Content area
During the second half of the twentieth century, several changes have occurred in the study of Mexican Americans in the present-day Southwest. Both historians and sociologists developed an interest in studying Mexican American's social, political, and economic contributions.
During the second half of the twentieth century, several changes have occurred in the study of Mexican Americans in the present-day Southwest. Both historians and sociologists developed an interest in studying Mexican American's social, political, and economic contributions. Consequently, many historians developed their own thesis of the Mexican American experience in the United States. Some researchers have found that Mexican Americans were a marginal people who survived an Anglo dominated world and managed to keep their culture despite discrimination and displacement by their Anglo counterparts. Others have taken a less aggressive approach but still argue that Mexican Americans have played an important role in society despite many obstacles.
One recent scholar, Armando C. Alonzo, for example, has developed his own thesis on the Tejano experience. Focusing on Tejanos in South Texas, Alonzo's research deals with the survival of Tejano ranchers and argues that the history of the Tejano experience after 1848 is flawed, "one aspect of this problem is the tendency to see conflict as the central theme of Tejano history" (Alonzo 5). Alonzo claims that even though there were conflicts among Anglo and Tejano families, Tejanos lost their land through other means. He refutes the traditional claims by historians that states conflicts and fraud were the dominant cause for land loss. A closer look at these different arguments deserves attention to have a more balanced and accurate account of how Tejanos' land was affected after 1848.
In 1846, the Americans waged war on Mexico under the ideology of Manifest Destiny. This "stemmed from the need to accumulate more land, to celebrate heroes, and to prove the nation's power by military superiority" (Acuna 5). The Mexican American War turned out to be very costly to Mexico. In just two years, the United States acquired the entire Southwest, almost one million square miles, including the presentday states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and part of Colorado. In Texas, Mexicans, as well as many Anglos who had setfled there since the 1820s, had rebelled from Mexico in 1836. Texas became an independent republic that survived for ten years after the revolt until the United States annexed it in 1845. At that time, the boundary was in dispute, and it was finally settled when the war ended. The area in dispute was the franja del Nueces, or the region from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande. The Mexican American war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 with the boundary set as the Rfo Grande (Price 168). Consequently, Mexico lost Las Salinas del Rey, which was a salt deposit, as well as its mestenos that ran wild in that region (Herrera 182). The war and its concluding treaty not only left the United States with a huge amount of territory, practically the entire American Southwest, but it also left a legacy of oppression and hatred. With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexican citizens were converted into American citizens overnight.
Many Mexicans who were living in Texas chose to return to Mexico, but those who decided to stay relied on the treaty to protect their rights as citizens, but eventually because of clashes with the Anglo community were treated as second-class citizens. The treaty guaranteed those basic rights such as liberty, property, and religion of those Mexicans who chose to remain in the ceded territory. Nevertheless, many Mexican Americans lost their land, had their civil rights violated, and were not equally represented in politics. These rights were not fully enforced so that it became easy to violate them. As a result, Tejanos' land was seriously affected due to the lack of enforcement of the legislation. Although the United States promised to "respect the persons and property of the conquered area, and the inhabitants would be granted immediate citizenship in the invading nation," the intentions of the treaty were not the same as the real outcomes (Acuna 21-2).
According to the census taken between 1836-1850 in Texas, Tejanos numbered more than 14,000, but by 1865 Anglos began to outnumber them, with the exception of South Texas.' Cities like Brownsville, Rio Grande City, and Roma had their Texas Mexican population higher than Anglos (de Le6n 35-37). In West Texas, many Anglos and European born people migrated between 1865-1880 and joined the Mexican population there.2 After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, it stipulated that those Mexicans who were living in Texas had the option of either staying in the conquered territories or returning to Mexico and had a year to decide. Those who decided to remain in the ceded areas and chose to become American citizens were able to retain their property. Unfortunately, this was not the case for many Tejanos (Griswold del Castillo 62-63).
