... The coming Mexico

Front matter

THE COMING

Glass Book

GopyriglitN^.

Preface

THE title of this book will probably suggest to the reader that I intend to venture into the dangerous domain of prophecy, and presume to give my opinion as to what may be the political future of Mexico. Such, however, is not my intention; for had there been any temptation to do so, the experience of others who have yielded would effectually deter me. One author, who wrote less than ten years ago, expressed the conviction that no prolonged revolution was likely to occur; but even if it did, the good that President Diaz had accomplished could not thereby be undone.

Because Mexico had enjoyed peace for a generation imder the dictatorship, practically, of that strong man, it was assumed the other leaders had lost the tendency to seize the power when an opportunity seemed to be given; and the masses had become so convinced that in tranquillity alone lay their true course, as to make it impossible for ambitious leaders, quarreUing amongst themselves, to draw about them the armed forces required to carry out their schemes. In fact, there was no probability of occasion arising to give excuse for civil strife.

Should the people depart from the path of peace which Diaz had blazed so clearly for them, it was contended that the United States would intervene and possibly annex Mexico; for the large interests of American and European investors, as well as the safety of foreign residents generally, would make it necessary to do something of the sort.

V

VI PREFACE

The patriotic Mexicans were depicted as being so vigorously opposed to such forcible destruction of their national integrity, that they would bury the hatchet and continue quietly and firmly to support the estabHshed government which was President Diaz's legacy to his country.

Another writer, whose opinion was expressed with even greater confidence and within less than five years from the time of penning these words, declares that Mexico owes practically everything to the long sustained government of Porfirio Diaz: "its reorganisation as a Nation; its rehabilitation as a Power among the countries of the earth; and a force hereafter to be reckoned with. " The indebtedness cannot be denied; but that the lesson has been taken seriously to heart cannot be afiirmed.

Yet, again, the conviction has been confidently expressed that Mexico no longer needs a defender, and is not now in any way dependent upon the architect, that is Diaz, who laid broad the foundation for this Mexico of the Twentieth Century, and himself commenced a superstructure which is to be enduring. It was said that if Diaz must pass away, his guiding hand may be dispensed with, and that without fear of untoward consequences. The Mexicans, leaders and people alike, had come so thoroughly to appreciate and love the blessings which abiding peace conferred, that it was impossible for them to permit of a relapse into the chaos of a quarter of a century or so ago.

But that which was pronounced improbable, or impossible even, has come about, and for more than a year there has been in the northern part of the Republic of Mexico a condition of turmoil and revolution which has caused the United States Government grave anxiety, and compelled it to expend large sums of money in safeguarding the frontier. The property of foreigners has been jeopardised, sometimes

PREFACE Vll

destroyed; their lives have been in danger and some of them have actually been murdered.

This state of affairs must cause a writer to hesitate long before venturing to express another opinion as to the substantiabiHty of Mexico's Government and the permanency of the conditions which President Diaz left when he was driven from his country in 191 1. That these conditions should be, is something that everyone who has faith in the possibihties that are spread before a peaceful, progressive Mexico, must regret deeply.

My first visit to Mexico was made in 1866. That was the time of the lumbering old diligencia, and I saw some of these on the road between Manzanillo and CoUma. They are even now to be seen, I am told, in some of the mountain regions. There were quite a number of my fellowpassengers by the steamer from Panama who were going to Colima by these stage-coaches. No man who could sit a horse ever entrusted himseK to those joint-wrenching vehicles; and the traveUing I have done in Mexico, when there was no railway, has been in the saddle.

There was not a Une of railway in the RepubHc at that time which merited the title; for even the Vera Cruz-Mexico line was not built; and Mexico was as sleepy, improgressive a country as one could find. It was not altogether peaceful; because there was war with foreign invaders, as the patriotic Mexicans called the French, and there was jealousy between native leaders. Progress could hardly be said to have begun.

Later, from the north, I made my way down into the country from the American frontier; that, too, was done in the saddle, and it was before the new life had begun to stir. Since then it has been my privilege to see much of the more recent development and to meet many men, not only Mexicans but investors and bona fide promoters from various viii PREFACE

countries who are lending themselves to the development of Mexico's magnificent natural resources.

