The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 5, No. 28, February, 1860

V >> Various >> The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 5, No. 28, February, 1860

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

The Republicans were now triumphant, but their conduct showed that they
were not much better qualified to rule than were the Imperialists. They
made a Federal Constitution,--that which is commonly known as the
Constitution of 1824,--which was principally modelled on that of the
United States. This imitation would have been ridiculous, if it had not
been mischievous. Between the circumstances of America and those of
Mexico there was no resemblance whatever, and hence the polity which is
good for the one could be good for nothing to the other. One fact alone
ought to have convinced the Mexican Constitutionalists of the absurdity
of their doings. Their Constitution recognized the Catholic religion as
the religion of the state, and absolutely forbade the profession of any
other form of faith! In what part of our Constitution they found
authority for such a provision as this, no man can say. It has been
mentioned, reproachfully, that our Constitution does not even recognize
God; yet on a Constitution modelled upon ours Mexican statesmen could
graft an Established Church, with a monopoly of religion! Just where
imitation would have been more creditable to them than originality, they
became original. It has been said, in their defence, that the Church was
so powerful that they could not choose but admit its claim. This would
be a good defence, had they sought to make a Constitution in accordance
with views admitting the validity of an Ecclesiastical Establishment.
The charge against them is not, that they sanctioned an Establishment,
but that they sought to couple with it a liberal republican
Constitution, and thus to reconcile contradictions,--an end not to be
attained anywhere, and least of all in a country like Mexico.

The factions that arose in Mexico after the establishment of the
Republic were the Federalists and the Centralists, being substantially
the same as those which yet exist there. The Federalists have been the
true liberals throughout the disturbances and troubles of a generation,
and, though not faultless, are better entitled to the name of patriots
than are the men by whom they have been opposed. They have been the foes
of the priesthood, and have often sought to lessen its power and destroy
its influence. If they could have had their will any time during the
last thirty-five years, the priests would have been reduced to a
condition of apostolic simplicity, and the Church's vast property been
put to uses such as the Apostles would have approved. Guadalupe Victoria
would probably have been as little averse to the confiscation of
ecclesiastical property as was Thomas Cromwell himself. The fear that a
firm and stable federal government would interfere with the privileges
of the Church, and would not cease such interference until the change
had been made perfect, which implied the Church's political destruction,
is one of the chief reasons why no such government has ever had an
existence in Mexico. The Church has favored every party and faction that
has been opposed to order and liberty. Royalism, centralism, despotism,
and even foreign conquest has it preferred to any state of things in
which there should be found that due union of liberty and law without
which no country can expect to have constitutional freedom. Had it ever
been possible to establish a strong central government in Mexico, it is
very probable the Church would have been one of its firmest pillars. The
character and organization of that institution, its desire to maintain
possession of its property, and its aversion to liberty of every kind,
would all have united to make such a government worthy of the Church's
support, provided it had supported the Church in its turn. The
ecclesiastical influence is everywhere observable in the history of
Mexico, from the beginning of the struggle for independence. The clergy
were supporters of independence, not because they wished for liberty to
the country, but that they might monopolize the vast power of their
order. They hated the Spaniards as bitterly as they were hated by any
other portion of the inhabitants of Mexico. But they never meant that
republicanism should obtain the ascendency in the country. A powerful
monarchy, an empire, was what they aimed at; and the government which
Iturbide established was one that would have received their aid, could
it have brought any power to the political firm the clergy desired to
see in existence. It may be assumed that the clergy would have preferred
a Spanish prince as emperor, for they were too sagacious not to know
that the best part of royalty is that which is under ground. Kings must
be born to their trade to succeed in it; and a brand-new emperor, like
Iturbide, unless highly favored by circumstances, or singularly endowed
with intellectual qualifications, could be of little service to the
clerical party. He fell, as we have seen; but the clerical party
remained, and, having continued to flourish, is at this time, it is
probable, stronger than it was in 1822. It is owing to this party that
the idea has never been altogether abandoned that Mexico should resume
monarchical institutions; and every attempt that has been made to favor
what in this country is known as consolidation has either been initiated
by it or has received its assistance. That we do not misrepresent the
so-called clerical party, in attributing to it a desire to see a king in
Mexico, is clear from the candid admission of one of its members, who
has written at length, and with much ability, in defence of its opinions
and actions. "Had it been given to that party which is taxed with being
absolutist," he says, "to see such a government in Mexico as the
government of Brazil, (not to take examples out of the American
continent,) their earnest desires would have been accomplished. It is
therefore wrongfully that that party is the object of the curses
lavished upon it." This is plain speaking, indeed,--the Brazilian
government being one of the strongest monarchies in the world, and
deriving its strength from the fact that it seeks the good of its
subjects. The blindest republican who ever dreamed it was in the power
of institutions to "cause or cure" the ills of humanity must admit,
that, if Bourbon rule in Mexico could have produced results similar to
those which have proceeded from Braganza rule in Brazil, it would have
been the best fortune that the former country could have known, had Don
Carlos or Don Francisco de Paula been allowed to wear the imperial crown
which was set up in 1822. With less ability than Iturbide, either of
those princes would have made a better monarch than that adventurer. It
is not so much intellect as influence that makes a sovereign useful, the
man being of far less consequence than the institution. Even the case of
Napoleon I. affords no exception to this rule; for his dynasty and his
empire fell with him, because they lacked the stability which comes from
prescription alone. Had Marlborough and Eugene penetrated to Paris, as
did Wellington and Bluecher a century later, they never would have
thought of subverting the Bourbon line; but the Bonaparte line was cut
off as of course when its chief was defeated. The first king may have
been a fortunate soldier only, but it requires several generations of
royalty to give power to a reigning house, as in old times it required
several descents to give to a man the flavor of genuine nobility. If it
be objected to this, that it is an admission of the power which is
claimed for flunkeyism, we can only meet the charge by saying that there
is much of the flunkey in man, and that whoso shall endeavor to
construct a government without recognizing a truth which is universal,
though not great, will find that his structure can better be compared to
the Syrian flower than to the Syrian cedar. The age of Model Republics
has passed away even from dreams.

We have called the party in Mexico which represents a certain fixed
principle the clerical party; but we have done so more for the sake of
convenience, and from deference to ordinary usage, than because the
words accurately describe the Mexican reactionists. Conservative party
would, perhaps, be the better name; and the word _conservative_ would
not be any more out of place in such a connection, or more perverted
from its just meaning, than it is in England and the United States. The
clergy form, as it were, the core of this party, and give to it a shape
and consistency it could not have without their alliance. Yet, if we
can believe the Mexican already quoted, and who is apparently well
acquainted with the subject on which he has sought to enlighten the
English mind, the party that is opposed to the Liberals is quite as much
in favor of freedom as are the latter, and is utterly hostile to either
religious or political despotism. After objecting to the course of those
Mexicans who found a political pattern in the United States, and showing
the evils that have followed from their awkward imitation, he says,--"No
wonder, then, that some men, actuated by the love of their country,
convinced of the danger to Mexican nationality from such a state of
things, seeing clearly through all these American intrigues, and
determined to oppose them by all the means in their power, should have
formed long ago, and as soon as the first symptoms of anarchy and the
cause of them became apparent, the centre of a party, which, having
necessarily to combat the so-called 'Liberal party,' or, in other words,
the American army, is accused of being a retrograde, absolutist,
clerical party, bent on nothing but the reestablishment of the
Inquisition and the 'worst of the worst times.' Nothing, however, is
less true. That party contains in its bosom the most enlightened and the
most respectable part of the community, men who have not as yet to learn
the advantages and benefits of civil and religious liberty, and who
would be happy indeed to see liberty established in their country; but
liberty under the law, rational and wise liberty, liberty compatible
with order and tranquillity, liberty, in a word, for good purposes,--not
that savage, licentious, and tyrannical liberty, the object of which is
anarchy, so well answering the private ends of its partisans, and, above
all, the iniquitous views of an ambitious neighbor.... For the present,
no doubt, their object is limited to obtain the triumph over their
enemies, who are the enemies of Mexico, and to put down anarchy, as the
first and most pressing want of the country, no matter under what form
of government or by what means. In pursuance of such an object, the
clergy naturally side with them; and hence, for those who are ignorant
of the bottom of things in Mexican affairs, the denomination given to
this party of 'Clerical party' supported by military despotism; whereas
the 'Anarchical party' is favored with the name of 'Liberal
Constitutional party.' It is, however, easy to see that those two
parties would be more exactly designated, the one as the _Mexican
Party_, the other as the _American Party_."

If this delineation of the Conservative party be a fair one,--as
probably it is, after making allowance for partisan coloring,--it is
easy to see, that, while the clergy are with it, they are not of it; and
also, that it would be involved in a quarrel with the priesthood in a
week after it should have succeeded in its contest with the Liberals.
Where, then, would be the restoration of order, of which this Mexican
writer has so much to say? The clergy of Mexico are too powerful to
become the tools of any political organization. They use politicians and
parties,--are not used by them. The Conservative party, therefore, is
not the coming party, either for the clergy or for Mexico. It answers
the clergy's purpose of making it a shield against the Liberals, whose
palms itch to be at the property of the Church; but it never could
become their sword; and it is a sword, and a sharp and pointed one,
firmly held, that the clergy desire, and must have, if their end is to
be achieved. The defensive is not and cannot be their policy. They must
rule or perish. Hence the victory of the Conservatives would be the
signal for the opening of a new warfare, and the clergy would seek to
found their power solidly on the bodies of the men whom they had used to
destroy the Liberals. They have pursued one course for thirty-eight
years, and will not be moved from it by any appeals that shall be made
to them in the name of order and of law, appeals to which they have been
utterly insensible when made by Liberals. Indeed, they will not be able
to see any difference between the two parties, but will hate the
Conservatives with most bitterness, because standing more immediately in
their way. A combat would be inevitable, with the chance that the
American Eagle would descend upon the combatants and swoop them away.

If anarchy were a reason for the formation of a league in Mexico,
composed of all the conservative men of the country, it ought to have
been formed long ago. Anarchy was organized there with the Republic, and
was made much more permanent than Carnot made victory. Unequivocal
evidences of its existence became visible before the Constitution was in
a condition to be violated; and when that instrument was accepted, it
appeared to have been set up in order that politicians and parties might
have something definite to disregard. The first President was Guadalupe
Victoria, an honest Republican, whose name has become somewhat dimmed by
time. With him was associated Nicolas Bravo, as Vice-President. It was
while Victoria was President that the masonic parties appeared, known as
the Scotch masons and the York masons, or _Escoceses_ and _Yorkinos_,
which were nothing but clubs of the Centralists and the Federalists. The
President was of the _Yorkinos_ or Federalists, and the Vice-President
was of the other lodge. Bravo and his party were for such changes as
should substitute a constitutional monarchy, with a Spanish prince at
its head, for the Constitution of 1824. Bravo "pronounced" openly
against Victoria,--a proceeding of which the reader can form some idea
by supposing Mr. Breckinridge heading a rabble force to expel Mr.
Buchanan from Washington, for the purpose of calling in some member of
the English royal family to sit on an American throne. Through the aid
of Guerrero, a man of ability and integrity, and very popular, the
Liberals triumphed in the field; but Congress elected his competitor,
Pedraza, President, though the people were mostly for Guerrero. This was
a most unfortunate circumstance, and to its occurrence much of the evil
that Mexico has known for thirty years may be directly traced. Instead
of submitting to the strictly legal choice of President, made by the
members of Congress, the Federalists set the open example of revolting
against the action of men who had performed their duties according to
the requirements of the Constitution. Guerrero was violently made
President. That the other party contemplated the destruction of the
Constitution is very probable; but the worst that they, its enemies,
could have done against it would have been a trifle in comparison with
the demoralizing consequences of the violation of that instrument by its
friends. Yet the Presidency of Guerrero will ever have honorable mention
in history, for one most excellent reason: Slavery was abolished by him
on the anniversary of Mexican independence, 1829, he deeming it proper
to signalize that anniversary "by an act of national justice and
beneficence." Will the time ever come when the Fourth of July shall have
the same double claim to the reverence of mankind?

