I'm gradually going back through Phoenix 101 columns and fleshing them out with more serious scholarship. This is a crazy week, so I may or may not get to a new column. In the meantime, enjoy this expanded column that first appeared in 2009:
« Silicon Valley in Phoenix? | Main | Flipping Arizona? »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Once again I enjoyed this excellent history.
Thank you.
Jon as I have mentioned before, there were a number of Spaniards living in Phoenix that arrived in the US the late 1800's and early 1900's. Many of these immigrants from Spain lived North of Van Buren and South of Thomas and between Central Avenue and 16th street. They owned bars and grocery stores and had elegant to modest homes in what is referred to today as the Garfield area. And today (2016) a few Spaniards still live very close to "downtown". Even in Willow.
My point us that most Anglos or gringos took Spaniards for Mexicans. But at the time many Spaniards distinguished themselves from Mexicans. Today they mostly refer to themselves as Americans.
Posted by: Cal Lash | September 06, 2016 at 03:49 PM
History tells us that the Spaniards were the European conquerors of the native Mexicans.Needless to say that did not endear them to the Mexicans.The Spaniards were as disliked just like the gringos who took the land from the
Spaniards.What goes around comes around.Now we(Anglos) are being becoming the minority.Ain't Karma a bitch as the actor said.
Posted by: Mike Doughty | September 08, 2016 at 11:22 AM
Mike, even to this day a few Spaniards will remind you they are Spaniards. Few are married to Mexicans, but a number to white Mormons among other gringos.
When my lady friend that is a Spaniard on both the blood line sides (she has also a Roman appearance) and I go to Mexico her conversations in Spanish with Mexicans denote that she is A Spaniard and occasionally raise some eyebrows.
South and Central Americans were indigenous folks until the first of the Queens religious marauding murderous Spanish soldiers raped the first native thus bringing about the first Mestizo.
Posted by: Cal Lash | September 08, 2016 at 11:35 AM
And wasn't part of Arizona claimed by the Confederate States of America?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Arizona
Posted by: Brandon | September 08, 2016 at 07:31 PM
Cal-just finished book on Stonewall Jackson and was surprised to learn that he was stationed in captured Mexico City as a young officer under Winfield Scott.I was surprised that our war on Mexico intruded into the heartland of the country,and was definitely not presented this way in my history classes.No wonder the Mexicans still are resentful of our motives in the hemisphere.
Posted by: Mike Doughty | September 09, 2016 at 09:35 AM
@MD re “I was surprised that our war on Mexico intruded into the heartland of the country, and was definitely not presented this way in my history classes.” The heartland of what land – Mexico? US? I thought that history is quite clear that Mexico City was invaded via Gulf Coast – Valpariso I think. I’ve never heard anything different. Our civil war generals (e.g. Lee and Grant) cut their battle teeth there.
Posted by: wkg in bham | September 09, 2016 at 12:21 PM
Wkg, Confederate history books?
Posted by: Cal Lash | September 09, 2016 at 01:09 PM
Wkg, " cut their teeth".
Suggest U watch the opening scenes of 2001.
Posted by: Cal Lash | September 09, 2016 at 01:12 PM
try this:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Occupation/Occupation.htm
Posted by: Cal Lash | September 09, 2016 at 01:44 PM
Here’s my understanding of the Mexican War: President Polk trumped up the war for two basic reasons (1) establish the Rio Grande as the Mexican-Texas border and (2) to take New Mexico-Arizona-Cali-Utah-Colorado from the Mexicans. The Mexicans residing in the taken areas retained their land and property. There weren’t all that many and some were very rich. The U.S. withdrew from Mexico proper with the signing of peace treaty. It was a land grab, plain and simple. He did it because he could.
As an aside he was threating war with Canada/England to settle the Canada-U.S border dispute in the Washington-Idaho-Montana area.
Posted by: wkg in bham | September 09, 2016 at 02:33 PM
Anyone interested in the Mexican War and this period of American history should read the amazing "What Hath God Wrought," by Daniel Walker Howe.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | September 09, 2016 at 02:36 PM
Another thing they don't teach in history books is that the "glorious" battle of the Alamo was essentially about slavery.
The Texicans, most of whom came from the southern states of the U.S., wanted to retain it, and they thought the Mexicans were about to rescind the exemption that allowed it in the area of Mexico that eventually became the state of Texas. Slavery had already been abolished in the remainder of Mexico.
So the battle for independence of the Republic of Texas was a precursor of our own Civil War.
Except, this time, the wrong side won.
Posted by: B. Franklin | September 09, 2016 at 06:20 PM
Doesn't Arizona's current leadership align itself with the states of the old Confederacy?
Posted by: Bradley Dranka | September 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM
And that a lot of the old Confederacy, if they could, would go right back to the old "Stars and Bars."
Home is where the heart is, or so they say....
Posted by: Bradley Dranka | September 10, 2016 at 10:50 PM