Were the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

You could probably fit the rest of Central America into Texas one you took out Mexico, so Texas as an independent country is reasonable.

Maybe, I am not sure it could have stood up to the fencing of the USA and Mexico over it. Lamar had his own dream on manifest destiny where the Republic of Texas took New Mexico and possibly took everything to the Pacific. His clumsy attempt to foment insurrection ended with his expedition marched to prison in Mexico City and his unprovoked attacks to drive the Plains Indians out of the state almost bankrupted the Republic. Not a good guy.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe, I am not sure it could have stood up to the fencing of the USA and Mexico over it. Lamar had his own dream on manifest destiny where the Republic of Texas took New Mexico and possibly took everything to the Pacific. His clumsy attempt to foment insurrection ended with his expedition marched to prison in Mexico City and his unprovoked attacks to drive the Plains Indians out of the state almost bankrupted the Republic. Not a good guy.

Reasonable in terms of resources I am thinking.

Defense would have been very difficult, a balancing act that would have required the attention of the US and Mexico to be heavily focused elsewhere while Independent Texas got established enough to make it cheaper to cooperate than conquer.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

Just like JFK in the 1960 election:  He stole it, fair and square.

Boss Daley of Chi-Town made sure of that.  The Irish Mafia.  Left Tricky **** Nixon (the Quaker) gasping in the dust.

[Calm]

Quote

In Illinois, there were rampant rumors that Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley used his political machine to stuff the ballot box in Cook County. Democrats charged the GOP with similar tactics in southern Illinois. Down in Texas, there were similar claims about the influence of Kennedy’s running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, over that state’s election.

On Wednesday afternoon, November 9, 1960, Nixon officially conceded the election to Kennedy. He told his friend, journalist Earl Mazo, that “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” (Mazo had written a series of articles about voter fraud after the 1960 election, which he stopped at Nixon’s request.)

However, despite Nixon’s requests and decisions to not ask for a recount, the Republican Party had other ideas. In 2000, historian David Greenberg recounted the GOP’s efforts to contest the election in an article for Slate.

Greenberg said it was Mazo who helped to publicize the idea that voter fraud cost Nixon the election, and that Republican officials pursued recounts and investigations in 11 states. In the end, Nixon wound up losing the state of Hawaii to Kennedy after the recounts.

But that doesn’t mean that Daley didn’t affect the outcome in Illinois.

“The GOP's failure to prove fraud doesn't mean, of course, that the election was clean. That question remains unsolved and unsolvable,” Greenberg said.

Another historian, Edmund Kallina, has conducted extensive research into a Chicago vote recount, and he concluded the discrepancies weren’t wide enough to decide the election. In a 2010 interview, Kallina said in the long run, the close election changed politics by forcing parties to focus on the Electoral College, while fueling partisanship at the same time

Anyone have decent info disputing this?  Just looking for info, not debate.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-drama-behind-president-kennedys-1960-election-win/

That Nixon refrained from pursuing this for that reason makes me think better of him. 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3318f50479e

[Kenngo1969]

Well, gee ... If the Saints hadn't been driven from New York to Pennsylvania, and from Pennsylvania to Ohio, and from Ohio to Missouri, and from Missouri to Illinois, and, finally, from Illinois to Utah, in many cases, if not with the actual blessing of the government on those doing the driving, then at least with its tacit approval as it looked the other way (after all, who's gonna miss a buncha Mormons, anyway? ), I'd be a lot more inclined to worry about any problems members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (allegedly) created for Mexicans and for Mexico.

Cry me a river.

Anything else?

[LoudmouthMormon]

Folks looking for similarities between Mormon pioneers and today's illegal immigrants, are either history nerds or liberals looking for more votes for their side.  The first type is intellectually honest, won't find much, and is basically useless.  The second type doesn't give a wet slap about reality, will claim to have found endless parallels, and is also basically useless.

Edited July 27, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[LoudmouthMormon]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

As evidence of my earlier claim, let me translate into what certain folks will hear:

1066 to present: white guys
927 - 1066: white guys
827 - 927: white guys
477 - 827: white guys
410 - 477: white guys
43 - 410: white guys
75 BC - 43 AD: white guys
Before 75 BC: peaceful pagan white guys who just wanted to sit in meadows and dance and have blissful pagan sex under the harvest moon

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Mormon Dude]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:56 PM, juliann said:

Seriously?

