The Gadsden Purchase

The Gadsden Purchase (shown in yellow with present-day state boundaries and cities)^[1] Northeastern boundary was the disputed U.S.-Mexico boundary; line shown is the unratified Bartlett-Conde compromise proposal which was preempted by the Gadsden Purchase.

Territorial expansion of the United States, the Gadsden Purchase shown in orange.

The Gadsden Purchase (known as Venta de La Mesilla, or Sale of La Mesilla, in Mexico^[2]) is a 29,670-square-mile (76,800 km²) region of present-day southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico that was purchased by the United States in a treaty signed by James Gadsden, the American ambassador to Mexico at the time, on December 30, 1853. It was then ratified, with changes, by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 1854 and signed by President Franklin Pierce, with final approval action taken by Mexico on June 8, 1854. The purchase was the last major territorial acquisition in the contiguous United States, adding a large area to the United States.

The purchase included lands south of the Gila River and west of the Rio Grande. The Gadsden Purchase was for the purpose of the US's construction of a transcontinental railroad along a deep southern route. It was also related to reconciliation of outstanding border issues following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican–American War of 1846–48.

As the railroad age progressed, business-oriented Southerners saw that a railroad linking the South with the Pacific Coast would expand trade opportunities. They thought the topography of the southern portion of the Mexican Cession was too mountainous to allow a direct route. Projected southern routes tended to run to the north at their eastern ends, which would favor connections with northern railroads and ultimately favor northern seaports. Southerners saw that to avoid the mountains, a route with a southeastern terminus might need to swing south into what was then Mexican territory.

The administration of President Franklin Pierce, strongly influenced by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, saw an opportunity to acquire land for the railroad, as well as to acquire significant other territory from northern Mexico.^[3] In the end, territory for the railroad was purchased for $10 million ($260 million today), but Mexico balked at any large-scale sale of territory. In the United States, the debate over the treaty became involved in the sectional dispute over slavery, ending progress before the American Civil War in the planning or construction of a transcontinental railroad.

Background[link]

Southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad[link]

Southern commercial conventions[link]

Lieutenant James Gadsden of South Carolina

In January 1845 Asa Whitney of New York state presented the US Congress with the first plan to construct a transcontinental railroad. Although Congress took no action on his proposal, a commercial convention of 1845 in Memphis took up the issue. Prominent attendees included John C. Calhoun, Clement C. Clay, Sr., John Bell, William Gwin, and Edmund P. Gaines, but it was James Gadsden of South Carolina who was influential in the convention’s recommending a southern route for the proposed railroad, beginning in Texas and ending in San Diego or Mazatlán. Southerners hoped that such a route would ensure southern prosperity while opening the “West to southern influence and settlement.”^[4]

Southern interest in railroads in general, and the Pacific railroad in particular, accelerated after the conclusion of the Mexican-American War in 1848. During that war, topographical officers William H. Emory and James W. Abert had conducted surveys that demonstrated the feasibility of a railroad's originating in El Paso or western Arkansas and ending in San Diego. J. D. B. DeBow, the editor of DeBow's Review, and Gadsden both publicized within the South the benefits of building this railroad.^[5]

Gadsden had become the president of the South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company in 1839; about a decade later, the company had laid 136 miles (219 km) of track extending west from Charleston, South Carolina, and it was 3 million dollars ($65,000,000 today) in debt. Gadsden wanted to connect all Southern railroads into one sectional network.^[6] He was concerned that the increasing railroad construction in the North was shifting trade in lumber, farm goods, and manufacturing goods from the traditional north-south route based on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to an east-west axis that would bypass the South. He also saw Charleston, his home town, losing its prominence as a seaport. In addition, many Southern business interests feared that a northern transcontinental route would cut the South off from trade with the Orient. Other Southerners argued for diversification from a plantation economy to keep the South independent from northern bankers.^[7]

In October 1849 a convention to discuss railroads was held in Memphis, in response to a separate convention called in St. Louis earlier in the fall, which had discussed a northern route. The Memphis convention overwhelmingly advocated the construction of a route beginning there, to connect with an El Paso to San Diego line. Disagreement arose only over the issue of financing. The convention president, Matthew Fontaine Maury of Virginia, preferred strict private financing, whereas John Bell and others thought that Federal land grants to railroad developers would be necessary.^[8]

James Gadsden and California[link]

Gadsden had supported nullification in 1831. In 1850 he advocated secession by South Carolina when California was admitted to the Union as a free state. Gadsden considered slavery “a social blessing” and abolitionists “the greatest curse of the nation”.^[6]

When the secession proposal failed, Gadsden, working with his cousin Isaac Edward Holmes, a lawyer in San Francisco since 1851, and the California state senator Thomas Jefferson Green, attempted to divide California in two. They proposed that the southern half would allow slavery. Gadsden planned to establish a slaveholding colony there based on rice, cotton, and sugar. He would use slave labor to build a railroad and highway, originating in either San Antonio or on the Red River, that would transport people to the California gold fields. Toward this end, on December 31, 1851, Gadsden asked Green to secure from the California state legislature a large land grant located between the 34th and 36th parallels; it would eventually serve as the dividing line for the two California states.^[9]

A few months after this, Gadsden and 1,200 potential settlers from South Carolina and Florida submitted a petition to the California legislature for permanent citizenship and permission to establish a rural district that would be farmed by "not less than Two Thousand of their African Domestics". The petition stimulated some debate, but it finally died in committee.^[10]

Stephen Douglas and land grants[link]

The Compromise of 1850, which created the Utah Territory and the New Mexico Territory, would facilitate a southern route to the West Coast since all territory for the railroad was now organized and would allow for Federal land grants as a financing measure. Competing northern or central routes championed, respectively, by Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri would still need to go through unorganized territories.^[11] A precedent for using federal land grants had been established when Millard Fillmore signed a bill promoted by Douglas that allowed a Mobile to Chicago railroad to be financed by "federal land grants for the specific purpose of railroad construction".^[12] To satisfy Southern opposition to the general principle of Federally supported internal improvements, the land grants would first be transferred to the appropriate state or territorial government, which would oversee the final transfer to private developers.^[13]

By 1850, however, the majority of the South was not interested in exploiting its advantages in developing a transcontinental railroad or railroads in general. Businessmen like Gadsden, who advocated economic diversification, were in the minority. The Southern economy was based on cotton exports, and then-current transportation networks met the plantation system's needs. There was little home market for an intra-South trade. In the short term, the best use for capital was to invest it in more slaves and land rather than in taxing it to support canals, railroads, roads, or in dredging rivers.^[14] Historian Jere W. Roberson wrote:^[15]

Southerners might have gained a great deal under the 1850 land grant act had they concentrated their efforts. But continued opposition to Federal aid, filibustering, an unenthusiastic President, the spirit of "Young America", and efforts to build railroads and canals across Central America and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico divided their forces, leaving a lot of time for the Pacific railroad. Moreover, the Compromise of 1850 encouraged Southerners not to antagonize opponents by resurrecting the railroad controversy.

—Jere W. Roberson, The South and the Pacific Railroad, 1845-1855

Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo[link]

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War, but there were issues affecting both sides that still needed to be resolved: possession of the Mesilla Valley, protection for Mexico from Indian raids, and the right of transit in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Mesilla Valley[link]

The treaty provided for a joint commission, made up of a surveyor and commissioner from each country, to determine the final boundary between the United States and Mexico. The treaty specified that the Rio Grande Boundary would veer west eight miles (13 km) north of El Paso. The treaty was based on the attached 1847 copy of a twenty-five-year-old map. Surveys revealed that El Paso was 36 miles (58 km) further south and 100 miles (160 km) further west than the map showed. Mexico favored the map, but the United States put faith in the results of the survey. The disputed territory involved a few thousand square miles and about 3,000 residents; more significantly, it included the Mesilla Valley. Bordering the Rio Grande, the valley consisted of flat desert land measuring about 50 miles (80 km), north to south, by 200 miles (320 km), east to west. This valley was essential for the construction of a transcontinental railroad using a southern route.^[16]

John Bartlett of Rhode Island, the United States negotiator, agreed to allow Mexico to retain the Mesilla Valley (setting the boundary at 32° 22′ N, north of the American claim 31° 52′ and at the easternmost part, also north of the Mexican-claimed boundary at 32° 15′^[17]) in exchange for a boundary not turning north until 110° W in order to include the Santa Rita Mountains, which were believed to have rich copper deposits, and some silver and gold which had not yet been mined. Southerners opposed this alternative because of its implication for the railroad, but it was supported by President Fillmore. Southerners in Congress prevented any action on the approval of this separate border treaty and eliminated further funding for surveying of the disputed borderland. Bartlett was replaced with Robert Blair Campbell, a pro-railroad politician from Alabama. Mexico asserted that the commissioners' determinations were valid and prepared to send in troops to enforce the unratified agreement.^[18]

