API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
jonstond2

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Latino Studies)

jonstond2
Nov 15th, 2019
210
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 81.23 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Introduction
  2. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo legally identified as the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement concluded the United States–Mexico war in 1848. Escalating war expenditures and sacrifices pressured both nations to conclude the war. In yet another attempt of peace, in 1847 President Polk sent Nicholas Trist with a projet of a proposed treaty under an injunction of secrecy to Mexico. During the Treaty’s negotiations, nonetheless President Polk recalled Trist to the United States and thus stripped him of legal authority to broker an agreement. Trist nonetheless continued negotiations with Mexican Commissioners Luis P. Cuevas, Jose Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain, and on 2 February 1848, in the Villa of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Querétaro, Mexico signed the treaty. Notwithstanding his anger toward Trist, on 23 February 1848, President Polk submitted the proposed treaty to the Senate for ratification. Ratification incurred with ensuing amendments and removal of Article X of the treaty that would have protected landholders who had not perfected their interests of ownership but for the interruption of military hostilities. With a final vote 38 to 14 on 16 March 1848, the Senate forwarded the treaty to Mexico. During its ratification, the Mexican Congress objected to the removal of Article X, causing the United States to respond with the Protocol of Querétaro that confirmed its removal was not intended to violate any property rights of those remaining in the annexed territories. Mexico ratified the treaty on 30 May 1848, with its final transfer between both nations occurring on 30 July 1848. The treaty pledged to establish peace and friendship with reciprocal benefits to both nations and to reside as good neighbors. The treaty annexed approximately 525,000 square miles to the United States, incorporated those remaining and contractually tethered the United States and Mexico. Several treaty articles protect the property, liberty, and religious rights of those incorporated in the territories. Several articles expedite commerce and military withdrawal, Indian incursions, and recognition of Indian pueblos. Additional articles established geographical boundaries and compensated Mexico fifteen million dollars for war expenditures. Yet others exempt duties from military supplies and provide for the protection of citizens in the event of military excursions in both nations. The treaty’s historiography remains sporadic but its relevancy remains vibrant encompassing property rights, natural resources, American Indians, religion, and numerous additional issues with consequences extending beyond the present period.
  3.  
  4. General Overviews
  5. The treaty’s historiography is intermittent, and at its centennial the war and treaty also failed to receive attention. Comparative studies of the treaty are also infrequent with non-Mexican authorities dominating scholarship such as Peter Harstad. This lack of sustained scrutiny promotes a legacy mired with misrepresentations authors employing secondary and imprecise sources that fault Mexico for the war and its territorial losses. It also fails to recognize how the treaty is supported or criticized in Mexico such as De La Peña y Peña 1989. Since its ratification and into the present, land use activists, scholars, and others criticize the United States for failing to honor its contractual obligations under the treaty. The rapid dispossession of property with legal historian Malcolm Ebright and others asserting fraud, conflicting legal rulings that transferred communal access to private landholders, land rings, and attorney actions obligate accountability. Acuña 2010 reports that many remaining in the annexed territories thereafter confronted violence and discrimination and did not garner the constitutional rights promised in the treaty. Weber 1976 further asserts that more sophisticated questions on the treaty encompassing race, class, and gendered studies, and the treaty’s impact on the entirety of annexed territories remains unaddressed. Against such considerations the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has witnessed interest from newer generations of scholars in historical studies employing critical theoretical constructs including Griswold del Castillo 1990 (cited under Textbooks). In legal studies newer treaty interpretations are also employing critical jurisprudential methods, and through archival records, historical documents, correspondence, recording property documents, or case law, they offer new directions of inquiry on the treaty’s application and the consequences on those remaining in the annexed territories such as Luna 1998 (cited under Property and Land in Article VIII and Article IX). This scholarship challenges prevailing dated norms of the treaty’s history and long-ignored judicial rulings harmful to its communities. The treaty’s sesquicentennial anniversary also witnessed renewed interest seeking acknowledgement, accountability, and a more precise interpretation of its provisions. Congressional hearings and the US General Accounting Office also produced reports offering a few options for the aggrieved. The reports nonetheless relied on faulty reasoning in declaring the treaty was not self-executing and that the United States did not breach the treaty underscore the Benavides and Golten 2008 analysis of the report. Such characterization is inconsistent with international and domestic case law as well as early land grant law employed in the former Spanish territories that included Florida. The report further failed by promoting flawed reasoning that declared the treaty was not self-executing and as such the United States had not violated the rights of the former property owners. Countering congressional reports with primary evidence, community scholars and activists repeated their pleas for accountability and restitution over losses of communal lands. With rare exception the treaty is again threatening to lapse into obscurity, but its legacy of discrimination, causal linkages to property, human rights, the environment, natural resources, and other issues disallow its disappearance long into the future.
  6.  
  7. Acuña, Rodolfo. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. 7th ed. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.
  8.  
  9. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  10.  
  11. This is the definitive text on the conquest of Mexico’s northern territories. Employing a critical historical construct the author reinterprets the destabilizing influences of Mexico’s economy from foreign investors and impact. An analysis of the treaty and impact on the annexed territories against the material and economic gains to the United States are also examined.
  12.  
  13. Find this resource:
  14.  
  15. Benavides, David, and Ryan Golten. “Righting the Record: A Response to the GAO’s 2004 Report Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico.” Natural Resources Journal 48 (2008): 857–926.
  16.  
  17. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  18.  
  19. This article counters a US General Accounting Office Report that analyzes the loss of communal land from its grantees notwithstanding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The article provides direct evidence that the report is faulty including how law was employed to dispossess the beneficiaries of communal land grants.
  20.  
  21. Find this resource:
  22.  
  23. De La Peña y Peña, Manuel. “An Address in Support of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” In The View from Chapultepec, Mexican Writers on the Mexican-American War. Translated and edited by Cecil Robinson, 101–112. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
  24.  
  25. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  26.  
  27. A negotiator of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo representing Mexico, the author defends his position to terminate the war with a peace agreement. If the war continued, the author feared additional harm and suffering on the Mexican Republic including the loss of the whole country, which further justified a peace agreement.
  28.  
  29. Find this resource:
  30.  
  31. Ebright, Malcolm. Land Grants and Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994.
  32.  
  33. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  34.  
  35. The author addresses the loss of land grants in New Mexico through harmful legal rulings stemming from the betrayal of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The land acts are compared with the land grant process in Florida, revealing the omission of key provisions from the land grant process in New Mexico. In addition, evidentiary rules were skewed to deny communal land grant holders the process of law.
  36.  
  37. Find this resource:
  38.  
  39. Harstad, Peter T., and Resh W. Richard. “The Causes of the Mexican War: A Note on Changing Interpretations.” Arizona and the West 6 (1964): 289–302.
  40.  
  41. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  42.  
  43. The authors analyze the lack of treatment the war garners from historians at the centennial of the Mexican War with a critique of the scholarship produced up to the time of this article. Until the war is investigated more completely, young scholars as the authors assert are also left to one popularly cited text notwithstanding its deficiencies.
  44.  
  45. Find this resource:
  46.  
  47. Luna, Guadalupe T. “Legal Realism and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Fractionalized Legal Template.” Wisconsin Law Review 2005 (2005): 519–555.
  48.  
  49. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  50.  
  51. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is examined through a jurisprudential philosophy identified as legal realism and illustrates how jurists through US law subverted the treaty’s intent and purpose. Primary evidence, an array of disparate legal rulings, and archival research of recording documents and the land claims process illustrate breaches of the treaty.
  52.  
  53. Find this resource:
  54.  
  55. US General Accounting Office. Findings and Possible Options regarding Longstanding Community Land Grants in New Mexico. GAO-04-59. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2004.
  56.  
  57. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  58.  
  59. This final report provides a history of the treaty, communal land grants, and Article X. Report resulted from assertions of land grant heirs and descendants that the United States did not honor the treaty including a Supreme Court decision that reinterpreted international, domestic, and land claims law with long-term harmful consequences. Remedial options are offered, but reliance on less than precise legal rulings offset the report’s recommendations.
  60.  
  61. Find this resource:
  62.  
  63. Weber, David J. “Mexico’s Far Northern Frontier, 1821–1854: Historiography Askew.” Western Historical Quarterly 7 (1976): 279–293.