The opportunities for actual, personal investigation have not been so exhaustive as I could wish; yet the not inconsiderable knowledge gained has given a certain ability to sift the evidence of others. The combination of personal knowledge and adaptation justifies the expression of great confidence in The Coming Mexico.

J. K. Goodrich

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Ancient Mexico ......... i

II. Physical Mexico 15

Chapter I Ancient Mexico

THE main purpose of this book is, of course, to consider the Mexico that we know to-day and, perhaps, to speculate upon what may be the future fate of the RepubHc. But before giving our attention strictly to the twenty-seven individual states, the one federal district (the congener of our District of Columbia), and the three territories that make up the country known officially as The United States of Mexico, it will be interesting to consider how the present Republic has developed.

Indeed, we cannot properly understand the Mexico of to-day, unless we know something of the interesting peoples who inhabited all that portion of the continent of North America, which may roughly be defined as embracing these states of our Union, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Utah, together with portions of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, and stretching down quite to the Isthmus of Panama, including, of course, the long, narrow peninsula of Lower Cahfornia, although that is not yet of much economic importance.

Not forgetting or overlooking what we owe to Humboldt, it is toPrescott, The Conquest of Mexico, wt turn'for practically all that we have of even approximately precise information and for pretty much all justifiable speculation upon doubtful points in the past. We supplement Prescott with Viscount Kingsborough's monumental work, The Antiquities of Mexico, for wider knowledge of the civiHsation and culture of the advanced peoples who were in possession of the land when the Spaniards came. So, too, for those who must have been Uving in the central and northern parts of Old or Greater Mexico, certainly. It is more than Hkely those people had extended their sway far down into the southern parts of the present Mexico, as well as into some, at least, of the other Central American RepubHcs which have developed and grown up within the past century.

The name, Mexico, was given by the Spaniards to the whole region occupied by numerous tribes who called themselves collectively Mexica (the plural form of the singular, Mexicatl) or Aztecs. It should be noted that, strictly, when transliterating Aztec words, the letter x (or j) ought to be given the vocaHc value of the EngHsh sound sh. Therefore, Mexitli and Mexico would, properly, be pronounced Meshitli and Meshico. But they do not appear ever to have been so rendered by the Spaniards, who naturally gave to the x the ordinary Spanish sound, something similar to the modern German c^.* It is impossible to express the softer Spanish sound of that letter x with any letters of our alphabet; for it is not precisely the German ch. One must learn to imitate the sound as it falls from a Mexican's or Spaniard's lips.

If we cannot all grow quite so enthusiastic over Mexico's ancient history as to say, with some writers, that it is fascinating, no one, hardly, who has given it something more than a passing thought, can be so lethargic as not to agree with us when we say it is exceed-

* See A. J. Lamoureaux's article, Mexico, in Enc. Brit., nth ed.

ANCIENT MEXICO 3

ingly interesting. To be able to stand on spots that are simply overflowing with historic interest, must always appeal to those who are ordinarily indifferent or lacking in sentiment.

The student of the history of Mexico may still visit many spots connected with its earliest days. There is, in the very heart of the present City of Mexico, the place where stood the great temple of the Aztec gods. Hard by is the site of Montezuma's palace. That Aztec war-chief, or ^'emperor" of Mexico, was known to his own people as Xocoyotzin (ho-ko-yot-zen, the h strongly aspirated). In and around the palace many Spaniards were ruthlessly slaughtered by the incensed natives on La Noche Triste ("The Sorrowful Night") when the European invaders were compelled to flee from the city. After reading what history tells us of the manners and methods of the Spanish conquerors, can we truly say that those Mexicans were without provocation for the vengeance which they wreaked?

Not very far away from the centre of the city, guides still point out what they declare is the very tree beneath which Cortes threw himself down to weep over the untoward defeat of La Noche Triste. Then, jumping over the intervening years of about three centuries, the events connected with the War for Mexican Independence, 181 1 to 182 1, when Spanish influence came to an end, appeal strongly to the historian and student of pohtical institutions. So, likewise, do the many internal troubles which followed that successful attempt to throw off the Spanish yoke, but before anything approaching a settled form of domestic, independent repubHcan government was estabHshed. After considering these matters, the thought naturally reverts to the wars of invasion: our own in 1846-7, and that of the French in 1862, leading up to the episode of ''emperor" Maximilian, 1864 to 1867. There are, besides, many other events of more or less importance during the centuries of Mexico's recorded history, some of which will be considered later.

