Latin America in the 19th Century
Overview
Latin America in the 19th Century
Following independence, many states in Latin America struggled with resources and relationships with other nations. The political and cultural divisions in Latin America were a direct result of the independence. Many states in Latin America struggled economically, creating a economic and power vacuum that European and North American countries came to fill.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
Dependency Theory: economic theory that states that there is an economic center in Europe where colonial states are dependent on the economic center. For Latin America, this was the theory to explain why Latin America was not able to gain independence in the 19th century because they were dependent on European economies for finished goods and products.
Latin America Following Independence
Many states in Latin America struggled following independence. The early 19th century left a political and economic void that was very difficult for many states to fill. The lack of political cohesion in many states. Early independent states struggled with political ideologies such as 19th century liberalism and conservativism. These two political factions fought more with one another than attempting to bridge together and create unity.
In the early 19th century, there were two political ideologies that were at direct conflict with one another: liberalism and conservativism. The discussions that started in the Enlightenment about good government would have real world policies and agendas. Many of the followers of the Enlightenment believed in a democratic republic that citizens had the power in a government. Many Enlightened philosophers also advocated for an open market approach and allowing the government and businesses to be independent from one another. These views in the early 19th century were considered to be liberal. The distinction between liberal and conservative is quiet stark, because 19th century conservatives believed in governments that were either monarchy or dictatorships, controlled economies, and less political power for individuals. These political divisions were very divisive in early 19th century Latin America. Many governments struggled between these two factions pulling in two very different directions for leadership and policies of Latin American states.
Following independence in the early 19th century, many Latin American states struggled with economics. Many of these states had large debts to foreign countries for their support in the independence movements. This would compound the issue of political disunity. The fact that many states had limited economic power and the political power was divided so distinctly meant that many Latin American states had deep issues of finding cohesion politically.
The problem of very different political ideologies and economically weak states created a situation that European nations began to want to exploit. With Spain out of the way in Latin America, many European and North American countries such as England, France, and the United States were interested in filling the void that Spain created. In many cases, these foreign powers would offer to build infrastructure in Latin American states and control those to gain resources. For example, the British financed and built the railroads of Argentina in the 19th century so that they could get cattle, wheat, and money from transportation from the country. Many European states saw Latin American countries as sites of getting raw products. This cycle is known as Dependency Theory, where there is a newly formed state that is given large sums of money, and is then dependent to repay and supply the debt with usually raw products. One example would be Brazil and coffee. That Brazil was the site of raw products of coffee and sugar to Europeans, this in turn paid down debts that Brazil had incurred during the early 19th century. Dependency Theory often times created a cycle, where many Latin American countries could not repay the debts that they had gotten and would were in a similar situation to colonies of European states. Often times, historians ask if this is not similar to mercantilism from the first wave colonization, where raw products are sent to European states and finished goods are then distributed for the payment of debts.
Many of the reasons that Dependency Theory was such an important economic model is that Latin American states were the sites of great natural resources. Many countries of Latin America were abundant in raw products that Europeans wanted. Brazil, was the home of coffee, sugar, and gold in the 19th century. Argentina was where many cow products such as leather, and eventually beef, wheat, and grains originated. Peru had fertilizers. These resources were key to Europeans because of the rapid industrialization that was taking shape and how these countries were using resources.
Another critical problem that faced early Latin American states was the role of social and cultural cohesion inside the countryside. There were many issues of nationalism and identity in the early formation of states in the 19th century. It was difficult to ascertain a similar cultural or social pattern in many states due to the regional identities and subgroups that made up these regions. Another part of the problem that early Latin American countries faced was the issue of low literacy rates. Historian Benedict Anderson wrote that it was reading that was the reason that nationalism emerged. Latin American states had very low literacy rates in their early days. Having different groups and no clear unity factor also played into the broader political disunity between the liberal and conservative divisions in the 19th century. Only further fueling the internal divisions.
Peru and Argentina in the 19th Century
Many Latin American states had issues with their internal political divisions in the 19th century. During this time, both Argentina and Peru were rich with resources, but they differed in how they either integrated Europeans and European culture into their own society or rejected them.
Learning Objectives
- Evaluate the differences between Argentina and Peru in how they engaged with European states and economies.
- Analyze the importance of guano in the Peruvian economy.
- Evaluate the impact of liberalism and conservativism on Latin America.
Integration into World Economics and Politics
Following independence, many Latin American states struggled with how much they should open their cultures and societies to European influence and integrate into world economies. The problem was that both isolationism and open policies brought two very different sets of problems. These differences become obvious through an examination of Argentina and Peru, which serve as polar opposites on the spectrum of the relationships developed by the various Latin American countries. Argentina and Peru serve as the two extremes in this response to European influence, while other Latin American nations allowed for European influence to different extents.
Peru
Peru’s independence started with the rise of the Army of the Andes fighting in Peru. San Martín took the Army of the Andes to fight in Peru. To begin the liberation of Peru, Argentina and Chile signed a treaty on February 5, 1819, to prepare for the invasion. General José de San Martín believed that the liberation of Argentina wouldn’t be secure until the royalist stronghold in Peru was defeated. Peru had armed forces nearly four times the strength of those of San Martín. With this disparity, San Martín tried to avoid battles. He tried instead to divide the enemy forces in several locations, as during the Crossing of the Andes, and trap the royalists with a pincer movement with either reinforcements of the Army of the North from the South or the army of Simón Bolívar from the North. He also tried to promote rebellions and insurrection within the royalist ranks, and he promised the emancipation of any slaves that deserted their Peruvian masters and joined the army of San Martín. When he reached Lima, San Martín invited all of the populace of Lima to swear oath to the Independence cause. The signing of the Act of Independence of Peru was held on July 15, 1821. San Martín became the leader of the government, even though he did not want to lead. He was appointed Protector of Peru. After several years of fighting, San Martín abandoned Peru in September 1822 and left the whole command of the Independence movement to Simon Bolivar. The Peruvian War culminated in 1824 with the defeat of the Spanish Empire in the battles of Junin and Ayacucho.
Guayaquil Conference
The Guayaquil Conference was a meeting that took place between José de San Martín and Simón Bolívar on July 26, 1822 in Guayaquil, Ecuador; the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the future of Perú (and South America in general). San Martín arrived in Guayaquil on July 25, where he was enthusiastically greeted by Bolívar. However, both men had very different ideas about how to organize the governments of the countries that they had liberated, and the two men could not come to an agreement, despite their common goals and mutual respect, not even when San Martín offered to serve under Bolívar. Bolívar was in favor of forming a series of republics in the newly independent nations, whereas San Martín preferred the European system of rule and wanted to put monarchies in place. San Martín was also in favor of placing a European prince in power as King of Peru when it was liberated. The conference, consequently, was a failure, at least for San Martín.