  64.  
  65. DOI: 10.2307/967083Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  66.  
  67. The author criticizes the treaty’s historiography as “unbalanced, ethnocentric, and incomplete.” Calls for more “sophisticated” questions regarding Indian–white relations, “social mobility, class analysis, or demographic patterns,” including comparative treatment. This is a solid basis to study issues germane to the treaty with application into and beyond the present.
  68.  
  69. Find this resource:
  70.  
  71. Textbooks
  72. Textbooks infrequently feature the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, setting a framework for more precise analytical studies beyond the limited studies such as Smith 1919. The dominance of materials underscores a pro-war advocacy as illustrated in the congressional documents and holdings in the National Archives of the United States. Soldiers and officers’ diaries and correspondence offer further piecemeal analysis of the treaty. More sophisticated examinations lacking attention include the Protocol of Querétaro where the United States asserted that it would honor the treaty and as underscored in Mawn 1978. Alternatively, specific treaty provisions are addressed separately in the historical or legal literature limited to distinct regions absent Mexican law analysis. Infrequently analyzed is whether the United States honored its treaty obligations specific to the Indian, Mexican, and Spanish communities that remained in the annexed territories. California land fever demands of squatters, homesteaders, and others pressured adoption of the California Land Act of 1851, which attracts articles but very few texts. With little attention directed to Mexican law, the dominance of texts characterize Mexican law as imprecise and contrast US law as clear and precise, such as in Gates 1991. This misrepresentation justified the dispossession across the former Mexican territories. Land rings, lawyers, and politicians perpetuated fraud against the property holders, but lack a full text treatment although enumerated in Acuña 2010 (cited under General Overviews). In numerous instances the literature foregoes the treaty’s international framework, its negotiations, and comparative analysis that impact both nations. Access to the treaty and supporting documents are nonetheless becoming more available from edited collections such as Robinson 1989 or state websites as on the New Mexico and Texas historical web pages. Federal websites such as the National Archives also provide access to the treaty and United States negotiations. A vast array of destitute and harmful consequences in turn that witnessed the removal of communal land use and cultural practices also urge textbook treatment. Finally a more complete analysis of the financial complexities of the treaty also need additional and more precise analysis as indicated in Griswold del Castillo 1990.
  73.  
  74. Gates, Paul W. Land and Law in California, Essays on Land Policies. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1991.
  75.  
  76. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  77.  
  78. The author contrasts the differences in land use between the two republics but without examining Mexican law. This emphasis broadly promotes US law as superior without reconciling harmful rulings that not only betrayed the treaty and its contractual promises but further betrayed its supremacy under the federal constitution. The resultant dispossession and displaced reliance of the former property holders are also omitted from this analysis.
  79.  
  80. Find this resource:
  81.  
  82. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1990.
  83.  
  84. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  85.  
  86. This text is one of the first to provide an invaluable critical analysis of the treaty’s purpose and intent. Its historical antecedents and congressional enactments demonstrating breaches of the treaty promises to those incorporated following the war. The author provides actual case studies of land dispossession involving longstanding families in California.
  87.  
  88. Find this resource:
  89.  
  90. Mawn, Geoffrey P. “A Land-Grant Guarantee: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Protocol of Queretaro?” Journal of the West 4 (1978): 49–63.
  91.  
  92. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  93.  
  94. Stricken Article X obligating the Protocol of Querétaro is addressed along with President’s Polk’s projet and recall order of Nicholas Trist. Various political factions pressured negotiations and how the United States employed its own logic to facilitate a betrayal of the treaty’s promises to landholders is also examined.
  95.  
  96. Find this resource:
  97.  
  98. Robinson, Cecil, ed., and trans. The View from Chapultepec, Mexican Writers on the Mexican-American War. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
  99.  
  100. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  101.  
  102. In one of the few books written from Mexico’s perspective on the war, which is identified as the North American Invasion, the authors include contemporary and participants of the war. The social-political costs and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo analysis are addressed with an introduction provided before each essay. Also see Negotiators and Signatories.
  103.  
  104. Find this resource:
  105.  
  106. Smith, Justin Harvey. The Mexican War. New York: Macmillan, 1919.
  107.  
  108. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  109.  
  110. A text that historians relied on for over fifty years and overflowing with polemic descriptions of the war with racist ideology. Winner of a Pulitzer Prize, the text is a representative template of how such dominance skewed public perception of Mexico, its inhabitants, and the war. Although not annotated, a bibliography is provided.
  111.  
  112. Find this resource:
  113.  
  114. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Library of Congress. Primary Documents of American History.
  115.  
  116. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  117.  
  118. Government website providing a Hispanic Reading Room on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with several primary documents. The site also includes land claims legislation and houses the papers of Nicholas Trist including a copy of the treaty, but several differences distinguish it from the final version.
  119.  
  120. Find this resource:
  121.  
  122. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. National Archives of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration.
  123.  
  124. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  125.  
  126. The original Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in red velvet casing is readily viewed through the National Archives. The site maintains primary documents on the war, senate and presidential hearings. A digest of its holdings and several documents on the treaty are available in the Hispanic Reading Division of the Library of Congress.
  127.  
  128. Find this resource:
  129.  
  130. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. New Mexico Office of the State Historian.
  131.  
  132. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  133.  
  134. This source is one example of several historical based websites that provide a readily available and accessible copy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This site ensures easy access outside of traveling to the nation’s capital where the treaty remains in the national archives of the United States.
  135.  
  136. Find this resource:
  137.  
  138. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Texas State Historical Association.
  139.  
  140. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  141.  
  142. A skeletal framework of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the annexed territories is valuable for further context of the British legation and its role in its negotiations. Its characterization of the treaty’s ratification reducing it to “a few minor changes” exposes yet another example of an imprecise analysis of the treaty.
  143.  
  144. Find this resource:
  145.  
  146. Negotiators and Signatories
  147. President Polk sent Secretary of State Clerk Nicholas Trist to Mexico to negotiate a peace agreement under injunction of secrecy. As Chamberlin 1963 recognizes Trist’s Spanish-speaking skills and former diplomat to Cuba position rendered him suitable for the mission in Mexico. Several subsequent events nonetheless caused President Polk to recall Trist to the United States resulting from President Polk’s distrust of Trist’s supervisor Secretary of State John Buchanan, opposition to the war, and media headlines that demanded a prompt conclusion of the war. Escalating human and other sacrifices added further pressures to effectuate peace. As Brent 1953 and Brent 1954 enumerate, Trist ignored the October 1847 recall order that stripped his authority to represent the United States. Trist nonetheless was aware of the timing of forthcoming events in Mexico that would risk a peace agreement. Griswold del Castillo 1986 and the essays in Robinson 1989 further illustrate that during treaty negotiations the military defeat of Buena Vista and Veracruz, Mexico caused the Mexican commissioners Luis P. Cuevas, Jose Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain concerns of losing the republic in its entirety. The commissioners also feared forthcoming elections in Mexico would jeopardize concluding the war. These potential realities and threatened consequences thereby justified pursuing a proposed peace agreement. In the aggregate resulted in yielding to Polk’s earlier projet and as congressional documents such as the message from the president documents demonstrate before the House of Representatives, the Mexican commissioners and Trist successfully concluded a peace agreement with the Treaty arriving in Washington, DC, on 19 February 1848. Notwithstanding accomplishing Polk’s primary terms, ending the war, and the acquisition of hundreds of acres of land of inestimable worth, negotiating the agreement witnessed harsh political and economic consequences on Trist.
  148.  
  149. Brent, Robert A. “Reaction in the United States to Nicholas Trist’s Mission to Mexico, 1847–48.” Revista de Historia de América, Pan American Institute of Geography and History (pub). 35–36 (1953): 105–118.
  150.  
  151. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  152.  
  153. This balanced account includes extraneous factors on negotiating the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo against the president’s harsh treatment of Trist notwithstanding benefits to the United States. Polk’s mistrust of Secretary of State Buchanan, Whig opposition based on fear of potential slave territory, and Trist’s sense of duty in completing a peace agreement influenced the urgency in concluding an agreement.
  154.  
  155. Find this resource:
  156.  
