Forget the abysmal knowledge of geography, but the bit about "Christian sacraments" was a bit much. Anyway, the oldest recorded instance of children born to European parents comes from Santo Domingo (present day capital of the Dominican Republic) and the names are rather famous. Between 1510 and 1513, Diego Colon (the Admiral's son) had four daughters with Maria de Toledo: Felipa, Maria, Juana and Isabel. Three sons followed in the subsequent decade: Luis (1522), Cristobal (1523), Diego (1524). Seing that all were baptized at birth, the rest of the garbage over Virginia Dare can best be assigned to English delusions. There was already a third generation of Colon (Columbus) descendants at Santo Domingo by the time of the Roanoke escapade!

 

Please let us have no more of such tom-foolery...

Or the first child of mixed descendency between White and Black in the Americas?

Or the first child of Black and Amerind descendency?

Or the first Black child born in the Americas?

 

And then one can ask similar questions about Asians and other groups.

 

And finally one can wonder who was the very first person that was born on the American continent, i.e. the first Amerind person?

 

 

Er, Lirelou, "Roanoke" was an abject failure as an English plantation, and it was the intital effort. A full generation passed before another attempt was undertaken under the auspices of The London Company. As for the venture into "Christianization" such an effort never became an official objective of English colonial policy! Despite the public rhetoric, specially strong during the Commonwealth (1649-1659), I believe this extract summarizes the attitude correctly:

 

Read the full assessment on-line:

 

http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/deanedu/litstudies/techprojects/panyc00/axtefram.htm - http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/deanedu/litstudies/techprojects/panyc00/axtefram.htm

 

To preserve what are essentially accidents with a whiff of mythology really suborns the reality of what actually took place. Juxtapose the negativity in Roger's 1764 commentary with the positivity found in the assessment of a Spanish contemporary: Fray Junipero Serra.

Perhaps your concluding observation merits further discussion, but keep in mind this caveat: it will not be pretty.

 

Here is its actual beginning in terms of historiography:

 

The North Carolina Booklet, v. 1, no.1

 

http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/fullview.aspx?id=dav - http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/fullview.aspx?id=dav

 

 

 

I don't know his/her name, but I am certain it was born in Hispaniola around July of 1493...

Despite my supposed tendencies toward vampirism (shades of the vampire Lestat  ), Parnell, the folderol over Virginia Dare is a symptom of history in the service of propaganda and relevant solely as examples of just how far some individuals and groups will go to close their eyes to transcendant events in the story of mankind. Interestingly enough, the Virginia Dare narrative is but a footnote in the larger orgy of imperial puffery that affected historical narrative and interpretation at the close of the 19th century and gained wide circulation as part of the Columbian Quadricentennial of 1893-1894. If you read the pamphlet on Dare that I cited that relationship becomes obvious. There the true historical significance and why the "First White Child" tradition is inextricably linked to the darker sides of European nationalism and rivalries. Interestingly enough, the question would not have even appeared relevant to the earliest Spanish and Portuguese "adventurers" in the New World.  Yes, they had children with Amerindian women and normally legitimized these descendants [e.g. Don Martin Cortez, made a Knight of Santiago in 1529].

 

By the way, personally, I have gotten over the urge to antiquarianism several times in my lifetime first in philately and numismatics [believe it or not as a child in New Orleans of the early 50s, Spanish doublons and reales were still in general circulation as dollars and dimes--so I didn't have to rummage through the garden for a 200 year old coin] and finally in incunabula and manuscripts, all of which I donated to relevant institutions when I retired.. Albeit, I must admit that I still will pick up rare books and Americana despite my better sense. Just this week I could not resist obtaining a pristine copy of Harry Franck's Vagabonding Down the Andes from 1907. Nevertheless, collecting and possessing objects or being overly-preoccupied with them does not History make. In any event, Virginia Dare does not constitute history but is simply a name in the process of myth-making on a par with that Philadelphia lady, Betsy what's-her-name, tied to the attitudes and perspectives of a completely different time.

