But it would not be just to proclaim that life under Spain's rule was hard or oppressive, or marked by continued ferocity and bloodshed. The Mexicans lived inrelative comfort and even luxury, and amassed wealth. Enormous fortunes were made in the mines, and titles of nobility were constantly granted from Spain to fortunate mine-owners who, by means of suddenly-acquired wealth, were enabled to render services to the Crown. Nor can the abuses of the natives be cast at Spain's door altogether. The colonists of Mexico, like those of Peru or, indeed, of any of the communities of the New World themselves, were the greatest oppressors of the natives in extortion, confiscation, forced labour, and the like, and it was the "interference" of the Imperial authorities, viceroy or Archbishop, against the oppression of theencomiendas, which, even in early days, often gave rise to discontent. The sovereigns of Spain enacted laws for the protection of the natives, in many cases, and strove to better their position. Indeed, it may be said that, to the present day, the regulation of affairs between colonists and natives—whether in America, Asia, or Africa—requires the justice of an imperial home Government, however far off from the scene of its "interference." Independence in America, whether in the United States or in the Spanish States, did not necessarily spell liberty, toleration, and brotherhood, whether in civil or religious matters.
From Spain's unlawful king—the brother of Napoleon—or, rather, from the variousjuntasor bodies formed in Spain to oppose the French domination, came claims for jurisdiction over Mexico, causing confusion in the minds of the colonists, which culminated in the conspiracies of Queretero and Hidalgo's cry, and the proclamation of Independence on September 15, 1810. Under Hidalgo an insurgent band seized various places in the central part of the country, including the great silver-producing town and mines of Guanajuato, where, unfortunately, these first exponents of liberty committed serious excesses. Thence, taking the capital of the State of Michoacan—Morelia—they advanced upon the city of Mexico. They engaged and defeated the royalist forces which had been sent against them by the viceroy Venegas, who had succeeded theAudienciaand the deportedIturrigaray, at Monte de las Cruces, some twenty miles from the capital, after a well-contested battle. To the generalship of Allende was mainly due this great victory, and had Hidalgo followed it up by an attack upon the capital city, subsequent operations might have been favourable to the insurgents. As it was, the royalists under Calleja attacked and captured Guanajuato, taking a terrible revenge upon its people—ruthless cruelties such as, perpetrated by both sides in these struggles, have repeatedly written the history of Mexico's revolution in blood. Finally Hidalgo and his associates, at Guadalajara and elsewhere, were after valiant fighting, discomfited entirely; disaster overtook them, and the warrior-priest, with Allende, Aldama, and Jimenez—valiant generals all—was shot at Chihuahua in July, 1811. There, in the small chapel of San Francisco, his decapitated body was laid, and afterwards removed to Mexico.
Was the spark of liberty extinguished by these reverses? The answer was furnished by yet another militant ecclesiastic—the famous Morelos of Michoacan. Stoutly did he and his insurgents maintain the city of Cuantla against the royalist forces under Calleja, until famine compelled them to evacuate the place under cover of darkness. The defence of Cuantla has covered the name of Morelos with glory in his country's history, and at the time it was watched even from Europe with interest, by the eagle eye of the great Wellington. This remarkable soldier-priest captured various important places—Orizaba, Oaxaca, and Acapulco, and established the first Mexican Congress at the town of Chilpancingo, in the State of Guerrero, in September, 1813. But the star of Mexico's national independence had yet to reach its zenith. Disaster overtook the insurgent forces; all fortune abandoned them and Morelos was captured, court-martialled, judged by the Inquisition, and shot, in December, 1815.
The tyranny of Ferdinand VII. of Spain gave birth to yet another scourge for Spanish rule in Mexico. Mina was a Spaniard, a celebratedguerillachief in the mountains of Navarre, where he waged war againstNapoleon and the French, and thatcasus bellibeing terminated, strove to raise a revolution against the Spanish sovereign at Madrid. Frustrated there he fled to London, and Mexican refugees in that city—among them thepadreMier—enlisted his sympathy for Mexican independence; and, having obtained adherents both in England and the United States, Mier landed on the Mexican shores of Tamaulipas and won a series of brilliant victories with his small force against the Spanish royalists. But again history records, as it has ever recorded in the story of freedom throughout the world, that baptism of failure which must ever precede success; and this young adventurer for Mexico's independence—he was but twenty-eight—suffered disaster, was captured, and shot in November, 1817.
Thus it was that the heroic efforts of all these who had given their lives for the political dream of an independent Mexico laid them down—not fruitlessly—upon the morning of its consummation. To the credit of the Church it is that the spirit of freedom first took material form in men nourished in the shadow of the aisles. In Mexico's history eternal laurels have crowned the brows of Hidalgo and Morelos; their names are perpetuated in the great tracts of land which bear them, and their memory is indelibly enshrined in their countrymen's hearts. At this period the feathers of Spain's colonial wing were being plucked one by one. In all the countries of Latin America the irresistible spirit of change, development, and independence was sweeping over the New World, bred of the world-march of new thought which the French Revolution had set in motion. The great nineteenth century had dawned, and the effects of the convulsions of social life had been felt, and had furnished springs of action even in remote towns of the South American Andes and of the Mexican plateau. Caracas and Chile in 1810, Buenos Ayres in 1813, Mexico in 1821, Peru in 1824—all showed that the hour of destiny had arrived and that new nations were being launched upon the world.
Monarchicalrégimeof Iturbide—Great area of Mexican Empire—Santa Anna—The Holy Alliance—Execution of Iturbide—The Monroe Doctrine—British friendship—The United States—Masonic institutions—Political parties—Expulsion of Spaniards—Revolution and crime—Clerical antagonism—Foreign complications—The "pie-war"—The Texan war—The slavery question—Mexican valour—American invasion of Mexico—Fall of Mexico—Treaty of Guadalupe—Cession of California—Gold in California—Benito Juarez appears—Conservatives and Liberals—Massacre of Tacubaya—The Reform laws—Disestablishment of the Church—Dishonest Mexican finance—Advent of Maximilian—The English, Spanish, and French expedition—Perfidy of the French—Capture of Mexico City by the French—Crowning of Maximilian—Porfirio Diaz—Rule of Maximilian—Fall of his empire—Death of Maximilian—The tragedy of Querétaro—Diaz takes Mexico City—Presidency of Juarez—Lerdo—Career and character of Diaz—First railways built—Successful administration of Diaz—Political stability—Forward policy.
Mexico began her independent history with a monarch, a prominent figure which now stands forth in the history of the country, Iturbide—royalist, soldier-general, candidate for viceroy, insurgent chief, and Emperor by turns. Despatched at the head of the Spanish Royalist army from the capital to crush the insurgent forces under Guerrero, who maintained defiance in the south, Iturbide, after conference with the enemy, announced to his officers and army that he espoused and would support the cause of independence. Whether this was a result of conviction of its justice, or whether it obeyed dictates of personal ambition to whose success a surer road seemed to open by his defection, remainedbest known to himself; but, be it as it were, his eloquence and enthusiasm inspired all who lent ear to him.
Events followed rapidly. The "plan of Iguala," a document proclaiming the independence of Mexico, with a suggestion of royal rule, was drawn up and promulgated on March 2, 1821, and the change of side by its author, Iturbide, called many other persons to the insurgent cause, and city after city fell to their arms or capitulated at their advance. At the moment the last Spanish Viceroy, Don Juan O'Donojú, was landing at Vera Cruz, but, sagely taking in the situation, he saw that Mexico was lost for Spain, proposed a conference, accepted the plan of Iguala, joined forces with Iturbide, and, all obstacles having been overcome, the insurgent army made its way to the capital, entering it, with Iturbide at its head, on September 27, 1821. The triumph of the independent cause was assured and the birth of the new Empire of Mexico was heralded at that moment.
The geographical extent of Mexico at that date was very considerable. It embraced all that enormous area of territory of Texas, New Mexico, California, the whole of modern Mexico and Yucatan, and the present south-bounding republic of Guatemala. This great area of the Empire of Mexico was, indeed, the third largest country in the world, coming next after the Russian and Chinese empires. Such was the great political entity over which Iturbide's brief royal sway extended—brief, for, crowned Emperor Augustine I. on July 21, 1822, he abdicated on March 19, 1823—a brief kingship of a few months—left the country, returned, hoping to benefit it, and was "executed" on July 19, 1824! Thus passed the Empire—the first attempt for royal rule in the Americas, although not the last.