The historian to-day has great difficulty in keeping his wrath from forcible explosion, when he thinks of what we might know of Mexico's early history, had not the bigotry and ignorance of Spanish priests and soldiers caused the wanton, senseless destruction of native records

— in monument or manuscript. Had all of these which were found been carefully preserved, they could, in all probability, throw a flood of hght upon the development

— it is, perhaps, too much to say origin — of a civilisation that compelled even the Spaniards to respect it. There is no possibility of comparison between what these last mentioned adventurers met in Mexico and that which the English and French pioneers found in the more northern and eastern parts of the same continent.

We owe very much to the sociological and linguistic investigations of the Roman Catholic missionaries in many parts of the world; but we must, speaking candidly yet as charitably as possible, also hold them responsible for mad destruction of ''heathen" records and material that would be of inestimable value to the ethnologist. Mexico is one of the worst examples of the irremediably bad effects of unwise religious zeal. The destruction wrought by those first European visitors who, honestly no doubt, thought they were doing a sacred duty, was never compensated for by the efforts of others.

After the Conquest, a few Spanish chroniclers tried to collect oral traditions. Some of the natives who had learnt Spanish professed to write a history of their country, based upon those same traditions and the Httle

Courtyard of the Federal Palace, Queretaro

ANCIENT MEXICO 5

that survived of records. The combined efforts of these two classes of chroniclers produced a considerable amount of material which Prescott digested and used in writing his '' Conquest of Mexico." Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft has found this material helpful in writing his "History of the Pacific States"; a series that includes Mexico and Central America in its scope. Bancroft had the great advantage of having secured, by purchase, the remarkable collection of E. G. Squier and a large part of that of Maximilian. That the material supplied by the earliest Spanish chroniclers and native historians is a blending of a very few facts and a great deal of fiction, need not be affirmed.

Mexican civilisation is known to be one of great antiquity. It was, too, of a high order even when the Spaniards first came in touch with it; although there are irrefutable evidences that it had then been lowered from the higher plane it had attained in previous times. But of the earhest inhabitants of that country, practically nothing is known. The ruins which are scattered all over the land indicate conclusively, both by their size and by their character, that the work of those who precede by ages the Aztecs of Spanish days, was of an order which connotes high civilisation. The unsolvable mystery which surrounds the prehistoric builders of those monuments is, even now, increased by the discovery, from time to time, of strange relics.

The jade ornaments which almost certainly came from China; the stone idols and statues that bear a marked and perplexing resemblance to Eg3^tian productions of times long, long past; the structures which seem to follow with singular, inexplicable fidelity the ancient architecture of the Nile Valley pyramids; the temples and palaces that are certainly allied architecturally to the similar edifices of Japan and continental Asia: all these point almost irrefutably to Asiatic influences. This conviction is further emphasised by the prevalence at this day among the Indians of Mexico, of some customs which are assumed to have had their origin in the extreme east of Asia. These resemblances go so far that they almost seem to connect the religion of those earliest historic and prehistoric peoples of Central America with that of China and Japan. This resemblance, in various matters, between dwellers upon the western and the eastern shores of the Pacific Ocean, at least south of the present boundary of the United States, must be something more than accidental. Possibly further consideration of this interesting subject in other volumes of this Series may engage our attention hereafter.

But this resemblance may be, after all, a reflex action. Many ethnologists are disposed to agree with Count de Gobineau's theory that North America was the original home of the Yellow race of mankind. These people made their way by the Aleutian Islands or they easily crossed Behring Sea into Asia and drove back the few aborigines, in times so remote that even Chinese chronology does not reach them.

The physical structure of the earth and the Pacific Ocean's currents have, we know, made it a comparatively easy matter for people from Eastern Asia to reach North America. It is entirely justifiable speculation on the ethnologist's part to assume that some of those expeditions were deliberately made: it is a matter of historic fact that many were made unintentionally by crews of vessels that had been driven off the coast of Japan, or even China, by stress of weather. If we know this much to have happened in the fifteenth century, we are

ANCIENT MEXICO 7

entirely justified in assuming that it occurred in the centuries prior thereto; and why may we not carry our speculation further and argue that people did go from East to West across the narrow waters of the Northern Pacific, as well as from West to East where it is wider?

The resemblances in customs, religion, physical appearance, and even language that have been noted in historic times, between peoples of the western strip of the American hemisphere, and some of those of Eastern Asia, may be purely accidental; but we can hardly believe it. Yet which is the older, which is the parent and which the offspring, it is beyond our power to say.

Certainly no one now disputes the claim of antiquarians — based, of course, mainly upon native tradition — that the whole of greater Mexico was inhabited by a succession of highly cultured races who displayed exceptional ability in rearing great temples and ornate palaces, of which the ruins yet remain. The name given by native tradition to the greater Mexico of antiquity was Anahuac. It could never have been the name of a great Indian empire, although some writers make that statement; for there is no reason, legendary or concrete, to suppose that the loosely allied tribes of Indians ever had any form of government approaching imperial organisation. On the other hand, we do not feel called upon to admit the correctness of the declaration made by some other authors that this name, Anahuac, was never applied to the whole of what we know as Mexico.

The Toltecs were no doubt the most advanced in every way of all those Mexican peoples ; but whence they came is unknown. Prescott assigns the date of their arrival in Mexico to the seventh century of our era; but some authorities contend that they were in possession of the land quite twenty centuries B.C. They are credited in legend with having built a great city which they called Tula, "and an attempt has been made to identify this prehistoric city with a little village of adobe huts and magnificent ruins not far from the capital. This is but one of many instances in which Toltec names of towns and districts still survive." *

There are ancient legends which tell us that Quetzalcoatl, a mysterious messiah, styled The Fair God, made his appearance at Tula. This myth is another remarkable instance of the prominence given in such folklore tales to a white ancestor, redeemer, or conqueror. The Aztecs were not black, to be sure; they were, as their descendants are, copper-coloured, or yellow. Yet they described Quetzalcoatl as "a white man with a long, flowing beard, who taught the Toltecs the arts of civilisation, agriculture, and war; then sailed away to the West, to his own country. After his departure he was deified by the Toltecs, who represented him in their sculptures as a winged serpent. He had promised to return after many years, and this pledge was handed down from generation to generation." f

In one important respect, and it marks their superiority, the Toltecs seem to have differed widely from the Aztecs of later times. They did not offer up human beings as sacrifice upon the altars of their temples. Fruits and flowers were their only oblation. It is manifest that these Toltecs were well advanced in culture and even refinement. They were peaceful and temperate, and their religion appears to have been a form of Nature-worship.

A seeming resemblance to the social system of certain

* " Mexico," W. E. Carson.

t Cf. Prescott, H. H. Bancroft, et als.

ANCIENT MEXICO 9

peoples of Asia is to be noted in that there were distinct castes among the Toltecs; priests, warriors, merchants, agriculturalists. The order of precedence varies noticeably from the Asiatic prototype, if we admit Asiatic influence, in that the farmers appear at the bottom of the scale and soldiers are second in prominence.

Another curious point of resemblance to Asia is to be noted in the fact that the Toltecs appear to have used two forms of their picture-writing; one for superiors, the other for inferiors. Remembering that the Chinese ideograph (the medium for written communication used in China and Japan) is based upon the imitative picture, the Toltec method corresponds somewhat to the classical and popular forms of language still employed in China and Japan. In both of those countries the ordinary spoken language, that used when addressing those who are considered inferior, either in the social scale or in education, may be expressed in a simpKfied form of writing.

It is not now possible to determine with precision the full extent of territory over which the Toltecs exercised dominion. That it was greater, to the north certainly, than the present Republic of Mexico, hardly admits of doubt. It would seem, also, to be a justifiable assumption that they considered themselves the rulers of the indefinite regions far to the north; whence, after a considerable time, there came tribes of fierce people who made war upon the Toltecs. Later came other hordes, but of people who were rather more civilised than those last mentioned.

All of these intruders appear to have been ethnically related to the Toltecs, for they must have used the same language, and they quickly adapted themselves to their new environment. Here, again, we may note another lO THE COMING MEXICO

curious point of resemblance between Mexico and Asia. As the Toltecs gave way before the later invaders and went southward seeking fresh homes, the newcomers adapted themselves to the culture they found. So, too, as the Chinese advanced from the west of Asia,* whatever they found that appeared good in their eyes they adopted, and they assimilated the strangers whom they conquered.

The Tezcucans, one of those invading hordes, made considerable progress in civilisation. Another company, the Tarascans, whose descendants are seen in the State of Michoacan, were one of nine tribes who seem to have reached Mexico by crossing a narrow arm of the sea on wooden rafts or hurdles. This suggests the Gulf of California. Most of these tribes developed some system of picture-writing resembling, although rather superior to, that of the North American Indians. There is, in the City of Mexico, one of these picture-writings which depicts the migration of the Tarascans. This is reproduced in several works, and is really quite graphic.

It was when the latest and probably the most important of these later invaders appeared in Mexico that the name Aztec crystallised into permanent form. It is suggested that these people came from the northern part of CaHfornia. Their legends declare that an oracle commanded them to build a city on a site that would be indicated by an eagle perched on a cactus or prickly pear, and grasping a snake in its talons.

Moving southward, and always on the watch for that miraculous sign, they came to the lake in the Valley of Mexico, where now stands the capital, and here they saw a golden eagle resting on a prickly pear and holding the snake in his claws. Their high priest, Tenoch, a * See " The Coining China."

ANCIENT MEXICO II

reminder of the Israelites' Moses, commanded them to obey the sign. They settled on the shore of the lake, built a temple, and founded a city to which they gave the name Tenochtitlan ("the place of the cactus"), in honour of their high priest and to commemorate the sign. But inasmuch as the priest's name is interpreted as meaning "the stone cactus," we are led to suspect that this is rather "reasoning backward! "

The city was founded and grew into a great place, and the legend of the eagle, the serpent, and the prickly pear is religiously preserved in the coat-of-arms of Mexico, and appears as well on the coins and the flag. The name Tenochtitlan was replaced by Mexico, in honour of Mexitli, the Aztec God of War, and this soon came to denote the whole country. The appearance of that ancient city could not have been very dissimilar to that of Venice. The earliest constructed sections were, no doubt, on the mainland; but off the shore of the lake were a number of islands. On these were additions to the city, and numerous canals traversing the entire place in all directions carried out the resemblance to the Queen of the Adriatic quite strikingly.

The great temple to the gods stood on a pyramid over one hundred feet high and it was reached by one hundred and fourteen stone steps each wide enough for thirty horsemen to march abreast. It is hardly necessary to state that this description is taken from Spanish authorities; the mention of "horsemen" shows this clearly, because the Aztecs knew nothing about using horses until after the Spaniards came. This huge pyramid and the great temple are described by the Spanish chroniclers in such a way as to make the likeness to Egyptian structures of a similar kind most conspicuous.

The allusion which has just been made to the Aztec pantheon, Teocalli, calls for brief mention of their religion: this we adapt and condense from Prescott.

It is plain that the Aztecs placed at the head of their pantheon One Supreme Being who was the Ruler of the whole Universe. This statement is supported, if not entirely confirmed, by the allusions made to him in their prayers; for in these are expressions equivalent to our *'the God in whom we live and move and have our being," "omnipresent," ''who knoweth all the thoughts of man and who bestoweth all good gifts," "without whom man is as the grass of the field," "the invisible, incorporeal, one God, of absolute perfection and purity," "in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast."

Yet it was with the Aztecs as it is with many other peoples who have attained to just about the same plane in their religion. It was impossible for them to conceive of just One God, notwithstanding that they assigned to the head of all their gods such attributes as are denoted by their ascriptions. Their tendency towards Nature-worship, although it never developed into a complete and consistent Nature- worship, compelled them to assign to a number of lesser deities the provinces of ruHng the elements, of directing the changes of seasons, of determining the occupations of man, and a host of other functions in the division of divine supervision. There were, accordingly, thirteen principal deities and several hundred subordinates. It is probably true that even the Aztec priests themselves could not have made an exhaustive list of all the minor deities.

