THE LONG 19TH CENTURY

---

LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Understand the causes and origins of the Mexican War of Independence by identifying key social, economic, and political factors that led to the 1810 uprising against Spanish colonial rule. 2. Describe the roles and contributions of key figures such as Miguel Hidalgo, José María Morelos, and Agustín de Iturbide, analyzing how each shaped the ideological and military phases of the independence movement. 3. Explain the causes and outcomes of the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), including how Manifest Destiny and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo reshaped both the geography and political future of Mexico. 4. Discuss the leadership of Benito Juárez, including both his accomplishments in constitutional reform and secular governance, and the contradictions of his economic policies.

---

Mexico in the 19th Century

Mexico faced a series of major challenges throughout the nineteenth century that made it difficult to achieve stability and development after gaining independence in 1821. Many of these problems were rooted in both immediate conditions and long-term historical causes. One of the most persistent issues was political instability. Throughout the 19th century, Mexico lacked strong institutions after independence and experienced frequent changes in leadership, weak governments, and ongoing conflict between liberals and conservatives over how the nation should be organized. This instability often led to civil wars, particularly the Reform War (1857–1861), which further weakened national unity and government authority. At the same time, Mexico was vulnerable to foreign intervention, including the U.S.-Mexican War (1846–1848), which resulted in the loss of a large portion of its territory, and the French intervention in the 1860s that installed Emperor Maximilian.

Table 1: Evolution of the Term Mexican

Time Period	How the Term Was Used	Who It Referred To	Historical Significance
Colonial Period (1500s–1700s)	Used inconsistently; sometimes geographic	People connected to central Mexico, but society divided into castes	No unified “Mexican” identity yet
Late Colonial Period (1700s–early 1800s)	Expanding meaning	Increasingly refers to people born in New Spain	Foundations of nationalism begin
Independence (1821)	Becomes a national label	Citizens of the newly independent nation of Mexico	Turning point: “Mexican” becomes a political identity
19th Century (Post-Independence)	Widely used national identity	All citizens of Mexico (in theory)	Consolidation of national identity

These political struggles were closely connected to economic and social problems. Constant warfare and instability disrupted trade, discouraged investment, and slowed economic growth. In turn, Mexico’s government faced serious financial difficulties such as debt and limited tax revenue, making it harder to develop infrastructure or provide services. Social tensions also played a major role, as deep inequalities inherited from the colonial period left wealth concentrated among elites while much of the population, including indigenous communities, remained marginalized. These inequalities made it difficult to build national unity or create fair and effective policies.

Table 2: Key Struggles in 19th-Century Mexico

Struggle	Description	Historical Significance
Political Instability	Frequent coups (pronunciamientos), weak institutions, and rapid leadership changes	Undermined state-building and national unity
Federalism vs. Centralism	Conflict over how Mexico should be governed (strong central gov’t vs. regional autonomy)	Created ongoing civil conflict and fragmentation
Church vs. State	Struggle over the power of the Catholic Church in politics, education, and landholding	Central to liberal reforms and civil war
Land Inequality & Agrarian Conflict	Concentration of land in large estates; dispossession of Indigenous communities	Long-term cause of inequality and later revolution
Indigenous Rights vs. Liberal Individualism	Tension between communal land traditions and liberal emphasis on private property	Marginalized Indigenous communities and deepened inequality
Foreign Intervention & War	External pressures from major powers seeking territory or influence	Resulted in territorial loss and political crisis
Economic Underdevelopment	Weak infrastructure, limited industry, and reliance on agriculture	Limited state capacity and reinforced inequality
Military Power in Politics	Army leaders dominating politics and shaping governments	Prevented stable civilian rule
National Identity Formation	Efforts to define what it meant to be “Mexican” after independence	Influenced education, culture, and politics
Social Inequality	Deep divisions based on class, race, and region	Fueled unrest and reform movements

Ultimately, many of these challenges stemmed from the colonial legacy and the difficult process of nation-building. Mexico inherited weak political structures designed for colonial control rather than self-government, and independence disrupted existing economic systems without replacing them with stable alternatives. As a result, political instability and economic weakness reinforced each other in a cycle that was hard to break. Combined with regional divisions and external pressures from stronger nations, these factors explain why Mexico struggled to achieve lasting stability and development throughout the nineteenth century.