San Martín, after meeting with Bolívar for several hours on July 26, stayed for a banquet and ball given in his honor. Bolívar proposed a toast to “the two greatest men in South America: the general San Martín and myself,” whereas San Martín drank to “the prompt conclusion of the war, the organization of the different Republics of the continent and the health of the Liberator of Colombia.” After the conference, San Martín abdicated his powers in Peru and returned to Argentina. Soon afterward, he left South America entirely and retired in France.
Following independence, Peru was a politically and economically weak state. Peruvian independence in 1821 saw the similar divisions between 19th century liberalism and conservativism. There was a weak vision of what Peru was outside of colonization. There were many social and cultural groups—such as the indigenous, Spanish, and Afro-Peruvian groups—that had limited integrations with one another under the Spanish. Additionally, there was a very significant fear of outsiders and how those groups would integrate into or reject Peruvian cultures and customs.
The problem was that Peruvian economics started to struggle in the middle of the 19th century. During colonization, Peru was the site of production of raw materials; it was not developed into an industrial site. This meant that the antion had limited abilities to produce products immediately following independence, and that the immediate growth of Peru was dependent on the development of raw products and resources. In the late 19th century, there was some development of rubber production in Peru, but this was limited in scope due to the lack of export abilities, which came with transportation issues and the increase in price that would result. While all might have seemed lost for Peru to develop economically, there was an answer on the coastline of the country.
Guano—or bird excrement—became an answer. There were hundreds of small islands off the coast of Peru and birds routinely flew to these islands. Most of these islands were less than a mile off the coastline and were not big enough for large plants or other animals to thrive. As the birds would take flight, they would go to the bathroom and fly back to the coastline. After thousands of years, large deposits of guano had accumulated on the islands. In many cases, these were mountains of guano that had developed. This was very beneficial to Peru because these guano mines were very profitable. Examine the image below, these are humans standing in the guano mountains.
This is an image of a guano island off the coast of Peru. The darker spot on the image is a person.
Before World War I, the world did not know how to make synthetic nitrates. This meant that the only fertilizers that could be created were made with guano. These islands were the perfect solution for Peru. They were rich in resources and when Europeans became highly interested in exploiting these islands, they were away from Peruvian culture and society. This meant the isolationism that was starting to grow within Peru also grew, due to the islands being far enough away from the coastline outsiders could stay here and not interfere with Peruvian politics. The Peruvian government could grow with taxes collected from the exporting of these islands. Europeans gained significantly from the resources as well.
In many cases, the European companies that began mining Peruvian guano mines found little interest in Peruvians who wanted to work on these islands. It is important to note that these islands are very close to the equator and very low to the ocean, meaning that they would have been very hot and humid, a very uncomfortable situation for workers on these islands before work began. Europeans then had to find a solution to their labor needs.
It is here that the intersection of local conflicts had impacts globally. The destabilization of China in the 19th century had many people looking to leave the country. The Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and the lack of stability meant there were many in China who were attempting to escape this very unfortunate set of circumstances. Because of their limited monetary resources to leave, many felt that they were trapped in China. European companies began to advertise to these groups, proclaiming that there was riches to be hand in an almost mythical sounding land of “California,” where there was gold in the streams. Hearing tales of riches and lands interested many who were economically struggling. These companies would sweeten the deal by offering to take Chinese to “California” in exchange for work for several years with a signed contract. This is the return of indentured servitude, which had problems before in the North American colonial period. In the 19th century, Europeans began to tell stories of taking Chinese to “California,” when in reality the majority of the labor needs was in Latin America on the Peruvian guano mines. While there were many Chinese that were taken to North America to work on railroads, most were taken to work on either the guano mines of Peru or the railroad building in Mexico.
Labor in the guano mines was very hard and difficult. The islands were hot and humid and the working conditions were harsh before work began. Many would work without wearing shirts because of the heat. The materials that they were working with did not help in the conditions either, because this was petrified guano, meaning that it was hard and the worker needed to have a metal pick to break apart the rock. The problem is, when the metal would hit the rock, a small spark would ignite the nitrate, similar to that of gunpowder, and the materials would begin to fly back at the person who was hitting the rock. Their sweat would act like adhesive to the newly flying guano as it would land on them, sticking with their bodies. This was miserable work.
The Peruvian guano mines were a crossroads of global events. The Chinese diaspora was one aspect of the importance of the guano mines. The other was the consequence that the mines had on Europe in the 19th century. It is important to remember that potatoes originated in Peru, where there are over 180 varieties of wild potatoes in the Andes. With this much biodiversity, that if there was a virus or bacteria that affected one variety, that it could quickly jump to another. There were birds that were eating potato plants, that carried those bacteria and viruses with them in their stomachs, and then released that as waste. Europeans were capturing that waste and bagging it to send back to the Old World as fertilizers. This meant that Europeans carried those viruses directly to potato fields by Europeans. The Irish Potato Famine was caused by monoculture planting in Ireland of the same type of potato and Europeans carrying diseases via fertilizers that quickly doomed the Irish potato crop.
It might be hard to believe in the 21st century that these islands were profitable, but this was a very important economic center of Latin America in the 19th century. Other countries in Latin America wanted to have access to these guano mines and the money that came with them. The War of the Pacific (1879-1883) was a war that was fought specifically because Chile wanted to gain some of the islands off the coast of Peru for themselves. The problem was that between Chile and Peru was Bolivia that had a significant Pacific Ocean coastline. Chile invaded Bolivia and Peru and gained significant resources from both countries. This was a very bloody war, the second most bloody war on the continent. While this was had it’s roots in the 19th century, it has a direct affect on the 21st century world. Today, lithium mining is an important economic activity in Bolivia. By having no ocean access, Bolivia has to pay taxes and increase the price of lithium to sell on the global market. The lack of ocean access has created a larger issue for Bolivia in the early 21st century, causing Chile, Peru, and Bolivia to raise the spectrum of war between the three countries.
By using guano mines, Peru was able to gain money without having to open their borders to Europeans and the world economics. This would prove as one of the ends of the spectrums for Latin America as a way to either integrate or reject Europeans in the 19th century. Throughout the rest of the 19th century, Peru would be a resource hub for raw products such as rubber and guano and struggled to industrialize as the turn of the 20th century approached.
Argentina
Argentina was in a similar situation to Peru following independence, because they started their nation with very big social, economic, and political separations, especially between the city of Buenos Aires and the countryside. The Spanish called the region the Río de la Plata, and it was home to what would become Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, parts of Chile, and Argentina. Following independence in the 1820s, the different regions of the Río de la Plata separated to form these new countries. In the 19th century, each of these countries had difficulties forming and creating consensus in their populations.
