No, the United States did not Steal California from Mexico

We’ve all heard the claims that the United States stole California from Mexico and therefore in reality it belongs to Mexico.

That’s not quite… right.  California, like most of the world, has a history that’s slightly more complex than will fit on your average bumper sticker.

Prior to the Spanish arrival in 1565 there were over 100 different tribes inhabiting what we know as California. Most were small and the total population of the area is estimated to be approximately 300,000. 

Although there were some minor explorations, and small settlements, California remained  largely unexplored and unsettled by Spain for most of the next 200 years. This was due to a combination of factors such as the distance from Spain, the strained Spanish finances but also the fact that there were no pack animals, little agricultural tradition, and a food supply that was less than appealing to Spanish palates. 

By the late 18^th century however the Spanish decided they needed to better organize their North American territories to preempt incursions from other European powers, particularly the French and Russians. As a result Spain began a more robust exploration of the state and would slowly colonize it, setting up missions along the vast coastal areas. 

By the early part of the 19^th century however Spain’s fortunes were changing, the empire was stretched too thin and after a decade of fighting, Mexico gained its independence in 1821. The new nation included what is today Mexico as well as California and much of the American Southwest, stretching east to Texas and north to Colorado.  And here’s where the rub in the argument that the United States stole California begins.

The population of California in 1800 was approximately 300,000 – almost all natives – essentially the same as it had been for centuries. By 1848 however it had dropped to half of that due to disease, which was responsible for 60-80% of the decline and the working to death or killing of the natives by the Spanish.

California at the time of Mexico’s independence was already sparsely populated, with just 200,000 people and that number was rapidly shrinking.  (For perspective, that’s ½ of 1% of today’s 40 million inhabitants.) Add to that the fact that Mexico could barely be called a functioning country as in the 27 years from 1821 to 1848 it had literally 40 different governments. As would seem obvious, the governments were dysfunctional, had an incredibly large land mass to govern, little tax revenue coming in and very limited finances with which to field an army to secure it, nevermind carry out the minimum responsibilities of a government. 

To better understand how dysfunctional and empty Mexico was at the time take a look at Texas.  In 1835 Texas had a population of less than 45,000 people, 30,000 of whom were Anglo settlers who’d been given permission to settle the lands by the Mexican government.  The remainder included approximately 7,000 Mexicans and 5,000 black slaves. Because of conflict with the Mexican government on issues from slavery to religion, in October of that year Texas started a war for independence and by March 1836 it had declared itself the Republic of Texas.  That could never have happened had Mexico been able to populate the area on its own or keep it from breaking away.  But it couldn’t, so Texas was born. 

The American annexation of Texas a decade later in 1845 was the catalyst that brought California to the United States. When the US annexed Texas there was a dispute with Mexico as to exactly where the southern border was. The Americans said it was the Rio Grande while the Mexicans said it was the more northern Nueces River. After negotiations failed to reach an agreement American troops marched to the Rio Grande to bolster the American claim. The Mexicans, seeing this as an encroachment on their land, attacked the American troops and the United States then declared war.

The war, like the Texas war for independence, was short lived, with hostilities ending in September of 1847, and resulted in Mexico ceding California and much of what is today the Southwest of the United States, as well as relinquishing all claims to Texas. At the same time the Americans paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.5 million of debt owed to Americans by Mexico.  After negotiations of terms, The Treaty of Hidalgo ending the war was signed in February 1848 and California was admitted to the Union in 1850. 

At that time California had a population of approximately 150,000, the majority of whom were the remnants of the native Indian tribes. Over the next twenty years that native population would decline to approximately 30,000, with diseases being the main cause, but with upwards of 20-25,000 being the result of intentional killings by the new settlers.

The year of 1848 was of course an important year for California for another reason, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill, and the resulting whirlwind would bring over 300,000 prospectors and would be treasure hunters into the state from across America and elsewhere.  By the 1860 Census the population of the state was recorded as 379,000, 90% of whom were white.

And here we get to the most interesting part of this argument. If it were truly the case that California belonged to the people who lived there previously, it most certainly wouldn’t be Mexicans. When California became a state there were very few Mexicans living there and 50 years later that had not changed. According to the Census of 1900, California had a population of 1,485,000 people, of which only 8,086 were from Mexico. That’s less than 1% and only 2% of the foreign born. Compare that to Brits at 85,000, Germans at 72,000, Chinese at 40,000 and half a dozen other countries who had more than Mexico, including Italy, Ireland, France, Sweden and even Switzerland with 10,000. Certainly some of the 1.1 million native born Californians may have had Mexican heritage, but based on the 1860 Census, not very many did. 

Which brings us to modern day California. Today 40% of the state’s 40 million people are Hispanic, and if we suppose that 65% of those are Mexican or of Mexican heritage, that would mean about 10 million people living in California are of Mexican heritage.

