Chapter 11
| Manifest Destiny The Monroe Doctrine Annexation of Texas |
California: Prelude to War Mexican-American War Santa Anna |
In 1845 the summer issue of United States Magazine and Democratic Review contained an article which defended the annexation of Texas by the United States. The anonymous author upheld "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our multiplying millions."
The phrase "manifest destiny" became a popular catchword in
American history. With it people expressed their view that the territory
of the United States should stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans.
Politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties, journalists,
and others used this phrase in the nineteenth century to stir up the imagination
of the American people to make other territorial annexations appealing
to them. The acquiring of Mexican territory after the Mexican War (1846-1848),
the dispute with Great Britain over Oregon boundaries, the Alaska Purchase
of 1 867-all fell under the call of Manifest Destiny-the belief the United
States was destined by the will of God to expand its boundaries to their
natural limits.
The Ultimate Violence
The presence of large numbers of American settlers in Mexican territory was bound to create interest in that territory on the part of the U.S. government. But at least three other factors augmented that interest: American expansionism, the Monroe Doctrine, and the slavery issue.
Expansionism
Expansionism was an integral part of nineteenth-century American life. From the earliest days of English colonization, land hunger and population pressure had driven people westward, away from the settled regions of the Atlantic seaboard. Within a few years of independence, American citizens had come to believe that they had an unalienable, God-given right to occupy all the territory between the two great oceans, and that it was essential for them to do so.
This dogma, soon to be named Manifest Destiny, was in part the outgrowth
of the aggressive nationalism of a young and still weak nation. But it
was also based on myth. The population of the United States grew by leaps
and bounds during those first few decades of independent life. It was
thought that if the rate of population increase continued the existing
territory of the United States would not be sufficient to house and feed
the nation.
This frightening thought turned the eyes of the nation westward, toward
vast expanses of sparsely populated or even uninhabited land. The fact
that the land was held by Indians or, in the Southwest, Indians and Spanish-Mexican
colonists, made little difference. The early nineteenth-century American
quite simply believed that people inhabiting the land he wanted would
have to move out of the way to make room for the multiplying millions.
His attitudes were much like those of European colonists-Spanish as well
as English-of an earlier century: the land, if he could conquer it, was
rightfully his; and if he won it, he had proven his innate superiority
over the conquered people.
Thus the Americans moved slowly westward, pushing the Indians farther
and farther toward the interior of the continent, finally reaching territories
held by another sovereign nation, Mexico. The Americans began settling
on Mexican lands in large numbers during the 1820s. The early Anglo settlers
often accepted Mexican citizenship, became Roman Catholics, even adopted
Spanish names. But the U.S. government did not accept this renunciation
of its authority and soon began to seek ways of bringing the territories
under its own control.
The Monroe Doctrine further contributed to U.S. interest in Mexican territory. Proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1824, it pledged U.S. protection for newly independent Latin American republics. It stated that the United States would never allow a European power to intervene in the affairs of the American nations or to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere. Monroe promised that the Latin Americans could count on the United States to defend their freedom from that day forward. This was the essence of Latin American-U.S. relations for many years to come; indeed, it still plays a definite role in those relations.
European powers tested the Monroe Doctrine repeatedly during the nineteenth
century, and until late in the century, the United States was rarely strong
enough to keep them from doing exactly as they pleased. In the 1840s,
this testing served to further U.S. interest in Mexico's frontier territories.
England negotiated the armistice between Texas and Mexico in 1843 and
it was soon evident that she had designs for bringing Texas under her
own protection. The United States, which had shown interest in purchasing
Texas as early as 1827 (chapter 10), saw England as a rival. British activity
in Texas was a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and, more important, a
threat to U.S. security. The threat of European colonization, whether
fanciful or realistic, quickly renewed American interest in Texas.
The Slavery Issue
Perhaps the most powerful motive behind the U.S. desire for the acquisition of new territory was the slavery issue. By the early years of the nineteenth century, the United States was rapidly being divided into two opposing camps: those who would abolish slavery and those who favored perpetuating it. As it turned out, the division occurred on a regional basis-the industrial, free-labor North versus the plantation, slave-economy South. The Constitution of the United States had given slave states the right to count three-fifths of the slaves (who, of course, could not vote and had no rights of citizenship) in determining the number of representatives each state would send to Washington. As a result, the southern states dominated the House of Representatives. They had an equal voice in the Senate (where each state has two senators) as long as the number of slave and free states remained equal. Naturally, it was important to both South and North to bring new states into the Union on their side and so increase their political power.
Texas-Mexican Texas-soon became the center of the controversy. The early
Austin settlers had come from Missouri, a slave state. They brought their
slaves with them, in defiance of Mexican law. Shortly, as the cotton kingdom
moved westward, other southerners settled in east Texas. And they, too,
brought slaves to tend and pick the cotton. Anglo Texans, frustrated in
their dealings with the Mexican government (chapter 10), had sought to
join the United States in the 1830s. But if Texas entered the Union it
would do so as a slave state, giving pro-slavery forces an advantage in
the Senate as well as the House. Northern opposition, combined with desire
to avoid conflict with Mexico, led the United States to refuse the Texans'
request for annexation. But in the next few years, as abolitionist power
increased, it became very important to the South to bring Texas into the
Union. Texas as a slave state represented security for the South, a deterrent
to any House or Senate vote to abolish slavery. By 1842, this was a critical
issue-the predominant issue in American politics.
Texas acted as a catalyst. All the elements which argued for U.S. takeover of the region were present in Texas: Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, and the slavery issue. But Texas statehood presented a problem very different from any the United States had so far experienced. New states to the east and north were simply attached to the United States without fanfare. American settlers had moved into the territory, driven out or subdued the Indians, and claimed basically unsettled, unattached lands for their country. Such areas were generally homogeneous, strictly American territories by the time they entered the union. But Texas was an independent republic, claiming sovereignty in its own right. Moreover, it was a republic still claimed by Mexico, the mother country, which refused to recognized its independence. Nor was Texas homogeneous. Its population, while overwhelmingly American, also contained blacks, Mexicans, and Indians. The United States government hesitated to adopt this melee of peoples and their social and political problems.
While the Senate and House of Representatives pondered, the Republic of
Texas became increasingly nationalistic. Once independence was won, in
1836, he Anglo Texans considered it less important to become part of the
United States. The desire for U.S. protection faded. The feeling that
they could make t on their own gained favor after Texas tried to borrow
money from the United States and was refused. As the weeks and months
passed, the Texans found them-elves less and less in need of U.S. sup-port.
Indeed, in some quarters, anti-U.S. sentiment was growing. After all,
if the Texans really needed aid, it was evident hat they could turn to
England. But few Texans expected to need assistance. They were a self-assured
lot, confident hat, having defeated Mexico once, they had nothing to fear
in the future.
Independence had not brought peace, however. The vast territory between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande was still in dispute, claimed by both Texas
and Mexico. Neither country was strong enough to assert itself and make
good its claim. Some Texans actually wanted to wage war on Mexico. They
thought their chances of victory good, for Mexico was shaken by civil
war in the years immediately following the battle at San Jacinto. But
in reality, the Texans-disorganized and inefficiently governed-were not
strong enough to prevent even a seriously weakened Mexico from using the
disputed territory. The inability of the Republic of Texas to pursue its
aims was clearly demonstrated when, in a single day in 1842, Mexican troops
captured three garrisons held by the Texans. They withdrew two days later,
but the warning was clear: Mexico, weakened though she was, possessed
greater military power than the fledgling republic. Threats and attacks
and ugly words passed between the two countries in the early 1840s. But
it was apparent to most outsiders that Mexico and Texas were mere lambs
pretending to be lions.
In the U.S. annexation became the central campaign issue of the 1844 presidential
election. The election of the annexation candidate, James K. Polk, was
seen as a victory for the expansionists-a mandate from the American people
to bring Texas into the Union. Mexico had declared that any attempt to
annex Texas would be considered an act of war, but Americans paid little
attention. On February 25, 1845, the House of Representatives voted to
offer the Republic of Texas statehood. A few days later the Senate agreed,
and on July 4, the Texas Congress accepted the offer. To some people-anti-expansionists-it
seemed sheer folly: the United States daring Mexico to go to war.
Whether Mexico would have gone to war for Texas alone-a Texas already
lost-is a question that cannot be answered. Some compromise might have
been reached, diplomacy might have averted the sword. Mexico declared
she did not want to engage in a war, but events in California damaged
relations between Mexico and the United States to a point beyond repair.
The United States had long been interested in acquiring California, a territory with rich agricultural potential which could also provide a window to the Pacific. During the 1830s, this desire took the form of a diplomatic campaign in which the United States sought to negotiate to purchase the territory. But in 1842, progress in that direction halted abruptly, thanks to the activities of Commodore Thomas Catesby Jones of the U.S. Navy.
