← Federalist Radio Hour
Federalist Radio Hour
Hayden's History Hour Ep. 2: Debunking Lies About The Mexican-American War Land Grab
00:46:43
Do Hispanics have a special claim to the Southwest? Join Federalist Staff Editor Hayden Daniel as he traces the history of Mexican-American relations, dissects the American government's strategic decision to take territory from Mexico ahead of the...
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Too fast, Trevor. Too fast. Here at the Zebra, research shows people would rather teach their kids to drive than search for auto and home insurance. I know what I'm doing, Mom. Or attend a corporate team building workshop. Go, team. Feel that synergy. Or be regaled by Uncle Frank's conspiracy theories. They're listening to us right now. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can Compare. Today@thezebra.com we do the searching, you do the saving. Shh. They're here. FOREIGN. Welcome back to another episode of Hayden's History Hour. I'm your host, Hayden Daniel. As always, you can email the show at radio the federalist.com follow us on X at Federalist and make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and of course, the premium version of our website as well. I'm not joined by any guests today, but we are going over a very interesting topic that has a lot of implications for today's politics. The Mexican session, meaning the land gained by the United States after the Mexican American War of 1846-1848. So the issue of the ownership of the American Southwest and the west generally has become quite a bit of a hot button topic during the last year or so of Trump's administration. If you remember the protests in Los Angeles last year, many protesters were waving Mexican flags and claiming that they belonged there, that they were not, in fact, united, illegal, and that no one was illegal because Mexico used to own California and the rest of the American Southwest. And more recently, we saw at the super bowl halftime show with Bad Bunny bringing out not just the Mexican flag, but dozens of other flags from Central and South America and proclaiming together, we are America, pretty blatantly making the point that they're also supposed to be here and, and have a claim to American land. But that's not really how. How America saw it when it was gaining that land from Mexico after the Mexican American War. And the land that we took from Mexico, which is today South Texas, parts of Oklahoma, parts of Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, they chose to annex those specific portions of land for a very specific reason. And one of the main reasons for that is because they had so few people in it. And it was actually a very big hot button issue in the United States how much land to take from Mexico after the. After the war was over. Because the war really wasn't much of a. Much of a contest, really. The Mexican army did not put my. To not put up that much of a fight against the Americans. So even halfway through the war, there were fierce debates in Congress over how much land to exactly take from the Mexicans. And some wanted to take the entire country of Mexico, which includes the land that we actually did take, which would have vastly increased the United States population and land area. But the vast majority of people only wanted to have a limited expansion and not take in so many people. In fact, Mexico had about 8 or 9 million citizens in 1848. And we took a fraction of a fraction of those citizens along with the land that we took. And we took. We did that for a very specific reason that we're going to get into later, later into the episode. But first let's kind of go over some background about Mexico and the Southwest in the early 19th century. So we have to go back kind of, kind of a long way, and it might seem a little tangential, but it's all going to make sense and come around eventually. So during the Napoleonic Wars, Spain, which controlled Mexico from the time of Cortez to the 1820s, was, most of it was occupied by French troops and was ruled by a French puppet king, in fact, Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother. And during the war to liberate Spain from Napoleon, most of the country was devastated. And there were practically two governments at play. In Spain, there was a loyalist government under the previous king, the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, and then a government headed by Napoleon's brother. And the colonial administrations of Spain's colonies, mostly in South America and Central America, the Caribbean and the Philippines, mostly stay loyal to the monarchy, but they also had a lot of independence during that time because the, the legitimate government back in Spain was busy fighting for his life back, busy fighting for, for the home country and really couldn't spare the resources or the time to really govern those colonial possessions very closely. So these nations got their first sort of taste of independence during the Napoleonic wars. And almost all of them chose to make an actual bid for independence once the war was over. Within about 10 years, 10 to 15 years of the end of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1815, almost all of South Central and South America is free of Spanish domination. And Mexico becomes independent in 1821. And the first iteration of its government is actually an empire. They have a transitional government that's sort of looking for an emperor to, to make this imperial regime. And they, they eventually choose Emperor Augustine the first. And he lasts a grand total of two years before they decide that the emperor's being, being a little tyrannical. So let's get rid of him and go for a Republic. So in 1823, the, the empire falls and it's complete instability from there there on out. For Mexico in the 19th century, they have two major changes in government before 1836. They have a transition government between the empire and a republic. And then they have the first Mexican republic which is largely based on Spanish law and a little bit on the United States. But closer to 1836, they start to become more centralized and more federal, a little bit along the lines of the United States. And they become the centralist Republic of Mexico, which is a completely new government. And during this sort of unstable period, from 1823 to 1836, one particular figure emerges as sort of the, the strong man of, of the country. His name is Antonio Lopez de Santa ana. And by 1836, he emerges as the de facto dictator of the country. And just to illustrate how unstable Mexico was before the Mexican American War in 1846. Of the 16 different presidents in Mexico who ruled from 1824 to 1846, that's only 22 years. It took us from 1789 to 1861 to get 16 presidents. Just keep that in mind. 16 different presidents in Mexico from 1824 to 1846. Only one completed a full term in office, which was four years. Only one. The others were either forced to resign or kicked out because of a coup d' etat or Santa Anna was, was pulling the strings. And he served as, as president multiple times in very short terms. But he, he's the power behind the throne. I guess you could, you could think of it that way. But for the time, Mexico had a pretty liberal constitution, the Constitution of 1824. Santa Anna wanted to centralize his, his power and make it more permanent. He didn't. He got a little tired of playing the, the republican game and trying to pay lip service to democracy that, that de facto did not exist in Mexico at the time. So he creates a new constitution that centralizes power immensely around the president, around himself. Critical part of this constitution is called the seven laws, which included requiring speaking Spanish to obtain citizenship. It allowed the president to adjourn Congress and suppress the Supreme Court at his discretion with no recourse from either, from either branch. It abolished the old federal system of somewhat United States esque states, States that were pretty autonomous and could act on their own pretty reliably and replace them with, in a French style, departments whose governors and even their legislators were chosen directly by the president. So it's basically eliminating democracy wholesale in Mexico with, with one of these laws. So that causes quite a bit of instability and resentment amongst, not just famously amongst Texans, but also other regions in Mexico as well. The the Mexican Republic had abolished slavery in 1829, but it granted an exemption to Texas. So the. The sort of 1619 esque talking point that the Texas Revolution was about slavery is, is mostly inaccurate because they were actually exempted from the abolition of slavery. It was much more about these seven laws. And the new constitution that Santa Ana ushered in was sort of the catalyst for the Texas Revolution and all of that. And they American Texas show American Texans show no interest in adopting Mexican customs, learning Spanish or especially converting to Catholicism. As I said, other regions also rebelled eventually. And two other republics besides the Texas Republic declared their independence. The Rio Grande Republic, which was just south of what we today consider Texas, just south of the Rio Grande and the Yucatan Peninsula, basically broke away entirely and would actually stay independent for a relatively long time. But also a couple of other states revolted at the exact same time that Texas did. So it's another kind of misconception that Texas was just fighting it out alone against Mexico as a monolithic power. But actually Santa Ana was also juggling several other wars with other rebelling states at the same time. As we all know, the Texans came out victorious. The heroic stand at the Alamo was ingrained in Texas and thereafter. American history is a great one of the great last stands. And Sam Houston triumphs over Santa Ana at the Battle of San Jacinto in the latter part of 1836. And he captures Santa Ana and forces Santa Ana to recognize Texan independence. Now Texas, almost immediately after winning its independence, wanted to join the United States. It almost as soon as it won the Battle of San Jacinto, it sent a letter over to the United States, Please annex us. We want to become a state. But at the time, the debate over slavery was starting to to rare up in American politics. And adding Texas, which would certainly be a slave state, rankled especially northern politicians. And the question of whether to annex Texas became a big political point. From 1836 until Texas was eventually annexed, the Americans were also very concerned about starting a war with Mexico because the exact border between Texas and Mexico was not set. Mexico believed the border was much farther north than it is today. They believed that it was at the Nueces river, while Texas believed that it was at the Rio Grande. And the western border of Texas, where almost no one but the Comanches lived, was all was just completely up in the air. Texas claimed a vast amount of land that also includes most of eastern New Mexico and parts of Oklahoma, even all the way up to Colorado. Well, Mexico, of course, kept its claim on that land. So that was a potential powder keg for conflict. And the United States Congress knew that. So there's a very big debate about whether to annex Texas at all and how much where the border of a new Texas would be. But eventually it wins out because of President John Tyler. One of his last acts as president is to get Texas annexation done and it is annexed by the United States as a State in 1845. Now, Tyler's successor, James K. Pole, was a disciple of Manifest Destiny. He believed the United States should stretch from the east coast to the west coast, all the way to the Pacific. And he believed that the United States required that part of northern Mexico that is today part of the United States in order to do that. Before the war broke it up. He offered to buy California and New Mexico, which at the time the territory of New Mexico encompass Arizona, Nevada, Utah, the entire American Southwest. He offered to buy it for $30 million, a princely sum for 1845, but Mexico refused. So just as the politicians before Texas annexation took place, predicted conflict eventually resulted over a border dispute. Mexican troops and American troops were stationed in the little border zone between the Nueces river and Rio Grande. And eventually, as is often the case when there are disputed borders, eventually there is conflict. And that is what begins the Mexican American War in 1846. Now, the war goes very well for the United States and here's where the rub comes in. It might go a little too well. Santa Ana and Mexican troops are easily pushed out of Texas and easily pushed out of the Southwest. As you might know, American settlers in California create the California Republic and declare their independence. And then they are helped by American troops to, to capture California. So those place the places that the Americans actually want. Polk really just wants the area north of the Rio Grande and the way to California. He doesn't really want anything else. Those areas are conquered pretty easily. But Santa Anna refuses to surrender. He believes that he can lure the American armies into Mexico proper, into the hinterlands of Mexico, where unfamiliar terrain and and logistical difficulties will allow him to deliver a defeat to the American army and, and reverse his, his misfortunes. That doesn't happen. General Taylor in the north and then Winfield Scott in and around Veracruz continue to, to defeat Mexican forces pretty decisively. I said Winfield Scott lands in Veracruz, takes it and begins his advance on Mexico City. Now, it's during Winfield Scott's campaign towards Mexico City and then his eventual capture of Mexico City in September 1840. 7. That really begins the whole debate over exactly how much land we should take from Mexico because we, we've become so successful and we're, we're investing more and more money into the conflict. More men, more lives, more resources into it. People start thinking, well, maybe we should get more in the peace deal. You know, we deserve a little bit more than that. We're already here, we're already deep in Mexican territory. Why don't we just take it for ourselves? And that's sort of the genesis of the all of Mexico movement. That's what it's termed all of Mexico. And these are people who believe that all of Mexico should be annexed into the United States. Does New York City officially have their first free grand grocery store under Mamdani, the Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. Gambling website Poly Market opens a free grocery store to enamor itself with the Mamdani administration. So who's really paying for this free grocery store? Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watch Daughter on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast. There are two distinct factions within the all of Mexico movement who, who had the same goal but for different reasons. Some of the supporters include Senator John Dix of New York and Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi. And those seem like strange bedfellows. A senator from New York, which is pretty. This is the heart of the Northeast and sort of northern industrialism. And then Henry Foote of Mississippi. Mississippi is like the quintessential sort of southern plantation state, maybe other than South Carolina, but along with other sort of west Southern politicians. Politicians from Mississippi, West, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama. Those sort of region of the country wanted to take all of Mexico because they wanted to expand slavery into, into Mexico's rich agricultural lands. Cotton is a particularly intensive crop and states like Kentucky and Missouri and even Virginia as early as the late 1840s were starting to get exhausted from cotton. So they would then sell slaves south which would sort of glut the market with slaves. So slaves or slavers in the Deep south wanted somewhere to send those slave, those surplus slave. And annexing Mexico and creating slave states or at least slave territories there would help them sort of will gain more money and also ease the sort of over the perceived overpopulation of slaves in the, in the Deep south that they believed was developing and then the northern proponents of all of Mexico believed in a sort of mix of paternalistic advancement. They believed that they could educate the Mexican people to become good Republican citizens. But also they really wanted, they really wanted navy ports like Veracruz or on the west coast of Mexico. There are also very good ports that could be used to ship across, across the Pacific. You have to think California has almost no people in it at this time. So there is no San Francisco, there is no Los Angeles. They're very tiny little non entity towns. They're not gigantic ports that we think of today. So if you want to send a ship to China, to Japan, to the Far east in general, you have to go around Chile, all the way around South America and into the South Pacific and then across the entire Pacific. It's a very long journey. So but that, and there's no Panama Canal, so you can't cut across, across Central America. So in their mind, if we can get Mexico that already has developed ports on the west coast that we can ship goods down to Veracruz and then transport it overland to the west coast of Mexico and send it to China or Japan or wherever we want in the, in the east, in the western Pacific without having to build a transcontinental continental railroad across, you know, thousands of miles of desert over mount, over the Rocky Mountains and all that stuff that we eventually did do. So their reasons are more economic and a bit social while the southern proponents of all of Mexico are more just straight up economic reasons. As I said, James K. Polk is pretty moderate in this, in this debate. He really just wants southern Texas, California and then the area between the US and California. He pretty much wants what we, what we got. Most Americans oppose too much Mexican land. Ultimately the all of Mexico movement is a pretty small movement in American politics and it doesn't last very, very long. To most Americans. Mexicans are too Catholic. This is before Irish immigration really started, started rolling and before German immigration. That's when America starts to get large amounts of Catholics. Before that it is, it is a Protestant super, super majority. I'm talking 85, 90% Protestant and they are pretty anti Catholic and of course will remain anti Catholic for decades and decades and decades. They also thought Mexicans were unrepublican. They were not suited for Republican government, the American way of government they had. They rightly pointed to Mexico's instability after its independence as proof that they could not govern themselves and therefore should not definitely not be states. They definitely did not want them to be. To have representatives and senators going to, going to Washington and just the cost of occupying all of that land filled with millions and millions of people and educating them to make them good citizens would just cost an astronomical amount of money. So most Americans didn't think it was worth it and just wanted something relatively modest. Along the lines of James K. Polt's annexation plans, there was also the the threat of a major guerrilla campaign. As always, the Mexicans probably would not take too kindly to their entire country suddenly not existing. And there was a threat that many of them could go into the hills and start bushwhacking American occupying soldiers. And America, having lost a couple thousand men in the war, killed in combat and then several thousand more to disease, didn't want the war to go on any longer than it really had to. In fact, opponents to Mexican annexation reiterated over and over and over again that this would be a massive burden to the United States. John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina, compared subjugated a subjugated Mexico under all of Mexico plan to Ireland, which was of course controlled by the British at the time. He or he argued that Ireland was a source of heavy expense and a burden to the British at the time, which he wasn't. He wasn't wrong. Senator James Pierce of Maryland also made the same comparison, noting that Ireland was a perpetual source of bloodshed, embarrassment, annoyance and endless disquietude to Britain. And given the number of Irish rebellions, especially in the late 7th, late 18th century and early 19th century, they're comparison is actually pretty apt. Ireland, until it became independent after World War I, was a constant thorn in the side of the British authorities. The other senator from South Carolina, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, argued that annexing all of Mexico would overextend the United States and result in tyranny within the United States. So he's arguing that it would diminish the United States to take in all of Mexico. He said, when the fires of virtuous patriotism that are kindled on the altar of our country by the founders of the Republic shall have burnt down the ambitious lust of conquest. There will be no rebuking influence left to purify and restrain lawless ambition. So he thought that the military government that would have been required to pacify Mexico proper if we annex it, would cause the military, especially to, to sort of gravitate towards a less republican form of government and would inflame ambition within politicians and military officers to, to be less dedicated to republican government. It might result in a. An American Caesar for all, for all they knew. A newspaper editor and the man who coined the term Manifest Destiny, John o' Sullivan said that beyond a question, the entire Mexican vote would be substantially below our national average, both in purity and intelligence. The Mexican people are unaccustomed to the duties of self government. To enfranchise them, therefore, and give their representatives a voice in our legislature would doubtless have the double effect of producing anarchy within their own borders and embarrassing our own interests to a disastrous extent. And then Calhoun makes a similar point that the Mexicans are not able to govern themselves and not able to take on republican form of government at that time in his speech to the Senate. We make a great mistake, sir, when we suppose that all people are capable of self government. We are anxious to force free government on all. And I see that it has been urged in every respectable quarter that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake. None but people advanced to a very high state of moral and intellectual improvement are capable in a civilized state of maintaining free government. Now that echoes quite a few arguments that we've heard in recent decades against nation building. And this really, this really is like the first campaign against the prospect of nation building in US History. The prospect that we would occupy and perhaps even annex all of Mexico and build it up into, into its own functioning republic or integrated within our republic. There were people even in the 19th century warning against, you know, trying to raise people up who weren't ready for Republican, a republican form of government and raising them up too quickly into that and that it would have disastrous results. I mean, we've seen in our own time, with our many adventures in the Middle east, how that usually doesn't work out very well for us. So the opponents of the all for Mexico movement have some descendants that are around today, conservatives and others who oppose nation building overseas. New York Rep. Washington Hunt, a northerner who opposes annexing Mexico, argued that taking in too many Mexican citizens into the United States through annexation or would change the nature of the country, that these millions and millions of new Mexican, eventually they would assumedly be citizens, that they would change the character of the country and that the country would not be able to integrate such a sudden influx of people. And again, that's echoed today where we've had tens of millions of people from mostly Latin America come into this country over only a few years. And there's the debate of, well, how well can we integrate those people into an American way of life. And many of the news stories that we see today about Medicare fraud, about the Daycare center Leering daycare centers show that it is pretty difficult to integrate large influxes of people. But as almost every political issue does in this period, slavery also has something to do with, with the annexation debate. And Northerners do not want too much Mexican territory annexed because it is within the, the demarcation of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, in which those the, the potential states from an annexation of Mexico could become slave states, which would tip the Senate and potentially the House into Southern favor. So Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmot tries to sort of head off another crisis over slavery with the wilmot proviso in 1846. This is when the war is just starting that would ban slavery in any territory annexed from Mexico from the war. It's blocked by Southern Democrats and Whigs in the Senate, so it doesn't pass, but it greatly influences what would become the Republican Party and which started off as the Free Soil Party in which they wanted any future states out west to be free of slavery. So this is, this is sort of where the seeds are planted for the Republican Party here. In the wilmot proviso of 1846, Towards the end of the war, the US finds itself in possession of a gigantic tract of land and it has to figure out what it's going to do with it. For a little context, in the 1820s, the non Indian population of California, which. Included Baja California as well, was barely 3,000 people and only about 7,000 people in 1845. Similarly, only about 5,000 Mexicans lived in Texas in 1830. By 1835, there were an estimated 10 times as many Americans in Texas as Mexicans for the entirety of Alta California, which was a catch all term for California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Mexico and part of Colorado. Basically the entire territory that America took from Mexico in the Mexican American War. What 29,000 people who were not Indians in 1836 put that into context. In 1830, Mexico had had a total population of somewhere between 6 and 8 million people. Now that's between 0.36 and 0.48%. Not even 1% of the entire population of Mexico lived in an area as large as the rest of the country, because the portion that we took from Mexico, which only has at most a half a percent of the entire population of the country, was 50, a little over 50% of the entire land area of Mexico itself. So a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of Mexico's population lived in the areas that we took in 1848. And that's a very, very big point to consider when we hear arguments about whether Hispanic people have a true claim to areas of the Southwest when they had such a loose control of it to begin with before we gained it in the Mexican American War. And to speak to some of the critics, some of the arguments raised by opponents of Mexican annexation who believe that the conquered people would not be up for Republican government. I just wanted to make a note about literacy rates in the United States and Mexico. In 1840, about over 90% of the northern states and about 80% of the southern states were literate. At the same time, Mexican literacy was extremely low and was basically only prevalent amongst the elite of the elite in the cities. Most Mexican states had a literacy rate in the teens and some of the poorer areas have a literacy rate in the single digits. The founders and most major thinkers of the Enlightenment emphasize that a literate population is basically required for responsible self government. So take that how you will. So this debate over how much Mexico to take is raging for a few months, especially after Winfield Scott takes Mexico City in September 1847. Polk had already dispatched a diplomat to go and negotiate with the Mexican government, what was left of it pretty much after the fall of Mexico City. And the main diplomat behind the negotiation attempts to end the war was a man named Nicholas Trist. Now Crist had married Thomas Jefferson's granddaughter and served as, as personal secretary to both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. So he had a pretty good resume going into the Polk administration. And Polk named him as head clerk to Secretary of State James Buchanan, who of course would become president in the election of 1856. But he was appointed in 1845 and was almost as soon, almost as soon as the war broke out. Trist is assigned the duty to go and negotiate that peace treaty with Mexico. So he goes down there and the Mexican government under Santa Ana basically just falls apart as soon as the US captures Mexico City. And Trisk really isn't even sure who to really negotiate with. Who's, you know, who's left? Not really a whole lot of people are left and who can really speak with authority for, for the Mexican state. So he gets bogged down in negotiations and Polk starts to come really, really impatient because this war that was going really well for the Americans is really, really expensive. And he does not want it to go on any longer than it really has to. Chris, for his part, is almost a pacifist. He's really, really against the war and saw it as an act of pure aggression from America against Mexico, which would seem a little weird to send someone who fundamentally thinks the war is unjust to Go and negotiate for America to get America the most stuff. In fact, he wrote to his family, those Mexicans have seen into my heart at that moment when he's negotiating with them, they would have known that my feelings of shame as an American was far stronger than theirs could be as Mexicans for having lost the war. Eventually Trist drags his feet a little too much and Polk decides to recall him and send somebody else to do, to more aggressively negotiate. But the, the delay, the male delay, because it has to go from Washington by ship to Veracruz and then from Veracruz overland to Mexico City to recall him. The official order, Chris just chooses to ignore it. You know, you could, you could kind of do that back then before telephones and the Internet. So he ignores the recall order until he gets a proper, you know, official dismissal. So he knows he has a few weeks to, to sort of iron out a deal before he gets, he gets fired. So he negotiates with the, with the government, what's left of the government of Mexico, and irons out a deal. Polk is furious, partly because he wanted Baja California to be part of the deal. But it was not. And once Trist did get back to Washington, he was dismissed. And then Hulk saw to it that his, his political career was, was totally over after that. And he never in a meaningful way re enters the political scene. But he does have one gigantic legacy he leaves behind and that's the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It's negotiated in February 1848. Mexico cedes California, New Mexico, most of Arizona. The southern part that includes modern day Tucson was not added till later. Utah, Nevada and the part of Colorado that Mexican control went to the US in return for a lump sum payment of $15 million. So it's half of what Polk initially offered in 1845 and the assumption of $3.2 million in debt Mexico owed to private US citizens. The treaty means that Mexico loses roughly 55% of its pre land area and you know, about 30,000 people. Later in 1853, the US signs the Gadsden Purchase which grants it that portion of Arizona for $10 million. So in all for what we today consider the American southwest, Mexico got $25 million and then the US assumed 3 over $3 billion in debt that Mexico owed to US citizens. Perhaps the, the biggest irony of this is that just before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, gold is discovered in California. A discovery that could have totally transformed the economic and social fabric of Mexico. Happens weeks before it signed away to America and it transforms the demographics of the region. By 1850 almost 100,000 people had come to California. That's California alone. And as I noted earlier, 30 years prior to that, only about 3,000 people lived in California who were not Indian. So 3,000 in 1820 to 100,000 in 1850. And that's in basically in two years. In two years, 97,000 people come to California. I mean, it's one of the biggest demographic influxes of the 19th century and at that point in history in general. And that hundred thousand people who come to California includes tens of thousands of Mexicans. Mexicans who are right over the border in Baja California or Chihuahua or wherever, jump the border and go and seek their fortune with gold. And that is really where the legacy of a large Hispanic population in California starts. It's not when Mexico legally owned the land. It was barely populated before that. It's after the Gold Rush that Mexicans really start to move into California after it's already been annexed by the United States is when this large Hispanic population becomes prevalent within California. And we sort of think of California today as a high Hispanic population state. And that's because of the Gold Rush. It's not because of Mexico. In fact, Mexico had a terrible time trying to convince any settlers to go north of the Rio Grande or to California or Nevada. They couldn't. They were so desperate. They were trying to get. They. They eventually sent convicts to those areas because just nobody else wanted to go. So this. This notion that. This notion that Mexico has some kind of ancestral or legal claim to the Southwest or the Mexican people have some kind of ancestral claim in the Southwest that trumps Americas isn't really true, or it's flimsy at best. Barely any Mexican people live there when it was part of Mexico. And when most of the Mexicans came, it was American territory. So they came as immigrants, just like, as they claim, just like everybody else. You know, everybody else who lives in California are. Are immigrants. And they are supposedly the indigenous population when no, they weren't. They. They came along with everybody else during the Gold Rush. And this whole episode really hits home that the US Strategically took territory from Mexico. And we took that territory partly because there were so few people in it and that we knew we didn't want to take on that many people at one time because we knew we couldn't integrate them into the American experiment, into the American way of life, and that we didn't really want them here for those reasons. And that really, really sort of under undermines the entire leftist argument that Hispanics have some sort of special claim to the Southwest. So thank you for. For joining me on this little deep dive into the history of American Mexican relations in the early 19th century. And the Mexican session. You've been listening to another edition of Hayden's History Hour. I'm your host, Hayden. Daniel will be back soon with more. Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.