Refugio I Rochin - Reflections on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Border It Established.pdf

8/20/2019 Refugio I Rochin - Reflections on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Border It Established.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/refugio-i-rochin-reflections-on-the-treaty-of-guadalupe-hidalgo-and-the-border 1/7

Vot-urrp V

SpnrNc

1998 NuNaspn

1

REFLECTIONS

ON

THE TREATY

OF

GUADALUPE

HIDALGO AND

THE

BORDER

IT ESTABLISHED

Refugio

I.

Rochin





t42

SOUTIIWESTERN

JOURNAL

OF

LAW

&

TRADE IN THE AMERICAS

[Vol.5

whose rights were specffically safeguarded by treaty

provision. l

To

understand

the

wisdom

of

Mc

Williams

and others

we need

only to

briefly recall the

past.

We need to

know

why

the

Treaty was signed

and

why it became another

l'White

man's treaty of broken

promises.

When signed

by the

United

States and Mexico,

the

Tleaty

con-

tained

all

sorts

of

guarantees

to

protect

Mexicans

and

Americans

along the new

frontier.

It was signed

to

bring

peace

and

harmony.

The Treaty's fi.rst

lines

read

as

follows:

In the name of Almighty God

The United States

of

America, and the United

Mexican

States,

animated by a sincere desire to

put

an end to

the

calamities of

the

war which unhappily

exists between

the two

Republics, and to es-

tablish upon a solid basis relations of

peace

and friendship, which

shall confer reciprocal benefits

upon

the citizens

of both,

and assure

the concord, harmony and mutual confidence, wherein the two

peo-

ples

should

live,

as

good

neighbors. .

.

Such language was welcomed by Mexicans who signed the

Tkeaty for

a

number of

reasons.

Not

only did

the

Tieaty

declare

an end

to

calami-

ties,

but

it

seemed to

assure harmony between the main warriors.

Each

party

to the Tieaty would

be

able to resolve other conflicts,

such

as the

territorial

hostilities

between

Mexicans and Anglos involving

Apaches,

Comanches,

IJte,

and

other

native

peoples.

The

Tleaty

promised

to

resolve

years

of

costly conflict

and help Mexico to stabi-

lize

other

problems,

such as the

threat

of succession by

Yucatan.

Moreover,

the

United

States was a tough foe, which seemed

to sanc-

tion

intrusions

into

Mexico.

By

signing the

Tleaty,

Mexico

would also

end

the wrath

of

U.S.

President Polk

and

General

Zachary Thylor,

whose troops marched

successfully

all the way

to

the

Mexican

capital

and was

ready

to

assume

total control.

Finally,

the

Tieaty

would

deal

with United Stateb zealfor

expansion, widely

proclaimed

by the

press

in the United

States

as

Manifest Destiny, a

form

of

national

supremacy theory.

(With

this theoretical

premise,

there

was

little

problem

encouraging Congress

to

appropriate

$10

million for the War

and

form

an army

of 50,000

men, headed

by

General Taylor).

Keep in mind that

what

mostly

precipitated

the War was the

United

States' annexation

of

Texas in 1845. Mexico

broke

off

diplo-

matic relations with the

United

States on the

grounds

that the annexa-

tion

of

Texas

was an act of

hostility

toward

Mexico. In

the meantime,

Mexico had

an

unstable

government,

based

ofl

a coup

d'tat

that

1.

Censv Mc

Wrr-rlaus,

Nonrn rnou

MBxrco: Tnn

SpaNrsrr-Spearnvc Peopr-r

or r:nr

UNrrr,o

Srares

(1968).



1e981

REFLECTIONS ON

THE

TREATY

brought to

power

a

nationalist

dictator,

General

Mariano

Paredes

y

Arrillaga.

After

General

Zachary

Taylor's

troops

showed

force

against

the

Mexican

government, there was

not

much

Mexico could

do but

accept

the

treaty

of

Guadalupe

Hidalgo.

Within

months

of

the Tieaty's

signing, however,

signs

of Ameri-

can

reneging became

apparent.

However,

before

long the

Tleaty be-

gan

to

seem

more

like

a continuation

of

Manifest

Destiny

in

perpetuity

against

Mexico.

The United

States

sent

clear signs

of

re-

versing

its

promise.

First,

Congress

took

nearly

four

months

to ratify

the

act,

from

February

2, L848

to

May 30,

l-848.

During this

period

both

Mexican

and United

States

representatives

deliberated

over the

articles

and made

signiflcant

changes,

which

Mexico

accepted

only af-

ter

a

protocol

was

drafted.

According

to

one

of the

foremost

analyst

of this

period, Richard Griswold

del

Castillo,

the

protocol

was

ignored

by

the

United

States

in later

years.2

Unfortunately

for Mexicans

caught

in

the

United

States

territories,

the

Tleaty that

was

first signed

was

not the

same

treaty eventually

ratifled by

the

United

States and

Mexico

on

May 30,

1848.

During the

period

of

ratiflcation,

paragraphs

that

did

not

suit

certain

U.S. Senators

and President

Polk,

were simply

deleted

or

re-phrased

without

careful

consideration

of

Mexican

concerns.3

In

its flnal

form, the

Treaty was

a frayed

document

with

many

ambiguities

and contestable

assertions.

A

particularly

important

arti-

cle

(Article

X)

on

Mexican

holdings

was erased

completely,

serving

notice to

Mexicans

that the

Tieaty

was

not

going

to

be honored

on

behalf

of

Mexican

stakeholders.

Article

X

on

Property

Rights,

read

originally

as

follows:

All

grants

of

land made by

the Mexican

Government

or

by the

com-

petent

authorities,

in territories

previously

appertaining

to

Mexico,

and

remaining

for the

future

within

limits

of

the United

States,

shall

be

respected

as

valid,

to the same

extent

that the

same

grants

would

be valid,

if the said

territories

had

remained within

the

limits

of

Mexico.

[With

the

exception

of the

Texas

proviso].4

Gradually,

The

Treaty of Guadalupe

Hidalgo

fell

into

historical

demise.

In

the

United

States,

the

Treaty

was

all

but ignored

until

the

2. See

Rrcsano

Gnrswor-o

oer

CA.srrrro,

Tue

Txrerv on

Guapamrps

Hrper-co:

A

LscA.cv

or Collrr-rcr

Tn=

IJNrvensrr.y

or

Orr-arrovl.

Pness

43-53

(1990).

3.

See

id.

4. Cnanr-es

I. BBv.tNs,

ro., U.S. Dsranrrurelr

or

Stanr,

TxBetrss

aNp Orrren

INr:en-

NATT9NAL

AcnseMENTs oF

THE

UNrrep

Srarrs

or

Arraenrce,

1776-L949,(L972),

reprinted in

Oscan

J.

Maarmrz

(1992).

L43



1,44

SOUTHWESTERN

IOURNAL

OF LAW

&

TRADE

IN

THE AMERICAS

[Vol.5

1950s, when

Chicano activism renewed

the cause for land rights

in

the

Southwest.

Today,

the Treaty is undergoing

a revival

of

sorts.

Of

primary

interest

are the following

two

articles

which

deserve

closer review.

Article

V

(on

the Boundary Line):

The

Boundary

line

established

by this

Article

shall

be

religiously

respected

by each

of

the

two Republics, and no

change shall ever be

made

therein, except by the

express and free

consent

of both

na-

tions,

lawfully

given

by the

General Government

of

each, in

con-

formity

with its own constitution.

Article IX

(on

Civil and Religious Rights):

The

Mexicans who, in

the territories aforesaid,

shall be incorpo-

rated

into the Union

of

the

United

States

and be admitted, at the

proper

time

(to

be

judged

of

by the Congress of the

United

States)

to the employment

of all the rights

of citizens of the

United States

according to the

principles

of the

Constitution; and

in

the

mean

time

shall be maintained

and

protected

in

the free enjoyment of

their liberty

and

property,

and secured

in

the free

exercise

of

their

religion without

restriction.

With

regard

to Article

V,

the border established by

the

Tieaty

is

largely

the

same

today as then,

with

a few alterations,

such as the

Gadsden Purchase

and Chamizal.

'lo

scholars of

Chicano

studies,

the

Treaty

of

Guadalupe

Hidalgo is the

beginning

point

of

the

Chicano

peoples,

the inheritors

of Aztlan,

the

former

land

grant

recipients

in

the

Southwest.

At

issue

today

in

Aztlan

are

Chicano and Hispano

claims to

property,

civil

rights,

the

preservation

of culture

and a

number

of services.

With

regard

to

Article IX,

the Tieaty

established

the conditions

-

legal,

political,

social, cultural,

and to a degree

psychological

-

which

made

it

once

a

federal responsibility

to

develop respect and

harmony

between the

Mexican

and

United

States

people,

i.e.

giving

recognition

to Chicanos

as

United

States

citizens.

Today, however, it

is almost

impossible

for Mexicans in

the United

States to

be

integrated into

American

society.

The

conditions

of employment,

housing,

local

power,

treatment

by

gringos

and treatment

of

Chicanos

as

sub-citi-

zens, are

especially contentious

along the

border.

There

are many in-

cidences

of

discrimination,

segregation and

subjugation

involving

Anglo

dominance

over

Chicanos

who

have

citizenship status and

Mexicans

who enter from

Mexico

into

the

Southwest.

Today,

the borderline

established by the Tieaty

imposes condi-

tions which

sustain

conflicts between

Anglos,

Chicanos

and Mejica-

nos.

The

border disputes

of old have not

been resolved between the



reesl

REFLECTIONS

ON THE

TREATY

United

States

and

Mexico.

The

Tleaty's

most

questionable

provisions

center

largely

on the Gringos'

intent

of

the

border.

