Sunday, January 25, 2009

The "Stolen Land" Argument

The history behind the "Stolen Land" argument.

It starts with the Mexican American War.
The Mexican-American War

The Spaniards had long feared that other European powers were planning to invade their sparsely populated northern frontier. They sparred with the French and English in the Mississippi Valley and watched the Russians expand down the Pacific coast, but after Mexico won its independence from Spain, it was the growth of the United States that proved most significant. The process began with Texas in 1836. Six years later, Mexico's secretary of state, Lucás Alamán, warned, "Where others send invading armies...[the Americans] send their colonists." Desperate to fill empty spaces, Mexico invited Americans and other foreign colonists to settle in Texas in 1824. By 1830 there were already more than twice as many Anglos as Mexicans there (7,000 to 3,000). By 1836 the ratio had risen ten to one. When Sam Houston led his rebels to victory at San Jacinto, Texas remained an independent republic until 1845. Mexicans of Texas soon became a minority in their native land.


"Mexicans of Texas soon became a minority in their native land." Their native land?? Their native land!! How could it be their 'native land' when the Spanish are the ones which colonized the area?? Prior to, and mostly during the claim of ownership for the territory. The original area belonged to the Native Indigenous and not the Mexicans (with less than 3000 Mexican Nationals in 1821) nor the Spanish (where most of the settlements were between the Nueces River and the Rio Grand River. The Texas Revolution in 1836, was a revolution of Mexican citizens, who revolted against the take over of the Mexican government by a dictator. The flag that flew over the Alamo was a Mexican flag with the year 1824 in the middle of it. The reason it has the date 1824, was that this was the date of the Mexican constitution that had been caste aside by Santa Anna.

During Spanish (1598-1821) and Mexican (1821-1846) rule over what was to become the U.S. Southwest, the governments made land grants to various individuals and communities. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which ended the Mexican-American War, the United States obtained these territories, and in Article VIII guaranteed the rights of Mexican and former Mexican citizens to their property.[1][2] However, the U.S. Senate in ratifying the treaty eliminated Article 10, which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments. Thus land grants were subject to being proved.[2]

In 1851, Congress passed the first legislation implementing the property protection provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, however it addressed only the Spanish and Mexican grants in California.[3] Congress focused on California’s land grants first because California was already a populous state, and it wanted to encourage further settlement of the public domain land there.

In 1854 the U.S. Congress established the office of the Surveyor General of New Mexico to ascertain "the origin, nature, character, and extent to all claims to lands under the laws, usages, and customs of Spain and Mexico." At first the Congress tried to deal with each land grant by special bill and the House had a Committee on Private Land Claims, seats on which were sought after as a way of dispensing patronage. By 1880 the corruption[4] inherent in determining these claims by politics rather than on a legal basis forced an end to this practice.[5] For ten years no claims could be proved as against the United States.

So the U.S. Congress, in 1891, created the Court of Private Land Claims consisting of five justices appointed for a term to expire on December 31, 1895. The court itself was to exist only during this period, although its existence and the terms of the justices were from time to time extended until June 30, 1904. This court was given jurisdiction over claims to land in the territories of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, which had not been previously proved and affirmed by the United States. Many of these Spanish or Mexican land grants were based upon incomplete documentation, in part because those governments did not issue deeds to the grantees, and records were kept variously at the territorial, state, vice-royal or imperial level.


Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the changes made by the US Government.
The version of the treaty ratified by the United States Senate eliminated Article X[15], which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments. Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX, changing the first paragraph and excluding the last two. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would "be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)" instead of "admitted as soon as possible", as negotiated between Trist and the Mexican delegation.

The treaty was subsequently ratified by the United States Senate by a vote of 38 to 14 on March 10, 1848 and by the Mexican government by a legislative vote of 51 to 34 and a Mexican Senate vote of 33 to 4, on May 19, 1848.

Protocol of Querétaro

On May 30, 1848, when the two countries exchanged ratifications of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they further negotiated a three-article protocol to explain the amendments. The first article stated that the original Article IX of the treaty, although replaced by Article III of the Treaty of Louisiana, would still confer the rights delineated in Article IX. The second article confirmed the legitimacy of land grants pursuant to Mexican law.[16]

The protocol further noted that said explanations had been accepted by the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Mexican Government,[16] and was signed in Querétaro by A. H. Sevier, Nathan Clifford and Luis de la Rosa.

The United States would later go on to ignore the protocol on the grounds that the U.S. representatives had over-reached their authority in agreeing to it.[17]

Treaty of Mesilla

The treaty of Mesilla which concluded the Gadsden purchase of 1854 had significant implications for the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article II of the treaty annulled article XI of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and article IV further annulled articles VI and VII of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article V however reaffirmed the property guarantees of Guadalupe Hidalgo, specifically those contained within articles VIII and IX.[18]


On to the technical details.