Indian raids[link]

James Buchanan, Secretary of State, later 15th President of the United States (1857-1861)

Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo contained a guarantee that the United States would protect Mexicans by preventing cross-border raids by Native American tribes. At the time the treaty was ratified, Secretary of State James Buchanan had believed that the United States had both the commitment and resources to enforce this promise.^[19] Historian Richard Kluger, however, described the difficulties of the task:

In the five years after approval of the Treaty, the United States spent $12 million ($310,000,000 today) in this area, and General Winfield Scott estimated that five times that amount would be necessary to police the border. Mexican officials, frustrated with the failure of the United States to effectively enforce its guarantee, demanded reparations for the losses inflicted on Mexican citizens by the raids. The United States argued that the Treaty did not require any compensation nor did it require any greater effort to protect Mexicans than was expended in protecting its own citizens. During the Fillmore administration, Mexico claimed damages of $40 million ($1,000,000,000 today) but offered to allow the U. S. to buy out Article XI for $12 million ($650,000,000 today). Fillmore had proposed a settlement that was $10 million less.^[19]

Isthmus of Tehuantepec[link]

Shaded relief map of Arizona.

During negotiations of the treaty, Americans had failed to secure the right of transit across the 125-mile (201 km)-wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The idea of building a railroad here had been considered for a long time. In 1842 Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna sold the rights to build a railroad or canal across the isthmus. The deal included land grants 300 miles (480 km)-wide along the right-of-way for future colonization and development. In 1847 a British bank bought the rights, raising US fears of British colonization in the hemisphere, in violation of the precepts of the Monroe Doctrine. United States interest in the right-of-way was increased by the 1848 discovery of gold in California.^[20]

The Memphis commercial convention of 1849 recommended that the United States pursue the trans-isthmus route, since it appeared unlikely that a transcontinental railroad would be built anytime soon. Interests in Louisiana were especially adamant about this option, as they believed that any transcontinental railroad would divert commercial traffic away from the Mississippi and New Orleans, and they at least wanted to secure a southern route. Also showing interest was Peter A. Hargous of New York who ran an import-export business between New York and Vera Cruz. Hargous purchased the rights to the route for $25,000 ($700,000 today), but realized that the grant had little value unless it was supported by the Mexican and American governments.^[20]

In Mexico, topographical officer George W. Hughes reported to Secretary of State John M. Clayton that a railroad across the isthmus was a “feasible and practical” idea. Clayton then instructed Robert P. Letcher, the minister to Mexico, to negotiate a treaty to protect Hargous’ rights. The United States’ proposal gave Mexicans a 20% discount on shipping, guaranteed Mexican rights in the zone, allowed the United States to send in military if necessary, and gave the United States most-favored-nation status for Mexican cargo fees.^[21] This treaty, however, was never finalized.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which guaranteed the neutrality of any such canal, was finalized in April 1850. Mexican negotiators refused the treaty because it would eliminate Mexico's ability to play the U.S. and U.K. against each other. They eliminated the right of the United States to unilaterally intervene militarily. The United States Senate approved the treaty in early 1851, but the Mexican Congress refused to accept the treaty.^[22]

In the meantime, Hargous proceeded as if the treaty would be approved eventually. Judah P. Benjamin and a committee of New Orleans businessmen joined with Hargous and secured a charter from the Louisiana legislature to create the Tehuantepec Railroad Company. The new company sold stock and sent survey teams to Mexico.^[23] Hargous started to acquire land even after the Mexican legislature rejected the treaty, a move that led to the Mexicans canceling Hargous’ contract to use the right of way. Hargous put his losses at $5 million ($140,000,000 today) and asked the United States government to intervene. President Fillmore refused to do so.^[22]

Mexico sold the canal franchise, without the land grants, to A. G. Sloo and Associates in New York for $600,000 ($17,000,000 today). In March 1853 Sloo contracted with a British company to build a railroad and sought an exclusive contract from the new Franklin Pierce Administration to deliver mail from New York to San Francisco. However, Sloo soon defaulted on bank loans and the contract was sold back to Hargous.^[24]

Pierce administration[link]

The Pierce administration, which took office in March 1853, had a strong pro-southern, pro-expansion mindset. Louisiana Senator Pierre Soulé was sent to Spain to negotiate the annexation of Cuba. Expansionists John Y. Mason of Virginia and Solon Borland of Arkansas were appointed as ministers, respectively, to France and Nicaragua.^[25] Pierce's Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, was already on record as favoring a southern route for a transcontinental railroad, so southern rail enthusiasts had every reason to be encouraged.^[26]

The South as a whole, however, remained divided. In January 1853 Senator Thomas Jefferson Rusk of Texas introduced a bill to create two railroads, one with a northern route and one with a southern route starting below Memphis on the Mississippi River.^[27] Under the Rusk legislation, the President would be authorized to select the specific termini and routes as well as the contractors who would build the railroads. Some southerners, however, worried that northern and central interests would leap ahead in construction and opposed any direct aid to private developers on constitutional grounds. Other southerners preferred the isthmian proposals. An amendment was added to the Rusk bill to prohibit direct aid, but southerners still split their vote in Congress and the amendment failed.^[28]

This rejection led to legislative demands, sponsored by William Gwin of California and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio and supported by the railroad interests, for new surveys for possible routes. Gwin expected that a southern route would be approved — both Davis and Robert J. Walker, former secretary of the treasury, supported it. Both were stockholders in a Vicksburg-based railroad that planned to build a link to Texas to join up with the southern route. Davis argued that the southern route would have an important military application in the likely event of future troubles with Mexico.^[29]

Gadsden and Santa Anna[link]

The Gadsden Purchase historical marker near Interstate 10

On March 21, 1853, a treaty initiated in the Fillmore administration, that would provide joint Mexican and United States protection for the Sloo grant was signed in Mexico. At the same time that this treaty was received in Washington, Pierce learned that New Mexico Territorial Governor William C. Lane had issued a proclamation claiming the Mesilla Valley as part of New Mexico, leading to protests from Mexico. Pierce was also aware of efforts by France, through its consul in San Francisco, to acquire the Mexican state of Sonora.^[30]

Pierce recalled Lane in May and replaced him with David Meriwether of Kentucky. Meriwether was given orders to stay out of the Mesilla Valley until negotiations with Mexico could be completed. With the encouragement of Davis, Pierce also appointed James Gadsden to negotiate with Mexico over the acquisition of additional territory. Secretary of State William L. Marcy gave Gadsden clear instructions: he was to secure the Mesilla Valley for the purposes of building a railroad through it, convince Mexico that the US had done its best regarding the Indian raids, and elicit Mexican cooperation in efforts by US citizens to build a canal or railroad across the Tenhuantepec isthmus. Supporting the Sloo interests was not part of the instructions.^[31]

The Mexican government was going through political and financial turmoil. In the process, Santa Anna had been returned to power about the same time that Pierce was inaugurated. Santa Anna was willing to deal because he needed money to rebuild the Mexican Army for defense against the United States, but he initially rejected the extension of the border further south to the Sierra Madre Mountains. He initially insisted on reparations for the damages caused by American Indian raids, but agreed to let an international tribunal resolve this. Gadsden realized that Santa Anna needed money and passed this information along to Secretary Marcy.^[32]

Marcy and Pierce responded with new instructions. Gadsden was authorized to purchase any of six parcels of land with a price fixed for each. The price would include the settlement of all Indian damages and relieve the United States from any further obligation to protect Mexicans. $50 million ($1.4 billion today) would have bought the Baja California Peninsula and a large portion of its northwestern Mexican states while $15 million ($420,000,000 today) was to buy the 38,000 square miles (98,000 km²) of desert necessary for the railroad plans.^[32]

Santa Anna was put off by "Gadsden’s antagonistic manner". Gadsden had advised Santa Anna that "the spirit of the age" would soon lead the northern states to secede so he might as well sell them now. The Mexican President felt threatened by William Walker's attempt to capture Baja California with 50 troops and annex Sonora. Gadsden disavowed any government backing of Walker, who was expelled by the US and placed on trial as a criminal. Santa Anna worried that the US would allow further aggression against Mexican territory. Santa Anna needed to get as much money for as little territory as possible.^[2] When Great Britain rejected Mexican requests to assist in the negotiations, Santa Anna opted for the $15 million package.^[33]

Ratification[link]

Pierce and his cabinet began debating the treaty in January 1854. Although disappointed in the amount of territory secured and some of the terms, they submitted it to the Senate on February 10.^[34] Gadsden, however, suggested that northern senators would block the treaty in order to deny the South a railroad.^[35]

Although signed by Pierce and Santa Anna, the treaty needed to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate, where it met strong opposition. Antislavery senators opposed further acquisition of slave territory. Lobbying by speculators gave the treaty a bad reputation. Some senators objected to furnishing Santa Anna financial assistance.