 

Dunadan you merit a response on two levels. First, I will assess your statement that I have italicized above. A lot of people will quibble with this business about "English" hands and the building of the United States, not least of which the Scots and the Irish, or the fact that the largest ethnic group is the German! If you look at the early National History of the United States, you will discover that a common bond in the forging of nationality was actually Anglophobia! But here I am becoming a bit too technical [while respecting the actual outlook of men such as Jefferson and Franklin and the roots of Jacksonianism]. Perhaps a new thread on this direction is merited.

 

Now, as to your query with specifics to Argentina. As with the United States, the Argentines have also played fast and loose with both facts and national detail. Notice that even you have a queasy feeling over the very first settlers of the "Rio de la Plata" and doubt that a Paraguayan "Creole" will have the facts. The actual fact is a simple one: the first successful colonization took place in Paraguay, with the establishment of the first permanent town, Asunción, in 1537. Here is a handy summary:

 

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+py0013 - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+py0013 )

 

However, with regard to the efforts of Cabot, Mendoza, and Irala, all the surviving documents have been published as found in the Archive of the Indies and at Simancas. Just as Santo Domingo became the staging area for Spanish expansion in the Caribbean and Central America, the town of Asunción was the core for expansion in the La Plata basin and onto the Altiplano. The history of modern Buenos Aires, begins in 1580 but it remained a backwater until 1617 when efforts at proscribing the smuggling of Potosi silver at the hands of the Portuguese Piruleiros led to a permanent garrison and adminstrative staff. It was the growing conflict with the Portuguese after 1640 that more-or-less gave Buenos Aires a raison d'etre, but we really can not speak of consolidation and expansion until the Bourbon Reforms of the 18th century, when the actual silver trade of Potosi shifted from Lima to Buenos Aires with the abandonment of the Flota System and the eventual creation of the Viceroyalty of La Plata. If you are looking for "firsts" I am afraid you will have to look at Paraguay even in the evolution of Independence and Nationalism. Modern "Argentina" is the product of the long conflict between Unitarios and Federalistas between 1817 and 1852.

 

Now, the Argentines are no less adept than their Yanqui counterparts at national myth-making. For in all truth, the concern with roots and generous liberties with history came hand-in-hand with the rise of immigration from Europe between 1880 and 1910. The ambiance was captured spectacularly by Domingo Faustino Sarmiento in his aptly titled tome: Facundo: Civilización y Barbarie (1845). Whether you like it or not it is a must read because it explains much as to why Argentina today is still at war with its colonial heritage.

 

Well there were many hands that was there to build the United States of America. First there were the Amerind who gave their land and also actively contributed in the social, economic and political events that resulted in the formation and expansion of the US,  then there were Spaniards who among other things founded missions and settlements and contributed with land, and the French who explored vast reaches of the inner parts of North America and of course founded cities like St Louis and Louisiana. Then we have the Black Slaves descending from Africa that did a lot of work in building economic  prosperity. So in laying the foundation of, developing, extending and consolidating this state the English, and their descendants, were by no means alone.

 

Even the Swedish contributed by participating in the colonial endevour in the 17th century (and also by bringing the technique of the log cabin to America).

 

And later of cource an innumerable amount of input has come also from a lot of other groups from varying places on the Earth.

 

 

 

Strangely enough, the original title of this chronicle with a hint of epic poetry is Los Anales del descubrimiento, población y conquistas de las provincias del Río de la Plata and its author, Ruy Díaz de Guzmán, originally prepared the narrative in 1612 as a grand summary of not only his experiences but that of his family as well. For one thing, Ruy Díaz was not only a lateral descendant of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca (he who crossed the litoral of the Gulf of Mexico on foot after the disaster of the Narvaez expedition in Pensacola Bay, but repeated the effort in South America and trekked overland to Asuncion from the Brazilian coast!) but also the son of Ursula de Irala, the daughter of Domingo Martinez de Irala and the Guarani princess, Ybotu Lyu. Hence, this author is not only a criollo but a mestizo as well. The original of this narrative is long lost [unless due diligence finds a counterpart in the untouched  legajos of the AGI] but there were enough surviving copies of most of the text for the preparation of a printed edition in 1836 based on the codex still housed in the national archives of Paraguay.

 

This author is not only considered a reliable "primary" source given his lineage but he also actively participated in the political events of the later colonial world of the Plata basin. Unfortunately, events are cut off after 1573 (since the concluding section is lost), and we hear nothing of his personal experiences in both Santa Fe and Salta between 1580 and 1612.

 

By the way, I suppose by ebook you are referencing the transcription posted by the Russian web site Blok.NOT ( mailto:creos@narod.ru - creos@narod.ru ), which in a way is a good source on-line for A. Skromniysky's project, La Invencion de America, begun in 2005. There are quite a few little jewels here, including many of the 19th century transcriptions and translations of original documents and chronicles.

 

 

The USA was created with the ratification of the Constitution.

 

What proportion of the framers were of English descent? What non-English precedents went into the framing of the Constitution to the extent that Magna Charta, the Petition of Right of 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and the Bill of Rights of 1688/9 did?

 

On whose Common Law is US Common Law (outside Louisiana) founded? In what other country, apart from the Commonwealth, does the Supreme Court recognise an English authority, Blackstone, on issues that predate the Constitution itself? For that matter how many other countries' legal systems are recognised as relevant to US courts?

 

 

 

pwned.

 

 

You can´t build a continent, it was already there when when the first people arrived.

 

And without all those acts of human enterprice that preceded the creation of the entity which is called the USA it would never have come into existence. And the building of a country is not just the legal and the constitutional work, it is all the other economical, cultural and social interactions as well.

 

 

Reasonable objection. Make my statement "there's a difference between building a North American country and building the United States of America.' Or possibly 'a North American society'.

And without all those acts of human enterprice that preceded the creation of the entity which is called the USA it would never have come into existence. And the building of a country is not just the legal and the constitutional work, it is all the other economical, cultural and social interactions as well.

Try defining the United States of America (which the original assertion referred to) without its constitutional and legal framework. You can't define it racially or ethnically or religiously. You can't even define it geographically without being circular ('the United States is wherever the constitution of the United States is sovereign'). 

 

 

And on the basis of what country's institutions (as he perceived them) did Montesquieu write L'esprit des lois?

 

 

Still you must have some societal, economic, and cultural foundation on which you could apply constitutional and legal framework, and that foundation was created by several different groups.

 

Lirelou went a little overboard as to contributors and contributions within the American juridical tradition, suffice it to say that the question at hand (digression though it may be) deals with the tension between Common Law and Civil Jurisprudence. Here is a good on-line summation juxtaposing the juridical directions:

 

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/commoncivil.htm - http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/commoncivil.htm

 

Now with regard to the dismissal of the "Spanish/French" contribution by Lirelou, one must keep in mind how the customary in most states States of the Far West, Southwest, and Lower Mississippi Valley based upon Civil jurisprudence, trumped the Common Law in both material and social issues. Not only are mining and riparian rights premised upon the older Spanish and French precedents but inheritance and property rights for the female as well. Nor can the argument from population numbers be made since Californianos were in the majority as late as the 1870s. As regard to the Spanish there is a rather good book on just this topic: Charles R. Cutter. The Legal Culture of Northern New Spain.

 

By the way, Lirelou, even during the British interlude in Florida (1764-1784), the government of George III employed "Spaniards" from the Balearic Islands to populate the colony!

 

Now as to the Founding Fathers and what ideas they reflected upon in shaping government much can be made on how much they drew upon Roman Law as a constraint on what is known in shorthand as the Whiggish Tradition. Certainly, Jefferson was not too keen on judges rather than legislatures being the ultimate arbiter of what Law is...

 

PS: Is it not curious that Federal Law is known as U. S. Code?

So then what does one make of the Articles of Confederation? From 1781 to 1789, it governed in perpetual Union the territories known as the United States.

 

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

 

PS: It seems that "first" has a lot of encumbrances no matter where one looks.

 

As for the articles of confederation, note that the State of Vermont was not included. It preferred to govern itself. Maine was then part of Massachusetts, so Vermont was the only holdout.

 

There was no colonial entity known as "Vermont" in 1775, and the land encompassed by the present state was in dispute between the Royal Colonies of New York and New Hampshire as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Vermont as a separate political entity arises as part of the overall "Western Lands" controversy that dogged the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. We will not go into the myths generated by the rabble known as The Green Mountain Boys but the fact remains that the Continental Congress refused to recognize any of the pretensions to sovereignty by Ethan Allen given the forcible expulsion of settlers in the region with New York land titles--not to mention the treasonable activities of the Allen brothers. It is not until 1790. with the payment of $30,000 to the State of New York and the formal conformance of the inhabitants with the 1784 and 1785 Ordinances of the Congress under the Articles that Vermont is granted "statehood" in 1791. There are other interesting quirks--such as the area serving as a refuge to participants in Shay's Rebellion--but none of the bordering states in the early nation recognized Vermont as a juridical entity. The Bakers and the Allens were quite a crew of speculators and scofflaws, read this interesting little background:

 

Now to the West...

 

With regard to the Californios, a strange thing happened on the way to the Census Offices in the years 1850-1870: people went missing! Needless to say, current research by institutions such as the Huntington Library's Early California Population Project is redressing the phenomenon, see:

 

http://www.huntington.org/Information/ECPPmain.htm - http://www.huntington.org/Information/ECPPmain.htm  

 

We will not go into Cook's studies on the decline of the Amerindians between 1776 and 1876 during the 1970s but suffice it to say that Federal census officials ignored them entirely both in 1850 and 1860, and differentiations as to origins becomes rather hazy with regard to "emmigrants and immigrants" where totals just do not "add up". See this chart, which raises more questions than profers answers:

 

http://www.museumca.org/goldrush/curriculum/1stcalifornians/resourcesix.htm - http://www.museumca.org/goldrush/curriculum/1stcalifornians/resourcesix.htm

 

However, we are concerned more with the law and it roots, and as far as California is concerned we have to look into mining, land tenancy, and water rights. Keeping in mind that we must recognize that there were two Californias--the North where anything went and the South, with its older traditions and patterns--even the Congress got involved. A good jumping point for further research:

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=69 - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=69

 

Didn't you ever wonder why title to what's under the ground does not run with title to the ground itself or why prior appropriation statutes govern water usage in the American West?

Here's a book to read:

 

Miller, Char, ed. Fluid Arguments: Five Centuries of Western Water Conflict. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2001

 

As an aside, did you ever wonder why Leo Carillo (the famous Pancho of Cisco Kid fame) served as grand marshall of the Rose Parade for years? There was a rather famous Californio with a lot of real estate.

 

 

Then why mention them? If we don't go into them there's no reason at all to suppose they support your case.

Didn't you ever wonder why title to what's under the ground does not run with title to the ground itself

Nope. It's standard in English Common Law, and is at least often then case in monarchies. What's more interesting is the way in which in the US mining rights frequently do go with surface rights, which may be the result of the US having so much unassigned and unclaimed Federal territory. 

 

I don't really see what point you're making there though. The distinction between surface rights and mining rights is common to all monarchies with a feudal history, surely?

 

 

Wrong on both counts. Cook is important not only in terms of Amerind populations--which were ignored by Census officials, specially hispanicized Amerinds--but also in calculating the veracity of supposedly "official" census figures for the period 1850-1880. Further, mineral rights are distinct and different between Common Law and Civil Law countries. Under traditional understanding of the Common Law "he who owns the surface owns what lies below" and the conceptualization of Mining Codes recognizing conditionals setting title to mineral wealth apart from terran proprietorship had no standing at Law. What was inherited from Roman Law dealt with the concept of the res publicum (the law and public land as distinct from private titles). However, when the United States acquired the Mexican borderlands, Mexican (from Spanish Law) Mining Codes, which granted the individual the right to explore and mine for mineral wealth on public land, was adopted ipso facto by the miners in California who not only accepted the premise under the Civil Law but had the distinction established under Federal Law through the General Mining Act of 1872. In essence, under the Common Law private property can not be suborned by Mining Codes nor Statutory agreements, whereas the Civil Law does provide for such. "Claim staking" originates within the Spanish tradition and not that of the Common Law for it is the product of a Mining Code, which sets forth basic rules in a coherent and consistent fashion, and tacitly recognized the principle of "open mining". A Mining Code entered into the Common Law principles of the United States with the acquisition of the Southwest.