Land grants

Before Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, the Spanish government had made a few small grants of land in southern Arizona. In 1789, Toribio de Otero petitioned for a lot from the Tubac presidio in return for military service. The land remained in the Otero family until 1938. In 1807, the O'odham of the Tumacacori mission received title to a long strip along the Santa Cruz River south of Tubac encompassing the former mission lands of Tumacacori, Calabasas, and Guevavi. Part of this grant was the land auctioned off in Guaymas in 1846. In 1812, Agustín Ortiz purchased the site of Arivaca, an important mining and ranching center since the mid eighteenth century, at public auction. Charles Poston purchased that hacienda from Ignacio Ortiz in 1856 for $10,000.

However, most grants in Arizona were made after Mexico gained independence. In 1821, Tomás and Ignacio Ortiz received a total of about 17,000 acres (69 km²) of land known as San Ignacio de la Canoa and located between Tubac and modern Sahuarita. The following year, the ranch of San Bernardino east of modern Douglas became the property of Lieutenant Ignacio Pérez. It totaled more than 73,000 acres (300 km²) in Arizona and northeastern Sonora. León Herreros acquired San José de Sanoita in 1825, while "Ramón Romero and other shareholders, their children, heirs, and successors received title to San Rafael de la Zanja in the San Rafael Valley the same year. The Mexican government issued five more grants, including Buenavista, San Rafael del Valle, San Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales, Tres Alamos, and the Babocómari ranch, between 1826 and 1831.

During the 1820s and 1830s, Sonoran ranchers strove to colonize the grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Their legal tool was the land grant and their instrument of occupation was the mixed-breed longhorn cow. These longhorn, or their descendants, roamed the range as feral survivors long after their masters were gone.

Hispanic Arizona was again making an effort to roll back the borders of the Apachería. The land grants established Mexican title to much of the Santa Cruz and San Pedro valleys. They also extended Mexican domain over the plains south of the Chiricahua Mountains. Most of the cattle country ended up in the hands of the Elías-González family or their relatives. During the colonial period, the Spanish government supported the mission and the presidial systems in order to insure royal control over the northern frontier. By the 1820s, however, private capital had become the usual method of colonization, and most of that capital belonged to a network of elite families who dominated northern Sonora at the time. They provided the livestock and took the risks.

If the Elías-Gonzálezes and their neighbors had received the land grant twenty years earlier, when they would have been protected by the presidios and the Apache peace program, they might have succeeded, but beginning in the 1820s, the Apaches began to burn their buildings and kill their cowboys, run off their horses, and slaughter their beef. By 1840 most of the grants had been abandoned. Even though the U.S. Court of Private Land Claims eventually confirmed eight of the Spanish and Mexican land grants in the early twentieth century, none of the descendants of the original grantees managed to hold on to their titles. John Slaughter owned the San Bernardino Ranch north of the U.S.-Mexico border, and Colin Cameron's San Rafael Cattle Company had acquired the San Rafael de la Zanja grant. Largescale ranching did not return to the area until the 1880s after most of the Apaches had been confined to reservations. When it did, American land-and-cattle companies, not the Mexican elite, held them.

The most blatant land grab occurred in 1844. Far to the south, in the port of the Guaymas, the Mexican government declared that the mission lands of Tumacacori had been abandoned and auctioned them off for five hundred pesos to Francisco Alejandro Aguilar. The few Pimas who had not been driven away by Apache depredations neither knew about nor consented to the sale. Aguilar was the brother-in-law of Manuel Mariá Gándara, one of the most powerful military strongmen in Sonora. He turned Calabasas into his own private hacienda, and by the late 1840s Pima dispossession along the Santa Cruz was nearly complete.

Some presidial soldiers became so poor that they had to sell their weapons to feed their families. In 1840 and 1841 the Mexican government campaigned against the Tohono O'odham of the western deserts, their former allies. The colony reached its nadir at midcentury. In 1843 the Apaches killed at least thirty shareholders of the San Rafael de la Zanja grant at La Boca de Noria near modern Lochiel. Ranching ceased in the San Rafael Valley. Five years later, at least fifteen Tucsonenses, including nine presidial soldiers, rode into ambush in the Whetstone Mountains. By the time the bodies could be recovered, they were so decomposed that the remains had to be carried back to the presidio of Santa Cruz in sacks. Tubac itself was abandoned once again after an Apache assault in January 1849.

36 comments:

Dee said...

Good Ole Liquid. Stated proof by wikipedia, the revisionist view of history you choose to believe.

First, you miss the entire point of the argument. Those in Texas were Texicans, neither Mexican nor American. The land ownership for the Texicans in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stated those that chose to stay could keep their land.

You cite the ludicrous argument that the Texicans were Spanish. They were not. The Spanish arrived in the 1500s. By the 1800s, the Texicans were just that, Texican. Some Spanish blood, some Native from the Americas.

Consider your relatives came to this land in the 1800s. 200 years later you do not consider yourself from Europe. You consider yourself American. Same with the Texicans.

Then consider, certain members of the U.S. Senate, in ratifying the treaty, eliminated Article 10. However, they did this completely on their own. Now if you actually studied the actual history, you would know the Senate did not talk to Mexico, with whom the government made this agreement. So this exclusion the Senators made was not part of the agreement.

