Introduction
What was life like in Mexico, in the early 1800's? Well, for one thing,
back then, this country was not called Mexico. It was called New Spain. And
things were a mess.
Was Mexico (New Spain) ready for independence from Spain? Most scholars
agree that by the early 1800's, Mexico was ready and that independence was
inevitable. There were many reasons for this:
-
The inequalities of life under the caste system
-
The flow of wealth out of New Spain to Spain
-
The inability of New Spain to feed its own people
-
The confusion and division in the governments of both Spain and New
Spain
-
The flow of new ideas on government and peoples rights arriving from
America and France, both of whom had recently undergone revolutions of their
own
The inequalities of life under the caste
system
People in New Spain were organized into a caste system, by law.
This caste system was based on race. Those at the top lived very well.
Those at the bottom lived very harsh lives.
Who's Who in the Caste System:
The Peninsulares or Gauchapine, (European born whites)
considered themselves superior to the Criollos or Creoles (Colonial born
whites) and were supported in this belief by royal decrees from Spain. Both
castes were, by law, politically and socially above the mixed bloods, the
Mestizo and Mulattos, who were socially and legally superior to the Indians,
who were socially superior to the Negroes.
Top
Peninsulares
(Gauchapines) |
European born whites |
| Criollos |
Colonial born whites |
| Mestizo |
Mixed blood (Spanish-Indian) |
| Mulattos |
Mixed blood (Spanish-Negro) |
| Indians |
Natives |
| Negroes |
African |
In New Spain, when a baby was baptized, it was assigned for life
to a caste by the baptismal priest. This made the baptismal priest very
important since he decided and declared at the baptismal to which caste the
baby belonged. This led to corruption in the priesthood as a well
placed bribe to a priest could improve your child's standing for the rest
of its life. If you angered or upset the priest, he could decide that your
child belonged in a lower caste.
The social stratification created by the caste system was rigidly enforced.
Since it was based on race, it was impossible to move from ones birth caste
into a higher caste. A woman could improve her social standing by marrying
up in caste, but neither men nor women could move out of the caste into which
they were baptized. This caste system led to many problems and hatreds
between the castes.
Parents wanted their children to marry into a higher caste if possible,
or at least within their own caste. As a result, many Criollo women (Colonial
born whites) married Gauchipine men (European born whites). This caused a
shortage of wives for Criollo men in their own caste, and forced them to
marry women from lower castes, which affected their childrens. The Criollo
men (Colonial born whites) were already angry, as they were prevented by
law from holding the highest ranking positions in the church and the government,
positions their parents held, simply because their parents had been born
in Europe and they had been born in New Spain. This created a great deal
of jealously and discontent.
The Indians and Blacks, for most of the colonial period, were
subject to the "Tribute", which was a tax placed on every Indian or Black.
This tribute was normally paid by an individual's village or employer. If
the tribute was not paid, that individual could be thrown in jail. The tribute
was one way for the empowered class (the top guys) to keep the lower castes
under control.
The affect of the inequalities of the caste system was to cause great
dissatisfaction in every caste level, except perhaps the highest. The Criollos
and the Mestizos blamed the Spanish government for policies that limited
their ability to socially advance. The Indians and Blacks blamed the government
of New Spain for the harsh life they were forced to live.


The flow of wealth out of New Spain to
Spain
Meanwhile, back in Spain ....The Spanish government was seemingly
unaware of colonial dissatisfaction. They had problems of their own. Spain
was embroiled in the Napoleonic wars. To raise money to fight these wars,
the Spanish government increasingly demanded more money from its colonies.
Of all Spain's colonies, New Spain had the most wealth. From New Spain, Spain
expected the most.
When the government of Spain found that raising taxes was not
generating enough needed income to fund their wars, it decided upon
a different course of action. In addition to raising taxes, the Spanish
government passed the Consolidacion de Vales Reales, often called either
the Consolidation decree or the Sequestration decree. The purpose
of this decree was to appropriate the wealth of the Church in New Spain.
The middle class & the priesthood:
What the Spanish government did not seem to realize
was that the church did not have much actual money, but had its capital tied
up in loans to the colonists. To pay the government of Spain, the church
was forced to call in those debts.
