Week 3 The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo Chicano History Studies Help This essay consists of a 5-pages essay (not include works cited in this 5 pages), must
Week 3 The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo Chicano History Studies Help This essay consists of a 5-pages essay (not include works cited in this 5 pages), must be original, no plagiarism. require to utilize 5 readings. There are 4 reading I attached in this post, and I will upload 2 more reading later in the post, because here are no more space I can upload the pdf file. you must choose 5 of them as a source in this essay. Be careful to NOT overuse direct quotations. You must include a complete Works Cited page and in-text citations.
Instructions:
The goal of this exam is to show critical thinking and course engagement. For this essay you must utilize the course readings as your primary support and evidence, and properly cite those readings using MLA citation format. You will be required to utilize minimum 4 different authors in your essay. A strong essay will typically utilize 5-7 readings and be no shorter than 4.5 pages. Be careful to NOT overuse direct quotations. This essay must focus on analysis and contain mostly your own words. You are also free to utilize course lecture notes or films we viewed in class as support, but these lecture/film citations will NOT count toward your minimum 4 author citations. You must include a complete Works Cited page and in-text citations. Please save your document with your name in the file name and include page numbers.
– The essay will engage deeply with the course readings to develop and support your thesis. Outside sources will not be needed or accepted for this exam.
– The essay will be concise and thoughtful. It will have a solid and detailed thesis and contain well-supported analysis. All sources will be properly cited in MLA format.
– The essay will be no longer than 5 pages, excluding Works Cited and MLA headings.
– The essay will be double-spaced, 12-point font, Times New Roman (1″ margins).
– If you do not know MLA or do not own an MLA style guide you can view one at the following website: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01…
– Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Students who plagiarize will be referred to Student Judicial Affairs
The prompt asks you to write about events that occurred in and after 1848, and require you to explain the capital, legal, and ideological forces at play during the time period and their combined role in racialization.
Prompt:
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, ratified in 1848, serves as a formative document for Chicanidad because it creates the Mexican-American subject and grants them US citizenship. For this essay you will explain how the Chicanx subject gets racialized as non-white in the United States despite being named US citizens in the Treaty. In order to do so, you must first explain in specific detail at least two ways in which Chicanxs are denied the normal rights and privileges granted to white citizen-subjects in the US between 1848 and 1920. Second, discuss how white supremacy gets enforced against racialized subjects in this post-Treaty era and how it gets justified. Pay specific attention to the interactions between capital, law, and ideology as racializing forces, and how these forces lead to exploitation and oppression after the Treaty. Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Intro Thesis Statement
Is the thesis statement specific and detailed? Does it take a concrete position? Does it respond
directly to the prompt without simply restating it?
3.0 pts
Body 1: Argument & Evidence
Does the student’s writing address the prompt directly? Are they utilizing course content for
support, while still including their own voice and analysis? Does the essay provide historical and
geographical context, as well as engaging in an analysis that utilizes key concepts from Chicanx
studies? Does the student show a thorough engagement with the class and an ability to think
critically?
5.0 pts
Body 2: Argument & Evidence
Does the student’s writing address the prompt directly? Are they utilizing course content for
support, while still including their own voice and analysis? Does the essay provide historical and
geographical context, as well as engaging in an analysis that utilizes key concepts from Chicanx
studies? Does the student show a thorough engagement with the class and an ability to think
critically?
5.0 pts
Body 3: Argument & Evidence
Does the student’s writing address the prompt directly? Are they utilizing course content for
support, while still including their own voice and analysis? Does the essay provide historical and
geographical context, as well as engaging in an analysis that utilizes key concepts from Chicanx
studies? Does the student show a thorough engagement with the class and an ability to think
critically?
5.0 pts
Overall Clarity & Cohesion
Is the essay well organized? Does the student utilize topic sentences or transitionary statements to
provide flow? Does the student answer the prompt clearly, directly, and completely in their essay?
Is there a meaningful conclusion?
3.0 pts
Spelling & Grammar
Was the essay proofread? Is the grammar up to collegiate standards? Does the student appear to
have made a real effort for their writing level?
1.0 pts
Works Cited
Does it have a complete, MLA style Works Cited? is it properly formatted? Are all quotations and
paraphrasing cited intext?
Formatting
1” margins, 12 point font, Times New Roman, page numbers
2.0 pts
1.0 pts
Total Points: 25.0
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Page 17
Chapter 1
The Old South in the Southwest
Westward Expansion of Cotton Culture, 1820–1900
In December 1820 Moses Austin, father of Texas empresario Stephen E Austin, was summoned to appear before Don Antonio Martínez, the Spanish governor of
Texas in San Antonio de Bexar. 1 Moses Austin had come from Missouri to seek permission to obtain a Royal Commission to settle 300 families in Texas. Numerous
questions were put to Moses, including what his reasons were for desiring to settle in Spanish Texas, to which he replied, through an interpreter, “to provide for his
subsistence by raising sugar and cotton.” Although the Spanish were deeply suspicious of American filibusters posing as settlers, Moses Austin was able to convince
them that his colony, which included some slaveholders, had as its primary interest the growing of cotton and sugar and not revolutionary activity against the Spanish
Crown.2
The Crown authorities reasoned that loyal farmercolonists, with a high stake in the land, would provide a buffer against marauding Indians and prevent the intrusion of
future filibusters from the United States. On January 17, 1821, the commandant of the eastern internal provinces, General Joaquín de Arredondo, notified Governor
Martínez that the petition in the name of Moses Austin had been granted by the provincial council at Monterrey, located in Nuevo León, Mexico. In keeping with his
father’s agricultural objectives for the colony, Stephen F. Austin, in an address to the colonists in 1824, stated that they would be delivered from poverty through the
cultivation of cotton, and on a later occasion he recommended to Governor Rafael Gonzales: “Nothing but foreign commerce, particularly the exportation of cotton to
Europe, can enrich the inhabitants of this section of the State.”3 Thus the first cotton farmers
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 4/17/2019 2:11 AM via DE ANZA COLLEGE
AN: 6869 ; Foley, Neil.; The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture
Account: s5797263
Page 18
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
and their slaves were introduced to the rich riverbottom lands of presentday east Texas in the first quarter of the nineteenth century.
Following the establishment of the Austin colony in Mexican Texas in 1821, the Mexican government, which won independence from Spain the same year, enacted a
series of colonization laws in the 1820s that opened the door to white immigrants. Mostly from the upper and lower South, these white Americans crossed the Sabine
River from Louisiana into Texas, where many quickly established cotton plantations in the eastern part of the province and along the rich coastal plains. The Mexican
government offered each immigrant farmer one labor of land, or 177 acres. 4 Those who wished to graze livestock received a league (4,428 acres) or more, and
empresarios like Moses Austin were entitled to five leagues for every hundred families settled.5 At first these new immigrants had little contact with the Mexican
population in Texas, the boundaries of which in the 1820s included San Antonio and La Bahía (Goliad) but not Laredo, which belonged to the Mexican state of
Tamaulipas. The El Paso area, another center of mestizo population since the late seventeenth century, was located in the Mexican state of Chihuahua; and the
presentday counties of the lower Rio Grande belonged to the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.6 Less than a decade after 1821, however, owing to the liberal
immigration laws, white immigrants from the United States outnumbered the Mexican population of Texas and increasingly began to foment rebellion against the
Mexican government.
Numerous conflicts arose between the government of Mexico and Anglo and Mexican Texans (tejanos), particularly under the contralist rule of Antonio López de
Santa Anna after 1834. Anglo Texans quarreled with the Mexican government over the enactment of antislavery laws, especially the Law of April 6, 1830, by which
Mexico, in effect, closed the border between Texas and the United States to stop the flood of white “illegal aliens” from slaveholding states east of the Sabine River.7
The Mexican government accurately reasoned that U.S. immigrants had felt little obligation to obey Mexican laws and were growing restless under a government that
forbade slavery. Stephen Austin, once a loyal Mexican citizen who spoke Spanish and demonstrated his allegiance to the Mexican government on numerous
occasions, succumbed to the demands of Texas slaveholders and nonslaveholders alike when he wrote in 1833: “I have been averse to the principle of slavery in
Texas. I have now, and for the last six months, changed my views…. Texas must be a slave country.”8 A few years later, in 1836, the famous trio of southernborn
whites,
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 4/17/2019 2:11 AM via DE ANZA COLLEGE
AN: 6869 ; Foley, Neil.; The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture
Account: s5797263
Page 19
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, and William Barrett Travis, gave their lives at the Alamo for the freedom of white men to own slaves.
After the bloody battles of the Alamo and San Jacinto, the Republic of Texas drafted its first constitution, in which it guaranteed the protection of slavery. Section 9 of
the constitution reads, in part: “Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them … nor shall congress have the
power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves without the consent of congress.” 9 Texas whites had won
in their revolt against Mexico what whites in the U.S. South would lose a few decades later with the outbreak of the Civil War, when slaves constituted approximately
30 percent of the population and when more than onefourth of all Texas families owned slaves.10
From the beginning of the Republic of Texas, Indians and free blacks were denied the constitutional protections accorded to whites, while Mexicans occupied a
nebulous, intermediate status between (nonwhite) Indian and (marginally white) Spanish. In many ways the Texas Republic represented the culmination of Anglo
Saxon beliefs in the racial inferiority of Mexicans as a result of centuries of racial mixing among Spaniards, Africans, and Indians.11 Texas land policies, for example,
sought to discourage the settlement of free blacks and Indians in the republic. The constitution of the Texas Republic retained the liberal land policies of Mexican
Texas, but with the proviso that only white heads of family were entitled to purchase land. Texas whites and “Spanish” Mexicans who aided in the Texas revolt against
Mexico were entitled to a firstclass “headright” for one league and a labor of land, provided they could persuade the court that they were white and not of Indian or
African descent. Shortly after statehood, for example, José María de la Garza, petitioning the commissioner’s court of Refugio County (near Corpus Christi) for a
league and a labor, stated that he was born in Texas “of Texas parents and is a free white person of Spanish and not of African blood.”12 Only by insisting on their
Spanish blood and the absence of any African blood were some Mexicans, like José María de la Garza, able to claim whiteness in order to purchase land. Second,
third, and fourthclass headrights, consisting of smaller land grants, were awarded primarily to encourage white people to settle in Texas. Whiteness was thus
inscribed in Texas law as the quintessential property for both citizenship rights and land ownership.13
Throughout the debates leading to annexation of Texas in 1845, politicians alluded frequently to the inferiority of Mexico and the Mexican race. In 1844 James
Buchanan, who later served as secretary of state
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 4/17/2019 2:11 AM via DE ANZA COLLEGE
AN: 6869 ; Foley, Neil.; The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture
Account: s5797263
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Page 20
under President James K. Polk, argued that Mexico was incapable of retaking the Republic of Texas because “AngloSaxon blood could never be subdued by
anything that claimed Mexican origin.” In the same year Levi Woodbury of New Hampshire argued that Texans were “men of the true Saxon race” who under
Mexican rule were “humiliated, and enslaved to Moors, Indians, and mongrels.” 14 The slave Republic of Texas, in other words, had to be annexed to what the
historian Alexander Saxton calls the White Republic in order to prevent white Texans from becoming slaves to “mongrel Mexicans.”15
The northern as well as southern belief in the inferiority of blacks also played a crucial role in uniting proannexation Northerners with proslavery Southerners. Most
antislavery northern Democrats were appalled by the specter of millions of freed slaves migrating to the North. They hoped annexation would solve the agonizing racial
problem of what to do with manumitted blacks in the white republic, the bête noire of America, according to the Irish visitor John Robert Godley in 1842.16 An
outspoken Negrophobe of the era, Mississippi Senator Robert J. Walker, warned that if slaves were freed and Texas were not annexed, millions of blacks would
migrate to the North, where they would compete with whites for jobs. Texas, it was supposed, would become a safety valve for attracting both slaves and freed
blacks to the doorstep of Latin America, where they could cross the border and become mingled with Mexicans. Annexation, then, would facilitate the relocation of
blacks from the South to the “dumping ground” of the farwestern frontier and hasten, according to a New York congressman, the “natural emigration” of blacks to
“Mexico and the equator.” The relocation of blacks to Texas and Mexico, expansionists also pointed out, would open land to poor white farmers in the South, as had
the removal of unwanted Indians from Georgia in the 1830s. The annexation of Texas as a slave state thus became the great white hope of northern expansionists
anxious to emancipate the nation from blacks, who, it was hoped, would find a home among the kindred population of “colored races” in Mexico.17
After the annexation of the Texas Republic, the United States went to war with Mexico. The immediate cause of the war was a boundary dispute between Texas and
Mexico. The Republic of Texas had claimed that its western boundary was the Rio Grande; Mexico, which had never recognized the Republic of Texas or its
annexation by the United States, claimed that the boundary between its twin states, Tejas and Coahuila, and the Gulf Coast state of Tamaulipas was at the Nueces
River, which emptied into Corpus Christi Bay. The fact that the Rio Grande had
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 4/17/2019 2:11 AM via DE ANZA COLLEGE
AN: 6869 ; Foley, Neil.; The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture
Account: s5797263
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Page 21
never been the western or southern boundary of Texas was of little concern to the expansionist President Polk. As early as 1825, the United States, under President
John Quincy Adams, had attempted to purchase the province from Mexico, but Mexico, torn by internal political divisions since winning independence from Spain in
1821, was not disposed to sell parcels of the homeland to the United States. Having failed to buy what it wanted, the United States sought a pretext to go to war in
order to seize valuable ports on the Pacific from Puget Sound to the Gulf of California. A Whig congressman from Massachusetts, who was skeptical of President
Polk’s intentions, told his colleagues in the House of Representatives that Polk’s objective in 1846 had not been “peace with Mexico, but a piece of Mexico.” 18 When
President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to cross the Nueces River, Mexican troops engaged him, and lives were lost on both sides. Polk immediately
declared that “Mexico has invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil.” Although many Americans believed that the United States had provoked
the war over land to which Mexico had at least a plausible claim, the voices of territorial expansion drowned out those of peace, and Polk asked Congress to declare
war on Mexico.19 The poet of the radical American experiment in democracy, Walt Whitman, added his voice to the chorus for war when he asked, in 1846: “What
has miserable, inefficient Mexico … to do with the great mission of peopling the New World with a noble race?”20
Two years later the war was over. Fought by a southern president and a southern general, the struggle represented the territorial ambitions of the slave South and its
white racial ideology as much as the North’s pietistic notions of Manifest Destiny. Sam Houston was characteristically blunt—and honest—when he observed in 1848
that Americans had always cheated Indians, and since “Mexicans are no better than Indians … I see no reason why we should not go on the same course, now, and
take their land.”21 The American General William Worth, a Northerner of southern sympathy and expansionist zeal, justified the seizure of Mexico’s northern territory
with the smug boast that “our AngloSaxon race [have] been land stealers from time immemorial, and why shouldn’t they [be]?”22 Though slavery would not be
extended beyond Texas, mainly because it was thought that the cotton South had reached its geographical limits in Texas, the South and its southern senators had been
among the war’s most spirited defenders. The War with Mexico also made possible the extension of southern culture into the borderlands of what had been the
northern states of Mexico. After the war as white
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 4/17/2019 2:11 AM via DE ANZA COLLEGE
AN: 6869 ; Foley, Neil.; The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture
Account: s5797263
Copyright © 1997. University of California Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses
permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Page 22
Americans rushed to California to find gold and to Texas to buy cheap land, they brought with them the creed of white racial supremacy that had devastating
consequences for the Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese whom they would encounter in the newly acquired American Southwest. 23
The expansion of white Americans across the continent was completed in 1848, when Mexico ceded to the United States, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, all or
part of the present states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and several others. In 1853 President Franklin Pierce added the Gadsden Purchase, a
strip of land that now forms southern New Mexico and Arizona, to provide a southern route for a railroad to the Pacific. Those opposed to territorial expansion,
particularly the Whigs, worried about the consequences of incorporating an inferior race into the union. Americans worried that these ”colored mongrels,” as citizens of
the United States, might have the same rights as white people. Mexican Americans would then be entitled to hold scats in the Senate and House of Representatives.
The southern senator John C. Calhoun, a fervent defender of slavery, opposed the incorporation of Mexico and its largely Indian population into the United States
because, as he told the Senate, “We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race.”24 Calhoun insisted that the
color line be drawn at the Rio Grande River and that the United States not extend its jurisdiction to the land and people south of it. “Ours is the government of the
white man,” Calhoun added, urging Congress to avoid “the fatal error of placing the colored race on an equality with the white.” The nephew of Andrew Jackson,
Andrew Donolson, also opposed acquiring all of Mexico and warned President Polk in 1848: “We can no more amalgamate with her people than with negroes.”25
Even those who wished to take all of Mexico’s land as the spoils of war shared Calhoun and Donelson’s concern over absorbing nonwhite people into the white
republic, some even suggesting that Mexico’s nonwhite population be removed to isolated reservations like their Indian kin in the United States. It is not surprising,
then, that the new border between Mexico and the United States was drawn in such a way as to take as much land and as few Mexicans as possible.26
While the War with Mexico resulted in the confluence of the South with the Mexican borde…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
