What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mexican Wars for Independence: A History
Mexico's struggle for independence was as much a series of civil wars and failed social revolutions as it was a war to separate Mexico from Spain. Some Mexicans fought to bring profound social change to the country, some to achieve autonomy, some for vengeance or booty, still others to maintain the status quo. After ten years of bloodletting, Mexico achieved its independence through a strange political compromise that resolved none of the severe problems that plagued the country.
In The Mexican Wars for Independence, the historian Timothy J. Henderson provides a comprehensive, dynamic, and insightful account of the era, and in the process deftly shows why the revolution failed to bring about meaningful and sorely needed reform. Tracing the conflict from its ambitious beginning in 1810 to the country's independence in 1821, The Mexican Wars for Independence makes sense of the complex and ambiguous conflict and its legacy, and, in so doing, forces a reconsideration of what "independence" meant and means for Mexico today.
In The Mexican Wars for Independence, the historian Timothy J. Henderson provides a comprehensive, dynamic, and insightful account of the era, and in the process deftly shows why the revolution failed to bring about meaningful and sorely needed reform. Tracing the conflict from its ambitious beginning in 1810 to the country's independence in 1821, The Mexican Wars for Independence makes sense of the complex and ambiguous conflict and its legacy, and, in so doing, forces a reconsideration of what "independence" meant and means for Mexico today.
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 14, 2009
20 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Timothy J. Henderson
10 books14 followersTim Henderson has been studying, teaching, and writing about Mexican history for about twenty years. He has just completed a book on the Mexican wars of independence, which will be published in early 2009 by Hill & Wang, and he is currently doing research for a history of Mexican immigration to the United States.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 24, 2020
This is a nice, succinct and well-written history. The author made everything crystal clear in what could have been a very confusing recounting of a very complex episode. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject or searching for an understanding of Mexican society today.
July 29, 2025
The killing fields outside New Orleans were still damp with British blood when, in January 1815, Juan Pablo y Anaya posted a letter from that jubilant city to President James Madison. Pablo wrote as an agent of the Mexican rebellion, then in its fifth year of revolt against colonial Spain. His “curious case,” as Professor Timothy J. Henderson of Auburn University calls it, was that “between [Mexico] and these states there is no other difference than that of language, but the interests, rights, etc., are all alike.”
I understand why Mexican rebels looked with bright eyes to their northern neighbor, a victor in its own war of independence from a colonial master. But judging by Henderson’s balanced but negative appraisal in “The Mexican Wars for Independence," the two revolutions could not have been more dissimilar. The murderous tree that sprouted from bitter roots cast a long and violent shadow over independent Mexico.
I can best illustrate by way of three contrasts. First, Mexico had no self-evident truth that all men are created equal. The northern revolt took that moral high ground early, but the southern revolt was three years deep in blood and brutality before it issued its own grim declaration of independence: that it would “not permit or tolerate the public or secret use” of “any religion other than the Catholic,” and that anyone who “opposes its independence” or refused “to contribute to the expenses” is “guilty of high treason.”
In Henderson’s telling, it’s hard to detect any core tenets in the Mexican revolt beyond raw power. Peninsular Spaniards had it by the pleasure of a disreputable king, and their Spanish-blooded American cousins wanted it. Beneath both heaved a sullen ocean of mixed-race castes and Indians, and most revolutionary leaders wanted nothing more dramatic than ownership of the machinery to exploit them. The few who wanted a social revolution, like Father Hidalgo, also tolerated or encouraged the robbery, rape, and murder that exploded from three centuries of repressed hatred.
Second, Mexico had no allegiance to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You wouldn’t expect privileged classes to fight for human rights, not in a regime built to extract wealth through a legal labyrinth of racial distinctions. Without the guardrails of human rights, the struggle to control the labyrinth drew atrocities from both sides. The fate of the revolution's original architects is symbolic: “The heads of the rebellion’s top leaders…were severed and placed in four iron cages…a warning to any who might be tempted to follow their example. The heads remained there until Mexico’s independence was achieved a decade later.”
Third, Mexico had no George Washington. An ideologically rudderless movement attracted strong men with little in common beyond a determination to wrest the helm of state into their own hands. From the first, the impoverished army that burst from the Bajío in 1810 was led by men straining in different directions. The greatest revolutionary general, José María Morelos, bickered with the faction led by Ignacio López Rayón, who lived to see Morelos stripped of supreme military authority after a serious defeat. No single leader ever arose who, like Washington, was willing to sacrifice himself in service to a higher ideal and fuse the spirit of the nation into a unifying symbol.
The rights of man were never on the table, and the rebellion in its final confused years resembled little more than banditry by feudal warlords. New Spain finally fell exhausted into the hands of Agustín de Iturbide, a counterinsurgent Royalist officer. Accurately judging in 1821 that neither belligerent could win, Iturbide switched sides. He brokered an independence deal that solved nothing, eventually ruling the First Mexican Empire, a short-lived abortion followed by a century of unstable and ruthless successor states bedeviled by foreign interventions.
Henderson’s primer on Mexico’s birth is a concise and engaging introduction to a complex subject. Some of the complexities are too much for a short book; he can’t afford deep dives into why so many subjects of New Spain opposed independence, or what drove rebels to fight so long and so hard in a cause that often seemed lost. What Henderson provides in spades is a case study in why ideals matter.
It’s true that the rhetoric of the American War of Independence was often contradicted in practice, most notably in Black slavery and Indian policy. We’ve never fully lived up to our loftiest notions, but even in the breach ideals have a way of moderating and restraining so long as people feel the tension of that breach. The Mexican War of Independence is what happens when ideals matter less than zero-sum factional strife and brute-force realpolitik. To critics, then, of the hypocrisies of the American founding, I say I’ll take them if the alternative is mass graves, paramilitary caudillos, and cages of severed heads.
I understand why Mexican rebels looked with bright eyes to their northern neighbor, a victor in its own war of independence from a colonial master. But judging by Henderson’s balanced but negative appraisal in “The Mexican Wars for Independence," the two revolutions could not have been more dissimilar. The murderous tree that sprouted from bitter roots cast a long and violent shadow over independent Mexico.
I can best illustrate by way of three contrasts. First, Mexico had no self-evident truth that all men are created equal. The northern revolt took that moral high ground early, but the southern revolt was three years deep in blood and brutality before it issued its own grim declaration of independence: that it would “not permit or tolerate the public or secret use” of “any religion other than the Catholic,” and that anyone who “opposes its independence” or refused “to contribute to the expenses” is “guilty of high treason.”
In Henderson’s telling, it’s hard to detect any core tenets in the Mexican revolt beyond raw power. Peninsular Spaniards had it by the pleasure of a disreputable king, and their Spanish-blooded American cousins wanted it. Beneath both heaved a sullen ocean of mixed-race castes and Indians, and most revolutionary leaders wanted nothing more dramatic than ownership of the machinery to exploit them. The few who wanted a social revolution, like Father Hidalgo, also tolerated or encouraged the robbery, rape, and murder that exploded from three centuries of repressed hatred.
Second, Mexico had no allegiance to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You wouldn’t expect privileged classes to fight for human rights, not in a regime built to extract wealth through a legal labyrinth of racial distinctions. Without the guardrails of human rights, the struggle to control the labyrinth drew atrocities from both sides. The fate of the revolution's original architects is symbolic: “The heads of the rebellion’s top leaders…were severed and placed in four iron cages…a warning to any who might be tempted to follow their example. The heads remained there until Mexico’s independence was achieved a decade later.”
Third, Mexico had no George Washington. An ideologically rudderless movement attracted strong men with little in common beyond a determination to wrest the helm of state into their own hands. From the first, the impoverished army that burst from the Bajío in 1810 was led by men straining in different directions. The greatest revolutionary general, José María Morelos, bickered with the faction led by Ignacio López Rayón, who lived to see Morelos stripped of supreme military authority after a serious defeat. No single leader ever arose who, like Washington, was willing to sacrifice himself in service to a higher ideal and fuse the spirit of the nation into a unifying symbol.
The rights of man were never on the table, and the rebellion in its final confused years resembled little more than banditry by feudal warlords. New Spain finally fell exhausted into the hands of Agustín de Iturbide, a counterinsurgent Royalist officer. Accurately judging in 1821 that neither belligerent could win, Iturbide switched sides. He brokered an independence deal that solved nothing, eventually ruling the First Mexican Empire, a short-lived abortion followed by a century of unstable and ruthless successor states bedeviled by foreign interventions.