Yep. There have been a number of recent letters to the editors of newspapers along with protesters claiming this in the past few weeks.

For example, Mormon pioneers were Utah’s first undocumented immigrants

I wouldn't post anymore links, as they get into today's politics too much and that's not what this thread is about.

[Mormon Dude]

On 7/25/2019 at 7:03 PM, provoman said:

This topic has been discussed on this board before.

I'd like to know where. I can't find any discussion of the legality of their settlement, other than a few people arguing against current US immigration polices with the blanket statement that they (the Pioneers) didn't have permission to do so. That's very different from actually discussing the legal question.

On 7/25/2019 at 7:03 PM, provoman said:

In the 1800s and in fact the majority of human history the following applied 

Might is right.

If something is abandoned/undefended, to they who posses and defend. 

Mexico which had abandoned the lands effectively lost possession until and if Mexico could retake it. 

You're not wrong, but I would argue "might" is still the basis for our laws. If you don't have the might to back them up, they are essentially meaningless.

But, having said that, just because you have the might to break a law does make it right. A gang might have the might to rob someone on the street and they could never be caught, but that might didn't make what they did right.

To flip the tables of the Saints, the mobs certainly had the might to do what they did in Missouri or Illinois. Does that make what they did right? Or legal? No, because by the 1800s laws were on the books.

Long before 1847, there were a number of laws on the books in Mexico prohibiting most immigration from the US. And the US also had a recognized border with Mexico; first by way of the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty, and later after the Mexican revolution by way of the Treaty of Limits. I mean, we're talking 1847, not the year 847.

One can hardly argue the Mexican government had abandoned the areas north of today's current border, but rather they were in the middle of a war defending a massive claim of land. Yes, their resources were located elsewhere. But like today, just because the US Border Patrol can't have an agent on every foot of the border doesn't mean they've abandoned it.

[Mormon Dude]

On 7/25/2019 at 8:20 PM, let’s roll said:

I’d invite you to consider that the “This Is The Place” experience demonstrates that the saints had the permission of, or perhaps better stated, a mandate from, the property owner.

This isn't a moral question, but a historical/legal one. I have no doubts the Saints had no qualms breaking the law when they felt they had a higher moral (aka religious) cause to do so. The decades of polygamy practice proves that.

It seems odd today's Saints have no trouble accepting that Saints broke some major laws with their practice of polygamy, but it is clearly taboo to mention that Mormon Pioneers may have illegally immigrated to Mexico.

[Mormon Dude]

On 7/25/2019 at 11:52 PM, jpv said:

Because there weren't Mexicans in Utah at the time, just American Indians. 

What made a Mexican? Weren't the American Indians, known as Indios in the Spanish caste system recognized and given some rights?

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Mormon Dude said:

This isn't a moral question, but a historical/legal one. I have no doubts the Saints had no qualms breaking the law when they felt they had a higher moral (aka religious) cause to do so. The decades of polygamy practice proves that.

It seems odd today's Saints have no trouble accepting that Saints broke some major laws with their practice of polygamy, but it is clearly taboo to mention that Mormon Pioneers may have illegally immigrated to Mexico.

Whence Mexico's claim. Spain. Whence Spain's claim? The Pope, I suppose. Whence the Pope's claim? The Western Roman Empire, I suppose. Whence the Western Roman Empire's claim?

Who cares.

Until the Treaty of Paris, perhaps. I'm not entirely sure.

[let’s roll]

15 minutes ago, Mormon Dude said:

This isn't a moral question, but a historical/legal one. I have no doubts the Saints had no qualms breaking the law when they felt they had a higher moral (aka religious) cause to do so. The decades of polygamy practice proves that.

It seems odd today's Saints have no trouble accepting that Saints broke some major laws with their practice of polygamy, but it is clearly taboo to mention that Mormon Pioneers may have illegally immigrated to Mexico.

Why would it seem odd to you that God’s children would want to follow His direction?

[Mormon Dude]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

It's all semantics. Illegal immigrants, invaders, "without permission," whatever you call it, the laws I linked to are clear. And when they're broken, there is nothing wrong with calling said action "illegal." Things were very different in the 1800s versus 1066 and 75 BCE, so who is calling the kettle black?

