The morning of January 29, 1848, saw a flurry of activity at the former convent of the Desierto de los Leones, west of Mexico City. Preparations were underway for a grand banquet, an astonishing scene given that Mexico was in the midst of a military occupation by the United States Army. General Winfield Scott and his officers, the supreme authority in the capital, were to be the guests of honor at a feast organized by the Mexico City council.
A Banquet in the Midst of War: The ‘Toast of the Desert’
Major General Ethan A. Hitchcock, a US officer, recorded his astonishment in his diary, “Fifty Years in Camp and Field: Diary.” He noted the lavish spread, the multitude of cooks, and the sheer abundance of food and wine, all provided by the very city they were occupying. This extraordinary event, dubbed the “Toast of the Desert,” saw Mexican officials toasting the military successes of their occupiers. Marcela Terrazas, a specialist in Mexican and US history at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), explains that some radical liberals within the city council saw the US presence as an opportunity to dismantle conservative military commands and the power of the Catholic Church.
Mexico, deeply fractured since its independence in 1821, presented a fragmented front to the invading forces. Some radical liberals even entertained the idea of Mexico being annexed by the United States, a testament to the profound lack of national identity at the time. Terrazas notes that this desire for external solutions was not unique to the liberals; years later, conservatives would also seek foreign intervention, leading to the French intervention and the establishment of a monarchy between 1861 and 1867.
The War’s Genesis: Manifest Destiny and Internal Divisions
The Mexican-American War (1845-1848) originated from the dispute over Texas, which declared independence with US support in 1836 and was annexed by the US nine years later. Mexico never recognized this separation. US President James K. Polk, driven by the ideology of “Manifest Destiny” and a desire for territorial expansion, provoked an armed conflict in a disputed region of southern Texas. Despite Mexico’s better-trained military, its internal political, economic, and social divisions proved to be its undoing. Terrazas highlights that while Mexican military leaders were experienced, 80% of their forces were conscripted, often forcibly. Furthermore, the indigenous majority (around 70% of the population) felt little loyalty to the nascent nation, viewing landowners and mine owners as their exploiters rather than a common enemy.
The Fall of Mexico City and the Humiliation of the Zócalo
US forces achieved successive victories, culminating in the critical landing in Veracruz by General Scott. In September 1847, battles raged around the capital, including the iconic struggle at Chapultepec Castle, where the “Niños Héroes” (Boy Heroes) became a national legend. However, nothing could stop the Americans. On the morning of September 14, they marched into the heart of Mexico City, taking the National Palace and raising the Stars and Stripes over the Zócalo – a deeply humiliating moment for Mexico.
Abraham López, a lithographer, recorded the exact moment: “I saw at this unfortunate moment my watch and it was seven and five minutes in the morning.” While some groups, like the “léperos” (a derogatory term for lower-class men), attempted armed resistance, their efforts were quickly suppressed. Terrazas explains that requests for contingents from other states were denied, as local militias were focused on defending their own territories. The profound internal conflicts meant that, as one minister of war noted, “there are more people fighting against other Mexicans than fighting against the invaders.” The Mexican government and part of the city council relocated to Querétaro, leaving the capital to the mercy of the Americans.
Life Under Occupation: A City Divided and Transformed
The US occupation of Mexico City lasted nine months, from September 1847 to June 1848. General Scott issued edicts promising sobriety from his troops, respect for churches and public buildings, and the upholding of Mexican law. Major General John Anthony Quitman was appointed civil and military governor. The remaining city authorities collaborated with the invaders, urging residents to cooperate “without baseness, but with due moderation.”
Daily life in the capital, as documented by historian Ernesto Lemoine Villacaña, was a mix of hardship and unexpected adaptations. Businesses reopened, albeit with trepidation. The US dollar began circulating, and English became increasingly common, especially in commercial areas. However, justice was often swift and brutal, with US troops taking matters into their own hands when their soldiers were harmed. One chilling account from the newspaper El Monitor describes a servant falsely accused, publicly whipped, and left to die, only for the true culprit to later emerge.
During the occupation, new forms of entertainment emerged: gambling houses, dance halls, and even expensive brothels under the protection of the occupying forces. An English theater company performed at the National Theater, catering to the Americans. The more affluent sectors of society, through their businesses and properties, found themselves collaborating more with the US troops. Even Catholic hierarchs showed cooperation, as they were engaged in their own struggle against liberal authorities who sought to confiscate church property.
Despite the hardships, Terrazas notes some unexpected “positives” for the city dwellers. There was greater security and order under the occupation, and Mexico City gained more autonomy. The US army also hired women to sew uniforms and generally paid for provisions, though these payments often came from the very taxes levied on the Mexican population.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and a Traumatic Legacy
By the time of the “Toast of the Desert,” a peace agreement was imminent. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ceded vast Mexican territories to the US for $15 million. Ratification by both countries’ congresses took months, prolonging the occupation. Terrazas points out that a radical US faction, the “All Mexican” movement, sought to annex all of Mexico, but racism against Mexicans ultimately saved the country from this fate, as President Polk reportedly disdained the indigenous population of central and southern Mexico.
The return of Mexican political control was fraught with accusations against those who ratified the treaty. Those who had collaborated with the Americans faced aggression as US forces withdrew. Terrazas argues that the loss of territory was not solely due to the moderates who negotiated peace, but rather a culmination of Mexico’s deep-seated internal divisions. The traumatic event did not lead to national unity; sectarianism continued for another two decades until the restoration of the Mexican government after the French intervention in 1867.
“It was a period that must be viewed without the lenses of ‘patriots and traitors,’ but rather with an understanding of people’s circumstances,” concludes Terrazas, highlighting the complex human element behind this pivotal moment in Mexican history.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c2evj480dwvo
