Lucas Alaman, Adolfo Llanos, Niceto de Zamacois, Ignacio Aguilar y Marocho, and other writers, open partisans of the colonial government (few indeed in this nineteenth century) to such documents as form the matter of this Dissertation reply: “It was the logic, the metaphysics and the physics of that epoch.” The statement is false and one might say that the writers mentioned were ignorant of history, or that, knowing it, they made sport of the credulity and good faith of their readers, were it not that the intelligence and honesty of the four writers—and of others—is well established, and did not logic teach us that there are other sources of error in judgment besides ignorance and bad faith; that a great source of errors is preoccupation, as that of Alaman and Aguilar Marocho—for all that concerns the monarchy and viceroyalty; and a great source of errors is passion, vehement and uncontrolled, as the love of country which sways Zamacois, Llanos, and other Spanish writers.... The statement is false, I repeat, and, in consequence, the conclusion is nul: nulla solutio. I shall prove it.
The discovery of the New World, the origin of the Americans and their magnificent ruins and antiquities, scattered over the whole country; the Aztec civilization, grand in a material way; their human sacrifices, which in fundamental meaning involved a great genesiac thought and in application were a horrible fanaticism; the Conquest of Mexico, in which present themselves:—Hernan Cortes, the first warrior of modern times, though with indelible stains; Pedro de Alvarado, Gonzalo de Sandoval, Cristobal de Olid, and Diego de Ordaz, with their feats of heroism and their crimes; Cuauhtemotzin, Xicotencatl, Cacamotzin, and the other Indian warriors with their immortal patriotism; the interesting figure of Marina; Bartolomé de Olmedo, Pedro de Gante, Bartolomé de las Casas, Juan de Zumárraga, Toribio de Motolinia, Bernardino de Sahagun, and the other missionaries surrounded by an aureole of light which brings posterity to its knees; all the conjunct of the Conquest, as the finest subject for an epic poem; “the Laws of the Indies,” the encomiendas, the Inquisition; Antonio Mendoza, the venerable Palafox, Fray Payo Enriquez de Rivera, the Duke of Linares, Revilla Gigedo the second, and other excellent viceroys; the fecund events of 1808; the Revolution of the Independence, the first and second empires, and many other events in the history of Mexico during its five epochs, have already been treated and ventilated in many books, pamphlets and journals—some sufficiently, others overmuch. Poetry in New Spain has been magnificently treated by my respected friend, the learned Francisco Pimentel, in Volume I. of his Historia de la Literatura y de las Ciencias en Mexico. But Philosophy in New Spain is a subject that has not been specifically treated by only one. This work has, perhaps, no other merit than novelty, which would be worth nothing without truth, supported by good testimonies. As regards Spain I shall take my testimonies from no foreign authors—lest the bourbonist writers might reject them as disaffected and prejudiced, and so shield themselves—but from Spanish writers; with the exception of one and another Mexican, accepted by all Spaniards as trustworthy, such as Alzate and Beristain.... And among Spaniards I will refrain from citing Emilio Castelar and others of the extreme left.
DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES IN NEW SPAIN.
With regard to the public offices in New Spain, of consequence for the honor connected with them, or because of the fat salary, Señor Zamacois says:
“It has been said, in regard to official positions, that the Mexicans filled only the less important; in this, another error has been committed. The monarchs of Castille considered those born in the American colonies as Spaniards, and made no distinction between them and Peninsulars; all had equal rights and, therefore, in making an appointment, there was no question whether the person named came from the provinces of America or those of the Peninsula.... The offices and appointments were conferred in equal numbers on the sons of America and Peninsulars.”
By way of digression, I may present a few penstrokes, but they will be sufficient for any intelligent man. Padre Mariana, high authority in history, states this maxim: History takes no sides until shown a clean record. Señor Zamacois shows no clean record for his assertions. I will present mine. There were sixty-two Viceroys of Mexico, and of these fifty-nine were Spaniards of the Peninsula and three were creoles—Luiz de Velasco, native of the City of Mexico, Juan de Acuña, native of Lima, and Revilla Gigedo the second, native of Havana; in consequence, only one was Mexican. There were thirty-three Bishops of Guadalajara and of these twenty-six were Spanish Peninsulars and seven were creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only five were Mexicans. I confess my ignorance; I do not understand Señor Zamacois’s arithmetic—the equality between 26 and 7. There were thirty-four Bishops of Michoacan, and of these there were thirty Spanish Peninsulars and four creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only two were Mexicans. Thirty equals four? Please, Señor Zamacois. There were thirty-one Archbishops of Mexico, of whom twenty-nine were Spanish Peninsulars and two creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only one was Mexican. Twenty-nine Spaniards and two creoles are equal.
* * * *
Adolfo Llanos, in treating this matter, goes (as is his custom farther than Zamacois, saying that the ecclesiastical offices of importance were obtained by the creoles, not equally with the Spaniards, but preponderantly over them.) He says:
“Americans were preferred by the Spanish Kings over Europeans, in the assignment of high ecclesiastical dignities.”
Let us leave Llanos and the other blind defenders of the vice-regal government.