If you have read anything about current history you would know this is the exact point Reies Tijerina was making in the 1960s. He said certain US Senators, on their own, unscrupulously removed this documentation from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The recriprical copy in Mexico proves this.

The bottom line is, the actual Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo PROVES the Texicans, who were NOW AMERICANs, were entitled to their land. This is NOT Reconquista, merely LAND Ownership by the Texicans (New Americans). Instead, the land was stolen by people like the Kings in SE Texas and others and the Texas Rangers allowed them to steal this land.

This is ALL documented in the Texas Handbook which is on-line.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/hck4.html

Poor Liquid.
So much you don't know.
And I learned all of this from my Great Grandfather who was there.

Liquidmicro said...

I see your ignorance and patronizing is still in effect. So, do I need to "dumb things down" for you to understand that everything you have mentioned is pretty much all in my article. Now, did you bother to "read" your link, or did you only read what you wanted to? Do you forget, I was born in Texas

So lets look at your link:
The hunting and gathering way of life persisted into the Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1000 to the arrival of the Spanish), though during this time the Indians in the area, who belonged to the Coahuiltecan linguistic group, learned to make pottery and hunted with bows and arrows. By the early 1800s the local Coahuiltecans had succumbed to disease, intermarried with the Spanish, or been driven out by the Lipan Apaches.

Though occasional Spanish expeditions crossed the area during the early eighteenth century, the region remained uninhabited by Europeans until the late colonial period. Between the mid-1740s and the early 1750s José de Escandónqv made several excursions to the lower Rio Grande valley and introduced settlers to the area along the river, but the closest settlement, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe de Reynosa, was about fifty miles to the southwest in Tamaulipas. About sixteen land grants were made in the Kenedy County area by the Spanish and Mexican governments. The earliest, Agostadero de San Juan de Carricitos, made to José Nicolás Cabazos in February 1792, comprised more than a half million acres, including parts of the future Willacy, Hidalgo, and Kenedy counties. Cabazos established a ranch and stocked it with 900 cattle. Another early grant was San Salvador del Tule, made to Juan José Ballí in November 1797. During the Mexican period the number of ranches in the area grew, but hostile Indians and the political turmoil that followed the Texas Revolutionqv forced many families to abandon their ranches.

American settlement in the region was slow but increased after the Mexican War.qv New settlers were generally welcomed by the Mexican rancheros, and a number of the newcomers married into prominent local families. Ethnic relations began to change during the second half of the nineteenth century, however, when steadily growing numbers of Anglo-Americans began to settle in South Texas. Increasingly, Mexican landholding families found their titles in jeopardy in the courts or were subjected to violence. The so-called "skinning wars" of the early 1870s were indicative of mounting ethnic and racial tensions in the area. Because of rising prices for hides and the large number of mavericks, or free-ranging cattle, some ranchers went on skinning raids, killing the animals and taking their hides, a practice that often pitted Mexican and Anglo ranchers against each other. Tensions grew in 1875 after a group of Anglos attacked several ranches in the future Kenedy County in retaliation for raids made by Mexican ranchers. Vigilantes and outlaws from Corpus Christ raided the area, killing virtually all of the adult males on four ranches-La Atravesada, El Peñascal, Corral de Piedra, and El Mesquite-and burning the stores and buildings; many of the remaining Mexican rancheros were forced out. One vaquero who witnessed the raids later recalled that "there were many small ranches belonging to Mexicans, but the Americans came in and drove them out....after that they fenced the ranches...[including] some land that wasn't theirs."

The largest of the ranches was the King Ranch,qv founded in 1847 by Mifflin Kenedy and his partner Richard King,qv who acquired their vast holdings by both legal and questionable means. In the early 1880s, for example, Kenedy reportedly fenced in a lake that by tradition belonged to Doña Euliana Tijerina of the La Atravesada grant. To enforce their rule the Kings often called on the Texas Rangers,qv whom locals sometimes referred to as los rinches de la Kineña-the King Ranch Texas Rangers. Commenting on such practices, an anonymous newspaper article in 1878 averred that it was not unusual for King's neighbors "to mysteriously disappear whilst his territory extends over entire counties."

Liquidmicro said...

Here it is from your own link. Might I suggest you LEARN the history before you spout off at the mouth and look foolish!!

TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO

TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the Mexican War,qv recognized the annexationqv of Texas to the United States (consummated nearly three years before), and ceded to the United States Upper California (the modern state of California) and nearly all of the present American Southwest between California and Texas.

Liquidmicro said...

Did you read that; recognized the annexation of Texas to the United States (consummated nearly three years before).

You do understand what that implies and means, correct?

Liquidmicro said...

For the State of Texas, I would suggest looking up the Bourland Miller Commission and the 1852 Confirmations. Also, look up Special state laws enacted in 1860, 1870, and 1901 and that only 2 claims of the 70 in question were not granted while 68 were.

Liquidmicro said...

First, you miss the entire point of the argument. Those in Texas were Texicans, neither Mexican nor American. The land ownership for the Texicans in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stated those that chose to stay could keep their land.

