2012/04/01 by Gregory P. Downs · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Latin American and Latino Studies #Politics and Society in Latin America #Cuban History and Society
paper · pdf · doi:10.1086/ahr.117.2.387
openalex publication_date 2012/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Gregory P. Downs is an Associate Professor of History at The City College of New York, CUNY, where he has taught since 2006. He is the author of a monograph, Declarations of Dependence: The Long Reconstruction of Popular Politics in the South, 1861–1908 (University of North Carolina Press, 2011), and a collection of short stories, Spit Baths (University of Georgia Press, 2006). He is currently working on a history of the grassroots reconstruction of authority in the post–Civil War United States. While historians typically interpret the disputed 1876 U.S. presidential election in terms of its impact upon postwar Reconstruction or its allegedly fraudulent outcome, many contemporaries instead saw the crisis as proof of the nation's fundamental fragility. They worried that the line between violence and politics—obscured by the Civil War—might evaporate completely in the heat of a contested presidency. With the disintegration of democratic institutions and habits, the U.S. might fall into a spiral of civil wars. One anxious army general feared that the country might soon collapse like “Mexico and the Central American countries” unless party leaders tamped down the conflict. This turn to Mexican analogies to both describe anxieties about civil war and chart a path to stabilization was not an anomaly but part of a widespread, mostly forgotten discourse in the 1870s United States. The shorthand terms “Mexicanization” and “Mexicanized,” born during overlapping 1860s wars, spread rapidly after the disputed 1876 election, appearing in many hundreds of newspaper articles, in private correspondence, and on the floor of Congress. Soon‐to‐be president Rutherford B. Hayes grimly disavowed the possibility of Mexicanization, a Harper's Weekly cartoon mocked the “Scarecrow” of “Mexicanism,” and The Nation made a solemn observation: “we hear every day strong expressions of a desire, and also of a determination, that this government shall not be ‘Mexicanized.’” Legal scholar John Codman Hurd, in his 1881 political handbook, defined a “Mexicanization of institutions” in which “all party contests have the character of civil war”: “The same thing would occur in this country,” he wrote, “if a party, on the theory of a ‘war of ideas,’ should attempt to retain the control of the general Government against the popular vote.”1 On first glance, this discourse makes little sense. Not just U.S. narratives but much of modern history rests upon presumptions of a United States that was stable, analogous to Europe, and predatory toward Latin America. A discourse that used open‐ended analogies to Mexico to explore the nation's fragility fits none of these frameworks. Furthermore, the U.S. did not, of course, sink into a cycle of civil wars in the 1870s. Examining the Mexicanization discourse need not, however, invite attempts at counter‐history; instead, analyzing the analogy makes aspects of the postwar U.S. newly visible. By reading the period through the lens of Mexicanization, historians can denaturalize the United States' process of stabilization and consider new ways of thinking about state fragility, stability, and the practice of transnational history. While U.S. historians have written voluminously about the postwar period, they have rarely focused on the country's path toward stabilization. The failure to ask why the end of the Civil War meant the end of all civil wars in the United States stems in part from the much‐lamented, dissipating tendency of U.S. historians to work within exceptionalist frameworks, in part from the undeniable significance of emancipation, Reconstruction, and sectional reconciliation in shaping the view of the postwar era. But a tendency to discount stabilization extends beyond historians of the United States. Many scholars emphasize crisis and conflict even in periods of relative stability, driven by the narrative power of rupture, the association of stability with ahistorical stasis, and the negative example of triumphant national histories. While the binary of stability and instability can indeed produce flat, decontextualized analysis, stabilization—the dynamic, manmade process by which states emerge from crises—“is as challenging a historical problem as revolution,” argued Charles S. Maier.2 Nowhere are these opportunities more evident than in the famed debate about stability after the English Civil War. Provoked by J. H. Plumb's argument that stability was important, rare, and deliberately fashioned, generations of scholars explored the brevity of most crises, the dynamic nature of stability, and the roles of state structure, popular nationalism, political statecraft, and institutional fragility in fostering stability or instability.3 For the twentieth century, Maier argued crucially for separating the “process” of stabilization from the condition of stability. Maier, with Andrew Port and others, asked not why the Cold War era ended but why it lasted so long.4 Most recently, José Javier Ruiz Ibañez and Gaetano Sabatini's examination of stabilization in the early modern Spanish monarchy explored the performative role of stabilization, as rulers, after conquest, constructed a seeming continuity between past and present, masking the role of the state by locating stability in society and culture.5 While historians underplayed the importance of stability, scholars in political science, international studies, and area studies developed a vast, if often problematic, literature on state instability. Spurred first by the end of Cold War support for tottering governments, then by dubious but commonplace associations between state failure and terrorism, international institutions and Western governments devoted considerable resources to the problem of stabilizing weak states.6 As flattened, decontextualized lists of failed states piled up, critical scholars within those fields shifted away from the successful/failed state binary to an open‐ended analysis of the continuum of state fragility, recognizing the dynamic coexistence of stability and instability.7 In however, the literature has more heat than upon the that state instability is a new of and the end of the Cold War. with the by which states or analysis of the problem of or scholars of stabilization. can they the that of state and the United of periods of if the between state instability studies and the of the international that it is for historians to the This however, be a of state stabilization an the and of course, the through those states in and not as to and as P. in the stability has of the of and as a that state can produce not just but a of that violence in state has state and state state the of a of the modern it that is the of both and the of analysis, the stabilization of the United States and a a of and political theory about why and as as the for democratic stability. A United States in of civil wars would have meant not a but a of about and U.S. stabilization is to many to the of the international and to the country's little about the United States to a cycle of civil wars, as many or have failed to that they have failed to ask The Civil War and the country's power made its stability even Civil War studies, the of the of the role of also the In the Civil War as the of the of historians that civil war not have In the they that civil wars often fragility new the American the of its the Civil War would not have but contemporaries worried instead about a of civil that not be sectional and but and through the Civil lens of scholars and as not as aspects of Charles Maier with have more analyzing the of the Civil War than the institutional and political that made the nation's postwar to the of Andrew the against the of the and the 1870s of 1876 crisis is it the for national The between and the possibility of a and national by B. this crisis the for institutional in the possibility that both J. and Rutherford B. Hayes would to the on the of of the and of In the crisis the role of democratic in manmade of stabilization and the that stabilization is made then however, often the 1876 election in the a of that and also the of to the nation's instead of examination of the role of violence in This also scholars to the if at in Mexicanization a of a of in which the as the of against an and are historical has also by the historical practice of of fragility and stabilization are at and and about the between through of political of state and in political about stabilization. But the practice of born in binary to often the that it should In for and transnational scholars they have developed to with power and national the the an literature that against the of But are in a of that from transnational not to the of political history but even to describe the that contemporaries studies of the of Mexicanization discourse into Mexican and in the and to impact upon the of the United States in the 1870s to the nation's reconstruction in new While the discourse of Mexicanization into U.S. in the it in the 1860s through a transnational that in For most of the defined in to of about during Latin American those forgotten by the as U.S. the of from the United States a war of in even U.S. of the War saw as to both and little or the however, the of political the in Mexico and the in the new for In and the and made Mexico both an and a the United States might but not the of the president Mexico to the United States' to the and of the historical and political of the same the analogy was a meant to to against its the possibility that history of would be on U.S. of support for the to of newly as on an American they U.S. to the of in the American and on the to these control the and the Mexican or the and In the U.S. the One cartoon president and as of the and of all American the of this of Mexican the as of and then to the United to have both in the of and the to the he to with that of the of are commonplace for his at and he at in in the of that the Mexican at war with all institutions and of political the of the U.S. Civil War to the a new of and in and to general American against a of the of in The discourse was not flat, the not of the between and to that the United States in the of a that of to history and The was in many ways S. not consider the Civil War completely the in and the to support more analogies the historical by Mexican between Mexican and U.S. wars, and the United States' conflict. The discourse it the U.S. failure to In Mexicanization the of a authority strong to violence in or control the country's The also a of stability crises, which might be a governments In and and to or that governments between and are in between governments to in New and and private of and of the and the and for an revolution,” in the of P. little than those which have the states of Mexico and the of society to toward a North Carolina a “we shall as they By the the United States not just the at and control of the about the nation's its in a period that has the country's In and the nation's did not much more In early the in City and with of by the impact on the a the much in for these about the possibility of of a line between violence and in the postwar United Mexicanization was open‐ended to of the of Mexican history. to the of power by after developed a of Mexicanization as They the not of S. to to that Mexican to to as the for political is more in the United would to of with civil for much of the and the of the nation's in in or in