Henderson’s primer on Mexico’s birth is a concise and engaging introduction to a complex subject. Some of the complexities are too much for a short book; he can’t afford deep dives into why so many subjects of New Spain opposed independence, or what drove rebels to fight so long and so hard in a cause that often seemed lost. What Henderson provides in spades is a case study in why ideals matter.
It’s true that the rhetoric of the American War of Independence was often contradicted in practice, most notably in Black slavery and Indian policy. We’ve never fully lived up to our loftiest notions, but even in the breach ideals have a way of moderating and restraining so long as people feel the tension of that breach. The Mexican War of Independence is what happens when ideals matter less than zero-sum factional strife and brute-force realpolitik. To critics, then, of the hypocrisies of the American founding, I say I’ll take them if the alternative is mass graves, paramilitary caudillos, and cages of severed heads.
November 8, 2022
A solid overview of the key engagements/actions/players between 1811 and 1821, when Mexico fought Spain and royalist officials to try to free themselves from Spanish rule and set up self-determination. It was a series of major conflicts, insurgency movements, brutal reprisals, dealings and double-dealings, and even after the end of royal rule in Mexico in 1821, the conflicts and struggles for power and control continued, usually followed by those that would set up dictatorships akin to royal power. Good for the non-student of Mexican history.
December 16, 2023
This short book demystified for me the confusing series of events that led to Mexico's independence from Spain. Much of the book focuses on the strong personalities who moved the narrative forward with their leadership and vision (Hidalgo, Morelos, Iturbide). The book also makes sense of the weakness of the imperial government in Spain, and how the French invasion of Spain in 1808 and the installation of Napoleon's brother as the pretender to the Spanish throne created the opening for the independence movement in Mexico.
January 15, 2026
This is a clearly told story of México's fighting Spanish rule. Two priests were military leaders (Hidalgo and Morelos) and Iturbide was a royalist who changed sides. There is a lot of in-fighting between the rebels. The author uses contemporary documents and letters, but not constantly, like some books. This is my first reading of this period, so the names were all new to me, but I was able to keep track most of the time. The author talks about the events in Europe (like the Bourbon Kings of Spain) and how they affected the Mexican Nation. Interesting read.
June 17, 2017
An excellent primer on Mexico's origins as an independent state that sets the stage for its conflicts with the US and ongoing internal struggles that persisted into the 20th century.
November 16, 2021
Good concise account of the Mexican Wars of Independence.
March 25, 2016
Good but short history of the Mexican Wars (several rolled into one) for independence from 1810-1820. Obviously Spain, France, and the United States all figure prominently for their imperial designs on Mexico at that time and after. Introduces you to most of the big heroes of Mexico: Father Hidalgo, Allende, and Morelos, who led rebel armies for various reasons and goals (which could shift) including independence from Spain and social revolution. Henderson's main theme is applying appropriate blame to Mexico's stiff caste system, which led to most of the nation's woes (and still does) and the endless indignities thrust on Indians (native Mexicans) in particular, and to a lesser degree pretty much anyone who wasn't born in Spain. The book also does a lot for the reputation of Iturbide, a revolutionary who doesn't seem to get the love the big three do, but who actually accomplished independence from Spain, but wasn't interested in social revolution (without which independence meant little to most Mexicans).
A good read if you aren't familiar with the topic, but probably a bit light for those who have already read up on it.
A good read if you aren't familiar with the topic, but probably a bit light for those who have already read up on it.
September 6, 2016
Interesting book. I learned a lot about the Independence movement in Mexico and how the issues that went unresolved then continue to plague the country.
December 13, 2016
A wonderful book that needs to be read!! Great to introduce a history lesson plan!
August 31, 2023
Concise but detailed. As someone completely new to the topic it gave me a great starting point to dig deeper.
June 14, 2025
Well Done
Chock full of valuable insights not covered in such detail elsewhere. I really enjoyed it. Way more than trying to fill out this review
Chock full of valuable insights not covered in such detail elsewhere. I really enjoyed it. Way more than trying to fill out this review
October 8, 2012
Great read.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews