Juarez and Cesar Cantú (1885)/I. The Sonora matter
The Sonora Matter.
WE do not hesitate to do full justice to the Italian historian by declaring that, with his great learning and correct judgment, he could not have acted in bad faith when he wrote against Juarez, thus permitting himself to become a voluntary accomplice or instrument of ignoble passions. But it is important to state that Cesar Cantú. was a personal friend and professor of Maximilian; that the latter had conferred upon him honorary appointments and commissions in public instruction, and that therefore he was not in a position of complete independence to judge of Mexico and of Juarez with entire impartiality. In addition; it is not a secret that this historian belongs to the Conservative party of Europe, and that he has maintained his sympathy for the Pope and the Clergy, having even acted as Secretary to an Œcumenical Council. These were not, as we have said before, the most fitting conditions to judge impartially of Juarez, who in Mexico was the champion of reform; and who, far from submitting to Maximilian, as certain deluded parties anticipated, fought against him without truce or rest, and thus worthily responded to the confidence universally reposed in him by his countrymen.
Withe regard to the judgment of the historian, we think the foregoing is sufficient to show the rock upon which his impartiality stumbled. With respect to the fact as it really is, we have to present it with all its antecedents. These are as follows:
In the session of the Spanish Senate, held on the 24th of December 1862, when discussing the reply to the speech from the Throne, General O'Donnell, then President of the Cabinet, said: "Juarez, as a Mexican, has, in my opinion, a stain which can never he effaced. Juarez has signed a treaty by which he sells to the United-States two provinces under the title of a pledge for two years, as a guarantee for a loan. . . . . This is a stain which I cannot imagine how the Mexicans will view. Were I a Mexican, I never would forgive him" [1]
The Duke of Tetuan was, then, one of the first who launched this unfounded accusation against the patriot Benito Juarez; but it was also to him that the illustrious Mexican first gave a solemn contradiction by publishing the letter which appeared in the Diario Oficial of February 23rd 1863. Juarez descended voluntarily from his lofty position as President, so that, as a simple citizen, he might say to the chief of the Spanish cabinet: "You are authorized to publish the proofs you may have upon this matter." The most absolute silence was the attitude assumed by O'Donnell, thereby demonstrating, once and for ever, the absurdity of the calumny with which it was attempted to blacken the brilliant reputation of the indefatigable defender of the independence of Mexico and the integrity of its territory.
It will not be out of place here to produce this letter of Benito Juarez, and the article which was written upon the subject by Don Manuel M. Zamacona, who was at that time editor of the Diario Oficial.
The following are the documents:
«The Diario of the Government of the Mexican Republic.—Volume I, number 16, February 23rd, 1863.
"A calumny against the President of the Republic.
«We have just received this letter:—National Palace, City of Mexico, February 22nd, 1863.—To the Editor of the Diario Oficial—My dear Sir:—I have just read in the Monitor Republicano of this date the speech which Señor O'Donell, President of the Spanish Cabinet, delivered in the discussion of the reply to the speech from the Throne, and I have seen with surprise, amongst other inaccurate statements, that Señor O'Donnell uses, in judging of the men and affairs of Mexico, the following remarkable words. . . . «Juarez, as a Mexican, has, in my opinion, a stain which can never be effaced: that of having desired to sell two provinces of his country to the United States». . . . This accusation, made by a high functionary of a nation, and on a serious and solemn occasion, in which a statesman ought to be careful that his words shall carry the seal of truth, of justice and of good faith, is an accusation seriously grave, because it might be suspected that, by reason of his high position, he holds documents to prove his statements. Yet this is not true. Señor O'Donnell is hereby authorized to publish the proofs which he may hold with regard to this matter. In the meanwhile my honor obliges me to state that Señor O'Donnell has erred in the judgment he has formed of my official proceedings; and I authorize you, Mr. Editor, to deny the imputation which is thus so unjustly made against the Chief Magistrate of the State.—I am, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant.—Benito Juarez.»
«Most willingly we comply with the request made in the foregoing letter. Our testimony can add nothing to the weight of the noble and sincere asseveration of the Chief Magistrate of the Republic. Nevertheless, we avail ourselves of this opportunity to declare that we have been induced by the firmest conviction to designate as a calumny, in the heading which we have given to these lines, that which the Chief of the Spanish Cabinet has uttered in his recent speech before the Cortes, when alluding to the present President of our Republic. An affirmation so false, when heard from the lips of a person in so high a position, makes us comprehend to what extent the systematic defamation made by the press and by intriguers has misled the judgment of persons who have the opportunity, and whose duty it is, to be well informed as to the affairs of Mexico.
«The speech of Marshal O'Donnell, which is the motive for this explanation, renders other important rectifications also necessary. We shall devote a subsequent article to this end, and we may perhaps make use of that opportunity to examine how far it may be legitimate to censure our governments for the manner in which they exercise the sovereign power of the Republic with regard to the free disposal ofits territory. We do not mean to say that the preservation of the integrity of the Nation does not form a part of our principles; but the susceptibility of our independence is hurt when we see the effort to make it a crime, on the part of Mexico, to do that which European nations do every day. We see that we are banned for an alleged attempt to cede two of our States, when no blame is uttered against the cession, for instance, of the two provinces, the acquisition of which has recently made the Emperor of the French so vainglorious in his speech at the opening of the legislative sessions. We are more jealous of the integrity of Mexican territory than are our censors across the seas; but we protest that no exceptional law should be exclusively invented for our own country.
« Let the question of law be what it may, we entertain the most profound conviction that not only has the Government of Mexico never thought of alienating one single inch of the Republic, but that the very idea of such an act has always been rejected with repugnance and indignation by the present Executive. It is difficult for Spain to comprehend the absurd aspect which, for us who know the President of the Republic and who have been associated with him in his official acts, is presented by the imputation that he has attempted the alienation of national territory. We who have witnessed how he has resisted unhesitatingly the tempting offers which implied the salvation of the country in its present crisis, solely because these offers involved a depreciation of the national sovereignty or of the rights emanating therefrom; we who know, (and every Mexican knows) that on this matter the Chief Magistrate of the Republic is guided by something like a prejudice which is characteristic of him, we all can look with contempt, because of its improbability, upon the imputation to which we refer as simply absurd, were it not that the position of its author and the occasion which upon it was made, gave it another character. This makes it clear that, although the Mexican question has lately been widely discussed, great errors yet remain to be dissipated, and great truths to be brought to light.
«The characteristic susceptibility of the President of the Republic, on the subject under consideration, explains the promptitude with which, inmediately after the arrival of the last news from Europe, he felt inclined to make by himself, and in a letter written by his own hand, the explanation we have just inserted. In that letter he invites Marshal O'Donnell to publish the data upon which he has attempted to attribute to the President of Mexico the intention to alienate a part of our territory, and we feel sure that such data will never be produced, because it is simply impossible to produce the proofs of that which has never occurred. This is known to all the inhabitants of the Republic; and were it not unworthy of the Chief of the Nation to appeal to witnesses, he could invoke the testimony of eight millions of Mexicans.
«Marshal O'Donnell repeats, without knowing it, one of those charges which the personal enemies of the President have propagated all over Europe, conscious as they are that the silly and absurd nature of these calumnies makes it impossible to circulate them in Mexico. It has been once attempted to use these arms even here against the Chief of the Nation; but a victorious vindication was the immediate result, and public opinion has rendered its accustomed tribute to justice, and has confounded the calumniator.
«As a proof of this, we deem it opportune to reproduce an article published in the Siglo XIX, during the early days of June 1861.[2]—M. M. Zamacona.» Upon landing in Veracruz, General Forey said:
"It is not against te Mexican people that I come to make war, but it is against a handful of men without scruple and without conscience, who have trampled upon justice, governing by means of sanguinary terror, and who, to support themselves, are not ashamed to sell the territory of their country to foreigners by piecemeal."
It was natural that this calumny, uttered by the chief of the expedition, or rather by Napoleon III himself, since it was he who indite Forey's proclamation, should find an echo later on in the French Legislative Body, and it was there in fact where M. Corta repeated, on the 15th of April 1865, the accusation against Juarez, affirming most positively that he had sold the State of Sonora to the United-States for seventy five millions of francs. Just as it might be expected, the calumnious statement was immediately denied, and it was Mr. Romero who denied it, in a letter dated the 2nd of May of the same year, which he addressed to the President of the Associated Press of New-York. The letter was published in the newspapers of said city.
In the resolutions reported by the Committee appointed by the Council of Notables to decide upon the form of government which should be given to Mexico, a committee which was composed of Don Ignacio Aguilar, Don Joaquin Velasquez de Leon, Don Teofilo Marin, and Don Cayetano Orozco, it was said: "The world already knows the attempts made by the Government of Juarez in Veracruz, and afterwards in Mexico, to obtain a direct protectorate by the United-States, which would have been the death of our independence." It is thus seen that at all times even to the present, the political enemies of Mexico, that is to say, the partisans of the Church and of the Empire, have sought to stain the historic reputation of our great citizen, by attributing to him the intention, and even more, the attempt to sell the national territory to the United-States.
The Diario Oficial of the Empire of June 26th, 1865, constituting itself, in bad faith, the echo of the statements published by a foreign newspaper, said, when speaking of Maximilian: "his own predecessor (Juarez) offered the "very same territory (Sonora) to President Lincoln for "three millions of pounds sterling."
But it is not strange that foreign speculators and wandering adventurers should accept the calumny when there were Mexicans who, perhaps without conviction, undertook to propagate it.
One of them was the lawyer Don José Maria Aguirre, who in 1861 was enrolled with the fifty one members of Congres who endeavoured to declare the election of President Juarez null and void. Mr. Aguirre formulated the same charge against Juarez; a charge which was rejected as unfounded by the same members of the opposition belonging to the fraction of the fifty one. That distinguished journalist, Francisco Zarco, chief editor of the Siglo XIX, published, in connection with this matter, the remarkable article which we now reproduce, and to which Mr. Zamacona refers in his article of the Diario Oficial already cited. That article confirms these two important truths: the refusal of Juarez to solicit foreign aid, even against the opinion of his own friends and political coreligionists, and the absolute absence of facts on which to base the accusation preferred by Aguirre.
The following is Zarco’s article:
An accusation against the President of the Republic.
«The whole country remembers, undoubtedly, the afflicting circumstances which surrounded the Constitutional Government in the early days of its permanence at Veracruz, when dismay reigned all over the districts subjected to the Church party, and where, it is a fact, the liberals did not abound as they do to day. The condition of the interior of the Republic was painful indeed, and its situation abroad could not be worse, after the empty farce of power created by the reactionary faction in Tacubaya had been recognized as the legitimate Government of the country, thanks to the intrigues and to the interests of a European diplomatist whose memory can never be forgotten. At that time it was looked upon as a hope, as an advantage, that the Constitutional Government should succeed in obtaining recognition by the United-States of America, the liberal party believing that the moral influence of the neighboring republic, its mercantile interest, and even its physical support, would be auxiliaries to the national cause, and would hasten the triumph of right principles.
«In this aspiration, which became general among the most distinguished members of the liberal party, there was one who did not participate, who openly refused to call foreign troops to his aid, whether they were to be of the regular army of the United States, or whether they were to be volunteers who, on arriving in Mexican territory, would renounce their nationality and, after the campaign should have ended, would receive public lands on which to settle, in recompense of the services which they might lend to their adopted country. The man who thought that this plan was not consistent with the national decorum, the man who in this extreme resort foresaw a danger to our independence; he who never despaired of the Mexican people, believing that alone and without foreign help they would reconquer their liberty and institutions, was the President of the Republic; and thanks to his tenacious and obstinate resistance at that time, we owe the failure of any international treaty between government and government, and of any contract with private parties for the purpose of bringing foreign forces to the Republic to follow the Constitutional banners. In the same manner he was opposed to the idea of loans if, in the contract to obtain them, there was to be any stipulation which would bring with them great international obligations.
«What we have just stated is proved by well known facts, and it is authentic and incontrovertible. Juarez was then blamed as obstinate and pertinacious by many of his friends, a charge that was repeated later on when, with the same tenacity, he refused to accept a reconciliation with the Church party and the mediation of foreign powers in the settlement of our internal questions. Two capital ideas were in the mind of the President: a scrupulous zeal for independence, for the nationality of his country and for the integrity of its territory, together with an unlimited confidence in the triumph of public opinion, and in the people, believing that of themselves they would recover their rights without the disgrace of foreign aid.
«We asserted that the President almost alone rejected the opinions which were then entertained by many members of the liberal party, and in saying so we give to each one his due. Many military chiefs declared that it was necessary to enrol foreign volunteers. Some others wished not only soldiers but also officers. Miguel Lerdo de Tejada and Governor Zamora participated in these ideas, which, we frankly confess, since we do not fear the responsability for our opinions, were our own under those sad circumstances. In vain the President was entreated; in vain were proposed the most studied precautions to avoid any circumstances which might injure or impair the independence or the dignity of the Republic; in vain the idea was combined with some other projects, joining it with the necessity of colonization, of making religious liberty effective, of maintaining, after the victory, an element of material force that would complete the pacification of the country. Juarez rejected all these ideas; he had disagreements even with many of his friends. In his correspondence he always opposed the project, and persevering in the struggle, events have shown that he was right. Thanks to him, the Republic overcame its opressors without any other aid than that of her own resources and the intrepid efforts of her own sons. There exist a good many letters written by Juarez to prove our assertions.
