How come Mexico never invested more into defending California? They didn't even put up a fight when Americans showed up to claim it. The Bear Flag "Revolt" was just Americans showing up to Mexican forts and Mexicans just fleeing their post. California was arguably Mexicos single greatest loss. Today California is the 4th largest economy in the world just by itself.
>>18033283Brown people may be violent but lazy and unmilitaristic. They can't organize into large armed groups without murderous infights over who is the true Don Macho beeaking out. That's why they lost.
They didn't defend it because they considered it a backwater, and the local population - including Spanish speakers - didn't really feel like Mexicans anyways. They already forced the last Mexican governor out of the state by themselves before the Bear Flag shenanigans.
>>18033305>They considered this a backwater over the smoggy plateau they decided to put their countries capital
>>18033283It was sparsely populated at the time and no one knew there was gold there.Latinx are also pacifistic by nature, they shun war with a passion
>>18033321Mexico was a corrupt despotate back then as well. They effectively never settled the North. Los Angeles was described as a “humble pubelo” in the accounts of early settlers, a more polite way of saying it was an irrelevant tiny backwater shithole. San Francisco was similar in insignificance. Mexico never had effective control over the modern American southwest outside of some parts of Texas, the Far Southwestern Coast of California, and the city of Santa Fe. 90% of Mexican Americans descend from post-annexation migrants who moved here after whites built up the cities making them gigantic and prosperous and then started saying “ayy holmes we didnt cross the border the border crossed ussssss foo”
>>18033283Spanish and later Mexican policy towards the north were laissez faire to placate the natives in the area. When the Spanish gibs dried up, the apaches and Comanches began raiding for their share of tribute owed by the Hispanic governments. Also the locals were mostly cattle ranchers who owned vast swathes of land that make up entire American cities today. They wanted no part in the Mexican central government or its authority.>>18033337>started saying “ayy holmes we didnt cross the border the border crossed ussssss foo”Nobody says this.
More immediate threats were Texas and internal unrest.
Rancho owners were more sympathetic to the United States than to Mexico themselves because American settlement meant that their land holdings were more likely to be protected and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised that Mexican-era land grants would be protected. With the Mexican government so far away from the Northern Frontier, and Mexico's general incompetence anyways, Mexican settlers in California just didn't have any real confidence in their ability to govern or develop the area.
>>18034239>American settlement meant that their land holdings were more likely to be protectedAmericans seized their land and divvied up their ranches among Anglos in Texas. Basically none of the original hispanos within the Mexican Cession had their agreements honored by the government.
>>18034264>Americans seized their land and divvied up their ranches among Anglos in Texas. No, Texans did that, because Texas was independent after its revolution while California immediately assumed US territorial status after the Bear Flag Rebellion. Californian Ranchos were honored after the Bear Flag Revolt, in fact, much of the same Mexican land grants still exist in private hands in California, notably Rancho Guejito, although it has since changed hands multiple times
>>18033589You don't interact with LatinXs enough
>>18033589It's more like, "ey mang. The border crossed us, tu pendejo."
>>18034915Contact with beaners and learning about their lack of any real culture and bad genetics blackpilled me on the entirety of Latin America
>>18034930Don't compare us to those goblins up north. We South American BVLLs have culture and good genetics.
>Try to talk Mexican history seriously>Ameriblobs, who the entire world looks down upon for their shitty historical takes, conflate their racism and modern opinions with historical factsWhy do they need to ruin everythingAnyways, to answer your question, its because it was:1. Underpopulated2. Mexico had other problems internally and closer to home3. Hard as fuck to get to4. Mass corruption at home that didn't encourage land ownership. I think at one point like 80% of the Mexican land was owned by 3 families.
Before the discovery of gold there was no economy to speak of. The biggest export was the ranchos shipping cowhide on Yankee merchant vessels around the horn to New England shoe factories. Some American sailors even married into the old Californio families.
>>18035213Only the Southern Cone has good genetics. Rest are mestizo/indio/mulatto mystery meat.
>>18033283Because mexico was an only recently independent colony. They did not have the governmental power to do so.
>>18033321It's literally the far side of the world. The Panama Canal will not exist for 60 years.
>>18035304The rest are descended from Spanish conquistadores and Inca caciques. Literally la raza cosmica
>>18035328Having a direct trade route to the Orient was considered valuable even in the early 19th century. It's partially why cities like San Francisco exploded overnight, going from a population of 460 to a population of 25,000 in just 2 years, right as Americans took control of California as they were vital early trade routes during a time when America was starting to emerge as a transpacific power. Mexico just never took advantage of this because their government has always been corrupt and incompetent. The Gold Rush certainly played a part, but these port cities that gave waves of Chinese immigrants access to the new world to participate in the Gold rush helped facilitate this.