The extremely wealthy could and did pay off their debt, but most people
did not have enough capital to redeem their notes. This resulted in the seizure
and forced sale at auction of many properties, the bulk of which belonged
to the middle class, which was mostly made up of Criollos (Colonial born
whites) and Mestizos (mixed blood Spanish/Indian). Many people lost fortunes.
Since the priests did not receive as much money from auctioned properties
as they had loaned on those properties, they could not pay their debt. The
priesthood was the hardest hit by the Consolidation decree. Many priests
lost everything. In response, the priesthood began to act.
The priesthood had almost total control of
the spread of information in the provinces. At this time, few
people could read or write. Printed material was the jurisdiction of the
priesthood. The local priest was usually the individual who read public
announcements and governmental decrees to the population after the sermon.
Therefore, the local priests could control how and when their congregations
heard the news. The local priest could and did use his sermon itself to slant
public opinion. The local priest was a powerful force in the community, anyway,
due to caste assignment at baptismal. They were believed. Since many of these
local priests had lost everything they owned, many were soon preaching
the ills of the money grabbing Spaniards.
The inability of New Spain to feed its own
people
There was another problem. In 1808, and again in 1809, New Spain suffered
severe droughts. The harvest was poor. The price of maize (corn), which was
one of the staple foods for most of the lower castes, was skyrocketing. People
could not afford to buy enough food to feed their families. Some people were
starving, especially those who lived in the cities. The government of New
Spain tried to regulate the price of maize to control this problem. To avoid
the controls, farmers simply removed the sale of their crops from controlled
markets and sold them in the flourishing black market. This forced prices
even higher. By 1810, famine descended on New Spain.
The confusion and division in the governments
of both Spain and New Spain
Back in Europe, in Spain .... these problems went unheard. Spain's
attention was still focused at home. Here's what was going on:
-
Spain had lost its fight against Napoleon Bonaparte's France in 1808.
-
King Charles IV of Spain decided to abdicate the throne (give his throne)
to his son, Prince Ferdinand.
-
A short time later, King Charles IV changed his mind, and took the throne
back, which did not make his son at all happy.
-
Napoleon invited King Charles and his son, Ferdinand, to France. It was
a very nice invitation, a sort of "Come on over. We'll work this out." So
they went.
-
When they arrived, Napoleon had them seized and imprisoned.
-
Napoleon put his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte, on the throne of Spain
as king.
-
The Spanish people did not accept Joseph Bonaparte as king, and revolted
in 1808. Several cities in Spain proclaimed Juntas (an independent local
government).
-
In 1809, these Juntas dissolved themselves and turned power over to the
Cortes (the Spanish parliament; the word Cortes means "court officers")
-
In 1810, the Cortes met and officially proclaimed Spain's independence
from Joseph Bonaparte. The Cortes then drafted a constitution, which they
completed in 1813.
-
In 1813, Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated in Spain, and forced to release
Ferdinand from prison.
-
Upon his release, Ferdinand returned to Spain and proclaimed himself
King.
-
The Spanish people said - Okay, you can be king provided you honor the
new constitution which the Cortes just finished writing.
-
Ferdinand promised he would do so.
-
Upon his resumption of the throne, King Ferdinand suspended the constitution.
He wanted to turn back the clock and become the autocratic ruler of the Spanish
Empire.
In the colony of New Spain, these events caused great confusion. The
colonists were torn in their allegiances. Should they support King Charles?
Where was King Charles anyway? Should they support Prince Ferdinand, who
wanted to be king? Should they support Bonaparte, or the Cortes, or go their
own way? Various factions in New Spain supported all of these ideas.
Father Miguel Hidalgo
Amongst this background of hatred and dissatisfaction and confusion
and famine, revolt broke out in New Spain. The first of these was the revolt
led by Father Miguel Hidalgo. Father Hidalgo is known as the father of
Mexican Independence.
Father Miguel Hidalgo does not appear to be the type of person to lead
a revolt. He was quite elderly for his time. He was in his 50's, in a place
and time when many people died in their 30's. He was a well entrenched priest
who appeared to really care about the people to whom he was ministering.
He was a respected member of the upper class. He was a property owner, from
which he received a nice income in rents. But, Father Hidalgo held deep seated
resentments against the Spanish government.
-
He had lost a lot of money through Spain's consolidation decree,
a total of 7000 pesos in lost hacienda rents.
-
He had been replaced as rector of the San Nicolas Obispo College
in Valladolid, a place where he had been very happy. (This replacement was
rumored to be due to his embezzlement of church funds to pay his gambling
debts.)
-
He was very upset at the mistreatment of the Indians.
Deep in the countryside of the Bajio, Father Miguel Hidalgo plotted
revolution.
Father Hidalgo had talked about an uprising with several other men,
including a captain of the militia, Ignacio de Allende. They planned to organize
and lead an uprising that would give Mexico (New Spain) independence from
Spain, and give power to the Indians. This was not unusual. Talk of independence
and what course that independence should take was common in New Spain at
this time. What was unusual was that Father Hidalgo and his trusted advisors
had directed the Indians in the parish to begin manufacturing weapons, composed
mostly of machetes, spears, bows and arrows.
If it had not been for several errors on the part of the Royalist government
in New Spain, Hidalgo's short lived revolution might never have made the
history books. One of these errors was the government's decision to arrest
many of these small time plotters. This decision was reached due to the
nervousness of the government of New Spain who feared an Indian uprising.
The second mistake was allowing word of these impending arrests to get out.
Many plotters went into hiding, but not Father Hidalgo. Instead, he gathered
his sympathizers in the village of Colores and bid them to arm themselves.
The following morning, September 16, 1810, instead of giving morning mass,
Hidalgo gathered his followers in the village of Dolores and gave his famous
"Grito de Dolores", a cry for independence from Spain and power to
the Indians, and set the wheels of revolt in motion.
At this point, there was a possibility that Father Hidalgo might have
become more than just the leader of a short-lived Indian uprising. He could
have become the leader of a unified revolution against Spanish rule. Most
Mexicans were ready for independence. Spain was in chaos. The government
of New Spain was indecisive and divided. The middle class was frustrated,
angry, and jealous. The lower castes were starving. But Father Hidalgo made
a mistake.
Emboldened by his early successes, he led his Indian followers in an
attack on Guanajuato, which was, at that time, the second largest city in
Mexico. After a short battle, Father Hidalgo and his men captured the city.
Father Hidalgo lost control of his Indian followers. Instead of assuming
control of the town, his followers looted and burned it. They massacred all
the whites and mixed breeds they could find. This one act united the whites
and mixed bloods against him. As General Calleja, one of the generals of
the Royalist Army, put it:
"Natives and even Europeans themselves are convinced of the advantages
that would result from an independent government; and if the absurd insurrection
of Hidalgo had been built upon this base, I should think it would have suffered
very little opposition."
Through the church, the government of New Spain had an avenue of effective
communication. Using this monopoly on communications, they started
a propaganda
campaign against Hidalgo. This campaign included items such as having
the bishops pronounce that all priests working for or with Hidalgo were
excommunicated, and that any mass they gave was a false unconsecrated mass.
This propaganda also capitalized upon the atrocities committed by Hidalgo's
followers on Indians, as well as on whites and mixed bloods. Since the priests
were believed, this caused the Indian population around Mexico City to fear
Hidalgo.
The government's propaganda campaign was most effective. When
Hidalgo neared Mexico City with his army, instead of rising up to support
Hidalgo, the Indians in this area either fled or actively opposed him. The
Indians around Mexico City would not allow Hidalgo and his army to restock
provisions.
Hidalgo's army met the Royalist Army in battle at Monte de las Cruces.
This was the first time Hidalgo's army had fought trained troops. Hidalgo's
army numbered approximately 100,000 men.
The Royalist Army had 12,000
men, but these were trained men. They were better armed and equipped. They
had powerful weapons, including cannons, and they knew how to use them.
Hidalgo's army won the battle, but their losses were huge. Actual casualty
numbers are unknown because during the battle and immediately thereafter,
large numbers of Hidalgo's army deserted. This reduction in forces, as well
as the approach of General Calleja, with additional Royalist troops, caused
Hidalgo's army to retreat from Mexico City.