The treaty had reached the Senate as that body was focused on the debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. On April 17, after much debate, the Senate voted 27 to 18 in favor of the treaty, falling three votes short of the necessary two-thirds required for treaty approval. After this defeat, Secretary Davis and southern senators pressed Pierce to add more provisions to the treaty including:

• protection for the Sloo grant;
• a requirement that Mexico “protect with its whole power the prosecution, preservation, and security of the work [referring to the isthmian canal]”;
• permission for the United States to intervene unilaterally “when it may feel sanctioned and warranted by the public or international law”; and
• a reduction of the territory to be acquired by 9,000 square miles (23,000 km²) and dropping the price from $15 million ($388,000,000) to $10 million ($258,666,667).

This version of the treaty successfully passed the U.S. Senate April 25, 1854 by a vote of 33 to 12. The reduction in territory was an accommodation of northern senators who opposed the acquisition of additional slave territory. In the final vote, northerners split 12 to 12. Gadsden took the revised treaty back to Santa Anna, who accepted the changes.^[36] The treaty went into effect June 30, 1854.^[37]

While the land was available for construction of a southern railroad, the issue had become too strongly associated with the sectional debate over slavery to receive federal funding. Roberson wrote:^[38]

The unfortunate debates in 1854 left an indelible mark on the course of national politics and the Pacific railroad for the remainder of the antebellum period. It was becoming increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, to consider any proposal that could not somehow be construed as relating to slavery and, therefore, sectional issues. Although few people fully realized it at the close of 1854, sectionalism had taken such a firm, unrelenting hold on the nation that completion of an antebellum Pacific railroad was prohibited. Money, interest, and enthusiasm were devoted to emotion-filled topics, not the Pacific railroad.

—Jere W. Roberson, The South and the Pacific Railroad, 1845-1855

The effect was such that railroad development, which accelerated in the North, stagnated in the South.^[39]

Post-ratification controversy[link]

As originally envisioned, the purchase would have encompassed a much larger region, extending far enough south to include most of the current Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. The Mexican people opposed such boundaries, as did anti-slavery U.S. Senators, who saw the purchase as acquisition of more slave territory. Even the sale of a relatively small strip of land angered the Mexican people, who saw Santa Anna's actions as a betrayal of their country. They watched in dismay as he squandered the funds generated by the Purchase. Contemporary Mexican historians continue to view the deal negatively and believe that it has defined the American-Mexican relationship in a deleterious way.^[2]

The purchased lands were initially appended to the existing New Mexico Territory. To help control the new land, the U.S. Army established Fort Buchanan on Sonoita Creek in present-day southern Arizona on November 17, 1856. The difficulty of governing the new areas from the territorial capital at Santa Fe, NM led to efforts as early as 1856 to organize a new territory out of the southern portion. Many of the early settlers in the region were, however, pro-slavery and sympathetic to the South, resulting in an impasse in Congress as to how best to reorganize the territory.

The shifting of the course of the Rio Grande would cause a later dispute over the boundary between Purchase lands and those of the state of Texas, known as the Country Club Dispute.

Growth of the region after 1854[link]

Army control[link]

The residents of the area gained full U.S. citizenship and slowly assimilated into American life over the next half-century.^[40] The principal threat to the peace and security of settlers and travelers in the area were raids by Apache Indians. The U.S. Army took control of the purchase lands in 1854 but not until 1856 were troops stationed in the troubled region. In June 1857 it established Fort Buchanan south of the Gila at the head of the Sonoita Creek Valley. The fort protected the area until it was evacuated and destroyed in July 1861.^[41] The new stability brought miners and ranchers. By the late 1850s, mining camps and military posts had not only transformed the Arizona countryside; they had also generated new trade linkages to the province of Sonora, Mexico. Magdalena, Sonora, became a supply center for Tubac, wheat from nearby Cucurpe fed the troops at Fort Buchanan, and the town of Santa Cruz sustained the Mowry mines, just miles to the north.

Civil War[link]

In 1861, during the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America formed the Confederate Territory of Arizona, including in the new territory mainly areas acquired by the Gadsden Purchase. In 1863, using a north-to-south dividing line, the Union created its own Arizona Territory out of the western half of the New Mexico Territory. The new American Arizona Territory also included most of the lands acquired in the Gadsden Purchase. This territory would be admitted into the Union as the State of Arizona on February 14, 1912, the last area of the Lower 48 States to receive statehood.

Social development[link]

After the Gadsden Purchase, southern Arizona's social elite, including the Estevan Ochoa, Mariano Samaniego, and Leopoldo Carillo families, remained primarily Mexican American until the coming of the railroad in the 1880s.^[42] When the Sonora Exploring and Mining Company opened silver mines in southern Arizona, it sought to employ educated, middle-class Americans who shared a work ethic and leadership abilities to operate the mines. A biographical analysis of some 200 of its employees, classed as capitalists, managers, laborers, and general service personnel, reveals that the resulting work force included Europeans, Americans, Mexicans, and Indians. This mixture failed to stabilize the remote area, which lacked formal social, political, and economic organization in the years from the Gadsden Purchase to the Civil War.^[43] From the late 1840s into the 1870s Texas stockmen drove their beef cattle over southern Arizona on the Texas-California trail. Texans were impressed with the grazing possibilities offered by the Gadsden Purchase country of Arizona. By the last third of the century they were moving their herds into Arizona and establishing the range cattle industry there. Not only did the Texans contribute their proven range methods to the new grass country of Arizona but their problems as well. Texas rustlers brought lawlessness, poor management resulted in overstocking, and carelessness introduced destructive diseases. But these difficulties did force laws and associations in Arizona to curb and resolve them. The Anglo-American cattleman frontier in Arizona was an extension of the Texas experience.^[44]

Railroad development[link]

Gadsden Purchase

The Southern Pacific Railroad from Los Angeles reached Yuma, Arizona, in 1877, Tucson in March 1880, El Paso in May 1881, and this completed the second transcontinental railroad in December 1881.^[45] The portion in Arizona was originally largely in the Gadsden Purchase but the western part was later rerouted north of the Gila River to serve the city of Phoenix. The portion in New Mexico runs largely through the territory that had been disputed between Mexico and the United States after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had gone into effect, and before the time of the Gadsden Purchase. The Santa Fe Railroad Company also completed a railroad across Northern Arizona, via Prescott, Winslow, Flagstaff, and Kingman in August 1883.^[46]

The remainder of the Gila Valley pre-Purchase border area was traversed by the Arizona Eastern Railway by 1899 and the Copper Basin Railway by 1904. Excluded was a 20-mile (32 km) section 33°06′N 110°36′W / 33.1°N 110.6°W / 33.1; -110.6 in the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, from today's San Carlos Lake to Winkelman at the mouth of the San Pedro River, including the Needle's Eye Wilderness.

The section of U.S. Highway 60 about 20 miles (32 km) to the northwest, between Superior and Miami via Top-of-the-World, takes an alternate route (17.4 road miles) between the Magma Arizona Railroad and the Arizona Eastern Railway railheads on each side of this gap. This highway is well north of the Gadsden Purchase.^[47][48] Given the elevations of those three places, at least a 3% grade would have been required.

Population[link]

The suburb Sunland Park (pop. 13,309 in 2000), of El Paso, Tex. in Doña Ana County, NM, is the largest community of New Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase. Lordsburg, New Mexico (pop. 3,379 in 2000), the county seat of Hidalgo County, was in the disputed area before the Gadsden Purchase, and Deming, NM, the county seat of Luna County, NM, was north of both the Mexican and American land claims before the Gadsden Purchase, though the proposed Bartlett-Conde compromise of 1851 would have left it in Mexico.

The boundaries of most counties in Arizona do not follow the northern boundary of the Gadsden Purchase, but six counties in Arizona do have most of their populations within the land of the Gadsden Purchase. Four of these also contain areas north of the Gadsden Purchase, but these areas do have low population densities, with the exception of northeastern Pinal County, AZ, including the towns of Apache Junction and Florence. Maricopa County also extends south into the area of the Gadsden Purchase, but this area is also thinly populated.

County	Seat	Pop.	Area (mi²)		150px
Cochise	Bisbee	117,755	6,219
Graham	Safford	33,489	4,641
Pima	Tucson	843,746	9,189
Pinal	Florence	179,727	5,374
Santa Cruz	Nogales	38,381	1,238
Yuma	Yuma	160,026	5,519
	Total	1,373,124

The northmost point of the Gadsden Purchase, and also along the American-Mexican border during period of 1848 - 53 is at approximately 33°23′30″N 112°23′0″W / 33.39167°N 112.383333°W / 33.39167; -112.383333 in the town of Goodyear, Arizona, about 30 miles (48 km) southwest of Phoenix.

See also[link]

• Butterfield Overland Mail
• Historic regions of the United States
• Mexico – United States border
• Republic of Sonora

Notes[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Garber, Paul Neff. The Gadsden Treaty (1923) 222 pp; the standard diplomatic history
• Kluger, Richard. Seizing Destiny: How America Grew From Sea to Shining Sea. (2007) ISBN 978-0-375-41341-4.
• Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852-1857. (1947) SBN 684-10424-5.
• Nichols, Roy Franklin. Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills. (1969 2nd. Edition) 8122-7044-4.
• Richards, The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War. (2007) ISBN 0-307-26520-X.
• Roberson, Jere W. "The South and the Pacific Railroad, 1845-1855". The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, (Apr., 1974), pp. 163–186. JSTOR.
• Terrazas, Marcela. "The Regional Conflict, the Contractors, and the Construction Projects of a Road to the Pacific at the End of the War Between Mexico and the United States". Journal of Popular Culture 2001 35(2): 161-169. Issn: 0022-3840 Fulltext: Ebsco, stresses railroad speculation and corruption themes
• Truett, Samuel. "The Ghosts of Frontiers Past: Making and Unmaking Space in the Borderlands". Journal of the Southwest. Volume: 46. Issue: 2. 2004. pp: 309+. online edition

External links[link]

• US Geological Survey USGS Public Lands Survey Map including survey township (6 mile) lines
• Map of proposed Arizona Territory. From explorations by A. B. Gray & others, to accompany memoir by Lieut. Mowry U.S. Army, Delegate elect. with some proposed railroad routes Medium-sized JPG Zoom navigator
• National Park Service Map including route of the Southern Pacific railroad finally built in the 1880s
• US Department of State - Gadsden Purchase, 1853-1854, Office of the Historian
• 3-cent stamp showing small version of northeast boundary of Purchase - i.e. claiming more territory for U.S. pre-Purchase
•  "Gadsden Purchase, The". New International Encyclopedia. 1906. 

v t e Territorial expansion of the United States Concept: Manifest destiny Thirteen Colonies (1776) · Treaty of Paris (1783) · Louisiana Purchase (1803) · Red River Cession (1818) · Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) · Texas Annexation (1845) · Oregon Treaty (1846) · Mexican Cession (1848) · Gadsden Purchase (1853) · Guano Islands Act (1856) · Alaska Purchase (1867) · Annexation of Hawaii (1898) · Treaty of Paris (1898) · Treaty of the Danish West Indies (1917)

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (April 2012)

Mexican Americans are Americans of Mexican descent. As of July 2009, Mexican Americans make up 10.3% of the United States' population with over 31,689,000 Americans listed as of Mexican ancestry. Mexican Americans comprise 66% of all Hispanics and Latinos in the United States.^[2] The United States is home to the second largest Mexican community in the world second only to Mexico itself comprising nearly 22% of the entire Mexican origin population of the world. Canada is a distant third with a Mexican origin population of 37,000 as of 2001 although increasing to 61,505 as of 2006.^[3][4] In addition, as of 2008 there were approximately 7,000,000 undocumented Mexicans living in the United States which if included in the count would increase the US share to over 28% of the world's Mexican origin population (Note that some of the undocumented would be captured in the US Census count depending on their willingness to provide information).^[5] Over 60% of all Mexican Americans reside in the states of California and Texas.^[6] Most Mexican Americans are the descendants of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico and/or Europeans, especially Spaniards.^[7][8]

History of Mexican Americans[link]

Mexican American history is wide-ranging, spanning more than 400 years and varying from region to region within the United States. In 1900, there were slightly more than 500,000 Hispanics living in New Mexico, California and Texas.^[9] Most were Mexican Americans of indigenous Mexican, Spanish, and other hispanicized European settlers who arrived in the Southwest during Spanish colonial times. Approximately ten percent of the current Mexican American population can trace their lineage back to these early colonial settlers.^[10]

As early as 1813 some of the Tejanos who colonized Texas in the Spanish Colonial Period established a government in Texas that looked forward to independence from Mexico. In those days, there was no concept of what a Mexican was. Many Mexicans were more loyal to their states/provinces than to their country as a whole. This was particularly true in frontier regions such as Zacatecas, Texas, Yucatan, Oaxaca, New Mexico, etc.^[11] As revealed by the writings of colonial Tejano Texians such as Antonio Menchaca, the Texas Revolution was initially a colonial Tejano cause. By 1831, Anglo settlers outnumbered Tejanos ten to one in Texas.^[12] The Mexican government became concerned by their increasing numbers and restricted the number of new Anglo-American settlers allowed to enter Texas. The Mexican government also banned slavery within the state, which angered slave owners.^[13] The American settlers along with many of the Tejanos rebelled against the centralized authority of Mexico City and the Santa Anna regime, while others remained loyal to Mexico, and still others were neutral.^[14][15]

Author John P. Schmal wrote of the effect Texas independence had on the Tejano community:^[16]

"A native of San Antonio, Juan Seguín is probably the most famous Tejano to be involved in the War of Texas Independence. His story is complex because he joined the Anglo rebels and helped defeat the Mexican forces of Santa Anna. But later on, as Mayor of San Antonio, he and other Tejanos felt the hostile encroachments of the growing Anglo power against them. After receiving a series of death threats, Seguín relocated his family in Mexico, where he was coerced into military service and fought against the US in 1846–1848 Mexican-American War. Although the events of 1836 led to independence for the people of Texas, the Hispanic population of the state was very quickly disenfranchised to the extent that their political representation in the Texas State Legislature disappeared entirely for several decades."

Californios were Spanish speaking residents of modern day California who were the original Hispanics (Mexicans (regardless of race) and local Hispanicized Indians) in the region (Alta California) before the United States acquired it as a territory. Relations between Californios and Anglo settlers were relatively good until military officer John C. Fremont arrived in Alta California with a force of 60 men on an exploratory expedition in 1846. Fremont made an agreement with Comandante Castro that he would only stay in the San Joaquin Valley for the winter, then move north to Oregon. However, Fremont remained in the Santa Clara Valley then headed towards Monterey. When Castro demanded that Fremont leave Alta California, Fremont rode to Gavilan Peak, raised a US flag and vowed to fight to the last man to defend it. After three days of tension, Fremont retreated to Oregon without a shot being fired. With relations between Californios and Anglos quickly souring, Fremont rode back into Alta California and encouraged a group of American settlers to seize a group of Castro's soldiers and their horses. Another group, seized the Presidio of Sonoma and captured Mariano Vallejo. William B. Ide was chosen Commander in Chief and on July 5, he proclaimed the creation of the Bear Flag Republic. On July 9, US forces reached Sonoma and lowered the Bear Flag Republic's flag then replaced it with a US flag. Californios organized an army to defend themselves from invading American forces after the Mexican army retreated from Alta California to defend other parts of the country. The Californios defeated an American force in Los Angeles on September 30, 1846, but were defeated after the Americans reinforced their forces in what is now southern California. The arrival of tens of thousands of people during the California Gold Rush meant the end of the Californio's ranching lifestyle. Many Anglo 49ers turned to farming and moved, often illegally, onto the land granted to Californios by the old Mexican government.^[17]

The United States first came into conflict with Mexico in the 1830s, as the westward spread of Anglo settlements and of slavery brought significant numbers of new settlers into the region known as Tejas (modern-day Texas), then part of Mexico. The Mexican-American War, followed by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, extended U.S. control over a wide range of territory once held by Mexico, including the present day borders of Texas and the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California.

Although the treaty promised that the landowners in this newly acquired territory would enjoy full enjoyment and protection of their property as if they were citizens of the United States, many former citizens of Mexico lost their land in lawsuits before state and federal courts or as a result of legislation passed after the treaty.^[18] Even those statutes intended to protect the owners of property at the time of the extension of the United States' borders, such as the 1851 California Land Act, had the effect of dispossessing Californio owners ruined by the cost of maintaining litigation over land titles for years.

While Mexican Americans were once concentrated in the Southwest – California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas – they began creating communities in St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and other steel producing regions when they obtained employment during World War I. More recently, Mexican illegal immigrants have increasingly become a large part of the workforce in industries such as meat packing throughout the Midwest, in agriculture in the southeastern United States, and in the construction, landscaping, restaurant, hotel and other service industries throughout the country.

Mexican-American workers formed unions of their own and joined integrated unions. The most significant union struggle involving Mexican-Americans was the United Farm Workers' long strike and boycott aimed at grape growers in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys in the late 1960s. Its struggle propelled César Chávez and Dolores Huerta into national prominence changing from a workers' rights organization that helped workers get unemployment insurance to that of a union of farmworkers almost overnight.

Mexican American identity has also changed markedly throughout these years. Over the past hundred years Mexican Americans have campaigned for voting rights, stood against educational and employment discrimination and stood for economic and social advancement. At the same time many Mexican Americans have struggled with defining and maintaining their community's identity. In the 1960s and 1970s, some Latino/Hispanic student groups flirted with nationalism and differences over the proper name for members of the community—Chicano/Chicana, Latino/Latina, Mexican Americans, or Hispanics became tied up with deeper disagreements over whether to integrate into or remain separate from mainstream American society, as well as divisions between those Mexican Americans whose families had lived in the United States for two or more generations and more recent immigrants. During this time rights groups such as the National Mexican-American Anti-Defamation Committee were founded. The states with the largest percentages and populations of Mexican-Americans are California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. There has also been very high increasing populations in Oklahoma. Pennsylvania and Illinois.^[19]

Race and ethnicity[link]

The Mexican population is mainly conformed by Mestizos, individuals with a genetic background consisting of Amerindian, European and African contributions. Genetic heterogeneity in Mexicans results from a complex demographic history that started with the peopling of North and Central America about 15,000 yrs ago, including the settlement of at least 60 different indigenous groups in Mexico. Source

Per the 2000 U.S. Census, a plurality of 47.3% of Mexican Americans self identify as being of White race, closely followed by Mexican Americans who self identify as "Some other race", usually Mestizo (Native American/European) with 45.5%.<.^[20] Respondents who claim two or more races accounted for 5.1%, Blacks for 0.7%, and all other races for 1.4%. Mexican Americans are predominantly of Native American and European descent. Mexicans are the product of the mixture of 35 ethnic groups. According to the Mexican Genome Project, the overall gene pool of the Mexican population was calculated to be 65 percent indigenous and 35 percent non-indigenous (European, African, Asian). According to the last Mexican census to record race (which was in 1921), 10 percent of the Mexican populace identified itself as white, 59 percent as Mestizo (Native American-European mixture), 29 percent as Native American, and 2 percent as "other", foreigner (regardless of race), or did not specify a race.^[21] Before the United States' borders expanded westward in the 19th century, New World regions colonized by the Spanish Empire since the 16th century held to a complex caste system (casta) that classified persons by their fractional racial makeup and geographic origin.^[22][23]

As the United States' borders expanded, the United States Census Bureau changed its racial classification methods for Mexican Americans under United States jurisdiction. The Bureau's classification system has evolved significantly from its inception:

• From 1790 to 1850, there was no distinct racial classification of Mexican Americans in the U.S. census. The only racial categories recognized by the Census Bureau were White and Black. The Census Bureau estimates that during this period the number of persons that could not be categorized as white or black did not exceed 0.25% of the total population based on 1860 census data.^[24]

• From 1850 through 1920 the Census Bureau expanded its racial categories to include all different races including Mestizos, Mulattos, Amerindians and Asians, and classified Mexicans and Mexican Americans as "White"^[24] All Mexicans were legally (though not normally socially, ecomically or politically) considered "White" either because they were considered to be of full Spanish heritage, or because of treaty obligations to Spaniards and Mexicans that conferred citizenship status at a time when whiteness was a prerequisite for U.S. citizenship.

• The 1930 U.S. census revoked generic "white" status for Mexican Americans due to protests from Anglo Americans nativists. The new form asked for "color or race" and census workers were instructed to "write ‘W’ for White; ’Mex’ for Mexican."^[25]

• In the 1940 census, Mexican Americans were re-classified as White, due to widespread protests by the Mexican American community. Instructions for enumerators were "Mexicans – Report 'White' (W) for Mexicans unless they are definitely of indigenous or other non-white race." During the same census, however, the bureau began to track the White population of Spanish mother tongue. This practice continued through the 1960 census.^[24] The 1960 census also used the title "Spanish-surnamed American" in their reporting data of Mexican Americans, which included Cuban Americans, Puerto Ricans and others under the same category.

• From 1970 to 1980, there was a dramatic population increase of Other Race in the census, reflecting the addition of a question on Hispanic origin to the 100-percent questionnaire, an increased propensity for Hispanics to NOT identify themselves as White, and a change in editing procedures to accept reports of "Other race" for respondents who wrote in Hispanic entries such as Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican. In 1970, such responses in the Other race category were reclassified and tabulated as White. During this census, the bureau attempted to identify all Hispanics by use of the following criteria in sampled sets:^[24]

• Spanish speakers and persons belonging to a household where the head of household was a Spanish speaker
• Persons with Spanish heritage by birth location or surname
• Persons who self-identified Spanish origin or descent

• From 1980 on, the Census Bureau has collected data on Hispanic origin on a 100-percent basis. The bureau has noted an increasing number of respondents who mark themselves as Hispanic origin but not of the White race.^[24]

For certain purposes, respondents who wrote in "Chicano" or "Mexican" (or indeed, almost all Hispanic origin groups) in the "Some other race" category were automatically re-classified into the "White race" group.^[26]

Politics and debate of racial classification[link]

Since the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which granted citizenship rights to Mexican people in the newly conquered US territory of the South West, Mexican Americans have been legally considered "White." Since legal citizenship in the United States required "white" racial status, new Mexican "Americans" had to be classified as White, whether or not they were considered white in "reality". Thus Mexican Americans were white by law, but not usually classified as such socially (depending on class and whether an individual had any degree of perceived indigenous ancestry). According to legal scholars, "Anglos rarely distinguished between Mexicans and Mexican Americans and painted a picture of 'Mexicans' as an economic and cultural threat to America. In [the early 1900s], Mexican Americans increasingly were denied many of the rights of citizens. Like the African American population, many were placed in segregated schools with inferior educational resources, barred from restaurants, movie theaters, bathrooms, and public swimming pools, and denied the possibility of living in white neighborhoods," in addition to being barred from serving on juries in most of the Southwest; yet none of this segregation was formally encoded in law. Thus while for legal purposes, Mexican Americans were counted as White, in everyday reality most Mexican Americans were not considered "white," did not enjoy "white" status or privileges, and were in fact typically subjected to systematic discrimination and "Jim Crow" style racial segregation. The legal designation of white racial status actually worked against Mexican American civil rights in law suits claiming racial discrimination. Such suits were typically denied on the basis that Mexican Americans were not subject to racial discrimination, despite all evidence to the contrary, because they were legally white.^[27]

In times and places where Mexicans were allotted white status, they were permitted to intermarry with what today are termed "non-Hispanic whites", though social customs typically only approved of such marriages if the Mexican partner was not of any discernable indigenous heritage.^[28] Legally, Mexican Americans could vote and hold elected office, though they were also constrained from voting in most places by literacy tests and poll taxes. While Mexicans of Spanish descent ran the state politics and constituted most of the elite of New Mexico since colonial times, property requirements and English literacy requirements were imposed in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas in order to prevent Mexican Americans from voting. Some eligible voters were intimidated with the threat of violence if they attempted to exercise their right to vote.^[29]

Mexicans were also allowed to serve in all-white units during World War II. However, many Mexican American war veterans were discriminated against and even denied medical services by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs when they arrived home.^[30]

In the past, Mexicans were legally considered "White" because either they were considered to be of full Spanish heritage, or because of early treaty obligations to Spaniards and Mexicans that conferred citizenship status to Mexican peoples at a time when whiteness was a prerequisite for U.S. citizenship.^[31][32] Although Mexican Americans were legally classified as "White" in terms of official federal policy, many organizations, businesses, and homeowners associations and local legal systems had official policies to exclude Mexican Americans. Throughout the southwest discrimination in wages were institutionalized in "white wages" versus lower "Mexican wages" for the same job classifications.^{[30][33][34][35]}

Mexican Americans legally classified as "White", following anti-miscegenation laws in most western states until the 1960s, could not legally marry African or Asian Americans (See Perez v. Sharp). However, most were not socially considered white, and therefore, accoding to Historian Neil Foley in the book The White Scourge Mexicans and Mexican Americans did marry non-whites typically without reprisal.