>>18034894Neither do you. You just eat up what other terminally online retards tell you about other races.
>>18035336indistinguishable from an indio for most people
>>18036548Wrong retard. I live in California
>>18033336>Latinx are also pacifistic by nature, they shun war with a passionI know it's really bad to respond to bait but I really want to. Here's a (You) for your troubles.
>>18037135Those people have the least amount of wars in recorded history. Their neighbors to the north bomb people every weekend on behalf of their jewish masters
>>18037135Technically flaying a cartel rival's face off with a rusty butter knife isn't an act of war
>>18033283California had no value at the time. it's on the wrong side of the rockies, there was no panama canal and they hadn't discovered gold yet and china/japan weren't large economies like today. even today, california mostly exists do to the powers in san francisco, LA and San Diego receiving goods from asia. without the gold everything on that side of texas that wasn't on a river that drains into the mississippi is either desert or mountains, neither of which is worth holding onto>muh central valleythe central valley only exists due to man made aqueducts and is only fucking there because it's between LA and San Francisco
>>18033321>national parknational parks only exist in places that were too shitty to be farmed
>>18033337good post>>18033589fucking carlos mencia says it
>>18033589I’m Mexican and we say that.
>>18035220>yurotranny seethes about AMERICAN CHADS once again
>>18037153>carlos menciaFamously regarded as a retard and an uncreative hack who steals jokes.
>>18036495Mathew Perry didn't open up trade with asia until after mexico surrendered california and it's not like mexico was going to trade with china anyway and no one lived in baja california at the time either, they all live near mexico city
>>18033283Mexico had just barely managed to put down revolts across the northern territory with the exception of Texas. California was too far for them to maintain any real supply lines. It was also a de-facto autonomous region since the Indians there had been baptized and placed in charge of missions for centuries at that point.>>18037153he's not even from mexico lmao
>>18037144>California had no value at the time. it's on the wrong side of the rockies, there was no panama canal and they hadn't discovered gold yet and china/japan weren't large economies like todayYou are extremely retarded, like unfathomably ignorant of history if you believe thisSan Francisco went from a population of 460 to a population of 25,000 in just 2 years after Americans took control of it, because it was a valuable natural harbor and port of trade with the east, and yes, trade with the east was a huge deal even in the 1840s. You just can't accept that Mexicans were too retarded to develop the area themselves. The Gold Rush certainly played a huge role but it was these ports that helped to facilitate it, and you're only begging the question as to why gold wasn't found in California until Americans controlled it. The answer is simply that Mexicans can't run an economy
>>18037089GMS!!!
>>18037165>>18037171yeah, he stole it from the mexicans >>18037171I still find it funny how he brags about being hunduran as though that's not 10,000 times worse than being mexican
>>18037173I'm White and American, you tranny. We took Control of San Francisco, which is really far north for the mexicans in 1848, in 1849 they found gold, in 1844 Caleb Cushing forced China to sign a treaty giving us trade and most favored nation status and in 1852 Matthew Perry forcibly opened trade with japan at gun point. the mexicans didn't have the navy to open trade up to asia at the time, they didn't know gold was there and they didn't have any way to administer california since it's so far away from where the mexicans actually live in mexico and there is a desert in the way>why could Americabecause we found gold and we didn't want the bongs to try to take it from us
>>18037175Use words you zoomer dullard.
