The student of Mexican history, at this period, will derive instruction from a narrative of the connexion which once existed between Spain and the Netherlands and its fatal rupture.
After the fall of the duke of Burgundy in 1477, his daughter Mary brought the low countries to Austria by her marriage with the Emperor Maximilian; and his grandson, Charles V, united these provinces with Spain. During the reign of Charles, their ancient liberties were carefully respected, and the country prospered whilst the Protestant religion spread throughout it in spite of stern opposition. But when his successor, Philip II, mounted the throne, all prudence in the government of the Belgic and Batavian provinces seems to have been abandoned, and unbridled persecution was let loose on the civil and religious rights of the people. Granvella and the bloody duke of Alva were the monarch's instruments in this sad misgovernment, which resulted in a total renunciation of allegiance to the king of Spain. Long and bitter was the rebellion,—continuing from the middle of the sixteenth century to the year 1609,—when the Spanish claim to the sovereignty of the new republic of Holland was virtually resigned under the form of a truce for twelve years between the belligerents.[30]
The independence of the united provinces was thus, in fact achieved, and it was recognized by all the great powers of Europe except Spain; still Holland went through the thirty years war, before her nationality was secured by the peace of Westphalia.
From this sketch it will be perceived that Spain, although willing to forego the continuance of war, and to save the point of honor between herself and the rebellious provinces when it was impossible to recover her dominion over them, nevertheless, clung with stupid pride to her abstract right of reconquest for a long period after she had substantially acknowledged their freedom. The dismemberment of Spain was, of course, an event which the monarch could not behold without regret, for it was natural that he should seek to transmit his dominions to posterity uncurtailed of their fair proportions. Yet, in the adoption of a diplomatic ruse,—in the truce of twelve years,—there was a degree of wisdom which it would have been well for Spain to recollect when it became evident that the revolt of her American colonies was about to terminate in their independence. The passions between the belligerents would have had time to cool. The common ties of blood and language might gradually have bound up the wounds made by war. The intervention of friendly powers would have obtained concessions from the discreet parent,—and thus Peru and Mexico might still have shone as the brightest jewels in the Spanish crown. No quarrel ever terminated in perfect re-establishment of amity without tolerance or retraction on the part of one of the disputants. Superior force may overawe into silence or crush by its ponderous blows, yet the non-resistance and taciturnity which ensue are but the repose that precedes the hurricane, in which the elements seem gathering strength to pour forth their wrath with irresistible fury.
So was it with Spain and her American colonies. Instead of soothing and pacific measures, tending to allay resentment and bring back the rebel to allegiance, the utmost violence was at once adopted both in deeds and language, and scenes of barbarity were enacted by Calleja and his myrmidons from which the heart recoils with horror.[31]
Severe as was the lesson taught by the conduct of Spain to Mexico, that republic, nevertheless, resolved not to profit by it when she, in turn, saw one of her States discontented with her misrule and usurpations. If Texas had been soothed; if justice had been speedily done; if the executive had despatched discreet officers, and reconciled the differences between the North American emigrants and the Spaniards, not only in civil and municipal government, but in religion and temper,—Texas might not have been lost to Mexico,—but, invigorated by a hardy and industrious population, would have poured commercial wealth into her coffers, and furnished her factories among the mountains with an abundance of that staple which the native Indians are as unused as they are unwilling to cultivate. Had Mexico been even as wise as Philip, in 1609, and saved her punctilious honor by a twelve years truce, she would only have postponed the settlement of her difficulties, until her internal affairs became sufficiently pacific to enable a firm government to act with discretion and justice.
Since the year 1843 the Texas question has been so much a matter of party dispute in the United States that the true history of the revolt seems to be almost forgotten. I shall not hesitate therefore to recount some of the events connected with it, because they are relevant to the issue between us and Mexico, as well as necessary to the elucidation of the justice of her quarrel.
It is an error that the Texan rebellion was conceived in a spirit of sheer fraud upon Mexico; and writers who seek to stigmatize it thus are entirely ignorant of its origin.
The contest that arose between the central and federal parties in Mexico immediately after the establishment of independence has been narrated in a preceding chapter. The first federal constitution is an almost literal copy of our own; but its equitable and progressive principles did not suit the military despots who, whilst they commanded the army, held the physical power of Mexico in their hands. The consequence was that during the administration of the first president, Victoria, there were pronunciamientos against federation and in favor of centralism, by Padre Arénas, and at Tulancingo, under the "plan of Montayno." Quarrels in the party lodges of the Yorkinos and Escossceses—the liberalists and centralists—next arose;—and, finally, the revolution under the "plan of Toluca," destroyed the cherished constitution of 1824, by striking a death blow at the federative principle. This plan vested the power in a central government, abolished State legislatures, and changed those States into departments under the control of military governors, who were responsible to the chief authorities of the nation alone. These principles were embodied in the new constitution of 1836, and were, of course, distasteful to every friend of genuine liberty.[32]