Reconstruction Beyond the South: The Broken Promises to Mexican Americans

INTRO 

Hey everyone. Welcome back. 

When learning about Reconstruction, the story often centers on the American South — freedpeople fighting for citizenship, new governments rising, and violent backlash from white supremacists. Thus far in my coverage of Reconstruction I have mirrored this and have spent a considerable amount of time exploring the political, social, and legal aspects of the period. Specifically, I’ve explored how the various components of Reconstruction impacted Black Americans as they sought to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of the Civil War. But Black Americans weren’t the only ones trying to navigate a country that was overtly hostile to their presence.

Far to the west, Mexican Americans in places like Texas, New Mexico, and California were grappling with promises made decades earlier — promises that were quickly broken. So this week I am diving into the history of Mexican Americans during Reconstruction. What promises were made? And how did they navigate the shifting politics of the era? 

Grab your cup of coffee, peeps. Let’s do this. 

Before we can dive into the experiences of Mexican Americans during Reconstruction, we need back up a bit and lay a little context. If you’ve been a long time listener of the show, then you may remember I covered the Mexican American War in 2023. In that episode, I discussed the United States’ increasing desire to expand its territory as a result of Manifest Destiny spreading throughout the country and how Mexico and the United States ended the conflict by signing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The treaty not only ended the Mexican-American War and transferred vast lands to the United States, but it also set aside specific provisions for the remaining residents of the area who suddenly found that they were now living in a new country. Article VIII promised that Mexican nationals who stayed would become U.S. citizens, quote: “Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States,” end quote. 

The treaty was not only meant to establish peace between the United States and Mexico, but was also intended to provide safeguards for the individuals living in the territory under dispute. By extending the promise of citizenship and property protection, the United States government was providing residents a secure place in the nation. Yet, Mexican Americans were targeted almost immediately and white settlers tried to overpower the west through violence. Much like with Black Americans, Mexican Americans were targeted with lynchings, vigilantism, and mob violence all in the name of securing and maintaining white supremacy in the region. As historian Jason Pierce argues quote, “as western communities grew, violence remained critical to creating and enforcing the dominance of whites over non-whites, marking both spatial and psychological boundaries in the process,” end quote. These tactics were deployed throughout the western territories, but were initially set in motion, Pierce argues, in California and Texas. 

Texas and California were both home to a concentrated number of hispanic and indigenous people which some settlers saw as a threat to the status quo. Thus, Anglo Americans began seeking ways to place Mexican Americans and Indigenous individuals into subservient positions. In Texas, Mexican Americans had to defend themselves against assertions that their loyalties were with Mexico and not the United States. This left them vulnerable to physical attacks and created an environment where residents were seen and treated as outsiders in their home territory. In California, Mexican Americans hoping to partake in the search for gold frequently found themselves charged with the foreign miners tax - a fee levied on anyone engaged in mining activities who was not a United States citizen. Though the Foreign Miners’ Tax was introduced in the early 1850s, it persisted well into the Reconstruction era, shaping California’s treatment of Mexican and Indigenous laborers as perpetual outsiders. Thus, despite the treaty in 1848 establishing otherwise, California legislators continued to view and treat their Mexican and Indigenous neighbors as visitors without claim to the land or its resources. 

In 1851, Congress passed the California Land Act which established a three member commission who were responsible for determining the validity of land claims in the newly established state of California. The commission was expected to study and analyze any and all documents or other evidence presented by individuals claiming land ownership. Mexican Americans were forced to deal with a legal system that was foreign, unfamiliar, and expensive. The act required landowners to prove their title’s validity in an English-language court and put the onus on the landowner to come up with the right level of documentation and evidence to convince the commission the legitimacy of their claim. There were no official surveyors sent out to take measurements – no efforts on the part of the nascent state government to collaborate with residents in verifying land claims. Instead, it was the owners who were responsible for not only finding any paperwork associated with their claim but also assuming the burden and cost of travel to San Francisco where the commissioners conducted their business. This proved to be too costly for many Mexican American landholders who lost access and rights to their land as a result. 

This landgrab was not limited to California. Across the Southwest, communal landholdings were broken apart, eroding Mexican Americans’ wealth, cultural identity, and political power. In New Mexico, the process looked a little different, but the results were just as devastating. After the U.S. takeover of the area, Congress created the Office of the Surveyor General in 1854 to review Spanish and Mexican land grants. In theory, this office was supposed to confirm legitimate land titles and protect residents' property. In practice, it became yet another mechanism of dispossession.

Much like in California, the legal process was slow, expensive, and conducted entirely in English. And as was true in California, grant holders lacked the documentation that the U.S. courts demanded, despite the fact that their families had lived on and worked the land for generations. The U.S. often rejected communal land claims simply because they didn’t fit the Anglo-American idea of individual property ownership.

By the 1870s, New Mexican communities began to lose access to their pastures, watersheds, and woodlands. This was not accomplished through the outright violence experienced in Texas, but through bureaucratic erosion. As one legal historian argued, the U.S. land grant confirmation system consistently disadvantaged original landowners and as the land disappeared, so did much of the political influence and cultural autonomy that New Mexico residents had long relied on.

