Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Collin Lindo
HI 498
9/29/09
#5 The Loss of Mexico’s Northern Frontier
Under Mexico outlines the various lands which constituted Mexico’s northern frontier,
and what led to their eventual rebellion and/or acquisition by the United States
Government. Of particular interest in Weber’s work are the states of Texas, California,
and New Mexico. Arizona is covered briefly but not to a sufficient degree in comparison.
While Mexico would eventually lose these states in rapid succession, must not be quick
to group them together as a single entity. Each entered into the United States as a result
of drastically different histories and numerous factors many of which are still hotly
debated to this very day. Weber attempts to provide a conclusive study of the cultural,
socio-economical, racial and political make-up of each state as well as the many events
that occurred in shaping their histories in an attempt to provide the reader with a better
understanding of what led to their secession, and what exactly it meant for the nations
Of great interest in Weber’s work is the state of Texas. Texas led the way in
establishing large Anglo settlements as well as being the first to successfully secede and
form an independent republic. As vast numbers of colonists crossed the Louisiana border
into Texas, many Mexican officials feared the eventual results from the onset. While they
were considered illegal residents, Mexico lacked the manpower and oversight too see to it
that they were expelled. Many thought the potential benefits of populating Mexico with
settlers who could fight of intrusion from Indians and the United States
2
Government far outweighed their fears of losing Texas. Still others feared what may
become of Texas as Anglo immigrants poured in with their own unique cultural and
As empresario grants were issued, many thought that Texas should counterbalance
the Anglo immigration by offering incentive for Mexican families to relocate to Texas.
The incentive seemed irrelevant to many who had no desire to leave behind their homes
and way of life to live the harsh frontier life. Also convicts and their families would be
sent to Texas as was the practice in California. This plan was never practiced for reasons
unknown.1 Many in California had resented its status as a Mexican penal colony, this
might have played some role in Texas not acquiring significant amounts of convicts and
their families.
outnumbered that of the Mexican and Tejano. Eventually a revolt would occur that had
been years in the making. Weber make the point that “if ‘to govern is to populate,’ it also
seems true in the case of Texas that ‘to populate is to govern.’”2 The point being that
Texas could no longer be governed by Mexico, it was a land filled with Americans who
had brought with them their own distinct notions of land and government. Mexico had
lost authority by sheer numbers, and their attempts to combat this reality backfired into
As Texas had gained independence many talked of other states such as New
1 David J. Weber, The Mexican Frontier:1821-1846, (University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque,
1982), 172.
2 Weber, The Mexican Frontier, 178.
Mexico and California playing the “Texas Game.” While New Mexico and California
boasted growing Anglo populations, they were not comparable to Texas prior to the
secession. Many hoped after Texas’ Independence that Anglo settlers would pour into
these states and repeat what Texas had done. However, as Weber points out, “That
American settlers did not flow into California and New Mexico and repeat the “Texas
Game” prior to the 1840’s owed more to happenstance than it did to a concerted Mexican
A major factor that made settlement less likely west of Texas was that of the
foreign geography and dangers present in encountering militant Indian groups along the
way.4 Even without these concerns the land itself posed great threats with its dreadfully
hot and rough barren terrain for miles on end. Very few settlements existed to aid the
traveler along the way. Those who did make it to California were aided by the local
Government.
Many colonists were successful in trades and businesses and attempted to interest
fellow Americans to join them, while the Mexican government simultaneously attempted
to dissuade them. Early on California had more of a diverse cultural background and
intermarriage was quite common, but it did not last. Cheap land became a major factor
for Anglo immigration in the 1840’s. The new settlers came with no intention of
assimilating into Mexican culture or cooperating under Mexican rule. As these new
immigrants arrived they had a sufficient enough population to play their own “Texas
States had a plan of its own and had entered into war with Mexico, its fate would be out
New Mexico differed greatly from Texas and California. It’s makeup consisted of
large numbers of poor mixed-race peoples, many of whom had little to no stake in
matters of the state such as politics. Fewer numbers of Anglo settlers stayed in New
Mexico, and those who did had minimal effect in its governing. Mexico attempted to
control Mexico through a series of governors, many of whom advocated strict rule over
its peoples mandated by the central government. Federalists and centralists alike found
New Mexico extremely difficult to govern and often fled if they were not pushed out or
executed. Rebellion was constant, however secession was threatened. New Mexico was
Even the United States experienced uprisings when the attempt was made to annex the
state.
