Dios, libertad y convención:The Rise and Fall of the Republic of the Rio Grande

By

Araceli Méndez HintermeisterMay 2016

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theMaster of Arts in History Program

Simmons CollegeBoston, Massachusetts

The author grants Simmons College permission to include this thesis in its Library and to make it available to the academic community for scholarly purposes.

Submitted by

_______________________________________Araceli Méndez Hintermeister

Approved by:

____________________________ ___________________________Dr. Stephen Ortega (thesis advisor) Dr. Stephen Berry (second reader)

© 2016, Araceli Méndez Hintermeister

Acknowledgements

This thesis could not have been accomplished without the love and encouragement of many individuals. I’m infinitely grateful for the support of my family, friends, and advisors throughout the process.

To my familia, thank you for always being proud of all of my accomplishments even those you quite didn’t understand. One of these days, I will successfully explain what I’ve been up to these past three years.

To the Simmons History Department. Thank you Dr. Stephen Berry. Through your classes, I’ve delved into topics I’ve never encountered and found new interests and curiosities. Thank you Dr. Sarah Leonard for your patience, encouragement, and help. Your investment in your students was the instrumental support I needed to get through those rough patches. Thank you Dr. Stephen Ortega for providing me with a space to explore my interests, for helping me find my place within history and with it the empowerment I needed.

To Artie Hintermeister – Supreme Editor-in-chief, I couldn’t have done this without your unwavering love and support.

2

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 4

Birth of a Republic……………………………………………………………….19

Rebellion and the Federalist Cause………………………………………………33

The Republic of the Rio Grande…………………………………………………44

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….60

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..65

3

Introduction

Not confined or defined by the boundaries that create them, borderlands and other

territorial zones are culturally unified regions that transcend political and geographical

boundaries, thriving from the diverse interactions that exist within them. Although

acknowledged as a controlled border, scholars consider the U.S.-Mexican border as a

gateway between two countries for the movement of people, ideas, cultures, and

commerce, even today. The U.S.-Mexican border divides two countries with the

underlying assumption that each side is comprised of a distinct language, heritage and

culture that is incompatible with the other side. However, the nature of the land that

surrounds both sides of the border breaks down the idea of an impenetrable frontier and

forms a distinct third space. The history of this borderland region is complex and extends

far beyond the founding of the very countries that attempt to define it today, the United

States and Mexico. The cartography of the region has been largely shaped by European

colonization of North America by European countries. With colonization, the region

became the initial frontier of New Spain and thus the periphery of the new colony.

Today, a separate culture has flourished in this third space with a set of rules, language,

and customs that are quite distinct from the larger American and Mexican cultures that

intersect in this zone. That culture is a strong mixture of American and Mexican

traditions intertwined with each other, complementing without overpowering one

another.

Beginning with the colonization of the Americas, the U.S.-Mexican borderland

changed through the centuries under the influence of colonial powers and their shared

desire to expand the borders of their own empires. Seven countries— among them Spain,

4

France, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the Confederate States of America, and the

United States of America – have laid claim to various sections of the border over

different periods of time. One small republic, the Republic of the Rio Grande, briefly had

a concise hold over the borderland. The rise and fall of the Republic of the Rio Grande

during the 19th century serves as an example of the interconnectivity of the borderlands

and demonstrates how the issues and perspectives of a small region compare to those at

the national level. Through its history, one can better understand the progression of this

area from frontier land into borderland and how the characteristics of each blend into one

another. The Republic of the Rio Grande gives access to a view of the United States and

Mexico that is not quite insider or outsider, but rather that of a third space. It showcases

the cultural and historical significance of the borderland.

The Republic of the Rio Grande was a unification of today’s Mexican states of

Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, and the Nueces Strip in Texas in the act of

rebellion against Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s dictatorship and the emerging centralist

government in Mexico. The region, located in the northern frontier of Mexico, was

geographically removed from the capital of Mexico. Like most frontiers, it was forgotten

by the government, settled sporadically, and lost on the periphery. The formation of the

Republic directly responded to the political and social changes that took place throughout

the early to mid-1800s within Mexico without considering the political necessities of the

Rio Grande region. Unlike the Republic of Texas, however, which was seceding to the

north, the Republic of the Rio Grande was not an attempt to break from Mexican roots

but rather an effort to amend the government.1 A historical analysis of the Republic of the

1 David Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico” (PhD diss., University of Texas, 1951).

5

Rio Grande would shed light on how borderland multiplicity creates tension, and also

showcase how political activity, social composition, and spatial geography can greatly

influence a community.

Much of the history relating to the Republic of the Rio Grande is supplemented by

The Spanish Archives of Laredo collection located in St. Mary’s University, Blume

Library in San Antonio, Texas. These primary sources consist of 3,245 documents and

records concerning the growth and development of the city of Laredo, the Republic’s

primary capital and political hub. The collection combines personal correspondence, local

government documents, and national communications and decrees. Under the Spanish

monarchy, the town of Laredo was required to maintain papers and records of national,

municipal, legal, commercial, religious and social affairs. Additionally, Laredo was

required to preserve copies of all decrees, ordinances, and legislation sent to it by the

Crown.2 These documents provide insight into the founding of a frontier town and the

transformation of consciousness among its residents as they confronted internal and

external struggles. Laredo is the only city to have been a leading participant in the

rebellion of the Republic of the Rio Grande and to have remained in the United States

today. The city uniquely illustrates the pull and push dynamic of border interactions.

Despite sharing this collection as an anchor, each individual approach to the history of

the Republic of the Rio Grande varies immensely. The following scholars have covered

the history of the Republic of the Rio Grande and chosen to tell this story through the

lens of either Texas, Mexico, or the Republic itself, unsure of how to properly combine

the multitude of relationships and viewpoints.

2 Robert D. Wood, Life in Laredo: A Documentary History of the Laredo Archives (Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2004).

6

Beatriz de la Garza, attorney and author, focuses on the city of Laredo and the

people within who formed the Republic in her 2013 book From the Republic of the Rio

Grande: A Personal History of the Place and the People.3 Her book fuses family

memoirs and borderland history from the mid-1700s to present day. Through this

approach we learn about the shared identity of the inhabitants of the U.S.-Mexican

borderland, the biculturalism that emerged in the region, and their shared sense of

destiny. De la Garza reframes the history such that the Republic of the Rio Grande

becomes the center and Mexico falls into the periphery. Given the locality of de la

Garza’s approach, however, her analysis only encompasses the towns on the northern

banks of the Rio Grande while omitting those on the southern banks. With such a

detailed focus on the individuals of Laredo, we lose some of the historical context as de

la Garza does not provide much detail regarding those relationships and interactions

across the river.

In his 1951 history dissertation The Republic of the Rio Grande: An example of

separatism in northern Mexico, David M. Vigness attributes the feelings of separatism in

northern Mexico to four factors: the geography of northern Mexico, the Native American

cultures encountered, the Spanish method of settling the area, and the constant shifting of

Central Mexican politics.4 His article “Relations between the Republic of Texas and the

Republic of the Rio Grande” analyzes the benefits and consequences that both republics

faced in creating an alliance against the centralist government of Mexico.5 Coming from a

3 Beatriz de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and People, 1st ed (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013) 4 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande.” 5 David Vigness, “Relations between the Republic of Texas and the Republic of the Rio Grande,” Southern Historical Quarterly 57 (January 1954): 312-321.

7

background in Latin American history, Vigness captures the political turmoil that

affected Mexicans along the Rio Grande, the native Comanche community of the Great

Plains, and Anglo-Americans in Texas, including detailed accounts of the battles that

took place between these groups. In his scholarship, Vigness presents us with the

Republic’s use of political agency, in particular military, as it sought to gain security and

stability. Vigness exhibits how a cultural desire can be utilized for political gain.

Joseph Nance's 1963 After San Jacinto: The Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1836-1841

is one of the first historical accounts concerning Texan-Mexican relations as the southern

and southwestern frontiers of Texas were being defined. Nance considers the disputed

area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande not as a frontier belonging to any one

country, but rather a borderland shared by two contrasting civilizations. Nance

emphasizes how the political instability in Mexico infringed upon Texan relations and

politics. Inspired by the New Left history, Nance highlights the Native American

presence during formation of the Texas-Mexican border, specifically the experience of

Cherokees who were expulsed from Texas in 1839. The Mexican Federalist wars

prompted Texans into seeking their own independence, and allowed them to do so under

the cover of Mexico’s turmoil. The years 1836 through 1841 were crucial in helping

Texans shape their borders into the state and community we know today. 6 Nance

highlights the hesitation by Texans to help the federalists and the actions taken to support

the Republic as independent. Through this lens, Nance positions the Republic as a

meeting ground for two cultures. This third space was not one that represented the people

6 Joseph Milton Nance, After San Jacinto: the Texas- Mexican Frontier, 1836-1841 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1963)

8

of the Republic, but rather it presented the frontier as a platform where cultural

negotiations could take place.

One Mexican historian, Josefina Zoraida Vázquez, questions the existence of the

Republic altogether in her 1986 article "La Supuesta República del Rio Grande." Conflict

and disputes were evident along the Rio Grande, but she sees the Republic’s existence as

a product of wishful thinking rather than real materialization. She argues that the

borderland community was merely trying to establish a provisional government rather

than actually secede.7 Deciding to name themselves the Republic of the Rio Grande,

however, appeared to Mexico as an overt act of secession. Vázquez, by examining Texan

newspapers and propaganda, concludes that the name most likely originated from

politically minded Texans from the north rather than from actual members of the

Republic. Vázquez argues that these Texans had more of a purpose to promote an

independent Republic of the Rio Grande such that it could serve as a buffer country

between their own republic and Mexico.8 In his 2005 article “The Republic of the Rio

Grande,” Mike Coppock also questions the role of Texas in the formation of the Republic

of the Rio Grande. Coppock analyzes the public support of Texas citizens and private

support of Texan politicians towards the Republic of Rio Grande in order to better

understand the benefits the Republic served.9 While Coppock and Vázquez take different

approaches, they both explore the role that Texas had in the formation of the Republic of

the Rio Grande.

7 Josefina Zoraida Vázquez, “La Supuesta República Del Rio Grande,” Historia Mexicana 36, no. 1 (September 1986): 49-80. 8 Ibid. 609 Mike Coppock, “The Republic of the Rio Grande,” Wild West 18, no. 4 (December 2005): 46-52.