Economic and social issues[link]

Immigration issues[link]

Since the 1960s, Mexican immigrants have met a significant portion of the demand for cheap labor in the United States.^[36] Fear of deportation makes them highly vulnerable to exploitation by employers. Many employers, however, have developed a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude toward hiring undocumented Mexican nationals. In May 2006, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants, Mexicans and other nationalities, walked out of their jobs across the country in protest to support immigration reform (many in hopes of a path to citizenship similar to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted citizenship to Mexican nationals living and working without documentation in the US).

In the United States, in states where Mexican Americans make up a large percentage of the population, such as California and Texas, undocumented as well as legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America in addition to Mexican Americans combined often make up a large majority of workers in many blue-collar occupations: the majority of the employed men are restaurant workers, janitors, truck drivers, gardeners, construction laborers, material moving workers, or perform other types of manual or other blue collar labor (Source, U.S. Census Bureau, American community survey data.). Many women also work in low wage service and retail occupations. In many of these places with large Latino populations, many types of blue-collar workers are often assumed to be Mexican American or Mexican or other Latino immigrants (Although a large minority are actually not. -Source, U.S. Census Bureau, American community survey data.) because of their frequent dominance in those occupations and stereotyping. Occasionally, tensions have risen between Mexican immigrants and other ethnic groups because of increasing concerns over the availability of working-class jobs to Americans and immigrants from other ethnic groups. However, tensions have also risen among Hispanic American laborers who have been displaced because of both cheap Mexican labor and ethnic profiling. African American workers in lower-wage jobs have been displaced by undocumented Mexican laborers and their neighborhoods have been transformed from majority black to majority Latino, which has caused some racial tensions between African Americans and Mexicans in the Southwest US. Even legal immigrants to the United States, both from Mexico and elsewhere, have spoken out against illegal immigration. However, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in June 2007, 63% of Americans would support an immigration policy that would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship if they "pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs, learn English", while 30% would oppose such a plan. The survey also found that if this program was instead labeled "amnesty", 54% would support it, while 39% would oppose.^[37]

Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said that the growth of the working-age population is a large factor in keeping the economy growing and that immigration can be used to grow that population. According to Greenspan, by 2030, the growth of the US workforce will slow from 1 percent to 1/2 percent, while the percentage of the population over 65 years will rise from 13 percent to perhaps 20 percent.^[38] Greenspan has also stated that the current immigration problem could be solved with a "stroke of the pen", referring to the 2007 immigration reform bill which would have strengthened border security, created a guest worker program, and put illegal immigrants currently residing in the US on a path to citizenship if they met certain conditions.^[39]

Discrimination and stereotypes[link]

Throughout U.S. history, Mexican Americans have and continue to endure various types of negative stereotypes which have long circulated in media and popular culture.^[40][41] Mexican Americans have also faced discrimination based on ethnicity, race, culture, poverty, and use of the Spanish language.^[42]

Since the majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have traditionally been from Latin America, the Mexican American community has been the subject of widespread immigration raids. During The Great Depression, the United States government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will. More than 500,000 individuals were deported, approximately 60 percent of which were actually United States citizens.^[43][44] In the post-war McCarthy era, the Justice Department launched Operation Wetback.^[44]

During World War II, more than 300,000 Mexican Americans served in the US armed forces.^[18] Mexican Americans were generally integrated into regular military units, however, many Mexican American war veterans were discriminated against and even denied medical services by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs when they arrived home.^[30] In 1948, war veteran Dr Hector P. Garcia founded the American GI Forum to address the concerns of Mexican American veterans who were being discriminated against. The AGIF's first campaign was on the behalf of Felix Longoria, a Mexican American private who was killed in the Philippines while in the line of duty. Upon the return of his body to his hometown of Three Rivers, Texas, he was denied funeral services because of his race.

In the 1948 case of Perez v. Sharp, Andrea Perez—a Mexican-American woman listed as White—and Sylvester Davis—an African American man—the Supreme Court of California recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

In 2006, Time magazine reported that the number of hate groups in the United States increased by 33% since 2000, primarily due to anti-illegal immigrant and anti-Mexican sentiment.^[45] According to the annual Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hate Crimes Statistics Report,^[46] in 2007, Hispanics comprised 61.7 percent of victims of crimes motivated by a bias toward the victims’ ethnicity or national origin. Since 2003 the number of both victims of anti-Hispanic crimes and incidents increased by nearly 40 percent. In 2004, the comparable figure was 51.5 percent. In California, the state with the largest Mexican American population, the number of hate crimes committed against Latinos has almost doubled.^[47][48]

Social status and assimilation[link]

Adaptation of Mexican food tailored for the mainstream American market usually is very different than Mexican food typically served in Mexico itself.

Cinco de Mayo dancers greeted by former President George W. Bush."The holiday, which has been celebrated in California continuously since 1863, is virtually ignored in Mexico."^[49]

Barrow (2005) finds increases in average personal and household incomes for Mexican Americans in the 21st century. U.S. born Mexican Americans earn more and are represented more in the middle and upper-class segments more than most recently arriving Mexican immigrants.

Most immigrants from Mexico, as elsewhere, come from the lower classes and from families generationally employed in lower skilled jobs. They also are most likely from rural areas. Thus, many new Mexican immigrants are not skilled in white collar professions. Recently, some professionals from Mexico have been migrating, but to make the transition from one country to another involves re-training and re-adjusting to conform to US laws —i.e. professional licensing is required.^{[citation needed]}

According to James P. Smith of the Research and Development Corporation, the children and grandchildren of Latino immigrants tend to lessen educational and income gaps with native whites. Immigrant Latino men make about half of what native whites do, while second generation US-born Latinos make about 78 percent of the salaries of their native white counterparts and by the third generation US-born Latinos make on average identical wages to their US-born white counterparts.^[50]

Huntington (2005) argues that the sheer number, concentration, linguistic homogeneity, and other characteristics of Latin American immigrants will erode the dominance of English as a nationally unifying language, weaken the country's dominant cultural values, and promote ethnic allegiances over a primary identification as an American. Testing these hypotheses with data from the U.S. Census and national and Los Angeles opinion surveys, Citrin et al. (2007) show that Hispanics generally acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation, and appear to be no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic than native-born non-Mexican American whites. However, the children and grandchildren of Mexican immigrants were able to make close ties with their extended families in Mexico, since United States shares a 2,000 mile border with Mexico. Many had the opportunity to visit Mexico on a relatively frequent basis. As a result, many Mexicans were able to maintain a strong Mexican culture, language, and relationship with others.^[51]

South et al. (2005) examine Hispanic spatial assimilation and inter-neighborhood geographic mobility. Their longitudinal analysis of seven hundred Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban immigrants followed from 1990 to 1995 finds broad support for hypotheses derived from the classical account of assimilation into American society. High income, English-language use, and embeddedness in American social contexts increased Latin American immigrants' geographic mobility into multi-ethnic neighborhoods. US citizenship and years spent in the United States were positively associated with geographic mobility into different neighborhoods, and coethnic contact was inversely associated with this form of mobility, but these associations operated largely through other predictors. Prior experiences of ethnic discrimination increased and therefore decreased the likelihood that Latino immigrants would move from their original neighborhoods, while residing in metropolitan areas with large Latino populations led to geographic moves into "less Anglo" census tracts.^[52]

Segregation issues[link]

In 2000, over nine million Mexicans Americans lived in areas considered highly segregated socially.^[53]

Segregated neighborhoods[link]

Map of Los Angeles County showing percentage of population self-identified as Mexican in ancestry or national origin by census tracts. Heaviest concentrations are in East L.A, Echo Lake/Silver Lake, South Central, San Fernando and San Pedro/Wilmington.

Neighborhoods with a high percentage of individuals who claim Latino ancestry are commonly referred to as "barrios" or "colonias." When translated from Spanish to English, barrio signifies "district" or "quarter" while colonia is the corresponding Mexican Spanish word.

A barrio has been defined as "a place where Latino immigrants can express communal culture and language within the larger American culture."^[53] In other words, the barrio is a sort of sanctuary for Spanish-speaking immigrants who may not yet be fully adjusted to the United States. In the barrio, they can converse in their native language, allowing one to communicate, find a job, and seek help with less pressure of speaking a second language. It is a place where Latino culture thrives and a source of comfort to a recent immigrant, as it would offer him or her a place to work and live while perfecting fluency of the English language.