The newly formed country stretched up and down the Andes mountains from Patagonia to the South, the Missiones region in the northeastern section, and the Pampas in the center. The Pampas is the flat region of Argentina that is very similar to that of the Midwest of the United States, where there is large plains that are perfect for growing wheat and raising cattle. The land was formed as runoff from rain from the Andes mountains, and the topsoil is close to two feet deep. Most topsoil depth naturally is between one half inch to two inches, so the land in Argentina is especially fertile. Not surprisingly, these fields are home to many farmers, cowboys, and ranchers.
Cowboys in Argentina are known as the gauchos—rough and tumble men who live in the Pampas. These men of the Pampas are known for their toughness and engagement with the cattle and sheep. Many of these individuals have indigenous and African heritage. This group were considered low skill workers and were paid minimally by large ranch estates. In many ways, these cowboys were a very unique group politically because they were very engaged with politics. Yet, in many ways, the city of Buenos Aires looked down on this group of people. Many from the cosmopolitan hub thought of the gauchos as uneducated, low-class individuals who were destroying the fabric of Argentina because of their political engagement. While this is not true, it reveals that urban peoples maintained an ideological separation from rural populations.
In Buenos Aires—the cosmopolitan hub—things were different. After escaping destruction from the Portuguese fleet in the early 16th century, the city had become a hub of artisans and merchants. The city flourished on trade, specifically the trade with the British merchants who were stealing silver from Spanish lands across the estuary. There was also a significant slave trade component in the city center because of the proximity to Montevideo and the European claims for labor needs. During the Bourbon Reform period, the city became the capital of the region, bringing higher level jobs and government officials. The problem is that during this period, the formation of a distinctly different culture in Buenos Aires versus the countryside started forming. For instance, the British merchants brought Enlightenment writings to Buenos Aires, such as the American Constitution, the first translation in Spanish of which was created for readers in the city. Overall, through arbitrary distinctions revolving around jobs and classes, the city started presenting itself as more important than the interior.
This tension between the countryside and the city is one of the most important issues Argentina faced when trying to create their nation-state. Historians have identified this antagonism as the center versus periphery, where the urban population has different political and cultural components than the countryside. The problem with this division is that both the city and the countryside needed one another, yet they treated one another as enemies. This tension made it very difficult to create consensus and political cohesion in Argentina in the 19th century, as the liberal and conservative divisions formed along the city and countryside divisions. These would continue to grow in the early governments. This meant that both the liberal and conservatives did not trust the government and would push against the leadership. And many in the country felt that the government was not able to address the needs of the populations.
In 1829, the political turmoil in Argentina would change with the rise of Manuel de Rosas. Rosas was a leader in the province of Buenos Aires, where he rose to power as a leader of the ranching class. He understood the political power of the gauchos and that it could be used to harness political will inside of Argentina as a type of force. Rosas began to integrate the gaucho into his political slogans and identities, making them a central feature of his government and politics. These individuals became like a paramilitary force inside the country. If there was political opposition to Rosas or his policies, these individuals were known as the Mazorca. Many of the Mazorca were armed gauchos who listened to the ideas of Rosas. They would be the ones that would find and, in many cases, kill the individual that was in the opposition. In many ways, Manuel de Rosas was a tyrant dictator inside of Argentina. In Latin America, the leadership of strongmen, who are often military dictators, are known as Caudillos.
Rosas was never elected the president of the country, but he had much political sway. Rosas stopped the freedom of the presses and was against many of the Enlightenment policies. And he was able to operate somewhat freely, as many of the political opposition of Rosas fled the country though out the 1830s – 1850s. In the early 1850s, Argentina began to fight with Brazil for territory and was loosing the war; this reflected badly on Rosas, who was forced to flee Argentina in 1852. His move to England ended the caudillo leadership in Argentina.
After Rosas leadership, one of the most important opposition leaders rose to power. Domingo Sarmiento was extremely opposed to Rosas government. Between 1843 to 1850, he was in exile and wrote about the political situation in Argentina. His most famous writing was Facundo, Civilization versus Barbarism, in which he argued that Argentina was in a crossroads between the policies of Rosas and the Enlightenment. In the work, Sarmiento argued that the keyway to advance Argentina was to make radical changes, including a move towards industrialization, like the United States and Europe. Yet, Sarmiento’s way to industrialize was very different than simply building industry. Sarmiento argued that the way for Argentina to industrialize was to go to European industrial states and bring knowledgeable Europeans to Argentina, so that they could instruct locals on how to advance production. In this line of thinking, Europeans would build up Argentina’s economy. Sarmiento would advocate for these policies in exile, until he became president in 1868. While Sarmiento started this conversation in the 1860s, these policies would not become part of Argentina’s approach until the 1870s; they lasted until the end of the 19th century.
Sarmiento’s approach in Argentina was very different than that taken in Peru, in regards to relationships to Europeans and world economics. Sarmiento argued for a complete integration of Europeans into Argentina, with Argentine business leaders actively recruiting immigrants with skill in building and operating machinery. As a result, there was a massive migration of people into Argentina and the country grew by 10 million people in the last decade of the 19th century, almost exclusively from European immigration. Unfortunately, the immigrants did not bring the skill that this policy was meant to obtain, as the individuals who immigrated to Argentina were low skill low wage workers that did not always know how to build the machinery of the factories.
Another policy that started during the Rosas government that would have a significant impact on Argentina was the removal of indigenous peoples. Modeling his reservation system on the one that the United States established, Rosas began the process of pushing indigenous populations, such as the Mapuche, into reservation systems in the early 19th century. Rosas began a war against the indigenous groups known as the War of the Desert, that would continue throughout the 19th century, when the Mapuche were put into reservation systems near the border of Chile.
The combination of the increase immigration of Europeans and the reservation system of the indigenous populations in Argentina had a dramatic affect on the countryside. The demographic distribution of the country following independence was roughly similar to that of the United States. By the end of the 19th century, the ethnically European heritage population was over 90% of the total demographic totals.
The city of Buenos Aires would be the economic hub of Argentina. The city was the industrialized center of the country. Many of these industries were not as strong as their European or North American counterparts, yet the city was home to a flourishing industrialized center.
The tensions between the city and the countryside started to lessen in the later 19th century, when Argentina’s meat industry became prevalent, which meant the cowboys and ranchers started driving the economy. After the English financed railroads and refrigeration became prevalent, meat products were easily transferred from the countryside to the city and then became a main export. The cattle industry in the early 19th century was centered on hides for leather. With refrigeration, cattle products changed from hides to meat. This meant that cows were able to be quickly brought to the market. Argentina became the biggest beef supplier in the world, with one of the biggest meat sales from Argentina being canned meat.