9

Studying the history of the Republic of the Rio Grande is a study of the history

and culture of borderlands. The Republic of the Rio Grande is a story of how the politics

and people of Mexico and Texas served as a catalyst for a community that was trying to

form their own identity. Through it, we are provided with a unique perspective of each

country and their histories while allowing a comparative analysis across countries. The

story of the Republic of the Rio Grande, while unique, follows a model of interactions

that can be found in almost every borderland community. In his 1994 book Border

People Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands, historian Oscar J. Martínez

presents his research conducted through oral history interviews with the hope of

portraying the social history and way of life of borderlanders. Martínez defines

borderland as a region that lies adjacent to a border, and the reach of the ‘other side’

defines its territorial size.10 No matter where in the world these areas exist, Martínez

believes that borderlands are filled with transnational interactions such as the shipment of

goods, migration of people, and relationships between people that extend beyond the

border zone. Martínez goes on to define frontier as “an area that is physically distant

from the core of the nation; it is a zone of transition, a place where people and institutions

are shaped by natural and human forces that are not felt in the heartland.”11 A border

determines the location of a borderland, but not its size. The nation and the ‘other side’

inadvertently make that determination.12

Imagine a color spectrum where you see the fluidity of one color transforming

into another. You can identify where red, purple, and blue exist, but cannot identify with

10 Oscar J. Martínez, Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994) 5. 11 Ibid.12 Ibid.

10

certainty where one color begins and the other ends. Within this spectrum, fluidity is

what unifies the diversity. In a similar way, borderlands exist as a mix of regions, and it is

unclear where one begins and the other ends. To better understand borderlands, we must

look beyond our preconceived notion of them as isolated blocks and instead focus on the

fluidity of exchanges and encounters that borderlands breed. Samuel Truett and Elliott

Young urge historians to look beyond the selective traditional frameworks that history

dictates and instead focus on the multiplicity of worlds that history leaves behind.13 Truett

& Young place this request in their 2004 book of edited essays Continental Crossroads:

Remapping U.S.-Mexican Borderlands History. The authors argue that at the end of the

20th century, social history has limited itself to regions east of the Appalachians and

historians had just begun looking westward. Historians who studied race, class, ethnicity,

gender, and the environment began to not only look west, but to also discover that

"America's history should not stop at the nation's edge."14 According to Truett and

Young, traditional frameworks focus on narratives of events that define a community of

citizens within a specific nation.15 These approaches focused on building a "national

community" at the expense of preserving regional history. In their understanding of

borderlands, the authors describe a place supported by a complex web of historical

relationships between regional and local subsets of national narratives.16 Borderlands and

their history are in some ways “quintessentially national, and in others they completely

transcend the nation.”17 While Truett and Young do not provide as concise a definition 13 Samuel Truett and Elliott Young, eds., introduction to Continental Crossroads: Remapping U.S.-Mexico Borderlands History (Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2004) 14 Samuel Truett, Fugitive Landscapes: The Forgotten History of the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) ix.15 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 217 Ibid.

11

for borderlands as Martínez, their definitions affirm the idea that borderlands are filled

with fluid exchanges.

In his 2011 article “On Bazaars and Battlefields: Recent Scholarship on

Mediterranean Cultural Contacts,” Mediterranean historian Eric R. Dursteler explores the

patterns of interactions that occur in the Mediterranean beyond the legal and cultural

borders that exist.18 The Mediterranean serves as a perfect example of a region that is not

only a diverse territorial zone, but one whose history has been marked by multiple

negotiations over boundaries and identities. By analyzing a variety of academic and

theoretical fields such as trade, imagery, and architecture, Dursteler exposes the

connections and cooperation that exist beyond the places of encounters that other

historians have focused on. Dursteler acknowledges the diversity of the region but argues

that it coexists in unity. Believing that the Mediterranean is an integrated space and not

composed of isolated blocks, he credits this coexistence to the widely shared attitudes and

values among its people.19

Peter Sahlins, in his 1989 book Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in

the Pyrenees, documents the multiplicity of Cerdanya, a valley in eastern Pyrenees that is

today a French-Spanish borderland, by presenting the history behind the establishment of

the national boundary line and what he believes to be the “making of Frenchmen and

Spaniards.”20 This study of Cerdanya necessarily connects the center and the frontier by

presenting the political and diplomatic history of France, Spain, and the villages all in

18 Eric R. Dursteler, “On Bazaars and Battlefields: Recent Scholarship on Mediterranean Cultural Contacts,” Journal of Early Modern History 15, no. 5 (January 2011): 413-434. 19 Ibid. 420 – 425. 20 Peter Sahlins, Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) xv.

12

one. Whereas Truett and Young are wary of traditional frameworks because they focus

too much on defining the citizen through a nation and through “imagined communities”,21

Sahlins urges the reader to focus on the “macroscopic” and the “molecular”

simultaneously. He goes on to quote American sociologist C. Wright Mills, “Only by

moving grandly on the macroscopic level can we satisfy our intellectual curiosities. But

only by moving minutely on the molecular level can our observations and explanations

be adequately connected. So, if we would have our cake and eat it too, we must shuttle

between the macroscopic and the molecular levels in instituting the problem and

explaining it too.”22 Analyzing the pre-modern conceptions of territory and tenets of

modern nationalism, Sahlins considers the emergence of the idea of territory. While

borderlands are not encompassed solely by the macroscopic history, they are nonetheless

affected by it. Sahlins argues that it is important to understand the division and

differences between Spaniards and Frenchmen—also known as the creation of the

"other"—in order to understand a borderland that fits neither the imagined communities

of Spain and France.

Border milieu is the product created when border zones encounter unique forces,

processes, and characteristics that shape and differentiate the region. Among these forces,

transnational interaction, international conflict, ethnic conflict, and a feeling of

ambiguous identity, or as Martínez puts it, separateness, lead to the production of border

milieu.23 Martínez notes, “Above all, an unstable international climate kept borderlands

generally under populated and economically backward, as central governments hesitated

21 Truett and Young, Continental Crossroads, 2.22 Sahlins, Boundaries.23 Martínez, Border People. 10.

13

to develop areas where the likelihood of fighting in time of war was the highest.”24

Borderlands are portals that naturally connect individuals from different cultures;

therefore constant patterns of interactions between these cultures are vital for business

and day-to-day activities to continue.

In his book The Location of Culture, Homi Bhabha provides his perspective on

the production of third spaces. For him, third spaces are platforms of resistance in which

a temporality that displaces the existing regional and national narratives exists. This

disruption clears out a space from which the production of new culture can be enunciated.

The Republic of the Rio Grande thus serves as a platform for borderland consciousness

and the border milieu, such as the experiences created by the political instability

surrounding them.25 The borderland community that forms across two nations can be

thought of as a “third space”, one that is held in a constant state of transition through the

unique interactions between internal and external influences. In his 1994 book The

Location of Culture, Homi Bhabha believes that these “in between” spaces provide a

terrain for the formation of selfhood, both singular and communal.26 Bhabha believes that

in these third spaces, time and space cross “to produce complex figures of identity, past

and present, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion.” The Frontera del Norte is then

in a state that will initiate new signs of identity within its community. Bhabha believes

these third spaces serve as innovative sites of collaboration and contestation as the

production of self-defining takes place.

24 Ibid. 225 Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004) 32-36. 26 Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004).

14

While the boundaries that exist may establish legal territorial lines, they are most

often formed when a series of cross-cultural encounters develops into a negotiation of

power between communities, the most notable of which is war. Because these

borderlands serve as connection space among individuals, the border naturally harbors a

high level of conflict over identities, culture, and power. The communities that live in the

borderlands do not always produce these interactions, and the negotiations are therefore

not necessarily representative of them. The lived realities of the borderlands are far more

complex than we can imagine. From a distance, they may resemble distinct communities.

However, just like in a color spectrum, upon closer examination the overlapping

commonalities and shared interactions make it difficult to distinguish where one

community ends and another begins.

The Republic of the Rio Grande posed a problem at the molecular level; it was

distinct from the communities that governed it and therefore sought to be independent.

Prior to the rise of the Republic, it was not yet a borderland, but a frontier, distant and

isolated. However, the Republic fell victim to the reality of the borderland in that its

livelihood was still attached to the center of the nation. The layers and depth of

relationships that a borderland possesses produces questions about the framing of its

history. Understanding borderlands helps historians better frame the history of these

regions as well as the history of the nations to which they belong. As French historian

Pierre Vilar put it, “The history of the world is best observed from the frontier.”27

Through their writings, the historians mentioned above encompass the diversity in

borderlands and other territorial zones while analyzing the cultural, political, and

economic interactions that occur in these unique spaces. By presenting these negotiations, 27 Sahlins, Boundaries. xv

15

the authors demonstrate how borderlands are subject to national and local influences, and

explain why the local influences ultimately prevail.

The story of the Republic of the Rio Grande is not only one of a borderland

community, but also one example of a changing model of borderland interactions. To

elaborate, this thesis will employ Martínez’s definition of border, borderland, and

frontier.28 The Republic of the Rio Grande is not adjacent to the recognized political

border of Mexico. However, it remains a borderland. The territorial limit of the

borderland is determined by the reach of the other side; thus the creation of the Republic

of the Rio Grande is an effect of the interactions with the United States through Texas.

The story of the Republic is a story of transition of the U.S.-Mexican border through

models of interaction. By applying and connecting borderland theory to the Republic of

the Rio Grande, the region represents a unique third space, a territory defined by internal

dynamics and by the ways in which national and international powers interacted within

this space.

When historians speak of the Republic of the Rio Grande they feature the

Republic, Mexico and Texas as the three main players, though each account seems to

favor one over the others. Through the study of borderland history, we must analyze

borderlands both from within and from without. While we need to expose and place value

on the distinct histories of borderland communities, we cannot ignore the histories of the

national communities that surround them. After all, to omit these stories would be to

ignore the creation of a new space and diminish the influence of the constant

transnational relationships and interactions that occur along the border. This thesis will

28 Martínez, Border People. 5

16

follow the progression of northern Mexico from frontier to borderland during the 1800s

and showcase how overlapping characteristics of a region in transition brought about

feelings of separatism and otherness. With a thorough investigation of the key players,

this thesis will interpret how interactions at the national and local levels influenced

change within this borderland region.

While the Republic of the Rio Grande provides a unique example of borderland

culture, because of the trials and tribulations tied to its development. it is challenging to

study a land whose story has been told indirectly, in pieces, and from a variety of

contradictory perspectives. Past scholars have thus considered the Republic of the Rio

Grande as simply a borderland space from which to observe more well-known and

straightforward conflicts between larger nations. But by combining the study local

history with borderlands studies, we can see how the formation of the Republic of the Rio

Grande border was more than a fight over a territorial zone, but rather a unique product

of borderland interactions.

17

Birth of a Republic

"¡Viva nuestra madre santísima de Guadalupe! ¡Viva Fernando VII y muera el mal gobierno!"29

– Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, 15 September 1810

Oscar J. Martínez structures the colonial and postcolonial history of the U.S.-

Mexico borderland region into three distinct periods. The first period, “Alienation” from

the 1560s to 1880s, was marked by continuous ethnic conflict, banditry, and filibustering

as European powers battled for control over North America. During this period,

ownership of the continent changed hands following major events such as the Louisiana

Purchase, the Texas Revolution, the War of 1846-1848, and the Gadsden Purchase.30 The

next period, “Coexistence”, took place from the 1880s to the 1920s and consisted of

efforts towards connecting northern Mexico to the United States. Economic initiatives

and migration that occurred during this period created a commercial and social flow

throughout the region.31 Lastly, the period of “Interdependence” began in the year 1920

and extends to the present day. Martínez describes this period as one where the expansion

of border trade took place alongside industrialization, tourism, and migration. Extensive

urbanization and population growth were also present during Interdependence.

It is during the first period of colonization, that of Alienation, where the brief

history of the Republic of the Rio Grande lives. Characterized by historical expansion,

29 “Long live Our Lady of Guadalupe! Long live Ferdinand VII and death to bad government!” It is unclear what Miguel Hidalgo's exact words were during the Grito de Dolores, but this is one of the believed variations. Lucas Alaman, "The Siege of Guanajuato," in The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, eds. Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003) 173. 30 Oscar J. Martínez, Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994). 2831 Ibid.

18

the Republic of the Rio Grande fits the main narrative of this period. From a simplistic

and nationalistic standpoint, the story of the Rio Grande begins and ends with the

development of two countries. At the Republic’s start, Mexico’s newly won

independence gave way to debate and criticism over the political foundation of a new

republic. At the Republic’s end, the quest for westward expansion known as “manifest

destiny” cemented the United States’ boundaries and thus the Republic’s future. While

analyzing the larger conflicts between neighboring countries, it is also important to view

the Republic from a local standpoint, as its creation stems from a community’s

reactionary movement to a larger power. In order to fully understand the rise and fall of

the Republic of the Rio Grande, we must view it with a broader lens that spans the history

of colonization across the Rio Grande region.

