Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Omar Valerio-Jiménez
Published in cooperation with the William P. Clements Center
for Southwest Studies, Southern Methodist University.
River of Hope
Forging Identity and Nation in the Rio Grande Borderlands
omar s. valerio-jiménez
at the University of Texas at Austin; the Texas State Archives; the Catholic
Archives of Texas; Special Collections at St. Mary’s Library; Bancroft Li-
brary; Amon Carter Museum; the Archivo Municipal de Reynosa; the Ar-
chivo General de las Indias, Seville; the Archivo Histórico Diplomático in
the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, and the Archivo General de la
Nación, both in Mexico City. I am especially grateful for the guidance and
advice from George Gause, at the Special Collections Library, University of
Texas–Pan American, and Andrés Cuellar, at the Archivo Histórico de
Matamoros. Finally, I would like to thank the sta√ at the interlibrary loan
departments of ucla’s University Research Library; California State
University, Long Beach; and the University of Iowa.
In 2006, I had the pleasure of joining a welcoming community at the
University of Iowa. I thank my colleagues in the History Department,
especially Leslie Schwalm and Malcolm Rohrbough, for their generosity
and friendliness. My colleagues’ insightful comments have improved this
manuscript. Aminta Pérez and Michelle Armstrong-Partida made my tran-
sition to Iowa easier, as did colleagues in the departments of American
Studies, Spanish and Portuguese, and English.
From the beginning of this project, my family has been understanding
and supportive. Although they often wondered why this project took so
long to complete, they trusted that I knew what I was doing. I am especially
grateful to mis tías (Jiménez), who opened their home and kept me well
nourished during an extended research period in Matamoros, Tamaulipas.
My Tío Mario was always eager to learn about my latest research discov-
eries, while my tías Linda and Irma shared family stories and a great sense
of humor. Although they did not live to see this book in print, the interest of
my tíos and tías in my research helped sustain me. I miss Anita, Emma,
Armandina, Beto, Efraín, and Mario. I also remember several Valerio aunts
and uncles (Antonio, Panchita, Esperanza, and Esther) who shared the
region’s history. During my weekly trips between my father’s house in
Alamo, Texas, and my tías’ house in Matamoros, I was constantly reminded
that nation-states use international borders to divide populations, while
culture and social relations often keep them united. My father, sister, and
brother provided a haven from academia. Raúl Valerio Sánchez has been a
wonderful role model as a loving father, generous grandfather, skilled car-
penter, and cantankerous nonagenarian. Bety, Josué, and their families
have nurtured and supported me unconditionally. I learned a great deal
from Edelmira Jiménez Flores during her brief life. She encouraged me to
excel academically and to follow her spiritual journey. I miss her deeply.
xiv Acknowledgments
This story takes place in the delta region of the Río Bravo (Rio Grande), a
borderlands once located on the periphery of European colonial power and
subsequently on a newly created international border. It is a story of vio-
lence resulting from multiple conquests, of resistance and accommodation
to state power, and of changing ethnic and political identities. The redraw-
ing of borders, however, neither began nor ended the region’s long history
of unequal power relations. Nor did it lead residents to adopt singular
colonial or national identities. Instead, distant governments were part of
multiple influences on local residents, whose regionalism, cultural prac-
tices, and kinship ties continually subverted state attempts to control and
divide the population.∞
The river delta, or lower Rio Grande region (an area that extends some
two hundred miles in a northwesterly direction from the river’s mouth),
was a homeland to at least forty-nine distinct indigenous groups before
European contact. In 1749, Spanish colonists arrived to establish settle-
ments on behalf of New Spain (colonial Mexico), which sought to consoli-
date claims to its northern borderlands in advance of rival European colo-
nial powers. The Spanish colonists invaded this indigenous homeland and
transformed the society of its inhabitants by introducing a di√erent lan-
guage, religion, and government. They also forcibly incorporated the
region’s indigenous people into their racially stratified society. By the mid-