It is not to be supposed that the birth of independence in Mexico had brought forth peace and order among the Mexicans. Far from it. If thegritoof Hidalgo had heralded political liberty it was also the signal for the almost continual internecine wars and bloody struggles which made the name of Mexico a synonym forrevolution and bloodshed for more than half a century, and which it only began to lose at the close of the nineteenth century. The execution of Iturbide showed the rise of that spirit of ferocity and remorseless ingratitude which has always characterised the political history and strife of Latin America, whether Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, or any other of the Hispanic self-governing countries. Immediately after the formation of Iturbide's regency, which included O'Donojú, whose acts had been repudiated by Spain, dissensions arose, and the first Constitutional Congress, of February 24, 1822, soon formed itself into political sections, some of which regarded Iturbide with disfavour. From his position as Emperor he threw various Congressmen into prison for opposition to the empire (a sentiment which grew rapidly), and finally dissolved Congress. At this time the somewhat sinister figure of Santa-Anna arose, with apronunciamientoat Vera Cruz in favour of a republican form of government; and although supported by Bravo, Guerrero, and others, the insurgents fell before the forces of the Emperor. Iturbide, however, did not desire to disrupt the nation. He had been crowned and anointed with great pomp and ceremony in the beautiful Cathedral of Mexico, but he abdicated, and sailed on an English ship for Italy, and the Congress passed an Act pronouncing him an outlaw and traitor. This Act, as before stated, showed the spirit of singular remorselessness and ferocious ingratitude characterising the Spanish-Americans' political methods. These were the days of the "Holy Alliance," which strove to bring about Spain's re-domination of America, and Iturbide, in London, learning of the plan, and ignorant of the iniquitous Act launched against him, embarked for Mexico, thinking to lend his sword on behalf of his native country if she were threatened by the Alliance. He was captured and illegally sentenced by the Congress of a petty Mexican province—Tamaulipas—and shot. Serene and disdainful, he fell, a figure which compels more respect than censure in the mind of the student of to-day.
These were portentous times in the history of the New World. It must not be forgotten that the independence of Mexico took place in what was a reactionary time in Europe, and the spirit of the Holy Alliance was rendered evident by the attitude of France. But there was Britain to be reckoned with. Britain did not hesitate to declare for the emancipation of the Spanish colonies, and the "Monroe Doctrine" was conceived by the famous words of Canning in "calling into being the New World to redress the balance of the Old." In August, 1823, Canning sounded the American Government as to whether they "would act in concert with Britain against any aggression against the independence of the Spanish-American Republics," which brought forth the famous enunciation of President Monroe in Washington "that any such aggression would be hostile to themselves and dangerous to their peace and safety"—the basis of the now well-known Monroe Doctrine. Nevertheless, the United States regarded Mexico at that period with little favour or sympathy, and indeed this fact has been noted with some resentment by Mexican historians. But it is to be recollected that the United States itself was weak, and could not be expected to antagonise Europe too deeply. As it was, Mexico entered into the concert of nations without a friend in the world, save as the not necessarily disinterested or altruistic declaration of Britain and the United States might be construed as friendship. But the recognition of Mexico's independence by Britain in 1825 and treaty of friendship brought the first foreign capital to the land's resources, whilst the war between Mexico and the United States in a territorial dispute, showed that a spirit of equity was yet foreign to the Anglo-Saxon Republic.
On the ruins of the transient empire of Iturbide the building of the Mexican Republic was begun. The National Constitution was proclaimed in October, 1824, by the Federal Congress, and the famous insurgent leader, Guadalupe Victoria, named President, with Bravo as Vice-President. Great Britain and the United Statesrecognised the new Republic in the first year—1825—of its existence, and the latter country sent its Minister in representation. Two political parties came into existence—the Centralists, principally Spanish, and the Federalists—and to the dissensions of these the continual revolutions and disturbances from that date to the middle of the century were due. Another disturbing factor was the introduction of Masonic lodges—the Scotch rite and the York rite, the latter introduced by the American Minister, which, becoming adopted by various partisans, were respectively opposed by others—and these Masonic institutions were the cause of disturbance in the politics of Mexico for many years. Among religious people the word "Mason" became a term of reproach. Due to the work of the York Masons, a great expulsion of Spaniards took place in 1827, the Spaniards having been finally ousted from the country, losing their last stronghold of the Castle of San Juan de Ulua at Vera Cruz in 1825.
It might have been supposed that Mexico, having gained its heart's desire of freedom from the dominion of Spain, with its own independent Government, would have established itself in peace, and continued on along the lines of national development. But it was not so. Insistent and sanguinary revolution reared its sinister head, to destroy all peace and security, and hold the country in barbaric strife for many years. It would be tedious to follow the causes and incidents of thesepronunciamientos, imprisonings, seizings, shootings, executions, treachery, cruelty, and bloodshed of which this half-century of Mexican history is largely built up. The profession of arms became almost the only one which ambitious men would follow, and ambition and unscrupulousness went hand in hand. A condition of chronic disorder grew which paralysed the civil development of the country, made bankrupt the national treasury, and prostituted the people to becoming mere levies of insurgents, to be drawn upon by this or that revolutionary leader whose sinister star for the moment happened to be in the ascendant. Armed highwaymen infested theroads and inhabited the mountains, and travel was impossible without an escort. A terrible disregard of human life resulted, and became so strong a characteristic of the Mexicans as has even to-day not become eradicated.