However, some argue that the barrio also represents the inequality faced by many Mexican Americans in the United States.^[53] Barrios usually offer a lower quality of education, provide poorer jobs than other neighborhoods, and generally receive less government attention than wealthier more integrated Hispanic neighborhoods.

Housing market practices[link]

Studies have shown that the segregation among Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants seems to be declining. One study found that Mexican American applicants were offered the same housing terms and conditions as Anglo Americans. They were asked to provide the same information (regarding employment, income, credit checks, etc.) and asked to meet the same general qualifications of their Anglo peers.^[54]

However, in this same study, it was found that Mexican Americans were more likely than Anglo Americans to be asked to pay a security deposit or application fee.^[54] Another interesting aspect of this study is that the Mexican American applicants were more likely to be placed onto a waiting list than the Anglo Americans applicants.^[54]

Latino segregation versus Black segregation[link]

Historically, African Americans have faced much harsher treatment concerning segregation than any other racial, ethnic, or ancestral group. However, throughout the Southwest during the first fifty years of the 20th century, Mexican Americans faced segregation, despite being legally classified as "white" (The legal classification of all mexicans as white was a convention orginially enacted to enforce the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American war in 1848. According to the Treaty Mexicans remaining in the new US territory would have the right of citizens, which at that time was only granted to "white" people.) According to legal scholar Claire Sheridan, referring to the legal, social and political status of Mexican Americans in the early 20th century: "Anglos rarely distinguished between Mexicans and Mexican Americans and painted a picture of "Mexicans" as an economic and cultural threat to America. In this period, Mexican Americans increasingly were denied many of the rights of citizens. Like the African American population, many were placed in segregated schools with inferior educational resources, barred from restaurants, movie theaters, bathrooms, and public swimming pools, and denied the possibility of living in white neighborhoods. Yet none of this segregation was formally encoded in law. For legal purposes, Mexican Americans were white. They were counted as white in the census and, unlike non-whites (other than those from Africa), were able to naturalize.7 However, law clashed with perceptions of racial "reality," creating a citizenship status for Mexican Americans that many considered to be legal fiction. This gap between their legal and social standing was reflected in local interpretations of the law and in the regulation of their political participation through mechanisms such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and blue ribbon jury commissions. This unequal treatment continued through the war years and into the 1950s. Mexican Americans' unequal status was especially evident in their representation on juries. While not prohibited by law from serving, they were almost universally excluded on the grounds that they were not qualified to serve."

When comparing the contemporary segregation of Mexican Americans to that of Black Americans, some scholars claim that "Latino segregation is less severe and fundamentally different than Black residential segregation."^[53] Some studies suggest that contemporary segregation of Latinos is more likely to be due to factors such as lower socioeconomic status and immigration while the segregation of African Americans is more likely to be due to larger issues of the history of racism in the US.

Segregated schools[link]

During certain periods, Mexican American children sometimes were forced to register at "Mexican schools", where classroom conditions were poor, the school year was shorter, and the quality of education was substandard.^[55]

Various reasons for the inferiority of the education given to Mexican American students have been listed by James A. Ferg-Cadima including: inadequate resources, poor equipment, unfit building construction, shortened school year (see below), failure to prevent drop out, limited access to high school, a watered down curriculum, poor instruction, disproportionate suspension, expulsion, harassment and non-enforced attendance rules.

In 1923, the Texas Education Survey Commission found that the school year for some non-white groups was 1.6 months shorter than the average school year.^[55] This may be connected to the fact that minority labor was needed during this time. As the agricultural field required the cheap labor provided by exploited minorities, it has been suggested that the minority school year was shortened to allow for these students to work instead of receive the extra 1.6 months of education.

Some have interpreted the shortened school year as a "means of social control"^[55] implementing policies to ensure that Mexican Americans would maintain the unskilled labor force required for a strong economy. A lesser education would serve to confine Mexican Americans to the bottom rung of the social ladder. By limiting the number of days that Mexican Americans could attend school and allotting time for these same students to work, in mainly agricultural and seasonal jobs, the prospects for higher education and upward mobility were slim.

Immigration and segregation[link]

Immigration hubs are popular destinations for Latino immigrants. They are increasing in size and continue to be highly segregated. The largest immigration hubs include Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. The highly segregated areas of these cities have historically served the purpose of allowing immigrants to become comfortable in the United States, accumulate wealth, and eventually leave.^[56] The historical view of immigration hubs sees these cities as temporary starting points for immigrants. They are not expected to live their entire lives within the United States inside segregated areas. Rather, they are expected to accumulate enough wealth to start a life within the larger society.

This model of immigration and residential segregation, explained above, is the model which has historically been accurate in describing the experiences of Latino immigrants. However, the patterns of immigration seen today no longer follows this model. This old model is termed the standard spatial assimilation model. More contemporary models are the polarization model and the diffusion model^{[clarification needed]}.

The spatial assimilation model posits that as immigrants would live within this country's borders, they would simultaneously become more comfortable in their new surroundings, their socioeconomic status would rise, and their ability to speak English would increase. The combination of these changes would allow for the immigrant to move out of the barrio and into the dominant society. This type of assimilation reflects the experiences of immigrants of the early twentieth century.^[53] Recent, more contemporary, models of residential segregation are the polarization model and the diffusion model are described below.

Polarization model suggests that the immigration of non-Black minorities into the United States further separates Blacks and Whites, as though the new immigrants are a buffer between them. This creates a hierarchy in which Blacks are at the bottom, Whites are at the top, and other groups fill the middle.^[56] In other words, the polarization model posits that Asians and Amerindians are less segregated than their African American peers because White American society would rather live closer to Asians or Amerindians than Blacks.

The diffusion model has also been suggested as a way of describing the immigrant's experience within the United States. This model is rooted in the belief that as time passes, more and more immigrants enter the country. This model suggests that as the United States becomes more populated with a more diverse set of peoples, stereotypes and discriminatory practices will decrease, as awareness and acceptness increase. The diffusion model predicts that new immigrants will break down old patterns of discrimination and prejudice, as one becomes more and more comfortable with the more diverse neighborhoods that are created through the influx of immigrants.^[56] Applying this model to the experiences of Mexican Americans forces one to see Mexican American immigrants as positive additions to the "American melting pot," in which as more additions are made to the pot, the more equal and accepting society will become.

Overcrowding[link]

The issue of overcrowding is closely related to the issue of segregation and immigration.^{[citation needed]} As immigrants enter the country, they are likely to settle in areas where their friends, family, or simply other who share their culture, have settled. It is not uncommon for many members of families, extended families, or friends, to live in what is considered "overcrowded" conditions.

A large aspect of the segregation of Latinos within the United States is overcrowding. Rates of overcrowding among Latinos, especially in American suburbs, are high. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a residence to be overcrowded if there is more than one person per room^[57]

There are various explanations for overcrowding. One widely held belief about overcrowding is based on a stereotype of living in close proximity simply to cultural preference. To expand on that point, it is widely believed that immigrant Hispanic families live in dense households because of their desire to remain in close proximity with extended family. However, this view does not paint the entire picture. Some families may live under one roof by choice and it is possible that Hispanic people may have different cultural standards than other population groups, thus allowing them to be more comfortable living with extended family underneath the same roof. However, one cannot reduce all problems of Hispanic overcrowding to cultural preference, as this offers an incomplete understanding of the issue at hand.^[57]

Hispanic people may live in overcrowded conditions out of economic necessity and simply because they choose to live differently than others. Lack of affordable housing and a poor selection of well-paying occupations may combine to create the necessity of many living close together.^[57] Because one certain family may find very few opportunities for sufficient housing or find themselves without adequate funds for a house of their own, they may be forced to live in crowded conditions.

The Chicano movement and the Chicano Moratorium[link]

Chicanas/os march in Northern California's largest city, San Jose in 2006.

In the heady days of the late 1960s, when the student movement was active around the globe, the Chicano movement conducted actions such as the mass walkouts by high school students in Denver and East Los Angeles in 1968 and the Chicano Moratorium in Los Angeles in 1970. The movement was particularly strong at the college level, where activists formed MEChA, an organization that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment through education and political action, but also espouses revanchist ideals centered around "taking back" the American southwest for Mexicans. The Chicano Moratorium, formally known as the National Chicano Moratorium Committee, was a movement of Chicano anti-war activists that built a broad-based but fragile coalition of Mexican-American groups to organize opposition to the Vietnam War. The committee was led by activists from local colleges and members of the "Brown Berets", a group with roots in the high school student movement that staged walkouts in 1968, known as the East L.A. walkouts, also called "blowouts". The best known historical fact of the Moratorium was the death of Rubén Salazar, known for his reporting on civil rights and police brutality. The official story is that Salazar was killed by a tear gas canister fired by a member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department into the Silver Dollar Café at the conclusion of the August 29 rally.