nineteenth century, Mexico and the United States had replaced European
colonial powers in competing for control of these borderlands. The region
became a center of conflict once again as foreigners arrived, beginning in
the 1820s, seeking land and clashed with Mexicans. The Anglo American
newcomers would introduce an additional language, various religions, and a
di√erent government. Like the previous Spanish colonists, Anglo Americans
2 Introduction
The border region’s contentious political situation did not emerge abruptly
in the nineteenth century; rather, it was part of a longer process with earlier
roots. Beginning in the sixteenth century, New Spain sought to enlarge its
wealth and territory by expanding northward. The discovery of silver mines
in the late 1540s was the initial impetus for the northern movement of
Spanish colonists. Livestock production and limited agriculture supple-
mented the northern mining operations. As mining towns grew, the market
for cattle products expanded and stock raisers moved farther north. Beyond
the mining towns, however, the lack of easily accessible wealth from min-
6 Introduction
e√orts, and its outcome introduced significant consequences for both na-
tions. By the mid-nineteenth century, the United States had enjoyed sev-
enty years of a postindependence stable government. It was experiencing
an expanding population, the beginnings of industrialization, and in-
creased trade. Relatively successful in promoting nationalism, the United
States was in the midst of a territorial expansion onto indigenous lands and
territory formerly held by Spain and Mexico. In contrast, Mexico had not
yet recovered from its devastating war for independence (1810–21), which
had left the country bankrupt, its infrastructure devastated, and its popula-
tion demoralized. In the twenty-five years since its independence, Mexico
had experienced great political instability, the presidency having changed
hands over twenty-two times. Beginning in the 1830s, the Comanches,
Apaches, and Navajos increased their raids on Mexico’s Far North, crip-
pling the region’s economy, devastating its population, and consuming its
military resources. These problems prevented Mexico from maintaining
control over its northern borderlands. After losing Texas in an 1836 seces-
sionist revolt, Mexico had repeatedly sought to regain control over the
wayward republic but had only succeeded in antagonizing residents there.
Moreover, Mexico witnessed mixed results in forging nationalism. Its pre-
carious situation contributed to its loss in the war with the United States.
Its devastating defeat added to its turbulent dilemmas at midcentury. In
contrast, victory transformed the United States into a continental nation
with critical ports in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast.∞≠
The war led to the marginalization of Mexican Americans, who lost politi-
cal, economic, and social power to Anglo American newcomers. This mar-
ginalization emerged from the contradiction between the democratic ideals
of the United States and the racial ideology of its citizens. The doctrine of
Manifest Destiny illustrated this inherent disagreement: on the one hand, it
maintained that the United States was destined to spread freedom and self-
government through conquest; on the other hand, it promoted the superi-
ority of Anglo American society. How could subordinate people establish
self-government? The nation’s long history of politically excluding non-
white racial groups resolved this apparent contradiction. Adapting their
previous racial ideology to the annexed territories, Anglos assigned Mexican
Americans a racial status based on the existing class structure of Mexican
society. Although the new construction of racial meaning, or racialization,
varied within the American Southwest and even within Texas, Anglos gen-
erally viewed wealthy Mexican Americans as ‘‘white’’ and their poor coun-
terparts as racial ‘‘others.’’ This racialization determined the degree to
8 Introduction
which Mexican Americans were incorporated into the local and national
communities. While this perception granted elite men limited citizenship
rights, it placed the majority in an ambiguous position. Their rights as
citizens were respected when they advanced white supremacy but were
denied when they threatened the status quo.∞∞
Mexicans and Americans held di√erent conceptions of the meaning of
citizenship in the nineteenth century. Each group’s distinct historical expe-
rience shaped their conception of the link between race and citizenship.
Under Mexican law all males were theoretically considered citizens, but in
practice only the elite exercised the vote and held elected o≈ce. In Mexico’s
northern borderlands, the elite claimed pure Spanish blood, though in
reality they were quite racially mixed. Class rather than race remained the
determining factor for obtaining citizenship rights in northern Mexico. In
contrast, Americans absorbed their ideas about citizenship from a very
di√erent political tradition. Some believed in the Je√ersonian ideal of a
republic of educated, yeoman white farmers. As urbanization increased,
the Je√ersonians promoted westward expansion, justifying the displace-
ment of Indians and continued enslavement of African Americans as
necessary for the good of the republic. Later, the Jacksonian Democrats
strengthened the link between whiteness and citizenship. In their view,
Mexicans joined Indians as the main obstacles to a republic whose citizens
believed in ‘‘white supremacy and slavery, Protestant hegemony, patriarchy,
and Anglo Saxon predominance.’’ The Whigs, the political rivals of the
Jacksonian Democrats, opposed westward expansion because they feared
the spread of slavery and the inclusion of more nonwhite people within the
nation. The incorporation of an ‘‘incongruous mass of Spaniards, Indians,
and mongrel Mexicans’’ threatened the Whigs’ ideal nation of Anglo Saxon
Protestants. Some of these ideologies were deeply ingrained in the minds of
Anglo Americans when they arrived in south Texas and assumed positions
of power.∞≤
Recent studies illustrate the limited power that colonizing peoples had in
New Spain’s northern borderlands, and highlight the agency of indigenous
groups. Far from homogenous, relations between Europeans and Indians
varied by region and time period, as well as by the peculiarities of Spanish
communities and indigenous nations. Indians and Europeans transformed
Introduction 9
borderlands in the region, the United States and Mexico each attempted
but failed to obtain hegemonic power. The international border remained
porous, primarily through the daily practices and concerted e√orts of the
region’s inhabitants. Residents did not give up local control easily or imme-
diately assume national identities; instead, they continued transnational
practices, subverted national directives, and assumed strategic identities.
Nevertheless, each nation-state did influence borderland residents as both
the United States and Mexico, according to Andrés Reséndez, ‘‘attempted
to build the nation at the frontier.’’ State and market forces became signifi-
cant in bringing about change, and consequently shaped the identity of
borderland residents. Inhabitants of the lower Rio Grande region also selec-
tively appealed to (and claimed membership in) each nation to advance
local agendas. Such actions support the contention of Benjamin Johnson
and Andrew Graybill that ‘‘the state ended up as much an invited guest in
the borderlands as it did an armed stranger.’’ In his study of Béxar (San
Antonio), Raúl Ramos confirms Reséndez’s arguments by demonstrating
that bexareños (Béxar residents) welcomed trade with Anglo Americans
while remaining deeply involved in Mexico’s political debates. Ramos also
finds that residents’ family lineage and their concepts of honor influenced
identity formation. As Texas came under control of the United States, the
roles of bexareños shifted from cultural brokers to ethnic minorities, reveal-
ing that tejano identity varied by region and political context. Building on
these scholars’ findings about the contextual nature of tejano identity, I
argue that geography, class, and citizenship were additional influences.
When the new international border divided their communities, residents
of the lower Rio Grande region directly experienced the transformation
that Jeremy Adelman and Stephen Aron describe as a shift from a border-
lands region to a ‘‘bordered land.’’ Their geographic location allowed the
region’s tejanos to continue daily transnational relationships with Mexican
nationals, while interacting—as a subordinate group—with Anglo Ameri-
can newcomers. Class and gender divisions a√ected Mexican Texans’ re-
sponses to the U.S. takeover as did cross-border kinship networks, both
ultimately shaping their culturally hybrid identities. While the hardening
of borders often leaves less room for political maneuvering, it also o√ers
new opportunities. As Peter Sahlins argues, residents on both sides of a
border can find commonalities and grow closer after the imposition of an
international boundary. Like Sahlins’s subjects in the Cerdanya (along the
Spanish-French border), the residents on both sides of the Rio Grande used
Introduction 11
flee the racial animosity in Texas during the Great Depression. My grand-
parents had children born in both nations; some were Mexican citizens,
others American citizens. In 1969, I accompanied my family as they crossed
from Tamaulipas back into Texas, seeking better economic opportunities.