In 1833 the beginning of a serious cause of civil trouble made its appearance, and one which has profoundly influenced the Mexicans and their life. This was the antagonism between the people and the politicians, and the clergy. Intensely religious, in the Romish faith, the Mexicans, like the South Americans, were subject to periods of bitter and relentless feeling against clerical domination, the result mainly of the extortions of the Church and its insidious acquiring of temporal power and amassing of wealth. Speaking generally, the Church brought about its own disestablishment by its own fault. Enactments were passed at this date to curtail the power and privileges of the clergy, declaring that tithes should not be collectable by civil law, nor the fulfilment of monastic vows enforced, and prohibiting the Church from meddling with public instruction. The political parties which then grew to being for or against these measures respectively were the Liberals and Conservatives, and to their dissensions were mainly due the subsequent disorders; and up to the present day they form the party divisions of Mexican politics. These measures were the precursor of the famous Reform Laws of 1859, under Juarez, which disestablished the Church and appropriated its property.
The incessant turbulence at home was varied from time to time by acute questions with foreign Powers. In 1829 Spain made a determined attempt to regain Mexico, with an expedition of 4,000 men, which, however, was absolutely repulsed by the Federal army under Santa-Anna and Mier: the Spanish general, Barradas, surrendering his armament and flags, at the news of which immense rejoicing took possession of Mexico. The independence of the Republic was recognised by Spain in 1836. Two years later—1838—a complicationarose with France, and the war known as theGuerra de los Pasteles, or "Pie-War," came about, its singular designation resulting from the claim of a French pastry-cook for sixty thousand dollars as indemnity for the theft of some pies! Expensive confections these proved to be, for under the Prince de Joinville the French landed and surprised Vera Cruz, attacked the house of Santa-Anna—this famous general losing a leg by a cannon-shot—whilst, on peace being concluded soon afterwards, Mexico agreed to pay $600,000 to settle all questions against her.
Following upon these incidents revolutions andpronunciamientossucceeded each other like autumn leaves, and rights and obligations were trampled underfoot almost as ruthlessly as these. In 1837 the Federal system had been supplanted by "Centralism," and the marchings of armies and the rise and fall of generals and Presidents come thick and fast throughout the country. A party was formed for the restitution of a monarchical form of government following upon the publication of a pamphlet by Gutierrez Estrada to the effect—and the student of history will scarcely contradict it—that the Mexican people were not fitted to live under a Republicanrégime.
But the greatest event of this period of Mexican history now looms up—the war with the United States. The origin of this was the question concerning the great State of Texas. Much earlier, in 1821, some colonisation of that territory had been initiated by the Austins, father and son, who founded the city of that name. The Austins were Americans, and had obtained permission from the Government of Mexico to establish a colony, but disagreements soon came about. American filibusters of lawless character began to settle up the country, as well as peaceful colonists, and questions soon arose as to political representation and influence. A decree had been made by the Mexican Government forbidding slavery, and this became a poignant cause of discontent to the Texans, who, partaking of the character of the Americans of that period, saw nothingincompatible in holding their fellow-creatures in bondage under the ægis of "Liberty"! Whatever may have been the faults displayed—and there were faults, both on the Mexican and the Texan side—the fact remains to the honour of Mexico that she forbade slavery, which showed her civilisation certainly not inferior to her Anglo-Saxon neighbours. The lawlessness and system of slavery established in Texas at that period bore afterwards a terrible fruit, which the "race-war" and "colour-line" of to-day show are not yet eradicated. Santa-Anna had been sent against Texas, and he played a far from creditable part. The war for Texan independence began in 1835, and its fortunes varied at first, the Mexican general treating the Texans with barbaric cruelty upon winning a first engagement. But Sam Houston arose—his name is greeted with acclamation in Texas to-day—and Santa-Anna, beaten and captured, took a discreditable and craven part, signing, in return for his release and safety, an agreement to recognise Texan independence. Mexico, however, did not recognise this, notwithstanding that a Texan Constitution was set up in 1836. Returning now to Santa-Anna's Presidency, his erratic acts disgusted his countrymen, andpronunciamientosfollowed. Hoping to divert popular opinion from himself, Santa-Anna proposed the prosecution of a war with Texas, for its recovery, notwithstanding his personal previous agreements.
The assertion of hegemony by the United States brought on the beginnings of war between the two dominating peoples of the North American continent. The Republic of Texas, the United States declared, must remain untouched; any hostile act against it would be considered directed against the States itself, with which Texas was now to be incorporated. Mexico, torn by dissensions of its own, was not in a good position to oppose the policy of its neighbour at the moment. The revolutions against Santa-Anna culminated in his defeat and departure from the country under an act of banishment.