  157. Brent, Robert A. “Nicholas P. Trist and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 4 (1954): 454–474.
  158.  
  159. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  160.  
  161. Nicholas P. Trist’s career in negotiating peace agreement between the United States and Mexico is the focus of this article. Primary sources including diplomatic dispatches, and Trist’s papers reveal rare facts on the unpopular political context of the war with impact on the timing of negotiations.
  162.  
  163. Find this resource:
  164.  
  165. Chamberlin, Keith E. “Nicholas Trist and Baja California.” Pacific Historical Review 32 (1963): 49–63.
  166.  
  167. DOI: 10.2307/4492128Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  168.  
  169. Faulting Trist for failure to procure Baja California with an emphasis on disobeying President Polk’s recall order, the author ignores the political embattlements and forthcoming elections in both nations that risked negotiating a peace agreement. Trist’s qualifications as former ambassador to Cuba and knowledge of Spanish that prepared him for Mexico are also overlooked.
  170.  
  171. Find this resource:
  172.  
  173. De La Peña y Reyes, Antonio. Algunos Documentos el Tratado de Guadalupe y La Situación de Mexico Durante La Invasión Americana: Prologo de Antonio de la Peña y Reyes. Mexico: Publiciones de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1930.
  174.  
  175. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  176.  
  177. From the Secretary of Foreign Relations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, this text with supporting documents includes a history of the American Invasion of Mexico. The text is available in several libraries.
  178.  
  179. Find this resource:
  180.  
  181. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. “Mexican Views of 1848: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo through Mexican History.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 1 (1986): 24–40.
  182.  
  183. DOI: 10.1080/08865655.1986.9695326Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  184.  
  185. This article examines the rare interpretations of Mexican historians on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo including proponents who feared loss of the entire country. This review of the various perspectives of the treaty in Mexico is critical to examining it’s covenants, purpose and intent.
  186.  
  187. Find this resource:
  188.  
  189. Klein, Julius. The Making of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1905.
  190.  
  191. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  192.  
  193. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its historical, international, and legal framework are addressed through executive documents, diaries, and the correspondence of Nicholas Trist. Notwithstanding Trist’s disobedience of the President’s recall order, the author illustrates Polk’s expansionism goals were primarily met in the conquest of Mexico.
  194.  
  195. Find this resource:
  196.  
  197. “Message from the President of the United States: United States House of Representatives, Propositions for Peace.” 13th Cong. 1st sess. Ex. doc. no. 40 (11 February 1848).
  198.  
  199. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  200.  
  201. The correspondence between the Mexican commissioners and Trist prior to the treaty’s submission to the Senate including Polk’s declarations. Commissioners Bernardo Conto, Jose J. De Herrera, Ignacio Mora y Villamil, and Miguel Atristain in Mexico’s counter projet reveal dismay over the war and embarrassment on the forthcoming territorial losses. A summary of the causes of the war by Trist blames Mexico for its refusal to recognize Texas.
  202.  
  203. Find this resource:
  204.  
  205. Robinson, Cecil, ed., and trans. The View from Chapultepec, Mexican Writers on the Mexican-American War. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
  206.  
  207. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  208.  
  209. In one of the few books written from Mexico’s perspective on the war and which is identified as the North American Invasion, the authors include contemporary and participants of the war. The social-political costs and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo analysis are addressed with an introduction provided before each essay. Also see Textbooks.
  210.  
  211. Find this resource:
  212.  
  213. Article VI and the United States–Mexico War
  214. Treaties are recognized under the supremacy clause of the US constitution. To conclude the war and promote peace several of the treaty articles address the withdrawal of the troops and the antecedents that obligated a lasting and sustained peace agreement. To understand the peace agreement as an international document requires a study of the US–Mexican war, the federal constitution and the law of Mexico. Breaches of the treaty prior to final agreement could trigger additional military hostilities and both nations bear the responsibility to protect the promises that they pledged in concluding a sustained peace. Studying the treaty and its antecedents assist in analysis of trade agreements, staled economic development, environmental issues, the negotiation of justice and human rights, and the promotion of sustained foreign policies. The causal linkages to the war are several, but Benson 1987 argues two major reasons emerged from the US annexation of Mexico’s Coahuila-Tejas border region with attendant geographical demarcation border conflicts. Foreign settlers in the region exploited slave labor and fear extended into the interior of both nations that it would reach into the interior of the United States. Griswold del Castillo 1998 demonstrates that Mexico’s response to defending her border regions resulted in the US official declaration of war on 13 May 1846. Nonetheless the active role of the United States in Mexico prior to the war illustrates that the war’s origin is not limited to boundary disputes as examined in Caruso 1991. In response Greenberg 2012 and numerous others assert opposition from Whigs, abolitionists, and subsequent presidents including Abraham Lincoln and others question the validity of the military conflict. Graebner 1980 contrasts the lack of attention of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but emphasizes that the war has received a measure of attention. Graebner further underscores the dominant themes that narrowly focus on the expansionism goals of the United States with an additional emphasis on whether slavery would encroach on the new territories. Vásquez 1989 contrasts the attention the war engenders in the United States with the absence of Mexico’s perspective on the war omitted from the treaty’s historiography. In several instances Mexico’s refusals to sell its northernmost territories also serve as justification of the war in the historical literature as numerous others assert. Yet Smith 1919 (cited under Textbooks) belittles Mexico’s objections over Texas “independence” with the order to send the army to defend the region as a rationale to justify war. For several decades and until proven misrepresentative, this influential text disparaged Mexico with flawed characteristics politically, culturally, and socially as deserving of military invasion. Scholarship as to the cause of the war, such as Caruso 1991, also centers on the presidential candidacy and tenure of James K. Polk’s expansionist-driven agenda. Polk faced pressures, for example, from the media, politicians, and anti-war opponents in conjunction with the financial and human costs of military action in Mexico to stop the war and provided in Cordova 1997. Military conflict casualties included not only staggering deaths but also participants who perished from disease, as Foos 2002 demonstrates, which extended several years after the war. In both nations electoral politics threatened extending longstanding strife that would have hindered a peace agreement.
  215.  
  216. Benson, Nettie Lee. “Texas as Viewed From Mexico, 1820–1834.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 90 (1987): 219–291.
  217.  
  218. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  219.  
  220. Mexican primary and secondary sources provide extensive information on Mexico’s actions in Texas including the Apaches, Lipans, and Comanches who were also defending their lands in the region. Squatter encroachments, international conflicts with foreign nations, and the political skirmishes through which Mexico attempted to defend her territories are also included.
  221.  
  222. Find this resource:
  223.  
  224. Caruso, A. Brooke. The Mexican Spy Company, United States Covert Operations in Mexico, 1845–1848. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1991.
  225.  
  226. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  227.  
  228. This text focuses on the spy activities, bribes, and infiltrators in Mexico who reported to the president to ensure President Polk’s success, the annexation of Texas, and acquisition of Mexico.
  229.  
  230. Find this resource:
  231.  
  232. Cordova, Maria Gayon. La Ocupacion Yanqui de la Ciudad de Mexico, 1847–1848. Córdoba, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología Historia, 1997.
  233.  
  234. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  235.  
  236. English title: The Yankee Occupation of Mexico City, 1847–1848. Through a variety of documents including diaries, correspondence, and newspaper accounts, the author provides extensive detail on the American occupation of Mexico City.
  237.  
  238. Find this resource:
  239.  
  240. Foos, Paul. A Short, Offhand Killing Affair: Soldiers and Social Conflict during the Mexican-American War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
  241.  
  242. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  243.  
  244. The author demonstrates the distinctions between the army and militia. Patriotic declarations characterize the army, but difficulties with militia individuals lacking military discipline engendered challenges that further plagued the war. Emphasizes the ideology of manifest destiny perpetuated racial and sexual cruelties in Mexico. Maps, diaries newspapers clippings, illustrations, and a bibliography provide further evidence of this unique analysis of an unpopular war.
  245.  
  246. Find this resource:
  247.  
  248. Graebner, Norman A. “The Mexican War: A Study in Causation.” Pacific Historical Review 49 (1980): 405–426.
  249.  
