"We often forget that the boundary between the United States and
Mexico was not always where it is today. It used to be seven hundred
miles farther north, following what is now the state line between Oregon
and California and running east to Wyoming before zagging southeast to
Louisiana. Originally home to the indigenous peoples of the region, much
of this land was Spanish and then Mexican territory for centuries
before becoming what we now think of as the American West.
Spanish colonists and missionaries settled here beginning in 1598. In
1821, Mexico won independence from Spain, and by the middle of the
century, it was in some ways far more advanced than its neighbor to the
northeast. It abolished slavery shortly after independence; black
Mexicans soon gained prominent positions, and indigenous people were
given the right to vote. All this came to an end in 1848, when the
United States seized half of Mexico’s land and created the border that
we know today."
More in the photoessay in the February 2018 issue of
Harper's Magazine.
Hmm.. that article is obviously not true, since it totally ignores the Texas war for independence in 1836, long before the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteAnd after the succession of Texas, the northern parts of Mexico remained very isolated and cut off from the rest of Mexico. In 1846 it was faster to send a letter to Washington DC than to Mexico city, and the total population of Mexican citizens in the north was less than 20,000 -- mostly in New Mexico and California.
After independence from Spain, Mexico was going through upheavals. At the time of the US Mexican War, there were several active revolts against the central government -- so the safe & stable stage implied in this article was not happening.
My understanding - correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will - is that during the "Texas war for independence" Texas was not part of the United States. It was a rebelling part of Mexico. That remained true into the 1840s. The United States voted to annex it in 1845 and the Texans voted to be annexed, but it still wasn't "part of the United States" until after the Mexican-American war.
DeleteSo how is the article or map "obviously not true"?
I think the issue here is who recognized what.
DeleteMexico clearly lost Texas in 1836 and never regained control of it, although Mexico refused to recognize it as a sovereign state. The US annexed Texas as a state in 1945, although Mexico refused to acknowledge that as well.
From 1836 forward, Texas was lost to Mexico. At that point, defining the border was a matter of who was paying for the map to be drawn. But from that point on, Mexico did not exercise sovereignty over Texas in any meaningful sense of the word, so it's hardly appropriate to consider it part of Mexico between 1835 and 1848.
link to article (but you need a subscription read it in full): https://harpers.org/archive/2018/02/lines-and-lineage/ Lines and Lineage
ReplyDeletemore about the project:
https://tomasvh.com/works/lines-and-lineage/ Lines and Lineage
https://www.catchlight.io/events/tomas-van-houtryve-lines-and-lineage Tomas van Houtryve: Lines and Lineage
I-)
Hmm.. article does not appear to be available at Harper's. I found a photoessay on Mexico in the Dec 2016 issue, but all these appear to be behind the Harper's paywall, which is only breachable for $46....
ReplyDeleteI linked to the magazine rather than to the article. You would have had to scroll down. Here's the direct link -
Deletehttps://harpers.org/archive/2018/02/lines-and-lineage/
I'll change it in the post. Tx for the heads-up.
I better improve my rudimentary Spanish. I can but hope.
ReplyDeleteAs a history teacher, I was incredulous when I learned that Mexico was names later than NEW Mexico.
ReplyDeleteWhen "The 300" came to Texas at Austin's behest, etc., they agreed to a number of things. Two of which stand out to me was that they agreed to become Catholics and they agreed to no slavery. In time, though, they not only reneged on the slavery deal, but Mexico, too, in its internal struggles, could be argued to have failed in their end of the bargain.
As many know, when the War of Texas Independence was fought, the "treaty" that Santa Anna signed was NOT RATIFIED by the Mexican legislature. It may be too fine a point--and I may even be getting this wrong--but if I recall correctly, Texas' independence did NOT mean they were no longer part of Mexico. Rather, Texas was an independent state in Mexico, which made their own laws, etc. Further, this "independent state" reached, according to Mexico, only to the Nueces river...NOT to the Rio Grande.
