Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Mexican Wars for Independence

2010; Duke University Press; Volume: 90; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1215/00182168-2010-023

1527-1900

William Schell,

Latin American and Latino Studies

In The Mexican Wars for Independence Timothy J. Henderson generously seasons his retelling of this familiar tale with interesting, often enlightening anecdotes that reflect the influence of the new cultural history. Take for example his depiction of Father Miguel Hidalgo’s revolt as a Keystone Cops comedy of errors, or his characterization of the massacre of the Spanish and creole defenders of the Alhóndiga as “an impromptu religious fiesta . . . of blood, fire, liquor and plunder” (p. 80). His supple exposition of the conflict between Hidalgo’s successors, Ignacio López Rayón (who saw the movement as one to restore Ferdinand VII) and José María Morelos (who sought a definitive break with Spain) illuminates differences among the patriots that have often been minimized in favor of the nationalist myth set in stone during the 1910 centennial by Porfirio Díaz’s erection of the “great monument to independence on . . . the Paseo de la Reforma” (p. 214). Particularly praiseworthy is Henderson’s epilogue, in which he rehabilitates Agustin Iturbide’s reputation by sympathetically reexamining his crucial role in bringing about independence and by calling attention to the injustice of his exclusion from Mexico’s pantheon of national heroes.But while Henderson’s strong narrative is his work’s strength, his reliance on narrative to the virtual exclusion of analysis is its weakness. Apart from his epilogue, the closest he comes is his observation that, while independence “was but one war spanning the decade [1810 – 21] . . . in a more profound sense . . . Mexico witnessed many wars during the independence era” (p. xxi). Mexican independence consisted of “many small wars” fought by “the rank and file of the movement, mostly impoverished Indians and castes . . . [to improve] their lot in life,” which became interwoven with the larger “civil war” waged by creoles “against the Spanish armies . . . to achieve autonomy or independence” (pp. xxi – xxii). This combination of a lack of analysis and welter of detail (though fascinating) overwhelms by putting the reader too close to the historical canvas. Just as distance is necessary to appreciate the work of pointillist painter Georges Seurat, one needs distance to see the larger picture of Mexico’s independence struggle. Moreover, Henderson’s intended audience is unclear. Is his work meant for university students or for a broader popular audience? If he seeks a popular audience unfamiliar with the basic outline of events, then his political narrative is too detailed, too complex. If university students are his intended audience, then his failure to address the sophisticated historiography of Mexican independence presents a significant shortcoming. Although he thanks Eric Van Young, Jaime Rodríquez O., and a host of others in his acknowledgements and suggestions for further reading, he makes little or no use of their work.Henderson also overlooks the “distinct tradition” literature which offers a ready-made explanation for the preference for monarchy expressed by most patriots, a preference that readers might otherwise find mystifying. I believe Henderson’s pointed dismissal of Hidalgo’s expression of monarchical sympathies as “a calculated lie” is a fundamental misreading of the goals pursued by the majority of Mexican patriots (p. 106). Only in Morelos’s “Sentiments of the Nation” of 1813 and in the Constitution of Apatzingán do we find unequivocal calls for a republic. Preference for monarchy is clearly revealed in the language of the Plan de Iguala. As Henderson notes, when Iturbide and the national junta set aside the Spanish Constitution of 1812 in favor of a new document, opposition arose at once and the “provisional constitution was never actually enacted” (p. 190). When a republic finally was brought about it was by the personal political ambitions of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who “only a few months earlier . . . had been as enthusiastic a champion of monarchy . . . as anyone in Mexico” (p. 200).My criticisms notwithstanding, there is much to recommend Henderson’s work and I expect most readers will agree with William Beezley’s evaluation that Henderson “has written the best short history [of independence] available” (cover notes).