Reading Chapter 7 in Russell I was amazed by the instability
within Mexico between 1821-1855. The beginning of the chapter is divided up by
introducing the immediate structure of Mexico after they gained independence
from Spain. The chapter highlights three key Mexico leaders of the time in this
first section. In these three sections the reader is shown the different
leadership roles each ruler played and how the government was set up at the
time. The only thing consistent about this time period and the authority within
it was the ever changing laws, political parties, and always increasing
debt. The chapter basically describes a
constant cycle of trial and error; if one law or system wasn’t working the
people of Mexico simply overthrew that government at the time. No leader in
that time period was able to successfully unify or control Mexico. As much as
the citizens of Mexico were fighting for their individual freedoms, wants, and
independence from a centralized Mexico it seems to me as though they held the power
all along. Their constant struggle and will allowed at least one group or
another to successfully overthrow the government all through this time period.
Page 146 stated, “In 1826 President Victoria completed his term, an event that
would not occur again for decades.” This is shown throughout the chapter time
and time again as each President is exiled, killed, or decides to resign. The
statement on page 155, “One has the strongest sense that it mattered very
little who occupied the National Palace and that brief sojourns in office
should not be counted as ‘regimes’ … It is not clear if any president could get
his orders obeyed beyond the outer patio of the palace”, shows just how little
control the President and government really had.
I was surprised to find how the people of Mexico still,
after independence, did not identify as one body of people. I can see why there
was so much political instability because there was no feeling of unification.
The statement on page 161 explains this issue really well, “In New Spain, the
entire government had been built on a top-down basis, with power coming from
the Crown. When this single legitimating institution disappeared in 1821,
nothing bound Mexicans together. Not only did Mexicans have to create new
institutions, but people had to learn to respect them.” The respect described
in this sentence did not come easy as shown throughout this chapter. I find it
crazy that the Mexico government tried so hard to unify everyone when everyone
was trying so hard to resist it. I can’t help but ask, why? The struggle
brought the country into great economic troubles, the lack of political,
religious and financial stability caused constant fighting. Why not just let
these different states do what they want, wouldn’t it have been a lot easier?
I found it typical that Indians and Afro-Mexican slaves were
both given legal status but that women still remained rather restrained in
social, political and working environments. I found it interested that the
government gave Indians the same legal rights as other citizens of
Mexico but in doing so the government ended up taking their homes. It struck me as typical because I am not surprised by
a government that tries to put a positive spin, on the negative consequences
that their actions have on people who only serve as taxpayers in their system.
This Mexican society was not unusual in its resistance to incorporate women
into their society, like many others of the time.
The structure of Mexico was built upon instability. A
foundation of instability will breed more of the same when its only nourishment
comes in the form of greed, conflict, divided people and a government’s
mistreatment of its citizens. Mexico’s foundation was very unstable but when
the citizens of a country refuse to unite or agree on anything yet its
government still tries to force everyone together there will always be
conflict. The chapter ends with the author describing the differences between
the United States and Mexico. My personal opinion is that the main difference
is ultimately The United States wanted to be united, there were times of
struggle but at the end of the day the states had the same goals in mind. I
think the citizens of Mexico all wanted very different things and I feel that their
individual wants and goals outweighed the big goal, to be one united country.
I believe the country started out on the wrong foot when Iturbide was declared emperor by a Mexico city army garrison but he declined. "As Iturbide made his way to the session through crowds in the streets, celebrants unhitched his horses and pulled his carriage to the Congressional hearings."Of course power went to Iturbide's head and quickly found enemies after becoming the first Latin American military dictator. There seemed to always be a major issue going on throughout the country that caused a lack of unification. "It would take centralizing forces decades to extend the notion of being "Mexican" to outlying regions. I find it very interesting that federalism only lasted five years because states were unable to unite against the "centralists". I agree that it seems like the government believed they had something to gain by declaring the equality of the Indians. I believe the financial crisis along with racism were key factors in the decision of equality. Although Indians still made up half of Mexico's population in 1850, the government was able to split up their land while continuing their domination over Indians. The rebellions that came after show how the Indians reacted to their so called equality. I think another crucial point is the fact that the Church was " the only common bond which united all Mexicans, when all the rest have been broken". This is obviously an important factor because the government would have lost a popularity contest to the church. The church sided with conservatives to fight off liberal attacks, while the conservatives used the church to help bind them with their social and cultural tradition.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting how many times the control of the government changed throughout the early years of Mexican independence. As Maggie pointed out, these people knew what was and wasn’t working with their government under the Spanish rule, and so one would think they would be more apt to set up a government that worked for them, not against them. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Time after time they continued to elect presidents who were overthrown, resigned or killed within a couple of years of taking office. In the United States, we don’t rise up like that if we don’t like the president. We simply do what we can and wait for the next election. Sometimes this strategy works, and other times it doesn’t. But the Mexican strategy of constantly overthrowing the government didn’t seem to work whatsoever. There always seems to be unrest and political and economic instability no matter who was president. It’s arguable that this was because no president had the time to create a stable country before the next one would take office.
ReplyDeleteYour point about the Mexican people not identifying as one unit after independence is also interesting. One would think that after working together to oust the Spanish that they would feel more as a unit than ever before. Yet this simply didn’t happen. It’s also an interesting point that you mention they didn’t just give up and allow the Mexicans to live how they wanted to; in separate groups. I can’t help but wonder why the citizens didn’t take after a lot of other nations that used revolutions to unite their people against a common enemy. Why was Mexico’s revolution for independence different than say the French or the American Revolutions?