My mother’s relatives remained in Mexico while most of my father’s kin
eventually moved back to the United States. The international border re-
mained prominent in my bicultural and binational youth, which was
marked by frequent trips across the river to visit family and friends. Yet, I did
not learn about this region’s history from either Mexican or American text-
books. It was missing from both nations’ o≈cial historical narratives. The
dissonance between my own family’s experience and the history curricula
used in my public-school and university education informs this book. My
research began as a personal e√ort to understand the region’s history. I hope
that this book will help others learn about earlier generations of borderland
residents.∞Ω
Organization
This book is divided into two parts with the U.S.-Mexican War as the
dividing line: the first describes the Spanish and Mexican periods, followed
Introduction 15
among all the groups as elite men exercised more legal rights and held all
political and legal positions.
In chapter 6, I describe the contested meanings of citizenship by examin-
ing various armed struggles, Americanization e√orts, and the porous nature
of the border. Economic and political issues encouraged the region’s Mexi-
can Americans to begin distinguishing themselves from Mexican nationals
during the second half of the nineteenth century, and increasingly identify
with other Mexicans in Texas as tejanos. Dispossession of land and police
brutality led to an uprising in which citizenship demands became promi-
nent. Cattle theft created a rift between Mexican Texans and Mexican
nationals as tejano landowners allied themselves with Anglo American
ranchers, charging that thieves from Mexico stole their cattle. In turn,
livestock owners in Mexico accused poor Mexican Texans of theft. Higher-
paying jobs attracted Mexican itinerant workers, but their presence com-
plicated tejanos’ electoral struggles because americanos accused Mexican
nationals of voter fraud. Unlike most tejanos, who became politically sub-
ordinated to Anglos, Mexican citizens in Mexico retained their social and
political power. Mexican Texans were not only politically marginalized in
the United States, but also excluded from citizenship in Mexico. As a result
of their political and legal subordination in the United States as well as their
interactions with Mexican nationals, tejano border residents gradually de-
veloped a separate ethnic identity.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the inhabitants of the lower Rio
Grande region had fashioned multiple identities throughout several de-
cades in response to various nation-building processes. The social construc-
tion of new ethnic and national identities along the border illustrates that
identity formation is a dynamic process subject to multiple interconnecting
influences. As they adapted to each government’s attempts to impose con-
trol, Mexicans created social spaces that subverted the formal institutional
structures of each country. In their struggle to adapt and resist government
control, they developed fluid, and often contradictory, identities within the
volatile and ever-changing political atmosphere of the borderlands.
Notes
Introduction
1. Mexicans referred to the river as the Río Grande, Río Grande del Norte, and
Río Bravo. Horgan, Great River, 257; Zorrilla, Miró Flaquer, and Herrera Pérez,
Tamaulipas: Una historia compartida I, 25, 28, 162–68; Osante, Orígenes del Nuevo
Santander, 18, 85; ahm-col 1:8, 15 enero 1815. For incisive critiques of borderlands
history, see Hämäläinen and Truett, ‘‘On Borderlands,’’ 338–61; Gutiérrez and
Young, ‘‘Transnationalizing Borderlands History,’’ 27–53; Johnson and Graybill,
‘‘Introduction: Borders and Their Historians in North America,’’ 1–29; Adelman
and Aron, ‘‘From Borderlands to Borders,’’ 814–41; and Truett and Young, ‘‘Intro-
duction: Making Transnational History,’’ 1–32.
2. Salinas, Indians of the Rio Grande Delta, 69.
3. Corrigan and Sayer, The Great Arch, 1–13.
4. Marshall and Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class, 8; Bosniak, ‘‘Citizenship
Denationalized,’’ 456–89; Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, 241 (quote).
5. Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American, 11–13; Stets and Burke, ‘‘Identity The-
ory and Social Identity Theory,’’ 224–29; Hall, ‘‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora,’’
225–27; Hall and Du Gay, Questions of Cultural Identity, 3–6; Sahlins, Boundaries,
110–13, 267–76; Haas, Conquests and Historical Identities in California, 9–44.