Lets analyze your ignorance:

Texicans are those that lived in the Republic of Texas, from 1836 to 1848, and Texas was NOT part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, there are disputed land grants in Eastern Texas due to other treaties.

Why don't you try the Treaties of Velasco instead. The President of the Republic of Texas, David G. Burnet had treaty papers drawn up at the Port of Velasco on May 14, 1836 for General Santa Anna to sign. There were two treaties of Velasco, one designated a public treaty and one a private treaty. The public treaty was to be published immediately after it was signed.

However, both sides ignored the provisions of the Treaties of Velasco and the Mexican government continued to consider Tejas a rebellious province that they would reconquer someday.

I can go on showing you just how stupid and ignorant you are, but I think we all know your game. Sorry!! Please try again.

Liquidmicro said...

Here again is some help to educate you. Remember, all of this has been found in the past few hours on line by way of research and objectivity, something you seem to lack.

MEXICAN-AMERICAN LAND GRANT ADJUDICATION

Despite what Mexicans believed to be specific guarantees to their property and civil rights under Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the older Mexican landholders on the north bank of the Rio Grande often found themselves uncertain about their rights to lands granted by Spain and Mexico. The treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. Land grant adjudication proceeded in a piecemeal fashion with the federal government determining the procedures in the new American Southwest, except that, by virtue of its prior claim to the trans-Nueces, the state of Texas controlled the process in the annexed lands. Because the federal government never challenged this position, the state determined the manner of settling the titles to lands in the annexed territory. Contrary to popular belief, however, Texas acted equitably by making available several opportunities for adjudication.

Liquidmicro said...

Whats even funnier, is that my information is all from your TSHA online. Thanks for playing, insert more ignorance to play again.

Liquidmicro said...

What!!! No response from Dee???? I'm disappointed.

Dee said...

You really are dense aren't you Liquid. I provided you the link and you fail to read it. Read this, then comment:

"Tensions grew in 1875 after a group of ANGLOS attacked several ranches in the future Kenedy County in retaliation for raids made by Mexican ranchers. (Anglo) Vigilantes and outlaws from Corpus Christ raided the area, killing virtually all of the adult males on four ranches-La Atravesada, El Peñascal, Corral de Piedra, and El Mesquite-and burning the stores and buildings; many of the remaining Mexican rancheros were forced out. One vaquero who witnessed the raids later recalled that "there were many small ranches belonging to Mexicans, but the Americans came in and drove them out....after that they fenced the ranches...[including] some land that wasn't theirs."

The largest of the ranches was the King Ranch, founded in 1847 by Mifflin Kenedy and his partner Richard King, who acquired their vast holdings by both legal and QUESTIONABLE means. In the early 1880s, for example, Kenedy reportedly fenced in a lake that by tradition belonged to Doña Euliana Tijerina of the La Atravesada grant. To enforce their rule the Kings often called on the TEXAS RANGERS, whom locals sometimes referred to as LOS RINCHES DE LA Kineña-the King Ranch Texas Rangers. Commenting on such practices, an anonymous newspaper article in 1878 averred that it was not unusual for King's neighbors "to mysteriously disappear whilst his territory extends over entire counties."

THE KINGS/KENEDYS STOLE THE LAND AWAY FROM THE RIGHTFUL OWNER FAMILIES AND THE KING RANCH TEXAS RANGERS HELPED WITH THE MURDERS!

DO YOU GET IT NOW??
MORE MANIFEST DESTINY!

Alie said...

"Tensions grew in 1875 after a group of Anglos attacked several ranches in the future Kenedy County IN RETALIATION FOR RAIDS MADE BY MEXICAN RANCHERS."

Looks as though this says that the Mexican ranchers started the conflict. Maybe they shouldn't have started something that they couldn't finish.

Having said that, if the descendants of these individual property owners feel their property rights were abrogated, they should take it up with the U.S. government.

It STILL does not justify or excuse the illegal invasion of this country by millions upon millions of foreign nationals from South of the border who never lived here, nor did their ancestors!

Why do you not understand, Dee, that this is the 21st century and we are now a sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH, INCLUDING THOSE SOUTH OF THE BORDER! Gosh, it is so frustrating that you don't seem to get this! Do you for one second think that Mexico would tolerate an illegal invasion of their sovereign borders by Americans or any other nationality? Why do you believe that we should? I just cannot follow your logic.

I also cannot understand that after your family has been in this country for 200 years as you say, your affinity and loyalty is still to Mexico and Mexicans instead of the U.S. and Americans.

Liquidmicro said...

So you call me DENSE for arguing your first comment and proving your stupidity, and now you change the argument and try to make me look like I have no idea what I'm saying.

Sorry it doesn't work like that here. Your first comment was about Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Now, I will discuss your next argument, your second comment.

Tensions grew in 1875 after a group of ANGLOS attacked several ranches in the future Kenedy County in retaliation for raids made by Mexican ranchers.

Alie pretty much took care of that. Your second paragraph pretty much answers itself, you even 'yelled' the word "QUESTIONABLE". So according to Texas law and the fact that the land was actually purchased from the heirs of Juan Mendiola of Camargo on July 25, 1853, for $300.

