Abbie O’Hara History of Mexico 480 2/2/19 Professor Haskett Causes of the Texas Rebellion Mexican revolutionary sentiment in 1810 portends a notorious division between Mexican politics that would weaken the nation and eventually culminate with other factors in war with the United States. The nation disseminated into opposing political demographics concerning how the newly free nation should structure their government. Yorquinos were more liberal federalists and called for a republic while ​Escocés​ were more conservative centralists and favored a monarchy. After Hidalgo’s Revolution, Iturbide crowned himself emperor of the new monarchy, deepening and intensifying the political divide of the nation. Santa Anna’s ineffectual leadership during a pivotal point in the newly independent nation’s history may be more opportunistic and self serving than providing long term benefits and stability. Santa Anna’s rule only accentuated the divides of the nation, aggravating weaknesses such as regionalism and partisanship. Furthermore, expansionist and nationalistic ideologies spreading throughout the United States converged and took advantage of Mexico’s fragility, resulting in the infamous loss of land and military failure under Santa Anna’s rule. The Texas Rebellion of 1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1848 arose due to instability in Mexico, caused by a number of political and ideological forces, and United States colonial ideals such as expansionism and nationalism. The Mexican government, through the 19th century, was unstable, making them an easier target for colonization. The official date of Mexican Independence could be disputed, Hidalgo initiating a violent but ultimately unsuccessful revolt and Iturbide later succeeding in diplomatic negotiations with Spain, but failing to maintain power and stability. These two leaders both succeeded and failed in unique ways, but stable independence requires a myriad of factors. Hidalgo succeeded in gaining the support of the masses while Iturbide succeeded in negotiations with their Spanish colonizers, however, an official break from Spain and the subsequent establishment of a stable government requires both diplomatic negotiations and the support of the masses. The iterations of The Virgin Guadalupe can also be seen as a symbol of the partisanship personified through Hidalgo and Iturbide. The image of the Virgin evokes proto-nationalist sentiment during the Revolution, symbolizing a break from the Bourbon monarchy. The quick descent of Hidalgo’s revolution after his execution and Iturbide’s abdication of the throne are symbolic of Mexico’s inability to garner both diplomacy and popular support concerning the country's governmental system. This early instability persists through the 19th century and is a primary contributing factor to the series of wars with the United States. The juxtaposition between Hidalgo as a leader of the people and Iturbide as a diplomat can serve to illuminate the partisan nature of the Mexican body politic of the time. Iturbide’s rule favored the upper classes and sought to maintain the social caste system of power that was established during Spanish rule. His politics were more conservative, or centalist and were vehemently opposed by the more liberal federalists who advocated for a Republic in favor of a monarchical system. During the decades following Iturbide’s abdication of power, Mexican politics remain centered on this debate. Such leaders as Santa Anna ​took advantage of​ such partisanship to gain popular favor. Antonio López de Santa Anna exploited the instability of the Mexican government in 1822 and turned against Iturbide, seizing the opportunity to claim power and initiating the long series of rotating leaders for roughly the next half century. His rule over Mexico was nothing more than that of an ineffectual caudillo figurehead. Even when he was not officially in power, his influence could be felt in the background of Mexican politics. Rotating leaders and the average presidential term of only seven months created a precarious environment which Santa Anna took advantage of to increase his political and social power. In Cuevillas’ “Latin America: Conflict and Creation” the author states that “...