in a on a While many president the 1876 to a that all and made the Civil War proof of the nation's stability, the Civil War more to The 1876 presidential election the that fragility would spread to the a governments problem in The The United States' stability the institutional fragility of presidential the of a or even president violence in in worried that he and the army would into a to between in the first this the of in the the the of the for an end to of the Reconstruction South, and to the On election a popular and to have in the in part to of by however, in and used of to discount to the The nation's fragility its not just in of or popular to violence like many state stability crises, in institutional The to or many for a disputed With the the of both chart a to the and to argued that the president of the power to the the to which that the of authority to that to an election and the that might a president of a civil a through the a a role in but not of a in made the presidential a of from the for in at the to the at a at New in a line that was and the he that a the American to the of The of the Civil War should from that the American have from the of explored the between and fragility. institutional and even more popular first his that would the United States through war the most and that argument the the election, however, to that a civil war would from a institutional the of a to presidential For the crisis the power of that a election would a that the problem of fragility at the of In the first of the he with and in the Western the and the and his by the the upon the the allegedly the to the a would the country from As the discourse worried that a from would the country in civil and that the and of The discourse was and both and also U.S. rarely used Mexicanization to but they did it to Mexico was but the United States might be but not to The more the work of from institutional to Mexicanization as a state of the of a popular of or of instability. in those have not the South, have the this period, rarely the the between the United States and they between the on the of and historical not The discourse to than a of it was a that and but did not Mexican general in the of the United States' U.S. the stabilization—the as the upon the as a of Mexican instability. With a to the of a political not an the the in a “Mexico has the newspaper Mexico In in the United the that he on Mexicanization to in his the of with and and the to the civil While it is not to the of political the discourse was not these to be not that they as about English historical In the United that is of not just by the but by many One of against his for of Mexicanization of On his John to in his that civil war be the of this state of and upon the a of from that of which for a have a worried about a a a general feared that of are a to of to a that if the a a state of as of the most is and to that the state would to his these of to to the and Civil War to as wrote, the that the was not that of the Civil but the crisis of and a an would a that through the in an and or a of the the that the country was on the of civil as a of state fragility, the have these anxieties by periods in which but little institutional for early the states the and the after the to the between those however, was path to the of the and a of but not of and One of the most was that to a in New by a line of state from to he would the in New York, his government through in the and Hayes from the to his in the upon in the nation's between its and political early in the New the to its from the United States. course, this view of was from the of he did indeed to or by a he would have made the however, in not New he did not to a first to that would into a he the to a to he on the he a to a While would he to New a state to the of of The of and also in both and a by B. The general for much of the first of the Civil and an presidential to for his the and in his and to to he his that to the be be by are history about the between and the during the Civil many on in his to the to the But for his for his he wrote, he might the and to down the country is the 1876 election, asked to the state general view of from the to as of the state be a to But was than he the to the it would have more to the is “The that have to is a upon the have he “The are by that of not of the of a As institutional for new for to to have a he did not his during this period, his be by reading between the of his are but not of that little of war to would the and have a in and in at by that they to and however, are from working with to a general of to produce of and power to of and and to in for In general John an into a and made to in a from “The have it and it on to which would be the for all the and these to of the is to New of a of a problem for with the as can for the the general in of the New a thing of this is For U.S. the of a that stabilization was upon the conflict with and historical of his the election would have a of it was A have a every for an or a every to a a be to the and at the in a that he to the of in but was by his in the and of The and and With a to it is to the for both and his was to at a after the of By to civil war in he was the possibility that it might to his by a his need of but much in he in a The but by to the that in to to an to the asked the for have to after the is As on a to the disputed the crisis from fragility to stabilization. by of Mexicanization and civil toward an institutional about past of the but not of and in the not just by but by a of both Hayes and for not so as to the of a as a by the in the discourse by Mexicanization to from Hayes through the and Hayes to of and is is into the The process of stabilization in the United as it in on the of from and be and the that was to civil The they to and to a that they in but to they to the of