Tacenda Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: There were some good relationships but most were mixed. The battles with and mass conversion of the Shoshone come to mind. This one is pertinant.http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/ Mormon polygamist leader Brigham Young spent over 1.5 million dollars of church funds to "exterminate" the "Indians of Utah" resulting in six bloody massacres, and some one hundred and fifty deadly confrontations that took place between 1849 and 1870. Over two hundred whites and nine hundred American Indians were killed. This does NOT include the untold thousands of Timpanogos who died from starvation and disease wrought by Mormon colonization. Of the some seventy-thousand Timpanogos living along the Wasatch at the time, government agency records reveal that Utah Indian population decreased by a staggering 90% leaving just twenty three hundred Timpanogos alive when they were forced onto the Uintah Valley Reservation, there five hundred more died in the first winter from starvation. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 13 hours ago, Calm said: Do you believe it was pureblood native Mexicans governing Mexico at the time? It was Spanish explorers who claimed Utah territory originally...European iow. I know that Utah was part of Mexico at one time. Although, maybe not a lot of "Mexicans" lived in Utah at the time. But it was their land at one time. I get pretty irate when my own relatives have problems with immigration when parts of Utah were once Mexico, so really we are in the wrong, not Mexicans. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, webbles said: I'd probably say that the Mormon pioneers were actually invaders and not illegal immigrants. They helped with the Mormon Battalion (which was for conquering Mexico) and probably would have not accepted Mexican rule when they were in Utah. If you look at some US plans to deal with immigration I think some have decided that invasion and illegal immigration are synonymous and should be treated the same way complete with POW camps and psychological warfare. It was illegal immigration to move in. We did not get permission from the US government to set up shop there either. We did what we had to do to find a place where we would be safe and able to prosper like most immigrants (legal or illegal). Demonizing those today who do the same seems to me to violate the commands in the Torah and the implied lessons of the Book of Mormon. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: This one is pertinant.http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/ Mormon polygamist leader Brigham Young spent over 1.5 million dollars of church funds to "exterminate" the "Indians of Utah" resulting in six bloody massacres, and some one hundred and fifty deadly confrontations that took place between 1849 and 1870. Over two hundred whites and nine hundred American Indians were killed. This does NOT include the untold thousands of Timpanogos who died from starvation and disease wrought by Mormon colonization. Of the some seventy-thousand Timpanogos living along the Wasatch at the time, government agency records reveal that Utah Indian population decreased by a staggering 90% leaving just twenty three hundred Timpanogos alive when they were forced onto the Uintah Valley Reservation, there five hundred more died in the first winter from starvation. While some of that is true I would not take that site as a reliable source. 3 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I know that Utah was part of Mexico at one time. Although, maybe not a lot of "Mexicans" lived in Utah at the time. But it was their land at one time. I get pretty irate when my own relatives have problems with immigration when parts of Utah were once Mexico, so really we are in the wrong, not Mexicans. The war that transferred what is now the US southwest to the United States is a mess. The border was disputed (complicated by Mexico not recognizing the previously independent state of Texas) and US troops went into the disputed zone. The Mexican army attacked. While this means the first attack was on Mexico’s side President Polk was eager to acquire California and was willing to fight for it. After the Mexican’s attacked the rallying cry of “American blood shed on American soil” rung out. The US won the war and bought the territory as part of the peace treaty. Mexico had little presence in those lands before and had trouble controlling it. The reason Mexico had allowed Austin’s group and other US settlers to come into Texas to settle was to weaken the Plains Indians that were raiding Northern Mexico. 2 Link to comment
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Natives were decimated by disease long before BY entered the valley. Populations all the way to the Pacific NW had been ravaged by small pox etc. It is estimated that 90% of the natives were gone because of disease brought by the Spanish. Same thing happened in Hawaii. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Natives were decimated by disease long before BY entered the valley. Populations all the way to the Pacific NW had been ravaged by small pox etc. It is estimated that 90% of the natives were gone because of disease brought by the Spanish. Same thing happened in Hawaii. Yes, though there was also a measles epidemic among the natives in Utah. There was also, obviously, actual conflict between the Saints and the Natives. Their lifestyles were basically incompatible and resources were thin on the ground in Utah. Conflict was all but inevitable. 2 Link to comment
mnn727 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I seem to remember stories of Moroni laying claim to that land long before Mexico existed. More specifically dedicating Temple sites. Could just be legend, but it certainly seems to me that God had a hand in it. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, mnn727 said: I seem to remember stories of Moroni laying claim to that land long before Mexico existed. More specifically dedicating Temple sites. Could just be legend, but it certainly seems to me that God had a hand in it. God does not, in general, seem to be impressed with our legalistic territorial claims. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 15 hours ago, Tacenda said: Why only them? I ask because I've a personal situation with a son in law from Mexico, who came across illegally with his family. I'm so tired of the white man taking lands from everyone, when in reality we immigrated here and took their lands. I know I'll hear back that it was all on the up & up, but me thinks not! We took one-third of Mexico fair and square: We stole it. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We took one-third of Mexico fair and square: We stole it. No, we bought it. With a gun to their head as they signed the bill of sale. Edited July 26, 2019 by The Nehor 4 Link to comment
Popular Post provoman Posted July 26, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 26, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know that Utah was part of Mexico at one time. Although, maybe not a lot of "Mexicans" lived in Utah at the time. But it was their land at one time. I get pretty irate when my own relatives have problems with immigration when parts of Utah were once Mexico, so really we are in the wrong, not Mexicans. You are using 2019 ideologies and applying those ideologies to events that occurred in the mid 1800s. The Government of Mexico, played by the same rules as the US, France, England, Spain, Portugal, etc.... The main rule was essentially if you lose it in battle or by abandonment, it then belong to the possessor and/or the victor. Mexico lost/surrender/abandoned/agreed to give up, ALL claim to lands North of what is the present boundary boundary between the US and Mexico. There is no claim of right to lands in the USA by the Government of Mexico - the issue was settled in the 1800s. And Nations have a right to self-rule within the bounds of their own lands; and sometimes that right to self-rule affects immigration. Edited July 26, 2019 by provoman 5 Link to comment
provoman Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 52 minutes ago, mnn727 said: I seem to remember stories of Moroni laying claim to that land long before Mexico existed. More specifically dedicating Temple sites. Could just be legend, but it certainly seems to me that God had a hand in it. 8th Grade US History "Manifest Destiny" 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 1 minute ago, provoman said: You are using 2019 ideologies and applying those ideologies to events that occurred in the mid 1800s. The Government of Mexico, played by the same rules as the US, France, England, Spain, Portugal, etc.... The main rule was essentially if you lose it in battle or by abandonment, it then belong to the possessor and/or the victor. Mexico lost/surrender/abandoned/agreed to give up, ALL claim to lands North of what is the present boundary boundary between the US and Mexico. There is no claim of right to lands in the USA by the Government of Mexico - the issue was settled in the 1800s. And Nations have a right to self-rule within the bounds of their own lands; and sometimes that right to self-rule affects immigration. All true but the principles of this nation and its immigration laws and policies are in stark conflict and one or the other should be abandoned. Furthermore, I think current law and policy are grossly in conflict with the will of God. 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 16 hours ago, Tacenda said: Why only them? Maybe because there were like 30 non-Amerind Mexican families within present-day Utah at the time. And nobody displaced them, of which I'm aware. 2 Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We took one-third of Mexico fair and square: We stole it. Just like JFK in the 1960 election: He stole it, fair and square. 1 Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 If the Mormon pioneers settled in Northern Mexico 1847 then why do scouts put America flags all over Utah streets to celebrate the holiday? That's portraying pioneers as anti-Americans to the point you're suggesting they would even go to war against the USA. Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, webbles said: I'd probably say that the Mormon pioneers were actually invaders and not illegal immigrants. They helped with the Mormon Battalion (which was for conquering Mexico) and probably would have not accepted Mexican rule when they were in Utah. As I recall, the deal made in Washington while the Mormons were in Iowa on their way to Winter Quarters was that if the Mormons provided volunteers for the pending Mexican War, the US Gov't/Military would not molest them and would/might aid them in their flight from Nauvoo. I can't imagine the Mormons' long-term plans to settle in the Great Basin did not come up during that/those meeting/meetings. Mexico winning the war and the Mormons' initial plans to live subject to Mexican authority in 1846 didn't figure in anybody's algebra of the situation. Edited July 26, 2019 by USU78 4 Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know that Utah was part of Mexico at one time. Although, maybe not a lot of "Mexicans" lived in Utah at the time. But it was their land at one time. I get pretty irate when my own relatives have problems with immigration when parts of Utah were once Mexico, so really we are in the wrong, not Mexicans. At the time in 1847, the area was part of Mexico, although they officially ceded it to the United States the following year in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 5 hours ago, webbles said: probably would have not accepted Mexican rule when they were in Utah. They moved into Mexico and Canada when the US got less hospitable, so I see them as practical about government rule. 3 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know that Utah was part of Mexico at one time. Although, maybe not a lot of "Mexicans" lived in Utah at the time. But it was their land at one time. I get pretty irate when my own relatives have problems with immigration when parts of Utah were once Mexico, so really we are in the wrong, not Mexicans. T, you are a lovely lady, but sometimes you oversimply things too much. 🙂 3 Link to comment
