It was a wound, partly self-inflicted, that caused a lasting trauma in the national consciousness of Mexico.
The loss of Texas in 1836 and the disability of the Mexican government to recover that territory during the years preceding its integration with the United States, which occurred in 1845, they still feel.
“This is something that since that time has affected the sense of identity of Mexicans and the growth of Mexican nationalism ”, says Miguel González Quiroga, former professor of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León and current visiting researcher at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
That territorial dispossession, however, was partly the consequence of an inescapable demographic reality: for every Mexican who resided in that territory there were some 10 settlers of American origin .
Paradoxically, these Americans had not forcibly occupied the territory of Texas nor, in most cases , had entered illegally there.
Quite the contrary: they had settled in those lands with the permission of the Mexican government, which, in addition, deliberately lured them there using as an incentive a generous policy of land handover.
“Without any doubt, this was a case of unintended consequences,” says Greg Cantrell, professor of History at Texas Christian University, to BBC Mundo.
The initiative to create Anglo-American colonies in Texas took its first steps in the last months of Spanish rule over Mexico, but it only materialized after that country achieved independence.
In retrospect, this decision seems difficult to explain, no only because of the negative consequences it brought to Mexico, but because there was a history of US citizens who had tried to invade foreign territories militarily at their own risk.
“It is incomprehensible that after the filibuster invasions and the expansionism of the neighboring country, both the Spanish government and the to agree to allow the settlement of American colonists ”, Has pointed out in this regard the Mexican historian Josefina Zoraida Vázquez.
But, how was it possible that Mexico incurred in what today seems to have been an own goal?
It all started with the calls 300 Austin.
The call of the earth
The establishment of American settlers in Texas began in the decade of 1820 and was promoted by Moses Austin, an American who in the decade of 1790 had emigrated southwest of Missouri, which was then part of Spanish Louisiana.
Moses managed to thrive there and even obtained a Spanish passport, but his fortunes would change after the Louisiana sale was finalized in 1803.
“Not for him the news that with the Louisiana Purchase the territory became American was a blessing. Affected by the war of 1812 and the ups and downs of the economy, for 1819 was bankrupt. Recalling his positive experience in Spanish Louisiana, decided to emigrate to Texas and apply for a concession to settle with 300 families “, Vázquez wrote in the book” Mexico and North American expansionism “.
In January of 1821, Moses obtained authorization from the Spanish authorities to create that colony in Texas, but he died shortly after, so that task was left to his son Stephen F. Austin , who is known in the United States as “the father of Texas.”
Stephen decided to continue his father’s plans and moved to San Antonio to try to get the Spanish authorities to allow him continue with his father’s undertaking.
“Austin entered San Antonio, literally, the same day that the news about the independence of Mexico arrived, so there They told him to travel to Mexico City to present his petition to the new national authorities ”, says Cantrell.
There he He stayed for a year, during which he learned to speak Spanish, while doing his business and waiting for his answers.
In addition to getting Mexico to allow him to continue with his father’s project, Austin would later achieve that A new law was approved that created the businessmen system, which was the name given to those who created authorized colonies in Texas and who would be rewarded with land: the more settlers there were, the more land they would receive.
Recruiting settlers
To obtain authorization from the Mexican government, Austin had to promise that the settlers would pledge allegiance to Mexico, they would learn Spanish and would convert to Catholicism .
Not all these requirements However, they were strictly adhered to.
“The uncomfortable parts of those norms were largely ignored, particularly regarding Catholicism. That was never applied in a substantive way. The vast majority of the settlers were not Catholic and were never converted. Some of them stopped at the last Catholic church in Louisiana, before crossing into Texas, and got baptized, but most didn’t even bother, “says Cantrell.
” The Mexican authorities and Austin had a kind of pact of silence : as long as you did not create problems for religious issues, conducting public religious services in Protestant temples or criticizing the rule that forced you to become a Catholic, everything was fine ”, he adds.
Between 1821 Y 1823, Austin was publishing notices in the press in the southern United States looking for families interested in establishing themselves in their neighborhood.
The main attraction? The possibility of obtaining large amounts of land at a price equivalent to one-tenth of what they cost in the United States.
The colonization law established that farmers would receive around 0.7 square kilometers of land, while ranchers would get almost 18 square kilometers, which caused most of the settlers to pose as ranchers even though they were not.
As if that were not enough, families had the possibility of bringing or having slaves. It is an element that would be fundamental both for the establishment of the colonies and for the evolution of the political situation in Texas.
With this attractive offer, Austin did not take long to get his settlers. In fact, he was able to choose between the candidates and privileged those who had a better economic and social situation.
By the end of the summer of 1824, most of the former were already in Texas 300 authorized families (hence they are known such as 300 from Austin, although they were actually 297 , since some families received more than one authorization)
Reconstructing the southern US in northern Mexico
Most families 300 of Austin came from states in the southern United States, especially Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri.
Only a small part of these families brought slaves and, among these, the majority had only two or three. However, slavery was a central element of the colonization of Texas.
“Having slaves was something that only rich people could afford, but almost all colonists aspired to have them because that was the road to success in the cotton world ”, explains Greg Cantrell to BBC Mundo.
