Using The Coahuila y Texas Immigration Law

Using The Coahuila y Texas Immigration Law - Using The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Using The Coahuila y Texas Immigration Law, Anglo Leaders of the Fredonian Revolt State Their Reasons for Insurrection, and Mier y Teran Fears Mexico May Lose Texas do the following: You are Miguel Madero an attorney hired by Mexico City to review the immigration policy of Coahuila, the insurrection in East Texas, and Mier y Teran’s report. The central government wants the following questions addressed in your official report. Did the land policies of the state facilitate the rebellion?—Be specific Did American immigrants violate any segment of the law?—Be specific Did the rebels have legitimate justifications for their actions?—Be specific Should Mier y Teran’s observations be taken seriously? Why or why not. What actions would you recommend the central government take in respects to Texas? *Remember Texas is not an American territory it is Mexican territory and the immigration law under which Americans immigrated to Mexico is specific. Do not place current day views in the response. Examine the documents and use that historical information to address the questions. At your behest, I have carefully considered all the provided materials regarding the status of immigration and colonization within Texas. Regarding the skirmish initiated by Haden Edwards and his supporters, it is my belief that his rebellion was in no way precipitated by the immigration law itself, rather by Edwards’ arrogance and audacious overstepping of the law. This government has deliberately taken measures and incorporated them into law so as to honor prior claims. The law specifically states in Article 3 that those inhabitants with prior claims only need to declare that status with the proper authority and seek proper citizenship to retain their claim. Edwards’ postings of notice requiring that these individuals produce documentation or surrender their land incited great conflict within his settlement and was an attempt to usurp the authority of the Mexican government. His requirement of documentation was clearly in violation of the law. Furthermore, it would be impossible for many of the indigenous Indians to produce such documentation. Again, this government has
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
sought to behave most honorably in its relations with all those inhabitants seeking citizenship within our great republic. Article 19, while not specifically addressing prior claims, does note the intent of the law to deal fairly with those native dwellers insomuch as they choose to acknowledge our rightful and sovereign claim to govern the land. Additional violations of the law were clearly made in the handling of election of the municipality as outlined in Articles 40, 41 and 42. Mr. Edwards chose to ignore the law and claim victory in the election for one who would assist him in establishing his own governance of the area. Furthermore, he refused to acknowledge the authority of this
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

Using The Coahuila y Texas Immigration Law - Using The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online