Most major US cities not originally British or US

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
#34
L

Right. Yanks.
OP says majority of US MAJOR cities were NOT founded by AMERICANS or BRITISH.
List proves that of the top 30 cities 22 (the large majority) were founded by either British, American citizens (including anglo-Texans) or American organisations. Only 8 have non “Anglo” roots.
You claim that the British only founded a couple and that Allen etc were yanks.
YES, yanks. The op claimed they (Americans) did not found most of them.
When they did... and since the op lumps the British and Yanks together so should we as it fits the premise of his argument.
It’s in the title of the thread- most major cities in the US are not US or British... but it’s wrong. 22/30 of the top major cities are US/British in origin.
Dear Edric,

Most of cities in USA were not founded nor by Spaniards, nor by French, Dutch, Swedish or British.. but by people from USA! Yankees.. if you prefer. As you well know.. British only stablished some cities in the East Coast...by other side... often settlers stablished cities in places other peoples were sooner... for Example, Tampa.... the first european in Tampa was Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528, April... and later.. Don Hernando de Soto was in Tampa... and in 1763, the British. However the city was stablished by Yankees in 1849.

Regards
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
#35
He and a Mexican partner laid down the plans for the real settlement. It has been counted as both Spanish and English.[/QUOTE

San Francisco was established by Spaniards on 1776.. by Don Juan Bautista de Anza...a Criollo born in Sonora, New Spain whose family came from Guipúzcoa. He fought all his life against Apaches and Comanches. and Don José Joaquín Moragas.. a Criollo born in Arizona, New Spain and who stablished San José de Nazaret (today San José in California). Anza and Moragas stablished el Presidio Real de San Francisco.. and other Spaniard, from Balearic Islands, Don Francisco Palou stablished Misión de San Francisco de Asís...

In this forum there is a great specialist in this issue....maybe he can put light... but I don´t know any British in the stablishment of San Francisco... not even one! If I am not wrong.. the first British in San Francisco was William Richardson in 1835... 14 years later New Spain became Independent... in the year 1821.

Los Ángeles was stablished by Spaniards september 4th, 1781.

In this link the first 44 settlers settled in City of Los Ángeles
All of them Spaniards..not even one British surname! The Spaniards founded Los Angeles were:

14 Mulattoes
11 Indians (the corny people would say american natives... I prefer Indians from the West Indies).
10 Garifunas (mixed between negroes and indians)
5 Mestizos
2 Negroes
1 Peninsular from Cadis, in the Kingdom of Seville in Castile
1 Criollo from Chihuahua

The diversity of the spanish expeditions and the settlement operations.... is classic... Spain lacked of human power... so need to incorporate others ethnicities from the first moment.... Los Ángeles and California have a great diversity from the first moment of Spanish colonization.
 
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#36
Yes. I’ve proven that already.
BUT
The whole thread, if you have read the title.
Says
The MAJORITY of US cities were NOT originally BRITISH OR US... which is wrong.
THE BRITISH OR US... as per the subject of the thread are lumped together... and according to this project the majority of MAJOR cities were originally BRITISH OR US.

That the US makes up the majority of THOSE, is irrelevant to the op’s thread, as they didn’t claim the majority were British and neither did I.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
#37
Yes. I’ve proven that already.
BUT
The whole thread, if you have read the title.
Says
The MAJORITY of US cities were NOT originally BRITISH OR US... which is wrong.
THE BRITISH OR US... as per the subject of the thread are lumped together... and according to this project the majority of MAJOR cities were originally BRITISH OR US.

That the US makes up the majority of THOSE, is irrelevant to the op’s thread, as they didn’t claim the majority were British and neither did I.

I thought you wrote San Francisco was stablished by a "Mexican" and a "British"... and it didn´t

USA was built by USA.... remember: Australia belonged to Britain.... As New Zealand, South Africa...Canada, most of India,... but not USA.... British Dominions in what today they are USA... was not very large. Both Spain and France had largest dominions in North America. (and minor population too).
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,679
Portugal
#38
He and a Mexican partner laid down the plans for the real settlement. It has been counted as both Spanish and English.
The mission and the presidio were already there, when "He and a Mexican partner laid down the plans for the real settlement." That is like saiyng that the Romans founded Lisbon or London.
 
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#39
I thought you wrote San Francisco was stablished by a "Mexican" and a "British"... and it didn´t

USA was built by USA.... remember: Australia belonged to Britain.... As New Zealand, South Africa...Canada, most of India,... but not USA.... British Dominions in what today they are USA... was not very large. Both Spain and France had largest dominions in North America. (and minor population too).
Yes. A Mexican man and an Englishman founded the city that became San Fransisco.
That does not mean it was a “British” city.
But it does mean it does not fit the OPs premise of “most cities were not originally US or British”.

From the list of the top 50 cities, that I wrote it was clear that almost all of them were US/American. And since nowhere on this thread have I mentioned “the British” without also adding “Americans” .... because the op classes them together.

So to repeat...
OP - Most Major cities are not US or British in origin.
ME- actually MOST major cities are US or British in origin. Look. 39/50 were originally one of those.
 
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#40
The mission and the presidio were already there, when "He and a Mexican partner laid down the plans for the real settlement." That is like saiyng that the Romans founded Lisbon or London.
First, I’d argue that yes London started as a Roman city, what was there before it was insignificant, or in the OPs phrasing, London was originally Roman.
Were local Britons scattered about the area?, probably.. but the Romans built the first town.

So no, the mission means nothing, it wasn’t a town or set out to be one. Besides, as I said, Richardson and Fransisco de Haro laid down the first plans for a town in that location. So they get the credit.

Having read a bit more about Richardson, I do acknowledge he was a Mexican citizen at the time he laid the plans down, so maybe in fairness it should count for the OPs NOT American or British in origin.
But that still means 38/50 major cities are...
 
Likes: Scaeva