The transformation in Argentina was significant in the 19th century towards industrialization and integration of the country into the global supply chain. This is in opposition to Peru with how Peruvians attempt to integrate themselves into the global system. The problem with both approaches, is that Latin America in the 19th century was going to be a site of production of raw materials. Even though Peru did not want to integrate and engage with the global economy, they were still pulled into this system.
Brazil in the 19th Century
Brazil had a very unique decolonization experience, in comparison to other Latin American states. Brazil did not struggle with independence warfare, but instead gained liberation through Napoleonic wars. The Brazilian Empire had a dramatic growth in the 19th century that saw the continuation of slave labor until the last quarter of the 19th century.
Learning Objectives
- Evaluate the role of the Napoleonic Wars on Brazil's independence.
- Analyze the impact of the Brazilian Empire
- Evaluate the differences of Brazil and other Latin American states following independence.
Early Years
The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century state that broadly comprised the territories of modern Brazil and Uruguay. Its government was a representative parliamentary constitutional monarchy under the rule of Emperors Dom Pedro I and his son Dom Pedro II. A colony of the Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil became the seat of the Portuguese colonial Empire in 1808 when the Portuguese prince regent, later King Dom João VI, fled from Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal and established himself and his government in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. João VI later returned to Portugal, leaving his eldest son and heir, Pedro, to rule the Kingdom of Brazil as regent. On September 7, 1822, Pedro declared the independence of Brazil and after waging a successful war against his father’s kingdom, was acclaimed on October 12 as Pedro I, the first Emperor of Brazil. The new country was huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse.
Unlike most of the neighboring Hispanic American republics, Brazil had political stability, vibrant economic growth, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and respect for civil rights of its subjects, albeit with legal restrictions on women and slaves, the latter regarded as property and not citizens. The empire’s bicameral parliament was elected under comparatively democratic methods for the era, as were the provincial and local legislatures. This led to a long ideological conflict between Pedro I and a sizable parliamentary faction over the role of the monarch in the government.
He also faced other obstacles. The unsuccessful Cisplatine War against the neighboring United Provinces of the Río de la Plata in 1828 led to the secession of the province of Cisplatina (later Uruguay). In 1826, despite his role in Brazilian independence, Pedro I became the king of Portugal; he immediately abdicated the Portuguese throne in favor of his eldest daughter. Two years later, she was usurped by Pedro I’s younger brother Miguel. Unable to deal with both Brazilian and Portuguese affairs, Pedro I abdicated his Brazilian throne on April 7, 1831, and immediately departed for Europe to restore his daughter to the Portuguese throne.
Pedro II
Pedro I’s successor in Brazil was his five-year-old son, Pedro II. As the latter was still a minor, a weak regency was created. The power vacuum resulting from the absence of a ruling monarch led to regional civil wars between local factions. Having inherited an empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II, once he was declared of age, managed to bring peace and stability to the country, which eventually became an emerging international power.
Brazil was victorious in three international conflicts (the Platine War, the Uruguayan War, and the Paraguayan War) under Pedro II’s rule, and the Empire prevailed in several other international disputes and outbreaks of domestic strife. With prosperity and economic development came an influx of European immigration, including Protestants and Jews, although Brazil remained mostly Catholic. Slavery, which was initially widespread, was restricted by successive legislation until its final abolition in 1888. Brazilian visual arts, literature, and theater developed during this time of progress. Although heavily influenced by European styles that ranged from Neoclassicism to Romanticism, each concept was adapted to create a culture that was uniquely Brazilian.
End of the Empire
Even though the last four decades of Pedro II’s reign were marked by continuous internal peace and economic prosperity, he had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and made no effort to maintain support for the institution. The next in line to the throne was his daughter Isabel, but neither Pedro II nor the ruling classes considered a female monarch acceptable. Lacking any viable heir, the Empire’s political leaders saw no reason to defend the monarchy.
Although there was no desire for a change in the form of government among most Brazilians, after a 58-year reign, on November 15, 1889, the emperor was overthrown in a sudden coup d’état led by a clique of military leaders whose goal was the formation of a republic headed by a dictator, forming the First Brazilian Republic. Pedro II had become weary of emperorship and despaired over the monarchy’s future prospects, despite its overwhelming popular support. He allowed no prevention of his ouster and did not support any attempt to restore the monarchy. He spent the last two years of his life in exile in Europe, living alone on very little money.
The reign of Pedro II thus came to an unusual end—he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity, and some of his accomplishments were soon brought to naught as Brazil slipped into a long period of weak governments, dictatorships, and constitutional and economic crises. The men who had exiled him soon began to see in him a model for the Brazilian republic.
A photo of the Brazilian parliament, a large amphitheater type room filled with legislators. They are voting on the abolition of slavery.
19th Century Mexico
Newly independent Mexico saw the rise of many polticial and cultural problems. The limited political integrations meant that there was a rise of dictators and limited democracy. And increasing the difficulty was the interests and invasions of foreign countries .
Key Terms / Key Concepts
Agustín de Iturbide: a Mexican army general and politician, who built a successful political and military coalition that took control in Mexico City on September 27, 1821 during the Mexican War of Independence and decisively gained independence for Mexico; President of the Regency in 1821, after the secession of Mexico was secured; Constitutional Emperor of Mexico from May 19, 1822 to March 19, 1823; original designer of the first Mexican flag
Benito Juárez: a Mexican lawyer and politician of Zapotec origin from Oaxaca who served as the president of Mexico for five terms: 1858 – 1861 as interim, then 1861 – 1865, 1865 – 1867, 1867 – 1871, and 1871 – 1872 as constitutional president; resisted the French occupation of Mexico, overthrew the Second Mexican Empire, restored the Republic, and used liberal measures to modernize the country
Manifest Destiny: a widely held belief in the United States that its settlers were destined to expand across North America; includes three basic themes: the special virtues of the American people and their institutions; the mission of the United States to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America; and an irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty
Maximilian I: the only monarch of the Second Mexican Empire and a younger brother of the Austrian emperor Francis Joseph I (After a distinguished career in the Austrian Navy, he accepted an offer by Napoleon III of France to rule Mexico.)
Napoleon III: the only President (1848 – 52) of the French Second Republic and the Emperor (1852 – 70) of the Second French Empire, who was the nephew and heir of Napoleon I and the first president of France to be elected by a direct popular vote (He was blocked by the Constitution and Parliament from running for a second term, so he organized a coup d’état in 1851 and then took the throne as Emperor on December 2, 1852, the 48th anniversary of Napoleon I’s coronation. He remains the longest-serving French head of state since the French Revolution.)