The expert points out that although Most of the settlers initially dedicated themselves to subsistence agriculture, they had their sights set on reproducing the economic boom of cotton plantations, which had made the southern United States one of the richest places in the world.
“ They all thought that if they could recreate the Mississippi in Mexico, then one day they would be rich . That was his true calculation. They thought they would be able to produce a lot of cotton or, at least, sell a part of that enormous territory that they had received from the Mexican government and make a good profit “, Cantrell points out.
” Nobody could grow so much land. Not even the settler who had the most slaves could sow more than a fraction of those 4, 428 acres (about 18 square kilometers). But the 300 of Austin and the many thousands that came after had the dollar symbol in their eyes, ”he adds.
Close to slavery, far from Mexico City
After bringing the first 300 families, Stephen Austin received authorization from the Mexican authorities to found four other colonies. In total, he brought to Texas about 1, 000 families.
A step Quickly, new colonies were also established, promoted by other businessmen.
It would not take long for the first important differences to appear with the authorities of Mexico City.
Anglo-American settlers were betting that Texas would become a state with broad autonomy within the framework of a federal Mexico, but they did not succeed and were integrated into the same state together with Coahuila.
That autonomy was seen as key to protecting their way of life.
“If Texas achieved a type of autonomy that would have allowed to maintain slavery and trade with whomever he wanted without tariffs or restrictions; if they could be in charge of their own affairs being a state of Mexico, then that would have been the best of all possible worlds for the settlers, ”says Cantrell.
But that was not the real situation.
“ Mexico was an anti-slavery country practically since 1820 , so the authorities of Mexico City did not understand well that the great plan to make Texas a prosperous territory was to become part of this burgeoning cotton economy, which made great fortunes. But that could only happen where slavery was allowed ”, he adds.
From 1821, the Mexican authorities made several attempts to definitively end slavery in that The country and Texas, which generated great concern among Anglo-American settlers, who repeatedly managed to circumvent these measures by getting exempted or by inventing new figures such as the “unpaid servants” who were tied to life-long work contracts.
Breaking with Mexico
Tensions between the Anglo-American settlers and the Mexican government would grow remarkably from 1830, when the Mexican government passed a law that prohibited the arrival of more immigration to Texas.
The The rule was based on recommendations made by General José Manuel Mier y Terán, who after taking a tour of Texas was alarmed to find that the number of settlers far exceeded the Mexicans , for which he recommended closing the borders of that state to Americans, promoting the arrival of more European and Mexican populations, and prohibiting slavery, among other measures.
These types of measures were cause for protest and concern among the settlers who, since at least 1826, had staged intermittent revolts against the Mexican State.
Tensions, however, began to approach an outcome from 1834, after President Antonio López de Santa An na dissolved Congress and put an end to the federal structure to establish a centralist government in Mexico.
“When he (Santa Anna) announced that he would march with an army on Texas to end the growing revolts, Anglo-Texans understood that they were facing their most feared scenario because slavery would not survive the government of Santa Anna. Once they realized it, everyone got excited about the secession movement, ”says Cantrell.
The expert assures that, until relatively recently, in Texas history The role that slavery played in the separation from Mexico had been downplayed, but affirms that it was a crucial element.
“They knew they couldn’t announce publicly that they were concerned about slavery and that they were going to declare independence for that. They knew that it gave a bad image to say that their revolution sought to preserve slavery , but everyone knew that this was the gorilla of 800 kilos in the room and which nobody wanted to talk about. But it was a huge factor, ”he affirms.
The confrontation between Santa Anna’s forces and the Anglo-American settlers would last a few months and would end in the battle of San Jacinto, in April 1836 , after which the separation of Texas from Mexico was consummated.
Avoiding the inevitable
But why Spain, first; And Mexico, later, thought it a good idea to allow the establishment of Anglo-American colonies in Texas?
“ Mexico saw the need to populate its territories to the north because they were under threat from the Spanish empire, the French empire and the new country that had been formed in States United, but they had neither the resources nor the enough people to colonize them “, explains Miguel Ángel González Quiroga, former university professor of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León.
He also points out that these territories were under constant threat from native tribes, especially the Comanches, so populating them was also a way to protect them from these attacks.
Although it stands out that most of the settlers were peaceful and had good relations with Mexico, the expert recognizes that the demographic weight they achieved in Texas had a decisive importance in their separation and that when the m exicans realized it was too late.
Greg Cantrell, for his part, considers that the decision to allow the establishment of settlers in Texas was a move with which Mexico tried to prevent the loss of that territory, trying to exert some control over a process that seemed inevitable in the face of the rapid expansion of the United States.
“The question was: we have this fertile region on the border with the United States and we can lose it to unauthorized migrants who, as soon as they are sufficiently numerous, they will want to separate from Mexico ; or we can allow in US settlers who will be controlled and loyal to the government as long as they are under the watchful eye of businessmen like Stephen Austin, “he says.
“They saw it as the lesser evil: you are going to have Americans in Texas. They can be illegal or legal, ”he adds.
In either case, the result ended up being the same as they feared.
Now you can receive notifications from BBC Mundo. Download the new version of our app and activate them so as not to miss our best content.
- Do you already know our YouTube channel? Subscribe!