By the time Spanish missionaries and soldiers established a sustained
presence in California in the late 18th century, indigenous California
had already been transformed by forces internal to the continent.
Disease, resource pressure, and intertribal conflict had reduced
populations and altered political structures. Spain claimed California
as a colonial possession, governed it for just over half a century, and
integrated it into a broader imperial system. When Mexico gained
independence, it inherited Spanish sovereignty. California then passed
from Mexico to the US in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a
treaty negotiated between two recognized states following a declared
war, and ratified under the international law of the era.
One can
condemn the war. Many did, even at the time. But condemnation does not
erase the legal fact of transfer. Mexico ceded California in exchange
for $15M and the assumption of $3.25M in debt. That is not theft in any
coherent legal sense. It is state succession, a mechanism by which
sovereignty has changed hands throughout recorded history.
At this
point, critics often shift the argument. The land may have passed
legally between colonial powers, they say, but it was never theirs to
give. It belonged to the tribes. This objection deserves careful
treatment, because it raises the hardest questions.
The US
government itself recognized these questions. In the early 1850s,
federal negotiators entered into treaties with California tribes,
treaties that involved the cession of land in exchange for reservations,
goods, livestock, and federal recognition. These agreements were not
symbolic gestures. They were attempts, however flawed, to regularize
sovereignty through consent rather than extermination. Some treaties
were shamefully mishandled, delayed, or ignored by Congress. That
failure remains a stain. But the existence of the treaties matters. It
shows that tribal leaders were not treated merely as obstacles to be
cleared, but as parties capable of bargaining, choosing, and surviving.
To
insist that these agreements were meaningless because tribes were too
weak to consent is to deny indigenous agency altogether. It implies that
native leaders were incapable of understanding tradeoffs, incapable of
acting strategically, and incapable of making binding decisions for
their people. That view is not morally enlightened. It is condescending.
The
moral record of the US in California is mixed, and often dark.
Violence, displacement, and broken promises occurred. None of that is in
dispute. But moral wrongdoing does not automatically negate
sovereignty. If it did, nearly every nation on earth would be
illegitimate. Borders everywhere are the product of conquest,
negotiation, succession, and compromise. To single out California as
uniquely stolen is to apply a standard that no historical society could
meet. (Read more.)