Common among The Mexican frontier was a shift in society and culture under
Mexican rule. Weber notes the various changes that took place following the demise of
Spanish rule. Of importance was the differing racial and class distinctions which
emerged after Mexican rule. Under Spanish rule these distinctions had carried much less
weight. As the economy changed and industry and trade prospered wealth began to form
a distinction.6 Those with material wealth were now seen as superior to those without.
lighter skin, racism and separatism began to experience a resurgence during Mexican
rule. Weber accounts for this change in strengthening the system of debt peonage in
which lower classes would share a similar status to that of slaves.7 Similar to today,
modes of dress and housing began to display class distinctions as well. A person’s worth
and place in society was becoming tied to outward appearances. Nowhere was this more
visible than the attire of upper class women. They too had seen great changes come with
In fact, the only upside Weber mentions is the growing power of women under
Mexican rule. They had rights to land and property ownership, and were allowed to bring
cases to court. Many widows enjoyed great wealth and prominence which had not been a
possibility under Spanish rule. Many worked trades or in the fields in order to turn a
profit. “It seems likely, therefore, that frontier conditions mitigated against female
societies.”8
Weber attempts to outline the catalysts for the rebellions of the separate states. In
Texas the groundwork for a revolution had already been laid, all it took was a legitimate
threat to rally the Texans to arms, and it came after the massacre in Zacatecas. “Reports
of the impending “invasion” by the centralist forces, fueled by rumors that they would
free black slaves, enslave Texans, and lay waste to Texas as they had to Zacatecas, united
the war and peace parties as nothing had before.”9 As had so often been the case with the
rebel. Many had nurtured a belief that war was still avoidable, but this was, in effect, the
straw that broke the camel’s back for Mexico. The colonists would fight, and indeed win
Similar to Texans, Californios were heavily opposed to the centralist government that had
been tightening its grip over California and sought a return to the federalist form of
government but differed in the north and south to a degree. Eventually Mexico
recognized much of California’s demands and chose not send in troops as they feared a
repeat of the events in Texas. California gained greater autonomy but remained a part of
Mexico until the United States invaded and annexed the state. Some rebellion was met
New Mexico revolt was strikingly different from either Texas or California. “The
New Mexico Revolt was apparently a spontaneous uprising of lower class New
Mexicans, including Pueblo Indians. Class antagonism set New Mexico’s revolt apart
from contemporary rebellions along the northern front.”10 They opposed similar issues
such as taxing and outside enforcement, but remained less clear regarding their reasons
for revolting. Many would revolt against the US as well when it invaded in 1846.
