Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Terms, Players, and Legacy

Introduction

"Mexican historian has labeled the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 'one of the harshest in modern history.' It was imposed on Mexico — not fairly negotiated." — Malcolm Ebright, 1994

The epigraph above suggests that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was like many events in American history where the United States is perceived as wielding an unfairly heavy hand in international affairs, particularly in its own hemisphere. While the treaty remains fairly obscure in the annals of American history, its outcome helped fuel the Manifest Destiny of the country through its westward expansion. To determine the key facts in the matter, this paper provides a review of relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to identify the main parts of the treaty, the main players involved, and what the United States stood to gain or lose by its passage. An analysis of the legal battles directly related to the treaty and their outcomes is followed by an assessment of the treaty's impact on the country at the time. A summary of the research and salient findings is presented in the conclusion.

Main Parts of the Treaty

The treaty consisted of twenty-three articles, but Article IX was modified and Article X (discussed below) was eliminated from the final treaty language by the U.S. Congress (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 4). A summary of each article is provided in the table below.

Article I declared an end to the hostilities between Mexico and the United States. Article II provided for oversight of the suspended hostilities. Article III eliminated any blockades and provided for the withdrawal of troops and restoration of accounts and trade patterns. Article IV generally addressed the withdrawal of occupying U.S. troops from Mexican territories and possessions.

Article V described the border between the two countries, though its language was vague. Article VI concerned navigation of the Gila River and its potential mutual development by both governments. Article VII defined the boundaries, respective borders, and permissible trade routes for the Gila and Rio Bravo rivers.

Article VIII gave Mexicans living in territories ceded to the United States the option of returning to Mexico or remaining where they were. Article IX provided Mexicans electing to remain in the United States with U.S. citizenship upon ratification of the treaty. Article X was stricken by U.S. amendments.

Article XI concerned the "savage tribes" that occupied the ceded territories; it prohibited trade in stolen goods and livestock with them and also prohibited the purchase of Mexicans captured by Native Americans. Article XII required the U.S. government to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the ceded lands and other considerations stipulated in the treaty. Article XIII held Mexico harmless from any further claims whatsoever, while Article XIV discharged any further obligation of Mexico from claims of U.S. citizens specifically.

Article XV established a board of commissioners to oversee the payment of claims. Article XVI reserved the right of each government to deploy military forces along their respective borders at their discretion. Article XVII stipulated the duration of the treaty at eight years, with a provision for extensions as the parties deemed fit, provided one year's notice was given for any cancellations thereafter.

Article XVIII provided for duty-free provisions for occupying U.S. military forces in Mexico during the pendency of the treaty. Article XIX contained trade provisions for future commerce between the countries, and Article XX contained further trade provisions linked to Article III. Article XXI contained mutual assurances of peaceful resolution of future conflicts. Article XXII provided procedures to be followed in case of war. Article XXIII, the concluding article, stipulated the time and place for approval by both Mexico and the United States.

Key Players

Although the events that resulted in the treaty involved numerous colorful figures on both sides, the key players in the actual negotiations were relatively few. In his book Land Grants and Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico, Ebright (1994) reports that the principal figures included Secretary of State James Buchanan, American General Stephen Watts Kearny, and the U.S. negotiating representative Nicholas Trist. The Mexican commissioners appointed to negotiate on behalf of Mexico were Luis P. Cuevas, Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 4).

According to Ebright, "Changes in New Mexico brought about by the opening of the Santa Fe Trail paved the way for the invasion by United States forces led by General Stephen Watts Kearny in August 1846. Kearny promised the people of New Mexico that their property would be protected by the United States. However, it became a matter of international negotiation to determine what form this guarantee would take" (28).

The negotiations that resulted in the ratification of the treaty occurred during the fall of 1847. At that time, Trist, representing the United States, was not truly in a position to negotiate freely. Ebright reports that Trist "was truly a man caught in the middle. Trist attempted to hammer out a fair treaty in spite of the inflexible policy of his government on many issues. The exact terms of the property guarantee given by Kearny with regard to land grants were the result of protracted negotiations. In August 1847, when General Winfield Scott's army was in position to advance on Mexico City, the Mexican government appointed four commissioners to meet with Trist. Both sides had draft treaties that their respective governments had given them as bases for negotiation" (29). Although Trist's efforts at diplomacy were laudable by modern standards, he was under strict orders from Washington concerning the goals he was to pursue in the negotiations.

Conclusion

The research showed that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo concluded the U.S.-Mexican War and gained the United States Upper California, Texas, and New Mexico in exchange for a paltry $15,000,000 and some nebulous assurances that the United States would cease hostilities and trade fairly in the future. The research also showed that contemporary Mexicans — as well as their modern counterparts — likely viewed the treaty as highly one-sided; rather than representing a genuine compromise, the treaty functioned more like extortion at the barrel of a gun. Nevertheless, the deed was done, and the United States continued its westward expansion and its rendezvous with its self-proclaimed Manifest Destiny by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Works Cited

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1990.

Ebright, Malcolm. Land Grants and Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque: University Press, 1994.

Montoya, Maria E. Translating Property: The Maxwell Land Grant and the Conflict over Land in the American West, 1840–1900. Berkeley, CA: University Press, 2002.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. (2007). Azteca Web Page. [Online]. Available:

Note: Buchanan to Trist, 25 October 1847: The Mexican commissioners were told on 22 January 1848 that further military occupation of Mexico would take place unless a treaty of peace was signed.