  250. DOI: 10.2307/3638563Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  251.  
  252. Challenges justifications of war with further analysis on anti-war opponents including Abraham Lincoln. Polk’s expansionism agenda and pressures to cease military conflict were skewed from Mexico’s refusal to concede defeat. When policies succeeded, they resulted more from good fortune that began with Trist rejecting Polk’s recall order.
  253.  
  254. Find this resource:
  255.  
  256. Greenberg, Amy S. A Wicked War. New York: Knoff, 2012.
  257.  
  258. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  259.  
  260. The title of the book derives from a Ulysses S. Grant observation of the war. Historical, archival, correspondence, and newspaper accounts are used to analyze the roles of President Polk, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln. A brief analysis of the treaty addressed, but Mexican sources and perspectives of the war are omitted.
  261.  
  262. Find this resource:
  263.  
  264. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. “Manifest Destiny: The Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Southwest Journal Law and Trade in the Americas 5 (1998): 31–39.
  265.  
  266. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  267.  
  268. Synthesis of boundary issues and manifest destiny as whipping up war fever includes an astute analysis of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article underscores Mexican army superior conflicts with criticism in the United States. Primary research reveals denial of constitutional promises with racism imposed on those remaining including lynching, racial hatred, cultural divisions, and loss of property rights.
  269.  
  270. Find this resource:
  271.  
  272. Vásquez, Josefina Zoraida. “Mexicans and North Americans on the War of 47.” In The View From Chapultepec, Mexican Writers on the Mexican-American War. Translated and edited by Cecil Robinson, 193–209. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
  273.  
  274. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  275.  
  276. This essay asks critical questions on the relationship between United States and Mexico and to the cause of the war, which is difficult to pinpoint and primarily neglected. The author asserts war inevitable given Mexico’s “neglect” of its northernmost territories, multiple international battles, and financial status that caused the republic to yield to American expansionism movement.
  277.  
  278. Find this resource:
  279.  
  280. Select Military Engagements and Treaty Negotiations
  281. The dominant political and cultural rhetoric that the United States promoted against the Mexican republic fails to undergo more precise and concrete examination. Follow-up studies of the military engagement between the two republics, such as Owen 1908, continue to perpetuate the political and cultural aggrandizement of the US military. Rare examinations such as Bourne 1900 and Rives 1913 link the war to the American republic’s fear of encroachment from additional nations. A more precise and concrete scrutiny of the war and overstated assertions from the American republic are examined in Haas 1997 and offers greater factual framework of the Mexican civilians who also defended their homeland. The failure of the United States to engage skillful diplomacy moreover is further addressed in Pletcher 1973 with primary documents of the president’s war orders. Recent additions to the military maneuvers between the two republics are emerging such as the website of the US Army Center of Military History, with maps of campaigns also included (Campaigns of the United States Army: United States–Mexico War).
  282.  
  283. Bourne, Edward G. “The United States and Mexico, 1847–1848.” American Historical Review 5 (1900): 491–502.
  284.  
  285. DOI: 10.2307/1835238Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  286.  
  287. This article centers President Polk’s expansionism objectives over Mexico. The author provides the causal linkages encompassing Great Britain, Oregon, Mexico and the war. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is extensively analyzed including Polk’s recall of Trist with consequences that impoverished the negotiator until his seventies.
  288.  
  289. Find this resource:
  290.  
  291. Campaigns of the United States Army: United States–Mexico War. US Army Center of Military History.
  292.  
  293. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  294.  
  295. Military website providing various readings of the army’s campaigns during the war between the two nations. Various chapters include the military in the Rio Grande, campaign for Monterrey, and the occupation of Mexico up to the termination of the war. The website also offers several maps of the campaigns during the war and into Mexico.
  296.  
  297. Find this resource:
  298.  
  299. Haas, Lisbeth. “War in California 1846–1848.” California History 76 (1997): 331–355.
  300.  
  301. DOI: 10.2307/25161671Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  302.  
  303. The author challenges the aggrandizement of United States military as heroes while misrepresenting actions of Mexican soldiers, civilians and women in defending California. Urges more studies on the causes and effects of the war as well as on indigenous communities left on the periphery of law.
  304.  
  305. Find this resource:
  306.  
  307. Owen, Charles. The Justice of the Mexican War. GP Putnam’s, 1908.
  308.  
  309. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  310.  
  311. A biased perspective of the war highly critical of anti-war opponents with broad based condemnations and absent basis of fact or evidence. Rebukes critics to avoid harping tactics with an analysis that relies on perceived deficiencies of Mexico as leading to war. Notwithstanding critique author employs same methods of war opponents.
  312.  
  313. Find this resource:
  314.  
  315. Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of Annexation, Texas, Oregon and the Mexican War. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973.
  316.  
  317. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  318.  
  319. The extensive international influences and events antecedent to the war with gains to United States addressed. Polk’s war orders and campaigns examined, as underestimating war military engagement with lack of skillful diplomacy incurring harmful costs. Extensive primary and secondary United States and Mexican sources with newspaper accounts providing additional context.
  320.  
  321. Find this resource:
  322.  
  323. Rives, George L. “Mexican Diplomacy on the Eve of War with the United States.” American Historical Review 18 (1913): 275–291.
  324.  
  325. DOI: 10.2307/1835328Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  326.  
  327. This article addresses the annexation of Texas and the circumstances in which Mexico while retaining its interest in the region failed to protect its territories with the roles of Great Britain and France examined. Government dispatches between foreign diplomats also included prove of value for future research on this topic.
  328.  
  329. Find this resource:
  330.  
  331. Property and Land in Article VIII and Article IX
  332. Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provide for the protection of the property rights of those electing to remain in the annexed territories. Within a short period of time, innumerable families and individuals lost their property and raise the question as to whether the United States performed its contractually bound promises. Property rights scholarship is addressed infrequently with various studies placing blame on the property holders for their dispossession. Others such as Bakken 1993 and Vaught 2004 underscore the differences between land use practices in both countries as expediting losses. Still others such as Hughes 1975 argue that the procedural differences between Anglo-American common law and the civil law in Mexico induced property losses along with cultural distinctions. Such assertions are difficult to reconcile with the authority of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, constitutional law, and congressional legislation that obligated the United States to the promises made to the former Mexican citizens. Still others employing an empirical institutional analysis as in Clay 1999 declare the United States was fair in its intent to facilitate land claims. More recent scholarship employing critical theoretical constructs attempt to reconcile the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo property provisions with dispossession. A few authors (Cameron 1998) have demonstrated a realm of disparate legal rulings and violence that expedited property losses. Land speculators, attorneys, and squatters benefitting from violations of international legal standards and misapplication of constitutional and property laws also expedited dispossession as demonstrated in Luna 1998. Luna 1999 further underscores congressional adoption of land claims legislation with misapplication of law illustrate that Mexican, Spanish, and Indian landowners notwithstanding documented proof of ownership forfeited private and communal property to inconsistent rulings. In sum, the promises made in Articles VIII and IX engendered socio-economic, political, and cultural harm to the former Mexican citizens and their descendants. To the present, the descendants of the former property holders’ advocate for accountability and reparation for the promises lost since the treaty’s signing in 1848.
  333.  
  334. Bakken, Gordon Morris. “Mexican and American Land Policy: A Conflict of Cultures.” Southern California Quarterly 75 (1993): 237–258.
  335.  
  336. DOI: 10.2307/41171681Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  337.  
  338. The author compares US land policy values of title with communal land practices in Mexico. The evidence is limited to an incomplete analysis of the legislative land framework while also disparaging the large landholdings of Mexican grants that post dispossession became large agricultural enterprises in the United States.
  339.  
  340. Find this resource:
  341.  
  342. Cameron, Christopher Ruiz. “One Hundred Years of Solitude: Reflections on the End of History’s Dominance of Scholarship on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 5 (1998): 83–105.
  343.  
  344. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  345.  
  346. The first empirical study of land grant case law in the United States Supreme Court through a Latina/o critical legal theory underscores legal indeterminism from inconsistent judicial rulings and which negatively impacted the former Mexican, Indian, and Spanish property holders in the annexed territories.
  347.  
  348. Find this resource:
  349.  
  350. Clay, Karen B. “Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the California Land Act of 1851.” Journal of Economic History 59 (1999): 122–142.
