Mexico's Vulnerability: A Glorious Defeat Reexamined

In this book, Timothy J. Henderson explores the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), focusing on its origins, consequences, and modern-day impact. A Glorious Defeat is centered on two key questions: why did Mexico initiate the war with the United States in 1846 and why did Mexico suffer such a significant defeat? Henderson seeks to address these queries, drawing on the readers' understanding of US expansionist history with its southern counterparts, yet acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding Mexico's motivation for going to war with the United States (xviii).

Henderson offers this book as a way to correct the prevailing Anglo-centric literature in America, which blames Mexico for its losses by pointing out that Mexico's weakness, not the aggression of the US, was the root cause of the conflict. He argues that neither side is solely to blame and emphasizes that Mexico was not as strong or established as the US at the time of the conflict.

After annexing Texas, the US viewed Mexico as a challenge to be overcome due to its government bonds with the northern states and political standings.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Mexico

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Mexico's leaders recognized their nation's weakness and engaged in a war with the superior US to gain power and defend honor. The war allowed Mexican leaders to believe that the nation was united against a foreign enemy, despite internal divisions. (191)

Henderson explores the reasons behind Mexico's vulnerability and its role in leading to a war with the United States, drawing on evidence of Mexico's disadvantages when compared to the strength and abundance of the United States (xix).

By contrasting the Mexican and US colonial histories, ethnic makeup, paths to independence, and geographic features, Henderson is able to illustrate the historical, demographic, and geographical weaknesses that hindered Mexico from the start. This approach enables Henderson to navigate complex histories quickly and efficiently, while remaining true to his central themes of Mexico's inherent weaknesses and the inevitable triumph of the United States.

His discussion of Mexico's geographic landscape highlights the challenges posed by chasms and volcanic mountains, as well as the absence of convenient natural features like rivers for transportation. Additionally, he draws parallels between the colonial ties of Mexico and the US. However, Spain's lingering influence led to the empowerment of a Mexican elite who held onto traditional rights, inherited privileges, and material disparities that they believed were ordained by God and the church (4-5).

The US was founded and led by individuals who were well-versed in Enlightenment principles and valued reason, progress, change, individualism, merit, equality, and a fair social contract. As literacy rates increased in the US, the nation progressed and united. On the other hand, Mexico struggled with the barriers of class and race. According to one source, in Mexico there was a lack of a national spirit due to the absence of a true nation. Contrastingly, Native Americans in the US were too disorganized and weak to successfully resist the ruthless extermination or relocation by white settlers.

Henderson contrasts the Mexican mindset with the founders of the US republic, portraying the latter as "enlightened," "liberal," and "vigorous" with their politics being "assertive" and "robust" in relation to expansionist ideals (5, 12). In contrast, Mexico and Mexicans are depicted in a more negative light, with references to a holocaust and being described as "violent and traumatic." The Spaniards are characterized as "brutal and callous," while Spanish law is labeled as a "chaotic jumble" (7, 10, 13).

Through Henderson's exploration of the vulnerability of a nation and the anticipation of defeat for Mexico, the political landscape becomes visible as he reflects on the meeting with Hidalgo. He describes how indigenous people engaged in violent behavior, leading independent Creoles like Hidalgo to confront a barbaric reality. The vivid imagery created by Henderson portrays a savage and immoral past, devoid of any guiding principles.

It is unsurprising to see how the Mexican nation reacted to the Texas Revolution and the US invasion. Conflict within the US also tends to incite feelings of threat, provocation, and aggression. Santa Anna led Mexican troops against Texas during its disaffiliation, describing the opposing forces as "vagabonds, Indians and criminals." Years later, Mexico faced the US in a battle that could be characterized as "ragged."

The difference between these categorizations and the tactics used by the US is minimal. The main distinction lies in the US's eagerness for battle and defense, while Mexico was still in a celebratory mood as a new nation. Some view Santa Anna as a "tyrant" who introduced brutal and cruel tactics by slaughtering prisoners at the Alamo and other violent acts in response to the Anglo-American soldiers and settlers. In contrast, General Scott was skilled in both military and diplomatic arts and worked to foster positive relationships with people. Is the choice of words in these descriptions meant to fuel animosity towards US historical figures?

Henderson’s A Glorious Defeat clearly presents the Mexican perspective on the war with the United States. The author himself points out the irony of the conflict, highlighting that many Mexican decision-makers knew the outcome was inevitable. While the book clearly exhibits a bias towards one side, I appreciated gaining insight from a different viewpoint than what is commonly taught in the US. However, a more comprehensive approach could have been taken by including perspectives from both sides - akin to incorporating viewpoints of both a slave and a slave owner, to offer a more balanced perspective.