Masonic government? I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia. The US government is not "masonic".
Wake up lad, USA Government is masonic 100%, you can see it in all its structure, all the simbolysm of USA currency is masonic, york rite to be exact. you can se in you two USD bills the tipical meeting of a masonic lodge, the piramid witn the eye printed on the one USD bill, is also a masonic symbol, the phrase Novo ordo secculorum (new secular order) is quite a masonic principle of rulement, protestantism fracmented as it is, is the ideal type of religion that any masonic government would like to have, thus the citizens will never organize around any no governamental institution that may threat the government rulers the masonic heads.
I assure you that I am "awake" and have a fair grounding in the history of North America as well as other parts of the world and in knowledge of the US Government. I am also quite aware of what is on US money and if people are really interested I can find source materials on the symbols and who designed them. So leaving aside any conspiracy theories on that...
As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations? There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan. So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.
Yes, Spain and Portugal recived the right to be in America, Because Spain had found this new lands to Europe, and Portugal had discovered an isle near in a meridian that cut south america near Amazonas river mouth.
One might think that those peoples who were already living in the "New World" had "the right to be in America". They had "discovered" the land long before there was a Spain. And it is the supposed "authority" of the Bishop of Rome to hand over populated countries and territories for the exploitation and conquering by others that many do not accept.
Spain had not only evangelized Mexico (1531) before any other european potency arived here, and by Mestizaje (mixing races) spanish got not only the autority of Pope but also the legitimation of blod that all other europeans refused after earriving to America. So Catholicism, brought here by Spain achieved in 1531, with Guadalupe phenomenon, the conversion of al American natives in Mexico and Central America, even in Texas California and all other states property of Mexico. Mixing Blods, conversions and Papal Supreme Authority over the church lead America to be the land of Catholicism.
Please correct me if I am not understanding your meaning, but you are claiming that only the Spanish interbred with Native Americans? And this gave them some kind of "right" to "own" all of North and South America?
If that is the case then you are not correct. The Metis people of Canada (some of whom were also in Montana and other areas of the northen US) are from European and Native American descent. Sacajawea, who was a vital member of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery was the wife of Toussaint Charbonneau and carried their son, Jean Baptiste nicknamed "Pompey" to the Pacific shore and back. William Clark took care of the boy for some years and paid for his education. Many of the Metis were also RC, if that is part of any "claim" to ownership. Among my own ancestors are both Scots and Cherokee who married and had children. So while it was several generations back, I come from such intermarriage.
On the Metis: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005259
On Louis Riel, a prominent Metis leader http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006837
On J. B. Charbonneau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Charbonneau
USA killed al natives who denied to abandon their lands to piligrins, in the 13 original colonies, and after USA - Mexico war the indians in Mexican terirtories were also killed for denying to give their lands. they didn't want to evangelize them rather than controling their lands.
As others here are posted, the Spanish were not pacific in their conquest of the Americas, but killed many. This is attested to and protested by Bartolome de las Casas, and Antonio de Montesinos, both Dominicans. They believed in treating the native peoples as human beings and not brutalizing and enslaving them.
The history of the American Colonies and the Native People is much more complicated. And there were plenty of people interested in evangelizing the Native Americans and with some success. Have you heard of Kateri Tekakwitha, the "Lily of the Mohawks"? or that Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, from Belgium, traveled to Montana in 1841 to creat a mission at the invitation of Nez Perce and "Flathead" which is to say Salish and Kootenai tribes? There were many others not just RC. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007900
brief paragraph on Kateri Tekakwitha
On Fr. DeSmet http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04752a.htm
About Brazil, it was Spanish king when ruling Portugal in an Iberical kingdom that asked Portuguese to enter the land by amazonas River to avoid France and Netherlands to go further in their expansion inland. But portuguese are Catholics as spanish, and our languages are very similar we share lots of historical background and our etnicity is very alike, and of course Brazil second language in schools is not english but spanish.
May I ask which king you are referring to, please and what historical documentation you have read for this "invitation" against the French (who were also RC after all) and the Dutch? Thank you. I don't know what not having English as a second language in Brazil has to do with anything. Sorry.
As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.
France was not part of Tordesillas treaty, they entered here not listening pope words to respect Tordesillas treaty, and making continuosly war to Spain. so Frnace was in America not by God's will in a peaceful discovery but in the envy they developed over Spain territories, so not legitimate ocupation of Quebec and Luisiana. they neither converted natives neither mixed their blod to legitimize their ocupation of America. all treaties after ilegitimate ocupation of America are nule, not matter if king of Spain had signed peace treaties to give up. for those treaties were not signed by any pope who originaly gave those lands to spansh people and descendants.
If more sources are needed to show that your assertions about the French regarding conversion and interbreeding/marriage are not true, they can be provided. If the Bishop of Rome "gave" the lands to the Spanish throne, then why could not the King do with them as he and his council wished for political and economic reasons?
You claim that the planet could be divided and such "gifting" is for all of time and eternity. Why should that be accepted without question as opposed to replying that "The Bishop of Rome hath not authority..." to give the lands of other human beings to would be conquerors? Why would he have any such "authority" to parcel out the planet?
As to the new lands being "found" by Spain, there were earlier visits by people from other countries such as the Norse in Canada and possibly St. Brendan from Ireland.
How does your OP re why people came to the Americas rather the Russia apply, please? There were many reasons why people immigrated to the US and Canada that were not related to the US government.
Those erlier visits discovered in Terranova were not God's will other way they would have endured and they would have stablished a culture and a tradition, but it didn't happen. Orthodoxy in Alazka was an infiltration of rusian Zar who wanted to have lands in the new continent, they didn't discovered those lands so once more is was not God's will for them to enter this continet but their ambisions.
By your rule that if something endured and established a culture and a tradition it is "God's will", then the Russians in Alaska would fit that criteria. Many different tribes had their own "culture and tradition" so by your lights why are not their occupation of the America's not "God's will"? And the lands of the New World didn't need to be "discovered" by Europeans, since there were plenty of people already here. But I know of no Spanish incursions into the Pacific Northwest or Alaska, so if the Russians were the first "Europeans" to arrive, then it might be said that they did "discover" it.
So regarding the OP, do you think that the various people who emigrated to the US and other parts of the Americas from EO countries should have, instead, gone to "Russia"?