Plan of Iguala: a revolutionary proclamation on February 24, 1821, in the final stage of the Mexican War of Independence from Spain that stated Mexico was to become a constitutional monarchy whose sole official religion would be Roman Catholicism and the Peninsulares and Creoles of Mexico would enjoy equal political and social rights
Securing Independence
After the suppression of Hidalgo’s revolt, from 1815 to 1821 most fighting for independence from Spain was by small and isolated guerrilla bands. From these, two leaders arose: Vicente Guerrero in Oaxaca and Guadalupe Victoria in Puebla (born José Miguel Fernández y Félix) , both of whom gained allegiance and respect from their followers. Believing the situation under control, the Spanish viceroy issued a general pardon to every rebel who would lay down his arms. After ten years of civil war and the death of two of its founders, by early 1820 the independence movement was stalemated and close to collapse. The rebels faced stiff Spanish military resistance and the apathy of many of the most influential criollos.
In what was supposed to be the final government campaign against the insurgents, in December 1820 Viceroy Juan Ruiz de Apodaca sent a force led by a royalist criollo Colonel Agustin de Iturbide to defeat Guerrero’s army in Oaxaca. Iturbide, a native of Valladolid (now Morelia), gained renown for his zeal against Hidalgo’s and Morelos’s rebels during the early independence struggle. A favorite of the Mexican church hierarchy, Iturbide symbolized conservative criollo values; he was devoutly religious and committed to the defense of property rights and social privileges. He also resented his lack of promotion and failure to gain wealth.
Iturbide’s assignment to the Oaxaca expedition coincided with a successful military coup in Spain against the monarchy of Ferdinand VII. The coup leaders, part of an expeditionary force assembled to suppress the independence movements in the Americas, had turned against the monarchy. They compelled the reluctant Ferdinand to reinstate the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1812 that had created a constitutional monarchy. When news of the liberal charter reached Mexico, Iturbide perceived it both as a threat to the status quo and a catalyst to rouse the criollos to gain control of Mexico. The tides turned when conservative Royalist forces in the colonies chose to rise up against the liberal regime in Spain; it was a total turnaround compared to their previous opposition to the peasant insurgency. After an initial clash with Guerrero’s forces, Iturbide assumed command of the royal army. At Iguala, he allied his formerly royalist force with Guerrero’s radical insurgents to discuss the renewed struggle for independence.
While stationed in the town of Iguala, Iturbide proclaimed three principles, or “guarantees,” for Mexican independence from Spain. Mexico would be an independent monarchy governed by King Ferdinand, another Bourbon prince, or some other conservative European prince; criollos would be given equal rights and privileges to peninsulares (those born in Spain); and the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico would retain its privileges and position as the established religion of the land. After convincing his troops to accept the principles, which were declared on February 24, 1821 as the Plan of Iguala, Iturbide persuaded Guerrero to join his forces in support of this conservative independence movement. A new army, the Army of the Three Guarantees, was placed under Iturbide’s command to enforce the Plan of Iguala. The plan was so broadly based that it pleased both patriots and loyalists. The goal of independence and the protection of Roman Catholicism brought together all factions.
Iturbide’s army was joined by rebel forces from all over Mexico. When the rebels’ victory became certain, the Viceroy resigned. On August 24, 1821, representatives of the Spanish crown and Iturbide signed the Treaty of Córdoba, which recognized Mexican independence under the Plan of Iguala. On September 27, 1821, the Army of the Three Guarantees entered Mexico City, and the following day Iturbide proclaimed the independence of the Mexican Empire, as New Spain would henceforth be called.
On the night of May 18, 1822, a mass demonstration led by the Regiment of Celaya, which Iturbide had commanded during the war, marched through the streets and demanded that their commander-in-chief accept the throne. The following day, the congress declared Iturbide emperor of Mexico. On October 31, 1822, Iturbide dissolved Congress and replaced it with a sympathetic junta.
After Independence: The Mexican Empire
The Spanish attempts to reconquer Mexico comprised episodes of war between Spain and the new nation. The designation mainly covers two periods: from 1821 to 1825 in Mexico’s waters, and a second period of two stages that included a Mexican plan to take the Spanish-held island of Cuba between 1826 and 1828 and the 1829 landing of Spanish General Isidro Barradas in Mexico to reconquer the territory. Although Spain never regained control of the country, it damaged the fledgling economy.
The newly independent nation was in dire straits after 11 years of the War of Independence. No plans or guidelines were established by the revolutionaries, so internal struggles for control of the government ensued. Mexico suffered a complete lack of funds to administer a country of over 4.5 million km² and faced the threats of emerging internal rebellions and of invasion by Spanish forces from their base in nearby Cuba.
After independence, Mexican politics were chaotic. The presidency changed hands 75 times in the next 55 years (1821 – 76). Mexico now had its own government, but Iturbide quickly became a dictator. He even had himself proclaimed emperor of Mexico, copying the ceremony used by Napoleon when he proclaimed himself emperor of France. No one was allowed to speak against Iturbide. He filled his government with corrupt officials who became rich by taking bribes and making dishonest business deals.
In 1822, Mexico annexed the Federal Republic of Central America, which includes present-day Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and part of Chiapas.
U.S. Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny
The United States expanded from coast to coast through wars and treaties; establishment of law and order; building farms, ranches, and towns; marking trails and digging mines; and pulling in great migrations of foreigners. It was fulfilling the dreams of Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States was preordained to expand from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. The concept was expressed during Colonial times, but the term was coined in the 1840s by a popular magazine which had proclaimed “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny…to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” As the nation grew, Manifest Destiny became a rallying cry for expansionists in the Democratic Party. In the 1840s the Tyler and Polk administrations (1841 – 49) successfully promoted this nationalistic doctrine. However, the Whig Party, which represented business and financial interests, was opposed to it. Whig leaders, such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, called for broadening society through modernization and urbanization instead of simple horizontal expansion. John Quincy Adams, an anti-slavery Whig, felt the Texas annexation in 1845 to be “the heaviest calamity that ever befell myself and my country.” However, starting with the annexation of Texas, the expansionists had the upper hand.
Manifest Destiny was enacted by the settlers who ventured west. From the early 1830s to 1869, the Oregon Trail and its many offshoots were used by over 300,000 settlers. ’49ers (in the California Gold Rush), ranchers, farmers, and entrepreneurs and their families headed to California, Oregon, and other points in the far west. Wagon trains took five or six months on foot; after 1869, the trip took six days by rail.
The latter half of the 19th century was marked by the rapid development and settlement of the far West, first by wagon trains and riverboats and then aided by the completion of the transcontinental railroad. Large numbers of European immigrants (especially from Germany and Scandinavia) took up low-cost or free farms in the Prairie States. Mining for silver and copper opened up the Mountain West. The United States Army fought frequent small-scale wars with Native Americans as settlers encroached on their traditional lands. Gradually the U.S. purchased the Native American tribal lands and extinguished their claims, forcing most tribes onto subsidized reservations.