[we] use [caudillismo] to apply to that regime which consists of the personification or incarnation of authority, where he who governs acts with an extraordinary charismatic moral ascendancy over his people: advising them, guiding them, leading them paternally.” This can be seen as an apt description of Santa Anna’s tumultuous rule over Mexico when we examine his history of political leanings and proclaimed beliefs. The leader, like many other Mexican officials, began his career as a military officer, providing him with plenty of social mobility. He opposed Independence from Spain before Iturbide came into power, then shifted to a more moderate stance, supporting Independence and the new Mexican monarchy. Then, in 1822, in his Plan de Veracruz, Santa Anna rebelled against Iturbide in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy after the dissolution of the Constituent Congress. A coalition between Guerrero, Bravo and Santa Anna called for a Republic, rather than a monarchy, aligning Santa Anna’s politics with liberal beliefs. This eventually changed when Santa Anna realized the impracticality of federalism and the difficulty of its application. “Initially he was a federalist, but soon he recognized the the impracticality of regionalism and changed to a centralist position,” (Wasserman, 20). It has been said that there is nothing so much like a Conservative as a Liberal in power, highlighting the often unattainability of liberal ideals in their application. This can be seen in Santa Anna’s early rule as a federalist and later shift to a centralist. His opportunistic politics caused the long term instability of Mexico leading up to the Texas Rebellion. Furthermore, his military failures, coupled with centralist rhetoric, ultimately caused Mexico’s massive loss of land after war with the United States. Due to poor and inconsistent leadership, Mexico’s tradition of regionalist and micro-patriotic sentiment persisted through the wars with the United States, weakening their defense. Micro patriotism of Pre Columbian era Mexico and the paralleling development of proto-nationalism exemplify the sociopolitical diversity of Mexican identity. Precolonial Mexico is observed as following micro patriotism which is regions and communities feeling no sense of connection through a nationalistic standpoint and instead being united as smaller communities. The regionalistic and proto-nationalistic sentiments within Mexico were accentuated by inconsistent leadership as well as isolation from the capital. There were a myriad of contributing factors that compiled in such a way to worsen Texas isolationism and regionalism, separating Texas from Mexican political, economic and social life, exposing them to invasion. Mexican infrastructure was poorly developed so travel and shipping was difficult, stunting communication and the economy. For example, many foreign travelers such as Fanny de Calderon complained that the roads were bumpy and precarious. Other nations such as the United States had access to natural resources and landscapes such as rivers that serves as affordable and quick forms of transportation that greatly stimulated the economy and facilitated communication between distant regions of the country. Furthermore, almost all of Mexico’s big cities and political bases such as Veracruz were located inland, making travel by boat and overseas trade more difficult. Texas is just one example of how these conditions resulted in the sense of isolationism and regionalist ideology as opposed to a sense of unity and nationalism with the country as a whole. Some Mexican liberals even supported a Texas rebellion and annexation as a platform to revolt against the conservative centralism of Santa Anna. Since there were so few Mexicans in Texas and poor communication with the government, the boundaries were poorly managed. A dispute erupted surrounding whether the nueces River or the Rio Grande served as borders between the U.S. and Mexico. Isolationism of the area made it difficult for Mexico to protect the boundary. It also exposed Texas to a large number of settler from the north who refused to assimilate or follow Mexican laws such as the abolition of slavery. The sense of isolation in Texas contributed to the northern immigrants’ perception of the Mexican government as ineffective, casting doubt on their ‘worthiness’ to control the land. The lack of a consistent and strong form of leadership as well as isolationism and regionalism weakened the nation's identity, causing the U.S. to perceive the country as incompetent and undemocratic. The United States’ perception of Mexico and Santa Anna’s ineffectual leadership provoked the U.S to retaliate and lay claim to Texas. By the year 1836 there were roughly 30,000 U.S. immigrants residing in Texas. These settlers refused to assimilate to Mexican society and openly disrespected the negotiations of settlement the required them to be Catholic and not practice slavery. Santa Anna’s revocation of the Constitution of 1824 was that it deprived regions of freedom guaranteed under the federal system and favored a centralist national government in Mexico City. Many U.S. immigrants feared that their freedoms and rights were being stripped by the more centrist Mexican government. This was interpreted by U.S. immigrants as an undemocratic infringement of their rights. The Monroe Doctrine can serves as evidence for the reaction of U.S. officials such as Polk to declare war with an ‘undemocratic’ Mexico. The Monroe Doctrine was an official statement to break the bonds between the mother country and the United States, officially establishing the colonies as a free and democratic people. The claim that the nation deserved to flourish freely, unbridled by the influences of other countries, is a perception that may have influenced the War in T​exas. Land and expansionism are also portrayed as a reward for developing democracy, as if the U.S. viewed lands as a commodity. Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the right of the United States to exercise an “international police power” which is something that was invoked after the adoption of beliefs that Mexico was undemocratic. ​The more conservative leanings of Mexico at this time directly conflicted with American ideals of democracy and manifest destiny. U.S. sentiments of manifest destiny and nationalism justified invasion and subsequent war in Texas. United States soldiers often sang songs filled with nationalistic and racist rhetoric that can be viewed as evidence of the ideologies that justified the war. Songs such as “To Arms” that cry “Fling out your banners free-- Let drum and trumpet sound alarm, O'er mountain, plain, and sea,” and “The Song of Texas” that claims “From Atlantic to Pacific, Is Uncle Sam's own ground,” are utilizing similar rhetoric. The phrase ‘fling your banners free’ is referencing the flying of the American flag after the conquering of a nation. The themes of manifest destiny reflect the propagandist ideologies prevalently held by United States citizens at the time, demonstrating their willingness to go to war with Mexico to claim land thought of as rightfully theirs. The flag, also being synonymous with democracy and freedom, represents the superiority the United States felt during war with Mexico. Many of the settlers believed that the Mexican government was incompetent and too conservative, restricting their liberties and looked to America as a sort of ‘police’ like figure to maintain justice. The idea that Mexico was undemocratic made them undeserving of the land in the eyes of many Texas settler, further encouraging the regions annexation. The U.S. pejorative of superiority over Mexico can be blatantly observed in a New York Times article claiming, “a spirit of progress, which will compel us, for the good of both nations and the world at large, TO DESTROY THE NATIONALITY of that besotted people.” The perception of the United States as superior, and therefore more deserving of the Texas region was sparked by the complaints of settlers in the region that Santa Anna had passed laws restricting their individual freedoms. This assumedly undemocratic and oppressive leadership was then challenged by the ‘democratic’ United States. The Mexican Revolution reveals several key themes throughout the history of the nation, demonstrating the partisanship that continued decades after independence and regionalist ideology that was compounded by isolationism and poor, inconsistent leadership. Colonialism in the United States was fueled by expansionist and nationalist rhetoric, prompting the annexation of the texas region, triggering a war with Mexico during a politically and economically fragile time. The fragility of Mexico was exploited by the U.S. to gain land and promote their growing image as a democratic world police. If the two political climates of Mexico and the U.S. had not converged during the same time period, then it is likely that territories such as Texas, New Mexico, California and more would have remained in the possession of Mexico. However, despite the massive loss of Mexican territory, it is questionable if the nation really lost anything of crucial value in the Texas revolution and later wars with the United States. It is true that territories such as California would have been major economic supporters considering their minerals and other natural resources; nonetheless, the nation firmly espoused regionalism throughout the 19th century. Regionalism, regardless of its roots in Mexican weakness and instability, prevented the rise of nationalism and violent ideologies that accompany it. It can be argued that the losses occuring due to Mexican regionalism outweigh the potential inequality and violence that typically follow nationalism. This is something that is reflected in the U.S. history of colonization, even in the wars with Mexico. Some U.S. officials wanted to expand further south into Mexico; however, it can be argued that the reason why this did not happen is because contributing factors to the Texas rebellion such as isolationism, lack of communication, regionalist sentiment and poor leadership, were not parallel to the climates of other regions of Mexico, making them more protected than Texas was. The U.S. struggled during war with Mexico and may have lost if Santa Anna had attacked a third time, leading one to estimate that more secure and less isolated areas of Texas would have been an arduous task to invade. Bibliography 1. Wasserman, Mark. ​Everyday Life and Politics in Nineteenth Century Mexico: Men, Women, and War​. University of New Mexico Press, 2000. 2. Lecture slides