Relations between Mexico and the United States had already been strained
to the breaking point over Texas. Commodore Jones, in Callao, Peru, received
a false report that war had broken out. His source further claimed that
Mexico planned to cede California to England, thus keeping the territory
out of American hands. On the basis of this information, the commodore
ordered his fleet north to join the war effort. On October 18, 1842, he
captured Monterey, California, with its presidio and customshouse, and
raised the American flag. Only at that point, evidently, did he learn
that his country was not at war. Jones withdrew, apologizing profusely.
The governor of California accepted the apology and there was little ill
will felt in the province. However, the incident infuriated officials
in Mexico City and the Mexican government immediately broke off all negotiations
for the sale of California to the United States. In so doing, Mexico perhaps
underrated American determination.
The U.S. government, it seemed, was willing to employ subversion to bring
California under its control, and this activity further deteriorated relationships
between the United States and Mexico. The first effort was an attempt
to create a group of supporters, in effect a fifth column, among the Californians
themselves. In 1845, the State Department sent an agent, Thomas O. Larkin,
to California to encourage the Californians to look to the United States
for counsel and assistance" (Cleland, 1962: p.98). Larkin won leading
Californians Mariano Vallejo and General Jose Castro over to his cause.
Together they plotted to make California an independent republic. Larkin
probably planned to create a second Texas and thought beyond independence
to the time when California could be convinced to join the Union. Many
Californians, and there were relatively few Anglos in the population,
supported the notion of independence. But they soon shifted their position
and Larkin's efforts proved worthless.
The change in sentiment was the direct result of the aggressive activities
of John C. Fremont. We may never know how much support Fremont had from
the U.S. government. It seems probable that he at least had unspoken,
official approval. It also seems likely that he had the financial backing
of John Sutter (chapter 9). At any rate, Fremont was an adventurer par
excellence. He led armed expeditions into California and few Californians
doubted what his main purpose was-conquest and self-aggrandizement. He
aroused their fear and suspicion more than any other single man or government
had done, and fear of Fremont soon became fear of all Americans.
For a time Fremont wandered about the valleys of central California, since
he had promised the governing elements in California he would stay away
from the coast-the militarily strategic coastline. But he soon chose to
ignore the pledge. In February 1846, he marched to the Salinas Valley
and established his camp within striking distance of the presidio at Monterey.
General Jose Castro ordered Fremont to leave the province. Instead, the
adventurer moved his camp to a stronger position. Castro gathered his
cavalry and militia and prepared for battle, but neither force attacked.
On March 9, during the night, Fremont broke camp and silently stole away
to Oregon. The whole incident merely served as another irritant. The Californians
were angered, alienated from the Americans, and any chance of peaceful
annexation of California by the United States disintegrated. Moreover,
Anglos and Mexicans living in California were now at swords' points.
The clash came on June 10, 1846. On that date the Anglo settlers of the
Sacramento Valley, led by Ezekiel Merritt, revolted against the government
of California. The uprising was very efficiently organized and it seems
likely that John C. Fremont, returned from Oregon, had a role in planning
it. The rebels marched under a banner with the crude figure of a bear
on it, a standard which gave the incident its name: the Bear Flag Revolt.
They seized a band of horses General Castro had gathered and raced to
the town of Sonoma. There they captured Mariano Vallejo and carried him
to Sutter's Fort, where he was imprisoned for the next several months.
This accomplished, the rebels declared independence and proclaimed their
Bear Flag Republic.
The Bear Flag Revolt was little more than a diversion. By the time it broke out, Mexican authorities in California were occupied with a far more serious problem. Mexico, pressed to the extreme by U.S. subversion, had declared war on the United States two months earlier. The threat of American armies and the prospect of hard-fought battles left the authorities all across the frontier little time to deal with internal disorders.
Both sides began to prepare many months before war was declared. In March
1845, after the U.S. Senate approved statehood for Texas, Mexico broke
diplomatic relations with the United States and declared that she considered
the annexation of Texas a hostile act. The United States added insult
to injury when President Polk began to entertain the idea of acquiring
all the land to the west of Texas-unwarranted aggression in Mexico's eyes.
Then, in July, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to lead his army to
Corpus Christi, Texas, on the Nueces River.
Officially, General Taylor was sent to Corpus Christi on a non-aggressive
mission-to guard Texas against attack. Unofficially, the mission was a
show of power, intended to frighten Mexico. But what a strange show of
power! Taylor led one of the most motley armies imaginable. Mid-nineteenth-century
armies were generally made up of volunteers. The U.S. Army paid its regular
soldiers a pal-try seven dollars a month (Horgan, 1954: p.666) and attracted
the dregs of society-escaped criminals, vagabonds, and adventurers. These
soldiers were generally crude and tactless, seldom clean, and always arrogant.
Their personal habits aside, they had one major failing as a fighting
force: very few were trained in the arts of warfare. No wonder, then,
that the Mexican government, hearing reports of Taylor's army, refused
to be intimidated.
War fever spread rapidly in Mexico. Then a coup d'etat brought an out-and-out
warmonger, General Mariano Paredes y Arillago, to the presidency. The
Paredes government sneered when the United States, still attempting to
purchase the territory, offered Mexico $25 million dollars for a Rio Grande
boundary and all lands west to the Pacific, and furthermore agreed to
pay Mexican claims against Texans (Horgan, 1954: p.606). Diplomacy had
reached an impasse.
Polk's reaction was swift. He ordered Taylor's army to proceed to the
Rio Grande, across the disputed territory claimed by both Mexico and Texas.
Obviously, Mexico might consider this a violation of her territorial rights,
an invasion by foreign troops. Still Mexico did not declare war. Taylor
arrived at the Rio Grande in late March 1846, and the two armies settled
down to wait, facing each other across the river. Each examined the other,
measuring fighting capabilities. Like cats stalking a mouse, they paced
their respective sides of the river, waiting for the other to make the
first move. The soldiers themselves developed a sort of friendly rivalry,
shouting back and forth across the river, sometimes even socializing.
But for the officers, the wait was a battle of nerves. Each side hoped
to provoke the other and Taylor finally succeeded in causing the Mexicans
to attack. On April 11, General Pedro de Ampudia of the Mexican Army arrived
at Matamoros and demanded that the Americans retreat to the Nueces River.
When Taylor refused, Mexican troops crossed the river. In retaliation,
the U.S. Navy blockaded the mouth of the Rio Grande, thus cutting off
Ampudia's access to the sea. On April 23, Mexico declared that a state
of "defensive war existed. The long-sought war had begun.
The Mexicans entered the war confident of victory. The troops Mexico had
massed on the frontier were superior in numbers-three or four times as
many men as in Taylor's army. And the Mexicans knew the desert terrain
while the Americans did not. But they did not count on the fantastic effort
the United States would put into this "little war." The U.S.
Congress, in declaring war, authorized a volunteer army of fifty thousand
men and appropriated ten million dollars to pay the costs of war. It soon
became apparent that Mexico had no chance against the military machine
of the United States.
Many Americans had wanted war. Most wanted to fulfill the dream of Manifest
Destiny. But a few intellectuals began to see Mexico as a lamb being led
to the slaughter and led the first antiwar protest in American history.
Future leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant protested that
the war was unfair and unjust-a case of a strong nation bullying and taking
advantage of a weak one. Lincoln, a young man, refused to serve in the
army that would fight the Mexicans. Henry David Thoreau, the philosopher,
went to jail rather than pay taxes to support the war effort. When his
poet friend Ralph Waldo Emerson asked what he was doing in jail, Thoreau
responded by asking Emerson what he was doing out of jail. But the protesters
were in the minority. The majority of Americans, like the Mexicans, were
stricken with war fever. They fervently believed that Mexico, by standing
in the way of the goals of Manifest Destiny, had wronged the United States
and must be punished.
California Contest
The war was short, as wars go. The first decisive U.S. victory was in California. Early in July 1846-just weeks after the Bear Flag Revolt broke out-a U.S. naval force, under the command of Commodore John Sloat, captured Monterey and declared California an American possession. American forces occupied San Diego and Los Angeles, forcing California leaders (including the nimble General Jos& Castro) to flee to Mexico. Bewildered Mexicans fought bitterly to save Los Angeles. Some five hundred to six hundred patriots, led by Jose Maria Flores, forced the Americans to withdraw from the city, and Los Angeles was not really subdued until after the war was over. But by the end of summer Mexico realized she had lost California.
Occupation of New Mexico
The war in New Mexico was similarly short. American forces marched to Santa Fe, the capital city, and raised the American flag. The occupation was bloodless, meeting little resistance. Few New Mexicans greeted the arriving troops; most stayed hidden in their homes and Santa Fe that day was a quiet town, the silence broken only by the sound of marching fret. Some have speculated that the New Mexicans may have welcomed American forces since these forces would provide a measure of protection against advancing Texans (chapter 10). Moreover, it is p05sible that any resistance was squelched by Governor Manuel Armijo, who reportedly received a large sum of money from an American agent in return for promising to hand New Mexico over peacefully. In any case, the Americans quickly established a military government in Santa Fe, promising to honor the civil and religious rights of New Mexicans. General Kearny, in charge of the American force, kept his word. But the peace was short-lived.