«So far are we from wishing now to formulate any charge against the persons who thought of recruiting a foreign force, that we have just said that we ourselves were among them. We believed that this was the last resort for the prompt re-establishment of peace; but we did not overlook its inconveniences, and to day we rejoice when we see that the progressive revolution, in its triumph, finds itself free from such inconveniences.
« It was necessary to refer to what has passed in order to express our astonishment on seeing that in one of the late sessions of Congress, a member, Mr. Aguirre, accused the President of treason, bringing up as a reproach, the celebration of the Ocampo-Mac Lane treaty, in which, if it be true that great concessions were made to the United-States, it is also certain that not all the advantages they solicited were granted, as is proved by the fact that the said convention was rejected by the American Senate. The text of the treaty, be its tenor what it may, furnishes no foundation on which a charge against the President could rest, since it is well known that the right to introduce amendments and modifications exists suntil the very moment of the ratification of treaties. As for the rest, the commercial immunities, the right of transit for American troops on certain occasions, do not involve an attack on the national independence, nor can they justify the charge of treason launched forth so hastily by the Deputy from Nuevo Leon and Coahuila.
«We have not the right to investigate what may be the intentions of Mr. Aguirre. Conscience is a sanctum into which we cannot penetrate, and we are only allowed to judge of facts from what is patent and apparent in them.
«In critical and solemn moments for the country, we do not think it prudent to sxcite alarms or distrust, or to attempt to depreciate the worthy citizen whose republican virtues, whose love for independence, whose sincere adhesion to our institutions are undoubted by the whole country, and whose constancy and integrity have contributed more than anything else to the re-establishment of the constitutional regimen.
«If in the pretended presidential question, and we say pretended, because really there is no such question, when the laws are clear and definite, as we shall soon demonstrate, it is the intention to extol one candidate, there is no necesity to depreciate the other, nor to ignore the thousand rights whereby he has acquired the acknowledgements of his fellow-citizens,
«But be this as it may, the accusation made by Mr. Aguirre is somewhat late, and it contradicts the eulogies which he, as President of Congress, offered to Juarez in his speech delivered on the day in which the sessions were opened. It cannot be said that the usual courtesies or the official urbanity demanded those eulogies. The President of Congress was only obliged to reply in general terms, and he was under no necessity to applaud the acts of the funtionary whom he now calls a traitor.
«Mr. Aguirre, when the sessions commenced, was among those who offered their support to the Executive for the purpose of consolidating the institutions, of securing the constitutional regime and of pacifying the country, how could he believe that such noble intentions as these could be held by the Magistrate whom he now calls a traitor.
«The election of Mr. Aguirre as President of Congress was considered by those who are familiar with politics, and by the public in general, as a favorable symptom for the Executive, so much so that his Honor's name was mentioned in the various combinations which were formed to compose a parliamentary Cabinet, and we do not believe that Mr. Aguirre would have refused a portfolio at that time. Would he have consented to associate himself with the President against whom he launches forth the epithet of traitor?
«We will applaud the examination of the Mac-Lane treaty and all the documents relating to it, by the National Representation, because such an examination must result in the triumph of truth and the honor of the functionary who, during three years of conflict and danger, has been the firm representative of the principle of legality.
«But this examination can only be useful to rectify public opinion, if it has been in any way influenced by Mr. Aguirre's words. The responsibility of Juarez is purely a matter of opinion, since the Constitution makes public functionaries responsible for consummated acts, and not for simple opinions, or on account of acts which were only in the way of being executed.
«How can Mr. Aguirre know, how can the jury know, what were the intentions of Juarez respecting the Mac-Lane treaty, what the modifications he would have proposed, if the negotiations had been renewed, or to what articles he would have refused his ratification? This simple question destroys all the charges, and the hope earnestly expressed by some organs of the press that this incident would be sufficient to render it impossible for the present depository of the Executive Power to attain the Constitutional Presidency of the Republic.
«We see with satisfaction that Mr. Ruiz, who was Minister of Justice when the Mac-Lane treaty was negotiated, has promptly taken up Mr. Aguirre's words and intends to refute them. In this not only the reputation of Juarez, Ruiz and the other members of the Government of that time are interested, but also the decorum of the liberal party and the dignity of the Republic, which would not be without a stain if it was a fact that a band of traitors had been acknowledged as the centre of the national unity. We feel sure that Mr. Melchor Ocampo will not allow this matter pass unnoticed, and that with his characteristic frankness he will bring to light all that ought to be known.
«Thus far the effect of the accusation has been contrary to the expectations of its author, whom we unexpectedly find among the zealous defenders of individual rights, for we remember that they did not merit too much respect from him when he was a member of the Cabinet of General Arista.
«Congress, instead of being alarmed, instead of suddenly distrusting the Executive, silenced the accusation by passing a vote of confidence and approving in general the suspension of guarantees, whereby the power and authority of the President of the Republic is strengthened.
«It would be painful on this occasion to draw a parallel, between the public life of the accused and that of the accuser. II we did, we could then see on whose side are to be found the greater firmness of principles, the greater political consistency, and the greater adhesion to democratic institutions. But so ungrateful a task is altogether useless, since the charge of treason preferred against Mr. Juarez can find no echo in public opinion, which beholds in this citizen one of the most illustrious and noble nationalists who have presided over the destinies of the country.
«Public opinion cannot hesitate between Mr. Juarez and the author of the celebrated decree of the 21st of September 1852, which suppressed the liberty of the press.—Francisco Zarco.»
Even in our own days, although it seems incredible, the attempt has been made to prove that Juarez sold to the Americans a part of the national territory, under the pretext of a contract for colonization. What is strange, what is incomprehensible, is that the man who unceasingly struggled against three European powers, always defending the integrity and the autonomy of his country, is precisely the man who is accused of having entered into unworthy treaties, whether with a foreign government, or whether with private colonization companies, to sell to them the honor and the territory of Mexico. There are accusations so absurd, that, frankly, they do not deserve the honors of refutation.
In order to judge, as justice demands, of the public life of Juarez, it must be borne in mind that, sanguinary and fierce as was the struggle sustained by Mexico against the French army, and against the Church partisans who joined the foreign invaders, thanks to the energy of Juarez, worthily supported by the liberal party, that war terminated without the loss of one single inch of our territory, without recognizing on our part, any indemnity or debt to the enemy in the event of signing with him a treaty of peace.
As a contrast, we can cite what occurred after the colossal war between France and Germany. France lost Alsace and Lorraine, and was obliged to pay to Germany an indemnity of five thousand millions of francs. Italy, in her war with Austria, had to cede Nice and Savoy to France.
And this has happened not alone in Europe. We have seen in America what Peru has lost in her war with Chili.
Mexico alone, without signing a treaty, without granting away any right, without even listening to the terms of the invader, saw the war ended without making any sacrifice, either of her honor, her dignity, or her independence, or of the integrity of her territory.
And although this has happened before our own eyes, there are still persons who believe, or pretend to believe, and say that Juarez intended to cede to the Americans a portion of our national territory!
In the presence of an accusation which, having been so often repeated, has become puerile, and witnessing this fruitless desire to stain the spotless reputation of the patriot Benito Juarez, we must exclaim with Cesar Cantú himself: "Conscience demands that the accuser shall prove the veracity of his charges, and here the accused demands in vain THE PROOF, THE DOCUMENT, THE COURT OF HONOR."
But the truth manifests itself in such a manner and with such force, even to those most blinded by error or dominated by passion, as to make Cesar Cantú himself confess, in his biograply of Maximilian, that Juarez, ex-President of the Republic, was. . . . THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL PARTY.” It seems proper to mention this confession made by a personal friend of Maximilian, who was decorated by the latter with the Order of Guadalupe, since the partisans of the Empire have often declared that Juarez was the chief of the Mexican bandits, and that, supported by an oppresive minority, he imposed his will upon the Nation without having had its support at any time.
Cesar Cantú acknowledges also that that war (the Mexican) was intensely unpopular in France, but very favorable for the banking house of Jecker." This declaration places Maximilian in a very bad predicament. making him appear as an instrument or accomplice of that scandalous speculation in which Nopoleon III himself, the Duke of Morny and Jecker, were the prominent actors.