The next time Hidalgo and his supporters met the Royalist Army in battle,
near Guadalajara, Hidalgo and his army were defeated. Hidalgo led his followers
in flight towards Zacatecas, where he hoped to continue his fight. On March
21, 1811, Father Miguel Hidalgo was captured by the Royalist Army. On July
31, 1811, Father Hidalgo was executed by firing squad. As a warning to other
revolutionaries, Father Miguel Hidalgo, Ignatio Allende, and two others of
Hidalgo's trusted lieutenants, had their head cut off and placed on stakes
outside the walls of Guantanano at the site of their original massacre.
This insurrection surprised almost everyone, both with its initial
vigor and growth, as well as its rapid collapse. Father Hidalgo has been
glamorized by some historians. For example, Fisher talks about "Hidalgo and
his brave followers" (2), and Lynch refers
to "the Heroic Father Hidalgo with his armies of the downtrodden".
(3) There are countless statues of Father
Hidalgo in Mexico, as well as several biographies written about him. Father
Hidalgo is known as the father of Mexican Independence. But, in fact, instead
of leading a well planned uprising of the masses, whose purpose was to give
freedom and independence to New Spain, the Hidalgo led uprising was a poorly
organized, poorly executed disaster.
The Hidalgo revolt accomplished little except to unite the rest of Mexico
against it. It did bequeath a couple of catchy slogans to the cause of
independence, such as the "Grito de Dolores" and the cult of the Virgin of
Guadalupe, but in concrete physical results, it accomplished nothing and
only existed for about 6 months.
Father Jose Maria Morelos
In contrast to the short explosive nature of the revolt led by Father
Hidalgo is the revolt led by Father Jose Maria Morelos. Morelos and his followers
fought for several years in the southern part of Mexico, with similar results
to Hidalgo's in the end.
Morelos was also a priest, and a man of property. He could have supported
the establishment, but he didn't. Morelos had studied at San Luis Obispo
while Father Hidalgo was rector. This may have influenced his decision to
rebel against the authority of the Royalist government.
Father Morelos was leading a quiet life when he heard of Hidalgo's
revolt. He immediately quit his parish and travelled north to meet Father
Hidalgo. He offered his services as a priest to Hidalgo's army. Hidalgo refused
this offer as he felt he had enough priests. Instead, Father Hidalgo instructed
Morelos to go back to the south and lead the rebellion on the Pacific
Coast.
Morelos was a much better general than Hidalgo. At one point, in 1813,
his forces controlled Acapulco and most of Southwest Mexico. They even surrounded
and cut off Mexico City from reinforcements and supplies. However, the Royalist
army, which had focused its attention on the destruction of Hidalgo, was
now free to focus its attention on Morelos.
With attention focused on his forces, Morelos realized that he could
not defeat the Royalist army of New Spain in direct combat. He altered his
strategy, and turned his attention to instructing his followers in the art
of guerrilla warfare. His followers became masters of small group engagements.
They did not fight unless they could win. They took small towns. They ambushed
supply wagons and convoys. They made life miserable for the
establishment.
Father Morelos was not just a warrior. In the early days of his revolt,
Morelos gave every consideration to the interests of the whites and mixed
bloods in the area he controlled. He constantly stated that he wanted and
needed Criollo support to bring about an independent New Spain.
He consistently demonstrated his interest in the governing of an independent
New Spain. He helped to create a Revolutionary Congress, whose purpose was
to draft a constitution and to design laws for the new country. In 1813,
Morelos travelled to Apatzingan to meet with the revolutionary congress,
and was a signer of the new constitution produced by this congress.
He also showed interest in International Diplomacy. He sent several
delegations to the United States to seek assistance for his revolution. These
delegations met with failure. At the time, the United States was embroiled
in its own little piece of the Napoleonic wars, a period known in United
States history as the war of 1812.
As the conflict wore on in New Spain, the government's armies became
vicious in their attempts to destroy Morelos and his followers. The Royal
militias executed farmers who supported Morelos. They burned crops and destroyed
the property of anyone who gave Morelos support. In retaliation, Morelos
instructed his followers to do the same to all whites and mixed bloods. Thus,
what began as a noble cause, concerned with the civil rights of all people,
degenerated into a vicious killing circle.
