In the formerly disputed portion of
Texas between the Nueces River and the
Rio Grande, most Mexican and Spanish
land claims were upheld, but Mexican
Americans gradually lost their land in
other ways, such as depression in live-
stock prices that forced them to sell to
wealthy Anglos, or partitioning of land
among heirs who then sold their shares to
Anglos.
Although differing legal standards
and changing interpretations of those
standards ultimately deprived many
Mexicans of their lands, at the heart of
the conflict lay not just courtroom battles
but battles over who was a foreigner and
who was not. Despite their long history
on the land, Californios, Nuevo-
mexicanos, and Tejanos often found that
their identities and rights as American cit-
izens were defined by U.S. officials not so
much by law as by race.
Cooperation and Tension
Despite the disputes over land, there were
many instances of cooperation and friend-
ship between Mexican Americans and
Anglo-Americans in the Southwest. The
Anglo cowboys of the West adopted most
of their cattle-herding techniques and
equipment from Hispanic vaqueros, so
much so that the Anglos in the early days
were more likely to call themselves not
cowboys but “white vaqueros,” as distinct
from “Mexican vaqueros.” Anglo-
American miners in the gold rush learned
much from Mexican-American miners,
and Anglos and Hispanics often joined
forces in fighting off the attacks of Native
Americans, on whose land both were
encroaching. Many Mexican Americans
were politically active, working side by
side with Anglos to achieve common
political ends. But the winning of
statewide office for Mexican Americans
was rare. After the conquest in 1846, New
Mexico did not have a Hispanic governor
until 1897, when President William
McKinley appointed Miguel A. Otero Jr.
to the job.
Mexican Americans gradually adapt-
ed to the new Anglo culture, but they also
kept alive their distinct identity. They
continued to celebrate their own holi-
days, such as September 16, in honor of
Father Hidalgo’s 1810 Grito de Dolores,
and celebrated common holidays in dis-
tinct ways, for example, staging pastorelas,
or shepherds’ plays, during the nine days
before Christmas. At funciones, or public
dances, they played Mexican music and
ate pan dulce, or Mexican pastries. For
those living near the Texas border with
Mexico, the line between the countries
was only a token boundary, often crossed
to visit with family or conduct business.
Yet despite the efforts of many
Hispanics and Anglos to live in peace
together, there were also many instances
of prejudice, hostility, and violence. Many
Anglos shared the view that the chief
Mexican-American characteristics wereMANIFEST DESTINY AND HISPANIC AMERICA 103Date Case/Law Description
1864 Minturn v. Brower The California Supreme Court held that a perfect land grant (“perfect” meaning complete
and indisputably legal under Mexican law) was not subject to forfeiture, even if a claimant
failed to submit the grant before the land commission as required by California Land
Settlement Act of 1851. In reaching this decision, the court distiguished between perfect and
imperfect grants, declaring that imperfect grants needed to be confirmed by the U.S. govern-
ment. Nonetheless, Minturn v. Brower’s exemption of perfect titles from the Land Act require-
ment bolstered the 1833 precedent stating that international treaties such as Guadalupe
Hidalgo were “self-executing,” or enforceable on their own, and not dependent on subse-
quent legislation.1889 Botiller v. Dominguez InBotiller v. Dominguez,a Mexican land grantee sought to eject Anglos from his lands. The
Anglos claimed the property under the terms of the Homestead Act of 1862. Although the
plaintiff’s grant was perfect and complete according to Mexican law, it had not been reviewed
by the land commission. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California court’s Minturn v.
Brower decision, ruling that regardless of a grant’s legality according to Mexican law, the U.S.
Congress was within its rights to seize Mexican titles according to the terms set out in the
California Land Settlement Act of 1851.THE DEATH OF
JUANITA
Nowhere was Anglo contempt for
Mexican-American life more visible
than in the lynching of a Californio
woman named Juanita by a mob of
Anglo Forty-Niners in San Francisco
on July 5, 1851. On July 4 the Anglos
had assembled to hear a patriotic ora-
tion by U.S. senator John B. Weller.
Afterward they celebrated frontier-
style, getting drunk and carousing.
Early in the morning, an Anglo miner
named Joseph Cannan broke down
Juanita’s door and tried, as she testi-
fied, to assault her. She killed him with
a knife. His friends captured her and
brought her to a vigilante “trial,”
where the mob convicted her of mur-
der and sentenced her to hanging.
Juanita asserted that, given the same
chance, she would defend herself
again in exactly the same way. Then
she adjusted her own noose and died.
An observer, David P. Barstow, report-
ed that the only murder in this incident
was the hanging: “No jury in the
world, on any principle of self-defense
or protection of life and property,
would ever have convicted her.”