Mexican-American communities[link]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)

There are large Mexican American populations, by size or percentage, in the cities of:

• Los Angeles, California – the city proper home to over 1 million of Mexican ancestry, another 2 million throughout Los Angeles County, and a total of six million in the five-county Greater Los Angeles Area. Largest Mexican ancestry populated city in the United States.

(according to the 2010 census, L.A. is now under 20% are of Mexican descent now with equally numerous Central American national groups and the rest-10% other Latino).

• • East Los Angeles, California – Unincorporated community totally (99%) Latino, about 66% are foreign-born with Mexican immigrants in the lead and 33% of Mexican descent.
  • Culver City, California – Also the site of the infamous Zoot Suit Riots in 1943.
  • Long Beach, California – Third largest city in Southern California, One of many cities in the region with a large Mexican/Hispanic population.
  • Pomona, California[[2]] – over 70% of the city population is Mexican or Mexican American.
  • La Puente, California – about two-thirds are of Mexican ancestry or Hispanic, one of the largest Hispanic (in percentage, the most Mexican-American community) populations in California. ^[58]
  • Inland Empire, California (Riverside/ San Bernardino Counties- and the cities of that namesake) – About a third of the population are of Mexican descent.
    • Riverside, California ^[59] and San Bernardino, California ^[60]
    • Indio, California ^[61] and Coachella, California (primarily Mexican-American). ^[62]
  • Southern California is the highest densely populated Mexican-American region, but by areas of percentage it is South Texas.
• Las Vegas, Nevada – 31% of the population of the city is Hispanic in which 25% of that is of Mexican descent.
• Chicago, Illinois – 1.4 million of Mexican ancestry in the Chicago metropolitan area^[63] and the third largest Mexican community in the USA.^{[citation needed]}
• Houston, Texas – second largest Mexican ancestry community in the United States.
• Phoenix, Arizona – fourth largest Mexican-American population.
• Tucson, Arizona – 30% of the almost 1 million people in the metro area.^[64]
• Dallas/Fort Worth Area – fifth largest Mexican-American population and over 1.5 million Mexicans in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex (3rd largest foreign born Mexican population in the US per MSA).
• San Antonio, Texas – over half of the population in the city proper (52%, 685,000)^[65]
• San Diego, California – slightly more than one-fourth of the city's population is Hispanic, primarily Mexican American; however, this percentage is the lowest of any significant border city.
• El Paso, Texas – largest Mexican-American community bordering a state of Mexico.
• South Texas – Heavily populated by Mexican-Americans, who are the ethnic majority, in a region spanning from Laredo to Corpus Christi to Brownsville.
• San Francisco Bay Area – also with over one million Hispanics, many of whom are Mexican Americans, both U.S. born and foreign-born (see also Oakland about 10–20% Hispanic and San Francisco – the Mission District section- the city is 10–20% Latino).
  • Oakland – California's third largest Mexican-American city by percentage (over 25%) after Long Beach (about 30%).
  • San Jose, California – Nearly one-third of the city's population is Mexican-American or of Hispanic origin; San Jose has the largest Mexican-American population within the Bay Area.
• Central Valley of California both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys have majority Mexican American communities.
• Denver, Colorado – Colorado has the eighth largest population of Hispanics, seventh high percentage of Hispanics, fourth largest population of Mexican-Americans, and sixth highest percentage of Mexican-Americans in the United States. According to the 2010 census, there are over 1 million Mexican-Americans in Colorado.^[66] Over one-third of the city's population is Mexican-American or Hispanic/Latino, as well as approximately one-fourth of the entire Denver Metropolitan area. About 17% of the cities population is foreign born, mostly from Latin America.^[67]
• Greeley, Colorado – Over one-third of the cities population is Latino, mostly Mexican-American.^[68]
  • Garden City is Latino majority, and Evans has a very large Latino population as well.^[69][70]
• Southern Colorado is home to many communities of Hispanics descended from Mexican settlers who arrived during Spanish colonial times. Roughly half of Pueblo's population is Latino, mostly Mexican-American.^[71] Many other towns in southern Colorado have high proportions of Mexican-Americans. La Junta, Rocky Ford, Las Animas, Lamar, Walsenburg, and Trinidad all have large Mexican American communities.
  • San Luis Valley – The San Luis Valley has many towns with large Mexican-American populations. Antonito, Blanca, Center, Del Norte, Fort Garland, Monte Vista, and Romeo are all Latino majority.^[72]
• The Yakima Valley and Tri-Cities, Washington – This region of Washington contains many communities of Mexican-American majority thanks to high demand for agricultural labor.

A dynamic community[link]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

In the 1990s and 2000s, the Midwestern United States became a major destination for Mexican immigrants. But Mexican-Americans were already present in the Midwest's industrial cities and urban areas. Esp. Mexicans/Latinos came into states like Illinois (mostly in Chicagoland), Indiana esp. the Northern section, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan (i.e. the Detroit metropolitan area), Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and Wisconsin due to needs of the region's industrial manufacturing base.

Another destination of Mexican and Latin American immigration was the Northeastern United States, in places such as the Monongahela Valley, Pennsylvania; Mahoning Valley, Ohio; throughout Massachusetts and the state of Rhode Island; New Haven, Connecticut along with other Latin American nationalities; Washington, D.C. with Maryland and Northern Virginia included; the Hudson Valley and Long Island of New York state; the Jersey Shore region and the Delaware Valley, New Jersey.

Communities that consist mostly of recent-arrived immigrants from Mexico, are also present in other parts of the rural Southeastern United States, in states such as Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma. A growing Mexican-American population is also present in urban areas such as Orlando, Florida with the Central Florida region included; the Atlanta metro area; Charlotte, North Carolina- with a majority Hispanic enclave of Eastland; New Orleans which increased after Hurricane Katrina in Sep. 2005; the Hampton Roads, Virginia area; the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Delaware; and Pennsylvania esp. in the Philadelphia metropolitan area – the area's largest Mexican community.

Map based on the 2000 Census showing predominant nationality group by county. Counties with a plurality of population are shown in pink, predominantly in the Southwest

List of states by Mexican-American population[link]

State/Territory	Mexican-Americans Population (2010 Census)[73]	Percentage
Alabama	122,911	2.6
Alaska	122,911	3.0
Arizona	1,657,668	25.9
Arkansas	138,194	4.7
California	11,423,146	30.7
Colorado	757,181	15.1
Connecticut	50,658	1.4
Delaware	30,283	3.0
District of Columbia	8,507	1.4
Florida	629,718	3.3
Georgia	519,502	5.4
Hawaii	35,415	2.6
Idaho	148,923	9.5
Illinois	1,602,403	12.5
Indiana	295,373	4.6
Iowa	117,090	3.8
Kansas	247,297	8.7
Kentucky	82,110	1.9
Louisiana	78,643	1.7
Maine	5,134	0.4
Maryland	88,004	1.5
Massachusetts	38,379	0.6
Michigan	317,903	3.2
Minnesota	176,007	3.3
Mississippi	52,459	1.8
Missouri	147,254	2.5
Montana	20,048	2.0
Nebraska	128,060	7.0
Nevada	540,978	20.0
New Hampshire	7,822	0.6
New Jersey	217,715	2.5
New Mexico	590,890	28.7
New York	457,288	2.4
North Carolina	486,960	5.1
North Dakota	9,223	1.4
Ohio	172,029	1.5
Oklahoma	267,016	7.1
Oregon	369,817	9.7
Pennsylvania	129,568	1.0
Rhode Island	9,090	0.9
South Carolina	138,35	3.0
South Dakota	13,839	1.7
Tennessee	186,615	2.9
Texas	7,951,193	31.6
Utah	258,905	9.4
Vermont	2,534	0.4
Virginia	155,067	1.9
Washington	601,768	8.9
West Virginia	9,704	0.5
Wisconsin	244,248	4.3
Wyoming	37,719	6.7
USA	31,798,258	10.3

US communities with high percentages of Mexican ancestry[link]

The top 25 US communities with various Mexican American populations are:^[74]

U.S. communities with the highest proportion of residents born in Mexico[link]

Top 25 U.S. communities with the highest proportion of residents born in Mexico are:^[75]

See also[link]

• Mexican people
• Chicanismo
• Chicano
• Chicano literature
• Chicano poetry
• Hyphenated American
• List of Mexican American writers
• List of Mexican Americans
• Mexicans abroad
• List of Mexican people

Notes[link]