>>18037196the entire population of the foreign nation of california is made up of H1Bs
>>18037195>because we found gold and we didn't want the bongs to try to take it from usIt's like you said, America also had the diplomatic and military power necessary to facilitate trade with Japan and China and Mexico didn't. My point remains, California was important on multiple strategic levels, Mexico was just too weak and incompetent to take advantage of it
>>18033283Mexico was a relatively new country. They had only just finished their war of independence from Spain in 1821, and wrote a constitution in 1824. Most of the Californio population was made up of garrison soldiers who had arrived in California from Arizona two generations prior. They were rather ambivalent about Mexico as a country and Mexico City as a governing authority. A lot of Californios toyed with the idea of home rule. Heavy investment into California could be made meaningless by the loss of the territory to home rule.There was a discussion in 1827 between Captain Beechey of the HMS Blossom and Commandant Martinez of Presidio San Francisco. Martinez related that he hadn't been paid in over a decade as a result of the Peninsular War in Spain and the Mexican War of Independence. When the Mexicans finally did decide to pay the Californio garrisons, they tried to pay in cigars because they had no money.As for the Bear Flaggers, that was at Presidio Sonoma, Commandant Vallejo's garrison. There were only about five Californio soldiers permanently on hand and even they had to be paid for by Vallejo himself out of his own income. Vallejo had an American brother in law and he knew a fair amount of English. He was a key member of the 1836 internal civil war that had made Alvarado governor. He had even met with Captain Jones after he took over and handed back Monterey in 1842.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_MontereyVallejo was in communication with the US Navy through his brother in law and the US Consul Larkin. So it's very likely that Vallejo gave his troops a stand down order for when they should see a US flag. The only problem was that the Bear Flaggers might not have been in contact with the US Navy, so they might not have known Vallejo's plan.
>>18037205the question was>why didn't the mexicans invest more in californiaand the answer is >it was, for them, a resourceless desert far from their capital that they couldn't administer and there was nothing of value there as far as they were concerned. they didn't go up to san francisco because there was nothing to farm and no water anyway. we only took it because it worked as an easy port for chinese trade and we found gold and we didn't want the bongolians taking a coast from us. the only mexican town on the pacific coast that far north is tiuana and that literally only exists due to proximity to san diego
>>18033336>no one knew there was gold thereThere were small gold deposits of two thousand ounces found in 1843 by Mission San Fernando. Californios knew there was gold. But it would have been very difficult for them to obtain it. The total population of Californios was only around 9,000 people.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California#Historic_population_figuresNative Californians could have been used as labor only with great difficulty because so many of them had died due to disease in the previous years. Nor could they rely on outside immigration to California because that policy was entirely determined from Mexico City. Immigration from Mexico was also a problem because the Spanish are very bad at sea. In 1769 when St. JunĂpero Serra arrived in Alta California he did so on foot with a mule team from Baja California. Of the three ships that had left Baja, one was lost at sea and the other two ships crews were afflicted with scurvy because they had been at sea too long. They only barely managed to cobble together the good men from both ships to crew one of the ships back to Baja to bring in more supplies.
>>18033337Los Angeles was irrelevant in an Alta California context. The capital of Alta California was in Monterey and the largest cities were San Diego and Santa Barbara. San Francisco was significant because it had a presidio and a mission. Los Angeles only really develops as a city after 1900 with the exploitation of oil under downtown.
>>18033321Yosemite Valley would have been unknown to the Spanish. All the missions, cities, and presidos were on the coast. Inland California was considered to be too hot in summer and thus not worth settling.
>>18037297Nuestra Senora De La Soledad is the worse mission, prove me wrong.
>>18037297I live near San Gabriel Arcangel. It's beautiful desu.
>>18035213you are all the same, Juan
>>18037157>weywnbam
>>18037179>I still find it funny how he brags about being hunduran as though that's not 10,000 times worse than being mexicanlol brownoids arguing about who's more brown and subhuman. never gets old
>>18037179proof or you're obviously lying. when did he ever brag about that? lmao
>>18033305>local population - including Spanish speakers - didn't really feel like Mexicans anyways.that is completely false.
>>18037363>>18037371Visit San Juan Capistrano. Not only is the mission itself beautiful but the entire area surrounding it is beautiful. It's like a combination of the American West and Mediterranean
>>18037483I'm white and Ameircan>>18037485I'm not digging up his old stand up specials and show from 20 years ago. he would occasionally bring up that he's hunduran to >dab on the racists calling him a mexicanas though hundurans aren't just the poorest mexicans.
>>18033283Mexico had no military infrastructure. They had like one factory in the whole country which made guns.They didn't even really exert control over the northern states anyway. Mexico has always been structured around Mexico city, and the further the nation stretched, the less control it had.Also Mexico already had their hands full both protecting their claims to Texas, and also against a US naval invasion of Mexico City proper.There were no resources to spare for a sideshow like California
>>18033321No one lived there, and it didn't have any better resources than central or southern Mexico.California was a backwater until the gold rush, and even then it was still a bit of a backwater until very recently.California is so important to the US since it's the best Pacific Ocean ports we have. But Mexico already had plenty of access to the Pacific ocean, so it was far less important.