Santa Gertrudis Creek and the ranch's origins

King first saw the land that would become part of the enormous King Ranch in April 1852 as he traveled north from Brownsville to attend the Lone Star Fair in Corpus Christi, a four day trip by horseback. After a grueling, hot and dusty ride, King caught sight of the Santa Gertrudis Creek, 124 miles (200 km) from the Rio Grande. It was the first stream he had seen on the Wild Horse Desert. The land, which was shaded by large mesquite trees, so impressed him that when he arrived at the fair, he and a friend, Texas Ranger Captain Gideon K. "Legs" Lewis, agreed then and there to make it into a ranch.

The King Ranch LK brand, still in use today, stands for partners Lewis and King.

From September 1, 1852 to March 13, 1853, Lewis served as captain of Texas Mounted Volunteers, which patrolled the Corpus Christi area. Concurrently, King and Lewis established a cow camp on Santa Gertrudis Creek. During this time, Richard King purchased the Rincón de Santa Gertrudis grant, a 15,500 acres (63 km2) holding that encompassed present-day Kingsville, Texas. It was purchased from the heirs of Juan Mendiola of Camargo on July 25, 1853, for $300. King sold Lewis an undivided half-interest in the land for $2,000. At the same time, Lewis sold King undivided half interest in the ranchos of Manuel Barrera and of Juan Villareal for the same sum, on November 14, 1853. In 1854, King and Lewis purchased the de la Garza Santa Gertrudis grant from Praxides Uribe of Matamoros for $1,800, on the condition of a perfected title (complete documentation of the land grant) on May 20, 1854 to 53,000 acres (210 km2). As the years passed, more land was added, growing to 1.2 million acres (4900 km²) at its largest extent, until reaching its current total.

In 1855 Lewis attempted a run for Congress. But an irate husband gunned him down on April 14, 1855. Lewis had tried to retrieve damaging letters written and addressed to the man's wife, which her husband had intercepted. [4].

On July 1, 1856, a court sale of Lewis' property (including the undivided half-interest in the land of the Ranch) was held. King had arranged for MAJ W.W. Chapman (died 1859) to bid on the Rincón property, which Chapman acquired for $1,575.

King interested Captain James Walworth in acquiring the entire de la Garza grant, which Walworth completed on December 26, 1856, for $5000 paid to Praxides Uribe. King thus retained operational control of the Ranch, with Walworth as a silent partner who held title to the land, and who paid taxes on it.[5]

King and Walworth's brand was registered June 27, 1859 along with his earlier brands.


Your only argument is the fact that he fenced his property and kept others from his property and its water, which possibly hurt the neighboring ranchers by cutting their cattle off from water in the area, so they eventually sold to him vs watching their cattle die from thirst. I see that as Business, not "QUESTIONABLE".

King and Kenedy decided to split their ranch holdings and fence their properties from each other, a considerable expense. Kenedy was the first substantial owner of fenced range in the West.

The 1863-1864 winter pushed uncounted cattle south toward the Nueces and Rio Grande. By the end of the Civil War, the Texas Rangers were disbanded by the Reconstruction. It became too tempting to simply herd cattle across the Nueces or Rio Grande.

Even in this time of loss, by 1869 Richard King was able to round up 48 664 cattle out of an estimated 84 000 head. Allowing for 10 000 remaining, Richard King claimed a loss of 33 827 head from 1869 to 1872.

To handle depredations, the ranchers formed the Stock Raisers Association of Western Texas in 1870; Mifflin Kenedy led the first meeting.

By 1874, the Texas Rangers were re-established, and were a factor in controlling the depredations.

One technique that King used to manage costs was to make his trail bosses the owners of the herd. The bosses would sign a note for the cattle, which they would begin to drive to market in February of each year, for the 100-day drive. The bosses were also the employers of the outfit. Upon the sale of the herd to the northern buyers, the trail bosses could relieve their indebtedness, and earn a profit greater than their ordinary wages.


So, what actually is the "QUESTIONABLE" argument you wish to make?? The simple fact that King and Kennedy both fenced their properties??

You need to thoroughly substantiate your statement, THE KINGS/KENEDYS STOLE THE LAND AWAY FROM THE RIGHTFUL OWNER FAMILIES AND THE KING RANCH TEXAS RANGERS HELPED WITH THE MURDERS! because from what I see, and what evidence there is, you have absolutely no clue or facts about what you say.

Liquidmicro said...

As for Manifest Destiny and Texas... Texas was a Republic wishing to become annexed into the USA.

O'Sullivan on Texas and “Manifest Destiny”
[July, 1845.]
ANNEXATION.

It is time now for opposition to the Annexation of Texas to cease, all further agitation of the waters of bitterness and strife, at least in connexion with this question,—even though it may perhaps be required of us as a necessary condition of the freedom of our institutions, that we must live on for ever in a state of unpausing struggle and excitement upon some subject of party division or other. But, in regard to Texas, enough has now been given to party. It is time for the common duty of Patriotism to the Country to succeed;—or if this claim will not be recognized, it is at least time for common sense to acquiesce with decent grace in the inevitable and the irrevocable.