Deletion of Article X
When the Mexicans ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 2, 1848, it was sent to the United States Senate to be signed. The United States Senate ratified the treaty on March 10, 1848. Article X, however, was "deleted by the U.S. Senate upon ratification." President James K. Polk had recommended that the treaty be ratified with the exception of Article X. This particular article was crucial because it explicitly protected land grants in the state of Texas. President Polk rejected it because "it would revive old land grants and throw into question the grants made by the Texas government since their declaration of independence in 1836." Since Texas was allowed to retain its public lands, President Polk did not want to deal with any problems that might surface due to this provision. Many Mexican landholders who were in the process of completing the necessary paperwork for their lands through Mexican law did not have their legal papers in order or were missing part of the documentation. Due to this lack of information, many Tejanos got caught in the process of switching from Mexican procedures to American procedures. Article X would have allowed these landholders to complete this process under their new government. Many Tejanos had been dispossessed of their lands by Anglos after Texas gained its independence, and if Article X was ratified, many Tejanos could reclaim their land grants. Several congressmen, along with Polk, opposed Article X because of this threat (Griswold del Castillo 43-44). Although the Mexican government was concerned with protecting the rights, land, and religion of its Mexican citizens who remained in the ceded territory, the Mexican Congress ratified the treaty because United States officials drafted a statement of protocol? The protocol further protected the rights of the new Mexican Americans by guaranteeing their right to their legitimate titles.4 Despite the Senate's protocol that promised to respect and protect Tejanos' property rights, many Tejanos who chose to stay in the conquered territory lost their land. Surprisingly, many historians who have written on the treaty and have attempted to explain its implications argue that the treaty's articles are not important, but what has been omitted, as Article X was not incorporated into the treaty.
Dispossession of Land
Since before the war, Anglo and Tejano cultures were very different and had always clashed, but this heightened after the United States was pronounced the victor. Despite Article VIII, which states, "Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico ... shall be free to continue where they now reside," many Tejanos were looked down as an inferior people and consequently were dispossessed of their land (Alonzo 145). The traditional argument by historians such as David Montejano and Arnoldo de Le6n is that land crossed over to Anglo hands in various ways. In many cases, after the War of 1848, Tejanos, who helped in the Texas Revolt and fought on the American side, were seen with suspicion and thought of as traitors and spies. As a result, it was not difficult to blame Tejanos for disputes and was easier to obtain their land. The treaty ended the war between the United States and Mexico, but the war left a feeling of hatred and much animosity remained among the two groups (de Le6n 19-20).
By the late 1880s many Anglos who had migrated to South Texas began to "[misuse] the judicial structure to divest Tejanos of their property, challenge the old leaders for political supremacy, and compel[ling] people in the region to submit to new labor authority on their recently acquired range lands" (de Le6n 38). Although historian Arnoldo de Le6n claims that Tejanos were the majority of the inhabitants in South Texas, Anglos controlled the area's economy and dominated politics.5 Gradually, the Anglos began dominating ranching and trading, and many Tejano peons found themselves working for Anglo ranchers. Historian Armando C. Alonzo agrees with de Leon's argument, but Alonzo claims that the decline of the cattle economy was a much stronger factor than culture differences that facilitated land loss. According to Alonzo, Tejano ranchers made up the majority of the ranchers in South Texas. The only region controlled by Anglo ranchers was the area of Corpus Christi (223).
Although both historians support their arguments with credible sources, the main reason for studying the effects of the treaty tends to brush over the main focus, which is the experiences of those Tejanos who chose to stay in the ceded territories.6 What is vital in the understanding of the consequences of the war and its concluding treaty is its lasting effect on Tejanos. At times, historians get caught up in examining and determining the dominance of a certain group over another so that the actual study of the experiences tends to diminish. Examining if Anglos were dominant over the Tejanos in certain areas is important in analyzing the many different consequences of the war, but the experiences of different groups of people such as the Tejanos is at times more important. There have been periods in history where a particular group is dominant over another group and still experience oppression and inequalities. One good example of this could be seen in the Deep South. There was a substantial number of African Americans living in the southern states of Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, but their lives were dictated by the Anglo creation of Jim Crow laws. The experiences of many Tejanos parallel that of the African Americans after emancipation, passage of the 1960s civil rights legislation, and even today. Not because there were more slaves in the south than Anglos, can one argue that they did not experience social inequalities or oppression.
