ChapterTwelve
|
Heritage of Bitterness |
A Permanent Boundary Continued Dispute The Gadsen Treaty |
The Mexican-American War created unparalleled bitterness and hostility toward the United States, not only in Mexico but throughout Latin America. The overwhelming U.S. victory and American treatment of the defeated nation showed Latin Americans a new image of the United States as the Colossus of the North, a great power firmly and arbitrarily imposing its will on weaker, defenseless Latin American nations. All of Latin America, but especially Mexico, was bitter and the bitterness would last well into the twentieth century. Even today, Latin American relationships with the United States are often marred by suspicion and distrust.
The basic instrument of this long-lasting bitterness was the treaty that
ended the Mexican-American War. Negotiations for peace between Mexico
and the United States began, tentatively, before the last battles had
been fought. Both parties wanted desperately to reach an agreement and
began to seek a means of doing so as soon as the outcome of the war was
apparent. But it would not do for the United States to send a high-ranking
diplomat to open talks with a nation rapidly and systematically being
thrashed on the battlefield. Thus President Polk ordered the chief clerk
of the State Department, Nicholas P. Trist, to proceed to Mexico City.
Trist's mission was to initiate peace talks with President Santa Anna
of Mexico. But before he could make much headway, General Winfield Scott's
troops entered Mexico City and Santa Anna's government collapsed.
Trist, ordered to return to Washing-ton, refused to obey. Perhaps he saw a chance to earn recognition, to make a name for himself which would be remembered by future generations. Perhaps he was quite simply an idealist who believed that he could be the architect of a satisfactory and lasting peace between two warring nations. At any rate, he chose to remain in Mexico City. He immediately started negotiating a peace settlement with the new government, and the treaty that finally settled the war was largely the work of this insignificant State Department clerk.
The talks continued throughout the autumn of 1847 and into the winter.
The resulting treaty was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo, a suburb of Mexico
City, on February 2, 1848. Nicholas Trist had succeeded in his self-assigned
task of creating an agreement between the United States and Mexico. Unfortunately,
he is remembered not because of the lasting quality and success of that
agreement but because of its failure. For the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
contained the seeds of bitterness.
The United States, like most nineteenth-century nations, viewed victory
in war as synonymous with territorial gain. Indeed, adding to one's territories
had been the chief purpose of war by "civilized" nations throughout
many past centuries. Consider, for instance, the way Spain and France
had traded Louisiana back and forth at the conclusion of each war between
them (see chapter 6); the acquisition of Canada by England as an outcome
of war with France in the eighteenth century; or American takeover of
Puerto Rico and the Philippines following war with Spain in 1898. The
spoils of victory were almost always territory. Mexico, had she won the
war, probably would have demanded similar concessions from the United
States. But Mexico lost the war and the first purpose of the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo was to turn a vast area of Mexican domain over to the
United States. With the goal of officially gaining the new territory,
the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 10, 1848.
From our point of view today, the ratification seems a farce: only those
articles which won the approval of the senators were ratified and the
document that remains is a patchwork of deleted paragraphs. Thus the treaty
ratified by the United States was not the treaty signed by the Mexicans.
Mexico, in defeat, had little choice but to go along.
By the terms of the treaty, Mexico approved the prior (1845) U.S. annexation
of Texas, thus ending twenty years of squabbling and warfare over the
future of that territory. Furthermore, Mexico ceded a vast expanse of
territory, long coveted by Americans, to the United States. The Mexican
Cession fulfilled the goals of Manifest Destiny, including modern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, and a bit of Wyoming. In
return, the United States agreed to assume the war claims of Americans
against Mexico and to pay Mexico the sum of $15 million. (This was later
amended to $10 million, to be paid in two installments of $7 million and
$3 million, respectively [Faulk, 1967: pp. 133-34].) Mexico thus lost
more than half the territory which had been hers at the time of independence
in 1821. Loss of territory was a bitter pill to swallow, made additionally
so by the discovery of gold in California and subsequent economic development
of the region (chapter 13).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Ridalgo, designed to end the war and increase
the territory of the United States, made certain provisions for future
relationships between the two countries. Its weakness in this respect,
instead of smoothing the path into the future, created new problems, new
animosity. Its architects left loopholes which would lead to future conflicts.
