A few excerpts from "Years of Peril and Ambition: US Foreign Relations 1776-1921." Several terms from the Treaty of Paris, especially that Britain would abandon its Great Lakes forts and the US would have the right to navigate the Mississippi, were not upheld.
Americans who moved into Spanish Louisiana retained "allegiance to the United States and displayed open contempt for their nominal rulers." Imagine that.
An 1810, American immigrants to Spanish West Florida seized control of Baton Rouge, proclaimed an independent republic and requested annexation by the US, though this failed.
The US attempt to conquer Canada in the War of 1812 failed due to the nearly non-existent and unprofessional army.
The Kentucky militia was notorious for wearing paint and carrying (and using) scalping knives in the War of 1812.
Only 6000 Mexicans lived in California before 1848. An American captain, Thomas Jones, accidentally conquered the province in 1842 because he thought a war had started, then gave it back and apologized when he realized he was mistaken.
US annexations (during/shortly after the Mexican-American War) were limited by racial concerns; this is why the US did not annex the Yucatan (or, separately Hawaii) despite the request of Yucatan's (Hawaii's) rulers: not wanting to be contaminated by uncivilized Indians.
The New York Times, 1854: Central America will be great if a race of Northmen supplant the tainted, mongrel, and decaying race which now occupies the region.
The Republican ascendancy after the Civil War (ie, the people who fought and won the Civil War) disdained expansion into the Caribbean on the grounds that incorporating a large non-white population might "poison the future of this great nation."
This attitude applied to Cuba as well (in 1868, just a couple years after the Civil War); Republicans opposed taking territory inhabited by mixed races on the grounds that it would degrade the American people and their institutions.
Demographic changes in Hawaii, specifically the immigration of white American planters and Asian (mostly Japanese) laborers, rendered the native Hawaiians a "dispossessed minority" and set the stage for later annexation.
One of America's first humanitarian aid initiatives was relieving the massive Russian famine of 1891, feeding perhaps 125,000 people.
Americans fighting in Cuba during the Spanish-American war came to view their Spanish enemies more favorably than their Cuban allies, as a bulwark against race war and for the protection of property and order.
Anti-imperialists opposed toe annexation of the Philippines on the grounds that it would add another race problem to the existing black one in the South.
One of the first cases of diaspora pressure changing US foreign policy was the Jewish lobby successfully destroying the Russian-American Commercial Treaty of 1832 in 1906.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). The Porfiriato gave Mexico a generation of stability and development for the first time since independence. This left Mexico overdue for another civil war: the Mexican Revolution.
One problem was that the Porfirian school system had created a large, literate middle structure (not class). These educated mestizos became dissatisfied due to lack of opportunity; growth was rapid but not rapid enough to absorb them all.
The Revolution kicked off in 1910, when Diaz announced he'd won reelection with 99% of the vote. This kicked off an insurgency in Chihuahua, in the mestizo, frontier north.
Thread with excerpts from the 'Porfiriato' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). This was the first era of stability and economic growth in post-independence Mexico, summed up with the slogan "Order and Progress."
Independent Mexico's problem was that Mexicans were incapable of setting aside personalisms for truly national institutions; congress, for example, was a joke.
Benito Juarez greatly expanded secular education; but this turned out to be more of a curse than a boon, because the vast majority of people with schooling insisted on government or legal jobs; very few became doctors or engineers or technicians.
Thread with excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973), late 19th century. Like before the war, Mexico after the Mex/Am War was a mess, with many regions sinking into barbarism. Yucatan was the worst, with half the population dying in a race war.
Every Mexican president was a Freemason, but Catholicism was still universal and the position of the Church, which retained its royal privileges even in republican Mexico, was a flashpoint.
The Mexican Church was immensely wealthy thanks to its tax-advantaged status, and the clergy retained legal privileges. It also collected extremely high fees; one effect of this was to ~abolish marriage among the lower classes.
Thread with excerpts from the Mexican-American War section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). Since independence, Mexico had seemingly gone backwards in all respects; in 1840 Mexico was less civilized than it had been.
An incident where French warships blockaded Veracruz over nonpayment of debts from unstable and perpetually-bankrupt Mexican governments. The Mexican response: show "Death to the Anglo-Saxons and Jews" and bring back Santa Anna.
After the secession of Texas, Mexico appeared to be disintegrating, with the Pacific areas effectively independent, much of the North run by bandits chiefs, and Yucatan seceding.
Thread with excerpts from the 'Pretorians' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). In 1821, postcolonial nation-building seemed easy; the only example was the USA. But the US was homogenous, well-led, free, and already had an identity.
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973) on the Mexican War of Independence. The Mexican criollos were far less impressive than their South American counterparts, and produced no leaders equal to Bolivar or San Martin.
Where the South American criollos quickly declared independence upon the French conquest of Spain, the Mexican ones dithered. Acting quickly, the local peninsulares coup'd the government and the criollos accepted it.
With the criollos basically accepting Spanish domination, leadership of the independence struggle passed to men like Miguel Hidalgo, who turned it from a (hopefully) bloodless coup to a social and race war.