History repeating itself

These are my notes about the fifth in the series of lectures by Professor Luis Martin about the development of Mexico and the USA. Topics covered include opposition to the Mexican-American war with parallels to the US Civil War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and even the Afghan War. There is also a segment on the Catholic church's decisions on marriage and women.

The planned topic for this lecture was details about the fighting of the Mexican-American War, but that was deferred so that Luis could give some background about the war. He cited a couple of reminders that "An army's role is to kill the enemy and to be ready to die for your own country."

James Polk was the US President in 1848, On January 12, 1848 a freshman Congressman delivered a speech in the House of Representatives in response to Polk's request for additional funds and resources to fight the Mexican-American War. The war was nearing its conclusion by that time. These notes paraphrase parts of the Congressman's speech:

He states that:

• the war was unnecessary and commenced illegally by Polk.
• prior to being in Congress, he believed that everyone, despite their feelings and votes prior to the commencement of the war, should be quiet about their opinions on the war while the war was being fought -- but now, in light of Polk's request, that it was impossible to remain silent.
• that the president asserted that the war began in 1846 on US soil
• that the president's assertion was a shameless deception!
• that the president claimed that the border with Mexico was the Rio Grande while the recognized border was actually the Rio Nueces and thus the president had actually invaded Mexico by crossing the Nueces.
• that if the president can show that he is telling the truth that he will reverse his vote, but if the president cannot show that, then the president is just trying to deflect attention from the illegitimacy of the war by training the focus on the bravery of the military.

That Congressman was Abraham Lincoln. The speech is rarely cited in books about the Mexican-American War. The speech can be found at http://www.animatedatlas.com/mexwar/lincoln2.html

George Santayana, a Spaniard, is the source of the quotation: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [That is a slight modification of an earlier statement by Edmund Burke.]

War was inevitable as soon as the US annexed Texas. Mexico never recognized Texas' independence. Ironically, a few years later, the US would use the same argument against the South that Mexico had used against Texas. That a state cannot declare its independence. And the same argument had been used by England earlier when the US was declaring its independence.

When Mexico invited Anglos to settle in Texas to populate it, the settlers were allowed to bring slaves and were entitled to additional cheap land for each slave they brought. Mexico was still part of Spain and had not outlawed slavery. When the US annexed Texas, the South believed Texas should be a slave state and the North believed it should not be a slave state.

Book reference: Foreigners in Their Own Land by David Weber about the first generation of Texans who were Mexican citizens when it was annexed.

Luis Martin delivered a sermon at the Catholic church at Columbia University during the Vatican Council. Cardinal Spellman was the Archbishop of New York at the time and was at the Council. Spellman was at the Council and voted against ordaining married men as deacons. Martin opened his sermon by reading from the New York Times about the Cardinal's vote, and then read from Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles decide to ordain deacons, including married men and even women, wherever they are in their life path.

His point, he said, in telling that story is that history is not a science, but a liberal art, to understand what happens in real life situations.

Part 4: Revolt and civil war in Mexico (including Texas)

Another book, in addition to Many Mexicos, was recommended for people interested: The Spanish Frontier in North America by David Weber.

This session talked about the Mexican revolution from Spain, and the Mexican states' revolution, including Texas, from the central government of Mexico; and about the quixotic role of Santa Ana. (It is possible that I have some of the dates wrong in what follows.)

On January 14, 1831 the last living leader of the Mexican revolution of 1810, Vicente Guerrero, was executed by firing squad by Mexico. Santa was responsible for the execution of all four of the independence leaders, leaving himself as the sole remaining original leader.

Santa Ana called himself the Napoleon of the West and reminded people that he fought more battles than George Washington and Napoleon put together.

Santa Ana lead a coup de etat in 1832.

In 1833 Santa Ana is elected President but finds the role boring and uninteresting and turns over control to his vice president, Gomez Farias. Santa Ana retires to his ranch.

Gomez Farias:

• reduces the size of the army;
  
• makes soldiers subject to civilian laws;
  
• says the Church can only be involved in religious matters, not politics
• secularizes education
• closes the University of Mexico (99% of the faculty were clerics)
• severs authority of the Vatican over Mexico
• establishes himself as head of the Church in Mexico
• releases priests and nuns from their vows
• takes over Franciscan monasteries in California

Santa Ana leads a coup against Gomez Farias. reasserts himself as President and negates all of Gomez Farias' policies. But also abolishes the Constitution of 1824 and creates the Constitution of 1833. This leads to civil war as the leaders of the Mexican states revolt against Santa Ana's seizure of power.