All this death and destruction led to a waning of support for Morelos.
His revolution was dying. Morelos, and the rest of his revolutionary congress,
was forced, time after time, to flee before the forces of the Royalist Army.
Morelos was finally captured on November 5, 1815 at Tesmalaca. He was
sentenced to death, and executed on December 22, 1815, at San Cristobal Ecatepec,
a village just to the north of Guadalupe. His followers continued the struggle
for about a year more, but finally gave up. A small group of bandits, composed
mostly of Indians, used the name of Morelos, and continued to commit atrocities
for several years afterward.
Independence is Achieved!
Morelos was a much more effective leader than Hidalgo, and had greater
success and impact. Yet neither actually brought about independence for
Mexico. Instead, they caused much shedding of blood, the loss and destruction
of countless amounts of property, and most importantly, the distrust towards
Indians by whites and Mestizos. This dark legacy of distrust would influence
Mexican politics throughout its history.
Thus, these early revolts against the government of New Spain did not
help the actual movement for independence, with one possible exception. These
revolts did bring about the unification of the middle class, the Criollos
and mixed bloods. It showed these groups that they had more in common with
each other than they did with the Indians or with the Europeans.
The Criollos and Mestizos had suffered from the Indian revolts, led
by Hidalgo and Morelos, for several years. The thought of a successful Indian
led revolution was alarming. They also realized that European whites would
never voluntarily give up power. This newfound consensus amongst the Criollos
and Mestizos, along with a realization that there was popular enthusiasm
for independence, finally brought about actual independence. But, it was
the Criollos and the Mestizos, not the armed insurrection of the Indians,
who brought about the actual declaration of independence by New Spain
from Spain in 1821.
By Don Donn, USA
Mexican Independence
Links
Mexican
Independence
Dolores
Hidalgo: Mexico's Cradle of Independence
"El Grito"
The Cry!
Remembering
Independence
Links (Related)
Mexico
City: The Capital of New Spain
History of Mexico:
Timeline Overview
Napoleonic Wars
with Spain
Didn't find what you needed? Try
this!
Lesson Plans About
Mexico
Mexican Holidays K-12
(Donn)
Ancient Mexico Units
& Lesson Plans (Aztecs, Mayas)
A List of Lesson Plans
& Units About Mexico by many authors
Inequalities
of life under the caste system (based on this unit)
Unit
Plan: Pre-Independence Mexico
Lesson Plans (Related)
Propaganda
Techniques (Donn)
For other units, lesson plans, activities &
resources,
by many authors (for Ancient, World & U.S. History)
see...
Site Index
Have a great year!
Bibliography
Anna, Timothy E., The Fall of the Royal Government in Mexico City,
Lincoln, NE., University of Nebraska Press, 1978
de Lara, L. Gutierrez and Pinchon, Edgcumb, The Mexican People: Their
Struggle for Freedom, Arno Press & The New York Times, New York,
1970
Fisher, Lillian Estelle, The Background of the Revolution for Mexican
Independence, Russell & Russell, New York, 1934
(2) pp 58
Hamnett, Brian, "The Appropriation of Mexican Church Wealth by the Spanish
Bourbon Government", Journal of Latin American Studies, November 1969
Johnson, John J., "One Hundred Years of Historical Writing on Modern Latin
America by United States Historians", Hispanic American Historical
Review, Duke University Press, 1985
Kandell, Jonathan, La Capital, the Biography of Mexico City, Random
House, New York, 1988. (1) pp 274-275
Lynch, John, The Spanish American Revolutions 1808-1826, W.W. Northon
& Company Inc., New York, 1973 (3) pp
306
MacLachlan, Colin M., and Rodriquez O., Jaime E., The Forging of the Cosmic
Race, A Reinterpretation of Colonial Mexico, Expanded Edition, University
of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California, 1990
Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo, Triumphs and Tragedy, a History of the Mexican
People, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1992
Timmons, Wilbert H., Morelos Priest Soldier Statesman of Mexico, Texas
Western Press, El Paso, 1963