Furthermore, Anglos living in the ceded territories cared little for documents.
They were going to live as they chose, do as they pleased without regard
for a piece of paper. Thus violations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
in spirit and in fact, were a common occurrence from the day it took effect.
The U.S. government, in assuming the new territories, also assumed responsibility for thousands of Mexicans living there. These people were given the choice of either leaving the conquered territory within one year or becoming American citizens. A few, very few, packed up their belongings and trekked south to land still held by Mexico. Most chose to stay in their established homes, seeing very little difference between one government and another. After all, the frontier had always been isolated from the machinery of government and it seemed likely to remain so. By staying, these people, whose ancestors had first been Spanish subjects and later Mexican citizens, now became American citizens. They became a new element in U.S. society-the Mexican Americans.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo bound the United States to protect these
newly acquired citizens and to guarantee their civil rights. It gave the
Mexican Americans the right to retain their language, thus, in theory,
compelling the government to publish its documents and conduct its business
in both Spanish and English and necessitating the establishment of Spanish
classes for Spanish-speaking schoolchildren. It gave them the right to
retain their religion, to worship according to the rites of the Roman
Catholic Church. And it gave them the right to retain their culture, to
follow customs their families had practiced for generations and to celebrate
the traditional fiestas without interference.
Even these basic civil guarantees were soon violated. As we have seen,
the Anglos on the frontier had long before developed a superiority complex.
They generally considered the Mexican a lazy, uncivilized person, reduced
to a state of inferiority by his language, his religion.... and his culture.
In this atmosphere, the Mexican Americans were allowed to worship as they
chose, but they were often ridiculed for doing so. And, in some areas,
aggressive Anglos made it difficult for them to get to church or worked
to drive the Catholic priest out of town.
Soon, English replaced Spanish as the language of the territory. The Mexican
American who did not understand English was completely out of touch with
the powers that controlled his existence. Since he could not understand,
the Anglos were reinforced in their belief that all Mexicans were inferior.
They felt justified in denying an inferior people equal rights. The provisions
of the treaty were first violated and ultimately ignored. The Mexican
American found he was, at best, a second-class citizen of his new country.
The Mexican government, bitter but weak, was powerless to do anything
but complain. Defeated, Mexico had no means of forcing the United States
to enforce the guarantees of the treaty.
Under the terms of the treaty, the United States also accepted the task
of policing the hostile frontier Indians. But the U.S. government was
no more prepared or able to tackle the problem than Spanish or Mexican
authorities had been in the past. For a time, the United States chose
to ignore the Indians of the ceded territory, thus violating the treaty
and incurring the wrath of Mexican officials. This article of the treaty
was of special concern, for the Indians, generally peaceful for long periods
of time, had taken advantage of the chaos and confusion brought about
by war and the transfer of territory. Their attacks grew more fierce,
more devastating. Unchecked, they raided farther south into Mexico.
The Mexican government refused to share the responsibility for control
when Indians attacked deep in Mexican territory. Under the terms of the
treaty, the United States was held responsible for damages. The United
States, on the other hand, was also harassed by the attacks and felt that
Mexico should take a part in the struggle to pacify the Indians, especially
since much of the Indian activity took place well outside of American
jurisdiction. The Indian threat remained a problem until the 1870s and
contributed to strained relations between Mexico and the United States.
Continuing violations of the treaty and a sequence of events not covered
by treaty complicated the situation that developed in the territory of
the Mexican Cession. Loss of territory to a conqueror is always cause
for bitterness. But much of the animosity that developed between conqueror
and conquered after the Mexican-American War might have beer avoided.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
(February 2, 1848)
"Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.
"Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either
retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens
of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their
election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications
of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after
the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to
retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected
to become citizens of the United States.