Despite their apparent apathy, the New Mexicans did manage to organize
a revolt at Taos in January 1847. The rebels killed Americans and any
Mexicans who accepted American rule. The first American civil governor,
Charles Bent, was assassinated in the uprising. It was a bloody affair,
but quickly suppressed. Donaciano Vigil, a wealthy New Mexican appointed
acting governor, soon restored order. The priest who allegedly instigated
the revolt, Father Jose Antonio Martinez, was suspended and later excommunicated,
for other reasons. New Mexico, like California, was firmly in American
hands.
Fighting in Mexico
The United States pursued the war to the very heart of Mexico. Indeed some Americans were beginning to believe that \4cexico itself should be annexed to the United States. After all, they said, Mexico is part of North America; since it is our Manifest Destiny to control the entire continent, this necessarily includes Mexico. The U.S. government was unwilling to go quite so far, its main goal being merely to bring Mexico to her knees and conquer the Mexican frontier provinces. To achieve this, Mexican ports-especially the chief port of Veracruz-were blockaded. The action cut off Mexico from trade and overseas assistance and served to destroy the country's already shaky economy.
War brought severe economic hardship to Mexico as well as renewed political
chaos. In 1847, President Paredes was ousted and Antonio L6pez de Santa
Anna once more returned to power. Internal disruption was so great that
Mexico was ready for peace by the time General Windield Scott led the
American armies into the Valley of Mexico in the summer of 1847. The United
States was also ready to end the conflict, as war was becoming an ever
heavier burden.
An armistice was announced on August 24, 1847. But the Mexicans, fighting
for survival as a nation, used the ceasefire to reinforce their troops
and fortify their positions. Consequently, General Scott chose to end
the armistice. On September 14, his troops stormed the fortress of Chapultepec
Castle on the outskirts of Mexico City.
Chapultepec Castle was manned only by military cadets-mere students. These
brave young men barricaded themselves behind the heavy walls, and from
that p0sition fought a heroic and bitter battle. Outnumbered by the enemy
in both men and ammunition, the students literally fought to the death.
And when it was clear that their cause was lost, those who had survived
jumped from the windows of the castle, preferring to die on the rocks
below rather than accept defeat and imprisonment by the Americans. Thus
the cadets, the ninos heroes, earned their place among Mexico's most honored
pat-riots.
To all intents and purposes the war was over. Scott led his victorious
army into Mexico City and Santa Anna's government fell, heralding the
end of all resistance. Scarcely a year and a half had passed since Mexican
troops had crossed the Rio Grande at Matamoros. And the American dream
of controlling all the territory from the Atlantic to Pacific was about
to be realized.
Antonio López de Santa Anna was born into a bourgeois Mexican family and trained at an early age for a military career. He was seventeen when he was first sent to the northern provinces to fight Indians. He advanced rapidly through the ranks while putting down the forces of Hidalgo, Morelos, and other rebels who fought for independence from the weak Spanish government in the years between 1811 and 1821.
When a harsh government came into power in Spain, Santa Anna quickly changed
his allegiance to the rebel cause and was promoted to general. He acquired
a reputation for bravery, daring, and ruthlessness in defeating the Spaniards
and through taking part in many of the squabbles and internal uprisings
that beset the early years of the Mexican republic. During his first term
as president of Mexico he personally led Mexican troops at the battle
of the Alamo, but was later captured by the Texans and eventually was
returned to Mexico temporarily shorn of his power.
The loss of a leg in 1838 while repelling French invaders once again made
him a national hero, and propelled him to the dictatorship of the country.
In his up and down career he was the Mexican head of state on four different
occasions. Whenever he fell from power, such as after losing the war with
the U.S. from 1846-48, Santa Anna would retire to his ranch until he slowly
became embroiled in another political intrigue.
He spent many of his later years in exile, but died on Mexican soil in
1876 at the age of 82.
REFERENCES
Cleland, Robert Glass. From Wittletness to Empire: A History of California
New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1962.
Horgan, Paul. Creat River: The Rio Grande in North American History.
2 vols. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1954.
Rosenbaum, Robert J. Mexicano Resistance in the Southwest Austin: University
 |
 |
 |