During Europe’s first encounters with the Americas, the western hemisphere was

not marked as a place for colonization. However, it was not long before explorers began

to see the Americas as a source of resources and exploitation, and their discoveries led to

a strong competition between the world’s international powers, especially over the

ownership of land. In order to compete, Spain invested resources in developing its

borderland regions. Attempts to colonize the area, called el seno mexicano by the

Spaniards, had started as early as the 1500s. 32 As Beatriz de la Garza explains in her

book From the Republic of the Rio Grande, Spaniards had initial success in populating

regions near the source of the Rio Grande, but not where it met the ocean.33 The Spanish

monarchy therefore sent Don José de Escandón to the banks of the lower Rio Grande in

the middle of the eighteenth century as part of an effort to colonize the northern parts of

32 In this case, seno means a gulf or cavity.33 Beatriz de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and the People, 1st ed (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013). 2.

19

Nuevo Santander. Escandón’s plan for colonization was distinct from past attempts in

that he set out to build towns with communities of families as opposed to just

missionaries and soldiers.34 Escandón identified locations within the lower Rio Grande

region to serve as the home for these new villas, establishing nineteen settlements along

the southern and western sides of the Rio Grande, the majority still within today’s

Mexico. 35 The villa of San Agustín de Laredo was the only settlement founded on the

eastern north bank of the Rio Grande, now part of the United States. This community of

villas was known as the Frontera del Norte36.

Don José Escandón’s Frontera del Norte reveals much about borderland

community cohesion. For one, the proximity between villas forged a codependency

within the larger region. De la Garza records the founding dates of the five most

successful villas as 1749 for Camargo and Reynosa, 1750 for Revilla, 1752 for Mier, and

1755 for Laredo. These five villas experienced being frontier outposts for the first time

together, and as a result they bonded and relied on each other’s experiences and

resources. “The requirement of self-sufficiency no doubt led to a strong, independent

spirit among the inhabitants of the river settlements that also led them to embrace the

struggle for Mexican independence from Spain that emerged in the first decade of the

nineteenth century.”37 The settlers were the villa’s economic providers and defense. A

bonding synergy existed within the individual settlements, but the interdependency was

what truly created cohesion among the villas.

34 Ibid. 335 towns36 Northern Frontier37 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande. 3.

20

Through these characteristics, Oscar J. Martínez explains, borderlands acquire and

subsequently share their influences. Martínez explains that, "ultimately, all borderlands

share the border experience irrespective of location, nationality, ethnicity, culture, and

language."38 Martínez argues that "functional similarities stemming from transboundary

interaction" enhances the borderlands without excluding their distinct identities.

Prior to Mexican Independence, the Frontera del Norte had been formally

consolidated into the Eastern Interior Provinces so as to provide one jurisdiction under

the government of New Spain. Politically, the Frontera del Norte was seen as a strategic

division for administration.39 Representatives of the area emphasized that a united front

across the frontier region would defend New Spain against Native American raids from

the north. Dr. José Miguel Ramos Arizpe, a representative from Coahuila for the Eastern

Interior Provinces, noted the interconnectivity of the region in an 1810 report for the

Spanish Regency:

At the same time that distance and natural separation from New Spain, New Galicia, and the western provinces cause these Eastern Interior Provinces to require an internal centralized government, spacious plains, good roads, and the common course of many of their rivers united them. And their varied products make reciprocal trade among their inhabitants necessary and various ways draw them into every kind of relationship.40

The self-sufficiency that existed at the founding of the Frontera del Norte would remain

in place for many years. To consider the region as one unit was convenient for the

Spanish government in terms of administration, but it paved the way for a feeling of

separatist governance in the Eastern Interior Provinces. By creating this separate unit of

38 Martínez, Border People. xvii.39 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico,” 23.40 Ibid. 28

21

provinces, the Spanish government inadvertently allowed the leaders of the area to realize

that they could in fact function politically without the larger colony.

The residents from the Frontera del Norte experienced the importance of self-

sufficiency within the first few years as they encountered what they considered to be the

menace or the presence of Native Americans. During the 19th century, Native American

tribes raided settlements along the borderlands, since the expanding frontier trespassed

into their own territories. Laredo in particular witnessed many of these raids, as the

villa’s location was one of the few where safe passage across the Rio Grande was

possible. Native Americans had been displaced westward most recently by the United

States in their quest for Manifest Destiny. Since the late 1600s, some tribes, such as the

Lipans, were integrated, sometimes forcefully, into the Frontera through missions in

central Texas. Other tribes, in particular the Comanches, saw the settlements not as a

community to live in, but rather as a source of supplies to exploit.41 A 1783 letter to the

Viceroy of Spain from leaders in the Frontera del Norte paints an image of the

circumstances created by encounters with Native Americans.

The mayors of the villages of Camargo, Mier, Reynosa, Revilla, and Laredo individually and on behalf of the inhabitants of the villages which comprise the northern frontier which they guard and defend against the Indians living to the north. There are only twenty-five soldiers to defend the frontier together with the inhabitants. In the past this was thought a sufficient number, but we can no longer repel the constant hostilities and the dangers which inevitably will reach into the rest of the Province and even Nuevo Leon. The situation now forces us to appeal to Your Excellency to help us defend this territory of more than 100 leagues from Laredo to Reynosa which we can’t do with just

41 Robert D. Wood, Archivos de Laredo: Documentos Referentes a Los Indios, Book, 1998; (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611816/ : accessed March 17, 2016), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, http://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting St. Mary's University Louis J. Blume Library , San Antonio, Texas. i.

22

twenty-five soldiers and the inhabitants. We are constantly at war with the Indians which is why we haven’t been able to progress.42

Indeed, this letter and many others highlight the damage the stolen goods created during

the raids as well as the fear that swept the frontier. This fear meant that settlers did not

tend or harvest crops located on the outskirts of their villas. Merchants also avoided

travel to this region, resulting in a lack of supplies. On top of all that, production of goods

was difficult because it required the whole community to simultaneously fend off any

attacks.43 Governments were not close enough to provide protection to these settlements,

so the villas found themselves in an unstable situation that could lead to failure or under

performance. The borderlands, however, were crucial towards maintaining control over

territorial zones. When a colonial power such as Spain did not allocate enough resources

to their borderlands, they put themselves at risk of another power claiming this territorial

zone, even if that power was from within.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, New Spain was plagued by age-old

problems – corruption in administration, economic disparity between classes and races,

monopoly over land by the elite, and tensions between church and state.44 The Spanish

monarchy was placed in further distress after King Ferdinand VII was taken prisoner by

the French. The monarchy expanded imperial supervision of colonial affairs, placing

peninsulares at the front of the colonial system and minimizing participation by

42 Continued Invasions by Indians; request for troops, 30 March 1783, Document 4, Folder 27, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library. 43 Ibid. 44 Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson, eds., The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003).

23

criollos.45 Taxation was also expanded in order to fund various ongoing wars between

Spain and other rival European powers.46

In 1807 Napoleon Bonaparte occupied Spain and set to occupy its colonies.

When Napoleon put his cousin Joseph in charge of New Spain, it removed the only thing

providing cohesion to the colony—the monarchy. As Joseph and Henderson reveal in

their book The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, “Ideological differences arose

between those who wished to preserve and ennoble such Spanish traditions as monarchy,

hierarchy, Roman Catholicism, and centralism; and those who favored a sweeping move

in the direction of republicanism, egalitarianism, federalism, and secularism. Eventually,

the factions would be denominated ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal,’ respectively.”47 The

conservatives’ economic, social, and political powers rested in Mexico City. They

favored a national government that gave military and political power to property-owning

citizens.48 The liberals were the insurgents leading the fight for independence, and their

goal was to establish a decentralized government that emphasized states’ rights.

On September 15, 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a Catholic priest, called for

an end to the French occupation and proclaimed allegiance to King Ferdinand VII. In his

speech, he urged citizens to sustain the king’s rights and reject a government created by

the Spaniards who had negotiated the country’s surrender to the French. At the center of

Hidalgo’s cause was religion. He believed the conservatives would “destroy religion,

45 Peninsulares was the name given to Spaniards born in Spain and residing in the New World. Criollos was the name given to Spaniards born in the New World.46 Joseph and Henderson, The Mexico Reader. 169.47 Ibid. 48 Hinojosa, A Borderlands Town in Transition. 27, Santoni, Mexicans At Arms. 3

24

profane the churches and extinguish the Catholic cult.”49 The conservatives who

governed were themselves Catholic and believed they were upholding the ideologies of

their religion through their governance. During this time communication from the

Spanish viceroy to the Frontera changed tone from informative to authoritative. The

conservatives tried appeasing the insurgents by creating a more liberal constitution,

removing certain regulations, and granting more autonomy to provincial governments.50

Nonetheless, New Spain soon found itself facing an internal battle between conservatives

and liberals and an external battle against France, a combination that would prove

disastrous to the Spanish monarchy.

While the Spanish monarchy was attempting to engage the colony in a peaceful

manner, the borderlands were concurrently receiving orders from the viceroy to gather

arms in favor of the Spanish Army, to not harbor or help any insurgents, and to not

disobey their superiors. A March 9, 1813 letter to Laredo required residents to follow six

articles, five of which had a penalty of death attached.51 Perhaps these measures were

precautionary on the side of the monarchy, but other documents represented the Frontera

as a source of rebellion. The governor of Nuevo Santander wrote to all the towns asking

“when their blindness would end?”52 After learning that leaders of the insurgency had

passed through the frontier on their way to the United States to seek aid, he demanded to

know how the townspeople had not seen the evil in these strangers. The insurgents were

49 Lucas Alaman, "The Siege of Guanajuato," in The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, eds. Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003) 173.50 Wood. Archivos de Laredo: Documentos Referentes a Los Indios. i.51 Decree vs. insurgents, traitors; those who help them, 9 March 1813, Document 3, Folder 57, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library. 52 Exhortation to remain loyal to the crown, 30 April 1813, Document 4, Folder 57, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library.

25

not like them. They were without religion, held different customs, and were potentially

allies to Napoleon. The governor went on to dictate his own accomplishments against the

insurgent army, ending his letter with a threat: “Know that if, in spite of my paternal

advice which I have given you, there is unfortunately some obstinate town (which I hope

will not be the case) which commits the least hostility of any kind, it will be put to fire

and sword and nothing will remain of it but ruins to serve as a lesson for the future and a

warning to malicious rebels.”53

What is most evident from the governor’s letter is his lack of understanding of the

rebellion and the Frontera. The governor assumed that the Frontera del Norte did not

have a connection to the rebellion or the insurgents. He questioned their religion, but did

not address the fact that the rebellion’s leader, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, was in fact a

Catholic priest. The governor questioned their customs, but like the inhabitants of the

Frontera, the insurgents too were a product of racial diversity in the Americas. In a

colony divided by a strong caste system where peninsulares and criollos were the leading

and benefiting population, the residents of the Frontera saw in the insurgents their own

community – one that was a victim of the same economic disparity and social inequality.

While the letter does pay homage to other factors that Oscar J. Martínez considers

essential towards building communities, such as loyalty to the monarchy, these same

constructive factors can also dismantle a community and with it portions of its collective

memory. The roles of the past and of memory can take part in educating a community

and pushing it towards political change. These factors serve as signifiers that are both

inclusive and exclusive. 54 In this moment, we notice the beginning of a distinct regional 53 Ibid. 54 Zheng Wang, “National Humiliation, History Education and the Politics of Historical

26

consciousness and with that a new community.55 In his letter, the governor did not

mobilize the Frontera community but instead alienated it by supporting a government

that he had previously forgotten and left under attack. In effect, the governor was

mobilizing the Frontera to work with his very enemy. The signifiers that the governor

identifies are ones that highlight the shared experiences between the Frontera and the

insurgents.