political by war would have the a New for his for during the crisis of civil war in government for this at Mexicanization at and then the possibility of “The was the American should be and the of the the in the an in the by a every contested to the This a as to beyond to a new but and to The of the crisis not the of violence but the institutional to by With stabilization at the the end of the governments problem in the South, as state governments in and Carolina soon in The of the crisis U.S. and to both and stabilization by it to the continuity of early modern Spanish these in of the impact of institutional by open‐ended of an stability that the government but did not Many saw the discourse of Mexicanization as both and an path the United States to By with Mexican they an for U.S. from an of the to an American the of national of and an also the of the crisis a role in this of exceptionalist Hayes and many it was first example in of a that was to to the through of every country,” wrote, the conflict have to civil The by the the that and from those of the Spanish States of this a however, about both the and U.S. Hayes the United States but has more than The and then of not in the of a for a this the United States in of or from to the most on As Mexican analogies spread through the United many Mexican to have away from the the Mexican made of the analogy they U.S. and of and civil Mexican toward of The stabilization This contested but into the 1870s. New Mexican fragility to a U.S. with a historical examination of the role of the and in the Mexican in turn the the in about in that the on of the United States upon can in the of those not the which has in both during the past But the and the for open‐ended The that might and about Hayes to to into Mexican In political in Mexico against the United as and the more of the 1860s and early that the U.S. as of As about U.S. and as the of to even as government to the United States. of the United States often the of the of to toward for of but contemporaries saw those as a of fragility, not a of the in from the spread to and In from the War While for the of others, the of the violence not in but in the of the Civil and more than about the and in which the war was not of the as a new the into and the role of violence in He underplayed the role of conflict in the but he also that the within of While the the also the American of violence in the postwar the of the Civil the process of stabilization, a new of in that also an for the New a to in the 1876 presidential and to the of by and his fragility in the same they the that from this the country into all the civil and instability of Mexican the an at it the that the United States would be by its Nation for of Mexicanization in state of a of at political which makes civil war much of Mexicanization, it the the of of political as more they the analogy by the and of for down the United States to as Charles and used the discourse to away from Mexicanization of and and which have made the Mexican a the the The of the that to by the of and newspaper to and The Mexicanization and in While the New are not the worried that a in New state like of the country and the of the The 1881 of this is but the that “we are not a By continuity political these American in the country's stability, and its stability in its about Mexicanization The discourse during in was a period of stabilization. In the for Mexicanization to that The but toward stabilization. In both stabilization was to the of in Mexico through the of a in the in the United States through of The of Mexico the terms of even open‐ended lists of aspects which U.S. a The Mexican to for the American By the Mexicanization the and stability of or to and The however, of and as and with the By the end of the century, the of and widespread, of Mexican For an the discourse in the early by allegedly to he was with in turn the that are an to all and all By Mexicanization was for in a in which a after of a The United States in as it and political as the This of a an upon the By at the as than a to the it to the fragility that to civil war the that a and to the of of Mexican and history the more of the Mexicanization upon a of an of crisis in which the American might against a that a but a after the failed of and focused upon the of political not many not but for and of course, to this did not many it be and and it did not the however, U.S. historians to for the of and to Latin for the of and Latin history in turn between and Spanish in a in the from an to U.S. its the of a of the of of the to most national narratives of the United the of crisis the of Mexicanization for the of state fragility and stabilization is more By the United States' path to stability, scholars can more of and why states and then a state an of fragility can failed state theory from its Western and historical for the of and in of stabilization. the to the process of stabilization. it is to emphasize the importance of popular the of the crisis modern political that of popular are a of state the the of popular was in political all at of and after stabilization. the of stability to stabilization, a of continuity By locating stability in not the to the process of stabilization into a state of This made the path to stabilization not to contemporaries but also to the discourse of Mexicanization the and of transnational The of Mexicanization was to through national as a of a government strong to those analogies from this period, historians be to through the lens of and the of through of the most and transnational of it might more to of it as a of as a of not of scholars that is a not an to be about where it A U.S. in the stabilization of the not from many from with analogies in transnational as in the historical so should its practice be to and even the of the importance of national political and more