>>18037199>HaploshitYour psudoscience is irrelevant
>>18038699h1b visa, you gay retard
>>18038400>But Mexico already had plenty of access to the Pacific ocean, so it was far less important.Mexicos pacific coastline is far less advantageous than Californias though, less natural harbors, but also somewhat further from Eastern trade partners
>>18033283>>18033305California before the gold rush was very different than it is today. Part of the reason it was such a backwater is that the Spanish had decreed that the soldiers in the presidios should do no work. All work was to be done by the Native Californians. Who also had no idea how to do the work. And they were to work under the supervision of the Franciscans, who oftentimes didn't have enough tools for all the missions. So development was very slow.When Royal Navy Captain Beechey visited San Francisco in 1827 he exclaimed that the town had hardly changed from the 1792 reports written by Captain George Vancouver. From his perspective not a damn thing had happened in 35 years. Worse still, most of the natives were still living in wigwams.But from the perspective of the Spanish a great deal had happened. Gaspar de Portolá and St. JunĂpero Serra had only arrived in California in 1769. It was in 1776 that San Francisco was founded. When George Vancouver arrived in 1792 it was considered notable that they were able to supply him "cows, sheep, chickens, 190 pumpkins, 400 eggs, and a cartload of vegetables." All of which came at the generosity of Captain Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra. The horses and cattle that the Spanish gave to the British became the first horses and cattle in Hawaii and Australia. Native Californians who were once living a life of subsistence hunting were now enjoying regular meals of corn and beef stew at the missions.
>This entire thread>"California only became huge because of the gold rush and no other factors"Absolute midwit takes
>>18038753>>18038400mexico also didn't have pacific trade partners at the time. The US just opened trade to japan 4 years prior and would only open trade to china 4 years after
>>18039532california is far away from mexico city and you need to cross a desert to get there. It's a much bigger deal for the US because it allowed us to prevent the bongs from taking more territory and it gave us pacific ports right as trade with the orient, trade mexico wasn't involved with, opened. mexico wouldn't start trade agreements with japan and china until 1888 and 1893
Because Shitspain never created something that resembled a state and military in Latam We had to work with what we had at the time. It took many painful decades (and many foreign interventions) for us mexicans to built a state.America on other hand was born already with a stable and strong state, since america was basically an extension of britain
>>18039548Anon, California is also far away from Washington DC and Americans STILL needed to cross a desert to get to it. Mexico had the home field advantage but they dropped the ball at every single play
Part of the story of San Francisco is that from the time it was founded in 1776 it was considered to be the northern edge of settlement. Because of the topography it wasn't clear if coastal expansion on the Pacific Ocean or bay expansion was the right call. They tried the ocean but gave up on Bodega Bay after they realized how shallow it was. The Spanish had a difficult time reliably crossing San Francisco Bay. Their main option was native transport, which is fine for like 3 people at a time.It was around 1806 that the Commandant of San Francisco, JosĂ© DarĂo ArgĂĽello was scammed by the Russian-American Company Director Nikolai Rezanov into giving the Russians access to land north of San Francisco. The Spanish had agreed to a Russian warehouse and were surprised in 1812 to find the Russians building a wooden fortification. The Russians also began a Native Californian proxy war by arming a Pomo tribe and encouraging them to raid their Miwok neighbors who were assisting the Spanish.The Spanish finally went north of San Francisco when Mission San Rafael Arcángel was founded in 1817. And in 1822 JosĂ© ArgĂĽello helped his son Luis Antonio ArgĂĽello become Governor of Alta California. He was the first San Franciscan to hold the office. One of his first acts was authorizing the founding of Mission San Francisco Solano in 1823. Even after he left office northern expansion continued, largely as a counter to the Russians. In 1829 Fr. Juan AmorĂłs founded Asistencia Santa Rosa. But there was a war between the Pomo and the Wappo so he had to abandon the site. He died shortly after in 1832.In 1833 Mexico City passed an act secularizing the California Missions. Everything of value was stripped from the missions: cattle, horses, pigs, chickens, vineyards, etc. and parceled out to both the Californio ranchos and the Native Californians. Commandant Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo gave Asistencia Santa Rosa to his mother in law MarĂa Ygnacia LĂłpez de Carrillo as a ranch house.