A disconnect between the royal crown and the Frontera del Norte was felt even

prior to the start of the rebellion. On September 10, 1811, the parish priest, José Manuel

Pérez, wrote to D. José Ramon Diaz de Bustamante in Nuevo Leon to express his

discontent with the residents of Laredo. The war of independence had begun its rise

throughout New Spain, and selected news favoring the insurgents had already reached

Laredo. Pérez found the actions of the insurgents as harmful to religion, the fatherland,

and the King. He believed some may see the harm that the rebellion was inflicting on

good patriots, but feared those who may relapse into helping the insurgents and be

sentenced to death. As Pérez describes, “anytime there is outside news of the insurgents,

they jump for joy and publicly announce that they are coming…”56 For Pérez, this was

the first sign of rebellion and a relapse of loyalty towards the monarchy that, if acted

upon, could prove detrimental. Laredo and its surrounding province lacked the simple

necessities of soap, sugar, and blankets, since no fairs with these necessities were coming

to their region. The fight for independence could bring the stability the Frontera had

longed for in the region. If victorious, the insurgents promised a democracy that gave

Memory: Patriotic Education Campaign in China,” International Studies Quarterly 52 (2008): 785.55 Martínez, Border People. 56 Personal letter about family affairs and local news, 10 September 1811, Document 13, Folder 55, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library.

27

more autonomy to the provinces. This would allow for the Frontera to leverage control

over the distribution and use of resources towards fixing the problems that were present

in the community.

The political turmoil in Mexico was not the only force that applied pressure to the

Frontera. During the start of the Alienation period, Oscar Martínez argues that Spain,

Great Britain, and France found themselves colonizing regions across North America.

These countries, along with a diverse group of Native American nations, were engaging

each other in an active turf war. By 1800, France had acquired Louisiana from Spain, but

the extent of territorial claim for each country remained unclear. When the United States

acquired Louisiana three years later, this ambiguity led the U.S. into a debate with Spain

over their new boundaries. The result was the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, which

proclaimed the Sabine River as the northeastern frontier of New Spain, enraging many

American expansionists as it left Texas in the hands of Spain. By 1819, American

immigration had already begun in Texas, and throughout the 1820s and 1830s, migration

grew. The United States’ purchase of Louisiana eliminated France as a buffer between

the United States and Spain. A formal declaration of borders did little to subdue the

American expansionist agenda, and a large, isolated frontier between both countries made

any physical border difficult to enforce. The result of this conflict, was an ungovernable

region with no defined roles. Martínez notes that “Chronic tension in the borderlands

stemmed from the exploits of Indians, bandits, filibusters, smugglers, cattle thieves,

chasers of runaway slaves, trigger-happy lawmen, and assorted adventurers and

desperados who found a haven on the isolated, sparsely populated frontier.”57 The two

states would have to encourage trade and social interaction in order to minimize conflict. 57 Martínez, Border People. 32-33

28

In order to find peace and stability, alienation and accommodation had to work hand in

hand.58

The blending of the frontier increased as more and more Anglo-Americans began

to settle Texas thanks to the initial efforts of Stephen F. Austin and, for a long time, the

Mexican government actually encouraged these efforts. The Frontera del Norte was one

of the most stable settlements in Mexico’s norther frontier, but the limited reach of these

settlements left a significant region of claimed yet unoccupied land to the north that

would lead to chronic tensions. Migration into this region would help Mexico protect

their lands from invasions and increase development. For the Frontera, the migration of

people from Texas brought development and helped diminish some of the chronic

tensions. Nevertheless, the arrival of these migrants did not bring complete prosperity.

Instead, it introduced a new faction in the political landscape, but unlike the

conservatives and liberals in Mexico, the Texans did not have the same language,

heritage, or cultural connection to the Frontera.

Mexico had encouraged settlers from the United States to live in Texas as long as

they were willing to bring the necessary tools for farming and declare an allegiance to the

Catholic Church, though the latter was not strictly enforced.59 In 1826, Mexico

extinguished a small rebellion in Eastern Texas that tried to garner power for an Anglo-

American businessman. From then on, mistrust towards Texans would continue to grow

among officials within the Mexican government. The transition to a centralist

government from the liberal Constitution of 1824 brought tension to the region,

58 Ibid.59 John Edward Weems, Dream of Empire: A Human History of the Republic of Texas, 1836-1846, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971) 24.

29

highlighting the political differences between Texan and Mexican inhabitants. Seeing the

growing number of English-speaking colonists as a threat, Mexico prohibited further

immigration from the United States into Texas and instead encouraged immigration from

Mexico. Mexico also removed duty-free privileges and began to collect stifling tariffs

from the colonists. 60 Mexico began to see the Frontera’s neighbors not as allied sheriffs

in the frontier but rather as intruders. Texas did in some respects consider Mexico to be

an ally as long as their relationship maintained some level of familiarity. As Paul Horgan

states in his book Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History, the Spanish

monarchy provided a familiar experience to the early settlers of Texas. “Tenuous as it

may have become, it was yet experienced and established in its own elaborate authority.

Its systems could be studied. Its principles were known and plain and rigid. And then

Mexico broke free of Spain, and the official relationship of settler to government had to

be redefined and newly approved.”61 With no discernable overlapping experiences, the

redefinition of Mexican-Texan relations brought by Mexico’s independence meant the

connection between Texan settlers and Mexico began to dwindle, bringing another type

of instability to the frontier.

The interconnectivity of the Frontera was instrumental in the survival of

individual settlements. However, their location in the frontier presented them with

circumstances that jeopardized this survival. In that 1783 letter asking for aid against

Native Americans, we see what the Frontera was truly in need of, development. Survival

was something they could accomplish thanks to their self-reliance, but survival had not

60 Ibid. 3561 Paul Horgan, Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History, (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1984) 455.

30

come hand in hand with progress. To Laredoans, development meant having the

resources and infrastructure to grow crops, herd cattle, and socialize without fear of

Native American raids. To live a life where every day did not feel like a fight for

survival. The Frontera wanted progress, but their relationship with the monarchy had

done little to achieve it.

Independence from Spain provided the Frontera with a new opportunity, but the

emerging political landscape in Mexico still showcased too much turmoil. New

neighbors to the north granted the Frontera opportunities for commerce and helped

diminish the onslaught of raids and banditry. However, due to cultural differences, there

was only limited interest towards building a bridge between both communities. Who

became a better ally lied with the future of each of these communities.

31

Rebellion and the Federalist Cause

"Once the capital was peacefully occupied, the passions which had been concentrated on obtaining Independence were freed from the objective, and they turned their activity to attacking the establishments destined to control the forces that were trying to upset them, and seeing in the consolidation of order the biggest obstacle to their goals, they had no other choice than to try to destroy it."

-- A. Serecero, 25 August 182262

With its independence, Mexico acquired 1,170,000 square miles of land and transformed

into a country nine times larger than Spain.4 Pedro Santoni describes the early scenery of

Mexico,

Great distances separated Mexico City and the country’s regional centers of production, a fact one historian characterized as “the principal axis of the federalist ideal.” Jagged mountain ranges, lowlands and gorges, as well as climatic extremes hampered development of effective communications. Many roads were no more than paths fit only for mules and burros, the main highways were rough and bumpy, and the few navigable waterways were located in the sparsely populated southeastern states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Forced by prohibitive transportation costs, many cities and their hinterlands became self-sufficient economic units, which enhanced feelings of regionalism throughout the country.5

The varied landscapes of mountains, deserts, rivers, and tropics acted as natural borders that

separated outside settlements such as the Frontera Del Norte from the central lands of Mexico

City. These settlements had by this time become self-sufficient, not only out of necessity but

also by Spain’s encouragement. In 1786, the Catholic Church, a major political agent, grouped

all of New Spain’s settlements into twelve intendancies that exercised more direct control over

administrative, financial, legal, and military affairs.63 As the years progressed, many of the self-

reliant settlements sought greater autonomy. In response to these demands, and as a

counterattack to the insurgents, New Spain created a representative monarchical government

62 Conspiracy in Mexico, 25 August 1822, Document 27, Folder 68b, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library. 63 Pedro Santoni, Mexican at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848 (Fort

Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996) 10.

32

through the liberal Constitution of 1812. This eliminated the role of Viceroy, and in its place

each province had a jefe politico64 who reported to the Spanish monarchy directly and

overlooked locally elected administrative bodies. Twenty-three provincial deputations were

eventually established, and within each province grew centers of political activity closer to the

peripheral settlements.65 Through provincial deputation, each province became constitutionally

independent of other provinces, and the jefe politicos no longer reported to the central

government in Mexico City. A strong caste system divided Mexico and the monarchy appointed

jefe politicos from the criollos, a dominant ruling class. 66 While the change was a step towards

granting provinces more self-governance, it did not give them total autonomy in the appointing

their representatives. When King Ferdinand VII was restored to the Spanish throne in 1813,

however, he removed some of the freedoms that the Constitution of 1812 previously granted to

the colonists. All things considered, the constitution did little to silence the cry for freedom or

stifle the sense of independence of the provinces, and the government’s wavering between short-

lived liberal and conservative laws showcased the monarchy’s inability to effectively govern

New Spain.

Historian Pedro Santoni attributes the evolution of federalism to Mexico’s vast size and

peculiar geography. The diverse landscape made it difficult to create interconnected

communities, thus leading to regionalism throughout the country. The borderlands were not only

physically on the periphery but also remotely located from the minds of the country’s

government. The borderlands were historically not an area in which New Spain invested in

development; thus, self-sufficiency took effect for those living in the frontier. As Santoni

64 Political chief65 Santoni, Mexicans at Arms, 11.66 The name given to Spaniards born in the New World.

33

explains prior to independence, “the growth of the great haciendas—particularly in northern

Mexico, where landowners organized small, private armies that exercised almost complete

control over political positions in the region—further weakened Mexico City’s precarious

control over the remote borderlands.”67 Haciendas developed into large political units with

economic resources for surrounding towns. 68 Through haciendas, which were plentiful in the

Frontera del Norte, settlements were drawn towards new political centers. Don José Escandón

had granted each settler approximately 4,428 acres, some more, during his colonization of the

region on behalf of the Spanish monarchy in the mid-18th century. Aside from familial units,

Escandón had looked for settlers who could survive the arid environment and defend their

settlements amidst the threatening presence of nomadic Apaches and Comanches.69 This

recruitment effectively produced a group of ranch owners and cowboys who knew how to live

off the land, ride horses, and use firearms.70

When insurgents began to fight for independence, this notable regionalism and self-

sufficiency fueled support for federalism as settlements in the frontier saw how preexisting

resources and loyalty could sustain small local rebellions. Through the fight for independence,

leadership became once again centralized, but these “centers” were not well-connected to the

government in Mexico City. This paradox reflected uncertainty over what form of government

would be most effective to adopt, an issue which plagued Mexico in its early days. On one side,

the federalists believed the state “should have considerable latitude in managing local affairs.”71

On the other side of the debate were the Centralists who believed that the central government 67 Santoni, Mexicans at Arms, 10.68 Estate, ranch69 Irving W. Levinson, “The Contours of a Very Special Border,” Journal of the West 53 no. 3 (Summer 2014) 60-84. 70 Ibid. 6971 Stan Green, “Laredo, Antonio Zapata & the Republic of the Rio Grande,” Border Studies Publication, (1990) 2

34

should have more authority.72 Despite remaining loyal to the monarchy, settlements throughout

the frontier began to think of their center as closer than ever before, and these feelings of

regionalism would shift their loyalties towards favoring a federalist form of government. The

Frontera del Norte sided with Federalism because Mexico City, the center of Spanish culture

and politics, had never served them in the past. The Frontera del Norte feared that as a new

country was emerging, a centralized government would once again leave their own region on the

periphery and exert power over local initiatives.73 Self-sufficiency across regions of Mexico

proved to be dangerous for the emerging country as feelings of regionalism triumphed over

nationalism.

