I agree.
To me it’s magellan01 that is being purposely evasive.
I maintain that that the bolded portion here:
means something. And that something refers to those things NOT explicitly stated elsewhere, like religious freedom.
That is my interpretation. I think it makes the most sense, as I’ve argued, and offered some support for with my post to tomndebb. I also maintain that tom’s interpretation is perfectly reasonable. But without a time machine to take us back and ask the person who wrote it, it appears we cannot know for sure. I went to the Journals of The House looking for info that I vaguely recalled and feel it supports my interpretation.
The weasling was not done by most people. And I apologize if that is the impression my post presented. But time and again (and it is still happening) people make the claims and then refuse to get specific and or substantiate them.
I’ve decided to just not respond to them any more.
ut that is not what you said (or the evidence you have supplied. You claimed that the government was actively moving to “unify” the country with a single language. What you have demonstrated has been that the Congress passively chose to bat down other active efforts to increase the number of languages in use. Where is your evidence that the Congress (or the executive) took an active position, such as an “official languge” provision or an attempt to bar submission of bills to consider other languages.
There was no active effort–just a “Let’s no go there” resistance to other efforts.
I still have no idea what language you believe you have perceived in the Treaty that says even one word about culture or assimilation. This is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of you imposing things that do not exist.
You mean like that time that someone claimed I objected to the words of a treaty. Yes, I agree with you 100%, someone is indeed making claims and refusing to get specific or substantiate them. The nerve of them.
Sorry. I see the confusion. I made a mistake in my answer. When you asked:
I answered with the things the were included. I should have answered with the things I felt were NOT included:
If you look back in the thread you’ll see that I’ve maintained that it referred to language. What else might it refer to? Possibly laws or customs that might conflict with U.S. laws. Or what tomndebb offered.
And when I posted a site that shows Spanish as an official language of New Mexico you still refused to accept your interpretation of the treaty was wrong.
That’s not exactly what I said. Here: (emphasis added)
I was referring to all that had happened up until then. In the early days there were many German and Dutch, and quite a lot of French, as well. When England took over New York, the language got more angliphied. I concentrated my researh around the time of the treaty, thinking it more germaine, and I haven’t done a lot of research to find actual cites about language in the early colonial days. There is the one cite that I provided from the 3rd Congress, but you are right, that shows a more passive, rather, than active, protection of the language. I’ll have to look into it more.
The Adams quote that is often attributed to him arguing for English as a common tongue in the U.S. is really pushing to make English the language of law and commerce. While some were in favor of allowing French to carry that mantle, he thought it the next great unifying language of the world, following in the foosteps of Latin and French. I add this simply because I found it interesting and it clears up a misunderstanding (used to bolster my side of the debate).
As per my cites so far, yes. That seems to be the case.
Oh, come on. Tell me, you know for a certainty that in this passage
the words “the character of citizens” cannot be construed as “culture”? Wouldn’t “culture” be a pretty good definition of the "character of a people? You’ve got to be kidding.
No, it couldn’t. And I’m not kidding. Besides, once they’re citizens, then they can habla all the Español they want.
Sure it would. Whaich makes it a shame (from your perspective) that the treaty did not say that, at all.
The phrase is “character of citizens.” It refers to citizenship, a specific legal concept irrespective of culture. It even names the specific nation “Mexican Republic” rather than the more generic “Mexico.” I’d love to see whether you can find a legal analysis of the treaty that even considers your interpretation.
The treaty was signed in 1848. At which time, even according to your article it was the dominant language. It was not the official languange. It was the official language before the treaty, as it was a part of Mexico and Spanish was the official language that country. Once the treaty was signed any “official” claims that existed by virtue of it being part of Mexico stopped immediately. Since it was now part of another country, the U.S., the default “official” language would be the official language of that country, if it had one.
My interpretation of the treaty simply takes into account that the U.S. acknowledged that there were many Mexican (Spanish-speaking) peolpe in the new territory, and they were taking certain steps concerning them. As we have seen in the treaty, one step was to give them the option to become U.S. citizens if they so desired. Another provision was to ensure to them religious freedom. Another provision—according to my interpretation—was to encourage assimilation, as is seen in this passage:
Am I right? Without a time machine, who knows? It certainly means something. But that’s where I’d put my money. But not my retirement money. I acknowledge that there are other interpretations. As I’ve said repeatedly, I can see tom’s view as well. I can’t, though, see how he can discount mine, as I indicated in the close of my last post to him.
No. And no time machine is necessary. Just basic reading skills and not letting one’s prejudices interfere with logical thinking.
It states “character of citizens”. Which is exactly what it means. It doesn’t state character of Mexican (culture).
It would be generous to say your argument is weak. Besides, 60 years later, when New Mexico became a state, Spanish was guaranteed equal status to English as an offical language.
There is plenty more at the site above that refute what you desperately try to claim but it is very apparent that hard facts don’t matter to you. I won’t waste my time debating you any further.
Yes. It means “people who won’t choose to keep Mexican citizenship will be incorporated, etc, etc…” (since they could choose to stay Mexican citizens according to the treaty)
The sentence isn’t “Mexicans shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, period.” It doesn’t refers to what these people should or should not do, but it defines who are the people who “shall be incorporated…”
Thinking that my previous post might not be clear enough :
In the sentence “The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time, etc…”
The subject isn’t “The Mexicans” and the sentence doesn’t end after “the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic”
The subject is “The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article” and the rest of the article explains what will happen to these particular category of mexicans.
In case you would understand spanish and it would be less confusing for you than the “shall” used in the english text, I dug up the spanish version of the treaty :
“Los mexicanos que en los territorios antedichos no conserven el carácter de ciudadanos de la República mexicana, según lo estipulado en el precedente artículo, serán incorporados en la Unión de los Estados Unidos, y se admitirán lo más pronto posible, conforme a los principios de su constitución federal…”
While I was searching for it, I found an interesting mention on a french site (approximate translation) :
“In the spirit [of the article IX of the treaty] laws and statutes were published for several decades in spanish”
IOW, the US government of the time seemed to have an interpretation of the spirit of the treaty widely different from yours.
Yes, sixty years later. At least you’re realiziing that now. Before you claimed it was the official language when it became a state.
Which I have asked you repeatedly to point out—with specifics, but you continue to make broad accusations and huff. I pointed out the two paragraphs that appl and explained why the others did not. Did you attempt to refute that in a logical manner. No, you didn’t. As I fully expected.
I can never thank you enough for this kindness you do me. Though, I fear, you will not live up to your word. I will be praying that you have the strength to be honorable and do so. So if you start to feel a little funny from here on out, don’t panic. That strange sensation you feel will be honor.
You were right, it wasn’t.
But this was. :smack: :smack: :smack: I will now bring smiles to many faces and say that I was wrong. I did not read it as clairobscur has parsed at all. Somehow early on I must have read straight past the “who” and then, as I posted several times, left off the beginning of the sentence all together. Clairobscur, thanks for helpiing me see the error of my ways. I don’t know how I cuold have misread this, but I did.
So, my apologies. It’s been extremely frustrating for me. It must have been even more so for people like tomndebb and clairobscur who have been in the right (and for the right reasons) the entire time.
My embarrassment is deep and well-deserved.
Now, after my interlocuters enjoy this turn of events in as leisurely and unhurried a manner as they desire, we can leave this tangent behind and get back to the OP.
It’s been so long since the OP was discussed, maybe I should just close the thread. No, not right now. We’ll see if it picks up. If nothing else, it’ll give those mentioned an opportunity to tee off with some well-deserved gloating.
In the meantime, where’s my pillow…
Maybe it’ll be clearer if I take another crack at the translation:
“Those Mexicans who, in the aforementioned territories, maintain the status of citizens of the Mexican Republic, as stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and shall be admitted as quickly as possible, according to the principles of its Federal Constitution…”
Admittedly, I am precaffeinated at the moment and haven’t read the entire treaty (though I may have time in the next couple of days to monkey around with this a bit more). The above is typically annoying and florid legal writing, but I think what the clairobscur (and the author of the treaty - (it’s easier to read if you just chop out a couple of dependent clauses) were trying to get across was:
– Mexicans in the area under question had the choice of remaining Mexican, or of becoming part of the U.S.;
– The intention of the treaty authors was that those Mexicans who became part of the U.S. should do so as quickly as the Constitution allowed.
Eva Luna, former Immigration Court interpreter
(OK, now off to the airport!)
P.S. My American Heritage Larousse Spanish Dictionary (which focuses on Latin American Spanish) lists more than a dozen possible meanings of the word carácter, which may be the source of some of the confusion. Beware of overly literal translations!
On the contrary, you need to read them yourself. A claim that follows the format, “If innocuous thing A is true, then innocuous thing B is inevitable” is classic slippery slope. I’m not sure what the form of your current ridiculous argument is, where instead of focusing on the issue at hand you post a bunch of irrelevant websites, but it’s definitely ridiculous. Shall I post a link to a website about ridiculous arguments? Would that make sense to you, hmmm?
Daniel
Actually, perhaps the better response to your condescending and hilariously ignorant post would have better been:
“Well that settles that. Thanks for your input. It was so helpful. It lacked any specifics whatsoever, and moved the debate not one iota, but hey, to each their own.”
Daniel