Juarez and Cesar Cantú (1885)

Front matter

fi

Contents

Contents

Foreword | 3

|I. The Sonora matter | |7

Foreword

The great intellectual gifts which distinguish and recommend the historian Cesar Cantú have properly earned for him the merited reputation he enjoys in the civilized world; and we, who have always been his sincere admirers, are to-day the first to acknowledge that universal opinion. It is precisely because of his fame as a historian that we lament the fact that Cesar Cantú, when referring to matters relating to the Mexican Republic, whether he narrates the history of the past or treats of contemporaneous events, has not adhered to that historical accuracy which it is his bounden duty to observe, and which impartial criticism should not alter in any way.

"In Mexico"—says Cesar Cantú, in his work entitled THE HISTORY OF THE LAST THIRTY YEARS—"while Spain was warring against Napoleon I, the nobles and the clergy unfurled the banner of the ancient Aztec monarchs, the white and blue standard of the Virgin of Guadalupe, and separated from the mother country, etc. This unpardonable error as to the historic origin of the independence of Mexico, is repeated by Cesar Cantú in his biography of Maximilian. It would be difficult to explain this error of judgement on the part of the eminent historian otherwise than by attributing it to the lack of authentic data respecting a matter so well known, and so different from the account presented in the History of the last thirty years. But be it as it may, and even admitting every attenuating circumstance in his excuse, the fact remains that Cesar Cantú has persisted in errors which are foreign indeed to his general impartiality, when, in the biography of Maximilian, he formulates his charges against the great reformer, the great defender of the independence and autonomy of Mexico, Benito Juarez. The charges against that spotless patriot, are as follows:

Juarez promised the territory of Sonora to the United States, and by these means he secured his recognition (as "President)."

The body of Maximilian, which the butchers of the Prince had solemnly promised to deliver, had to he ransomed from that dishonorable and heartless oligarchy at the cost of entreaties and of money."

We may casually remark, that in the biography of Maximilian there are some other historical errors which we do not contradict, because they really possess no great importance, and have no bearing upon the principal subject of this refutation. Still, some of them deserve to be pointed out, because they indicate, at least, the incomprehensible carelessness of that historian when discussing the men and affairs of this country. He says, for instance, that Maximilian

"granted liberty to the negroes at the same time in which "Lincoln decreed that of the negroes in the United States."

What knowledge of Mexico, of its history, of its social condition, can a man have who, without hesitation, thus declares that there were slaves in this country when Maximilian arrived? If Cesar Cantú, in the full compliance with his duties as a historian, had consulted the books that had already been published about Mexico, he would have learned, as we all know here, that in December 1810, the illustrious curate of Dolores solemnly issued a decree granting liberty to the negroes; that Morelos repeated this decree on the 5th of October 1813, and that Guerrero, on the 15th of September 1829, confirmed those prescriptions by another decree which contained these two articles:

"1st Slavery is abolished in the Republic." "2nd All persons who hitherto have been considered as slaves, are free."

But there is yet something more to he noted. Maximilian, far from having abolished slavery, which did not exist in Mexico, entertained the idea of re-establishing that hateful institution, acting, for this purpose, in accord with the Southern Confederacy, as may be seen by innumerable documents which are to be found in the fifth volume of the Correspondence of the Mexican Legation in Washington, and which were published here in 1871.

He says also that Juarez "from the adjacent territory (alluding to the United States) continued to call himself the legitimate Chief of Mexico," when all the world knows that Juarez never for a moment abandoned the national territory. To such a degree of confusion do the statements and the appreciations of the Italian historian reach, that amongst the few Mexicans whom he eulogizes, he mentions Zaragoza, without considering the fact that the well deserved fame of this noble champion of independence and reform, was won principally by his splendid victory over the French army sent by Napoleon III to realize the most glorious page in the history of his reign, which consisted in placing the Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico.

Let us proceed now to discuss the principal charges preferred by Cesar Cantu against Benito Juarez.

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"

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 improb , 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.—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 cor , 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 dan 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.