CHAPTER 7 MESOAMERICANS IN THE NEOCOLONIAL ERA 261The social and economic relations between city and countryside became pro-
gressively more unidirectional, with wealth flowing out of the countryside into the
cities and abroad, thus concentrating status and privilege and development priori-
ties in the urban centers. This phenomenon had a great deal to do with Mexico’s loss,
under the long rule of centralist President Antonio López de Santa Anna, of half its
national territory to the United States in 1848. It is useful in understanding the ori-
gins of the U.S. Hispanic Southwest to realize that Santa Anna and his conservative
followers regarded the far north and its inhabitants as irrelevant to the national in-
terest, for both economic and demographic reasons. Their priorities lay with the
urban heartland and the agricultural, ranching, and mining resources of Mexico’s
Central Basin.
The poles of centralism and federalism were also related to other themes in na-
tional life in the region. Under the centralist mode, the emphasis was on economic
development and creation of a commercial infrastructure (communication and trans-
portation) in the already dominant urban areas and in those areas suitable for large-
scale, capital-intensive, and labor-intensive agricultural production. Under the
federalist program, the emphasis was instead on the extension of political and social
participation to broader sectors of society. Yet both centralism and federalism coin-
cided in their commitment to the “positivist” agenda of progress via economic growth
and applied science. If anything, both models created new opportunities for the cre-
ole establishment to dominate national life, both in the capitals and in the provinces.
The rural and urban poor, largely of mestizo and Indian background, found them-
selves economically and socially more marginalized under both these neocolonial
systems than they had been in the closing years of the Colonial period itself.
Although the constitutions of the new nations generally followed French and
U.S. models, the political traditions of the region’s states were not strongly demo-
cratic. Rather, they were personalistic and authoritarian, with a strong military in-
frastructure that often became one with the political system. The long-lived regimes
of dictators Rafael Carrera (1844–1865) of Guatemala and Porfirio Díaz (1872–1910)
of Mexico exemplified this tradition. It is easy to find the roots of this system in the
structure of the older colonial society, whose strong infrastructure was actually ap-
propriated by the new creolecaudillos(“strong men”). In the colonial system as well
as its derivate neocolonial forms after independence, both liberal and conservative,
the military was always at the disposal of the political authorities to safeguard and un-
derwrite their right to rule.
This tradition of authoritarian, personalistic rule allied with military force was
based on the charismatic leadership qualities of one individual, the caudillo.The sup-
port from the army was usually obtained through reciprocal favors. The compliance
of the army in supporting the caudilloswas encouraged by the opportunities for social
and economic mobility for mestizos that were available through military careers. This
was a singularly successful way—often the only way—for ambitious mestizos to pene-
trate the relatively impermeable social networks of the creole aristocracy and new
professional classes. The creoles needed the army to guarantee their own positions of
political and economic power. The cost to the creoles consisted of granting privileges: