said, because they shared in the gains, or feared revelations. It is sufficient to instance the military inefficiency and maladministration of the drunkard Álvarez in Oajaca, the several cases of disobedience of orders during the campaigns, with their lamentable results, and lately the arraignment of Iturbide for extortions and other abuses in Guanajuato.[1] Calleja could hardly excuse himself on the ground that loyal officers were too scarce to permit strict investigation of conduct.
His neglect caused him to be widely burdened with all the evil growing out of a prolonged war. such as excessive taxes and forced loans, partly levied also by district commanders and distributed for a long time with pressing inequality, to the ruin of many families and localities. Add to this a severity which converted campaigns into bloody retaliations and barbarous man-hunting, and sent a number of prominent persons to languish in exile.[2] One acceptable reason presented by Calleja for the long continuance of the war was the liberal sentiment fostered by the constitution of 1812, and the discontent roused in so many quarters by its withdrawal, with a consequent readiness to serve and shelter insurgents.[3] He also pointed to the independent action observed by Cruz in Nueva
- ↑ So loud an outcry rose against him that he had to leave his command and appear at Mexico in April 1816 to answer. The affair was so managed, however, that none within his provinces dared appear against him, fearing his vengeance, and so he was readily absolved. Gaz. de Mex., 1816, vii. 892. The cura of Guanajuato, Doctor Labarrieta, alone made a vain, protest exposing his speculations with convoys, grain, etc., through agents, and his neglect and cruelty, and this was undeniably confirmed by persons at Mexico. Alaman, Hist. Méj., iv. 445-51. Iturbide declined to return to his command. Armijo made a fortune by speculating with the convoys, and so did others. See chapter xxiii., this volume.
- ↑ Among these were Fagoaga, honorary alcalde de corte to the audiencia, and a Spaniard by birth, but with a Mexican family and Mexican sympathies; Marqués de Rayas, who managed to stay, however; Relator Matoso Adalid, a rich land owner of Apam. The foremost to bear testimony against him, however, was Abad y Queipo, bishop elect of Michoacan, called to Spain early in 1815 under pretence of giving his views on the revolution. His able and scathing report on Calleja may be consulted in Negrete, Mej. Siglo XIX., vii. 119-50; also Vidaurre, Votos; Expos, á las Córtes, 8; Vindicacion Escritores, 2-4; Pap. Var., clx. pt xiv., Ixviii. ccxv. pt x.
- ↑ Letter of Aug. 1814, in Bustamante, Cuad. Hist., MS., i. sup.