>>18039600you could cross via the oregon trail, not that that was significantly better. Mexico didn't have any pacific trade partners. the US had japan and china. The US did not have any significant ports at the time. Seattle in general is in a shitty location due to the mountains and was disputed by the bongs and is just in the middle of god damn nowhere. there are no good ports on oregon, their main port involves sailing down a river to portland. san francisco was the first pacific port in the US in a time when we just opened up trade to the orient and would be the only port for like 40 years
>>18039532Industrialization prior to the gold rush was extremely minimal. Russians built the first windmills in California at the Russian-American Company property Fort Ross. And a number of missions in southern California had water wheels for water mills. Those were upgraded with gearing works by Joseph John Chapman who happened to arrive from Hawaii through an Argentine pirate attack on Monterey, California.Without industry Alta California was developing as a series of massive ranches along the coast owned by a handful of Californios and worked by Native Californians using animals and equipment taken from the Franciscan missions.
>>18034239>>18034264>>18034507California is a mixed bag. The U.S. Land Commission often tried to honor at least part of the landholding. The problem was that by the time they acted huge areas of land were lost due to squatting.Commandant Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo was allowed by U.S. Land Commission to keep Rancho Petaluma, but Rancho Suscol was not accepted. Because Vallejo was briefly a member of the California State Senate he was compensated with payments from the US Army and Navy for the US Army Arsenal of Benicia and the US Navy Base of Mare Island which were placed on the southern end of Rancho Suscol.The strangest case is that of Rancho OlĂłmpali, the one case of a landholding owned by a Native Californian. It was owned by Camilo Ynitia of the Coast Miwok. He applied in 1852 but then sold most of the land to James Black before he died in 1856. His claim was posthumously honored in 1862.
>>18037495feels like american brainwashing no? the other day i saw a "californio" claim they benefited from annexationreality? hispanos were betrayed by americans and had their lands taken away
>>18039532California was barely populated before the gold rush though. Entire towns started popping up just because people flooded the territory looking to get rich quick. If you mean California today, it was mostly built up in the early-mid 20th century when the military moved their hardware there.
>>18040649>California was barely populated before the gold rushNot him, but that isn't quite right. There were already Native Californian villages across the whole state.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_California>At the time of the establishment of the first Spanish Mission in 1769, the most widely accepted estimates say that California's indigenous population was around 340,000 people and possibly more.>From 1769 to 1832, an estimated total of 87,787 baptisms and 24,529 marriages had been conducted at the missions. In that same period, 63,789 deaths at the missions were recorded, indicating the immense death rate.>The population of Native California was reduced by 90% during the 19th century—from more than 200,000 in the early 19th century to approximately 15,000 at the end of the century. The majority of this population decline occurred in the latter half of the century, under American occupation. While in 1848, the population of native people was about 150,000, by 1870 it fell to 30,000, and fell further to 16,000 by the end of the century.
>>18041468>While in 1848, the population of native people was about 150,000, by 1870 it fell to 30,000, and fell further to 16,000 by the end of the century.Has there ever been a group outside of the americas and australia that was just casually murdered en masse like that? Just insane how much amerindians were killed by settlers and it just left near 0 mark on american culture or identity.
>>18041483>murderedthey got the coof
The Spanish missions and asistencias were placed either within or adjacent to Native Californian villages. A lot of regions and locations in California still carry their native names.>>18041483Not all of the population decrease was murder. Before the beginning of Spanish settlement Native Californian populations had a birthrate that was more or less tuned to their environment. Once foreign diseases arrived from Europe and Asia this way of living was no longer tenable. An example of this was the 1837 smallpox epidemic that began with the Russians at Fort Ross. By the time it was over something like 80% to 90% of the Pomo and Wappo had died. This was in contrast to the Californio populations who had something like 12 children on average with the knowledge that maybe better than half of them would survive to adulthood. Because of a separation between the Californios and the Native Californians, the natives even at the missions did not adopt Californio birthrates.A lot of Native Californians also fled into out of the way areas. When approached by census workers later on they told them they were just poor white people, because natives didn't have voting rights for about the first 50 years of American rule. White settlers just accepted at face value that natives had "disappeared".
>>18041468no one gives a shit about injins
>>18041483>>18041517the funniest thing about it to me is they don't even teach kids about injins anymore
>>18037483>>18034264In NM there are still land grants
>>18037138Obsessed
>>18041563I do
>>18041483Chinese people
Here's some more information on Native Californian demographics. Specifically a tribe living in the north around Clear Lake.https://twitter.com/theGreaterMarin/status/1727440637237006790https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucar016-004.pdf
>>18033283>How come Mexico never invested more into defending California?They didn't know about the gold and California was the ass end of the planet at the time, populated by a handful of cavemen.
>>18038703>more haploshit>>>/x/
>>18033283Mexicans are lazy
>>18043588h1b visa isn't haploshit, retard