Mexico’s Place in Manifest Destiny
Mexico became independent of Spain in 1821 and took over Spain’s northern possessions from Texas to California. The Spanish and Mexican governments attracted American settlers to Texas with generous terms. 30,000 Anglos with 3,000 slaves were settled in Texas by 1835. Tensions rose, however, after an abortive attempt to establish the independent nation of Fredonia in 1826. William Travis, leading the “war party,” advocated for independence from Mexico, while the “peace party” led by Stephen F. Austin—later referred to as “The Father of Texas”—attempted to get more autonomy within the current relationship.
In 1836, the Texas Revolution erupted. Following losses at the Alamo and Goliad, the Texans won the decisive Battle of San Jacinto to secure independence. The U.S. Congress declined to annex Texas, stalemated by contentious arguments over slavery and regional power. Thus, it became “the Republic of Texas” and remained an independent power for nearly a decade before it was annexed as the 28th state in 1845. The government of Mexico, however, viewed Texas as a runaway province and asserted its ownership. War ensued.
Mexican-American War
The Mexican-American War of 1848 proved to be a consequential war for Mexico. The United States forces divided the country in half, roughly near the Rio Grande River to California, while the other forces marched to Mexico City. The Mexican Army, led by Santa Ana was not as prepared and equipped as the American forces and struggled to defeat the United States military.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War and had a deep impact on Mexico. The United States took lands north of the Rio Grande to California. These would become the majority of the American southwest. However, in the treaty and the subsequent newspapers, the United States would claim that they never conquered the region.
In Mexico, this was a very different situation. The loss of over half of the country’s territory and wealth had a significant psychological and political toll on the country. This would mean the liberal and conservative divisions that had plagued the country before were magnified intensely. The divided leadership would continue to plague the countryside alongside economic instability.
The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by American founding father and then President James Monroe, was a U.S. policy that opposed European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.
The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its stated objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations that could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.
After 1898, Latin American lawyers and intellectuals reinterpreted the Monroe doctrine in terms of multilateralism and non-intervention. In 1933, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States went along with the new reinterpretation, especially in terms of the Organization of American States.
French Intervention in Mexico
The War of the French Intervention was an invasion of Mexico in late 1861 by the Second French Empire, supported in the beginning by the United Kingdom and Spain. It followed Mexican President Benito Juárez‘s suspension of interest payments to foreign countries on July 17, 1861, which angered these foreign creditors.
Emperor Napoleon III of France was the instigator of military intervention , justifying his actions by claiming a broad foreign policy of commitment to free trade. For him, a friendly government in Mexico would ensure European access to Latin American markets. Napoleon also wanted the silver that could be mined in Mexico to finance his empire. Napoleon built a coalition with Spain and Britain to address this matter while the U.S. was distracted with its civil war.
To unite in their efforts to receive payments from Mexico, the three European powers signed the Treaty of London on October 31, 1861. On December 8, the Spanish fleet and troops arrived at Mexico’s main port: Veracruz. However, when the British and Spanish discovered that France planned to seize all of Mexico, they quickly withdrew from the coalition.
France invaded Mexico in the winter of 1861, as part of the War of the French Intervention. The subsequent French invasion resulted in the Second Mexican Empire. In Mexico, the French-imposed empire was supported by the Roman Catholic clergy, many conservative elements of the upper class, and some indigenous communities. Conservatives and many in the Mexican nobility tried to revive the monarchy by bringing to Mexico an archduke from the Royal House of Austria, Maximilian Ferdinand, or Maximilian I. France had various interests in this Mexican affair, such as seeking reconciliation with Austria, n defeated during the Franco-Austrian War of 1859; counterbalancing the growing American Protestant power by developing a powerful Catholic neighboring empire; and exploiting the rich mines in the northwest of the country. Seeking to legitimize French rule in the Americas, Napoleon III invited Maximilian to establish a new Mexican monarchy for him.
Maximilian I of Mexico
Maximilian I was the only monarch of the Second Mexican Empire; he a younger brother of the Austrian emperor Francis Joseph I. After a distinguished career in the Austrian Navy, he accepted an offer by Napoleon III of France to rule Mexico. With the support of the French army and a group of conservative Mexican monarchists hostile to the liberal administration of new Mexican President Benito Juárez, Maximilian traveled to Mexico. Once there, he declared himself Emperor of Mexico on April 10, 1864.
Maximilian’s consort was Empress Carlota of Mexico, and they chose Chapultepec Castle as their home. The Imperial couple noticed the mistreatment of Mexicans, especially Indians, and wanted to ensure their human rights. One of Maximilian’s first acts as Emperor was to restrict working hours and abolish child labor. He cancelled all debts over 10 pesos for peasants, restored communal property, and forbade all forms of corporal punishment. He also broke the monopoly of the Hacienda stores and decreed that henceforth peons could no longer be bought and sold for the price of their debt.
Maximilian was a liberal, a fact that Mexican conservatives seemingly did not know when he was chosen to head the government. He favored the establishment of a limited monarchy that would share power with a democratically elected congress. Maximilian upheld several liberal policies proposed by the Juárez administration, such as land reforms, religious freedom, and extending the right to vote beyond the landholding class. All these policies were too liberal for conservatives, while liberals refused to accept any monarch and favored the republican government of Benito Juárez. This left Maximilian with few enthusiastic allies within Mexico.
At first, Maximilian offered Juárez an amnesty if he would swear allegiance to the crown, even offering the post of Prime Minister, which Juárez refused. Meanwhile, Juárez remained head of the republican government. He continued to be recognized by the United States as such, but the U.S. was engaged in its Civil War (1861 – 65) and at that juncture was in no position to aid Juárez directly against the French intervention until 1865.
France never made a profit in Mexico and its Mexican expedition grew increasingly unpopular. Finally in the spring of 1865, after the US Civil War was over, the U.S. demanded the withdrawal of French troops from Mexico. Napoleon III quietly complied.
In mid-1867, despite repeated Imperial losses in battle to the Republican Army and ever-decreasing support from Napoleon III, Maximilian chose to remain in Mexico rather than return to Europe. He was captured and executed along with two Mexican supporters on June 19, 1867, immortalized in a famous painting by Eduard Manet.
Maximilian has been praised by some historians for his liberal reforms, his genuine desire to help the people of Mexico, his refusal to desert his loyal followers, and his personal bravery during the siege of Querétaro. However, other researchers consider him short-sighted in political and military affairs and unwilling to restore democracy in Mexico, even during the imminent collapse of the Second Mexican Empire.
Mexico By the End of the 19th Century
In many ways, Mexico by the end of the 19th century was a product of colonization and European engagements in early independence. The encomienda system that emerged in the Spanish colonial system was never fully replaced. The indigenous population were still held at the bottom of society, and this was the majority of the population. Political leadership in the late 19th century never addressed this inequality and mistreatment of indigenous community. This problem would continue throughout the 19th century.