19th Century Political Ideologies

Nineteenth-century Mexico was politically shaped by an ongoing struggle between liberalism and conservatism on how the nation should be organized and governed. Liberals, influenced by Enlightenment ideas, supported a federal system of government, individual rights, secularization, and limits on the power of the Catholic Church and the military. Conservatives, on the other hand, preferred a centralized state, strong executive authority, and the preservation of traditional institutions, especially the Church’s social and political influence. These competing visions were closely tied to the broader conflict between federalism and centralism, which became a defining issue in Mexico’s early political development.

Table 3: Political Ideologies of 19th Century Mexico

Ideology	Key Beliefs	Government Structure	Role of Church	Economic Views	Social Base
Liberalism	Individual rights, equality before the law, secularism	Federalism (power shared between states and national government)	Separation of church and state; reduction of Church power	Free markets, private property, modernization	Urban middle class, professionals, reformers
Conservatism	Tradition, social hierarchy, order, stability	Centralism (strong national government)	Strong support for Catholic Church and its privileges	Protection of traditional economic structures	Elite landowners, clergy, military
Federalism	Regional autonomy, local governance	Decentralized republic	Often aligned with liberalism	Varied	Regional elites, provinces
Centralism	National unity, strong authority	Highly centralized state	Often aligned with conservatism	Varied	Political elites, military leaders
Monarchism	Rule by a monarch (king/emperor)	Centralized monarchy	Strong alliance with Church	Conservative-leaning	Conservative elites
Republicanism	Elected government, no monarchy	Republic (federal or central)	Mixed (depended on liberals vs conservatives)	Mixed	Broad support across factions
Caudillismo	Personalist leadership, loyalty to a strongman	Informal, often overrides formal structures	Pragmatic (varied by leader)	Pragmatic	Military followers, rural populations

Early post-independence debates also included monarchism versus republicanism, while regional power struggles and the influence of caudillos (powerful military and political leaders) added further complexity. Over time, especially by the late nineteenth century under Porfirio Díaz, these ideological divisions became less distinct, as a more centralized and authoritarian government adopted elements of liberal rhetoric while focusing on stability and economic growth.

Table 4: Major National Constitutions and Constitutional Frameworks in 19th Century Mexico

Constitution / Document	Ideological Orientation	Government Type	Key Features
Federal Constitution of 1824	Liberal, Federalist	Federal Republic	Established a system similar to the U.S.; division of powers; states had autonomy; Catholicism as official religion
Siete Leyes/Seven Laws (1836)	Conservative, Centralist	Centralized Republic	Abolished federalism; created strong central government; restricted suffrage; increased executive power
Bases Orgánicas (1843)	Conservative, Centralist	Centralized Republic	Reinforced centralism; limited political participation; maintained strong executive authority
Restoration of the 1824 Constitution (1847)	Liberal, Federalist	Federal Republic	Reestablished federal system and state sovereignty
Constitution of 1857	Liberal (Reform Era)	Federal Republic	Expanded civil liberties; separation of church and state; weakened Church and military privileges

The Independence Movement

The Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821) began when Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a Catholic priest influenced by Enlightenment ideas, called for rebellion against Spanish rule with the Grito de Dolores on September 16, 1810. Originally part of a small group of reform-minded criollos, including Ignacio Allende and Juan Aldama, Hidalgo acted quickly when their plan was discovered, turning a local conspiracy into an uprising. He inspired large numbers of Indigenous people and mestizos who suffered from inequality and economic hardship to join the movement. Using the Virgin of Guadalupe as a unifying symbol, Hidalgo built a large but loosely organized force that had early success in taking Guanajuato and securing victory at the Battle of Monte de las Cruces.

However, despite these successes, Hidalgo’s movement faced serious challenges. His army lacked discipline and formal military training, and his decision not to advance into Mexico City after a key victory gave Spanish forces time to recover. As a result, royalist troops eventually defeated the insurgents. Hidalgo was captured in 1811 and executed, ending his direct role in the independence movement.

.