Popular Post Stargazer Posted July 26, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 26, 2019 (edited) The OP is talking about the past in the language of the present. Can you say "presentism"? I have contradictory views on the subject. Here they are: The movement of the Latter-day Saints into Deseret wasn't illegal immigration, it was invasion invasion of Mexico, if Mexico's claim is considered valid, or invasion of the lands of multiple Ute bands, if Mexico's claim is considered void; was lawful migration due to the land being open to whomever was strong enough to take and hold it, because Mexico failed to enforce its claim, and the Utes could not enforce theirs I say "invasion" instead of "illegal immigration" because the Latter-day Saints were not disorganized bands of individuals (like the Central American migrants trying to cross into the US from Mexico), but an organized and effective polity, in the same sense that ancient Israel invading Palestine was. If the dispute between the US and Mexico over Texas had been settled peacefully instead of by war, Deseret would likely have become the next Texas, the Republic of Deseret. Especially since Mexico's control over the land of Deseret was even more tenuous than it was over the land of Texas, being essentially nonexistent, because there were virtually no Mexicans there (for you, @Tacenda). And if that had happened, it would have totally thrown US history into a loop, wouldn't it have? I say "lawful migration" because in international affairs, especially during the time period in question, and in all previous eras, if you could not defend your claim, you didn't in fact own it. Contrariwise, if you shed blood successfully defending your claim, then you lawfully owned it -- but if someone else could take it from you by force, then you didn't own it any longer. Remember the supposedly unimportant Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812? That was fought a couple of months AFTER the peace treaty that ended the war? Well, it wasn't an unimportant battle after all. Because the US had bought Louisiana from the French, who arguably didn't actually have the right to sell it, since it was originally Spain's land, and Napoleon sold it while he temporarily controlled Spain. Under international law at the time, if the US had not shed blood in Louisiana's defense against the British, it is likely that an international court may have given it back to Spain! But the Battle of New Orleans confirmed the US claim. Some of you here might want to express prim little platitudes like "might doesn't make right" and look down your noses at historical things like "colonialism", but shall we deal with realities and not unenforceable platitudes? And consider that God Himself commanded the Israelites to invade and conquer Palestine, and in fact He directed the extermination of certain of the peoples who had previously controlled the land in question. And if you don't believe in God, it doesn't really matter anyway, because without a source of morality, might really does make right, and Israel had every right to take what it could. Because if you can't defend it, then you don't own it. This may sound very cynical, but I base my cynicism on this: the land I sit on (Sussex) as I type this currently belongs to the United Kingdom. In reverse chronological order it belonged to: 1066 to present: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and its various proxies starting with the Norman Conquest in 1066 927 - 1066: The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England (including a brief time under the Danes) 827 - 927: The Kingdom of Wessex (West Saxons, from northeast Germania) 477 - 827: The Kingdom of Sussex (South Saxons, from northeast Germania) 410 - 477: Interregnum (various Romanized Celtic polities) 43 - 410: Roman Empire 75 BC - 43 AD: The Atrebates and Regnenses (Belgic invaders) Before 75 BC: successive waves of European migrants, mainly Celts of various flavors Let's look at North and South America, and the various invasions committed by the various Indian tribes on each other. My Indian ancestors lived on land in Northern California that they took from other Indian tribes, who may have taken it from yet others (who knows, cuz stone age peoples didn't keep records). Or else, these tribes just moved in together and interbred. The Utes are related to the Aztecs, at least by language, and probably by blood, distantly. But did the Utes take the land in Utah from someone else? Almost certainly. The Incas in South America conquered numerous other tribes and for a hundred years moved them forcibly around to mix them with others, forced them all to learn the Incan language, and before them were others who conquered and were conquered in their own turn. The Aztecs were preceded by the Mayas who were preceded by the Olmecs -- or vice versa, whatever. In Asia we have the various Chinese conquering each other over and over again, the Mongols conquering pretty much everybody (half of the people in those lands have the DNA of Genghis Khan, which reflect how much he was loved by his conquerees), and before that the Greeks came, the Persians came, and later the Arabs came, and let's not even get started about Africa cuz I don't have all day here. So, who are the legal owners, who are the invaders, who the heck do we "give it back" to, and to whom and from whom do we pay/demand reparations? I'm 1/16th Indian, so do we slice off my left forearm and bury it at Wounded Knee, and the rest of me goes back to England, Germany and France? Which one, then? I'm half German, but what about the minority portions? How about this? Declare it all FAIT ACCOMPLI, what's done is done, and everyone just freaking start from where they are at this moment. Pretty much all question of who owns what should just be considered set in stone, no more invasions, we're DONE! Stop the in-fighting and let's all just get along finally!!! Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer 7 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: No, we bought it. With a gun to their head as they signed the bill of sale. I wonder what would have happened if they had just gone along with the border claims of Texas/USA? That's what triggered the Mexican War -- Mexican troops routed an American cavalry patrol in the disputed area in the Thornton Affair starting the war. Los Angeles might still be Mexican. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I wonder what would have happened if they had just gone along with the border claims of Texas/USA? That's what triggered the Mexican War -- Mexican troops routed an American cavalry patrol in the disputed area in the Thornton Affair starting the war. Los Angeles might still be Mexican. Doubt it, I think Polk would have sought another pretext to get it unless Mexico was willing to sell. I wonder what would have happened had Lamar’s point of view won out and Texas tried to stay independent. Link to comment
Calm Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 You could probably fit the rest of Central America into Texas one you took out Mexico, so Texas as an independent country is reasonable. Link to comment
Recommended Posts