While Mexico was not able to hold on to their claim, said claim (which was legally recognized by the US in the Treaty of Limits) was not legally extinguished until the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe. In my OP I pointed out even the US Supreme Court indicated "Deseret" belonged to Mexico until 1848. US laws cannot be applied ex post facto onto territory that was not theirs.

[Mormon Dude]

20 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Why would it seem odd to you that God’s children would want to follow His direction?

That's not what I said, unless you're claiming that God has commanded Latter-day Saints not to acknowledge that sometimes early Saints broke the law.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Mormon Dude said:

That's not what I said, unless you're claiming that God has commanded Latter-day Saints not to acknowledge that sometimes early Saints broke the law.

And sometimes they break the law today.

100% obedience to laws(God's or man's) can be difficult. When there is conflict between several laws, it Becomes impossible 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Mormon Dude said:

This isn't a moral question, but a historical/legal one. I have no doubts the Saints had no qualms breaking the law when they felt they had a higher moral (aka religious) cause to do so. The decades of polygamy practice proves that.

It seems odd today's Saints have no trouble accepting that Saints broke some major laws with their practice of polygamy, but it is clearly taboo to mention that Mormon Pioneers may have illegally immigrated to Mexico.

You would do well to study more history.  Much of the legislation against polygamy happened in response to the Saints practice.  It didn't exist before.   You can only say the saints thumbed their noses at certain legislation that was specifically passed against them, not that they thumbed their noses at established law.]

In fact, one could make a half-decent case that the reason women have the right to vote, is because the Utah saints practice of polygamy.  There were suffragist movements sprinkled around the nation at the time, but the first states to make it legal for women to vote were Utah and Wyoming.  And in Utah, the debate centered around a balanced mormon/nonmormon government, with women being the swing vote.  "If only mormon women could vote, they would surely vote [for/against] polygamy!" said both sides.  

[The LDS women voted for polygamy, btw.]

Edited July 27, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Kenngo1969]

I know nothing about Mexican law, so perhaps there is no analogue to this in Mexican law, but in United States law, at least historically, there was the concept of adverse possession.  If a subsequent possessor's claim to a particular piece of land was open, notorious, hostile to that of the original possessor, and endured for the statutorily required time period, the adverse possessor could lay claim to the land, notwithstanding the original possessor's claim.

[provoman]

edit

Edited July 27, 2019 by provoman

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone have decent info disputing this?  Just looking for info, not debate.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-drama-behind-president-kennedys-1960-election-win/

That Nixon refrained from pursuing this for that reason makes me think better of him. 

 

Nixon is also the kind of guy who would publicly encourage letting the voting stand while surreptitiously urging the party to force recounts anyway so I am not sold on this.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I know nothing about Mexican law, so perhaps there is no analogue to this in Mexican law, but in United States law, at least historically, there was the concept of adverse possession.  If a subsequent possessor's claim to a particular piece of land was open, notorious, hostile to that of the original possessor, and endured for the statutorily required time period, the adverse possessor could lay claim to the land, notwithstanding the original possessor's claim.

Adverse possession is probably not allowed by illegal immigrants under any law structure.

[Kenngo1969]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Adverse possession is probably not allowed by illegal immigrants under any law structure.

Wow.  Thanks.  That hadn't occurred to me.  

You're welcome to try to continue to engage in presentism by superimposing 21st-century notions of immigration law onto 19th-century historical occurrences if you wish.  While you're also welcome to think I'm mistaken in so thinking, I think I'm on firmer ground in appealing to certain aspects of adverse possession, at least historically, as a rationale to legitimize settlement in what had been Northern Mexico by pioneers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Nixon is also the kind of guy who would publicly encourage letting the voting stand while surreptitiously urging the party to force recounts anyway so I am not sold on this.

It sounded like it was a private exchange with his friend, which is why I gave it some—-though not much—-weight. However, I recognize that was one person and even if private without hope that the friend would publicize it (which is a definite possibility), Nixon may have had his reasons to try and look good for that friend while working secretly with others contrary to that position. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Wow.  Thanks.  That hadn't occurred to me.  

You're welcome to try to continue to engage in presentism by superimposing 21st-century notions of immigration law onto 19th-century historical occurrences if you wish.  While you're also welcome to think I'm mistaken in so thinking, I think I'm on firmer ground in appealing to certain aspects of adverse possession, at least historically, as a rationale to legitimize settlement in what had been Northern Mexico by pioneers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

That was not presentism. Adverse possession has been around since long before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.