Guerrero perished by the sword, as he had risen by it. The
Vice-President, Bustamente, revolted, and was aided by Santa Ana. His
popularity was too great to allow him to be spared, and when he was
captured, Guerrero was shot, in 1831. Of the many infamous acts of which
Santa Ana has been guilty, the murder of Guerrero is the worst. Possibly
it would have ruined him, but for his services against the Spaniards, at
about the same time. He was now the chief man in Mexico, and became
President in 1833. The next year he dissolved Congress, and established
a military government. The Constitution of 1824 was formally abolished
in 1835, and a Central Constitution was proclaimed the next year, by
which the States were converted into Departments. Santa Ana kept as much
aloof from these proceedings as he could, and sought to add to his
popularity by attacking Texas, where he reaped a plentiful crop of
cypress.

The triumph of the Centralists was the turning-point in the fortunes of
Mexico, as it furnished a plausible pretext for American interference in
her affairs, the end of which is rapidly approaching. The Texan revolt
had no other justification than that which it derived from the overthrow
of the Federal Constitution; but that was ample, and, had it not been
for the introduction of slavery into Texas, the judgment of the
civilized world would have been entirely in favor of the Texans. In
1844, when our Presidential election was made to turn upon the question
of the annexation of Texas to the United States, the grand argument of
the annexationists was drawn from the circumstance that the Mexicans had
abrogated the Federal Constitution, thereby releasing the Texans from
their obligations to Mexico. This was an argument to which Americans,
and especially democrats, those sworn foes of consolidation, were prone
to lend a favorable ear; and it is certain that it had much weight in
promoting the election of Mr. Polk. Had the Texan revolt been one of
ambition merely, and not justifiable on political grounds apart from the
Slavery question, the decision might have been different, if, indeed,
the question had ever been introduced into the politics of this country.
The sagacious men who managed the affairs of the Democratic party knew
their business too well to attempt the extension of slave-holding
territory in the gross and palpable form that is common in these
shameless days. But Texas, as an injured party that had valiantly
sustained its constitutional rights, was a very different thing from a
province that had revolted against Mexico because forbidden by Mexican
authority to allow the existence of slavery within its borders. There
was much deception in the business, but there was sufficient truth and
justice in the argument used to deceive honest men who do not trouble
themselves to look beyond the surface of things. For more than twenty
years our political controversies have all been colored by the triumph
of the Mexican Centralists in 1835-6; and but for that triumph, it is
altogether likely that our territory would not have been increased, and
that the Slavery question, instead of absorbing the American mind, would
have held but a subordinate place in our party debates. It may, perhaps,
be deemed worthy of especial mention, that the action of the Centralists
of Mexico, destined to affect us so sensibly, was initiated at the same
time that the modern phase of the Slavery question was opened in the
United States. The same year that saw the Federal Constitution of Mexico
abolished saw our government laboring to destroy freedom of the press
and the sanctity of the mails, by throwing its influence in favor of the
bill to prevent the circulation of "incendiary publications," that is,
publications drawn from the writings of Washington and Jefferson; and
the same year that witnessed the final effort of Santa Ana to "subdue"
Texas to Centralization beheld General Cushing declaring that slavery
should not be introduced into the North, thus "agitating" the country,
and winning for himself that Abolition support without which his
political career must have been cut short in the morning of its
existence. Such are the coincidences of history!