On the other hand, the Italian historian adds: "Forey and Bazaine achieved easy triumphs and captured Puebla and Mexico," and not a word does he say about the battle of the 5 th of May 1862, nor does he even mention the name of Laurencez. It is not in this way that history ought to be written; and it is difficult to believe that Cesar Cantú paid such a tribute to human frailties, in the presence of his own contemporaries, when speaking of events which made so much noise in the world, beause of their great importance and their immense signification.
In a book entitled: "Lombardy in the XVI Century" Cesar Cantú wrote the following words, which we take up and accept as thet best defence of Mexico and of the immortal Juarez: "WHEN HAS IT BEEN SEEN THAT SOPHISTRY AND BAYONETS COULD PREVAIL OVER THE FORCE OF TRUTH, WHICH IS THE MOST IRRESISTIBLE OF FORCES?"
How can it be explained that a person who thinks so justly, and who formulates such a magnificent axiom, should fall into the errors that his history contains, with regard to events the effects of which are still felt, and which have been judged of in Europe with all exactnees by truly impartial minds?
The reply to this question will appear natural to our readers, if they take in consideration the circumstances which we now proceed to mention.
Cesar Cantú was seventy two Years old when he published the first edition of his work in 1879, in the preface of which he said, with honest frankness: "I describe a past which dates from yesterday. Conciseness OBLIGES ME TO AGLOMERATE ASSERTIONS WITHOUT PROOFS OR PERSONAL JUDGEMENT."
It is not strange that in writing thus WITHOUT PROOFS (and he himself confesses the fact), Cesar Cantú should have incurred so many errors when speaking of Mexico and of Juarez,
Having thus demonstrated that the champion of Reform, who was also one of the most prominent defenders of the independence and of the integrity of Mexico, was very far from selling or mortgaging one single inch of the national territory, let us now see where were, and who truly were those that really sought to take posession of Sonora, with the pompous pretext of returning to the Latin race its vitality and its prestige on the other side of the Ocean.
In order to make these details known to Cesar Cantú himself, who appears to be ignorant of them, we will take as a preferable text the work written by Don Francisco de Arrangoiz, an author who certainly cannot be suspected by the Church party, and who moreover served Maximilian, and was an ally of the invader.
In his work entitled: Mexico from 1808 to 1867, Madrid, 1872, volume III, we find the following pages:
« Page 143.—We sought neither conquest nor the establishment of colonies, says the Minister for Foreign Affairs, while one of the objects of the intervention, the first in the mind of Napoleon, was the posession of the State of Sonora, a colonial establishment which would have been a great and useful acquisition for France." «Page 153.—"When the success of the expedition was perceived the projects of speculation were started in Paris, and many persons, among them some of high position who had been most opposed to the expedition and had most severely criticised Napoleon, were the first to endeavour to profit by his triumphs. The Sonora mines were the speculation which had most partisans. They did not know, as the Mexicans then did not know, that Napoleon had already taken his measures to convert that rich State into a French colony; a project which he afterwards partly abandoned, because His Majesty undoutedly understood all the inconveniences it presented, and he limited his desire to have a treaty made in Mexico between Almonte and Salas and M. de Montholon, successor of Saligny, by which treaty mining privileges, in open opposition with the laws of Mexico, were granted to France; privileges which were really a cession of Sonora to France; but this also was not carried out,
«A few weeks before the treaty was made in Mexico, Doctor Gwin, an emigrant from the South of the United-States, residing in Paris, presented another project to colonize Sonora with several thousand families from the Confederate States. Acoording to this project, they were to govern themselves as they pleased, independently, in fact, of the Government of Mexico. The approbation of the Arch duke was solicited for it, as this was deemed absolutely necessary. To this end the Doctor wrote to him, the project being recommended by Señor Gutierrez Estrada who had agreed to do so, fascinated as he undoubtedly was by the idea of carrying enemies of the United-States to Mexico, and an energetic race.»
«Pages 178 to 180.—A few days after the conflict between the Archbishop, Almonte and Salas, became known in Paris, it was rumored that the new Empire was to be given up to its own fate, France keeping Sonora in payment of her debt. The time has come to prove that the rumor was well founded, since M. L. Debrauz de Saldepenna, director of Le Memorial Diplomatique, and, as I have said before, an old confident of Maximilian, in a long letter, dated July 14th 1865, which I have read, and in which he reminded Maximilian of the services he had rendered to His Majesty, said: «That M. Drouyn de Lhuys knew, since he himself proposed to the Emperor of the French to confide to him (to M. Debrauz) the painful mission of breaking the news, in December 1863, when the great majority of the Cabinet, in view of the conflict which had arisen between Marshal Bazaine and the Archbishop of Mexico, insisted on giving up Mexico to her own fate, after having occupied Sonora render the title of guarantee, that altough he was ill, he had started for Miramar; that neither Gutierrez Estrada nor Hidalgo had dared to present to Maximilian any thing like an ultimatum to the effect that he should undertake his voyage within the term of two or three months, or abandon his candidature.