In 1821 Colonel Agustin de Iturbide, a Spanish army officer, conspired with his followers

to constitutionally separate Mexico from Spain. Their proposal, Plan de Iguala, was a

declaration of independence that would allow Mexico to form its own constitutional monarchy.

It would offer the crown of this new monarchy to King Ferdinand VII, but the creators knew it

was an unlikely proposal. The Army of Three Guarantees, Iturbide, and the Jefe Politico

Superior, Juan O’ Donoju confirmed the plan through the Treaty of Cordoba with the condition

that, if King Ferdinand VII rejected the crown, they would offer it to another prince within the

House of Bourbon. However, Iturbide ensured that the treaty did not specify who the new ruler

would be if any Bourbon members rejected the crown. This conveniently paved the way for

Iturbide to crown himself upon the Spanish government’s rejection of the treaty and King

Ferdinand’s refusal to allow any member from the House of Bourbon to take the crown. The

Plan de Iguala and Iturbide’s subsequent rise to power marked the end of the Mexican War of

Independence. As towns were asked to declare their allegiance to the new Emperor Agustin

72 Ibid.73 Ibid.

35

Iturbide, the new government of Mexico appeared to closely resemble the monarchy they left

behind.74

Tensions between the centralist and federalist parties were high as Mexico entered a new

stage of political instability. Iturbide’s path to the throne was supported by the criollo

community and several regional military chieftains, but a constitutional monarchy was in

Iturbide’s best interests, not the country’s.75 The fight for Independence had started ten years

earlier by Hidalgo, and the freedoms the insurgents were fighting for were more than just

autonomy; they were seeking a new republic. While newspaper editors and Masonic lodge

members started the conversation about creating a federal republic, it was General Antonio

Lopez de Santa Anna who authored in December 1822 the Plan of Veracruz, which granted the

Mexican Congress the capacity to form a new government for Mexico after consulting with the

provinces.76 The Spanish Imperial Army tried to crush Santa Anna and his troops, but the revolt

gained momentum with the Plan de Casa Mata. This plan, authored in 1823, favored a federal

republic and gave provinces the ability to take control over their internal administrations.

Mexico was divided into autonomous provinces.

While situated in the frontier, Laredo had witnessed the changes in government

throughout Mexico and was aware of the benefits and consequences to each government. Even in

the border, Laredo had fallen victim to the changes in the central government, especially when

those governments did not address the issues that afflicted the Frontera. It was most obvious

where they stood in times of trouble. The Frontera del Norte was left defenseless against Native

American raids during the war of independence and their resources were limited. In a letter to a 74 Decree requiring allegiance to the above declaration, 6 October 1821, Document 2, Folder 67, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library. 75 Ibid. 1276 Ibid. 13

36

newspaper in Matamoros, Laredo is described as being in a perpetual state of hostility with

Native Americans from 1813 to 1836. The letter describes three years of peace in that time

period, but the writer would not consider those years to be peaceful. During 1819 and 1823,

Laredo lost one percent of its population, and the villa could not see growth until the war

ended.77 This setback, while minor, was no less a reminder of the central government’s inability

to protect them or provide them with resources. It is no surprise that the citizens of Laredo

became self-reliant and looked for the government to approve and recognize their political

autonomy. When the news of Santa Anna’s Plan de Casa Mata and the subsequent Constitution

of 1824 – both liberal proclamations that reduced the power of the central government and the

church and gave more autonomy to each state – reached the frontier, Laredo voiced its support

for these proclamations and, subsequently, a federal government. The town council held a

meeting to inform residents of the plan and the upcoming vote by the magistrates in Aguayo. In

their report, the town council expressed their desire to allow the residents to “use their natural

right to choose a government most pleasing to them.”78 The residents cast a unanimous vote for

a federal republic. At that moment, residents were filled with joy and happiness. “Long live the

Federal Republic!”79

Peter Sahlins speaks about the calls for “forms of everyday resistance” that were present

in Cerdanya as Cerdans tried to maintain their own autonomy against the Old Regime.80

Cerdanya peasants saw the Old Regime as a distant government entity whose presence in their

77 One issue of Mercurio del Puerto de Matamoros, 22 April 1836, Document 1, Folder 120, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library; Hinojosa, A Borderlands Town in Transition. 55. 78 12 entries on Council decisions, mostly personal cases, February – November 1823, Document 36, Folder 69, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library. 79 Ibid.80 Peter Sahlins, Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) 127-130.

37

community was felt purely because of their status as a frontier district. No strong opposition or

dislike for the Old Regime was evident, but as the French Revolution began, it was revealed that

Cerdans had “long felt silently and without commentary.” 81 The opposition had not erupted in

grand gestures, but rather in small moments of opposition such as confrontations with custom

guards, tax collectors, and political authorities. In these forms of resistance, we see how the

inhabitants of the borderland voiced their discontent without engaging in outright rebellion. This

was also the case in Laredo. The Laredo Spanish Archives contains primarily documents and

decrees which are regulations and laws to the villa or province from the Spanish monarchy.

Nevertheless, we encounter instances in which local leaders speak on behalf of the villa or

informed the government of the resident’s inability to follow the regulations in place. Whether

they spoke of leaving the confines of the villa despite orders from the Governor or bathing in the

river to the great embarassment of the parish priest, through these letters we see that early on the

citizens of the Frontera followed the laws and regulations that best accommodated them.82 When

these opportunities to voice dissatisfaction did not remedy their situation or benefit the residents,

as was the case in Laredo, then, as Sahlins argues in the case of the Pyrenees , the only other

option was to exit.83

To exit would entail a disassociation with the Mexican community, which would

transform the identity and community of the Frontera del Norte. Nonetheless, the continued

disputes between government and citizen could reshape the Frontera’s imagined community as

was the case in other provinces. In 1833, Stephen F. Austin carried a petition from Texas to the

81 Ibid. 127. 82 Everyone gather in Laredo within three days or be fined, 9 July 1774, Document 6, Folder 15, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library. Regulations on bathing in the river, 3 May 1784, Document 1, Folder 28, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library. 83 Sahlins, Boundaries. 127.

38

Mexican Convention of 1833. Texas colonists sought to repeal the anti-immigration law, tariff

exemptions, security against Native American raids, and for the government to grant Texas

statehood. The Mexican Congress agreed to repeal the anti-immigration law, granted Texas more

representatives in the state legislature, and took measures to prevent religious intolerance.

Texans still held hope that statehood would be granted to them in the coming years. However,

the adoption of the Constitution of 1836 ended that hope. John E. Weems retells the story from

the Texan perspective in his book Dream of Empire: A Human History of the Republic of Texas

1836-1846. “The Mexican Congress had just declared itself capable of setting aside the liberal

Constitution of 1824. The Mexican President, shifty and selfish Santa Anna, had thrown out

promised reforms and had assumed the role of dictator, declaring that Mexico was not ready for

democracy.”84 Forgotten in the periphery, Texas had no other option but to start a rebellion. One

member of the Texan convention began weighing the options of the province and stated, “The

consequences of Texas, will differ but little, whether we fight for Independence or State rights,

for in either case we must fight and whip Mexico.”85

Anson Jones, the fourth and final president of the Republic of Texas, is often known as

the "Architect to Annexation." Jones took part in the formation of the Republic of Texas both as

a politician and soldier. In Anson Jones’s well-documented correspondence, we learn how the

Texan identity developed to become not one within Mexican identity, but quite different. In his

letters, contain instances of Texan politicians and residents reacting to the Frontera’s own

identity formation. Texas’s relationship with the Frontera del Norte was contentious from the

beginning. By the end of 1836, Texas was beginning to see a military victory over Santa Anna's

army through the Battle of San Jacinto. This battle ended with the capture of Santa Anna, though

84 Ibid. 4085 Ibid.

39

his imprisonment would not lead to a victory for independence. To gain his freedom, Santa

Anna ordered his troops to withdraw, promising to put an end to the conflict and lobby for

Texas’s independence.86 Mexico, now under the leadership of President Anastasio Bustamante,

still refused to recognize Texas as an independent nation, and other nations, including the United

States, were careful to not acknowledge them. Texas needed to engage in trade with European

nations in order to increase their chances of preserving independence and making themselves

more enticing to the United States for annexation. However, this action came with serious

repercussions, most notably the potential invasion by Mexico. Texas was left contemplating

which action would be the most rewarding and the least detrimental to its future.

While the United States could not publicly acknowledge Texas for fear of damaging its

relationship with Mexico, many U.S. political figures were meeting in secrecy with Texas

officials. On November 6, 1838, Secretary of War Joel Roberts Poinsett met with Anson Jones

and assured him that Mexico would not invade Texas unless Texas chose to invade them first.

Poinsett and Jones both understood that at the moment the northern Mexican states were on

friendly terms with Texas. They were not members of Santa Anna’s army, and their lack of

involvement with any prior conflict allowed peace and distance between both communities.

Nevertheless, Poinsett and Jones believed that an invasion of Mexico would turn the Frontera

del Norte against Texas. As Poinsett explained, they would "become hostile in case of their

country being attacked, and give great annoyance to Texas."

However, engaging in battle with the Republic of Texas would not be beneficial to the

Frontera del Norte from two different standpoints. For one, battle would be a loss of resources,

which were historically lacking in the frontier. Additionally, there was not much ideological

86 Weems, Dream of Empire, 24.

40

difference between themselves and Texas. As Jones notes during his recollection of his meeting

with Poinsett, "The northern Mexican States are in favor of the Constitution of '24; the southern,

more inclined, and better adapted to centralism."87 Texas, like the Frontera del Norte, favored

and benefited from the Constitution of 1824 but, unlike the Frontera, they did not believe that a

reinstatement of the Constitution of 1824 would continue to be beneficial for them. While both

regions believed in the same rights and freedoms, each saw distinct ways of obtaining them. This

distinction was evident to Texans. Jones wrote in November 24, 1838, "Should the northern

States of Mexico separate from the southern, it will be our policy to cultivate the most friendly

relations, but not to join them to us. On this account invasion would not be advisable, if there

were no other reasons. But whether they separate or not, the most friendly relations should be

sedulously cultivated."88 Texas saw the northern states as allies, but not comrades. What

remained was for the Frontera to make a decision on whether they should continue to voice their

discontent or exit.

87 Anson Jones, Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas: Its History and Annexation 1836 to 1846 (Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1966) 31.88 Ibid.

41

The Republic of the Rio Grande

"The joy that these inhabitants showed in giving their support for such a just claim is inexpressible. The demonstrations of jubilation were wonderful when there was a constant shouting of "vivas!" amid artillery fire and the ringing of bells for eight hours."

-- José Ramon, Mayor of Laredo, 5 January 183989

As part of Mexico’s response to the Texan rebellion, thousands of soldiers made their

way north to the Rio Grande and with them brought restlessness. The Frontera del Norte served

as an outpost for Santa Anna's army to collect horses and other supplies. Laredo, located on the

safest passageway across the Rio Grande, was greatly impacted by Santa Anna's visit. A resident

of Laredo in a letter to the governor describes a community with limited supplies and residents.

The only income the inhabitants had was raising cattle and horses. The smaller animals have disappeared completely and there are only a few beef cattle abandoned in the fields which will soon be taken for lack of cowboys. Most of the people are reduced to eating only meat because for the flour and corn which must necessarily be brought from elsewhere there is neither security to go for them nor even any animals to bring them. Your Excellency could reward the help which in spite of their own scarcity these residents have given for the current war in Texas, even though they are convinced that in giving it they have done nothing more than fulfill the duty their Fatherland demands.90

The Frontera had always experienced neglect from the central government, especially when it

came to protecting the border. Now with Santa Anna's Siete Leyes, which gave the president

power to appoint governors and legislators for states, they were being stripped of any autonomy

previously gained. To make matters worse, Santa Anna's troops stripped Laredoans of their

resources. 91 The central government was not only telling them to fend for themselves, but also

rendering them unable to do so.