From the time of the victory of the Centralists until the commencement
of the war with the United States, Mexico was the scene of perpetual
disturbances. Mexia, a rash, but honest man, made an attempt to free his
country in 1838, but failed, being defeated and executed by Santa Ana,
who came from the retirement to which his Texan failure had consigned
him, as champion of the government. After some years of apparent
anarchy, Santa Ana became Dictator, and in 1843 a new Constitution, more
centralizing in its nature than its immediate predecessor, was framed
under his direction. At the beginning of 1845 he fell, and became an
exile. His successor was General Herrera, who was desirous to avoid war
with the United States, on which account he was violently opposed by
Paredes, with success, the latter usurping the Presidency. Aided by our
government, Santa Ana returned to Mexico, and infused new vigor into his
countrymen. On his return, he avowed himself a Federalist, and
recommended a recurrence to the Constitution of 1824, which was
proclaimed. Paredes had fallen before a "revolution," and was allowed to
proceed to Europe. He was a monarchist, and at that time the friends of
monarchy in Mexico had some hopes of success. It is believed that the
governments of England and France were desirous of establishing a
Mexican monarchy, and their intervention in the affairs of Mexico was
feared by our government. Two things, however, prevented their action,
if ever they seriously contemplated armed intervention. The first was
the rapid success of our armies, coupled as it was with the exhibition
of a military spirit and capacity for which European nations had not
been prepared by anything in our previous history; and the second was
the potato-rot, which brought Great Britain to the verge of famine, and
broke up the Tory party. The ill feeling, too, that was created between
the English and French governments by the Montpensier marriage, and the
discontent of the French people, which led to the Revolution of 1848,
were not without their effect on affairs. Had our government resolved to
seize all Mexico, it could have done so without encountering European
resistance in 1848, when there was not a stable Continental government
of the first class west of the Niemen, and when England was too much
occupied with home matters, and with the revolutions that were happening
all around her, to pay any regard to the course of events in the
Occident. But the Polk administration was not equal to the work that was
before it; and though members of the Democratic party did think of
acting, and men of property in Mexico were anxious for annexation,
nothing was done. The American forces left Mexico, and the old routine
of weakness and disorder was there resumed. Perhaps it would be better
to say it was continued; for the war had witnessed no intermission of
the senseless proceedings of the Mexican politicians. Their contests
were waged as bitterly as they had been while the country enjoyed
external peace.

Several persons held the Presidential chair after the resignation of
Herrera. Organic changes were made. The clergy exhibited the same
selfishness that had characterized their action for five-and-twenty
years. An Extraordinary Constituent Congress confirmed the readoption of
the Constitution of 1824, making such slight changes as were deemed
necessary. Santa Ana again became President. Some of the States formed
associations for defence, acting independently of the general
government. After the loss of the capital, Santa Ana resigned the
Presidency, and Pena y Pena succeeded him, followed by Anaya; but the
first soon returned to office. Peace was made, and Santa Ana again went
into exile. Herrera was chosen President, and for more than two years
devoted himself to the work of reformation, with considerable success,
though outbreaks and rebellions occurred in many quarters. President
Arista also showed himself to be a firm and patriotic chief. But in 1852
a reaction took place, under favor of which Santa Ana returned home and
became President for the fifth time, and Arista was banished. The
government of Santa Ana was absolute in its character, and much
resembled that which Napoleon III. has established in France,--with this
difference, that it wanted that strength which is the chief merit of the
French imperial system. It encountered opposition of the usual form,
from time to time, until it was broken down, in August, 1855, when the
President left both office and the country, and has since resided
abroad. The new revolution favored Federalism. Alvarez was chosen
President, but he was too liberal for the Church party, being so
unreasonable as to require that the property of the Church should be
taxed. Plots and conspiracies were formed against him, and it being
discovered that the climate of the capital did not agree with him, he
resigned, and was succeeded by General Comonfort. Half a dozen leaders
"pronounced" against Comonfort, one of them announcing his purpose to
establish an Empire. Government made head against these attacks, and
seized property belonging to the Church. Some eminent Church officers
were banished, for the part they had taken in exciting insurrections. At
the close of 1857, Comonfort made himself Dictator; but the very men who
urged him to the step became his enemies, and he was deprived of power.
Zuloaga, who was one of his advisers and subsequent enemies, succeeded
him, being chosen President by a Council of Notables. Comonfort's
measures for the confiscation of Church property were repealed. The
Constitution of 1857 placed the Presidential power in the hands of the
Chief Justice, on the resignation of the President, whence the
prominence of Juarez lately, he being Chief Justice when Comonfort
resigned. Assembling troops, he encountered Zuloaga, but was defeated.
The Juarez "government" then left the country, but shortly after
returned. Insurrections broke out in different places, and confusion
reigned on all sides. General Robles deposed Zuloaga, and made an honest
effort to unite the Liberals and Conservatives; but the Junta which he
assembled elected Miramon President, a new man, who had distinguished
himself as a leader of the Conservative forces. Miramon reinstated
Zuloaga, but accepted the Presidency on the latter's abdication, and has
since been the principal personage in Mexico, and, though he has
experienced occasional reverses, has far more power than Juarez. At the
close of the year 1859, the greater part of Mexico was either disposed
to submit to the Miramon government, or cared little for either Miramon
or Juarez.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19