«It is not true that it was proposed to Hidalgo to go to Miramar upon such a disagreable mission. Like the rest of the Mexicans, he only heard the rumor and did not believe it. I myself, giving full credit to M. Debrauz's letter, as I think it deserves, call the attention of the reader to that part which is put in Italics, to remind him of what I have said about Sonora, so that he may keep in view what I shall yet have to say with regard to projects whereby Mexico was to lose that rich State. And it may be noted that not all of the French personages who were in favor of the intervention, thought of making the Latin race to recover on the other side of the Ocean its vitality and prestige. They wanted speculations and mines on the other side of the Ocean.
«Very respectable persons have told me that General Miramon did not entertain the least doubt with regard to the pretensions of France to posess itself of Sonora, «Because, Miramom said to them, when he emgrated after leaving the Presidency on account of the victory of the Juaristas in Calpulalpam, on the 23rd of December 1860, that no sooner did he arrive in Paris than M. de Morny went to see him, and in very affectionate terms proposed the sale of Sonora and Lower California to France.» to which proposal Miramon replied that «although he had been President with extraordinary powers, he was at that moment nothing at all» M. de Morny replied: that «he would endeavour to bring about some form to obviate this dificulty, provided Miramon would agree to the views of France.» Miramon then put an end to the conversation by stating to M. de Morny that «if his own acts could yet have any force, he would not perform them to the injury of his country.» Perhaps this conversation was the cause of the harshness with which the French Government treated Miramon, notwithstanding that he had been President, that he had solicited the intervention, and that he was the chief of the Church party, and was also the cause of the desire of General Bazaine to get him out of Mexico, fearing that on account of his prestige, Miramon could be an obstacle to the realization of the views of France respecting Sonora, or to aid Doctor Gwin.»
He afterwards speaks of the secret additional articles of the Convention concluded between Napoleon III and Maximilian, and says:
«Page 204.—The fifth article is ambiguous. Being drawn up by the French Government, care was taken not to express the fact that when there was an equality of rank, the French officer, out of deference and policy, would command, and that when there was a chief or an officer of superior grade, he should command, whether he might be Mexican or French. Relying on this article, the French always tried to command the Mexican officers who were their superiors. Thus, Mexican colonels would be subordinated to French captains &c.
«The first of the secret additional articles shows very plainly that without regard to the Conservative principles, by deceiving the persons who formed that party and hoaxing the monarchists, Napoleon and Maximilian, attending only to their own private projects, had taken resolutions contrary to the opinion of the country, in the gravest and most transcendent questions. Maximilian agreed to the indications of Napoleon, because it suited his ambitious projects respecting Austria; and he deceived Napoleon by making him believe that he accepted in good faith the throne of Mexico, when he really wished it to serve merely as a theatre in which he could make himself known to the Austrian ultra-liberals. The article to which I refer comprised all that had been done by Generals Almonte and Salas, in the affair of the promissory notes, the treaty respecting Sonora, and the bank concession.»
«Page 279.—Mr. Gwin had not abandoned his project for the colonization of Sonora. In order to be able to carry it out, he again saw Napoleon and asked his co operation; and although, according to the dispatch of Hidalgo, dated April 30th of the preceding year, M. Drouyn de Lhuys had said that he did not give him Mr. Gain's project with the intention of recommending it to him, hut solely with that of making it known to the Mexican Government, yet Napoleon recommended General Bazaine, through M. Corta, Secretary to His Majesty, to protect the plan of Mr. Gwin.