Despite this mistreatment, Mexican Americans continued to engage as citizens of the United States and carve out spaces for themselves, even signing up to serve for both the Union and the Confederacy in the Civil War. In fact, several Mexican Americans were on hand for the final battle of the Civil War in Texas - the battle of Palmito Ranch near Brownsville in May of 1865. Confederates, aided by Mexican American soldiers, ended up winning the skirmish only to be on the losing side of the war. As the nation worked on coming together in the war’s aftermath, Congress passed the 14th Amendment which extended citizenship and equal protection to everyone born or naturalized in the United States. One facet of Radical Reconstruction was the requirement of any formerly seceded state seeking to rejoin the federal union to redraft their state constitution to provide more equitable access to the franchise for the formerly enslaved. In 1869, the Texas Constitution seemed to reaffirm the rights of Mexican Americans when they wrote Article VI which declared that every male citizen of the United States who quote, “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or who shall thereafter reside in this State on year, and in the county in which he offers to vote sixty days next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that are now, or hereafter may be elected by the people, and upon all questions submitted to the electors at any election” end quote. 

But in practice, Mexican Americans were left on the outside of political power and faced continued racial injustice. By the end of Reconstruction, there were roughly 25,000 Mexican Americans living in the state of Texas, yet they were often seen as politically and socially inferior. As the Texas State Historical Association recounts quote, “Tejanos faced numerous obstacles in their efforts to participate in the politics of the nineteenth century. Anglos considered them unworthy of the franchise and generally discouraged them from voting,” end quote. When they were allowed to vote, their actions were heavily monitored to ensure they voted for the candidates or platforms Anglo Texans preferred. And like California and New Mexico, Texas residents sought to push Mexican Americans from their land leading to several violent clashes. In 1876, Texas legislators rewrote their Constitution to repeal much of what had been put into place during Radical Reconstruction, marking the official end of Reconstruction in Texas. 

Thus Mexican Americans were sidelined politically. Though Reconstruction laws promised voting rights, Anglos controlled the courts and law enforcement and were not afraid to use both in an effort to exert further control over those they considered inferior. One prime example is the Salt War of San Elizario in 1877 when Mexican Americans fought to protect communal rights to the salt from the Guadalupe Salt Lakes. Those living along the Rio Grande near El Paso and Juarez, also known as Pasenos, had harvested salt from the area for generations. Salt pulled from the area was used in cooking, preserving food, and was an important tool for bartering. However, Anglos saw salt as a valuable tool in processing silver and began demanding that Pasenos pay for any salt they extracted. This culminated in a deadly confrontation when three Anglos were killed and in response, a volunteer group of Texas Rangers, led by J.B. Tays were called in to provide stability to the area. They did the exact opposite. Angered over the deaths of their fellow white neighbors, the group sought retribution through violence.  As historian Jason Pearce describes, the men sent in to supposedly keep the peace quote: “began to terrorize the Hispanics of the area, raping, plundering, and murdering those residents unfortunate enough to cross their path,” end quote. 

In the Southwest, as in the South, law and violence were tools used to uphold white supremacy. Despite the passage of the Anti-Peonage Act of 1867, which outlawed debt servitude which was a system especially entrenched in New Mexico, Mexican Americans often remained trapped in labor systems that mimicked slavery. Yet even amid these challenges, Mexican Americans in New Mexico sought political representation and influence. José Manuel Gallegos, a former priest and two-time territorial delegate to the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction, stood out as a determined advocate for his community. He also held significant roles such as Speaker of the Territorial House, Treasurer, and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Gallegos’s career illustrates the persistence of Mexican American leadership and political engagement during this turbulent era, offering a different facet of the Reconstruction experience in the Southwest.

Reconstruction’s reach and, for many, its failures were national and were not limited to the Southern states or its residents. Despite several attempts at blunting Reconstruction-era violence and discrimination, the federal government all too often failed to enforce equality when it challenged white dominance,  whether in Mississippi or New Mexico. Understanding this broadens our view of Reconstruction as a struggle for justice across the whole country.

The story of Reconstruction isn’t confined to the American South or solely about the struggle for Black citizenship and rights. For Mexican Americans in the Southwest, whether in California, Texas, or New Mexico, it was also a time of profound upheaval, resilience, and contested belonging. Promises made in treaties and constitutions often rang hollow in the face of legal barriers, economic pressures, and racial violence. Land that had sustained families and communities for generations was lost not only through outright dispossession but also through complex, bureaucratic systems that prioritized Anglo-American concepts of property and governance.

Yet, amid this loss and marginalization, Mexican Americans worked diligently to create spaces of political participation and leadership. Figures like José Manuel Gallegos remind us that Reconstruction’s story included efforts to assert rights and influence even under difficult circumstances. This dual reality of systemic exclusion alongside persistent resistance helps illuminate our understanding of Reconstruction beyond a period that was a purely Southern or Black-white story. Reviewing the experiences of Mexican Americans demonstrates that Reconstruction was a national process shaped by multiple struggles over citizenship, land, and identity.

The legacy of Mexican Americans during Reconstruction presents a challenge to broaden the historical lens we use in considering our past. It pushes us to consider how racial hierarchies and exclusionary politics operated across diverse regions and communities, shaping the American West as much as the South. Recognizing these experiences enriches the story of Reconstruction, reminding us that the quest for justice and belonging has long been complex, uneven, and ongoing.

Thanks, peeps. I will see you next week.

OUTRO