  351.  
  352. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050700022312Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  353.  
  354. An overall examination of the institutions congress employed to facilitate existing property rights in California. Employing a Coasian framework, the author strips the historical, legal record and constitutional obligations with fault placed on Mexican authorities and procedures to nonetheless conclude that the institutions balanced the all participants including squatters and settlers.
  355.  
  356. Find this resource:
  357.  
  358. Hornbeck, David. “The Patenting of California’s Private Land Claims, 1851–1885.” Geographical Review 69 (1979): 434–448.
  359.  
  360. DOI: 10.2307/214806Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  361.  
  362. An example of gains accruing to new incoming groups with attendant harm on the former property holders the treaty was obligated to protect. Extensive graphs and examination of the legislation and policies including the impact of California Land Act of 1851 on the landholders distinguishes land tenure in both countries.
  363.  
  364. Find this resource:
  365.  
  366. Hughes, Charles. “The Decline of the Californios: The Case of San Diego, 1846–156.” San Diego Historical Society Quarterly 21 (1975).
  367.  
  368. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  369.  
  370. With a focus on San Diego in contrast to northern California, this author challenges studies that assert the population’s fortunes declined as a result of the American invasion. In contrast, the author declares that San Diego inhabitants were in economic decline prior to the war. Subsequent periods also frame this essay.
  371.  
  372. Find this resource:
  373.  
  374. Luna, Guadalupe T. “Chicana/Chicano Land Tenure in the Agrarian Domain: On the Edge of a Naked Knife.’” Michigan Journal of Race & Law 4 (1998): 39–144.
  375.  
  376. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  377.  
  378. Through primary historical, archival, and case law sources, this article challenges legal discourse in which fault is placed on former property owners that assert property losses stemmed from a conflict in the legal systems of both nations. A section on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the international legal precedents that judicial rulings ignored and which benefited non-Mexican landholders are also provided.
  379.  
  380. Find this resource:
  381.  
  382. Luna, Guadalupe T. “‘This Land Belongs to Me:’ Chicanas, Land Grant Adjudication and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Harvard Latino Law Review 3 (1999): 115–162.
  383.  
  384. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  385.  
  386. This article addresses the litigation experiences of Mexican women who defended their property interests following the US invasion and conquest of the former Mexican territories. Through direct case studies and archival and historical research, the legal rights of women contrast with the common law system where they lacked a legal identity and which presented additional hurdles for them in defending their property.
  387.  
  388. Find this resource:
  389.  
  390. Vaught, David. “A Tale of Three Land Grants on the Northern California Borderlands.” Agricultural History 78 (2004): 140–154.
  391.  
  392. DOI: 10.1525/ah.2004.78.2.140Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  393.  
  394. From a dominant perspective, this article makes broad declarations in the study of three land grants in California. Comparing the three leads, the author to conclude that both “Anglo and Hispanic . . . fostered a corrupt land grant system.” This broad declaration stereotypes land grants as a process that benefitted both groups. More care should be taken in analyzing land grantees specific to time, place, and procedures involved. An overreliance on Western dominated research hinders this article.
  395.  
  396. Find this resource:
  397.  
  398. New Mexico
  399. The treaty provided for the protection of property rights of those remaining in the annexed territories but in each region Congress promulgated distinct differences in obligating the landholders to demonstrate proof of ownership. The land acts or surveyor general requirements to demonstrate proof of ownership applied to landholders even in instances spanning decades as delineated in Knowlton 1973 and Scarborough 2011. In New Mexico Bowden 2011 provides valuable information on the Surveyor General era and extending to the Court of Private Land Claims procedures that obligated proof of landownership but with contrasting and irreconcilable consequences. Into the contemporary era, land activism generates interest with demands of transparency and accountability from the federal government over the and extensive dispossession of communal and private property. In New Mexico scare water access created a network of water ditches that benefitted the broader community, but harmful judicial rulings notwithstanding Mexican law and the treaty dispossessed the former property holders and as demonstrated in Benavides and Golten 2008. The authors specifically address the inadequacies of the federal government reports attendant to demands of accountability for the extensive land losses that led to extensive impoverishment. These consequences further impacted the indigenous populations residing in Indiana pueblos notwithstanding the treaty’s protection of their communities. Property dispossession also resulted from overly broad claims of fraud such as asserted in Brackett 1887, a study of land grants in the region, and further encompassed in González 1999 and Houghton 2008. Into the present, the heirs and land activists continue to seek reforms, as Gardner 1970 enumerates.
  400.  
  401. Benavides, Avid, and Ryan Golten. “Righting the Record: A Response to the GAO’s 2004 Report Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico.” Natural Resources Journal 48 (2008): 857–926.
  402.  
  403. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  404.  
  405. This article counters a US General Accounting Office report analyzing the loss of communal land from its New Mexico grantees with an examination of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The authors providing direct evidence to illustrate how the report failed, for example, to analyze and reconcile the law employed that dispossessed the intended beneficiaries of communal lands.
  406.  
  407. Find this resource:
  408.  
  409. Bowden, J. J. Bowden’s Private Land Claims of the Southwest. Santa Fe: New Mexico State Center and Records Archives, 2011.
  410.  
  411. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  412.  
  413. Bowden’s account of the land grants and procedures under the Court of Private Land Claims including the period in which the surveyor general also handled the land grants is covered in this New Mexico History web project. Bowden’s text is available for the New Mexico land grant process and procedures.
  414.  
  415. Find this resource:
  416.  
  417. Brackett, William S. “Land Grants in New Mexico.” Chicago Law Times (1887): 323–362.
  418.  
  419. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  420.  
  421. This article asserts homesteaders, preemptors, settlers, and others expected access to property in New Mexico, but communal land presented barriers. Pueblo communal land grants characterized as fraudulent with the author’s overly broad description of Mexican colonization law. Various articles of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo are addressed, but the article is deficient without regard to how Mexican land was employed and the supremacy of the treaty.
  422.  
  423. Find this resource:
  424.  
  425. Gardner, Richard. Grito! Reies Tijerina and the New Mexico Land Grant War of 1967. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970.
  426.  
  427. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  428.  
  429. One of the earliest popular accounts of Reies Lopez Tijerina who reinvigorated the protest against the dispossession of land in New Mexico from the grantees and their heirs and organized the Alianza Federal de Mercedes, an organization to reclaim the promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
  430.  
  431. Find this resource:
  432.  
  433. González, Deena J. Refusing the Favor. The Spanish-Mexican Women of Santa Fe 1820–1880. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  434.  
  435. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  436.  
  437. The impact of colonization of the Spanish–Mexican women in New Mexico following the US–Mexican war is explored in precise detail. The author promotes correcting past neglect in Western history of the role of women and their survival against the ongoing colonization that they witnessed resulting from the war between the two nations.
  438.  
  439. Find this resource:
  440.  
  441. Houghton, Kristopher N. “The Blighted History of the Alameda Land Grant: Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil.” Natural Resources Journal 45.983 (2008): 983–1005.
  442.  
  443. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  444.  
  445. Provides an example of a Spanish land grant, the journey through the land grant process, and the ultimate dismantling of the grant under American law. The author highlights the dispossession and long-term consequences of the extent to which the government breached treaty promises.
  446.  
  447. Find this resource:
  448.  
  449. Knowlton, Clark S. “Causes of Land Loss among the Spanish-Americans in Northern New Mexico.” In The Chicanos: Life and Struggles of the Mexican Minority in the United States. Edited by Gilbert López y Rivas, 111–121. New York: Monthly Review, 1973.
  450.  
  451. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  452.  
  453. This article is one of several in a text translated from Spanish on the conquest of the indigenous and Chicanas/os in the Southwest. Background on the different forms of land granted in New Mexico and the lack of the United States to honor the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The cause of land displacement without federal protection enabled lawlessness, violence, and fraud against grantees.
  454.  
  455. Find this resource:
  456.  
  457. Scarborough, Mike. Trespassers on Our Own Land, Structured as an Oral History of the Juan P. Valdez Family and of the Land Grants of Northern New Mexico. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear, 2011.
  458.  
  459. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  460.  