At the head was Huitzilopochtli, the terrible Mexican Mars, "the mythic leader and chief deity of the Aztecs, dominant tribe of the Nahua nation." * He has already

* H. H. Bancroft.

ANCIENT MEXICO I3

been mentioned by his alternative name, Mexitli. His temples were the most stately of the public edifices, and their altars reeked with the blood of human beings. "It was not merely for conquest and tribute that the fierce Mexicans ravaged the neighbour-lands, but they had a stronger motive than either in the desire to obtain multitudes of prisoners whose hearts were to be torn out by the sacrificing priests to propitiate a pantheon of gods who well personified their bloodthirsty worshippers." * When the great temple of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) was completed, twenty thousand victims were sacrificed during the four days of the dedicatory services.

The Aztecs present a singular contradiction in their character. It would seem that they must have been naturally of bloodthirsty disposition, for they incurred the ill-will of their neighbours wherever they went; and their treachery sometimes brought upon them condign punishment. Yet in spite of all this, Prescott found himself able to say that it seems as though some portion of their religion "had emanated from a comparatively refined people open to gentle influences, while the rest breathes a spirit of unmitigated ferocity. It naturally suggests the idea of two sources, and authorises the belief that the Aztecs had inherited from their predecessors a mild faith on which was afterwards engrafted their own mythology."

It must not be imderstood that we attribute to the Aztecs an inherent culture and civilisation which impressed favourably the Europeans, when first these latter met the Mexicans. On the contrary, there is no reason to believe that the Aztecs were naturally anything but a fierce, migratory people when they arrived in Mexico. * Edward Burnett Tylor.

But their wisdom in adopting the arts and civilisation of the Toltecs and other tribes, whom they supplanted, bore fruit, until the domains over which the first Montezuma exercised absolute lordship were probably something like one hundred and eighty thousand square miles in extent. This area is but a small fraction of the millions of square miles which were included in the Greater Mexico of later times.

We reluctantly leave the consideration of the ancient land of Mexico with this very brief study. Doubtless every one of our readers will know that very few of the most interesting topics have been discussed; but our purpose was to give merely a suggestion of what the Spaniards found when they appeared. The Azteca were, after all, only the last of nine ethnically related hordes who swept down into Mexico from the north, the Toltecs, the Chichimecs, the Xochimilca, the Chalca, the Tepaneca, the Acolhua, the Tlahuica, the Tlascalteca, the Azteca. It was, therefore, a composite civilisation which the Europeans found.

Chapter II

THE shape of Mexico has been well likened to a great cornucopia, a Horn of Plenty. Its mouth opens towards the United States, and some may see in this fact a portentous sign of even greater pouring out than has ever yet been of Mexico's wealth into the coffers of already rich Americans.

The extreme northwest point of the Republic is 32° 42' North latitude, where the boimdary between California and Lower California reaches the shore of the Pacific Ocean. The southernmost point is 14° 30' 42" North latitude at the mouth (right-hand bank) of the Suchiate River, on the Pacific coast; that river forming a part of the boundary between Mexico and the republic of Guatemala. "The boundary line with Guatemala, for a long time in dispute, was fixed by the treaties of 1882 and 1895. It is an arbitrary line and follows only two natural lines of demarcation — the Suchiate River from the Pacific coast to its source, and the Chixoy and Usumacinta rivers from near the sixteenth parallel to a point on the latter 25 kilometres south of Tenosique (Tabasco). Between these rivers the boimdary line is determined by the peaks of Tacana, Buenavista, and Ixbul, and from the Usumacinta eastward, it follows two parallels of latitude, one on the point of departure from that river, and the other the longer, on that of 17° 49' [N.] to the British Honduras frontier. The boimdary with British Honduras was determined by a treaty of 1893 and is formed in great part by the Hondo River down to the head of Chetumal Bay, and thence through that bay to the Boca Bacalar Chica — the channel separating Tucatan from Ambergris Cay."