Weber theorizes that much of the rebellion resulted due to the oppressive and
neglectful role of the Mexican government upon the northern frontier.11 He is quick to
dispel the notion of a frontier as a geographic boundary and prefers to attribute it as being
these two distinct cultures as Hispanic and Anglo. Their differing views of cultural
assimilation and political rights differed to such a degree that it is reasonable to assume
Weber does an excellent job of providing all the different factors that led to
rebellion among the different states. The reader gets a very broad idea of the area by
learning all of the specifics. It is well written, relevant, and comprehensive. My only
criticism was that the book purports to see the frontier from the perspectives of the
Americans and Mexicans, while I think more so it gives the perspectives of the differing
colonists through a contemporary American perspective. I still don’t really get a very
good idea of what was going on behind closed doors in the Mexican government or the
American government for that matter. These people are making important decisions that
affect these states, the actions of the colonists can be seen as more reactionary than
anything else in my opinion. I am fully aware though that may be entirely too much to
Winders’ Setting the Stage for Crisis: Colonization and Revolution examines the
events leading up to the Texas Revolution and more importantly the differing ideals
behind it. He poses the idea that Mexicans and Americans disagreed fundamentally on
land ownership, a factor in the rebellious mindset of the Anglos. To Mexicans land was
granted for use, to the Americans land was bought for consumption. This land was tied to
events surrounding Viesca’s capture, escape, and flight towards Texas as a revolt began to
unfold. Austin’s aid and confrontation of Cos at Bexar show a determined Anglo
Eventually the Texans are able to unite their ideals with their actions. They
Authorize Sam Houston to lead a Texas army which will be mobilized in order to
legitimize their presence as a threat, they issue a declaration of Causes in order to get the
support of all the anti centralists and increase manpower, and appoint commissioners to
head north to the US to get funding and supplies to support a costly impending war.14
Winders does not offer much more to the table with this writing which is fairly
general in nature. It flows well though and gets to the point, but other writings have
already covered this more in depth. I felt it might have benefited the reader if he tied his
assertions of land ideals into the actions of the revolutionary Texans. Instead it is briefly
Paula Mitchell Marks’ Turn Your Eyes Toward Texas: Pioneers Sam and Mary
Maverick outlines Samuel Maverick’s upbringing and departure into Texas in the initial
two chapters. Samuel a South Carolina native and Yale graduate was raised in a family
that prided itself on the ideals of liberty for mankind but also on the great benefits of an
entrepreneurial spirit and sound mind. After achieving little success in his business
ventures he is lured to Texas with notions of starting a new and profitable life for himself.
Upon his arrival it becomes apparent that business will have to wait as he has stepped
13Richard Bruce Winders, Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas
(Scholarly Resources, 2002), 5.
14Winders, Crisis in the Southwest, 19.
into a state on the verge of a Revolution.
These two chapters did not give me any information about Maverick’s role in
Texas, or any new information regarding the revolution itself. However it was interesting
to me how much he mirrored Austin in his demeanor. Very skilled and powerful, but
caught up in his families wishes and demands, failed business ventures, ability to garner
favor and attack issues from both sides, a public figure who despises ordering people
around, and the list goes on and on. The only difference being that he arrived at the
culmination of the revolution that Austin had in effect pushed into motion. Maverick
seems like Austin’s incarnation arriving to Texas to take over after his death (which is
soon to come).
The last article by Campbell entitled Slavery in the Texas Revolution, questions
the role of slavery in the Texas Revolution. Campbell offers that while many opposed
African slave trade at the conventions at San Felipe de Austin, all were in favor of
modifying Texas into a slave state like those of the American South upon independence.15
Similar to the Weber Campbell points out that Texans fought for the institution of slavery
as much as avoiding their own enslavement as the Mexican Army marched to meet them.
Ultimately he asserts that slavery was no cause for revolution but merely a factor of it,
and that “Anglo Americans were simply too different from Hispanic Americans to accept
Mexican government indefinetly.”16 Slavery was one of the many issues they planned to
resolve upon gaining their freedom of autonomy. Mexico’s offer of freedom to those
slaves that joined centralist forces is a common occurrence in history, not specific just to
15Randolph B. Campbell "Slavery in the Texas Revolution, 1835-1836.." An Empire for Slavery: The
Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (1989): ncsu electronic e reserve. 39.
16Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire, 48.
this instance.
Campbell’s article is brief, but makes a good point that slavery can hardly be
considered a causal factor of the revolution, nor can it be ignored as it remained heavily
upon the minds of the many Texans who sought to prosper from the institution. A good
read, brief and to the point. Interesting in that the Revolution lead to more oppression,
although many already had slaves just under the indentured servant moniker. In my
opinion, either way Texas was going to have slaves, the laws they would produce seem
mute in that they outwardly disobeyed the opposite laws prior to Independence.
10
Bibliography
https://reserves.lib.ncsu.edu/reservesViewer.php?reserve=139976 (Accessed 28
September 2009)
Marks, Paula Mitchell. Turn Your Eyes Towards Texas: Pioneers Sam and Mary
Winders, Richard Bruce. Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico and the
https://reserves.lib.ncsu.edu/reservesViewer.php?reserve=139969 (Accessed 28
September 2009).