  461. This text addresses federal public domain law with the land grants of Juan Bautista Valdez and links to land grant activist Juan Valdez. The analysis of United States’s gains and diminishing acreage held by communal use are explored. Primary evidence, congressional enactments, and a 2004 US General Accounting report with maps and drawings underscore the dispossession of grantee property.
  462.  
  463. Find this resource:
  464.  
  465. Texas
  466. The war and resulting Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo rendered varying consequences specific to each region of the former Mexican territories. Texas differed from the California Alta region, and both contrasted with the New Mexico territories. Specifically, Texas antagonized Mexico with its declaration of independence in 1836. In 1846 the United States formally recognized Texas, but Mexico refused to recognize this declared independence. Mexico regarded such actions as hostile to its interest, which causally initiated military activities seeking to defend the region. Subsequent to the treaty’s enactment many land grant holders witnessed immediate dispossession of their property interests. De la Garza and Schmitt 1986 underscores the extent to which US incursions culminated with extensive land dispossession of the former Mexican property holders. Texas General Land Office 2009 delineates the realm of property holders throughout the state but negates the extent to which state law derided the treaty’s supremacy under the federal constitution. Hill 1960 also illustrates how the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in contrast with its constitutional supremacy yielded to state law rulings. Similar to New Mexico, many Indian settlements lost their communal lands and faced boundary disputes as addressed in West 1923–1924. Attendant to the vast property holdings, Hoffman 1946–1947 further illuminates the natural resources that were denied to former property owners subsequent to the war. In a similar vein, impoverishment also followed from the disenfranchisement of the former Mexican holders of property in the Texas region.
  467.  
  468. De la Garza, Rodolfo O., and Karl Schmitt. “Texas Land Grants & Chicano-Mexican Relations: A Case Study.” Latin American Research Review 21 (1986): 128–138.
  469.  
  470. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  471.  
  472. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its’ application to the Mexican property holders who lost their properties in Texas. The authors illustrate that state law took precedence over the international arena notwithstanding the treaty’s supremacy under the federal constitution.
  473.  
  474. Find this resource:
  475.  
  476. Hill, Vernon B. “Spanish and Mexican Land Grants between the Nueces and Rio Grande.” South Texas Law Review 5 (1960): 47–59.
  477.  
  478. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  479.  
  480. The author asserts that the legality of Spanish and Mexican land grants retain their historical standing and, as such, are valid. The grants between the Nueces and Rio Grande are principally communal and an analysis of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, stricken Article X, state litigation, and the land grant process in Texas in conjunction with mineral and water rights are also included.
  481.  
  482. Find this resource:
  483.  
  484. Hoffman, Harold. “Texas Land Titles and Vested Rights.” Texas Law Review 25 (1946–1947): 508–529.
  485.  
  486. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  487.  
  488. The article underscores litigation in Texas land titles under Spanish and Mexican law against the realm of state law. The case ruling in which state courts denied application of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in Texas is also examined. Litigation addressing whether the state legislature can divest property rights including natural resources is also addressed.
  489.  
  490. Find this resource:
  491.  
  492. Land Grants. Texas General Land Office.
  493.  
  494. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  495.  
  496. This website provides an extensive array of land grant documentation in Texas ranging in the period between 1720 and 1836. The documents dating from Texas annexation provide further information on the nature of land grants in the state.
  497.  
  498. Find this resource:
  499.  
  500. Texas General Land Office. Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in South Texas. Austin: Texas General Land Office, 2009.
  501.  
  502. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  503.  
  504. A history of the Spanish and Mexican land grants in South Texas and various settlements beginning in the 1700s are reviewed in this state text. The historical antecedents and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo impact on Texas grantees are also surveyed. Maps of the land settlements add immeasurably but the text adheres to a legal formalism that claims of disposed grantees were treated fairly under American law.
  505.  
  506. Find this resource:
  507.  
  508. West, Robert G. “Validity of Land Grants in Texas.” Texas Law Review 2 (1923–1924): 435–444.
  509.  
  510. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  511.  
  512. This is a reprint of a legal opinion responding to the request of local attorneys on litigation encompassing a subsequent Texas boundary issue. The litigation analyzes three land grants encompassing the Ysleta, Socorro, and San Elceario dating from the Spanish period of the region and its intersection with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
  513.  
  514. Find this resource:
  515.  
  516. Proceedings and Federal Reports
  517. The 1998 sesquicentennial of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo witnessed renewed attention of the US–Mexican war and treaty negotiations with attendant conferences and publication of proceedings. The Chamizal National Memorial Speakers Series hosted a series of speakers that addressed the international human rights relationship of the treaty as well as the geographical boundary and natural resources in the region (Chamizal National Memorial 1998). Further assisting a study of the region is the Francaviglia and Douglas 2000, article which analyzes the role of Great Britain in Texas among yet additional causative factors of the war. For the first time since its signing, the Southwestern School of Law, and only law school in the nation hosted a Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo symposium. Scholars, Mexican officials, and others addressed the treaty, its impact on the former Mexican citizens, distinguished it as an international trade agreement, and further explored its international dimensions. The proceedings and numerous presentations in addition generated extended research and commentary on the treaty including various federal congressional reports as further drawn in part from the congressional report, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Land Claims Act of 1998. A rare series of US General Accounting Office reports responded to community activists, scholars, and the heirs of displaced property holders who seek accountability over the loss of extensive communal property in the New Mexico region.
  518.  
  519. Chamizal National Memorial, ed. Speakers Series Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. El Paso, TX: Chamizal National Memorial, 1998.
  520.  
  521. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  522.  
  523. The proceedings of the 1998 sesquicentennial of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo constituting several essays on the history, military, and Texas annexation. Further papers offer commentary of the international human rights emphasis of the treaty, boundary and survey issues, natural resources issues, and a summary of proposed legislation to determine the validity of land claims in New Mexico.
  524.  
  525. Find this resource:
  526.  
  527. Fisher, Kristina G., ed. Special Issue: Symposium on Land Grants and the Law: The Disputed Legal Histories of New Mexico’s Land Grants Natural Resources Journal 48.4.
  528.  
  529. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  530.  
  531. Symposium addressing congressional studies of community land grants in New Mexico following the complaints of community land grant heirs and activists’ over the unfairness in judicial rulings and misapplication of Mexican law that resulted in land dispossession. Additional land losses from sales of communal land to private owners, attorney fee arrangements, partition lawsuits, federal public domain proclamations and tax foreclosure sales are also examined. Includes the paper by David Benavides and Ryan Golten, “Righting the Record: A Response to the GAO’s 2004 Report Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico” (pp. 857–926).
  532.  
  533. Find this resource:
  534.  
  535. Francaviglia, Richard V., and Richmond W. Douglas, eds. Dueling Eagles, Reinterpreting the U.S.-Mexico War, 1846–1848. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 2000.
  536.  
  537. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  538.  
  539. Symposium essays on the sesquicentennial of the war from a social history perspective explore the geographical, social, cultural, and cartographic legacies of war, the entanglement of Great Britain, and policymakers’ impact on Mexico. Mexico would not concede defeat and mutiny, and political inferences, the impact on the residents of Monterrey, Mexico, and role of journalists are considered in the essays.
  540.  
  541. Find this resource:
  542.  
  543. Special Issue: Symposium: Understanding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on Its 150th Anniversary: “Friends” or “Enemies?” The Status of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States on the Sesquicentennial of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 5 (1998).
  544.  
  545. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  546.  
  547. This first symposium in a California law school on the sesquicentennial of the treaty gathered scholars, historians, diplomats, and others. The symposium articles compare the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the North American Free Trade Agreement, with others employing new critical legal methods addressing the disparate treatment of the communities that remained after the war.
  548.  
  549. Find this resource:
  550.  
  551. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Land Claims Act of 1998, Congressional Reports, Committee on Resources to Accompany H. R. 2558. H. Report 105–594 (1998).
  552.  
  553. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  554.  
  555. Congressional report on the land claims of the Mexican descendants under the Treaty of Guadalupe and the potential Land Claims Act of 1998. The act was to establish a presidential commission to determine the validity of land claims under the treaty with qualifications based on Mexican citizenship, being a communal land claim descendant, and obtaining US citizenship within ten years after the treaty.
  556.  
  557. Find this resource:
  558.  
  559. US General Accounting Office. El Tratada de Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definición y lista de las concesiones de tierras comunitarias en New México. GAO 01-952. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2001.
  560.  
  561. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  562.  
  563. English title: Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico. The Spanish version of the General Accounting Office report at the request of congressional representatives and land grant activists providing an inventory and definition of the communal land grants in New Mexico.
  564.  
  565. Find this resource:
  566.  
  567. US General Accounting Office. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico. GAO-01-330. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2001.
  568.  
  569. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  570.  
  571. Community land grant activism since the war sought an accounting over the loss and ongoing dispossession of communal land grants in New Mexico. The report notwithstanding the input of more updated legal and historical studies on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and congressional land claims statutes facilitates a limited and narrow text.
  572.  
  573. Find this resource:
  574.  
  575. US General Accounting Office. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico. GAO 01-951. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2001.
  576.  
  577. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  578.  
  579. Report providing an inventory of New Mexico communal land grants. Stemming from the request of congressional representatives and land grant advocacy groups the Report focuses on grants dating from Spanish governance of the region. History, maps, and other evidence illustrate proving the validity of land ownership involved layers of surveyor general actions and the Court of Private Land Claims.
  580.  
  581. Find this resource:
  582.  
  583. US General Accounting Office. Findings and Possible Options regarding Longstanding Community Land Grants in New Mexico. GAO-04-59. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2004.
  584.  
  585. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  586.  
  587. Final federal report providing history of the treaty, communal land grants, and stricken Article X. Report resulted from assertions of land grant heirs and descendants that the United States did not honor the treaty including a Supreme Court decision that reinterpreted international, domestic, and land claims law with long-term harmful consequences. Remedial options are offered, but reliance on less than precise legal rulings offset recommendations.
  588.  
  589. Find this resource:
  590.  
  591. Article X, Stricken Article
  592. During ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe, the United States senate removed Article X and a summary of congressional documents, which are included in Miller 1937. Stricken Article X would have protected land grantees unable to perfect a title from interruption by military excursions. Texas’s struggle for independence and its military engagements in the region however disallowed retaining the article as the negotiators intended. In California, Baker 1914 questions whether the United States retained its promises after the removal of Article X. Article X moreover reflected international law and precedent in US case law rulings that recognized that sovereignty property rights were not forfeit. Mexico’s objections over the removal of the article thereafter obligated the United States to respond in a Statement of Protocol on 26 May 1848, declaring that it “did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” Mawn 1978 enumerates the removal of Article X of the treaty and the Protocol of Queretaro as engendering objections from the Mexican republic, which instigated the United States to respond with the Protocol of Queretaro. The protocol and President Polk’s message to the Senate declared that the United States intended to protect the property rights of the former property holders and that the land in dispute was public in contrast to private land. The removal of Article X thereafter facilitated the United States implementation of legislative enactments that demanded proof of ownership of the property holders in the annexed territories. The resulting impoverishment is addressed in Gonzales 2003 in the ongoing defense of communal land grants. Yet other international agreements specific to boundary demarcation along the geographic border between both nations also resulted, as the Pilsbury Report provides (Pilsbury 1849). In the aggregate the legislative enactments conflicted with the treaty’s contractual intent thereby facilitating land losses across the former Mexican territories, as exemplified in Gonzales 2003.
  593.  
  594. Baker, Charles C. “Mexican Land Grants in California.” Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 9 (1914): 236–243.
  595.  
  596. DOI: 10.2307/41168710Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  597.  
  598. With a focus on California, the author questions whether the United States kept its promises following its removal of Article X from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the subsequent adoption of the Protocol at Queretaro on 26 May 1848. The extensive litigation resulting from subsequent congressional enactments and length of time to prove ownership is recognized as a tragedy.
  599.  
  600. Find this resource:
  601.  
  602. Gonzales, Phillip B. “Struggle for Survival, 1848–2001.” Agricultural History Society 2 (2003): 293–324.
  603.  
  604. DOI: 10.1525/ah.2003.77.2.293Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  605.  
  606. Stricken Article X of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Protocol of Queretaro are examined with a focus on the impact and ongoing defense of the communal land grants of New Mexico. Recent federal studies are addressed along with the losses to displaced former holders at the gains of lumber companies.
  607.  
  608. Find this resource:
  609.  
  610. Mawn, Geoffrey P. “A Land-Grant Guarantee: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Protocol of Queretaro?” Journal of the West 4 (1978): 49–63.
  611.  
  612. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  613.  
  614. The removed Article X and the Protocol of Querétaro are addressed along with President Polk’s projet and the recall order of Nicholas Trist. The way in which various political factions pressured negotiations and how the United States employed its own logic to facilitate a betrayal of the treaty’s promises to landholders is also examined.
  615.  
  616. Find this resource:
  617.  
  618. Miller, Hunter, ed. Special Issue: Mexico: February 2, 1848. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America 5 (1937).
  619.  
  620. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  621.  
  622. Volume 5 provides state department dispatches, correspondence, senate proceedings and an abbreviated compilation of the treaty’s ratification process. The controversial removal of Article X from the treaty is addressed, including Mexico’s angered response and subsequent Protocol to underscore commitment to protecting the property of those remaining in the annexed territories. The basis of each treaty provision is also provided.
  623.  
  624. Find this resource:
  625.  
  626. Pilsbury, T. Report and Protest of the Minority of the Committee on Territories against the Dismemberment of Texas. 13th Cong. 2d sess. New Mexico H. Rep. no. 16 (3 January 1849).
  627.  
  628. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  629.  
  630. A significant portion of present day New Mexico was absorbed into the Texas region during and after the war. The removal of Article X under the treaty obligated Congress to establish various boundary demarcations. This primary report is an example of one faction that opposed the boundary claims of Texas over the New Mexico region.
  631.  
  632. Find this resource:
  633.  
  634. Polk, James. To the Senate of the United States, February 22, 1848, Ex. Doc. 52, Senate. 30th Cong., 1st sess. 3 (1848).
  635.  
  636. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  637.  
  638. President Polk addresses the controversy over stricken Article X that would have recognized property holders who were precluded from completing all condition precedents attached to land grants prior to the war. Polk characterization of the land as public and not under private ownership contradicts international and domestic law and aligns with his expansionist goals as advocated before and during his presidency.
  639.  
  640. Find this resource:
  641.  
  642. Article XI, American Indians
  643. American Indians who have resided throughout the southwestern tier of the United States since time immemorial witnessed three separate conquests encompassing the Spanish, Mexican, and US periods. Article XI provides for the protection of the indigenous population in recognized pueblos. Mexico recognized the indigenous as citizens but this conflicted with US law that did not at the time of the treaty’s ratification. Article XI moreover employs racist language that mandates restraining “savage tribes.” The article also pledged to protect the border from Indian incursions into the Mexican interior. In the event they are captured, the article provides for the rescue of hostages. The dominant theoretical interpretations of Article XI and the treaty are critical to Indian incursions in defending their lands and the lack of protecting the border without the promises made by federal officials. Rippy 1919, for example, is critical of Indian raids and asserts that the indigenous population should have been placed in reservations. In contrast, Delay 2007, advancing historical criticism, asserts that the United States and Mexico employed the indigenous for their own purpose and gains. Their role and status during the Mexican war however remains primarily absent from historical studies. Delay 2007 asserts this omission has diminished indigenous contributions in the international sphere, relationship to the treaty, and the protection and actions in protecting their lands. Several contemporary examinations on the treaty such as Klein 1996 and Tsosie 1999–2000 assert the lack of historical or legal studies on the treaty and the indigenous people moreover fail to address the complexities that link the conquest with identity and cultural norms and practices, the failure to federally recognize tribal bands, and the environment and natural resources of American Indian communities. Haas 1995, a study on the longstanding impact and effect of the conquest of California, resulted in the marginalization of the indigenous in the region. Yet across the nation, the consequences extended to additional regions such as the injurious United States v. Sandoval ruling that diminished the standing of the Indian pueblos in New Mexico, as addressed in Seymour 1924, and analysis of the decision.
  644.  
  645. Delay, Brian. “Independent Indians and the U.S.-Mexican War.” American Historical Review 1 (2007): 35–68.
  646.  
