I've seen a lot of bad history on this, and I would like to add to it.

Something I've noticed about the Spanish vs. English colonialism is that it seems the Spanish were more interested in ruling over established nations, while the English wanted to find unsettled land and send civilized people there.

The Spanish, as a result, never really traveled much into North America. They were okay with Mexico, thanks to the Aztecs. The only "civilized" people in what is the US today were in modern day New Mexico and Arizona, the Pueblo, and so that area occupied most of the Spanish interest in the modern day US. The Spanish had a lot of success "de-tribalizing" them, but struggled with the surrounding tribes like the Apache, forcing the creation of towns in New Mexico like Abiquiu, Belen, and Trampas as forts manned by genizaros (pueblo converts and subjects of the Spanish crown).

As such, New Mexico and Florida compete over the title of the oldest Europeans settlements in the US. The general agreement is that it's Saint Augustine, Florida that takes it in terms of "continuous habitation", but there are several communities in New Mexico that also have a basic claim to the title.

However, like I said, the Spanish never really penetrated deep into the US, they stuck mostly to the coast. This wasn't the case in New Mexico. Santa Fe ended up being the capital for the region.

But this also ended up being a massive drag on the Spanish. The government had a lot of colorful words for the area, and described is as "remote beyond comparison". Resupply trips from Mexico City to Santa Fe took 3 years, one way, and towns or regions along the path were given names like "help" and "route of the dead".

As such, the only Europeans who lived in Santa Fe were clergy, there to convert the locals to Christianity. The rest were genizaro, of which there were only a few thousand in the entire region. This created a problem, as even the Pueblo / genizaro would revolt against the Spanish government from time to time trying to start their own state, the biggest revolt being in 1680. After that revolt, many large settlements were not rebuilt or returned to until the 1800's (leading to the dispute with Florida over the title of the oldest cities).

And this was where the Spanish did MOST of it's work. They were in Louisiana, or Florida, or Texas, but despite those areas being under their thumb, they never saw massive migration from Spain, or even New Spain / Mexico, except on the borders.

The Russians were even able to establish colonies in California, like at Fort Ross, just 60 miles from present day San Fransisco, in the 1820s-1840. Oh, but it was full of Mexicans too, who just didn't notice this going on?

Which brings me to my point with all of this.

The left is currently claiming that "Mexico owned it, so everyone there was Mexican, that's why there are so many Mexicans chud". It's one of the stupidest ideas ever. No, they were mostly Indians (feather not dot), and then the US settled it with European immigrants, and now it's being flooded with Mexicans from Mexico.

RT: https://nicecrew.digital/objects/3eae8475-0ec5-4067-b720-24f10495a5ef