Question

Chocano studies 102

1. What were the divergent views on ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in Mexico between Manuel C. Rejon and Bernardo Couto?

Consult: Ch. 3, Finalizing the Treaty 1848-1854

Answer 1

To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).

The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.

After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.

In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.

Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.

In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”

Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.

It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.

Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.

It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.

Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.