The legacy of the treaty on Tejanos land is a complex and lasting one. Not only did it have physical effects on Tejanos, by passing lands from one owner to another, but it had great psychological effects on Tejanos as well. The change of land ownership from Tejano to Anglo, whether it was a rapid process or a gradual one, had an impact on the traditional view towards the land. Since before the establishment of the rancho system in South Texas, Mexicanos viewed their land as something sacred, and indeed as part of their lives. In particular, the South Texas Tejanos viewed their land tracts as "non-commercial entities" and as "life sustaining gifts."7 Moreover, land grants had been based on the Spanish/Indigenous policy of giving communal ejidos. Gradually, this view towards land as part of the individual changed when it came under Anglo ownership. De Le6n argues that, during the late 1860s, many Anglos who were following their expansionist instincts pressured many Tejanos into selling their land. Many viewed the land in a profit-oriented way, that Tejanos who refused to sell were "forcibly evicted" (de Le6n 41-42). Similarly, historian David Montejano, claims that "While fraud and coercion played an important part, [in the area below the Nueces River] the more systematic, more efficient mechanism of market competition also operated there." Consequently, with the exception of the citizens in a few border towns, the upper middle class Mexican was practically nonexistent (50). If Montejano is correct in his assertions, the upper middle class became nonexistent because the number of landed Tejanos declined. Those few border towns were in South Texas, where historian Armando Alonzo finds that the Tejano rancher survived by keeping and working his land. In addition, Alonzo concludes that the height of land losses for Tejanos was in the early to mid 1880s. In South Texas, Tejanos were able to keep most of their land in the 1870s because the cattle economy was good, but in the 1880s, many Tejanos were forced to sell their land to pay off debts. It was the declining cattle economy, argues Alonzo, that resulted in many Tejanos loss of land to Anglos (mainly new arrivals) such as Edward C. Lasater, Henry M. Field, and A. J. Bloomberg (268).
Nevertheless, there were those Tejanos in South Texas who, despite their large land holdings, were dispossessed of their property. One such case was that of Anglo businessman Charles Stillman, a merchant of Matamoros, Mexico, who arrived in the Valley in 1846 and had developed a trading center in Brownsville. His trading center happened to be within land that belonged to the Cavazos family. Immediately after the Mexican American War, the land grant of the descendants of Francisco Cavazos became known as the Espiritu Santo Grant.' Violating the protocol statement, squatters who were friends of Stillman began settling the land around Brownsville and claiming squatter's rights. By encouraging this, Stillman created confusion about ownership. Stillman then proceeded to buy the squatters' claims. He completely ignored the Cavazos claims and refused to deal with them, since he had the support of the troops at Fort Brown. The Cavazos family took the case to court and finally settled. Stillman was to purchase the grant for $33,000, but the family did not receive a single dime, since the Stillman's law firm, Basse and Horde, went bankrupt (Acuna 27-28). Although the Cavazos case was taken to court, many Tejano families who decided to stay in the ceded territories did not have the means to take their case to the courts. Despite these historians' different arguments, they believe that often times many Tejano claimants lost their landholdings due to the "costly, burdensome, and inequitable" process of the law (Alonzo 28). Those who could afford lawyers had to hire them because it was often the case that Tejanos did not speak English. If the appropriate fee was not available at the time services were rendered, most Tejanos found themselves having to pay the fees with part of their land holdings. Some Anglo real estate agents even hired these lawyers to force the Tejano families to give up their lands for payments (Martinez & Edwards 123).
It is not fair to say that all Tejanos were dispossessed of their land illegally. There were also cases of legal land dispossession, using legal measures. Often times, using legal but shrewd methods, many Anglos were able to force Tejanos in giving up their land by using the authorities. Several sheriffs from South Texas ordered the sale of these lands or part of the lands by arguing that the county courts demanded the sale in exchange for taxes that were overdue and private debts that needed to be paid. These lands were often auctioned to the highest bidder, but at prices that were lower than usual. Furthermore, these auctions were seen as part of scams, since they were not offering the price at market value. One such case was with the land of the Cavazos family. Their land was valued for $214,000 in 1850. However, Charles Stillman's lawyers offered the Cavazos family only $33,000, only two years after the original appraisal (Acuna 128).
Perhaps the most disturbing influence or effect the war had on these Tejanos who stayed behind was the psychological effect. Many Tejanos who lost their land were obviously impacted by the physical loss of the property, but perhaps what remained with them as a group was the feeling of inferiority and subordination. Tejanos now found themselves in a land that had been theirs for many years, but now had to adjust to the new settlers, the Anglo or European descent settler. Tejanos had interacted with Anglos since the early 1820s; nevertheless, the Alamo and Mexican American War memories were still so vivid in both groups' minds that not only did Anglos and Tejanos clash in land issues, but in religion, language, and everyday social issues, as well.
By the 1900s, land grant conflicts and discrimination towards the Tejano and Mexicano in general became more structured and was expressed in more subtle ways. Mexican and Anglo communities were segregated and were usually enforced in sale policies. This discrimination was more subtle, since many Anglo real estate agents did not prohibit Mexicans from living in Anglo communities, but usually the prices were very high and most Mexicans could not afford to pay those amounts (Montejano 167-68). These practices served as the foundation of the more rigid segregation of the 1930s to 1950s.
As historian Octavio Herrera Perez reminds us, the Anglo name adoption of names in what was Mexico is part of the legacy the treaty had on Tejanos land. The counties of South Texas, Cameron, Starr, Zapata, Webb, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, which bear American names, are an example of the continuing legacy of the Mexican American War and its concluding treaty (182). Today, claims are still taken to court, and organizations whose goal is to help Mexican Americans regain their land can be consulted, such as the Associacion de Reclamantes. Despite these organizations, the protocol statement along with its invisible Article X are still violated. Thus, the legacy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo still plagues Tejanos as well as many Mexican Americans in the American Southwest.
Notes
1By 1880, there was about 71,000 Tejanos in Texas. Between 1865 and 1880 many Anglos migrated to West Texas and Tejanos comprised half the population. For an estimate of Tejanos/Mexican American population and Anglo population in South Texas cities, see Appendix B.
2According to the 1850 Census, the population of a town in West Texas such as Eagle Pass consisted of Anglo, Mexicans, and European born people, for a study on Eagle Pass after the Mexican American War see William T. Kerrigan, "Race, Expansion, and Slavery in Eagle Pass, Texas, 1852," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 101, No. 3 (Jan. 1998): 275-301.
3The Statement of Protocol of May 26, 1848 stated "The American government by suppressing the Xth article of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not
in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories. These grants... preserve the legal value, which they may possess, and the grantees may cause their legitimate (titles) to be acknowledged before the American tribunals. Comfortable to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories, are those which were legitimate titles under the Mexican law of California and New Mexico up to the 13th of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the 2nd of March, 1836." As quoted in Acuna.
4Article VIII and IX further strengthened the protocol by providing protection under the law, see Appendix A.
5de Leon uses as a source to explain the Anglo and Tejano population of South Texas, Tejanos and the Numbers Game: A Socio-Historical Interpretation from the Federal Censuses, 1850-1900 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989).
6de Le6n looks at Anglo and Mexican American population and cattle owners in Bexar (Lower Rio Grande Valley): Staff, Cameron, Webb, and El Paso County while Alonzo looks at Hidalgo County Tax Rolls.
7Ejidos are large land tracts set aside for communal purposes.
8It was a Spanish tradition to give titles to land grants or land tracts. Most land titles in Cameron County (South Texas) are of Espirito Santo Grant. The land grant was originally given to Josh Salvador de la Garza in 1771.
9Not only was this type of subtle discrimination practiced toward the Mexican people, but towards African Americans, as well.
Works Cited
Acuna, Rodolfo. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. New York: Longman, 2000.
Alonzo, Armando C. Tejano Legacy: Rancheros and Settlers in South Texas, 1734-1900. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1998.
deLeon, Arnoldo. The Tejano Community, 1836-1900. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1982.
Griswold del Castillo, Richard. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. Norman, OK: U of Oklahoma P, 1990.
Herrera Perez, Octavio. Monografia de Reynosa. Tamanlipas, Mexico: Instituto Tamaulipeco de Cultura, 1989.
Martinez, Gilbert T., and Jane Edwards. The Mexican American: His Life across Four Centuries. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973.
Montejano, David. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986. Austin: U of Texas P, 1987.
Price, Glenn W. Origins of the War with Mexico: The Polk-Stockton Intrigue.
Austin: U of Texas P, 1967.
Sonia Hernandez is a graduate student in the History Department at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas.
Copyright Popular Culture Association Fall 2001