It is not to be supposed that the Mexicans, oppressed as they were by the revolutions and disasters arising from their own character, were without any good and noble traits which might redeem the lawlessness from which they suffered. Many deeds of Mexican arms, of self-abnegation in times of peril, and of heroic acts in the face of deadly odds, have left glorious episodes in their history. It is to be recollected that the struggles in which they were engaged arose often from an excess of zeal for liberty, and a strong spirit of individualism which could not support political oppression or affront. An instance of their heroic spirit is afforded by an incident in the American War. The storming of the Castle of Chapultepec was being carried on by the United States troops, who, after severe hand-to-hand fighting, penetrated to the fortress and made their way to the turret, to haul down the banner upon which the colours of Mexico, and the eagle, serpent and cactus were displayed. But the turret was disputed hotly by a few young Mexicans—boys almost—military cadets there. Seeing their beloved flag about to fall into the hands of the—to them—hatedYankees,[20]they fought to the last drop, and, rather than the standard should be captured, one of them, wrapping it round his body, leaped from the turret and was dashed to pieces on the stones below!
20 The designation of Yankee is very generally used in Spanish-American, for the Americans—not, however, in an offensive sense.
But we anticipate. The first battle between the forces of Mexico and the United States was fought at Palo Alto in the north, in May, 1846; the command of the former being under General Arista, and the latter under General Zachary Taylor, but the Mexicans were defeated. Texas had been declared a part of the American Union in the previous year (December, 1845), and the military occupation by the Americans of Mexican territory—for the boundaries were ill-defined—formed the culminatingcasus belli. Torn by dissensions at home, and betrayed by the treachery of her own generals—among them thetraitorous Paredes—Mexico was in no position to face a war with her powerful neighbour. Following on the battle of Palo Alto, Santa-Anna, who had returned, had been elected President, but had declared he could serve his country best by leading its army, and he advanced against the Americans under Taylor. Previous to this, the Americans, with a force of 6,700 men, had taken the city of Monterrey—a pretty, Spanish-built town far within the border of Mexico, which had been established by one of the viceroys—notwithstanding that the Mexicans, 10,000 strong, under General Ampudea, had defended it. The engagement under Santa-Anna lasted for two days—the battle of Buena Vista, February, 1847. Its issue long hung in the balance, and although the Americans gained the victory, it was a doubtful and indecisive one.
The American Government now decided to push the war to the end. But serious obstacles discouraged the attempt to march upon the capital of Mexico. The vast stretches of appalling desert which at that time formed that part of the continent of North America—now included in Texas, Chihuahua, and Coahuila—were waterless, and without resources, and beaten by a fiery sun; conditions which to-day, in some parts of the regions, are scarcely altered. The bravery and ferocity of the Mexicans, who were—and are—among the most expert horsemen in the world, would have rendered the advance over the intervening topographical wastes between Mexico's frontier and her capital of extremely doubtful issue. Attack was made, therefore, by sea, and an army of 12,000 men under General Winfield Scott landed at Vera Cruz on March 9, 1847. By September of the same year Vera Cruz, Puebla Contreras, Molino del Rey, Chapultepec, had all been the scene of strenuous engagements; but Mexico was to lose, and the invading Anglo-Saxons, having eaten their way to the heart of the Latin Republic, against considerable odds, occupied the capital on September 14, 1847.
Split into factions by political strife, which even the hammering at their gates of a common enemy had notsufficed to heal, Mexico received a terrible lesson. The history of Mexico had repeated itself. Just as Cortes and his Spaniards had penetrated from Vera Cruz to Tenochtitlan, thanks to dissensions among the Aztec inhabitants of the country, so had the Americans ascended over the same route to a similar victory by analogous circumstances. Even whilst the victorious forces of the Anglo-Saxons were marching onwards, the mad political generals and transient Presidents of Mexico were launchingpronunciamientos, fighting among themselves, and shedding the blood of their own countrymen; and not until February 2, 1848, was peace entered into with the Americans, and the treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo signed. Mexico ceded to the United States under this agreement the area of an empire! Texas had already been lost; California and New Mexico[21]were given up now, rich and extensive regions, although little known at the time, as indemnity for which the United States Government paid the sum of fifteen million dollars.
21 The English reader may ask, Where is New Mexico? It is that territory lying between Arizona and Texas, forming part of the American Union.
So was concluded what the Mexicans have termed "the unjust war," and the historian will probably not feel called upon to dispute the designation. Great bitterness of feeling between the two nations was aroused on account of this conquest and cession of territory, which, among the Mexicans of the great plateau, is, even at the present day, far from being forgotten. It was but a short time after the cession of California that gold was discovered—the famous days of 1849—and Mexico did not know what she was losing. Perhaps in the interests of the development of the fine State of California and its progressive people, circumstances were for the best as they were. Santa-Anna disappears from the scene in 1855. After the war he had assumed semi-regal titles and pretensions, and had brought about or permitted a further cession in the unpopular treaty with the UnitedStates. Further revolutions andpronunciamientosfollowed, and civil war divided the country.
The figure of Juarez, famous in his country's history, was appearing, and this remarkable man became President in January, 1858. In the previous year a new Constitution had been adopted, and is that which has remained in force to the present day. It was duly subjected to a futilepronunciamiento! Further legal enactments were made by the Liberals against the clergy, as well as the anti-mortmain statute, framed by Lerdo with the object of releasing the great properties held by civil and religious corporations; and it was mainly aimed at the power and wealth of the Church—a foretaste of the Reform Laws.
Benito Juarez was a Mexican in whom no strain of Spanish blood existed, his parents having been pure-blooded Indians of the Zapotecas of Oaxaca. Shepherd, student of divinity, Governor of Oaxaca, Minister of Justice, and President by turns, the name and fame of this remarkable example of aboriginal intelligence stands strongly out in the history of his country. The Conservative party were not slow in launchingpronunciamientos, and disaster befel the Liberal Government of Juarez, who was compelled to flee for the time being. The whole of the Republic again became the scene of desolating civil warfare, due to the bitter struggles of the Liberal and Conservative parties. Generals, calling themselves Presidents, set up Governments in various parts of the country, andpronunciamientosand bloodshed were the order of the day. But chief among the sanguinary scenes of this appalling drama, carried out with the religion of Christ as its mainspring, was the Tacubaya massacre. This place, a beautiful residential suburb of the City of Mexico, became the field of a strenuous engagement, the victorious forces of the Conservatives, under General Marquez, signalling their triumph by an abominable massacre, in which the medical attendants, including an English physician, all of whom had voluntarily given their services for succourof the wounded, were taken out and deliberately put to death in cold blood, by order of the ferocious Marquez. Another murder lies to the account of Marquez—that of Ocampo, one of the best of the Liberal statesmen. But the Liberal cause gained ground. Juarez landed at Vera Cruz; and the famous Reform Laws of July 12, 1859, were made, forming part of the basis of the administration set up at Vera Cruz. This code was directed against clericalism. The property of the Church was confiscated and nationalised; the clergy were severely arraigned as the authors of the sanguinary and fratricidal wars which had devastated the country; accused of abusing their power in a scandalous manner, with baleful control of their wealth; and, in short, the Church was disestablished and religious freedom proclaimed, together with the abolishing of religious orders and institutions, whilst marriage was later declared a civil contract.
Torn by their unceasing dissensions at home, the unfortunate Mexican nation now brought upon themselves complications from abroad. The Government of Juarez, having triumphed over the Conservatives, had been installed in the capital amid popular enthusiasm. But what was the state of the country over which it ruled? Sources of public revenue were paralysed or hypothecated; there was not a dollar in the treasury; and private enterprise and the activities of ordinary wealth were ruined. Funds must be obtained in some way; and an Act of Congress was passed in July, 1861, suspending the payment of Mexico's foreign debts. This grave step laid Mexico open to the most serious charges in European capitals, and her action was stigmatised as repudiation and robbery, especially in London, where the first Mexican loan had been contracted in 1823. This act of the Mexican Liberal Congress was naturally painted in its worst colours by the reactionary representatives of the Conservative party in Europe, who, desirous of bringing back a priestly and monarchicalrégime, thought this an opportunity and motive for compassing it by means of European intervention. In justice to Mexicoat that period it must be chronicled that repudiation of her debts was not intended; only suspension in her temporary distress. But the reprehensible Act of President Miramon, in violating the British Legation and seizing $660,000 belonging to the British bondholders, in November, 1860, had not been forgotten.
Maximilian—the picturesque and melancholy-appearing figure: the ill-fated monarch of an unnatural New World empire—was the culminating figure of Mexico's internecine warfare and questionable financial acts. The story of Maximilian stands out from the pages of Mexico's history in pathetic colours, wringing a sigh from us as we scan its pages, or halt a space in the museum of Mexico's capital before the gilded tawdry coach of the ill-fated Austrian, which is preserved there in musty ruin. For up rose Napoleon III., pricking up his ears at this suggestion of a monarchy in America; and, urged by him, the tripartite convention by France, Spain, and England was brought to being in London, October, 1861, whose purpose was—or, at any rate by the British and Spanish—intervention and the enforcement of the just claims of their bondholders against the defaulting Mexicans. Sailing from Europe, the fleets of the three Powers arrived at Vera Cruz at the end of the year. No idea of conquest of, or interposition in, Mexican territory was intended in this action, only enforcement of just claims, and so it was proclaimed; and a conference having been celebrated with the Mexican representatives, and a preliminary agreement entered into, the Spanish and British ships in all sincerity withdrew and sailed for home. Not so the French—and the charge of perfidy is recorded against France for her act—for the troops of Napoleon repudiated the agreement and entered upon a war of conquest or subjugation. Severe reverses marked their campaign at first, the Mexicans obstinately defending the integrity of the country, under the administration of Juarez, with able generals at the front. Among these was Diaz—later the famous President Diaz—who won some early laurels in the defence of Puebla. But Pueblafell, Juarez abandoned the capital, and the French, under General Forey, entered the City of Mexico without opposition and set up ajuntaof prominent Mexicans to decide on the form of government to be adopted. The decision of thejuntawas for a limited monarchy, whose sovereign should be designated Emperor of Mexico, and whose crown should be offered to Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, or, failing him, to some other Catholic prince who might be nominated by "the kindness of his Majesty Napoleon III. of France!" So it befel; a deputation of Mexicans was sent to the Hapsburg prince in his castle upon the far-off Adriatic Sea. Maximiliano accepted under certain conditions; arrived in Mexico, and in company with his wife Carlota, daughter of Leopold, King of the Belgians, was crowned with great solemnity in the Cathedral of Mexico in June, 1864.