Texas is now ours. Already, before these words are written, her Convention has undoubtedly ratified the acceptance, by her Congress, of our proffered invitation into the Union; and made the requisite changes in her already republican form of constitution to adapt it to its future federal relations. Her star and her stripe may already be said to have taken their place in the glorious blazon of our common nationality; and the sweep of our eagle's wing already includes within its circuit the wide extent of her fair and fertile land. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space—a certain combination of coast, plain, mountain, valley, forest and stream. She is no longer to us a mere country on the map. She comes within the dear and sacred designation of Our Country; no longer a “pays,” she is a part of “la patrie;” and that which is at once a sentiment and a virtue, Patriotism, already begins to thrill for her too within the national heart. It is time then that all should cease to treat her as alien, and even adverse—cease to denounce and vilify all and everything connected with her accession—cease to thwart and oppose the remaining steps for its consummation; or where such efforts are felt to be unavailing, at least to embitter the hour of reception by all the most ungracious frowns of aversion and words of unwelcome. There has been enough of all this. It has had its fitting day during the period when, in common with every other possible question of practical policy that can arise, it unfortunately became one of the leading topics of party division, of presidential electioneering. But that period has passed, and with it let its prejudices and its passions, its discords and its denunciations, pass away too. The next session of Congress will see the representatives of the new young State in their places in both our halls of national legislation, side by side with those of the old Thirteen. Let their reception into “the family” be frank, kindly, and cheerful, as befits such an occasion, as comports not less with our own self-respect than patriotic duty towards them. Ill betide those foul birds that delight to file their own nest, and disgust the ear with perpetual discord of ill-omened croak.


Look to President Polk for the reasoning of your idealogy of Texas being part of Manifest Destiny.

Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the presumed Democratic candidate, ex-President Van Buren, both declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to keep the troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the Democrats in favor of Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question with the Oregon dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more inclined to promote the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily on the annexation of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion.

I see how you become so easily confused (big words and all), so I hope by "dumbing things down" for you, that it somehow helps you grasp history.

patriot said...

Liquid,

It doesn't matter how many facts your throw at Dee she doesn't get it because she doesn't want to get it. If something doesn't fit with her agenda then she ignores it or tries to spin it.

I was reading her blog yesterday and there were a couple of new people posting in there. The topic was about a Latino being attacked for speaking Spanish on his cell phone and Dee was trying to make that her argument against making English our official language. These new posters said that they didn't condone what had happened but that is no reasosn to stop English from becoming our official language. Most countries do have an official language. One of her pro's in there tried to claim that they weren't official but de facto. He was proven wrong so Dee deleted the post. Dee accused these new people of not caring about what happened to that Latino speaking Spanish when in actuality they did say otherwise but Dee deleted their posts anyway because they still wanted English as our official language and posted some compelling reasons why it should not be denied. So Dee deleted their posts. Then she went on with her conspiracy theories that they were aliases of psst members who left because of her hatefulness and biasness. None of them even sounded like any past members to me. You can usually tell.

Dee just can't stand to have anyone disagree with her and so she starts moderating all the posts and deletes those that don't fit her own agenda. I guess Ultima is her "token anti" in there but she doesn't even treat him with respect either. I don't know why he continues to post in there. He must have a higher tolerance level for lies, hypocricies and insults than you and I do and a few others.

Dee is mentally ill and very childish. We all know that. No grown woman would behave the way she does and try to claim sanity.

Alie said...

I'm not sure about the mentally ill part, Patriot, but Dee is definitely insecure.

When one is secure in their position, they have no problem with those who present a different viewpoint. In fact, I thought that was the purpose of Dee's blog: to bring down the intensity of debate by discussing civilly different points of view.

If she's blocking people who express a different perspective or deleting their posts (other than vulgar or truly abusive language), then it is proof that she feels threatened by what they are saying and the references they are supplying.

We already know that the pro-illegal and the far left already use this tactic: isolate a target, freeze it, and marginalize it as "fringe." That's right out of Saul Alinsky's "Handbook for Radicals." The goal is to marginalize legitimate concerns/views as "fringe" and thus make the organizations or people who put them forth as out of the mainstream. Part of that is shutting people up by crying "racism" and all kinds of other false accusations meant to stifle debate.

The reason is that their arguments are so flimsy and cannot stand up to scrutiny. So the next best thing is to shut out and shut up their opposition in any way possible.

Taken a step further in banana Republics and other semi-totalitarian areas, actual verbal intimidation and physical threats are used to eliminate opposition. You see these tactics being used by some of the pro-illegal ethnocentric organizations such as La Raza, MALDEF, and others.

In the end, it is very undemocratic and against our liberal democratic values.

If one is confident of their position, he/she should have no problem with allowing opposition views to be expressed.

patriot said...

Alie,

No, Dee IS mentally ill! Pathological lying is a mental illness.

Note, her blog mission states to allow opposing views with civility to stop the hate, blah, blah, blah. Yet, ahe is the most hateful and uncivil one in there. What a joke!

