The Return to Centralism
By: Dr. Bruce Winders, Alamo Director of History and Curation
“. . . it is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come and my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.”[1]
Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico
“[Santa Anna] faithfully sustained the government thus established, until it was fairly tried and generally thought, by the most enlightened men, that the experiment had failed. . . I confess that I shall be most agreeably surprised if a Federal Republic shall succeed in Mexico, for many years to come; nor do I see much reason for such a form of government there.”[2]
Waddy Thompson, U.S. Minster to Mexico
Independence presented Mexico with two pathways to the future. The first was the familiar and well-trodden centralist path. A strong authoritarian system controlled by the Spanish monarchy and Catholic Church had been in place for three hundred years, conditioning many Mexicans to accept the resulting social hierarchy it created as normal. Nevertheless, the promise of self-government and a more open society drew others to republicanism, the radical alternative to centralism.
Agustín de Iturbide’s Plan de Iguala (1821) united Mexicans by offering the three things most Mexicans sought at that time: independence from Spain, protection of the Catholic religion, and a promise of social equality. In the immediate aftermath of the adoption of the Plan de Iguala, Mexicans believed they had found the solution to the young nation’s problem.
Widely lauded by many Mexicans, the plan adopted a constitutional monarchy — a form of government consistent Mexico’s recent past. In fact, the desire to recreate a Mexican monarchy quickly resulted in the elevation of Iturbide to the Mexican throne as Emperor Iturbide I. His excessive spending and near dictatorial approach to governing quickly reminded his countrymen of the unpleasant realities often associated with a monarchical system should the monarch usurp congress’ authority. Iturbide’s abdication presented another chance to reshuffle the political deck. Mexico’s provinces, the bastions of republicanism, aggressively pushed for the nation to transform itself into a republic. With centralism temporarily out of favor, Mexico adopted the Federal Constitution of 1824, a document that granted a considerable amount of autonomy to the states created out of former Spanish provinces. Once again, it appeared that Mexico had found a solution to its woes.
The question of Mexico’s future was far from settled as Mexican ultraconservatives (army officers, church officials, and land owners) believed that the nation’s Spanish past had left it unprepared to handle the amount of freedom that republicanism allowed the states and individuals. Until the day arrived that the states were ready for such political autonomy, Mexicans needed strong and experienced leaders to guide them. In the opinion of the ultraconservatives, granting freedom of the press and allowing states to dictate their desires to the national government had created an atmosphere of social and political unrest. Barracks revolts and street demonstrations revived the not too distant memories of mass bloodshed in the years leading up to independence. In the minds of the centralists, the imagined result could rival the bloodiest days of the French Revolution if the masses were left unchecked. Even past supporters of federalism, such as Antonio López de Santa Anna and José María Tornel, began to question their earlier position. Although support for the Constitution of 1824 remained high in states most distant from Mexico City, it was now centralism that was on the rise.
In March 1833, Santa Anna assumed the office of president after being elected by a vote of the majority of Mexico’s state legislatures. Shortly afterward, he retired to his estate near Jalapa and turned the daily management of government over to his vice president, Valentín Gómez Farías. The vice president and his supporters enacted liberal reforms that stripped power from the national army by building up state militias, confiscated church properties and monies, and had the potential to even take land from owners of large estates and redistribute it to the landless. Horrified that these changes would restructure Mexican society, representatives from the threatened factions approached Santa Anna and asked him to intervene on their behalf. He returned to Mexico City in April and chastised both his vice president and the national congress, dismissing both from office.
In late May 1834, Santa Anna assumed office under the newly proclaimed Plan de Cuernavaca, which voided the liberal reforms passed by Gómez Farías and granted Santa Anna extralegal powers to govern during the current emergency. The newly ascendant centralists declared their intension to revoke the Constitution of 1824 and replace it with one expressing centralist principals. The result was the passage of Las Siete Leyes, a set of laws that centralized the power of the national government at the expense of the states. In fact, the laws restructured state governments by converting them into departments or districts that would be administered by officials chosen by Mexico City.
What did the centralists hope to accomplish? Basically, they wanted to return Mexico to a level of stability that it had enjoyed in the years prior to the violence and unrest released by Hidalgo’s revolt. The Mexican masses, they believed, were not yet ready to make their own choices because they had been raised in a society that had given them little opportunity to do so. Until the masses obtained the level of maturity required to govern themselves, the hombres de bien (good men) should wisely rule on their behalf in order to prevent political and public unrest. The centralists also believed that national unity could not be achieved under the federal system where individual states placed their own welfare over that of the nation as a whole. In order for that to happen, state militias must be reduced and state legislatures closed. With these ends achieved, a national government could lead (by force if necessary) the various parts of Mexico (the regions and their inhabitants) to work together. A strong unified Mexico could ward off the nation’s many external threats while at the same time promoting prosperity. For the plan to work, though, all Mexicans needed to accept the new changes and many did not. With federalism under attack, open revolt throughout Mexico loomed on the horizon. What historians have labeled the Texas Revolution was in reality part of this ongoing Mexican civil war.
[1] Ann Fears Crawford, ed., The Eagle: The Autobiography of Santa Anna. (Austin: State House Press, 1988), xiv. For an overview of centralist philosophy, see Michael P. Costeloe, “Federalism to Centralism in Mexico: The Conservative Case for Change, 1835–36,” in The Americas. Vol. 45, No. 2 (October 1988), 173–85.
[2] Waddy Thompson, Recollection of Mexico. (New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1846), 58.
