So, I wanted to read about Mexico from the Mexican War of Independence until the Mexican Revolution. It turns out that such a book exists, and now I have read it. Mexico's revolution in 1911 is obviously a huge deal in Mexican history and is probably the defining moment in Mexican history, especially if you consider it as one whole historical event along with the Cristero War. But I was interested in how Mexico got to that point, and how Mexico fell behind the US in the time before then. Mexico fought several wars in the 19th century, against the Spanish, against the French, against the United States, and several times against each other. The "crucial century" in the book's title is all about state formation and a gradual stop-and-start strengthening of federal government control that wasn't consolidated until Porfirio Diaz came to power from 1876 to 1911.
There are many points at which Mexico ended up politically delayed compared to the British colonies along the Atlantic coast of North America. First of all, Mexico didn't want to be independent of Spain. Mexico was forced into independence by the French conquest of Spain. Interestingly, when Spain was liberated from French occupation, Fernando VII returned to the throne unwilling to accept a modified form of constitutional monarchy like many thought. If he had adopted some reforms of liberalism, he might have held onto Mexico, but his actions further motivated the Mexican insurrection. Second, Mexico didn't have a Washington. Everything I read always reinforces how special George Washington was. Having a single figure who embodied the country with unanimous support and who knew when to step down was absolutely critical in early nation-building. The closest Mexico had to that was Father Hidalgo, but he was executed in March of 1811. After that, Mexico continued through a decade of sporadic fighting before securing independence. It is also critical that the United States had a head start, and as neighbors and competitors, used that head start to muscle Mexico out of the way. By the time Mexico gained its independence, the United States had already been independent for decades, had purchased Louisiana from the same French Empire that conquered Spain (which caused Mexican independence) and was encroaching on Mexico's border at a uniquely vulnerable time in Mexican history. Then Mexico just still didn't get very good leaders. Santa Anna is one of these big leaders, but it took a long time for him to become a centralist, and spent a lot of time fighting against central government, and Mexico failed to gain enough central strength to oppose rebels in the north who would form the Republic of Texas. I mean, at this point in time, Mexico was dealing with provinces refusing to send troops to fight in its wars and breaking off. So while we study the Texas portion in America, we don't follow as closely the fact that Jalisco and Zacatecas also seceded at that time.
One of the critical points of conflict in Mexico's "crucial century" was the role of the Catholic Church, which was the primary line along which conservatives and liberals were divided. When Father Hidalgo issued the grito de Dolores, initiating the war for independence from Spain, he asked the people of Mexico to fight those who would aid in French control over the Spanish colony after Napoleon conquered Spain. It was the threat of liberalism and atheism that specifically prompted the development of a Mexican state, which had been more or less content under Catholic Spanish rule until then. In the final stage of the War of Independence, Agustin de Iturbide promulgated the Plan of Iguala, which made three specific guarantees: independence, religion, and equality. He specifically promised to protect the Catholic Church in the new Mexican state.
Besides the conservative-liberal divide and/or the secular-religious divide, there was a debate between federalism and centrism. There were liberal centrists and federalists and there were conservative centrists and federalists. The long battle would culminate in an ultimate centralization by the end of the century, but it took a long time to get there. It took far longer and much bloodier conflict in Mexico than in the United States to reach an agreeable plan for an acceptable federal government. The authors say that the federalist-centralist divide was not very philosophical, mainly just depending on where a given liberal or conservative lived in the country, AKA Mexico City or not.
Mexico didn't really get a clean democracy until 2000. From 1810 to 1876, it was a very weak central state with some elections, but just as many coups and civil wars. From 1876 to 1911, it was a dictatorship under Porfirio Diaz, with some elections. Then until the 1920s, it was in a chaotic revolution, which culminated in the rule of the PRI, a political party that established a one-party state until 2000. That's a very delayed political development. Spain was sending armies to retake Mexico as late as 1829. France intervened in 1838-39. When Santa Anna finally tried to centralize the regime, revolts in favor of federalism swept the entire regime, including seven in Jalisco, five in Puebla, and a temporary independence for Yucatan. Then the Mexican-American War from 1846-48. Liberals and conservatives fought civil wars in the 1850s. Then France invaded again from 1861-67. This was not a stable country or a country that could stabilize! These wars had huge negative impacts on the Mexican economy, reducing output from mines and farms, causing roads to be abandoned, and population loss. Mexico was economically weaker for much of 19th century independence than it was as an 18th century Spanish colony. Around the time that Texas broke away and the United States conquered Mexico's northern half, it took six months for a wagon from Mexico City to reach Santa Fe, New Mexico, and even longer to reach California.
I'm just gonna wrap this up a little early because I honestly sort of lost where I was in the post and I am just too busy right now but I think I covered the big themes. The last thing I'll mention is the huge French connection going on in 19th century Mexico. French invasions and investments were a really big part of 19th century Mexico and that feels so foreign and bizarre today. Mexico was basically colonized economically by France even though the actual attempts at political takeover never happened. I'll also say that the authors assert that the Porfiriato may have politically stabilized Mexico and grow its economy, but the regime failed to distribute those gains fairly among the people, and resulted in land concentration and a reduction in real wages. The authors point out that Mexico diverged from the successful model of development in Britain and the United States that built strong domestic markets to provide consumption bases for production. Mexico suffered from being too poor to afford its own goods, and relied on external trade at a time when tariffs were rampant abroad.
Miscellaneous Facts:
- Guatemala amicably separated from Mexico when Iturbide abdicated the throne of his "Empire of Mexico."
- Iturbide had initially been a royalist officer.
- At the Battle of San Jacinto, Sam Houston found out that the Mexican army bedded down for the night without setting a watch. So he took his numerically outnumbered force and led an attack that defeated them and caught Santa Anna.
- The Paseo de la Reforms was originally modeled off the Champs Elysees and created by the French Emperor Maximillian, who named it the Calzada de la Emperatriz. Benito Juarez named it Paseo de la Reforma.
- During the American Civil War, the Union occupied Brownsville, Texas, and the result was the creation of a boomtown called Bagdad on the south side of the Rio Grande that disappeared again after the war.
- The Yucatan Peninsula became independent in the mid-19th century and also had the Caste War, which caused a significant population decline.
No comments:
Post a Comment