"In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to
Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present
owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire
said property by contract shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally
ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States."-Article
VIII, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Although this treaty guaranteed the property rights of the former Mexicans,
U.S. officials were reluctant to recognize the validity of Spanish and
Mexican land grants. Newly arrived Americans were accustomed to Anglo-Saxon
legal forms, surveys, and careful documentation. They disregarded the
Mexican system of property laws and settled on the most desirable agricultural
lands. The original landowners were forced to file claims to land their
ancestors had owned for generations. They had to pay surveyors and hire
lawyers who often demanded huge tracts of land for their services. Federal
officials appointed to the territory undermined land grant claims by allowing
documents in colonial and Mexican archives to decay or be sold for scrap.
Many disputed land claims were tied up in the courts for decades and were
generally decided in favor of powerful ranching and mining interests over
land-grant holders.
A major loophole in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo left room for further disagreement between Mexico and the United States. It concerned the establishment of a permanent boundary between the two nations. The treaty did not set that boundary, but merely provided for a joint Mexican-American commission to undertake the task. It is likely that this was left open because the United States, represented by Nicholas Trist, knew very little about the territory in question. Doubtless, the U.S. government wanted to fix a boundary that would be most advantageous to the Americans. This could be done only after a complete study of the area had taken place.
John B. Weller, appointed chief U.S. delegate to the commission, was instructed
to make that study. Before meeting with Mexican commissioners in San Diego,
California, he was directed to collect what information he could on the
precious metals the region offered and on the flora and fauna. He was
instructed to make a map and to recommend sites for a railroad, road,
or canal-whichever would offer the most efficient means of transportation.
All this took many months and produced volumes of documents on the nature
of the territory-documents which had to be carefully examined in Washington
before the commission could proceed.
The joint commission was scheduled to meet in May 1849, more than a year
after the war had ended. But the Americans, traveling from the East Coast,
were stranded in Panama for a month, unable to secure passage to California.
They finally reached San Diego in July and settled down to the tedious
process of carving out a boundary agreement with the Mexican delegates.
The border that the two countries finally agreed upon used the Rio Grande
as its basis. It was decided that the international boundary between Mexico
and the United States would follow the course of the river from the Gulf
of Mexico to El Paso, Texas. (This gave the United States the territory
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, so long disputed by Mexico and
Texas.) From El Paso, where the river turns north, an imaginary line was
drawn straight across and up to the Gila River. The boundary followed
the Gila to the Colorado River. From that point, another imaginary line
was drawn straight across to the Pacific Ocean.
The boundary settlement seemed a logical one to the commissioners who
drew it on the map. It satisfied the Mexicans because it followed, as
much as possible, barriers presented by nature itself. Both delegations
accepted the prevailing philosophy that nations should have "natural
boundaries"-and if a mountain chain or an ocean were not available,
then rivers would have to do.
The Americans were satisfied because the goals of Manifest Destiny had
been achieved. The boundary settlement made a reality of the dream of
American territory from ocean to ocean. But the agreement led to confusion
and formed the basis for heated border disputes in later years. The Rio
Grande-a whimsical river-changed course repeatedly in the years following
the war, as it continues to do today. This made the border a fluid rather
than a stationary line. It also affected the location of the line drawn
from El Paso to the Gila River. When the Rio Grande moved south (and it
should be noted that the change was often only a foot or so), Mexico could
protest that the United States was unfairly adding to it' territory. But
when the river moved north, the United States could use the same argument
against Mexico.
As far as the people who lived in the area were concerned, the border was an artificial barrier, merely a line on the map. People living on either side of the line passed back and forth between the United States and Mexico easily and at will. Rivers present no obstacle to man. The shallow Rio Grande could be waded during most of the year and where the boundary crossed over dry land it was even less meaningful. The boundary line, in places, passed through buildings-stores and even homes-or down the middle of streets in small towns. The people whose homes and businesses straddled the border scorned the foolish decision of some far-off officials who relegated Americans to one side and Mexicans to the other side of the imaginary line. They continued to live on both sides, visiting their friends and families, conducting their business, farming their land.
Life went on as it had for generations. Neither government could control
the entry of "aliens" into its territory. The U.S. Border Patrol,
intended to assume this task, was not established until 1924. And in the
more than seventy years prior to its establishment, the easy flow of humanity
back and forth across the border provided a constant source of conflict
between bureaucracies headquartered in distant cities.
Expansionist propaganda in the United States soon compounded the growing
boundary dispute by demanding an additional territorial gain. A significant
number of Americans still believed that the United States should have
annexed all of Mexico at the end of the war. Several additional factors
led to the development of fevered anti-Mexican sentiment during the middle
of the century. In the first place, Americans grew increasingly resentful
of Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which held the United
States financially liable for Indian raids in Mexico. Secondly, the gold
rush was on in California (chapter 13) and one of the choice routes for
reaching the gold fields was to sail south from New York or Boston, journey
by foot across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico, and board
a ship for California on the Pacific side. But Mexican officials, bitter
over the outcome of the war, were less than friendly to American gold
prospectors. They either denied the Americans permission to land in Mexico
or harassed them throughout their overland journey, confiscating goods
and supplies, arbitrarily jailing the travelers.
The gold rush added still another, more compelling motivation for U.S.
expansion. Americans demanded quick, effective transportation to California.
The logical solution to the problem of getting to the gold fields was
to build a railroad across the continent. And the most sensible route
for a railroad was across terrain with no mountains, few rivers and few
hills. The ideal route included a direct line across a stretch of land
to the south of the Gila River-land that belonged to Mexico. By the early
1850s, acquiring that stretch of land had become of primary importance
for the United States.
The U.S. government sent James Gadsden to Mexico in 1853. His mission was to settle the boundary dispute with Mexico and all other difficulties. Through this man the United States negotiated the purchase of that sandy strip of land south of the Gila River (Hicks and Mowry, 1956: p.312). (Incidentally, the Gadsden Purchase included the town of Mesilla, founded by Mexicans who had chosen to leave the territory won by the United States in the Mexican American War.)
But the Gadsden Treaty represented far more than a mere purchase of land.
It was, in essence, a renegotiation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
It included settlement of a number of new issues, such as establishing
the rights of Americans to cross the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the resumption
of trade between Mexico and the United States. But its real importance
was in its amendments to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. On the one hand,
the Gadsden Treaty reaffirmed the civil rights of the Mexican Americans
and pledged the United States to guarantee their land titles. On the other
hand, it reduced the payment due Mexico for the ceded territory. Whereas
the original treaty had set the U.S. debt at $15 million, the Gadsden
Treaty reduced that to $10 million (Faulk, 1967: p. 134).
Santa Anna-once again returned to power in Mexico-needed money so badly
that he agreed to the new terms. Gadsden had been instructed to secure
the release of the United States from Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo-the article making the United States financially liable for Indian
raids on Mexico. But some compromise was necessary. Gadsden therefore
agreed that the United States should accept $5 million in Mexican claims
for Indian damages (ibid.). When it came up for ratification, the U.S.
Senate struck the clause from the Gadsden Treaty and extinguished all
Mexican claims while at the same time retaining American claims against
Mexico. The Mexican government accepted the revised Gadsden Treaty. It
had little choice. Rejection would likely mean another war and Mexico,
still weakened from her previous encounter with the United States, could
scarcely risk another defeat.
Thus the United States reduced Mexico to the status of a conquered, ineffective
nation. The bitterness of defeat would mar relationships between the two
countries for many years. More importantly, the bitterness was transferred
to the people who shared the ceded territory-the Mexicans and Americans
who now found themselves citizens of the same country.
REFERENCES
Faulk, Odie B. Too Far North, Too Far South. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1967.
Hicks, John D., and Mowry, George E. A Short History of American Democracy. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1956.
 |
 |
 |