I have noticed that in other pro forums and blogs also. They seek to silence the oppostion like a bunch of rabid Nazi's by deleting your posts and that is after they go on the personal attack first. You're exactly right, Alie. If they are so confident in their views, then why do they have to silence the opposition?

God help us if people with Dee's mindset gain political, numerical and cultural control of this country. It will go from a democracy to a communistic state in a flash.

Alie said...

I don't think we would be a "Communist" country, but we would be like the countries in Latin America where chaos, coups, military dictatorships, corruption, thuggery, and intimidation of the opposition reigns.

Not something to look forward to IMO.

Liquidmicro said...

You've had enough time to try to substantiate your statement Dee, or to refute my posts. I know you have read my comments. Lets see how you try to re-direct the argument again to something else. Don't be afraid, you can't look any dumber than you have already shown yourself to be.

Liquidmicro said...

C'mon Dee, don't you have any more Socialist propaganda to bring to the table? How about some of your hypocrisy? "We must stay civil, open and honest. Afterall, we do have Truth, Justice and the American Way on our side. We are evolving into a beautiful, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural society. There's that Tribal mentality, Ethnic enclaves.

patriot said...

So their side must stay civil, open and honest? I certainly agree with that for both sides but when is Dee going to start? She posts something like that in her blog and yet she does the opposite? What a hypocrite! Does she call insults and lies being civil and honest? How about deletiing people's posts just because she doesn't agree with their vies? Is that the openness that she speaks of? Oh, she allows "one" anti to stay but has ran off all the others due to her biased hatefulness or deletes all their posts. Yeah, real civil and "open" Dee.

"Truth, Justice and the American Way" on "her" side? Dee wouldn't express or know the truth if it hit her smack in the face. Justice? She doesn't want justice for Americans who are having their country invaded. The American Way is being a nation of laws. Something Dee thinks shouldn't apply to her ethnic kind illegally in this country. Little does she know that any law abiding American that reads her blog is more turned off by "her side" than they were before. She does our side good because they realize then that "her side" are nothing but a bunch of ethnocentric, lying racists who suppress freedoom of speech from the other side because they have no viable arguments for expecting this white majority country to lay down and accept a takeover from a hostile, white race hating ethnic group through illegal immigration.

Alie said...

Patriot, what you spoke is the truth.

It was through reading the pro-illegal forums and blogs, and seeing the gross disrespect for the U.S., its citizens, and flag during various pro-illegal rallies and marches that really turned me against them. Previous to that, I was sympathetic to their cause.

Also, I wouldn't characterize the bulk of illegal aliens as "white hating," but they are certainly being used by those who are to increase their political power. It does not bode well for the future traquility and cohesiveness of our nation IMO.

patriot said...

Alie,

I was mostly referring to the Hispanic citizens like Dee who hate the white majority in this country and are using these Mexican foot soldiers to accomplish their goal of dominance in this country.

Dee said...

You really are densem my dear friend Liquid.

BTW, you should add me to your bloglist. Otherwise I may not come back and visit. Without me, you and alie and pat have too much of a pity party and frankly, it is very boring. If you add me, I will add you to my blogroll. Deal?

Anyhoo....
Here is where you are very dense.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted the continuance of ownership by the Latino owners of the land, even with all the subterfuge. Euliana Tijerina was one of the landowners.

Then the King/Kenedy's played their dirty tricks in coercion with LOS RINCHES DE LA Kineña and killed all the landowners and STOLE the ranches. No one could complain. If they did, they would be dead too.

You just don't get it do you.

You also don't get me or how closely I am linked to this.

If you are nice to me, I might just tell you how closely I am linked to all of this history.

Your Friend,
Dee

Liquidmicro said...

Your patronization of me being dense is your utter ignorance. When will you learn??

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo does not include Texas. Texas was a Republic, a lone country all by itself with treaties with Mexico, The Velasco Treaties. Look to the link I provided earlier in regards to MEXICAN-AMERICAN LAND GRANT ADJUDICATION. Despite what Mexicans believed to be specific guarantees to their property and civil rights under Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,qv the older Mexican landholders on the north bank of the Rio Grande often found themselves uncertain about their rights to lands granted by Spain and Mexico. The treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. Land grant adjudication proceeded in a piecemeal fashion with the federal government determining the procedures in the new American Southwest, except that, by virtue of its prior claim to the trans-Nueces, the state of Texas controlled the process in the annexed lands. Because the federal government never challenged this position, the state determined the manner of settling the titles to lands in the annexed territory. Contrary to popular belief, however, Texas acted equitably by making available several opportunities for adjudication.


As for me 'not getting you', Oh I get you, all to well.

patriot said...

We all do, Liquid. All to well. That is why none of us have the desire to post in her blog anymore. She treats Ultima like dirt in there also doing the same things to him, lying, twisting his words, being a biased hypocrite....the list goes on and on. Her so-called blog where both sides are allowed their opinions without insults and or deletions is nothing but a joke! Her latest tactic is to claim an anti is off topic (when they weren't) to justify deleting their posts. She is sick, twisted and childish not to mention being a racist traitor to her own country. But then I am not telling you anything that you and Alie don't already know. Ultima knows it too.