If I recall, the U.S. felt it would start a war to immediately annex Texas. Besides, I'm not sure everyone in Texas thought that was the best idea anyway. In time, with our wanting to expand (no doubt driven by cotton growers, who had to regularly expand due to cotton's depletion of soil nutrient), we provoked a war. Both Abraham Lincoln (then in Congress, I believe) and U.S. Grant, serving in the Mexican-American War, felt that the war was unjust. We had took American troops to the Rio Grande...and when Mexico finally responded, we used that to justify the war.
Now, truth be told, every nation tends to play similar games, but us Americans, perhaps a bit embarrassed by our success, tend to act like we were the bad guys. Yes, we were...in a way. But make no mistake, Santa Anna's cruelty back in the War of Texas Independence--he executed prisoners en masse--likely didn't make it feel like such a bad thing.
In any case, when Texas was finally annexed, one of Texas' stipulations was that, if it desired, it could split itself in up to four or five OTHER states! The claim is that the Civil War, due to Texas' secession, eliminated that right. Of course, Texas could claim that since the U.S. didn't recognize secession, then it never really seceded. Who knows?
I remain fascinated by just how close it seems that North America came to being a Spanish (and/or French) possession. But Britain's claim on the lands bordering the Atlantic gave them an edge in terms of supplying their colonies, receiving their goods, etc.
By the way, a really good book is James Michener's book "Texas." Yes, it's fiction, but it plays roughly true to history, and explains a lot of the issues of why Spain lost Mexico (for one, Spain only wanted those born IN Spain to rule...and that created tensions with those Spaniard born in the New World...and with Native Mexicans who, no matter how much they sought to better themselves, would never be good enough for Spain).
Sorry for going on so long. I guess you can see how fascinated I am.
Always glad to have commenters "go on" when they encounter a topic they know or are intrigued by.
DeleteAnother thing I found interesting is that Tennessee is considered the "Mother State" of Texas, since so many went to Texas from Tennessee. Also, there's the point that both Davy Crockett and Sam Houston came from Tennessee, playing a huge role in Texas legend. Further, Sam Houston is the only person to serve as the governor of two states (Tennessee and Texas) AND president of a country (since Texas was considered an independent state...and later it's own nation.
DeleteIf you do a search of the home state of all the men in the Alamo, there are some we don't know where they came from. But of those we do, the majority came from Tennessee. (Maybe it's noticeable? I'm a huge Tennessee fan. I tell folks I'm a native of TWO states: I was born in Tennessee, but I was born-again in Florida.)
DeleteI was reacting to the map, which does not show Mexico before the Mexican American War, but at least a decade before.
ReplyDeleteI believe your history is a bit off -- Texas achieved their independence in May 1836. However, the borders between Texas and Mexico were in some dispute. Texas became a US state in Dec 1845.
The disputed borders -- Texas claimed up to the Rio Grande River, whereas Mexico claimed to the Nueces River some miles farther east -- had been a bone of contention between Mexico and Texas. After Texas became a state, in early 1846, the Mexican Army ambushed a US Army patrol in the disputed territory killing a dozen soldiers, which was the proximate cause of the war. The US declared war on Mexico in May 1846 (Mexico had declared war earlier in April 1846).
So, when the Mexican American War had started, Texas was already a state which I believe counts as a "part of the United States".
From strictly a numbers standpoint Mexico's territory in square miles (using the modern borders, which may be somewhat debatable).
1835 -- before Texas Independence -- 1,582,400 square miles
1845 -- after Texas Independence -- 1,312,400 square miles (down 17%)
1848 -- after the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago where the US paid for some Mexican Territory -- 788,400 square miles (down 40%)
And we should note, another 30,000 square miles were sold to the US in the Gadsen purchase in 1853 (which was not part of the war, but driven by the US desire to put a southern transcontinental railroad, and Mexico's "President" Santa Ana's need for money to pay his army).
By 1855 Mexico was down to 48% of its territory from early 1835 -- but that was after Texas Succession and the Gadsen Purchase, as well as the Mexican American War.
I think the most important part to remember right now regarding that ongoing history is contained right here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/04/11/mexicans-didnt-immigrate-to-america-weve-always-been-here/#74584e56245d