Santa Ana puts down revolts leaving Texas as the last holdout.

Texas population in 1700 (not counting Indians) is about 3,000 people. In the 1800's Spain invites immigrants from the north to settle in Texas to strengthen Spain's claim to the territory,m but there are constraints on who can immigrate and be a citizen. Families must be Catholic and promise to abide by Spanish/Mexican law, and all public actions must be conducted in Spanish.

Moses Austin, Stephen Austin's father, comes to Texas. Moses was already a Spanish citizen because Spain considered Oregon to be part of New Spain. Austin brings 300 families to Texas. Land is very cheap and a wife doubles the amount of land a settler can buy at the cheap price. An additional 160 acres per child can be bought for the ten cents per acre. For every slave another 80 acres can be bought. These prices are 1/10 or less of the price in other areas of the south.

By 1824 there are 30,000-35,000 Anglos in Texas and only 7,500 Mexicans.

Santa Ana raises and army and marches from Mexico City to Texas. By March 1836 he is in San Antonio and captures the Alamo. On March 5, 1836 he decides that the siege of the Alamo will turn into an attack and allowing no survivors.

But the battle of Goliad was a more tragic massacre. The Texian leader at Goliad was Colonel James Fannin and an army of 400 men, Fannin tries to negotiate with Mexican General Urrea to avoid a massacre. But Santa Ana invokes a law that any enemy of Mexico found with weapons should be executed immediately and orders Urrea's lieutenant (Portilla) to execute all of them. THey were lined up and massacred on march 27, 1836. Following the massacre at Goliad there was no way that the Texians could agree to remain part of Mexico.

This was followed by the battle of San Jacinto where Santa Ana is taken prisoner by Houston's army. Santa Ana, as President of Mexico, signs two treaties, one public, one secret. The public treaty ceases military action, withdraws south of the Rio Grande, commits to never fight Texians again, and will receive envoys from Texas leading to Texas' independence.

Santa Ana is sent to D.C where he is put on a ship and returned to Veracruz. But the next year, in 1837, the French navy blockades Veracruz and the French army is ordered to invade in what is known as the "pastry war". Santa Ana raises an army and repels them.

Part 3: The Age of Santa Ana

• Santa Ana switched sides and points of view numerous time during his life.
  
• He would become president of Mexico 11 separate times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Mexico
  
• He was of pure Spanish blood, not a mestizo, born in Mexico. He trained in the Spanish army and initially fought against Mexican rebels.
• Napoleon restored Ferdinand VII to the Spanish throne. Ferdinand establishes a very right-wing, authoritarian government and mounts an army to re-dominate Mexico. The army rebels.
• A Spanish Constitution of 1812 is drafted, patterned after the US Constitution, but with a king and with Catholicism as the official religion.
  
• Santa Ana supports a rebellion from Spain and favors a Mexican king.
• Then Santa Ana changes to wanting a democratic republic for Mexico, but still ignoring the Indians.
• Mexicans leaders debate whether to create a United States of Mexico patterned after the USA. The counter argument is that Mexico has a very different history than the USA.
• The USA started as 13 separate entities which federated for a common cause and each gave up a certain degree of autonomy.
• Mexico started out as a single entity under the King and Viceroy and creating a United States of Mexico would be creating separations where there hadn't been any.

• Joel Roberts Poinsett is the first US representative to Mexico. (The Poinsettia is naned for him. Among other things, he was a botanist.)
• Poinsett comes from a wealthy South Carolina family, speaks Spanish, French, Italian, German and some Russian. As a young man he travels widely in Europe and Russia and the Middle East meeting the Czar and other leaders in the early 1800's, making him well educated for diplomatic posts.
• In making recommendations about Mexico to John Quincy Adams, Poinsett essentially recommends what comes to be the Monroe Doctrine.
• Poinsett was a high level Mason in South Carolina. Mexican leaders were fascinated with Masonry and joined one of the two Masonic lodges in Mexico, the Scottish Rite or the York Rite. Because of his Masoinc rank, Poinsett has a lot of influence over Mexican leadership
  
• The Scottish Rite was very conservative wanted a monarchy.
• The York Rite was very liberal and wanted a government patterned after the USA with a multi-chamber legislature and a president. Poinsett joins the York Rite.
• The 19 Mexican states send representatives to elect a president and the conservatives win 10 to 9. But that president is not seated and with Santa Ana leading another army they appoint the loser, Vicente Guerrero president and establish a constitution patterned after the USA.

