There is an oft-overlooked moment in American history, when several European nations agreed to invade the Mexican republic and install a Habsburg on the throne of what would be termed the Second Mexican Empire. Of course, this second empire was grossly short-lived.
In his new book, “Habsburgs on the Rio Grande: The Rise and Fall of the Second Mexican Empire,” Raymond Jonas, the Jon Bridgman Endowed Professor in History at the University of Washington, posits a new theory. He believes the reason the invasion and occupation of Mexico took place was because of the expanding American republic and the fear that America “posed a threat to the European old regime on both ideological and geopolitical grounds.”
Missing History
At the start of his book, Jonas claims to “shed new light on two key subsequent events—the global scramble for empire, and the Great War—by exposing how U.S. expansion radically shifted perceptions of the scale of power well beyond its borders.” To bolster his theory, the author begins with the fight for Mexican independence against the Spanish and then the Texas Revolution a few decades later. He also highlights the threat of Texas annexation by the United States while Texas was its own republic.
But in his brief and necessary chronology, Jonas seems to purposely leave out pertinent information. He ignores the reason that Texas, along with numerous other states in the Mexican republic, decided to revolt in 1835: Mexican president Santa Anna abolished the Constitution of 1824 and established himself as dictator.
The author also suggests the Texians, Texas residents of Anglo-American descent, wanted slaves. But history informs us that these white settlers had established a work-around of the 1824 Constitution, which outlawed slavery. They claimed their slaves were indentured servants.
At the time, Mexico needed settlers in their newly conquered and vast landscape and gave a wink and a nod to slavery by way of indenture. Indeed, Mexico wanted Texas back, and there had been 10-year window to conduct another war while Texas was a nation, but that never happened.
Yes, Mexico feared the U.S. annexation of Texas, and yes, the cause for the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848 is often looked upon as American aggression. But it seems Jonas chose to ignore substantive history in order to give his premise a foundation. This isn’t fair to the reader, especially those with little grasp of Texas history.
There seems to be a few reasons for Jonas taking this approach. He claims that “only prudence grounded in religious and racial bigotry saved the rump of Mexico from annexation.” America, after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, gained approximately half of Mexico, which became California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, most of Arizona and Colorado, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.
There was argument, even in Congress, for taking the whole of Mexico, but this was a very minority voice. It was more “prudence” than “religious and racial bigotry” that kept America from trying to annex the rest of Mexico. These arguments by Jonas are in the first 50 pages of the book, and, as the next 200-plus pages would perhaps inadvertently make clear, America made the right choice by taking the vastly less populated areas of the Mexican republic instead of those where a majority of the populace lived.
An Enjoyable Read
Once Jonas finally dispenses with the theoretical, he engages in the historical at a very minute and informative level. “Habsburgs on the Rio Grande” becomes a truly enjoyable and insightful read, as surprising as that might seem due to the aforementioned points. Readers are guided through the invasion of Mexico, and the eventual withdrawal of British and Spanish troops, leaving the French to remain and finish conquering the republic.
Jonas informs the reader how Mexican conservatives pushed for the establishment of a monarchy, and ultimately persuaded Maximilian, the archduke of Austria, and Charlotte, his wife and a Belgian princess, to become the Mexican emperors. The two were persuaded by half-truths and pure deception, suggesting that the Mexicans and the indigenous population were hopeful for the return of a monarchy. The two were also persuaded by their own imperial desires, as well as their beliefs in their abilities to rule. As Jonas indicates clearly, it was a combination of hubris and deception that led the two to attempt ruling a haphazardly cobbled together kingdom. It was destined to fail and fail tragically.
Along with the invasion and the defeat and dispersing of republican troops, readers witness the arrival of the royal couple. The eventual immense pomp started off with humiliation because their ship arrived well ahead of schedule. Charlotte proved enthusiastic at the opportunity, while Maximilian was seemingly skeptical, if not reticent, at first. The Mexican imperial honeymoon was brief, very brief. It ended with Charlotte fleeing back to Europe due to the outbreak of hostilities between imperial and republican troops.
Jonas records Charlotte’s attempts to garner assistance from Napoleon III; Maximilian’s brother, Franz Joseph of Austria; and Pope Pius IX. Her husband and his remaining imperial troops, many of whom were initially pulled together from various parts of Europe, were left to fend for themselves. The defense was quickly engulfed, culminating in Maximilian’s execution.
Occam’s Razor?
It sounds counterintuitive given this review, but I enjoyed reading “Habsburgs on the Rio Grande.” Jonas provides immense historical detail while moving the story along and proves to be a gifted writer.A theoretician? Not quite. It was truly odd to read this entire work and ultimately realize that none of his theories could support themselves. The author promised to “shed new light on two key subsequent events—the global scramble for empire, and the Great War,” but he hardly mentions this “scramble” or “the Great War.” This scramble for empire is mentioned so peripherally as to be negligible, and I don’t even recall a mention of World War I.
Jonas’s suggestion that the European nations’ wariness of America’s rapid expansion caused the invasion of Mexico is an interesting theory. The 19th century was indeed an era of expanding empires, such as France, Britain, Belgium, Austria, and Germany. But unfortunately for Jonas’s theory, the apparent doomed-to-fail conquering of Mexico looked more like an attempt at expanding the Habsburg empire and European power, and less like an attempt at stanching America’s growth.
Jonas may have simply been fighting against Occam’s razor. Instead of “viewing events from a position of triangulation above conventional national histories,” he might have considered that the “conventional national histories” are correct. Perhaps the answer lies in the two-page map in the middle of the book that displays the many empires and kingdoms of Europe. The answer is simply that empires and kingdoms expand until they can expand no more, or perhaps more fittingly with the Habsburg empire, until they contract. As Occam’s razor suggests, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