Ten million is a big number, but the reality is, it doesn’t do a single thing to support the notion that California belongs to Mexico or that they are the original natives to California. They are clearly not. Almost all of them, or their parents or grandparents came to the United States within the last century, most likely during the last half century. 

The reality is, Californians of Mexican heritage not only have no more claim on California than anyone else, they actually have much less than white and Asian families that go back to the 19^th century. And Mexico itself has no claims against California because their country was too weak and dysfunctional to even maintain it, nevermind defend it. 

The United States won California as a result of winning a war, the way lands have changed hands for virtually all of human history.  This latest attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the United States in general and its western states in particular is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. But of course leftists never let facts get in the way of a good victimization story…

Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA

Originally published on June 14, 2025

https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/13/the-claim-that-america-stole-california-from-mexico-is-an-ignorant-lie/

Jimmy Carter is Rick Perry's biggest fan...

If Barack Obama were prone to conspiracy theories, he might think the last couple of weeks were part of a plot orchestrated by Jimmy Carter to salvage his own legacy.

First off the Democrats get the GOP to acquiesce to a debt ceiling bill that will result in the federal government raising taxes and increasing spending by over $7 trillion over the next decade. The immediate result is United States government debt being downgraded for the first time in history, something Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stated unequivocally would not happen only the week before.

Soon thereafter the Fed looked into their crystal ball and decided that economic prospects were so bad that they had to take the unprecedented step of publicly stating that they would be leaving interest rates near zero until mid 2013. It seems as if Keynesians never see – nay recognize - failure, they simply see another opportunity to try and do the same thing over again, only each time a bit bigger.

Up on Wall Street things weren’t going any better. The Dow dropped 600 points the day after the downgrade and it has spent the subsequent two weeks on a daily triple digit roller coaster. All together the market is down almost 10 percent since the beginning of the month.

Those things are tough, but they don’t really add up to much of a conspiracy. Hey, the unemployment rate went down… from 9.2% to 9.1%, that can’t be a bad thing. Unless of course that decline is the result of more people simply throwing in the towel and giving up looking for a job at all. Add to that the decline in productivity and the increase in labor costs and things start to look rather bleak. All this while Obama’s approval ratings slipped to the lowest levels of his presidency.

Across the pond, as if to add gasoline to the proverbial fire, the socialist Mecca of Europe is crumbling from within. In the UK you have waves of chaos and riots perpetrated by youth who’ve spent their lives suckling at the public teat. The little rascals are ostensibly rioting against the police and government budget cuts, but seem to take particular joy in burning businesses and stealing jewelry and electronics. In Greece strikes and protests continue unabated while in Italy Silvio Berlusconi is fighting to keep his country solvent. It’s so bad over there that George Soros is recommending that Greece and Portugal pull out of both the EU and the Euro.

While it’s unlikely that Carter had a hand in any of this, the fact that the Consumer Confidence index is at its lowest level since he was President must give him some hope.

As if an economy on life support was not bad enough, on Saturday Rick Perry finally made it official and announced he was running for the GOP nomination to succeed Barack Obama.

If Perry gets the nomination it will set up a match Vince McMahon could only dream of. For the first time since Jimmy Carter occupied the White House, Americans will have a crystal clear choice between two philosophies that are diametrically opposed to one another.

In one corner you have Barack Obama who is leading the progressive charge that seeks to turn the United States into the train wreck that is Western Europe. In the other corner you have Rick Perry, an avowed 10th Amendment fan, a fierce advocate of small government and an unabashed believer in American Exceptionalism.

Rarely is it the case that voters have such a clear choice between philosophies of government. One need look no farther than the housing market to understand the consequences of the choice to be made. (Pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell’s The Housing Boom and Bust for a full telling of the tale.) California, one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country – not coincidentally the most regulated state in the Union – has seen massive bloodletting in the housing market as a result of the burst of the real estate bubble. Tellingly, despite the massive declines the state is still one of the most expensive places to live in the country. Texas on the other hand – largely due to its dearth of regulation – never experienced a bubble and its real estate has continued to appreciate throughout the recession. At the same time while California has an unemployment rate sits near 12% Texas’s is at 8.2%. And of course the state’s economic growth rate is almost double California’s and it has no income tax while California’s is amongst the highest in the country.

Barack Obama of course is not the Governor of California, he is the President of the United States. California is however the embodiment of everything Barack Obama holds dear, overarching regulation, high taxes, enormous social spending, an illegal alien and union paradise all under the watchful eye of an unassailable green lobby. Given his druthers Obama would indeed turn the United States into California.

At the end of the day, the progressive vs. freedom comparison that Rick Perry offers does not bode well for Barack Obama. No candidate provides a starker contrast of philosophy, and more importantly, actual results, than does Perry. (During the decade he’s been governor Texas has produced more jobs than the other 49 states… combined.) Of course he still needs to secure the nomination, but don’t be surprised if FEC documents show a large donation to the campaign chest from an anonymous donor down in Plains, Georgia.