• Ferdinand sent an army of 4,000 from Cuba and Puerto Rico to retake Mexico, landing at Tampico. Simultaneously there is a coupe against Guerrero. Santa Ana gathers a small army of a few hundred and marches against Tampico to discover that half of the Spanish army have died from Yellow Fever.
  
• Sana Ana is eventually elected president and a conservative constitution is drafted ~ 1832 giving the resident almost absolute power, recognizing Catholicism as the state religion giving bishops a lot of power. He appoints a liberal vice president.
• Within a month there is a revolt against the constitution. Santa Ana resigns and the liberal vice president takes over and begins changing the constitution.
• Santa Ana fights against the revolt and defeats the rebels everywhere except in Texas.
• On paper Santa Ana is still president and the USA returns him to Mexico where he is now unpopular.
  
• Poinsett is now Secretary of Wat, appointed by Van Buren. Van Buren is the first US president born in the USA after it became the USA, but his first language was not English! He grew up in New York and his first language was Dutch.

• 1838 - The Pastry War.
  
• A lot of foreign properties were damaged, seized or destroyed during all the rebellions and the owners wanted Mexico to pay compensation, but the government had no money. Miners and farmers had been fighting wars.
  
• France sends an army to Veracruz to demand reparations.
  
• Santa Ana leads an army to defend Veracruz. He is shot in the leg and thinks he is dying. He doesn't die, but the leg is amputated.
• He becomes president again and has the amputated leg brought to Mexico City to appear in a parade demonstrating his dedication and sacrifices for Mexico.
  

Book: Many Mexicos

Mexico's Independence and the Monroe Doctrine

My notes from the second lecture in the series about "Mexico and the US, A Contentious Relationship"

• 1810 - Napoleon seizes Spain and the Spanish royalty. With the disappearance of the monarchy the link holding Latin America to Spain is effectively severed. It is noting like the US severance from England.
• 1823 - The Monroe Doctrine. Drafted Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, suggested by the Foreign Minister of England who wanted a joint declaration that would weaken Spain's hold on commerce with Latin America and open it up to the English.
• John Quincy Adams rejects the idea of a joint declaration with England to reassert American independence.
• Europe rebels against Napoleonic governments and wants to restore Ferdinand VII in Spain, and claims to the Spanish colonies including Latin America.
• Russia claims the northwest corner of North America - Alaska and 100 miles of the ocean off the shore.

Monroe Doctrine

• Americas not open to colonization (aimed at Spain and Portugal)
• No European power will be allowed to interfere in internal affairs of American countries
• Any violation will be considered an Act of Aggression

Rationale:

• Latin American countries sent raw materials to Spain and Spain manufactured and sold goods to other countries.
  
• England and USA wanted to change that economic model, or not restore it.

• Latin American countries liked the protective cover provided by the Monroe Doctrine
  
• Lucas Alaman, the Mexican Foreign Minister, was the only one who objected and warned Bolivar and the Mexican President of the risks of being dominated by their neighbor to the north. Alaman lived to see the Mexican American War and the American annexation of 2/3 of Mexico.

1904 Theodore Roosevelt

• Changes the role of the Monroe Doctrine
• Asserts: America has the right to interfere in affairs of any Latin American county, an intrinsic duty, any time they are not living up to their responsibilities.
• This is right after the Spanish-American War and the Treaty of Paris in 1899 where the US took away the last remnants of the Spanish empire: Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
• Roosevelt carves Panama out of Colombia and succeeds in building the Panama Canal.

• In Mexico there is a rebellion and surprisingly, they offer the crown back to Ferdinand.
  
• Roman Catholicism is to be the official religion of Mexico (contrasted to American separation of church and state and no official religion)
• Equality between Spaniards and Mexican-born Spaniards (Creoles), but not mestizos or Indians.
• Following a lot of changing of sides, complex alliances, execution of the original leaders of the rebellion, Augustin de Iturbide is named Emperor of the independent Mexico.
  

Before there was Mexico and the USA

I'm attending a free lecture series offered by a history professor from the University of Texas at Dallas. The subject is how Mexico and the US came into being and how each developed from before they were countries up to more modern times. There are a lot of surprises and a lot of things most of us have never thought about.