The presidency of Benito Juárez was a significant turning point for Mexico. Juarez, who had indigenous roots, struggled for political leadership in a state fractured between liberal and conservative divisions.
The election of 1876 of Porfirio Díaz took the country in a very different direction. Porfirio Díaz was democratically elected and would serve in power until 1910. Díaz became a dictator of Mexico, strongarming the political system, stopping freedom of the press, and assassinating his enemies. United States businesses, such as the railroads and oil magnates, would bribe Díaz to allow them exclusive rights to Mexican economy. This would only further hurt the indigenous populations of the country. These policies did very little to build a strong middle class in Mexico. Often, these created a counter system of poverty and dependency with the United States.
Corruption, political graft, social inequalities, political instability, and lack of freedoms would be the root causes of the Mexican Revolution in 1910.
Primary Source: Porfirio Diaz
The Rule of Porfirio Diaz
Channing Arnold & Frederick J. Tabor Frost, 1909
UNTIL I876, when upon his distracted country Porftrio Diaz, innkeeper's son and born ruler, descended as Deus ex machina, the State of Mexico may be summed up in the words, "rapine, murder, and sudden death." But though Mexico has had---and the bulk of her population has had reason during the past thirty years to thank her lucky stars for him---an "iron master," the quietude of the country is only skin-deep. Law and order is represented by a blend of a rough-and-ready justice, a sort of legalized lynch-law, with an official law administration venal to a high degree. With every second mestizo a born robber, Mexico is no place for tedious processes with remands and committals to assizes. A man caught red-handed is usually dealt with on the spot. Such a case occurred while we were visiting the capital. Two days after we had traveled on the marvelous mountain railway, the guards of the day train (which, by the way, always takes the bullion to the coast and has a carriage-load of soldiers attached as military convoy) saw, as they approached the steepest descent, two fellows loitering on the line, presumably wreckers. The train was stopped, and the guards and the officer commanding the convoy gave chase, and, coming up with the men, shot them with their revolvers and kicked the bodies down the precipice. The sun and the vultures do the rest, and on the re-arrival of the train in the capital the matter may or may not be formally notified to the Government.
Even to the casual observer the difficulty of governing Mexico must seem inexpressibly great. President Diaz has succeeded not so much because he does not know what mercy means or because a rifle bullet is his only answer for those who question his authority, but because he is endowed with superhuman tact. The iron heel, like that of Achilles, has its vulnerable spot if pressed too hard upon a people's throat, and so he has little dodges by which he appears to his subjects to exercise a judicious clemency. If some redoubtable criminal is captured, some monarch of murderers, Diaz knows well that among his thousands of crime-loving fellow countrymen the brute will have a large following. His execution will mean the declaration of a vendetta against the police. So he is put on his trial, condemned to death, and within twenty-four hours the president commutes his sentence to one of twenty years' incarceration in the penitentiary. After about a week there, he is taken out one evening, as usual, into the prison yard for exercise under a small guard of soldiers. One of these sidles up to him and suggests that as the night is dark he might make a bolt for it. The convict believes it a genuine offer, sprints off, and is dropped at thirty yards like a rabbit by the five or six soldiers who have been waiting under the shadow of the farther wall. The next morning the official newspaper states, "Last night the notorious criminal So-and-So, to whom His Excellency the President recently extended clemency, made an attempt to escape while being exercised in the prison yard, and was shot dead by the sentries." Thus everybody is pleased, except possibly the convict, and the president, without the least odium to himself, has rid the country of another blackguard.
Another stroke of real genius was the way in which he has succeeded in setting thieves to catch thieves. When he became president, the country was infested with bandits who stopped at nothing; but Diaz erected huge gallows at the crossways all over Mexico, and the robbers found they had to stop at these, and stop quite a long while till the zopilotes and vultures had picked their bones to the blameless white to which good Porfirio Diaz desired the lives of all his subjects to attain. Aftersome weeks of brisk hanging-business, Diaz played his trump card. He proclaimed that all other bandits, known or unknown, who cared to surrender would be enrolled as rurales, country police, and, garbed in state uniform and armed with Winchesters, would spend the remainder of their lives agreeably engaged in killing their recalcitrant comrades. This temptation to spend their declining days in bloodshed, to which no penalties were attached, was too much for many. Thus fifty per cent of Mexico's robbers turn police and murder the other fifty, and acute Diaz has a body of men who and whose sons have proved, and sons' sons will prove, the eternal wisdom of this hybrid sphinx of a ruler.
But there is a comic side to Mexican justice. There is a Gilbertian humor in the go-as-you-please style in which prisoners are treated. In one crowded court, when the jury had retired to consider their verdict, the prisoner was engaged in walking up and down, hands in pockets, cigarette in mouth, while the police, entirely oblivious to their charge, smoked and chatted in another part of the court. We asked one officer whether they were not afraid of the prisoner attempting an escape. "Oh, no," he said, "he'll wait for the verdict." Road-making is practically always done by gangs of convicts, and, when they think they have had enough work, they throw down their spades and picks, and warders and everybody sit down on the roadside and enjoy a cigarette and a chat. The British Minister told us that he had recently been shown over the penitentiary, in which at the moment there was a bloodthirsty rascal whose record of crime would have shamed a Jack the Ripper. The governor of the jail entered into a long and friendly conversation with him as to his wife and family, and, as the British Minister humorously put it, "We were all but presented to him. . . ."
UNTIL I876, when upon his distracted country Porftrio Diaz, innkeeper's son Nominally Mexico is a republic: really she is nothing of the sort. There is a Senate, a Chamber of Deputies, periodic elections of state representatives, a governor and council in each State of the Federation; but for upwards of a quarter of a century these have all been but pawns on a chessboard--the player a man of such astounding nature that those who laughed at Mrs. Alec Tweedie's description of him as "the greatest man of the nineteenth century" laughed from the fullness of their ignorance. Porfirio Diaz is an autocrat. He is an autocrat fiercer, more relentless, more absolute than the Czar of Russia, than any recent czar has been, almost than Peter the Great himself. He is more: he is a born ruler. He has played for the regeneration of his country. He has played, but it is too much to say he has won. Nobody could win; but he has chained the bloody dogs of anarchy and murder, chained them successfully for so many years that there are some who forget that he has not killed them outright. Diaz is literally living over a volcano: he is a personified extinguisher of the fierce furnace of his country's turbulence. But when death removes him, what then? The deluge, surely; and after that one more apotheosis of the Monroe Doctrine, and the very wholesome, if somewhat aggressive, Stars and Stripes. You must go to Mexico and live among its people to know all this.
It is singular how little the English people know of the country. Only the other day a veteran Anglo-Indian officer gravely asked us, "What is the exact position of Mexico in the United States of America?" We simply gasped: words failed in such an emergency. Before Diaz came, Mexico's history was one of uninterrupted rapine, murder, and sudden death. Out of a morass of blood he has made a garden; out of robbers he has made citizens; out of bankruptcy he has made a revenue; out of the bitterest civil strivings he has almost made a nation.
He is nearly eighty: he is upright as a dart: he has the face of a sphinx with a jaw which makes you shudder. He rarely talks, he still more rarely smiles. And yet the whole man expresses no false pride --no "wind in the head." His icy superhumanly self-controlled nature is too great to be moved by such petty things as pride and a vulgar joy in power. In manner and in life he is simplicity itself. He rides unattended in the Paseo; he comes down to the Jockey Club in the afternoon, and the members just rise and bow, and the president picks up his paper and sits quietly at the window reading. He dislikes all ostentation; his food is simple; his clothes are almost always a plain blue serge suit and dark tie; and in his winter home in the city he lives as a simple citizen. But his power is literally limitless. The Mexicans do not love him: nobody could love such a man. The lower classes fear him unreasoningly; the upper classes fear him too, but it is blended with a lively sense of what he means to Mexico. But mark you! there is nothing of the bully about him. The bully is always weak, a coward. If Diaz was arrogant, he would be assassinated in twenty-four hours. He knows that. He knows the blood of the cattle he drives. Nobody but a madman whips a blooded horse; but he must have an iron wrist and a good hold on the rein. And that is why one can safely describe Diaz as a born ruler. He instinctively understands his subjects: he has not learned it, for he began thirty years ago. He was never educated in statecraft, for, indeed, he had no education at all; he was merely the son of an innkeeper, first sent to a Jesuit seminary, whence he ran away and joined the army. No! the man's secret is an iron will and positively miraculous tact. Whatever he does, whatever he orders, is always done so nicely. Everybody knows it has got to be done. Nobody ever crosses Diaz and lives to boast of so doing. But he gilds the pills he thinks his people must swallow, and they gulp them down and look up with meek smiles into that awful face.
Here is a little characteristic story of him. Some while back there was an election of governor of Yucatan. The Yucatecan people have always been one of the most restive of the presidential team. They nominated a man disagreeable to Diaz; he nominated a second. The election ballot took place. The Yucatecan nominee was successful by an enormous majority. The news is wired to Mexico City. Back comes the presidential answer: "Glad to know my man elected: am sending troops to formally inaugurate him." The troops came, and Diaz's man was formally installed. To the Chamber of Deputies no one can be elected against the president's wish. For the over-popular governor of a State, Diaz provides distinguished employment elsewhere. Such a case occurred while we were in Yucatan. Señor Olegario Molina, of whom we shall later speak more, has been for some years deservedly popular in Merida, for he has done much to improve it. President Diaz visited Merida recently, and on his return appointed Señor Molina a cabinet minister. When he arrived in Vera Cruz, Molina found the presidential train awaiting him, and on reaching Mexico City the president and the whole cabinet had come to the station to greet him, and drove him triumphantly to the Iturbide Hotel. Charming courtesies! how favorably the presidential eyes beam on him! Yes, but he is banished: as much banished as the shivering pauper Jew workman turned away from the London docks. He was too powerful: he is safer in Mexico City, far away from the madding crowds who would perchance have made him state dictator. A too popular cabinet minister, again, is sent as minister to Madrid: another is found essential to the pacification of a turbulent State of northern Mexico; and so the pretty game goes on, and there is literally no kicking amongst the presidential team.
But there are fiercer exhibitions of autocracy at which people only hint, or of which they speak in whispers. There is no Siberia in Mexico, but there are the equivalents of banishment and disappearance for those who would challenge the authority of the Mexican czar. Even criticism is tyrannically repressed. There is a press, but the muzzling order has long been in force, and recalcitrant editors soon see the inside of the penitentiary. General Diaz's present (second) wife is a daughter of a prominent supporter of Lerdo de Tejada, who on the death of Juarez assumed the presidency, but was expelled in 1876 by Diaz. The alliance brought about an armed peace between the two men. But they tell this story: One day an argument arose, and hot words followed. It was at a meal; and when wine's in, wit's out. Diaz's father-in-law went far, and half in jest, half in earnest, said, "Why, Porfirio, you almost tempt me to turn rebel again." They all saw the president's face darken, but the storm blew over. That night it is said that Madame Diaz had to go on her knees to her husband to beg for her father's life.
Such is the arbiter and autocrat of Mexico. What, then, is the state of the country politically, and what will be her future? Mexico's great weakness (she has many, but this overtops all others, and lowers menacing on her political horizon) is that she is not a nation. There is no true national feeling, and a moment's thought will show that the circumstances of her population forbid the existence of such. On the one side you have the Spanish Mexicans, the white population, representing the purest European blood in the country. They are but some nineteen per cent of a population of twelve million odd. Among them, and among them alone, is patriotism in its highest sense to be expected or found.
On the other side you have the vast mestizo class---the half-castes---some forty-three per cent, and then the purer Indians, forming the remaining thirty-eight per cent. Of these three classes the characteristics are sufficiently marked to destroy hope of any welding or holding together. The Spanish Mexicans are sensual and apathetic, avaricious and yet indolent, inheriting a full share of that Castilian pride and bigotry which has worked the colonial ruin of Spain. Brave, with many of those time-honored traits of the proverbial Spanish don, they are yet a people inexorably "marked down" by Fate in the international remnant basket. They have had their day. Ye gods! they have used it , too; but it is gone. The mestizos---near half the population---have all the worst features of their Spanish and Indian parents. Turbulent, born criminals, treacherous, idle, dissolute, and cruel, they have the Spanish lust and the Indian natural cynicism, the Spanish luxury of temperament with the Indian improvidence. These are the true Mexicans; these are the unruled and unrulable hotchpotch whom Diaz's iron hand holds straining in the leash: the dogs of rapine, murder, and sudden death, whose cowardice is only matched by their vicious treachery. And last there are the Indians, heartless, hopeless, disinherited, enslaved, awaiting with sullen patience their deliverance from the hated yoke of their Spanish masters, not a whit less abhorrent to them because they have had four centuries in which to become accustomed to it. The heterogeneity of Mexico's population is only matched by the depth of the antagonism of each class to each in all their most vital interests.
Source:From: Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. XI: Canada, South America, Central America, Mexico, and the West Indies, pp. 526-534Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.
Attributions
Attributions
Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons: First Conquest of the Desert: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Primer_Conquista_del_Desierto.jpg
Boundless World History
https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/boundless-worldhistory/the-mexican-war-of-independence/
https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/boundless-worldhistory/the-south-american-revolutions/