TheMarketForIdeas

The nineteenth century saw the United States aggressively expand its territories, fueled by the Manifest Destiny and the notion that American expansion was a divine purpose. In 1848, this philosophy culminated in the annexation of California, which transformed the American geopolitical landscape and solidified Anglo-American domination. However, California’s annexation was more than just geographical; it also signified a dramatic transformation in which Mexican-Americans were subjugated via systematic exclusion on legal, cultural, and political levels. This heritage informs current challenges of disenfranchisement and cultural repression in Latino communities across the United States, demonstrating how conquest strategies endure in present racial inequities (Perea, 2003; Montejano, 1987).

The Manifest Destiny: the ideological basis of expansion

The ideology of the Manifest Destiny, created by writer John L. O’Sullivan in 1845, embodied a vision of US territorial expansion over North America, based on the notion that Anglo-Saxon institutions and values will civilize and alter the region. This ideology not only supported geographical expansion, but it also barred non-Anglo-Saxons from the American concept of citizenship and statehood. Scholars contend that the Manifest Destiny was more than just a policy explanation; it was a racist worldview that saw Anglo-American culture as superior, presenting territorial invasion as both moral and essential (Horsman, 1981; Perea, 2003).

This purpose, filled with racial biases, was most visible in the rhetoric preceding the admission of Texas and, shortly after, California, to the Union. Prominent American politicians and public figures at the time saw Mexicans as a “mixed race” incapable of fully participating in the democratic standards that the United States claimed to uphold. The idea of the Manifest Destiny offered moral and racial justification for the Mexican-American War and subsequent annexations, which many Americans saw as a divine mission (Perea, 2003).

The Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

The Mexican-American War, fought from 1846 to 1848, was critical in winning California for the United States. After Mexico refused to transfer California and New Mexico to the United States, President James K. Polk authorized American soldiers to occupy the disputed area, resulting in hostilities. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, concluded this war, which was sometimes viewed as an American excuse for expansion. Mexico gave up California, New Mexico, and other territories in return for $15 million and the acceptance of American residents’ claims against Mexico. The treaty formalized the United States’ annexation of California, marking a watershed moment in American expansion (Weber, 1982).

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo guaranteed the property rights and civic liberties of Mexican residents in the ceded territory. However, these safeguards were frequently disregarded, and Mexican-American inhabitants of California were subjected to legal and illegal evictions from their properties. Notably, the U.S. Congress changed the treaty’s text to delay the instant award of statehood and full citizenship, allowing Anglo-American settlers to dominate politically while removing Mexicans from real participation (Perea, 2003).

The California gold rush and the acceleration of statehood

The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848, just days before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, resulted in an extraordinary flood of people to California, radically altering the region’s demographics. This migration accelerated California’s journey to statehood, which was officially granted in 1850 under the Compromise of 1850. However, statehood was coupled by regulations that effectively barred Mexican-Americans from political involvement. California’s 1849 state constitution restricted voting rights to “white” male residents, thus marginalizing Mexican-Americans who had previously wielded political power in the state. This intentional eviction guaranteed Anglo-American settlers’ political and economic control as the state grew swiftly (Heizer & Almquist, 1971).

The Gold Rush not only increased California’s importance to the United States, but it also strengthened a racial hierarchy that allowed Anglo-Americans to dominate property and resources. The expropriation of Mexican-Americans, along with specific legislative limitations, resulted in economic disadvantage and marginalization for this people, defining the racialized environment of the newly acquired state (Perea 2003).

The acquisition of California

The United States acquired a vast territory that included not only California but also significant portions of present-day Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, totaling approximately 1.36 million square kilometers (Carleton, 1998; Meinig, 1993).

At the time, the deal cost $15 million, which was a large sum for the mid-nineteenth century. Given the region’s cultural, economic, and social importance to national growth, this investment has proven to be one of the most beneficial territorial and strategic decisions in American history. Adjusted for inflation, the $15 million is worth around $550-$600 million now (Shiller, 2005). In 1848, the cost of the whole acquired land was around $11 per square kilometer, or 40-44 cents per hectare in current dollars.

Land values in California’s major centers, such as Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, now approach $1,000 per square meter. This highlights the region’s great economic worth, which has grown from an uninhabited expanse in the nineteenth century to a worldwide commercial powerhouse today (Meinig, 1993).

Today, California is a key player in the global economy, with the strongest state economy in the United States and the fifth-largest economy in the world if considered an independent country. California’s GDP will approach $4 trillion in 2023, surpassing that of Germany, the United Kingdom, and India (World Bank, 2023; BEA, 2023).

This extraordinary economic growth is attributable to several key factors:

- Technology and innovation: Silicon Valley remains the global center of the technology industry, home to companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Intel, generating billions in annual revenues and shaping global technological developments (Storper, 2013).

- Entertainment industry: Hollywood leads the world in media production, significantly contributing to U.S. cultural exports and generating substantial revenue through films, television, and streaming platforms (Meinig, 1993).

- Agriculture: California is the leading agricultural producer in the U.S., supplying over 13% of national food production, with major exports like Napa Valley wines, almonds, and fresh produce (World Bank, 2023).

- Education and research: World-renowned institutions such as Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Caltech attract global talent, fostering groundbreaking research and innovations (Storper, 2013).

The acquisition of California extended the United States’ borders to the Pacific Ocean, clearing the path for trans-Pacific trade and establishing the country as a growing force in the area. Furthermore, embracing such a wide and diverse region had a significant impact on developing American national identity. California became a cultural hotbed of ethnic variety and a symbol of the “American Dream”, attracting successive waves of immigration and converting into a social and cultural testing ground for progressive ideas and organizations (Carleton, 1998; Storper, 2013).