89 Laredo joins the group recognizing the federal system, 5 January 1839, Document 2, Folder 140, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library. 90 Once issue of Mercurio del Puerto de Matamoros, 22 April 1836, Folder 20, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.91 Beatriz de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and the People, 1st ed (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013). 11

Federalism spread throughout the Frontera del Norte, and citizens of Laredo began to

join the cause in one way or another. For Beatriz de la Garza, it was natural for the settlements

in the Frontera del Norte to “link their destinies in this endeavor, as they had done in earlier days

since they owed their existence to a common impetus – the Spanish colonization of the banks of

the lower Rio Grande by Don José Escandón.”92 However, their founding was merely a starting

point for the unique culture that emerged in this borderland. Rather, it is the characteristics of

their founding that continued to resonate and developed ten-fold. For one, the residents of the

Frontera were all families as opposed to the traditional missionaries and soldiers that had

previously lived in borderland regions. This was an important dynamic that made family life a

strong point for many of the villas in the Frontera. The same last names resonate throughout the

Laredo census and it isn’t until 1850 that we see a dramatic change in the composition of the

town. However, this composition is still predominantly Mexican. A few years after the events of

the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1850, the census reveals that four-fifths of Laredo families

were Mexican. One family was Spanish, one Irish, and two Anglo-American.93 Nuclear family

ties bound most members to their households, which were small and usually made up of five or

less members.94 Solteros, whether they were related to a household or not, lived in groups

composed of families.95 From the early years of settlement, Laredo gathered its strength and

purpose settlement from the social structure of households based on family units.

The citizens of the Frontera del Norte were also linked by their common trade –

ranching. Norteños was the name used for the people of this region, but it was also one

92 Beatriz de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and People, 1st ed (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013) 2. 93 Gilberto Miguel Hinojosa. A Borderlands Town in Transition: Laredo, 1755-1870 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1983) 59-63.94 Ibid. 795 Bachelors; Hinojosa, Borderlands Town in Transition. p. 7

43

associated with those who dedicated themselves to the raising of animals. Similarly, the word

“cowboy” was used for individuals with the same profession in Texas. The ranchers of the

Frontera del Norte had a distinct culture linked to the major economy of the region.96 As Oscar

Martínez notes,

Mexicans recognize a norteño/a culture distinct from that of other parts of Mexico. Norteño/a are said to be different in their manner of thinking, speaking, acting, and dressing. As strong spirit of struggle, determination, adaptability, and hard work is attributed to norteños/as because of the harsh conditions traditionally encountered in the region...Remoteness from the central government in Mexico City has bred regionalism and independence, and norteños/as have demonstrated in a strong way their dissatisfaction with national policies at various points in Mexican history.97

Ranching dominated the economy in the Frontera del Norte. In Laredo, a list from

December 1845 counted seventy-three individuals with the right to vote, one-third of

whom were in the business of raising animals.98 Economic connections fed into the

norteños’ political ideologies. But not all citizens of the Frontera found federalism to be

in their best interests; in part, wealthy landowners, the Church and even some military

officials had historically disagreed with previous liberal political agendas.

The garrison in Laredo had been actively supporting Santa Anna's original

pronouncement for federalism, though their alliance seemed to remain with the form of

government rather than the governor.99 By 1838 the towns of Reynosa, Mier, Ciudad Victoria,

and Laredo had declared their alliance with the federalists. In October of 1838, Antonio Canales,

a Tamaulipas lawyer and federalist leader, made a public proclamation in Tampico, Tamaulipas

96 This term loosely translates to “people of the north.” 97 Oscar J. Martínez, Troublesome Border (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006) 101-102.98 Census for the year 1831, 1831, Document 1, Folder 92, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.99 Council writes vs. mil. Commander; ignores decisions, 3 September 1832, Document 71b, Folder 95, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

44

that he supported the Federalist movement and called for the return to the Constitution of 1824.

The towns of the Lower Rio Grande allied themselves with Canales. In January of 1839, he

issued a call to arms.100 Canales, who had grown up in various parts of the Frontera del Norte,

was not only a lawyer but also a soldier in the local militia of Mier. He had taken part in several

defenses against the Comanches and Apaches and had contributed to the Frontera's self-

sufficiency. He even fell victim to Santa Anna's army having after it confiscated his land.101

Canales was a product of the borderland, and his memory was clouded with the disappointment

in a government who did little to govern.

After Canales’s proclamation, citizens of Laredo gathered in the town’s central plaza of

San Agustin and “declared this town will continue in the future to act under the Constitution of

1824.”102 A letter from the Laredo mayor, José Ramon, described the situation for the Northern

Department of Tamaulipas:

The demonstrations of jubilation were wonderful and there was a constant shouting of “vivas!” amid artillery fire and the ringing of bells for eight hours. I have the honor to let you know about this so that you can count on the submission of these residents to your orders and I do so myself with the esteem you deserve.103

These proclamations, however, did not get much traction in the northern parts of Mexico.

Nevertheless, the federalists throughout Mexico seemed to gain an advantage over the centralist

government as they took over important northern cities such as Monterrey, Nuevo Leon and

Saltillo, Coahuila. This turn of luck for the federalists was thanks to a major misfortune; the

French navy blocked Mexican ports across the Gulf of Mexico and threatened to occupy the

100 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande; Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern México.” 111101 Milton Lindheim, Republic of the Rio Grande (Waco, Texas: W.M. Morrison Publishing Co., 1964)102 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande, 11.103 Laredo joins the group recognizing the federal system, 5 January 1839, Document 2, Folder 140, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library.

45

country. The French sought reparations of $600,000 for the loss of countrymen in the Pastry

War during the 1820s, a revolt that occurred after Mexican soldiers had consumed pastries from

a French chef without payment.104 Not only did this incident distract Mexico and plunder its

military resources, but the French aided the federalists by allowing passage through their naval

blockade.105 Having their own eyes on conquering Mexico, France was willing to ally themselves

with the federalists in hopes of future recognition and loyalty.

Attempts by the French to govern Mexico began prior to the Independence when

Napoleon I had kidnapped King Ferdinand VII and placed his cousin on the Spanish throne.

Years later in 1864, the French would establish a Second Mexican Empire and place Maximillian

at the head of the new monarchy. These efforts continued in various forms throughout the years,

but it was the French presence in 1839 that stimulated separatism and sympathy towards the

federalists. In a letter by the mayor of Laredo José Ramon, we learn that Laredo proclaimed a

reinstitution of the federal system by issuing the following articles:

1. Since there is no confidence in the present administration for sustaining the present war with France which it has provoked, this town in the future will follow the constitution and laws of the State of the year 1824 as the only means of saving the situation in the actual circumstances.

2. From today the only recognized legitimate authorities are those who were in office in 1835 and those who are named in accordance with the mentioned laws.

3. The undersigned vow to uphold at all costs the aforementioned federal constitution and the integrity of our territory.106

While the reasons for joining the federalist system are themselves far more complex, the above

articles do showcase the fear of political instability brought by the French presence in Mexico.

In a way, the French presence was similar in nature to the Native American presence. Having

104 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande, 12.105 Green, “Laredo, Antonio Zapata & the Republic of the Rio Grande,” 7. 106Laredo joins the group recognizing the federal system, 5 January 1839, Document 2, Folder 140, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary's Louis J. Blume Library.

46

failed to deliver on past promises, the central government was not trusted by Laredo to provide

security against either threat.

During the last days of 1839, Antonio Canales sought to restore federalism across the

Frontera del Norte, but knew that federalism itself was not enough to inspire the citizens to

action. Most of 1838 was spent by Canales fighting the centralist army throughout the Frontera

with the support of Colonel Antonio Zapata and Captain José Maria Gonzales. As historian

Milton Lindheim describes, “From rancho to rancho he led a band of half-wild vaqueros,

covering areas incredibly vast, jiggling along over crooked river traces, through sand and shale

and brushy chaparral. In those years no mesquite thickets grew, only grass and scattered clumps

of prickly pear. Deliberately attempting to arouse Centralist wrath, the rebels would discharge a

fusillade of shots into the night, disrupt the slumber of an isolated outpost, then phantom-like

fade into obscurity.” These short fights weakened the central government, but were not enough

to restore federalism. Instead, Canales decided that the best way to unite the region was to call a

convention that could bring forth an independent government. On January 17, 1840,

representatives across the Frontera del Norte decided to form a new government regime

composed of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila. In their convention, the Republic of the

Rio Grande became their territorial claim. The representatives declared that “all the country

formerly known as Tamaulipas as far as the Nueces, and Coahuila as far as the Median River,

and into the interior so far as the Mountains (La Sierra Madre), embracing Nuevo Leon,

Zacatecas, Durango, Chihuahua and New Mexico…”107 In terms of their government, the

convention elected leaders from each province in La Frontera del Norte.

Jesus Cardenas, a lawyer from Reynosa and a former political chief of Tamaulipas, was chosen president, and Francisco Vidaurri y Willaseñor, the

107 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico,” 173.

47

former governor of Coahuila and Texas, was named vice president. José Antonio Canales was appointed commander in chief of the army, and Juan Francisco Farias, who had served on the Laredo municipal council, was named secretary. A legislative council of five members was also chosen. This council consisted of the president, the vice president, and a representative from each of the three participating states: Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila.108

Laredo became the capital of the newly established Republic of the Rio Grande, but the seat of

government remained in Guerrero given its accessibility to a printing press.

On January 23, 1840, the Republic of the Rio Grande called a convention to create the

law of the Republic. In their decree, they proclaimed to separate from the current Mexican

government, establish a new government for the Republic, and to authorize a call to arms.

Additionally, their decree hoped to restore the federalist government system after a democratic

vote among all states within their territory. To restore the federalist government, they called a

Convention of Delegates for all the states in the Mexican Republic on May 28, 1940.109 Their

adopted motto highlighted their core ideologies, Dios, libertad y convención.110 Indeed, it

meant nothing to praise God and liberty if it wasn’t put into convention. In their decree, we not

only see the Republic’s stance on independence, but also the conflicting idea that they still

considered themselves part of Mexico, provided Mexico chose federalism.

Vázquez considers the relationship with Texas as a distinct factor in differentiating

between the Republic of the Rio Grande and other rebellions. To Vázquez, it also revealed

divisions within the federalists and highlighted the core of their ideologies.111 Canales belonged

to a group of federalists that acknowledged the Texan independence and sought their help

towards gaining their own independence. Other federalists believed that returning to a federal

108 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande, 15.109 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico,” 176110 God, liberty and convention.111 Josefina Zoraida Vázquez, “La Supuesta República Del Rio Grande,” Historia Mexicana 36, no. 1 (September 1986): 52.

48

government would resolve the instability in Mexico's government and encourage Texas to return

to the country. This group would soon be proven incorrect. A third group of federalists saw the

interactions with Texans as a step towards inciting a war.112 These separate factions within the

federalists illustrated the different ideologies and paths that the Republic of the Rio Grande could

take. Some within the Republic were tired of the debilitating relationships with the central

government and sought to govern themselves. Others simply wanted to restore their community

to the liberal institution that would bring stability to the multiple rebellions. Then there were the

outliers who may have wanted either of these paths, but recognized that removing themselves

from Mexico would mean breaking away from Mexican identity and community. In combination

with their peripheral location, such a split would further weaken their government and place it in

a position for colonization by Texas or even the United States.