Was

the line

drawn

to exclude

and

ignore

Mexicans

south

of the

border? Was

the

line

drawn,

as in the

case of Canada,

primarily

with

the

intent of

identifying

governing

jurisdictions

and

areas

of responsibility?

Or,

was

the

line

drawn

as a

measure

of control, wherein

all

persons

within

the United

States

had

to

become

assimilated

and monolingual

and

dominated

by Norte

Americanos?

Granted,

the United

States-Mexico

border

is long,

some

1-,800

miles

from

the

far east of

Brownsville,

Texas,

to

the

extreme

west of

San

Diego,

California.

Between

Brownsville

and San

Diego

there are

numerous

border

towns.

These

towns,

now

large

metropolitan

communities,

serve

as market

centers and

places

for

international

mi-

gration

routes and

migration

controls.

The

towns

also serve

as

the

main

routes

running

from

the

interior

of

Mexico into

the United

States. These

arteries

carry

labor,

food,

money,

tourists,

traffic and

drugs. The 'lborder towns

are throbbing

with

ambitious migrant

workers,

members

of

la

migra

and

growing

numbers

of

young

and

old who

swarm

to the

region to

work in maquilas

(industrial

plants).

The larger border

towns,

include: San

Diego/Tljuana,

Calexico/Mexi-

cali,

NogalesA{ogales,

Agua

Prieta, El

Paso/Ciudad Juarez,

Piedras

Negras,

Laredo/Nuevo

Liredo and

BrownsvilleiMatamoros.

Does

the

immensity

of the border

mean

that

the

Tleaty has

no

bearing?

Shouldn't

the

United

States

strive

to rocognize

the

sins

of

Anglo

justice

and the

reversal of

past

promises

to

Mexico?

Part

of

the

interest

of

today's Chicanos

has to

do with

the

fact

that

they

are the

most

important

stakeholders

in

any

negotiation

be-

tween

the two

nations.

The Tieaty that

created

Chicanos

as a

separate

and

identffiable

population is,

in

this

author's

opinion, the

reason

why

Chicanos

must be factored

into

all future

negotiations

relating

to

the

Mexican

border.

Chicanos,

more

than

Mexicans,

have borne

the

brunt

of

the

Tieaty

and

the

historical

aflermath

of today's

crossers,

border

controls,

NAFTA

negotiations,

language rights,

and

forms

of

cultural

citizenship,

which

impinge

upon the

human and

civil

rights of

Chicanos.

Consider

President Clinton's

recent action,

which

Congress

will

assuredly

pass.

One

day after

the

150th anniversary

of

the

Treaty,

on

February

3,

1998,

President Clinton

proposed

a

record

$4.2

billion

for the

Immigration

and Naturalization

Service,

including

hiring 1-,000

more

Border Patrol

agents and

430

more

inspectors

for

the ports of

145



L46

SOUTLWESTERN

.IOURNAL

OF LAW

& TRADE

IN

THE

AMERICAS

[VoI.5

entry. s

These

additional

numbers,

as

proposed,

would

almost match

the

size

of the

Congressionally

approved

army for

General

Zachary

Taylor (an

increase

from

3,965

today

to 8,378

by

September

1999),

which

allowed

him

to

win the

U.S.-Mexican

War of 1845.

,,The

propo-

sal

for

the

fiscal

year

beginning

October 1,

[1998]

is

an increase

of

$413.4

million

over

current

levels

and

would

mean

the

INS

budget

will

have

quadrupled

this decade.

.

. The

plan

[also]

calls

for

spending

$211

million

for

a second

straight year

to

overhaul

the

INS'

overwhermed

and

much

criticizednaturalization

program

through

which immigrants

become

citizens. 6

The

President's plan

would

give

$500

million

to

states

to

defray

some

of the

costs

of

jailing

criminal

immigrants

and

help

to

forestall

political

pressure

from

states

along

the border.T

As

many

know,

this

plan

is

the latest

of

a long

succession

of

border

con-

trols

enforced

unilaterally

by

the

United

states

on

Mexico.

Histori-

cally

we

ask, was

the Tleaty

meant

to be meaningless

after

being

signed

by

Mexico

and

the U.S.

in

1848?

It

is highly

unlikely

that

the

Treaty

will

be

the

basis

for

future

policies

and

united

States

acts

along

the

border.

However,

the Tieaty

should

not

be ignored.

It should

not

be

a

Tieaty

completely

ignored,

for in its

words

and

intents,

it

contains

the

words that

appeal

for

peace

and

civility

along

the long

border

between

the

united

States

and Mex-

ico. The

Treaty

should

be

taught

and

studied

in our

courses

on Amer-

ican

history

and

the

rights

of

Mexican peoples

in the

united

states.

5. Marcus

Stern,

$41j.4

Million Increase

in

INS

spending

proposed,

S.D.

UNrou,Tnrnuxe,

Feb.3,

1998,

at

A10.

6.

Id.

7. See i-d.

Documents

Refugio I Rochin - Reflections on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Border It Established.pdf