The professor is Luis Martin and he is an outstanding lecturer with a knack for endearing himself to the class. I've been taking notes at the three lectures I've attended so far. I want to transcribe them someplace and if I do it here then I can access them and so can anyone else that might be interested. So here are my notes from those three talks, if I can read my notes. These are my notes from the first week.

Luis was born in 1927 in Seville, Spain. His expertise is in Latin America, especially the government of Peru. He has been an American citizen for decades and was on the faculty at SMU before joining UTD.

"History is not a science., no matter what your teachers told you. It is a memory that takes imagination to understand."

In 1932 the president of the American Historical Association, Herbert Bolton, gave a speech at the annual meeting, the only one held in Canada, titled "The Epic of the Greater America." He suggested that to really understand the development of the United States of America you also needed to understand the interactions of the various explorers and indigenous peoples before modern borders were established. He was met with skepticism but the course he developed at University of California -Berkley proved to be, year after year, the most popular course on campus. http://www.historians.org/info/aha_history/hebolton.htm Luis seems to be giving us a subset of that course.

Shakespeare, Cervantes and Inca Garcilaso de la Vega died the same day in 1616. "El Inca" was among the first "mestizo" (mixed race) people in what is now Mexico and almost certainly the best know at the time. His father had rank among the Spanish. He was raised by his mother among the Inca and as an adult, moved to Spain and documented the Spanish developments in Florida and the southern part of what is now the USA. is most notable book was La Florida del Inca, http://www.amazon.com/Florida-Struggle-Equality-Colonial-Spanish/dp/0817352570

• We are used to thinking about the development of the USA spreading out from the northeast, but at the same time that discoveries were being made bu the English, French and Dutch in the northeast, Spain was exploring and expanding in the southern part of North America.
• The Anglo explorers in America, in the northeast, did not encounter an urban civilization and an associated approach to government.
• The Spanish explorers in America, in what is now Mexico, Florida and the southwestern US, did encounter an urban civilization. The Inca city in Mexico has a population of about 100,000 and had three times the population of Seville.
• The English, French and Dutch explorers in the northeast, influenced by The Reformation, had some sense of religious tolerance and of democratic local control. The Spanish explorers in the south were dominated by Roman Catholicism and by a Viceroy-based, divine-right approach to government.
• Intermarriage with local people as a means to occupying and controlling New Spain was encouraged by Spain and the Spanish church. Intermarriage was not encouraged in New England.
  
• As the English, Dutch and French moved west and south, the Spanish moved west and north, giving names to California, Los Angeles, Nevada, Arizona (arid zone), El Paso, San Antonio, St. Augustine, etc.
• The Spanish model of government in North America was different than that in the English colonies where there was a degree of democracy and autonomy, The Spanish approach duplicated the approach in their other colonies (including Naples) with a Viceroy who was an extension of the King who ruled by divine right.
  
• What would the US be like if the Russians n Alaska had spread southward to Washington, Oregon, California as rapidly as the Spanish spread northward?
• The Professor Martin also discussed of the importance of language and the need to be fluent and adopt the language of your chosen country; and of the second and last phrases of the Declaration of Independence as key to the success of the United States:
• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .
• . . .And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
• It is difficult (impossible) to ever be completely accepted by the native born as an immigrant Frenchman, Spaniard, etc. America is the exception (and Luis is an example).
• He referenced a book, The Closing of the American Mind.

What really happened at the Healthcare meeting

On Thursday, February 25, 2010 President Obama chaired a televised discussion about proposed healthcare legislation. In attendance were the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties and a number of members of both parties chosen by their party leaders. Vice-President Biden and Secretary of Health Sibelius were also at the table.

The main objectives of healthcare reform are to lower and control costs for people covered by private insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid, and to help get every American access to reliable healthcare.

Aside from my general interest in this important topic and my interest in whether this Congress could get anything done, I was also interested because of my experience as a consultant to the insurance industry. What I've seen reported on the few TV news and opinion shows gives a different picture than what I observed, so I'm writing about my impressions from what I observed.

When I was working with insurance companies I used to joke that what they needed to develop was "just in time insurance," a product that people could buy when they needed it but not have to pay premiums until they needed the insurance. One insurance executive said they could offer such a product, but no one would be able to afford the premium. That joking suggestion is very relevant to the discussion that went on at the conference.