Meantime the Liberal party, thus ousted from the seat of Government, was not idle. Juarez established his administration in successive northern towns, approaching the United States border. War to the death against the monarchical system, which had been crammed down the Liberal throat, was their slogan and source of inspiration. The doughty Porfirio Diaz, nominated to a high command, was despatched to Oaxaca; besieged there by the French under Bazaine, making a most determined stand; surrendered at length through lack of food, ammunition, and disaffection among his own people; was captured, imprisoned; escaped; turned against the pursuing enemy and overcame them, re-capturing again his native city, and once more turned the tables upon the Conservatives and the Monarchy.
The star of Empire, which shone for less than three years under Maximilian, now sets with dramatic suddenness. From the first it was seen that the Emperor was no bigoted Churchman, and his refusal to rescind the clauses of the Reform Laws involved the Imperial Government in grave questions and antagonisms with the disappointed clericals; and the Emperor, indeed, showed himself much in sympathy with the Liberals. These,however, bent upon their own absolute way, would hold no parley with him, notwithstanding that overtures had been made to Diaz after the recapture of Oaxaca.
The end approaches rapidly. The city of Puebla, a Conservative stronghold, falls before Diaz and three thousand of the Republican army, and siege is laid to the City of Mexico in April, 1867. Maximilian had seen the trend towards the inevitable, but had striven, during the previous year, to consolidate the clerical party, whilst the Empress Carlota—brave and pathetic figure of these dramatic events—had gone to France to implore Napoleon to countermand his perfidious withdrawal of the French troops, and to endeavour to secure a settlement of the matters at issue with the clericals with Pope Pius IX. It was useless. The French army left the shores of the country they had wantonly outraged, abandoning the unfortunate figure-head placed there as a result of French machinations, with only the Belgians and Austrians of Maximilian's immediate following. The ill-fated Austrian wavered between his advisers—whether to abandon the thankless task upon which he was engaged, or whether to stay with it to the bitter end. He ultimately chose the latter course; reversing a first intention of abdicating, returned to Mexico city; left thence for Querétaro, and intrenched himself, with an effective force of some nine thousand Imperialists, in that town. The Republicans, twenty-one thousand strong, laid strenuous siege to and attacked the place, suffering several repulses; but the treachery of Lopez, of the Imperialist army, afforded them the entrance to the town, and Querétaro fell.
The fate of the Emperor Maximilian was now in the hands of Juarez. A court-martial was called, and Maximilian was permitted to select counsel for his defence. The deliberations resulted in a sentence of death against Maximilian and his two chiefs and faithful generals, Miramon and Mejia. Juarez took his pen to sign the death-warrant, when before him—the Indian President, son of a despised race—there appeared and kneeled the figure of the Austrian princess, Carlota, supplicating forclemency for her husband. It is said that Juarez wavered, but at that fateful moment the stern Lerdo appeared at the door of the apartment, and shaking a warning finger, uttered those words which sealed the doom of Maximilian, and which have come down ever since in Mexico's history as a species of national axiom—"Ahora ó nunca se salva la patria!"[22]Juarez signed; the condemned Emperor took his stand upon the Cerro de las Campanas outside Querétaro, and faced the file of carbines pointed at his breast, serene and dignified. "Take you the place of honour in the centre," he said in turn to Miramon and Mejia—the latter a full-blooded Indian general who had been privately offered, and had refused, a pardon by Juarez. But both declined, and the three brave men faced forward. A volley rang out upon the early morning air, and with it passed the life of Maximilian and his chiefs, and the last Imperialrégimeof Mexico.
22 "Now or never for our country's salvation."