José María Morelos y Pavón became the second major leader of the Mexican independence movement after the execution of Hidalgo. Like Hidalgo, he was a Catholic priest, but his leadership style was more organized and strategic. This turned the rebellion initiated by Hidalgo into a more focused political and military effort. After joining the movement in 1810, Morelos was sent to lead forces in southern Mexico, where he built a smaller, disciplined army. The military force led by Morelos achieved more consistent military success. His successful military campaigns captured key cities like Oaxaca.

Morelos also made important contributions by clearly defining the goals of the independence movement. In 1813, he organized the Congress of Chilpancingo and presented Sentimientos de la Nación (Sentiments of the Nation), a document that called for full independence from Spain, the abolition of slavery, equality among social groups, and the creation of a republic. This marked a shift from Hidalgo’s broad uprising to a more clearly developed political vision for a new nation..

Despite these achievements, Morelos was eventually captured by Spanish forces in 1815 and executed. However, his impact was lasting. He strengthened the independence movement by giving it clearer direction, stronger organization, and a defined set of political goals. His ideas about independence, equality, and republican government continued to influence later leaders.

Agustín de Iturbide played a key role in the final stage of Mexico’s independence movement and became the country’s first ruler after independence. Unlike earlier leaders such as Hidalgo and Morelos, Iturbide originally fought for Spain as a royalist officer. However, changing political conditions led him to support independence. In 1821, he formed an alliance with insurgent leader Vicente Guerrero, uniting former enemies. Together, they created the Plan of Iguala, which called for independence, a constitutional monarchy, protection of the Catholic Church, and equality between Spaniards and creoles. These principles became known as the “Three Guarantees,” and Iturbide led the Army of the Three Guarantees to victory, achieving independence later that year.

After independence, Iturbide was declared emperor in 1822, taking the title Agustín I. His rule quickly faced serious challenges, especially political divisions. Many leaders preferred a republic instead of a monarchy and distrusted his rise to power. When Congress opposed him, Iturbide dissolved it, which increased tensions and made his government appear authoritarian. At the same time, as noted above, Mexico faced major economic problems after years of war, including heavy debt, lack of funds, and a weak financial system. Iturbide struggled to fix these issues and failed to gain widespread support.

Opposition continued to grow and culminated with the Plan of Casa Mata, which called for restoring Congress and creating a republic. Faced with increasing resistance, Iturbide abdicated the throne in 1823 and went into exile. When he returned to Mexico in 1824, he was arrested and executed. Iturbide’s legacy is mixed: he helped secure Mexico’s independence, but his attempt to rule as emperor exposed deep political divisions and showed how difficult it was to build a stable government after independence.

A Liberal Experiment

With the ousting of Emperor Iturbide in 1823, Mexico entered a brief but significant liberal interlude from 1824 to 1833. This period marked the early efforts to reshape the nation’s political and social order. The liberal program aimed primarily to curtail the influence of the Catholic Church, limit the privileges of the clergy, military elites, and powerful landowners, and to lay the foundations of a constitutional republic. In 1824, a new constitution was enacted, establishing Mexico as a federal republic composed of nineteen states and four territories. It formally separated government powers into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. During the constitutional debates, deep political divisions emerged between the Centralists (Centralistas), who advocated for a strong centralized government, and the Federalists (Federalistas), who pushed for regional autonomy and local governance.

Mexico’s first elected president was Guadalupe Victoria (born Manuel Félix Fernández, r. 1824–1829). Victoria attempted to steer a moderate course between the Centralists and Federalists, but his presidency was largely marked by political instability and limited accomplishments. As his term ended, Mexico descended into a period of growing unrest, with conservative factions and Church leaders increasingly opposing the republican experiment. Their goal was not reform, but rather the dismantling of republican governance in favor of an authoritarian regime.

Victoria was succeeded by Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña, a hero of Mexican independence. During his presidency, Mexico faced a significant external threat in the form of the 1829 Spanish invasion of Tampico in 1829. this invasion was a final effort by Spain to reclaim its former colony. Guerrero’s government was saved by Antonio López de Santa Anna, whose swift military action forced the Spanish to surrender. This along with his participation in the removal of Iturbide, cemented his reputation as a national hero. However, with the external threat removed, internal divisions reemerged.