Liquidmicro said...

Might I suggest you do some reading on Euliana Tijerina. You will find she was on her ranch up until she died, between 1890 and 1910. In 1883, 3 of Estubans (Euliana's Husband) heirs sold their portions to King for $100 each. Before Euliana died she past on the rest of her land as inheritance to 3 daughters. 2 of the daughters sold their shares to King after Euliana died, while the 3rd daughter sold her inheritance to GA Riskin in 1930 for $16,432.

Petra's Legacy Look to pages 178-179. So, again, you fail to prove anything, substantiate anything you claim, and look as foolish as always.

Liquidmicro said...

Now, if you have a claim to a land grant that you feel you were wronged on, I suggest you take it up with the State of Texas, look up the information I gave you previously, and proceed in a manner that works for you.

I suggest you stop with the patronization of others, thinking you are the know it all, because there is someone who is always more intelligent than you.

Alie said...

Like I've pointed out before--what does any of this have to do with the immigration issue anyhow??

Just because some INDIVIDUAL families might have property disputes with either Texas or the U.S. government, that STILL does not justify the illegal entry of millions upon millions of people from South of the border (or anywhere else!).

The two issues are completely separate.

patirot said...

Alie, according to Dee it does!

Alie said...

Well, Dee might believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so!

It is completely irrational to believe that an entire continent has the right to enter our country illegally because of the individual property claims of a limited number of families from a century and a half ago. Someone needs a reality check.

Dee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Liquidmicro said...

If you have read anything about current history you would know this is the exact point Reies Tijerina was making in the 1960s. He said certain US Senators, on their own, unscrupulously removed this documentation from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The recriprical copy in Mexico proves this.

The bottom line is, the actual Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo PROVES the Texicans, who were NOW AMERICANs, were entitled to their land. This is NOT Reconquista, merely LAND Ownership by the Texicans (New Americans). Instead, the land was stolen by people like the Kings in SE Texas and others and the Texas Rangers allowed them to steal this land.


Lets first look at Reies Tijerina, a major figure of the early Chicano Movement. His studying and activism is for the people of the area effected by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Treaty. The area he took upon was New Mexico and not Texas. He created the Alianza Movement to regain the community land grants that had been taken from them after 1848 in violation of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

So, get your states correct first Dee.

Liquidmicro said...

In fact, here is Article X from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

ARTICLE X

All grants of land made by the Mexican government or by the competent authorities, in territories previously appertaining to Mexico, and remaining for the future within the limits of the United States, shall be respected as valid, to the same extent that the same grants would be valid, to the said territories had remained within the limits of Mexico. But the grantees of lands in Texas, put in possession thereof, who, by reason of the circumstances of the country since the beginning of the troubles between Texas and the Mexican Government, may have been prevented from fulfilling all the conditions of their grants, shall be under the obligation to fulfill the said conditions within the periods limited in the same respectively; such periods to be now counted from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Treaty: in default of which the said grants shall not be obligatory upon the State of Texas, in virtue of the stipulations contained in this Article.

The foregoing stipulation in regard to grantees of land in Texas, is extended to all grantees of land in the territories aforesaid, elsewhere than in Texas, put in possession under such grants; and, in default of the fulfillment of the conditions of any such grant, within the new period, which, as is above stipulated, begins with the day of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, the same shall be null and void.


It must be those big words that confuse Dee so much. Texas was not part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it only states that land possession in the acquired territories will be treated likewise as the way Texas treated theirs.

Alie said...

Good points again, Liquid. I appreciate your attention to detail.

Liquidmicro said...

Here's one that will throw Dee for a loop. I actually agree with the fact that if the land grants can be determined to have been stolen or in an inappropriate manner taken from those who were in legal possession of the land grants originally, should be given back to them or justified by way of reimbursement of property value by either the owners of such lands now or by the State or Federal Gov't, depending on which allowed the mishap to happen.

But for Christ sake, don't spin something that doesn't exist to try to fit an agenda and display biasness just for sake of attempting to make yourself look like you know something, Dee. So I will repeat one more time, Texas was not part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, even your beloved Reies Tijerina admits that.

The "Stolen Land" Argument is nothing more than the heirs of those who had land grants on this side of the Rio Grande attempting to prove they were somehow cheated out of their land rights, for which if they can prove they were, I am all for giving the few heirs remaining justice.

Alie said...

Well, Liquid, that's what I've said at least a couple of times.

If the descendants of these individual families were actually cheated out of their land, then they have every right to pursue their claims.

But what these pro-illegals have been trying to do is to use this issue to provide a ridiculous justification for millions of Mexicans/Latinos to illegally enter our country. It's just as outrageous as the "they're returning to 'their land' argument." Since when was Massachusettes ever part of Mexico?

I wonder when the Marxist Chicano studies classes are going to start indoctrinating their students that Quebec is also "stolen land" that they have a "right" to "come back to."