  647. DOI: 10.1086/ahr.112.1.35Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  648.  
  649. Article XI and the indigenous population primarily excluded from treaty scholarship expedite an imprecise accounting of how the United States and Mexico employed American Indians for their own purpose and gains. The author advocates the integration of the indigenous into international history with a wealth of Mexican sources and documents from the United States, underscoring that American Indians employed their own strategies to defend their lands.
  650.  
  651. Find this resource:
  652.  
  653. Haas, Lisbeth. Conquests and Historical Identities in California, 1769–1936. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
  654.  
  655. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  656.  
  657. The value of this text is its excellent details on the conquest of California and impact on the indigenous and subsequent marginalization. The text employs a vast diversity of evidence to analyze the social and cultural impact and citizenship disparities of the indigenous in the region.
  658.  
  659. Find this resource:
  660.  
  661. Klein, Christine A. “Treaties of Conquest: Property Rights, Indian Treaties, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” New Mexico Law Review 26 (1996): 201–258.
  662.  
  663. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  664.  
  665. This article compares the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Indian treaties and the attendant impact. A federal trust relationship burdened American Indian but not Mexican communities. The author’s analysis includes how, in conjunction with this federal relationship, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo harmed Indian pueblos.
  666.  
  667. Find this resource:
  668.  
  669. Rippy, J. Fred. “The Indians of the Southwest in the Diplomacy of the United States and Mexico, 1848–1853.” Hispanic American Historical Review 2 (1919): 363–396.
  670.  
  671. DOI: 10.2307/2505956Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  672.  
  673. In Article XI the United States pledged to protect the United States–Mexican border from Indian incursions into Mexico. This early article harshly criticizes the United States’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities as pledged in Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Hostile to the indigenous, the author advocated their placement in reservations.
  674.  
  675. Find this resource:
  676.  
  677. Seymour, Flora Warren. “Land Titles in the Pueblo Indian Country.” American Bar Association Journal 10.36 (1924): 36–46.
  678.  
  679. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  680.  
  681. This is an early analysis of the United States v. Sandoval decision in which the Supreme Court reinterpreted international law and domestic law rulings that an Indian pueblo’s communal lands defaulted to the public domain. The author’s analysis is an example of how this decision expedited the grant’s subsequent sale into private hands. The alienation of the former owners from their cultural customs and practices are not discussed.
  682.  
  683. Find this resource:
  684.  
  685. Tsosie, Rebecca. “Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights.” University of California Law Review 47 (1999–2000): 1615–1672.
  686.  
  687. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  688.  
  689. This article compares the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with American Indian treaties and the moral obligations on behalf of the United States to respect the land and cultural rights of both indigenous and Mexican landholders and their descendants. Notwithstanding shared commonalities of dispossession, cultural and socio-economic fractionalization efforts to attain intercultural justice distinctions between both groups remain, and the author cautions attaining justice may be dissimilar from each group.
  690.  
  691. Find this resource:
  692.  
  693. Legacy
  694. The legacy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is surfacing in two key areas and demonstrates a realm of potential new directions in an evolving historiography and legal legacy. The treaty’s legacy that witnessed the disparate and unequal treatment of the former Mexican citizens as Gómez 2007 asserts ascribes to the social construction of race. Yet a second area includes land grant advocacy that seeks restoring long-lost customary use and practices. This perspective includes the ongoing struggle as works such as Reich 2001 assert over the natural resources of a region. Harmful legal precedents however have precluded an interpretation of the treaty as protecting the property interests in regions of communal land grants as several works assert such as Cheever 1986. To avoid adverse rulings that fail to protect grantees alternative remedies in contrast are pursued that employ equity principles under property law jurisprudence. The Colorado Supreme Court recently recognized a new redirection and restored the use of formerly held rights to the natural resources of the region as Golten 2005 demonstrates. This ruling illustrates a potentially new remedial direction for the possible regaining of access prohibited from earlier adverse judicial rulings. It further illustrates the remedy did not result from the treaty directly but in contrast from yet another trajectory in law. Finally newer interpretations in the racial and social construction of race with an additional focus on reinterpreting the war have facilitated further Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo studies.
  695.  
  696. Acuña, Rodolfo F. “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: My Take on the Possible Implications for Today.” Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 5 (1998): 109–115.
  697.  
  698. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  699.  
  700. The author asserts that treaty engenders emotionalism in communities, is an imperfect document, and should not be taught as restoring rights. It engenders harm to American Indians, exploits Mexico’s natural resources, and is manipulated to garner Chicana/o electoral votes. Its multipurpose uses for trade agreements and proposed remedies obligate future analytical assessments.
  701.  
  702. Find this resource:
  703.  
  704. Bloom, John Porter, ed. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848, Papers of the Sesquicentennial Symposium, 1848–1998. Las Cruces, NM: Doña Ana County Historical Society, 1999.
  705.  
  706. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  707.  
  708. This is a New Mexico-centered symposium of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on its sesquicentennial address and its absence from historical inquiry and the media. Boundary issues, the war and its consequences, land grant adjudication, and the lives of women and children are also examined.
  709.  
  710. Find this resource:
  711.  
  712. Cheever, Federico. “A New Approach to Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and the Public Trust Doctrine: Defining the Property Interest Protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” University of California Law Review 33 (1986): 1364–1404.
  713.  
  714. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  715.  
  716. A concise study of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and a Supreme Court ruling that at times conflicts with the public trust doctrine in which the government holds in trust for its residents. A comparison of the land grant confirmation process with analysis of Article VIII deficiencies are addressed, and a third option is offered to reconcile the above competing purposes.
  717.  
  718. Find this resource:
  719.  
  720. Golten, Ryan. “Lobato v. Taylor: How the Villages of the Rio Culebra, The Colorado Supreme Court, and the Restatement of Servitudes Bailed Out the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” Natural Resources Journal 48 (2005): 457–904.
  721.  
  722. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  723.  
  724. Through equitable legal sources the Colorado Supreme Court reversed longstanding law that denied the descendants of the Sangre de Cristo land grant access from the natural resources of the grant with attendant cultural harm and impoverishment. The ruling that the descendants had the right to use the lands concluded forty years of litigation.
  725.  
  726. Find this resource:
  727.  
  728. Gómez, Laura E. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race. New York: New York University Press, 2007.
  729.  
  730. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  731.  
  732. The author redirects inquiries on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo’s impact on Mexican Americans to argue they should be recognized as a racial group as opposed to an ethnic group. This theoretical approach is the social construction of race and as applied to Mexican Americans is directly linked to their history and how they were racialized notwithstanding their citizenship that followed the war with Mexico.
  733.  
  734. Find this resource:
  735.  
  736. Johns, Sally Cavell. “Viva Los Californios! The Battle of San Pasqual.” San Diego Historical Society Quarterly 19.3 (1973).
  737.  
  738. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  739.  
  740. This article presents a new perspective from scholars reinvestigating the war, provides specifics on the naval excursions in California, and offers a counter narrative based on its activities in California. This perspective and analysis of the military conflict is in direct contrast with the self-assurance of the United States that it would easily defeat California.
  741.  
  742. Find this resource:
  743.  
  744. Osuna, José Angel Pescador. “The War between Mexico and the U.S.A. and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.” Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 5 (1998): 193–197.
  745.  
  746. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  747.  
  748. Los Angeles Consul General of Mexico compares a trade agreement with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and corrects assertions that Mexico sold the annexed territories for fifteen million dollars. The funds were for the war and other expenses underscoring the treaty as a recovery document. Cautions against use of “double language” in future trade agreements with an example of the treaty’s calls for friendship yet promotion of expansionism.
  749.  
  750. Find this resource:
  751.  
  752. Reich, Peter L. “Dismantling the Pueblo: Hispanic Municipal Land Rights in California since 1850.” American Journal of Legal History 45 (2001): 353–372.
  753.  
  754. DOI: 10.2307/3185311Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  755.  
  756. State case law analysis interpreting natural resources and water law involving pueblos and the treaty. Asserts attorneys had access to Mexican law that would have protected property interests and yet disregarded Mexican law at expense of pueblos common areas. Both Mexican and US law cases, treatises, and archival research render a more precise history of whether the treaty was honored.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!