In 1830, Anastasio Bustamante y Oseguera, backed by conservative military officers, orchestrated a coup and removed Guerrero from office. Like Iturbide before him, Guerrero was ultimately executed for treason. This coup served as a grim symbol of the fragility of Mexico’s early republican experiment.

The Rise of Santa Ana

During this political turmoil, Antonio López de Santa Anna was rising rapidly in national prominence. Hailed as the “savior of the nation,” his popularity surged across political factions and led to his election of president of Mexico in 1833. Along with his vice president Valentín Gómez Farías (1781–1858), Santa Ana implemented a bold reform agenda aimed at curtailing the power of the Catholic Church and limiting the privileges of the military. However, these reforms quickly provoked fierce backlash. Both the clergy and the military elite saw the new policies as direct threats to their traditional authority. In response, they united in calling for the removal of Santa Anna and Gómez Farías. Facing mounting opposition and political unrest, Santa Anna reversed course. In 1835, he turned against his own government, dissolved the federalist constitution, and dismantled the republic. In its place, he established a centralized authoritarian regime, legitimized by a new constitutional framework known as the Siete Leyes (Seven Laws). This charter reorganized Mexico’s political system, replacing elected state governments with departments overseen by centrally appointed officials and solidifying executive power.

Santa Anna’s eventual downfall was closely tied to the loss of Mexico’s northern territory of Texas. Much like the Spanish colonial authorities before them, post-independence Mexican governments struggled to effectively control and settle their northern frontier. Despite claiming sovereignty over Texas, Mexico failed to maintain a strong presence or consistent governance in the region leaving it open for foreign occupation.

The Mexican-American War

During the 1820s, a large influx of U.S. settlers crossed the Mississippi River and migrated into Texas who lured by promises of land and opportunity. However, these settlers frequently ignored Mexican laws as they refused to pay taxes, introduced slavery (illegal under Mexican law), and did not adhere to the official religion, Roman Catholicism. These actions directly violated the terms under which they were allowed to settle. Mexican officials were not unaware of the growing threat. General Manuel de Mier y Terán, after surveying Texas, issued a dire warning about the region’s future. He warned that continued U.S. immigration could lead to the eventual loss of the territory.

By 1830, Texas had a population of approximately 28,700, of whom only about 4,000 were Mexicans. Alarmed, the Mexican government passed the Law of Colonization of 1830, which prohibited further immigration from the United States and sought to bolster Mexican control.

Despite these efforts, tensions continued to escalate. By 1835, Anglo-American settlers in Texas, frustrated by Mexican policies and inspired by U.S. notions of self-governance, declared independence from Mexico, setting the stage for the Texas Revolution and further undermining Santa Anna’s rule. In response to the Texas rebellion, Santa Anna launched a military campaign aimed at crushing the secessionist movement. He initially achieved a notable victory in 1836 at the Battle of the Alamo, where Mexican forces overwhelmed the Texan defenders. However, this success was short-lived. Just weeks later, Santa Anna was defeated and captured at the Battle of San Jacinto. This was a decisive conflict as it forced him to order the withdrawal of Mexican troops from Texas.

Following this defeat, Texas declared itself an independent republic, a status it would maintain from 1836 until its annexation by the United States in 1845. Santa Anna’s capture and the loss of Texas severely damaged his reputation. He was removed from power, and Mexico plunged into deep political instability. Between 1844 and 1848, Mexico cycled through twelve different governments, making it nearly impossible to negotiate a consistent diplomatic position or reach a compromise with the U.S. over Texas. Tensions escalated further when the U.S. formally annexed Texas in 1845, an act that Mexico viewed as a direct provocation and an illegal seizure of its territory. Compounding Mexico’s difficulties was the growing American presence in California, another sparsely populated region of strategic and economic interest.