Some of the attendees, maybe most of them, tried to be helpful as the President tried to get agreement on the large number of things that are included in the House bill and in the Senate bill. A handful were not helpful. Republican Representative John Boehner was grandstanding, and not very effectively. He stacked up about five copies of the House bill and five of the Senate bill in front of him so that he could have a pile of paper to lean on and to point to as a graphic to claim that the bills were unwieldy. Rather than cooperate or look for opportunities to cooperate, his comments were always that the work done to-date should be thrown out and that health reform should start from scratch. He refused to acknowledge the significant agreement between what is in the bills and waht Republicans - and the country - want. He refused to make suggestions about what things in the bills should be eliminated or even modified. He missed an opportunity to be useful.

Republican Representative Eric Cantor took the same approach and the same tactics as Boehner, although he is probably smarter than Boehner. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell was similarly unhelpful, although less vocal.

Sadly, Senator John McCain made the most useless comments, and did it more than once. McCain wanted to discuss the process that had been followed over the past year, rather than discuss content or make progress. The President rightly told McCain that people might care about the process, but they cared a lot more about getting something done about the healthcare crisis.

But some Republicans were helpful in trying to make progress, or so it seemed to me. To my surprise Republican Senator Tom Coburn was helpful. He is opposed to aspects of the current bills, but he was fairly specific in his objections and for putting forth reasonable suggestions. Lamar Alexander delivered the opneing remarks for the Republicans and was opposed to the bills and advocated starting over, but he did so in a reasonable, logical way and left me with the impression that you could work with him if he wasn't unreasonably pressured by his party's political objectives.

Democratic Senator Harkin explained why a piece-meal approach to health reform was not workable, that the parts are intertwined. That with one of the objectives being to provide health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions you couldn't wait until those people needed insurance before they bought. Like everyone else, they need to buy it when they can so that it is there when needed -- in other words they can't buy "just in time" insurance. Insurance doesn't work that way. Insurance is a sharing of risk across a larger body of people, and it works best when that universe of people is a normal mix.

Sibelius and others explained what is worng with "high risk pools". They should have mentioned the analogy to automobile insurance where high risk drivers are in high risk pools and pay high premiums -- because they are more expensive to insure. It is the opposite of sharing risk across a "normal mix". Unlike auto insurance though, people don't have choices over whether they will be healthy or sick or have an accident that requires medical treatment.

Everyone agreed on the need to regulate health insurance, as the President pointed out several times, although several Republicans wanted to ignore that need.

When participant pointed out that the Medical Loss Ratio (the amount of premium dollars that are spent on medical benefits) is about 85% for large companies that have a lot of people being covered, but only 60-70% for small business and individuals. That is consistent with the 1/3 that Colburn says is not being used to provide benefits.

Democrat Jay Rockefeller said that the objective for regulation is to protect consumers, and Obama comapred it to food and drug regulation.

Republican Paul Ryan was opposed and could cite lots of numbers, but I think he could be helpful in reaching compromise -- if his party would let him.

Biden explained why Medicare Advantage plans )Medicare Part C) were setup with a higher payout to private insurance companies -- to see if they produced better outcomes. They don't. That is why the bills eliminate the 15% subsidy for Advantage plans and propsoe to use the $500B annual savings to reduce Medicare D or elsewhere.

Senator Grassley made the surprising, to me, comment that future Congresses wouldn't be any braver than this Congress a d wouldn't address the problem -- indicating that this Congress shouldn't do anything!!! He also said that 75% of of Advantage dollars go to benefits and 25% go to the government. He couldn't be peruaded that that was impossible since his numbers allocated no money to the insurance companies that administer Advantage plans.

Boehner and McCain wanted to focus on limiting medical liability claims which they say wil lower malpractice insurance costs and thus lwoer medical costs. But doing that, while saving a lot of money, abut $50B. it is only 0.2% of the medical spending, much smaller than other factors.

Democrat Charles Rangel said that people don't care about how thick the bill is nor about the process. They care about producing results.

Obama tried to get people to agree that the bills include provisions that almost everyone seems to want: cover people with pre-existing conditions; eliminate rescission (canceling policies after they are issued, often when they are needed); eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage; expand coverage to more people; extend the life of the Medicare fund.

But the session ended without agreement and I'm skeptical that there will be any movement by Republicans to work toward compromise. Lamar Alexander and John McCain wanted assurances that the Democrats in Congress would not use a technique to bypass a filibuster and pass the legislation anyway. Obama would not give that assurance, saying if they couldn't reach an agreement then the majority party would have to look at their options. I hope they do.