For the residents of the Frontera del Norte to materialize their efforts into a republic

differs significantly from their initial attempts of simply voicing their concerns. Nevertheless,

this move seemed adequate to models of borderland interactions. Borderland communities are

vulnerable to international conflicts because they are often placed within the middle ground of

national and local interests.113 The Frontera had always been affected by the international powers

that were colonizing North America, but not all of these interactions were negative. A region

kept in isolation for many years given its geography was gradually improving its road system

and engaging in more transnational interactions. At this point in borderland history, we are

seeing the Frontera transition from a period of Alienation to that of Coexistence. While an

alienated borderland was closed off to cross-border interactions, a coexistent borderland allowed

112 Ibid. 52-53113 Martínez, Border People, 13-15.

49

for development through more binational interactions.114 This period of Coexistence would begin

with the developing relationship between Texas and the Frontera del Norte.

Two Mexican federalist representatives from the Rio Grande region appeared before the

Council of the Provisional Government of Texas shortly after Texas had begun its fight against

Mexico’s government in 1836. As Vigness explains, the individuals were “ready to act in concert

with Texas in opposition to the central government of Mexico, providing Texas did not propose

independence. When Texas chose to fight for independence, the liberals lost interest in

participation.”115 Some of the Mexican northern leaders heard the plans of Texas and felt ardor

for the Texan cause. Other leaders opposed the plans, even to the point of joining Santa Anna’s

army in protest.116 There was a clear distinction – in language, culture, and heritage – between

the inhabitants of the Rio Grande and those of Texas. The people of the Rio Grande were

undoubtedly discontent with the new centralist government, but they still considered themselves

a part of Mexico and Mexico a part of them. On the other hand, Texas was led by Anglo-

American leaders whose only limited connection to Mexico was the country’s initial attempts at

democracy.

While the Republic of Texas had defeated Santa Anna’s armies, they had yet to receive

from Mexico any formal recognition of their independence. If Mexico recognized Texas as a

free nation, then no other nation could dispute Texas’s claim, thereby allowing Texas to function

on its own. If not recognized by Mexico, however, Texas would be effectively banned from

engaging in political and economic partnerships with other nations. The Republic of the Rio

Grande sought the same form of recognition, but from Texas rather than Mexico. Jesus Cardenas

114 Ibid. 6-29115 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico,” 82.116 Ibid. 91

50

wrote to one of Texas’s founders, José Antonio Navarro, with the proposition of appointing him

as agent in Texas for the Republic of the Rio Grande. Navarro declined. In a December 17, 1838

letter, Canales tried convincing Mirabeau B. Lamar, the recently inaugurated president of Texas,

to provide help for the Republic, highlighting how the land could serve as a buffer zone between

Texas and Mexico, should Santa Anna decide to reinvade.117 President Lamar revealed in a letter

to the House of Representatives that further communication with the Republic could be

detrimental to the progress towards its own independence.118 As de la Garza brings to light,

“Neither Navarro nor President Lamar were willing to be seen as aiding the Federalist in Mexico,

since Texas was still trying to receive formal recognition of its independence from the Mexican

government, and the Mexican government, whether the Texans liked it or not, was the centralist

government.”119 Siding with the Republic of the Rio Grande would also jeopardize Texas’s

attempts at independence through diplomatic means. Britain and France had recognized the

sovereignty of Texas, and Lamar had been working with the British Foreign Ministry in

negotiations with Mexico. Texas had begun to recognize as their own the land between the

Nueces River and the Rio Grande. One of their proposals included paying Mexico’s debt to

Britain in exchange for this land, and the Texan Congress had already declared the Rio Grande

as their southern and western border.120 Why under these circumstances would Canales engage in

117 Coppock, “The Republic of the Rio Grande” 48; David Vigness, “Relations between the Republic of Texas and the Republic of the Rio Grande,” Southern Historical Quarterly 57 (January 1954); Antonio Canales to Mirabeau B. Lamar, 17 December 1838, in Charles Adams Gulick, Jr., and others (eds.), The Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar (6 vols.: Austin, 1921-1928), V, 223-224.118 Message to the House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas, c. 16 January 1839, The Papers of Mirabeau Buonoparte Lamar (6 vols.: Austin 1921-1928)119 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Mexico,” 173.120 Coppock, “The Republic of the Rio Grande.” 48; Anson Jones, Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas: Its History and Annexation 1836 to 1846 (Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1966) 31.

51

negotiations with Texas is unclear. Nevertheless, the proposal worked to the Republic’s

advantage and the Texas government began to secretly provide them with aid.

As historian Stan Green states, President Lamar “gave official disapproval and unofficial

encouragement to the officials who came to Texas seeking aid.”121 Within the first two months

of campaigning in Texas, the Republic was able to recruit two important officers from the Texas

Army. Over 400 Texans joined forces with 300 Mexicans in the Republic’s army.122

Additionally, the Texan House of Representatives approved trade with the Republic through a

January 24, 1839 bill, hoping that a new republic near Texas’s borders would create additional

economic opportunities. The Republic of the Rio Grande did not have a sustainable independent

economy, and there were few opportunities for agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing

endeavors. To befriend this new republic would allow Texas to engage in the production of new

factories, seaports, mills, foundries, and other necessities within the Republic, as it would be

stripped of the economic relationship with Mexico.123 This exchange between the Republic of the

Rio Grande and Texas marked much of the Republic’s lifespan as people debated if the benefits

of their relationship were greater than the consequences. The Republic also sought aid from the

United States and, in exchange, promised to grant a bounty of land and payment to any

volunteers.124 No aid came from the United States, but interest in the borderland community and

current interactions did exist among the political elite.125 An independent Republic would

generate demand for products and services, resulting in a new market that the Americans could

monopolize.

121 Green, “Laredo, Antonio Zapata & the Republic of the Rio Grande.” 122 Coppock, “The Republic of the Rio Grande,” 48.123 Vigness, “Relations between the Republic of Texas and the Republic of the Rio Grande,” 316-317. 124 Vigness, “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Mexico,” 173125 Anson Jones, Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas: Its History and Annexation 1836 to 1846 (Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1966) 46.

52

Following negotiations with Texas, the Republic of the Rio Grande engaged in several

battles against Santa Anna’s army and the centralist Mexican government. However, the

Republic proved to be weak, losing all engagements with the exception of one battle, Pavon de

Mier.126 The centralist army invaded many of the towns along the Frontera, including Laredo.

By the end of March that year, these towns would eventually switch their allegiance from the

Republic back to the centralists. Laredo remained an exception since Canales regained control

of the town that summer. Laredo in turn would remain loyal to the federalist cause by providing

much needed aid and shelter to the federalist soldiers.127 Official aid never came from Texas or

the United States, both allies that the Republic had counted on. Volunteers from Texas did show

up to help the Republic, but the Texan government itself refused to recognize such efforts. On

November 6, 1840, the Republic of the Rio Grande finally surrendered to Mexico under the

conditions that life and property would remain in the possession of its inhabitants, Texan

volunteers were allowed to return to Texas without any harm, and other foreigners were allowed

to stay in Mexico.128 Their short-lived dreams of a federal republic were thus shattered.

Just as quickly as it appeared, the Republic vanished and was forgotten as other political

activity made it to the forefront of the Mexican public. The Republic lasted less than a year—

just one year of independence from the central government. While the Republic claimed to

extend throughout Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, in practice it only had limited control

over portions of these states.129 Rather, the extent of the Republic’s power was not in its

126 Ibid. 199127 Continued Invasions by Indians; request for troops, 30 March 1783, Document 4, Folder 27, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library; Hinojosa, A Borderlands Town in Transition. 55-60.

128 Ibid. 202129 Green, “Laredo, Antonio Zapata & the Republic of the Rio Grande.”

53

resources or territorial claims, but in the hearts, and ultimately, loyalty of its people. Political

turmoil would continue throughout Mexico after the end of the Republic, but internal conflicts

moved to the background as national attention was soon drawn to international conflict. The first

of these conflicts was the Mexican-American War, and it lasted from the spring of 1846 to the

fall of 1847. When General Zachary Taylor and the United States Army began the invasion,

Mexico would be forced to turn its sights upon the Frontera del Norte once again. This was the

beginning of the Mexican-American War, where Texas and the United States joined forces to

claim the territory that Texas had previously declared as their own. Still shaken by other

separatist movements across the nation, Mexico was not able to defeat the American armies.

While short-lived, the Mexican-American War defined Mexico within the borders we see

today, having lost the immense western territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo

Mexico along with Texas and the Nueces strip. The United States, in particular the Polk

administration, had for many years tried enticing Texan politicians into a war with the Frontera

as a precursor for declaring war on Mexico itself. While Texan politicians did not give in to this

request, the Texas public sought an opportunity for revenge on the Mexican government, thus

setting the stage for future conflict. 130 War was avoided for a few years, but the annexation of

Texas into the United States resolved a long withstanding question of the Texan boundaries.

Once an agreement was reached by both parties, the Rio Grande became the definitive boundary

of Texas.

The Mexican-American war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ceded

to the United States over 525,000 square miles of land:

130 Anson Jones, Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas: Its History and Annexation 1836 to 1846 (Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1966) 46-52.

54

In 1848, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when the residents of Laredo learned that henceforth they were to be part of the United States, they petitioned to be allowed to remain part of Mexico. Three of their most prominent members, former mayors José Maria Ramon and Bacilio Benavides and Col. José Maria Gonzalez, all supporters of the Republic of the Rio Grande, wrote a letter to Mirabeau B. Lamar, the former president of the Republic of Texas and now the United States general in charge of the occupation army, asking to be allowed to continue their union with Mexico. Perhaps the Laredoans felt that a known devil was better than an unknown angel. Most likely, it was their desire to remain united to the other Villas del Norte, their sister settlements, and not to be divided by the Rio Grande. The request was not granted.131

Lamar rejected their appeal, believing that Laredo had belonged to Texas from the start. In

response, families with property on the west bank of the Rio Grande River established a new

town of Nuevo Laredo directly across Laredo’s city center.132 Some families who wished to

remain Mexicans collected the remains of their dead and moved them to Mexican soil—founding

a new town by the name of Nuevo Laredo. The 1850 census shows that the Laredo population

dropped from 1,891 in 1845, the beginning of American occupation, to 1,173.133 Petitions and

migrations were merely an indication that wars and boundaries had little control in dictating the

feelings of the residents of the Frontera’s residents. Through the tumultuous years of the mid

1800s, the residents of the Frontera del Norte engaged in small daily protests that resisted the

regulations of a government that ignored them. Even though their grander attempt at protest did

not succeed, the defeat of the Republic of the Rio Grande was no indication that acts of

resistance would end.

Ultimately, the continued sentiments between federalists and centralists catapulted the

Reform War in 1857-1861. After years of back and forth between opposing governments, the

Reform War would end with the Constitution of 1857, a federalist constitution which mirrored

131 de la Garza, From the Republic of the Rio Grande, 22.132 Hinojosa, A Borderlands Town in Transition: Laredo. 58-59.133 Ibid. 55-60.

55

the liberal Constitution of 1824 once supported by the former Republic. Despite this shift

towards federalism, the centralists would eventually go so far as to reinstate the monarchy. With

the help of the French government, the centralists pronounced Maximilian I as emperor of

Mexico. This move was part of the war of the French Intervention to establish a greater hold in

the Americas. Maximilian’s influence was minimal, however, and the Mexican government

continued to be active through the leadership of President Benito Juarez.134 The Constitution of

1857 was eventually repealed after the Mexican Revolution and replaced by the Constitution of

1917, the version that remains in force today.

The residents of the Frontera del Norte now had the option to choose between two

democratic institutions – one in Mexico and one in the United States. However, that was not

necessary as a fluid set of relations continued to exist between the areas that were once one. The

same social, cultural, and economical interdependency continue to exist across this borderland.

In Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, the proximity of both cities to each other and their long history as

an intertwined community has allowed for the continued resonance of a borderland culture

reinforced by the shared values, practices, and attitudes held by its people. To choose one nation

over the other was simply a personal decision that did little to limit the benefits of the fluidity in

the borderland.

134 Pedro Santoni, Mexican at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848 (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996) 232-234.

56

Conclusion

The Republic of the Rio Grande proved to not be a successful separatist movement, but

rather a perfect example of the dynamics that comprise a borderland. With its rise and fall, the

Republic proved that the interconnectivity of the villas was a veritable force that stood the test of

the time. The Frontera del Norte was a region composed not of isolated blocks, but rather a

single cohesive unit. In 1892, anthropologist Eric Wolf warned against succumbing to the

siren’s song of national history. He argues that empires, nations, and ordinary people are closely

linked to migration patterns, the expansion of world markets, and the rise and fall of imperial

regimes. Despite this known fact, scholars continue to view history through the framework

nation states alone. Taking Eric Wolf’s warning into account, Samuel Truett and Elliott Young,

editors of Continental Crossroads: Remapping U.S.-Mexico Borderlands History, insist that we

must look beyond the selective traditional frameworks and instead focus on the multiplicity of

overlapping worlds that history has left behind.135 Oscar Martínez’s history of the border rings

true with Truett and Young’s statement. The period of Alienation in the borderlands was an

intense competition between colonial powers. When those colonial powers were defeated, they

left behind a group of descendants—the Texans—who would eventually lay claim over a land

that was never theirs to begin with. The Republic of the Rio Grande was unfortunately a product

of two colonial powers trying to make sense of a postcolonial world, a foundation that would

ultimately lead itself towards destruction.

The creation of the Republic of the Rio Grande is an example of border milieu, a zone of

transition with multiple interactions. While the Republic of the Rio Grande lasted less than a

year, this brief moment of history reinforced the significant production of culture that transcends

135 Samuel Truett and Elliott Young, eds., introduction to Continental Crossroads: Remapping U.S.-Mexico Borderlands History (Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2004) 1.

beyond territorial borders. In this space the local perspectives prevail, but those perspectives are

nonetheless a mixture of internal and external influences.

Truett and Young point out that for years the term “borderland history” was deeply

associated with romantic stories of Indians, missionaries, and soldiers. The stories had little to

do with the actual people of the borderlands, and when those people were included, the stories

said little about the border itself.136 Truett and Young believe that these narratives are not

reflective of the complexity that exists in the border. Borderlands are not merely defined by one

story or one moment in history. However, if told successfully, these stories can highlight the

uniqueness of the border. Borderlands are not where cultures collide and fall; rather, they are

transitory spaces where language, heritage, and culture—among many other interactions—

connect, debate, and transform each other. That which meets at the border spreads beyond the

frontier. Like a color spectrum, the colors may change a few paces away, but there remains an

impression of what emerged from the border. The U.S.-Mexican borderlands are more than a

bridge between Anglo & Latin America. This region was not a silent player in the periphery, but

a place that transformed and informed.

Not every negotiation in the frontier will emerge victorious, and thus the success and

interconnectivity of this region cannot be measured by the success of the Republic of the Rio

Grande. The Republic was a reflection of the community that had a clear vision of their destiny.

Unlike the federalists and conservatives who quickly changed their stance, the residents of the

Frontera del Norte knew that they wanted stability and development brought to the region while

maintaining their Mexican identity. Federalism promised them the utmost autonomy. While this

autonomy did not come in 1840, the people of Frontera did not lose their ability to continue

136 Samuel Truett and Elliott Young, eds., introduction to Continental Crossroads: Remapping U.S.-Mexico Borderlands History (Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2004) 3.

58

voicing their opinion. What was important was that these communities belonged together and

their community will continue to do so despite hardships. While social, economic, and racial

problems may afflict the borderland, unity and cooperation will continue to persevere.

Today, borderland identity continues to function under the rule of two nations. Like the

characters in the history of the Republic of the Rio Grande, identity is not clear cut. Because of

the nature of the border, there are a multiplicity of stories that overlap and compete.

Nevertheless, no matter the negotiations, the unity continues to dominate in these interactions. In

recent years, collaboration in the border has taken shape in various ways, but one of the most

consistent formats is the Abrazo Children ceremony in Laredo. Organized annually by the

Washington Birthday Celebration Association and the International Good Neighbor Council, the

WBCA/IGNC International Bridge Ceremony is meant to celebrate and promote the bond

between the Mexican and American borderland communities. Dignitaries of Laredo and Nuevo

Laredo meet in the Gateway to the Americas International Bridge to exchange greetings of

prosperities. As part of the celebration, two children, a boy and a girl, dress in traditional

Mexican attire and accompany the Mexican dignitaries. Another pair of children, dressed in

American revolutionary attire, accompanies the American dignitaries. These children are known

as the Abrazo Children, or Hugging Children. Each pair represents a country and the friendship

that exists between them. Upon meeting in the center of the bridge, which marks the division

between one country and the other, the children exchange hugs. “The Abrazo ceremony is

always a focal point of the annual festivities, as well as a meaningful and touching symbol of the

close relationship which exists between ‘Los Dos Laredos’ and among the United States and

59

México,” mentioned Norbert Dickman, operator of the 2011 ceremony’s main sponsor, La

Posada Hotel.137

The symbolic meeting between two countries has been an ongoing event in the

Washington Birthday Celebration calendar since 1898. Initially, Nuevo Laredo officials would

ride across the bridge in carriages to be greeted by the Laredoan officials waiting to take them to

the festivities.138 Throughout the years, the ceremony has included U.S. and Mexican local and

military officials whom also exchange abrazos139 upon meeting at the center of the bridge. The

act of officials meeting on the bridge was an expression of mutual admiration between both

countries. The addition of the Abrazo Children in 1969 was meant to emphasize the friendship,

kindness, and mutual appreciation that exist between both communities.

It is by looking from the periphery that we may gain a better understanding of the culture

and ideologies of the nation as a whole. It is on the border where trials and tribulations are

debated and transformed to create an understanding that, while not always perfect, does have a

foundation of cooperation. The story of the Republic of the Rio Grande, while admittedly a

challenging study with a variety of contradictions, delivers a fresh perspective on not only those

larger narratives, such as the formation of two nations, but also the narratives of those

communities caught in the crossfire. Through the disciplines of history and borderlands studies,

we can see how the formation of the Republic of the Rio Grande was a natural reaction that

combined national politics with borderland identity.

137 Washington Birthday Celebration Association, “WBCA Abrazo Children and Bridge Speakers Selected for 115th Celebration,” 119th Washington Birthday Celebration Association, 2012, http://wbcalaredo.org/home/contactus/media/press-releases/3167-wbca-abrazo-children-and-bridge-speakers-selected-for-115th-celebration.html. 138 International Good Neighbor Council, “History of the Bridge Ceremony,” International Good Neighbor Council, 2012, http://www.ignc-laredo.com/IGNCHistory.html. 139 hugs

60

61

Bibliography

12 entries on Council decisions, mostly personal cases, February—November 1823, Document 36, Folder 69, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Alaman, Lucas. "The Siege of Guanajuato," in The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, eds. Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson, 171-191. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.

Antonio Canales to Mirabeau B. Lamar, 17 December 1838, in Charles Adams Gulick, Jr. and others (eds.), The Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar (6 vols.: Austin, 1921-1928)

Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. Abingdon: Routledge, 2004.

Census for the year 1831, 1831, Document 1, Folder 92, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Conspiracy in Mexico, 25 August 1822, Document 27, Folder 68b, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Continued Invasions by Indians; request for troops, 30 March 1783, Document 4, Folder 27, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Coppock, Mike. “The Republic of the Rio Grande,” Wild West 18, no. 4 (December 2005): 46-52.

Council writes vs. mil. Commander; ignores decisions, 3 September 1832, Document 71b, Folder 95, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Decree requiring allegiance to the above declaration, 6 October 1821, Document 2, Folder 67, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Decree vs. insurgents, traitors; those who help them, 9 March 1813, Document 3, Folder 57, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

de la Garza, Beatriz. From the Republic of the Rio Grande: A Personal History of the Place and People, 1st ed. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013.

Dursteler, “On Bazaars and Battlefields: Recent Scholarship on Mediterranean Cultural Contacts,” Journal of Early Modern History 15, no. 5 (January 2011): 413-434.

Everyone gather in Laredo within three days or be fined, 9 July 1774, Document 6, Folder 15, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Exhortation to remain loyal to the crown, 30 April 1813, Document 4, Folder 57, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Green, Stan. “Laredo, Antonio Zapata & the Republic of the Rio Grande,” Border Studies Publication (1990)

62

Hinojosa, Gilberto Miguel. A Borderlands Town in Transition: Laredo, 1755-1870. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1983.

Horgan, Paul. Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1984.

International Good Neighbor Council. “History of the Bridge Ceremony.” International Good Neighbor Council. 2012. http://www.ignc-laredo.com/IGNCHistory.html.

Jones, Anson. Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas: Its History and Annexation 1836 to 1846. Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1966.

Joseph, Gilbert M. and Timothy J. Henderson, eds., The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.

Laredo joins the group recognizing the federal system, 5 January 1839, Document 2, Folder 140, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Levinson, Irving W. “The Contours of a Very Special Border,” Journal of the West 53 no. 3 (Summer 2014) 60-84.

Martínez, Oscar J. Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994.

Martínez, Oscar J. Troublesome Border. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006.

Message to the House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas, c. 16 January 1839, The Papers of Mirabeau Buonoparte Lamar (6 vols.: Austin 1921-1928)

Nance, Joseph Milton. After San Jacinto: the Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1836-1841. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1963.

One issue of Mercurio del Puerto de Matamoros, 22 April 1836, Document 1, Folder 120, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Personal letter about family affairs and local news, 10 September 1811, Document 13, Folder 55, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Regulations on bathing in the river, 3 May 1784, Document 1, Folder 28, Laredo Spanish Archives, St. Mary’s Louis J. Blume Library.

Sahlins, Peter. Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Santoni, Pedro. Mexican at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996.

Truett, Samuel and Elliott Young, eds. introduction to Continental Crossroads: Remapping the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands History. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2004.

63

Truett, Samuel. Fugitive Landscapes: The Forgotten History of the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Vázquez, Josefina Zoraida. “La Supuesta República Del Rio Grande,” Historia Mexicana 36, no. 1 (September 1986): 49-80.

Vigness, David. “Relations between the Republic of Texas and the Republic of the Rio Grande,” Southern Historical Quarterly 57 (January 1954): 312-321.

Vigness, David. “The Republic of the Rio Grande: An Example of Separatism in Northern Mexico” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, 1951.

Wang, Zheng. “National Humiliation, History Education and the Politics of Historical Memory: Patriotic Education Campaign in China,” International Studies Quarterly 52 (2008): 783-806.

Washington Birthday Celebration Association. “WBCA Abrazo Children and Bridge Speakers Selected for 115th Celebration.” 119th Washington Birthday Celebration Association. 2012. http://wbcalaredo.org/home/contactus/media/press-releases/3167-wbca-abrazo-children-and-bridge-speakers-selected-for-115th-celebration.html.

Weems, John Edward. Dream of Empire: A Human History of the Republic of Texas, 1836-1846. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971.

Wood, Robert D. Archivos de Laredo: Documentos Referentes a Los Indios, Book, 1998; (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611816/ : accessed March 17, 2016), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, http://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting St. Mary's University Louis J. Blume Library , San Antonio, Texas. i.

Wood, Robert D. Life in Laredo: A Documentary History of the Laredo Archives. Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2004.

64