This execution—or murder—of Maximilian—for the student is at liberty to term it which he will, according to the trend of his sympathies—took place on June 19, 1867. The wife of the ill-fated member of the unfortunate House of Hapsburg went mad, and in that state lived long in Europe. To the commander of the Austrian warship, who, arriving at Vera Cruz, demanded the remains of the "Emperor of Mexico," answer was returned by the Mexicans that no such person was known; when he then requested the body of "Maximilian of Austria" it was delivered to him. "Savages and barbarians" was the verdict of Europe against the Mexicans for the termination of this drama, and only of recent years—1901—have diplomatic relations been reopened between Mexico and Austria. The impartial historian sees in thedénouementthe dictates of fate for a Republicanrégimethroughout the New World, and acknowledges the philosophical right for this form of government; although it may well be open to question if the republicanism of the Americans has yet broughtmuch of advancement to mankind in general or to their own civilisation in particular. The figure of Maximilian, weak though it may have been, was not without nobility; nor did his brief rule lack possibilities for the nation—one party of which had invited his advent and the other consummated his destruction.
The City of Mexico capitulated to Diaz. President Juarez returned thither and assumed the reins of government amid general approval and that popular enthusiasm which usually acclaims a change ofrégimein any time or country, and which was followed a few years later by renewed dissensions. But the figure and name of Juarez are engraved on the history of his country among its greatest, and furnish an example of the possibilities of intellect and power to be encountered in the aboriginal races of Mexico, stifled but not destroyed by the advent of the white race. Juarez is the only President of Mexico who has died in the occupancy of his office! He was followed by Lerdo, against whose government apronunciamientoand revolution was launched, with a result that Lerdo fled to the United States. An event of much industrial importance to the country took place during Lerdo's term—the completion and opening of the railway from Vera Cruz to the capital, in January, 1873, thus placing in connection with the seaboard and the outside world the much-contested City of Mexico, with its chequered history.
The fall of Lerdo was the signal for, or rather the result of, the coming forward of the most prominent figure of Mexico's modern history—a figure, moreover, which links the turbulent past with progressive Mexico of to-day. This is the figure of Porfirio Diaz, the son of an innkeeper: student for priesthood, law student, revolutionist, soldier, statesman, and President by turns. Diaz has also Indian blood in his veins, upon the maternal side. After the events connected with the fall of the Empire the ambitions of Diaz found outlet in the disaffections against Lerdo's government. It was hardly to be expected that the ambitions and jealousiesof the times could yet give way to consolidation for national interests and desire for peace and development; and the only hope for the country was in the advent of a strong man and a strong system, such as, under better auspices, the monarchicalrégimemight have afforded. The strong man appeared in the very antithesis of monarchy—Porfirio Diaz; and the autocraticrégime—almost monarchical except in name—in the military-civil government which followed. Good, indeed, seemed to proceed out of evil, and the autocratic President of Mexico came through chaos to power as a revolutionist himself, by the edge of the sword, shedding his own countrymen's blood, and borne on the crest of an insurrectionary wave. Yet there was more behind the fortunes and character of Diaz than mere selfish ambition or the habit of a disorderly soldier-spirit. He had early conceived Liberal views against clerical domination, and his earlier career showed loftier aspirations than those of the ordinary tawdry revolutionist of the times, who, under the name of liberty, indulged too often personal or party licence against law, decency, and humanity. Diaz, after the revolution, assumed executive power in November, 1876, and after a brief interval took the oath and Presidential chair on May 5, 1877. The term of President Gonzalez followed, and during this measures of civil progress were inaugurated. Diplomatic relations were reopened with Great Britain, and a beginning made to adjust the debt with the foreign bond-holders. The Mexican Central Railway, linking the Republic with its neighbour the United States, was inaugurated, and was an important factor in the political settling-down of the country.
Diaz was re-elected to the Presidency for December 1, 1884. From that period until the present day he has held the office continuously—seven Presidential terms—arégimewhich has partaken more of the nature of a hereditary sovereignty than of an elective post. It is to be recollected, however, that in all Spanish-American countries—and Mexico has been no exception—intimidation andbribery at the polls and breaches of constitutional law have been potent factors in election matters. It would not be correct, however, to ascribe these influences to the latter terms of office of President Diaz, who, there can be little doubt, has enjoyed the confidence of his fellow-citizens and a majority of their votes.[23]His enemies, the inevitable enemies of a political chief, have been few and silent; and, moreover, in these years of Mexican history sudden and silent retribution has been visited upon the least whisper or suspicion ofpronunciamientos, whether near the capital or whether in the remote towns of the great plateau!
23 The character of President Diaz has been drawn in the various books recently written on Mexico. It is not the intention of this work to indulge in the flattery which in some cases has been given to him, especially in Mexican books. I had the pleasure of meeting the President on a brief occasion some years ago. Diaz completes the 80th year of his strenuous life in 1910. (See alsopage 165.)