Brian Hamnett's new book straddles two periods more often treated separately: “Independent Mexico” (1821–55) and the Wars of Reform (1857–61). This is an interesting choice. Undoubtedly, the time frame allows him to analyze the changing of the political class's generational guard: from the domination of men who had reached adulthood before the insurgency (Lucas Alamán, Anastasio Bustamante, Antonio López de Santa Anna) to the following generation (Benito Juárez, Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, Tomás Mejía), who came of age in the 1820s and 1830s. However, it does leave the reader questioning why he decided to exclude the French Intervention (1862–67) from his investigation, given its relevance to the arguments he makes. Hamnett does not give his reasons, but I suspect that this is due to his greater interest in the Liberal cause than the Conservative, as I will elaborate below.Hamnett's book also unites two historiographical narratives usually considered separately: the history of the political and economic intrigue that accompanied state-building efforts in Mexico, and the sociopolitical local history of resistance to and rebellion against these endeavors. The depth of analysis presented rests on the varied scholarship that Hamnett has produced over the years and clearly benefits from his wealth of archival research. Moreover, this juxtaposition gives him the relevant perspective to be able to challenge the received wisdom of both narratives. As a result, he questions the association so often assumed between democracy, the Liberal elite, and rural leaders, stating uncompromisingly that “Mexican Liberalism in origin, character and objectives was not a peasant movement or rural-based party. In the strictest sense, it was not democratic” (p. 245). He does not deny that rural actors were relevant to the national political scene or that village leaders pursued a variety of political projects. He simply suggests that it is a mistake to examine them through the lens of party loyalty or Liberal ideology.In fact, Hamnett doubts whether party is a useful category of analysis for this period of Mexican politics, since neither Liberals nor Conservatives “had organisation, hierarchy, structure, formal membership or regular financing. They remained shifting agglomerations of factions, often focused on personalities or small groups of individuals agreeing on a number of issues and policies” (p. 244). Even so, he recognizes that these issues, however reduced, did drive Liberal and Conservative action in government. In the case of the Liberals, the Reform Laws and the Constitution of 1857 articulated their most important policies. His treatment of the Conservatives is more limited and, in my view, sometimes overly dismissive. It is not true that the Conservatives had no “alternative plan of government” to the constitution in 1857; rather, constitution writing had become discredited within this group (p. 218). A more detailed examination of Teodosio Lares, architect of Santa Anna's last government and a mainstay of the Second Empire, would have revealed this.A more important historical variable, in Hamnett's opinion, is the unrelenting pressure of foreign interests within Mexican politics. As he states in the very first line of the introduction, “Between 1836 and 1861 the Mexican Republic was caught, without allies or outside support, between European powers and an expansionist United States” (p. 1). And we see as the book develops how political decision-making responded as much to this neocolonialism as it did to internal concerns. The weapon of first resort was invariably money: the insistence on reparations for foreign nationals who got caught up in the popular protests and revolts that characterized Mexican public life after 1810, and then the regular attempts by bondholders to recover stakes on loans obtained in London during the 1820s. Squeezed on all sides, Mexico's government was always short of cash and thus perennially weak. Pressure could be brought to bear via the seizure of ports (as did the French in 1838 and the tripartite powers in 1861), direct invasion (as did the United States in 1846 and France in 1863), or the offer of cash for land purchase or access (as the United States did on multiple occasions). While Mexican politicians tried to play the powers against each other—the Conservatives looking for allies in Europe and the Liberals in the United States—they always paid a price for these alliances.In short, Hamnett's book provides a deep, multifaceted perspective on the causes and consequences of political instability in Mexico between 1836 and 1861. It connects the dots between local politics, the construction of personal power bases (his portrayals of Mejía, Manuel Verástegui, and Santiago Vidaurri are particularly adept), and the national political scene. Given the current polarizing climate of Mexican politics and the disintegration of its party system, it should be required reading for our politicians.
Read full abstract
Jun 24, 2023
Shino Miura + 4
Open Access