The recommendation of a project so fatal for the Empire having become publicly known, the press attacked it very severely, especially the satirical newspapers La Orquesta, La Sombra, La Cuchara, El Buscapié andLos Espejuelos del Diablo, the editors of which were imprisoned on the 22nd of March, by order of Marshal Bazaine, the French chief disingenuously alleging, as the basis of this arbitrary measure, that the decree of November 1863, declaring a state of siege, was still in force»
«Page 281.—In no particular have there been more absurdities committed, during the Empire, than in the colonization projects. It was desired that the Latin race should recover its vitality and prestige on the other side of the ocean, so as to form a dyke which would stem the invadding torrent from the United States, and we see that Na. poleon himself was favorable to the projects of Doctor Gwin in taking a colony of the invading race to Mexico, to the provinces most distant from the capital, where the Government could least make its sthrength be felt; that therefore he aided the project, with the means to continue its work, to subjugate the Latin race, and to exterminate the Indian.
«It Was not even proposed to send any Mexican, Spanish or French families; the colony of Gwin was to consist exclusively of people from the United States, Protestant in religion like himself.»[3]
There were really functionaries who did not feel ashamed, as Forey said, to propose the sale of Sonora as a compensation for the generous protection imparted by Napoleon III to the Empire. All the world then knew the attempts that were being made to secure aftewards a direct protectorate by France; and there were not lacking those who desired to carry the stain, to use the words of General O'Donnell, o£ ceding a Mexican province, as a gratuitous guarantee in financial combinations of a certain class. But amongst those men who thus lost all shame, and who thus stained their reputations, Benito Juarez is not to be included, if history is to form the impartial narration of events, and is to be the reflection of the truth. The names and the nationality of those men are revealed very clearly by Don Francisco de Arrangoiz.
The patriotism of Juarez and the energy and courage of the national party which supported him, saved not only Sonora, but the whole territory of the Republic, seriously menaced as it was by the servile complacency of those who brought and aided the invaders.
These are the historic facts which make the personality of Juarez shine out in all his patriotism and love for the independence and the integrity of his country. We now proceed to discuss the absurd accusations made against him by Cesar Cantú, when he refers to the delivery of the body of Maximilian.[4]
- ↑ A clear proof of the candor of General O'Donell, as well as of the value of the sources from which he obtained his information, is the fact that during the same session of the Senate and in the same speech, he read a communication from the Conservative leader Don Felix Zuloaga, dated in Habana, August 14th 1862, in which this gentleman attributes to Juarez the intention to "exterminate the whole white race in Mexico." How then can it surprise us that the Duke of Tetuan should have given credit to the false report relative to the sale of the two provinces, if he believed that Juarez was the promoter of a war of races?
- ↑ The article to which Mr. Zamacona refers will be inserted hereafter.
- ↑ All the parragrapls here copied are taken literally from the last work of Francisco de Arrangoiz, entitled "Mexico from 1808 to 1867."—Madrid.—1872.
Respecting the cession of the State of Sonora to France, the work entitled: OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS COLLECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRIVATE SECRETARY OF MAXIMILIAN. A history of the French Intervention in Mexico by E. Lefevre.—Brussels and London, 1869.—Volume II, chapter VI, may also be consulted.
Also A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE FRENCH INTERVENTION IN MEXICO by José María Iglesias.—Mexico, 1869, and what has been afterwards published respecting these machinations in the CORRESPONDENCE OF THE MEXICAN LEGATION IN WASHINGTON.—Mexico, 1871, volume V.
Lastly, while we are speaking of the cession of territory, it is not out of place to reccommend to our readers that valuable document published by the Gaceta del Lunes, in its issue of July 27th, 1885. As it appears in this document. General Santa Anna proposed to the United States the sale of any portion or portions of the territory of Mexico, commissioning for this affair a certain Gabor Naphegy, who, of course, would have a good brokerage therefor, and who was Santa Anna's authorized agent, minister or something else, for it cannot otherwise be easily understood what signification that obscure personality really had.
- ↑ As a still further confirmation of what is stated in these last pages, we can add that Mr. Romero, the Mexican Minister in Washington, in an official note addressed to the Mexican Government then in Chihuahua, on the 19th of January. 1865, mentioned the project at that time attributed to Maximilian, of ceding to France a large part of the national territory. The same Mr. Romero also addressed to Secretary William H. Seward a protest, under date of February 6th, 1860, "against the cession which the Archduke of Austria, Ferdinand Maximiliam, has made, or is about to make, of several States of the Mexican Republic to the French Government."
With regard to the projects of Napoleon, Maximilian and their partisans and agents, relative to the cession of territory, the parties mentioned afterwards disguised these plans under the projected colonization of Mr. Gwin. The fifth volume of the correspondence of the Mexican Legation in Washington may be consulted concerning these combinations. It contains data and details of the greatest importance respecting those events.