Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

by John J. Miller on January 28, 2010 · 5 comments

in Uncategorized

  • SumoMe

WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 1998

A DEFINING TREATY FOR NATION’S DESTINY

JOHN J. MILLER


This week marks the 150th anniversary of the largest expansion of U.S. territory since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. But you probably won’t hear much about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War and delivered the American Southwest to the United States – at least nothing good.Many modern historians now consider it a shameful episode of our nation’s past, an act of irredeemable imperialism in which a big and brutish (and white) country beat up a small and helpless (and Latino) one. Hispanic magazine recently labeled the treaty a blatant “land grab.” Latino activists regularly plead their hardships by chanting “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.”

The treaty, however, deserves to be honored as one of the great American accomplishments of the 19th century, the single most important step in fulfilling the United States’ Manifest Destiny as a country spreading across a continent from sea to shining sea. It placed an enormous amount of mostly unsettled land within the jurisdiction of the United States, including all of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, and Wyoming – thereby securing the benefits of peace, prosperity, and American citizenship for the region’s future inhabitants, who today number more than 40 million. At a minimum, you would think, the treaty should have a commemorative stamp for its sesquicentennial, or at least a congressionally mandated national awareness day.Unfortunately, it has neither. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo suffers from an ignominious reputation nowadays because it appears to dramatize the complaints of discrimination and mistreatment routinely made on behalf of Hispanics by their self-appointed civil rights leaders. Just as African-Americans must overcome the far-reaching legacy of slavery, the thinking goes, so must Mexican-Americans persevere in a country that stole their ancestors’ land.

Yet the story of how America grew is much more complicated than that. In the early 1840s, the whole American West was sparsely settled, largely unmapped, and politically unorganized. The overlapping territorial claims of Great Britain, Mexico and the United States spawned international intrigue. The United States sent diplomats to Mexico City offering to buy much of the Southwest. Great Britain and the United States quarreled over where to draw lines in the Pacific Northwest. Mexico repeatedly threatened to invade the newly independent country of Texas, which had just won its freedom at the Battle of San Jacinto. Great Britain sent emissaries to Texas, urging it to reject annexation into the United States in return for a brokered peace with Mexico. Russia loomed in the background as a constant threat, too.

Mexico’s grip on its far northern frontier was incredibly weak. It had inherited the land claims made by 16th-century Spanish explorers, who were followed over the next three centuries by a trickle of colonists. The central government was highly unstable. After Mexico’s independence in 1821, every constitutionally elected president, with one exception, had fallen to a coup. Geographic isolation also made political control almost impossible. Mexico had so little influence over the north, writes historian David J.Weber of Southern Methodist University, that its “frontier society [was] more fluid and open to new ideas, new people, and new initiatives.”

This openness allowed Americans to begin settling the region in large numbers, especially in Texas. “Where others send invading armies,” complained the Mexican secretary of state, “[the Americans] send their colonists.” Mexico actually banned immigration to Texas from the United States in 1830. The law appears to have had no practical effect, however, because the Americans kept on coming. These newcomers helped Texas forge strong commercial ties with the United States, fueling the drive for independence in 1836 and statehood nine years later. Armed revolts against the government also erupted in California and New Mexico, although only the Texans broke away from Mexico. For the others, it seemed simply a matter of time.

Thanks to skillful diplomacy on both sides, Great Britain and the United States were able to settle many of their differences at the bargaining table by establishing a border at the 49th parallel that remains in effect today. British jingoists, however, called for seizing California. President James K. Polk was desperate to prevent this from happening. He sent troops to a contested section of the border along the Rio Grande. Polk’s message to Mexico in 1846 was clear: Sell now or prepare to fight.

The Mexicans decided to fight. They attacked, sparking a war that led to their humiliating defeat within 18 months. The only question during the peace negotiations was how much land they would forfeit the United States and for how much money. Although they eventually ceded vast holdings, many considered them lucky to keep what they did. They probably would have lost Baja California, for example, if they had not intercepted private correspondence marking the peninsula an American objective but not a deal breaker.

Even if the Mexican War had been avoided, or if the Mexicans had managed to win a few of the battles, the end result probably would not have been greatly different. The American Southwest wasn’t so much torn away from a persecuted Mexico as irresistibly drawn into an expanding United States. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo simply formalized the inevitable. And this week we should celebrate its birthday.

  • V Davisson

    When Mexico was on the verge of defaulting on its loan (huge portions of which were held by Goldman Sachs, if I recall correctly), Robert Rubin the Treasury Secretary at the time lobbied for a bailout (how handy, as he was a GS alumni). I thought at the time, why not take BC as payment in full for the loan instead? I’d have allowed all Mexicans living in BC to become citizens of the US. Another missed opportunity…

  • Sherman Logan

    It is fair to point out that the belief America’s war with Mexico was not justified is not limited to the 21st or even ther 20th centuries.

    The notion was widespread at the time the war was being fought,even among some of the American fighting in the war. Among those who believed the war to be unjust were Abraham Lincoln, a congressman from Illinois who lost re-election for his stand, and US Grant, a young lieutenant in the US Army.

    It is also notable that this is the only American war in which a significant number of our soldiers deserted to and fought for the other side.

  • tom cuddihy

    Sherman logan said “It is also notable that this is the only American war in which a significant number of our soldiers deserted to and fought for the other side.”

    Utter B.S. Got a cite or reference?

  • http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com Patrick Sweeney

    Actually it is well documented in all the accounts of the Mexican War that there were many desertions. The lessons learned from these desertions helped unit cohesion and morale for both sides later in the American Civil War.

    Enlisted men was treated with contempt by officers and denied supplies. Discrimination was rampant and especially against the largest minority then in the United States Army, Irish Catholics. See “Saint Patrick’s Battalion” (Spanish: “Batallón de San Patricio”) Men who had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States and fought against it were correctly convicted as traitors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bobby-Dias/100000245908313 Bobby Dias

    There is one mistake that many people make, including John J. Miller- that the ceding of claims by Mexico to those territories mean the same as Mexico having possession or ownership of the territories to cede? ONE president of Mexico writes a bunch of deeds and edicts- but NO MEXICAN did anything about it! In California the Mexican army’s general did not even try to take anything- while a California army went and captured Mexico City and Mexico’s government! They were not weak-those mexicans did not possess anything to cede to anybody! In the treaty they promised to stop the noise they were making! The only property transfer is at the Mexico-United States border nex to the ocean. The United States paid Mexico to move the mexicans living there to the other side of the borders. Look close for the remnants of old buildings there.

Previous post:

Next post: