CHAPTER V.
1824–1829.
REVIEW OF THE CONDITION OF MEXICO AND THE FORMATION OF PARTIES.—VICEROYAL GOVERNMENT—THE PEOPLE—THE ARMY—THE CHURCH.—CONSTITUTION OF 1824.—ECHAVARI REVOLTS.—VICTORIA PRESIDENT—ESCOCESSES—YORKINOS—REVOLTS CONTINUED.—MONTAYNO—GUERRERO.—GOMEZ PEDRAZA PRESIDENT—IS OVERTHROWN.—FEDERALISTS—CENTRALISTS—GUERRERO PRESIDENT.—ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN MEXICO.
We must pause a moment over the past history of Mexico, for the portion we now approach has few of the elements either of union or patriotism which characterized the early struggles for national independence. The revolutionary war had merited and received the commendation of freemen throughout the world. The prolonged struggle exhibited powers of endurance, an unceasing resolution, and a determination to throw off European thraldom, which won the respect of those northern powers on this continent who were most concerned in securing to themselves a republican neighborhood. But, as soon as the dominion of Spain was crushed, the domestic quarrels of Mexico began, and we have already shown that in the three parties formed in the first congress, were to be found the germs of all the feuds that have since vexed the republic or impeded its successful progress towards national grandeur. After the country had been so long a battle field, it was perhaps difficult immediately to accustom the people to civil rule or to free them from the baleful influence which military glory is apt to throw round individuals who render important services to their country in war. Even in our own union, where the ballot box instead of the bayonet has always controlled elections, and where loyalty to the constitution would blast the effort of ambitious men to place a conqueror in power by any other means than that of peaceful election, we constantly find how difficult it is to screen the people's eyes from the bewildering glare of military glory. What then could we expect from a country in which the self-relying, self-ruling, civil idea never existed at any period of its previous history? The revolution of the North American colonies was not designed to obtain liberty, for they were already free; but it was excited and successfully pursued in order to prevent the burthensome and aggressive impositions of England which would have curtailed that freedom, and, reduced us to colonial dependence as well as royal or ministerial dictation. Mexico, on the contrary, had never been free. Spain regarded the country as a mine which was to be diligently wrought, and the masses of the people as acclimated serfs whose services were the legitimate perquisites of a court and aristocracy beyond the sea. There had been, among the kings and viceroys who controlled the destinies of New Spain, men who were swayed by just and amiable views of colonial government; but the majority considered Mexico as a speculation rather than an infant colony whose progressive destiny it was their duty to foster with all the care and wisdom of Christian magistrates. The minor officials misruled and peculated, as we have related in our introductory sketch of the viceroyal government. They were all men of the hour, and, even the viceroys themselves, regarded their governments on the American continent as rewards for services in Europe, enabling them to secure fortunes with which they returned to the Castilian court, forgetful of the Indian miner and agriculturist from whose sweat their wealth was coined. The Spaniard never identified himself with Mexico. His home was on the other side of the Atlantic. Few of the best class formed permanent establishments in the viceroyalty; and all of them were too much interested in maintaining both the state of society and the castes which had been created by the conquerors, to spend a thought upon the amelioration of the people. We do not desire to blacken, by our commentary, the fame of a great nation like that of Spain; yet this dreary but true portrait of national selfishness has been so often verified by all the colonial historians of America, and especially by Pazo and Zavala, in their admirable historical sketches of Castilian misrule, that we deem it fair to introduce these palliations of Mexican misconduct since the revolution. [63]
*****
The people of New Spain were poor and uneducated,—the aristocracy was rich, supercilious, and almost equally illiterate. It was a society without a middle ground,—in which gold stood out in broad relief against rags. Was such a state of barbaric semi-civilization entitled or fitted to emerge at once into republicanism? Was it to be imagined that men who had always been controlled, could learn immediately to control themselves? Was it to be believed that the military personages, whose ambition is as proverbial as it is natural, would voluntarily surrender the power they possessed over the masses, and retire to the obscurity and poverty of private life when they could enjoy the wealth and influence of political control, so long as they maintained their rank in the army? This would have been too much to expect from the self-denial of creole chiefs; nor is it surprising to behold the people themselves looking towards these very men as proper persons to consolidate or shape the government they had established. It was the most natural thing conceivable to find Iturbide, Guerrero, Bustamante, Negrete, Bravo, Santa Anna, Paredes, and the whole host of revolutionary heroes succeeding each other in power, either constitutionally or by violence. The people knew no others. The military idea,—military success,—a name won in action, and repeated from lip to lip until the traditionary sound became a household word among the herdsmen, rancheros, vaqueros and Indians,—these were the sources of Mexican renown or popularity, and the appropriate objects of political reward and confidence. What individual among the four or five millions of Indians knew anything of the statesmen of their country who had never mixed in the revolutionary war or in the domestic brawls constantly occurring. There were no gazettes to spread their fame or merit, and even if there had been, the people were unable to buy or peruse them. Among the mixed breeds, and lower class of creoles, an equal degree of ignorance prevailed;—and thus, from the first epoch of independence, the People ceased to be a true republican tribunal in Mexico, while the city was surrendered as the battle field of all the political aspirants who had won reputations in the camp which were to serve them for other purposes in the capital. By this means the army rose to immediate significance and became the general arbiter in all political controversies. Nor was the church,—that other overshadowing influence in all countries in which religion and the state are combined,—a silent spectator in the division of national power. The Roman Hierarchy, a large landholder,—as will be hereafter seen in our statistical view of the country,—had much at stake in Mexico, besides the mere authority which so powerful a body is always anxious to maintain over the consciences of the multitude. The church was, thus, a political element of great strength; and, combined with the army, created and sustained an important party, which has been untiring in its efforts to support centralism, as the true political principle of Mexican government.
*****
On the 4th of October, 1824, a federal constitution, framed partly upon the model of the constitution of the United States, with some grafts from the Spanish constitution, was adopted by Congress; and, by it, the territory comprehended in the old viceroyalty of New Spain, the Captaincy General of Yucatan, the commandancies of the eastern and western Internal Provinces, Upper and Lower California, with the lands and isles adjacent in both seas, were placed under the protection of this organic law. The religion of the Mexican nation was declared to be, in perpetuity, the Catholic Apostolic Roman; and the nation pledged its protection, at the same time prohibiting the exercise of any other!
Previous, however, to these constitutional enactments the country had not been entirely quiet, for as early as January of this year, General Echavari, who occupied the state of Puebla, raised the standard of revolt against the Triumvirate. This seditious movement was soon suppressed by the staunch old warrior, Guerrero, who seized and bore the insurgent chief to the capital as a prisoner. Another insurrection, occurred not long after in Cuernavaca, which was also quelled by Guerrero. Both of these outbreaks were caused by the centralists, who strove to put down by violence the popular desire for the federal system. Instead of destroying the favorite charter, however, they only served to cement the sections, who sustained liberal doctrines in the different provinces or states of the nation, and finally, aided materially in enforcing the adoption of the federal system.