6. Wilson and Donnan, Border Identities, 13, 26 (quote).
7. Lockhart and Schwartz, Early Latin America, 290–95.
8. Bolton, Wider Horizons in American History, 55–106; Limerick, The Legacy of
Conquest, 227; Weber, The Spanish Frontier in North America, 12.
9. Gutiérrez, ‘‘Claims and Prospects,’’ 35; Engstrand, Griswold del Castillo, and
Poniatowska, Culture y Cultura; Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos de la invasión norte-
americana.
10. Delay, War of a Thousand Deserts, 61–138.
11. Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 34–37; Omi and
Winant, Racial Formation in the United States, 64; Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines, 45–
74.
12. R. Smith, Civic Ideals, 165–66, 200 (quote), 206 (quote); Guardino, Peasants,
288 Notes to Pages 9–19
Politics, and the Formation of Mexico’s National State, 174–75; Mora, Border Dilemmas,
43–65.
13. Brooks, Captives and Cousins, 31; Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire, 2–9;
Barr, Peace Came in the Form of a Woman, 15, 118; Hämäläinen and Truett, ‘‘On
Borderlands,’’ 347.
14. Wunder and Hämäläinen, ‘‘Of Lethal Places and Lethal Essays,’’ 1229; Hämä-
läinen and Truett, ‘‘On Borderlands,’’ 352.
15. Truett and Young, ‘‘Introduction: Making Transnational History,’’ 14–17;
Johnson and Graybill, ‘‘Introduction: Borders and Their Historians in North Amer-
ica,’’ 6–9, 24; Reséndez, Changing National Identities at the Frontier, 3–6, 56–123;
Ramos, Beyond the Alamo, 93, 105, 128–30; Adelman and Aron, ‘‘From Borderlands
to Borders,’’ 816; Sahlins, Boundaries, 127–32; Baud and Van Schendel, ‘‘Toward a
Comparative History of Borderlands,’’ 235.
16. Nugent, ‘‘Are We Not Civilized Men?’’; Alonso, Thread of Blood; Osante,
Orígenes del Nuevo Santander; Reséndez, Changing National Identities at the Frontier,
56–123; Guardino, Peasants, Politics, and the Formation of Mexico’s National State, 86;
Truett, Fugitive Landscapes, 6; Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines; Meeks, Border Citizens;
Benton-Cohen, Borderline Americans; Mitchell, Coyote Nation.
17. Gutiérrez, When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away; A. Castañeda,
‘‘Presidarias y Pobladoras’’; Monroy, Thrown among Strangers; D. González, Refusing
the Favor, Chávez-García, Negotiating Conquest; Casas, Married to a Daughter of the
Land; Heidenreich, ‘‘This Land Was Mexican Once’’; Reyes, Private Women, Public
Lives; Haas, Conquests and Historical Identities in California; Ramos, Beyond the Al-
amo; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas.
18. Gutiérrez, Walls and Mirrors, 7; Paredes, Folklore and Culture on the Texas-
Mexican Border, 29; Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American; Gutiérrez and Young,
‘‘Transnationalizing Borderlands History,’’ 50; Meeks, Border Citizens; Benton-
Cohen, Borderline Americans; Gómez, Manifest Destinies; Mora, Border Dilemmas.
19. On the absence of borderland stories from national narratives, see Truett and
Young, Continental Crossroads, 2; Johnson and Graybill, Bridging National Borders in
North America, 1–2; Saldívar, Borderlands of Culture, 8; and Cotera, Native Speakers,
118–20.
20. The villas del norte’s vecinos used the following terms interchangeably:
americanos, norteamericanos, anglo americanos, and americanos del norte. For exam-
ples, see ahm-jud 2:4, 27 mayo 1822; ahm-jud 2:9, 24 marzo 1824; ahm-jus 1:27,
24 septiembre 1827; ahm-pre 1:2, 20 febrero 1825; ahr-pre 1:6, 15 abril 1847; and
ahr-pre 3:17, 30 marzo 1853.