How Hawaii was annexed by the USA

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
I believe that the majority of the “native” Mexican population is really “mestizo”, meaning it is mixed Spanish-native. There is a very small number of more or less “pure” native tribes in Mexico but the numbers are quite small.
More than a question of “purity” is a question of way of life and culture. If a person is raised in a tribe, accepted by the tribe, has the tribe values and culture has his own, then he is a member of the tribe, doesn’t really matter if he is pure, not pure, mestiço, white, black or pink, as far as he is human.

In Texas, the Spanish (later the Mexicans) invited American impresarios to settle the land because there weren’t many Mexicans willing to come here and the government saw these settlers as a convenient buffer between the Mexicans and the Comanche and Apache tribes. Big mistake.
Didn’t knew that the Spanish had invited USA businessmen to establish in their lands in Texas. How and when was that?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,517
Didn’t knew that the Spanish had invited USA businessmen to establish in their lands in Texas. How and when was that?
Moses Austin received a grant from the Spanish, but colonists from the US did not arrive until 1822, a year after Mexican independence.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
Moses Austin received a grant from the Spanish, but colonists from the US did not arrive until 1822, a year after Mexican independence.
Note that I don’t know much about the issue, thus my initial question, but specifically what I was asking was if the Spanish *invited* USA citizens to colonize Texas.

Having faith on Wikipedia, it doesn’t seem what happened with Moses Austin, the initiative and the plan came from him, not from the Spanish authorities:

“In December 1797, Austin and a companion traveled to investigate the Spanish mines. In 1798, the Spanish colonial government granted to Moses one league (4,428 acres). In return he swore allegiance to the Spanish Crown and stated he would settle some families in Missouri. Stephen remained behind to salvage the Virginia business, creating a rift between the two brothers that would last for much of the rest of their lives. The state of Virginia seized much of the property Moses owned and broke up the various operations, which were later purchased from the state at great discounts by Thomas Jackson and his partners.”

And

“In 1820, Austin traveled to the Presidio San Antonio de Béxar in Spanish Texasand presented a plan to colonize Texas with Anglo-Americans to Governor Antonio María Martínez. The Governor rejected Austin's plan due to the ongoing attacks on Texas by American filibusters. An old acquaintance, Felipe Enrique Neri, Baron de Bastrop, who was living in San Antonio at the time and well-liked by the Spaniards, helped convince the governor to accept Austin's plan. In 1821, the governor asked Austin's friend, Erasmo Seguín, to give him the news that he had been awarded a land grant and permission to settle three hundred families in Texas. On Austin's return trip, he became ill, and he died in June 1821, shortly after arriving back in Missouri. His son Stephen F. Austin carried out his colonization plan several years later, and led the three hundred families to what became the first Anglo-American settlement in Texas.”

Quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Austin
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,517
Invited is probably not the right word. Austin and others approached the Spanish and Mexican governments. Given what happened, and the nature of those governments, they probably used money to get these land grants and so on through.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
Invited is probably not the right word. Austin and others approached the Spanish and Mexican governments. Given what happened, and the nature of those governments, they probably used money to get these land grants and so on through.
That is now my idea. Initially I raised the question because it seemed somewhat off. I also read somewhere that Austin had to convert to Catholicism to receive the grant. It was also on Wikipedia, but now I missed the link.

Anyway found this:

“...Algunos eran filibusteros activos, que buscaban una anexión a largo plazo del área por parte de los Estados Unidos. En 1812y 1813, la expedición Gutiérrez-Magee intentó separar a Texas de Imperio español. En respuesta, el gobierno español en México ordenó un genocidio de toda la población tejano-estadounidense y de sus colaboradores entre la población tejano-española. El resultado fue la total devastación de Texas, lo que lo dejó con un tamaño de población igual al que tenía a principios del siglo XVIII.”


Google translation:

"... Some were active filibusters, seeking a long-term annexation of the area by the United States. In 1812y 1813, the Gutiérrez-Magee expedition attempted to separate Texas from the Spanish Empire. In response, the Spanish government in Mexico ordered a genocide of the entire Texan-American population and its collaborators among the Texan-Spanish population. The result was the total devastation of Texas, which left it with a population size equal to that of the early eighteenth century. "

From: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_Texas#Texas_español_(1690-1821)

Can you confirm? There are not sources mentioned there, but there must be some sources to confirm such a huge massacre.