The role of race in conquest and state formation

Race and conquest were complimentary in the United States’ strategy to absorbing California. Anglo-American leaders saw Mexican-Americans as racially inferior and politically unprepared, afraid that giving equal citizenship would undermine the democratic values of the US. This idea was prevalent in Congressional discussions, with leaders such as Senator John Calhoun arguing that admitting Mexican-Americans as equals would undermine the “purity” of the American republic. As a result, the final text of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo postponed complete incorporation, granting Congress the authority to decide when and whether these territories should become states (Coughlin, 1967).

Such practices demonstrate an intentional racialization of citizenship, in which Mexican-Americans were viewed as a subservient class in their own country. The denial of their full civic involvement not only violated their political rights, but also supported a social order in which racial minorities were often denied access to power — structures that would reverberate in future discussions about racial equality and citizenship rights (Perea, 2023).

Cultural repression and long-term political disenfranchisement

The acquisition of California established a precedent for the subjection of Latino inhabitants through cultural and linguistic oppression. Language limitations, mandates for English-only schooling, and other assimilation programs were meant to weaken Mexican-American cultural identity while cementing Anglo-American cultural supremacy. According to Perea (2003), this repression extended to political exclusion, as Congress purposefully delayed giving statehood to territory with large Latino populations, such as New Mexico, until Anglo-American settlers became the majority.

Mexican-Americans faced enormous difficulties in maintaining their property rights, with US courts regularly dismissing Mexican land titles or transferring land through convoluted legal procedures that favored Anglo-American claimants. This systematic exclusion from land ownership weakened the economic foundation of Mexican-American communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and political impotence that shaped Latino lives in the Southwest for years (Lockhart, 1913).

The legacy of exclusion: contemporary political marginalization

The legacy of the United States’ invasion of California lives on in the political and economic marginalization of Latino communities today. Legal experts claim that systematic racial and cultural oppression throughout California’s statehood period paved the way for later disenfranchisement up to the late 20^th century, in which Latino populations confronted impediments to voting, representation, and economic equality (Montejano, 1987). Contemporary challenges of immigration, linguistic rights, and labor exploitation echo exclusionary policies that were initially enacted during California’s acquisition, demonstrating how conquest continues to impact Latinos’ social and political positions in the United States.

This persistent legacy emphasizes the significance of acknowledging historical injustices as a starting point for comprehending contemporary race relations and political imbalances. By critically exploring these historical processes, this work adds to wider debates on citizenship, democracy, and the long-term impacts of invasion on national identity (Vazquez & Meyer, 1985).

Conclusions

The annexation of California in 1848 was predicated on the idea of the Manifest Destiny, which held that US expansion was both inevitable and morally acceptable. This ideology justified aggressive territorial conquests and the repression of existing communities’ rights, notably Mexican-Americans, demonstrating how expansionist principles might rationalize racial marginalization. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the California Gold Rush hasten the isolation of Mexican-Americans from political and economic realms. Despite vows to preserve their rights, expropriation and discriminatory policies solidified Anglo-American supremacy, establishing racial and economic hierarchies that still impact the social status of Latino-American communities today.

Finally, the purchase of California left a legacy of Latino-American marginalization, influencing current impediments to political participation and economic equality. Mexican-Americans’ exclusion from power structures and language constraints exacerbated cultural repression, establishing systematic disadvantages that kept these communities on the margins of national identity until recently.

Photo source: PxHere.com.

References:

Becker, C., 1900. Law and Practice of the United States in the Acquisition and Government of Dependent Territory.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 2023. Gross Domestic Product by State: California. Available at: https://www.bea.gov/.

Carleton, D., 1998. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict.

Coughlin, M., 1967. Boston Smugglers on the Coast (1797-1821): An Insight into the American Acquisition of California.

Heizer, R.F. & Almquist, A.F., 1971. The Other Californians.

Horsman, R., 1981. Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism.

Lockhart Rives, G., 1913. The United States and Mexico -1821-1848.

McDonough, M., 2015. ‘Solitary Place’ or Golden State: The Debate Regarding the Acquisition of California, MASS media-Media History Monographs.

Meinig, D.W., 1993. The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History.

Montejano, D., 1987. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986.

Neeser, R.W., 1884. The Navy’s Part in the Acquisition of California, 1846-1848.

Perea, J.F., 2003. A Brief History of Race and the U.S.-Mexican Border: Tracing the Trajectories of Conquest.

Saunders, M.K., 1996. California Legal History: The Legal System under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849.

Sister Mary & Loyola, 1939. The American Occupation of New Mexico, 1821-1852.

Storper, M., 2013. Keys to the City: How Economics, Institutions, Social Interaction, and Politics Shape Development.

Vazquez, Z.J. & Meyer, L., 1985. The United States and Mexico.

Verville, J., Palanisamy, R. & Bernadas, C., 2009. Cultural Influences on the Decision Process for Acquiring Enterprise Software: A Comparison of Mexico and United States, International Journal of Global Management Studies.

Weber, D.J., 1982. The Mexican Frontier, 1821-1846: The American Southwest under Mexico.

Wisconsin International Law Journal (Wis. Int’l L.J.), 1999. Reconsidering the Doctrine of Discovery: Spanish Land Acquisition in Mexico (1521-1821).

World Bank, 2023. World Development Indicators. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/.