (7,000).
Many of us think of what a mess Mexico is today, but when you look back at it's history, 'revolution' seemed to be the action word. Overthrow after overthrow. Even it's original constitution was similar to the U.S. Constitution, but it was commonly overlooked. I guess the rule of law never has been much of a concept in Mexico unless it's suited someone in power??
Anyway, I was wondering about the U.S. war with Mexico and the eventual treaties that made the southwest a part of the United States.
Something of interest to me was the population of these areas back then and how unpopulated and sparsely settled they were.
Hearing and reading comments today from people supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, it's often brought to our attention that we forcefully took the southwest from Mexico and murdered their people.
What has been neglected to be said is that many of these people became U.S. citizens and remained in the southwest.
Mexico had failed to develope the areas because they were basically deserts and the return for investment wasn't plentiful. Back in those days Mexico gave land grants in the northern parts of the current Mexico and in the U.S. southwest territories. With the stipulation that the people become Catholics and Mexican citizens.
Back in the day when Napolean beat Spain and took over ruling Mexico, the Catholic church lost it's power. They've had their hands in Mexican politics/revolutions ever since.
Draw your own conclusions with that bit of info.
At any rate with the immigration debate going on, I suggest a fair and equitable settlement to the whole entire problem.... ready?
The U.S. could allow 7,000 illegals to remain in California and 53,000 illegals to remain in the then New Mexican territories. I think that covers New Mexico, Arizona and parts of Colorado. Anyway, since that's what the population was in the southwest back when Mexico lost the war with us, it seems fair to be big about all of this.
Of course the remaining illegals would have to be deported and seek legal means to live within the U.S.
But I'm just a dumb hick in fly over country, so what do I know?
So, you're not going to factor in for inflation (high fertility rates)? ;^)
Nevertheless, my gg grandfather started a ranch 7 miles from Fort Bowie in SE Arizona in 1883 (3 years before Geronimo surrendered).
Not just Santa Ana; Pancho Villa was said to have had 100 "wives" but only 7 legal wives.
Pancho's first and legal wife was Luz Corral who could not bear children because Pancho gave her syphilis. She told my wife this back in the 60's when she visited her in Nuevo Laredo. My wife's mother was kidnapped by Pancho when she was a baby; this was a tried and true Pancho method to recruit pistoleros. Her father joined and then escaped with his daughter. Don't believe this? My wife's ancestors have a spanish land grant from the King of Spain along the rio grande.
My information on Pancho Villa's wives came from a woman who's grandfather was friends with Pancho Villa. She told me the only woman he built a home for was Luz- she pronounced it almost like lew-eece or a long drawn out Lucy is that the first wife you refer to? The irony is the lady that told me about Pancho Villa lives in Columbus, New Mexico. Life takes funny turns doesn't it?
Are you saying he only had one wife? The lady that told me about Pancho Villa portrayed him as a Robin Hood type.
The people of New Mexico were never Mexican.
Did you know thast the fertility rate in the British colonies of North America between 1715 and 1776 were the highest known to world history. The difference between the Colonials who faced the British Army in New Jersey was that the Colonials were several inches taller on the average. Better nutrition, you know, I(AC, Americans of boith European and African stock bred like rabbits during the decades before the Revolution. This was even though the death rate was high, which it would remain until the 20th Century.
But we'd better deport them, anyhow, just to be on the safe side.
/sarc
Yea I just did an average of my family first seven generation born in America from 1635 to 1920... the average was 9.285 children per generation.....
While I could see ..."slave population pushed the colony toward popular government"... as a contributing factor to the pushed to popular government
.... I would then expect the epicenter of the moves to popular government and later revolution in the colonies would mirror the epicenter of slavery in the colonies
...I.E the center popular government / revolution would have been in the South and New England a non factor
This does not seen to be the historical case and historian Morgan argument seen to have a built in PC spin of "the Slaves payed for our freedom"
Virginia and Massachusetts had very different histories, but it is worth noting that the elites in Virginia and in Massaachusetts still had enough in common to form a coalition. This mirrored the English whigs, where the Whigs were an alliance of great landowners and the merchant class of the City. Each was disposed against a strong central government, because each wanted to control their local control. Against them in 1789 was the coalition led by General Washington, who as CINC had suffered from the factionalism of Congress and who realized the need for a stronger central government, especially after the popular rebellion known as Shays Rebellion.
Look up the definition of "tongue-in-cheek" for my post. However, no birth certificate, or valid form of ID might be a start and something that the Border Patrol already does before deporting someone. But first we might consider securing our borders a bit more before we worry too much about immigration enforcement.
After that, for those in country that are here illegally, we have to handle them one at a time. This problem didn't happen overnight and won't be solved overnight.
Personally I'm not so worried about illegals that come to work and better themselves. But there's no need to shove demands down America's throat and mention that "honkies" should go back to Europe.
That brings out the protectionist in me. But like I said, what do I know?
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.