EDIT:

Found this: “Arredondo then entered San Antonio and proceeded with the harsh pacification of Texas. In San Antonio royalists shot 327 persons, and in Nacogdoches one of Arredondo's lieutenants carried out a similarly bloody purge. Despite the victory of the royalists, the Gutiérrez-Magee expedition so intensified interest in Texas that complete peace could not be restored. The province remained the center of plots or the object of invasion until Agustín de Iturbide finally brought the revolution to an end.”

From: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qyg01
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Invited is probably not the right word. Austin and others approached the Spanish and Mexican governments. Given what happened, and the nature of those governments, they probably used money to get these land grants and so on through.
Maybe the word “invited” was poorly chosen, but in the end, it amounted to the same result. If a government - in this case the Mexican one as Spain was already out of the picture when the land transfer took place - gives an impresario 4000 plus acres to settle 300 American families in Texas, that seems pretty much a gift to me. And the Mexican motivation was as I stated in my post: the American settlers - who would have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Mexican government - were hoped to provide a buffer against the Comanche and Apache raiders. More, it was hoped that these 300 settlers would also keep the uncouth and obnoxious American filibusters and out of Texas. In this they pretty much failed.

In fact, the settlers did form a sort of buffer between the Mexicans and the marauding natives, but they didn’t keep the incursions of filibusters at bay. Moses Austin whose idea it was to form a colony in Texas, was a citizen of Spain, but he died and transferred the project to his son, Stephen F Austin who then had to transfer the land deed to his name which was granted by the Mexican governor in Bexar.

The reason the US made no move to invade Texas was simply that the US had a treaty with Mexico that President Jackson refused to abrogate. There was a fair amount of pressure put on him in Congress at the time but he remained adamant. Later, following the Texas Revolution and the Mexican defeat at San Jacinto, the issue became much more inflammatory because of the extension of slavery issue. Slavery was not permitted under Mexican rule. The North was vehemently opposed to annexing Texas.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,517
You wouldn't get a grant of land from Spain, Mexico, or most other countries without money or connections. These are two of the most corrupt countries around. It is common sense they didn't get those grants without paying people off. You really think they were just giving away big chunks of land to foreigners?
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
Maybe the word “invited” was poorly chosen, but in the end, it amounted to the same result. If a government - in this case the Mexican one as Spain was already out of the picture when the land transfer took place - gives an impresario 4000 plus acres to settle 300 American families in Texas, that seems pretty much a gift to me.
Like I said, the word invited was what ring a bell. It would be anachronistic in the end of the 18th century. In fact that is a medieval Iberian institution. Granting lands to settlers in exchange to the fidelity to the crown. With vassal-liege responsibilities. It is a pre-19th century nationalism institution. It happened in the Iberian Peninsula in the Reconquista, it happened in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies during the Age of Exploration. The Mexicans apparently inherited it in some way, even if they were not a kingdom.

You wouldn't get a grant of land from Spain, Mexico, or most other countries without money or connections. These are two of the most corrupt countries around. It is common sense they didn't get those grants without paying people off. You really think they were just giving away big chunks of land to foreigners?
Don’t know about the two of the most corrupt countries around. We are talking about the 18th/19th centuries, money would change hands quite easily in many countries in the world. But that is an interesting question that I don’t know the answer. The question here was the corruption, the mentioned inheritance of a medieval anachronistic institution, or both?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
You wouldn't get a grant of land from Spain, Mexico, or most other countries without money or connections. These are two of the most corrupt countries around. It is common sense they didn't get those grants without paying people off. You really think they were just giving away big chunks of land to foreigners?
I don’t know about money paid “under the table”. The truth is, Texas was basically empty and in need of settlement. There were wild and dangerous Indian tribes which pretty much roamed at will through the countryside. If you look at some of the Spanish colonial missions, a number of them were fortified against Indian attack, similar to fortified ranches in far west Texas. Since the Mexican Government had trouble recruiting settlers from Mexico south of the Rio Grande and since American settlers were eager to come in (they had to discover the Indian dangers for themselves), Moses and Stephen F Austin found willing ears in San Antonio de Bexar.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,517
Well, if businesses want something from the government in Washington, they make campaign contributions and hire lobbying firms. The Congressional committees and regulatory agencies are generally strongly influenced by the businesses they legislate on or regulate. My understanding is that in Mexico City thing are more blatantly corrupt.

I can't see how the Spanish and Mexican governments were granting land for free to businessmen, who would then resell it, without those businessmen handing out money in some way.