Table 5: Governments of Mexico (1844–1848)

Dates	President / Leader	Type of Government	Key Notes
Jan 1844 – Sept 1844	Antonio López de Santa Anna	Centralist / Dictatorial tendencies	Increasing authoritarian rule; growing opposition leads to his fall
Sept 1844 – Dec 1844	Valentín Canalizo (interim, Santa Anna ally)	Centralist	Governed in Santa Anna’s absence; overthrown in revolt
Dec 1844 – Dec 1845	José Joaquín de Herrera (1st term)	Moderate Liberal (Federalist)	Attempted stability and negotiation with U.S.; seen as too conciliatory
Dec 1845 – July 1846	Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga	Conservative / Centralist	Seized power via coup; supported monarchy at times
July 1846 – Aug 1846	Nicolás Bravo (brief/interim)	Conservative	Short-lived transitional government during revolt
Aug 1846 – Dec 1846	José Mariano Salas	Federalist (Restoration)	Restored Federal Constitution of 1824; invited Santa Anna back
Dec 1846 – April 1847	Valentín Gómez Farías (vice president acting)	Radical Liberal	Implemented anti-clerical reforms; faced backlash
March 1847 – April 1847	Antonio López de Santa Anna (again)	Military leadership	Returned to lead during U.S.–Mexico War
April 1847 – Sept 1847	Pedro María Anaya (interim)	Federalist	Led during U.S. invasion; famous for defense of Mexico City
Sept 1847 – Nov 1847	Manuel de la Peña y Peña (interim)	Moderate	Took power after fall of Mexico City
Nov 1847 – Jan 1848	Pedro María Anaya (again)	Interim	Continued wartime leadership
Jan 1848 – June 1848	Manuel de la Peña y Peña (again)	Moderate	Negotiated Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (ended war)

American ambitions were driven by a mix of economic expansionism, strategic interests, and nationalist ideology. Central to this mindset was the belief in Manifest Destiny, a term coined in 1845 by journalist John L. O’Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review. O’Sullivan described it as America’s “manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” This ideology not only justified territorial expansion but also provided moral cover for waging war against Mexico, setting the stage for the U.S.-Mexican War in 1846.

It was under the leadership of President James K. Polk (r. 1845–1849) that the United States initiated hostilities with Mexico, driven by his strong belief in Manifest Destiny. Polk deliberately escalated tensions by sending General Zachary Taylor on a military expedition into the disputed territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande, an area claimed by both the U.S. and Mexico. This move was seen by Mexico as an act of aggression, and when Mexican forces engaged Taylor’s troops in 1846, Polk used the clash to justify declaring war.

The initial focus of the U.S. war strategy centered on northern Mexico, particularly the regions of California, New Mexico, and Chihuahua. The aim was to seize key territories and pressure Mexico into negotiating a peace settlement. Although early successes were limited, momentum shifted in the United States’ favor after General Winfield Scott captured the strategic port city of Veracruz in March 1847. This victory opened the path to Mexico City, which was occupied later that year.

The Mexican-American War officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Under the terms of the treaty, Mexico ceded approximately half of its territory to the United States, including lands north of the Rio Grande, the Gila River, and up to San Diego Bay. In return, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed approximately $3.25 million in claims that American citizens had against the Mexican government. This massive land transfer was comprised of present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The loss of the Mexican–American War had profound and long-lasting consequences for Mexico. It not only reduced Mexico’s geographic size but also deprived it of valuable natural resources and future economic opportunities. This created a pattern of economic disadvantage and regional inequality that persisted for decades. Economically, the war left Mexico financially weakened, as the costs of the conflict and the loss of productive land strained government revenues and slowed development. Politically, the defeat deepened internal instability, fueling conflicts between factions and undermining confidence in the government, which had already been fragile before the war. Socially and culturally, the loss intensified national trauma and contributed to a sense of resentment, shaping Mexican nationalism and attitudes toward the United States. Overall, the consequences of the war were not limited to territorial loss. They triggered enduring economic hardship, political instability, and identity struggles that influenced Mexico’s development throughout the 19th century and beyond.

The Return of the Liberals

The disastrous outcome of the Mexican-American War forced Mexico into a deep political reevaluation. The defeat discredited many of the country’s long-standing political factions, including the Centralistas, Federalistas, and especially the military, which had failed to defend national sovereignty. Even the supporters of Santa Anna, who made one final attempt to restore his influence, could not reverse the tide of disillusionment. In the aftermath of the Mexican-American War, a new generation of reform-minded intellectuals and public servants emerged. Key figures such as Melchor Ocampo (governor of Michoacán and national legislator), Santos Degollado (also a governor of Michoacán), Guillermo Prieto (chief editor of Siglo XIX), and Benito Juárez (a Zapotec lawyer and congressional delegate) became the leading voices of a revitalized liberal movement. These individuals, grounded in Enlightenment ideals and committed to national renewal, began to rethink Mexico’s institutional foundations.

These liberals called for the dismantling of colonial privileges as they were anti-military and anti-clerical. They sought for Mexico a federal republic that promoted civil liberties, education, and secular governance. Their vision resonated with much of the Mexican public, who were frustrated with corruption, inequality, and foreign humiliation. Standing in opposition were the conservatives, who sought to preserve the traditional social and political order. This group was primarily composed of the Catholic clergy, senior military officers, and the urban elite. These were members of Mexican society who had benefitted most from colonial structures and who feared liberal reforms would undermine their authority.

With the collapse of Santa Anna’s authoritarian regime in 1855, power shifted decisively into the hands of Mexico’s emerging liberal reformers. A provisional government was initially established, but later that same year, a more formal administration took shape under President Ignacio Comonfort (1812–1863). The new liberal leadership wasted no time in initiating a sweeping campaign to dismantle the lingering structures of the colonial past and reshape Mexico into a modern, secular, and republican state.

This period of transformation, known as La Reforma, began with a series of groundbreaking laws that targeted the entrenched power of the Catholic Church and military elite:

Table 6: Major Reform Laws

Law/Figure	Main Purpose	Key Actions	Effects
Ley Juárez 1855 – Benito Juárez	Establish equality before the law by limiting special privileges	Abolished fueros (special courts) for clergy and military, placing them under civilian legal jurisdiction	Reduced the power of the Church and military; promoted legal equality and strengthened the authority of the civil government
Ley Lerdo 1856 – Miguel Lerdo de Tejada	Modernize the economy and promote private land ownership	Forced the sale of land owned by the Church and indigenous communities (corporate landholdings)	Intended to create a middle class and stimulate the economy, but often harmed indigenous communities by breaking up communal lands
Ley Iglesias 1857 – José María Iglesias	Reduce economic exploitation by the Church	Prohibited the Church from charging high fees for sacraments, especially for the poor	Limited Church income and influence; made religious services more accessible to lower classes

These legislative reforms culminated in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution of 1857. This constitution enshrined the core principles of 19th-century liberalism focusing on the rule of law, individual rights, and secular governance. It introduced a comprehensive bill of rights, eliminated remaining military and clerical privileges, and reaffirmed the authority of a unicameral national congress, shifting the balance of power toward elected civilian institutions.

The liberal reforms enshrined in the Constitution of 1857 provoked fierce conservative backlash, especially from the Catholic Church and traditional elites. Unlike earlier Mexican constitutions, the 1857 document omitted a declaration of Roman Catholicism as the exclusive state religion. This omission, coupled with the earlier reform laws that curtailed Church privileges and property, led to a complete rejection of the constitution by the clergy. The Church, in alliance with conservative military leaders and wealthy elites, began organizing efforts to topple the liberal government.

By 1858, tensions erupted into open conflict. Under the rallying cry of “Religión y Fuero”, a defense of Catholicism and traditional privileges, General Félix Zuloaga, representing conservative forces, launched a coup known as the Plan de Tacubaya, which resulted in the overthrow of President Ignacio Comonfort. The conservatives attempted to arrest Benito Juárez, then head of the Supreme Court and next in line for the presidency. Juárez, however, escaped and declared himself constitutional president, setting up a rival liberal government in Veracruz, while the conservatives held Mexico City.

This clash ignited the War of Reform (1858–1861), a conflict between the liberal and conservative factions. The war was fought not only over control of the state but whether Mexico be a secular republic or a traditionalist state aligned with Church and military power. Though the liberals ultimately emerged victorious in 1861, the cost was enormous. The war devastated the Mexican economy, deepened internal divisions, and left the country saddled with massive debt. Despite military success, political unity remained fragile. Nevertheless, Benito Juárez was elected president in 1861, representing a significant milestone for the liberal cause and for indigenous representation in Mexican leadership.

Benito Juárez

Benito Juárez, born on March 21, 1806, in San Pablo Guelatao, Oaxaca, was of Zapotec Indigenous heritage and rose to become one of Mexico’s most influential political leaders. Juárez embraced the core ideals of 19th-century liberalism, which were grounded in capitalism, utilitarianism, free trade, decentralized government, individual rights, and the separation of church and state. His presidency, lasting from 1861 to 1872, was defined by a determined effort to sever Mexico’s lingering ties to Spanish conservative and clerical traditions. However, Juárez’s reform agenda was not without contradictions. While advocating free-market principles, his administration extended government support to foreign investors, thus subverting the ideals of laissez-faire capitalism. These state-backed incentives ushered in an influx of foreign capital and technology, sparking a wave of modernization. However, this came at a significant cost to Mexico’s sovereignty and economic independence.

Over time, many of Mexico’s key industries fell under foreign control. British, French, and German interests dominated oil development, while foreigners controlled much of Mexico City’s banking sector. French companies expanded their influence over the textile industry, and American interests grew increasingly assertive. The influential American media mogul William Randolph Hearst once remarked, “I really don’t see what is to prevent us from owning all of Mexico and running it to suit ourselves.” This statement was a telling reflection of the growing perception of Mexico as a nation vulnerable to foreign economic domination.

Juárez also faced intense domestic criticism. While liberals had hoped the expropriation of Church lands would promote egalitarian land ownership, in practice, wealthy liberal landowners acquired vast estates (latifundias). This occurred at the expense of dispossessed campesinos and Indigenous communities. Land survey schemes and forced auctions further enriched elites, deepening economic inequality and fueling accusations that Juárez had betrayed the very social justice ideals his party championed.

Mexico’s next crisis was financial. Juárez inherited a bankrupt nation reeling from the War of Reform. In response, he issued a two-year moratorium (1861) on the payment of Mexico’s foreign debt. Alarmed, Spain, Great Britain, and France feared that this might signal a permanent repudiation of Mexico’s obligations. The three nations responded by signing the Tripartite Convention in 1861, which called for the joint military occupation of Mexico’s coastline to secure debt repayment.

The Convention included provisions that appeared to protect Mexican sovereignty:

The high contracting parties bind themselves not to seek for themselves, in the employment of coercive measures foreseen by the present convention, any acquisition of territory, or any peculiar advantage, and not… impair the right of the Mexican Nation to choose and freely constitute the form of its own government.

While Britain and Spain adhered to the agreement’s non-interventionist framework and later withdrew, France did not. Under the rule of Napoleon III (Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte), France pursued a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. The debt dispute became a pretext for a French imperial venture in Mexico and the attempted establishment of a monarchical regime under Maximilian of Habsburg.

The French Interlude

Napoleon III, seeking to reassert French influence in the Americas, saw the Tripartite Convention of 1861 not as a limit but as a launching pad for imperial ambitions. Unlike Britain and Spain, who withdrew from Mexico after initial negotiations, France remained. It was driven by expansionist aims hidden behind the language of debt collection and order. French General Charles Ferdinand Latrille led French troops inland towards the city of Puebla. In turn, President Benito Juárez entrusted the defense of Puebla to General Ignacio Zaragoza, who organized a determined and effective resistance.

On May 5, 1862, Latrille launched his attack on Puebla, but was repelled in a stunning Mexican victory. The battle’s turning point came when Brigadier General Porfirio Díaz, a rising military talent, defended Zaragoza’s right flank, halting a major French assault. This victory became immortalized as Cinco de Mayo, a national holiday celebrating resistance against imperialism.

However, this triumph was temporary. Humiliated, Napoleon III dispatched over 30,000 reinforcements to Mexico. The French captured Puebla in a second offensive and marched on Mexico City, forcing Juárez and his government to retreat to San Luis Potosí. With the United States still embroiled in civil war and unable to enforce its regional dominance, Napoleon moved forward with his plan to establish a monarchy in Mexico aligned with French interests.

In July 1863, conservative Mexican elites and Napoleon’s envoys offered the Mexican crown to Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Austria, a member of the Habsburg dynasty. Maximilian and his wife Carlotta of Belgium arrived in June 1864 to preside over the so-called Second Mexican Empire (1864–1867).

But rather than being welcomed, Maximilian faced fierce opposition from multiple sides:

• Liberal Republicans, led by Juárez, rejected any form of monarchy.

• Nationalist conservatives, despite initially backing foreign intervention, now balked at the idea of foreign rule.

• Even religious conservatives turned against Maximilian when he declared support for the Laws of Reform, including restrictions on the Church.

As the American Civil War ended in 1865, the United States turned its attention back to Mexico. Firmly committed to the Monroe Doctrine, U.S. officials began pressuring France. The U.S. refused to recognize Maximilian’s regime and demanded a French withdrawal. Fearing direct conflict with the United States, Napoleon III withdrew his support and troops by 1867, effectively dooming the imperial project. Left without support, Maximilian was captured, tried, and executed by firing squad on June 19, 1867, under Juárez’s orders. The Republic was restored, and Juárez returned to Mexico City as president.

However, the restoration of the Republic did not restore unity. A deepening divide emerged between radical liberals committed to strict constitutionalism and reform and moderate liberals who were more pragmatic in their approach to governance. Controversy erupted when Juárez issued a decree in November 1865 extending his presidency until elections could be held. This was an act many considered unconstitutional. He further provoked dissent through his Convocatoria, a proposed constitutional reform to grant the president veto power over legislation.

Porfirio Díaz, a decorated war hero and rising political figure, emerged as Juárez’s main political rival. In the presidential election of 1867, Díaz ran against Juárez but was defeated, and also failed to secure the position of President of the Supreme Court. In 1871, Juárez again ran for re-election against Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada and Porfirio Díaz. Amid accusations of electoral fraud, tensions reached a boiling point. On November 8, 1871, Díaz issued the Plan de la Noria, a formal rebellion denouncing Juárez’s reelection and demanding enforcement of the Constitution of 1857 and electoral integrity. Ironically, the rebellion lost momentum with Juárez’s sudden death on July 18, 1872, effectively ending the immediate crisis.

Following the death of Benito Juárez in 1872, the presidency passed to Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada (1827–1889), who was then serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position that, under the Constitution of 1857, made him the legitimate interim successor. Although initially intended to serve only until new elections could be held, Lerdo took strategic measures to secure his own election to the presidency. He granted amnesty to the rebels of the Plan de la Noria, including Porfirio Díaz, while simultaneously ensuring that Juaristas remained in control of the federal and local governments. This calculated move preserved continuity and appeased opposition forces, helping Lerdo win the presidency later in 1872.

Lerdo’s presidency focused on consolidating the gains of La Reforma, expanding railroads, promoting public education, and defending the secular state. However, his political maneuvering and eventual decision to seek re-election in 1876 provoked fierce resistance. That same year, Porfirio Díaz issued the Plan de Tuxtepec, a political manifesto that accused Lerdo of violating constitutional principles by seeking another term. In the Plan de Tuxtepec, Díaz called for “effective suffrage and no re-election,” echoing liberal ideals of democracy and municipal autonomy. He implied support for federalism and expressed sympathy for rural struggles, particularly those of campesinos facing dispossession by large landowners. However, once in power, Porfirio Díaz would abandon many of these principles.

In Closing

The political and social turmoil that characterized Mexico throughout the 19th century created the conditions that made both the rise of the authoritarian regime of Porfirio Díaz and the later Mexican Revolution possible. After decades of conflict following independence, Mexico suffered from weak institutions, regional divisions, and chronic instability. This environment led many elites to prioritize order and stability over democratic governance, which helped justify the rise of Porfirio Díaz’s regime. Ironically, the very leader who rose to prominence by denouncing centralization and elite control would go on to preside over an increasingly authoritarian regime. As you will learn in our next topic, Porfirio Díaz’s regime brought infrastructure growth, foreign investment, and relative political stability, but it did so at the cost of growing inequality and the exclusion of large segments of the population.