# History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 6/Chapter 4

Table of Contents
CHAPTER IV.
MONARCHISM.
1863.
Government Measures — Junta Superior de Gobierno — Provisional Executive — Forey's Acts Legalized — Order of Guadelupe — Asamblea de Notables — Its Inauguration and Subserviency — Creation of a Throne — It is Offered to Ferdinand Maximilian of Hapsburg — Regency of the Mexican Empire — Monarchial Schemes in Mexico — They are Continued in Europe — French Prevarications — Spanish Aims — Selection of Maximilian — How Effected — His Past Record Action of the Austrian Emperor — Policy of the United States
The work of establishing a government under French supervision was initiated with Forey's decree of June 16, 1863, authorizing the nomination by the emperor s minister, Saligny, of thirty-five Mexican citizens to form a Junta Superior de Gobierno, that is to say, a governmental board, to elect by absolute majority three citizens, who were to form the chief executive authority. The junta was likewise clothed with power to choose 215 Mexican citizens, without distinction of rank or class, aged twenty-five years and upwards, and in full possession of all their civil rights, who, associated with the junta superior, were to constitute an Asamblea de Notables. The duty of this ​assembly was to decide upon a definitive form of government, by the votes of at least two thirds of the members. If, after three days' balloting, the requisite majority had not been obtained, then the junta superior was to dissolve the assembly, and call other 215 citizens, with the privilege of reëlecting some of the members of the preceding one. After determining the form of government, the asamblea was to give its attention to such affairs as might be brought before it by the executive. The first session of this body was to last five days, the executive having the privilege of extending it. Its work was to be done in secret session, but its resolutions or acts authenticated by the president and secretaries might be given to the press. The members of the executive were required to distribute among themselves the six government portfolios, appointing and removing their subordinates. They were jointly the executive, and as such might promulgate or veto, as they deemed proper, the resolutions of the asamblea de notables; and their functions were to cease immediately upon the installation of the definitive government proclaimed by said assembly.
Pursuant to that organic statute, Forey, on the 18th of June, confirmed the nominations made by Saligny to constitute the junta superior de gobierno. This body became installed on the 18th, and on the 21st elected the three persons who were to constitute the executive authority, namely, Juan Nepomuceno ​Almonte, Mariano Salas, and Pelagio Antonio de Labastida y Dávalos, archbishop of Mexico. For substitutes were chosen Juan Bautista de Ormaechea y Ernaiz, bishop of Tulancingo, and José Igacio Pavon. The executive elect qualified on the same date, Bishop Ormaechea filling pro tempore the chair of Archbishop Labastida, who was absent in Europe. The triumviri, on assuming their functions the 24th of June, issued an eminently conservative-clerical manifesto, which for the time brought peace upon the pious souls that had been so greatly disturbed by Forey's proclamation of the 12th.
Juan Nepomuceno Almonte, thus made a member and actually chief of the triumvirate, was reputed to be a son of the illustrious priest Morelos. The name Almonte came to him in this wise: His father, whenever a battle was impending, would order the boy carried al monte, that is, to the woods, and thus he was reared on the battle-field during the wars of independence, for which reason his military record was ​made to date from 1815. He was educated in the United States, and the principles, both social and political that he acquired there, influenced a considerable portion of his public career. 'A resolute enemy of the Spaniards, he, with many other prominent Mexicans, saw in them the constant disturbers of Mexico's peace, and heartily joined Guerrero's supporters. In 1830, when serving the national congress, he became an object of government persecution, and had to conceal himself. About that time he was chief editor of El Atleta, and, with others, accused President Bustamante's administration of permitting foreign intervention in Mexican affairs. The paper succumbed under the heavy fines imposed by the government, till the press and type were sold by auction. In 1839 his political ideas had become much modified, as a member in the cabinet of a conservative administration; but he still had faith in the ability of the country to recuperate itself. It was then that he proposed that all persons encouraging foreign power in Mexico, or the dismemberment of her territory, should be declared guilty of treason, and the measure became a law. Almonte was in 1840 and later one of the most pronounced enemies of monarchial schemes for his country. In 1841 he was accredited as minister plenipotentiary to Washington, and held the position till 1845, during which period he exerted himself to ward off a war between the two countries. The annexation of Texas being authorized by the American congress, he went back to Mexico, where he continued to fill important positions, invariably opposing measures against the clergy. It is said that in 1846 he persuaded President Paredes to seek European aid ​against the United States. He was then appointed minister to France, but did not go there, and it has been charged against him that he never accounted for $20,000 that had been advanced to him.
During the war with the United States Almonte served part of the time as secretary of war, and performed other important work in defence of the country, but does not seem to have done anything on the battle-field. His name figured at one time as a candidate for the presidency. He had some disagreement with Santa Anna, and resigned. His candidature for the executive office was again brought forward in 1849, to be defeated. Presidential aspirations became a passion with him; disappointment soured him, and every opponent was looked on as an enemy. During Santa Anna's last dictatorship Almonte took no part in political affairs. After its overthrow, President Comonfort sent him in 1856 as minister plenipotentiary to London, where, neglecting his proper duties, he devoted himself to the promotion of foreign intervention and monarchial schemes. His course was such that upon Comonfort's downfall he was accredited by the succeeding conservative administrations as minister in Paris, and later also in Madrid. His participation in the European schemes has been partly alluded to elsewhere, and the rest will appear in the course of this history. Almonte was the first to write a treatise on the geography of Mexico.
Archbishop Labastida was born in the city of Zamora and state of Michoacan on the 21st of March, ​1816. Having been nominated by President Santa Anna as the successor of Bishop Becerra at Puebla, his preconization took place the 23d of March, 1855; and on the receipt of his bulls, he took the constitutional oath before the president, and was consecrated in the cathedral church of Puebla, by his friend Bishop Munguía, on the 8th of July. The new diocesan prelate devoted himself vigorously to the duties of his office, applying his exertions especially to the acquisition of sisters of the sacred heart. Two months later he started upon a pastoral visit of the diocese, which was presently interrupted by the annulment by political events of ecclesiastical privileges. It is unnecessary to repeat here the particulars of his expatriation, which have been set forth in narrating the occurrences of that period. Suffice it to say that it is believed the motives prompting his action were pure, and in keeping with the good qualities of his heart and mind. He did, or allowed to be done, ​what he considered proper in defence of the interests of religion and the church, though always endeavoring to avoid conflicts with the civil authority. During his ten months residence in Puebla, and notably during the siege of 1856, he gave proof of pastoral purity, charity, and zeal, as well as of fortitude and abnegation. The bishop sojourned in Cuba till he obtained leave of the pope to reside in Rome. In this forced absence from his native country he visited the chief cities of Europe, Palestine, Egypt, and India. Miramon's government accredited him as minister plenipotentiary near the papal court. On the 11th of October, 1863, he arrived at the city of Mexico as archbishop. Labastida's acts as a member of the government created under the auspices of French bayonets will appear in describing current events. It will be well to say, however, that though some of his acts laid him open to severe criticism on the part of a large portion of his countrymen, not even his political opponents failed to hold him in respect, both as a man and prelate, and certainly no one ever accused him of being an enemy to his country. After his separation from political complications he was engaged exclusively in his prelatic duties. In 1867 he attended the ecumenical council at Rome, and was on the committee of ecclesiastical discipline. In May 1871 he was back in his diocese attending to its affairs, ever deserving to be classed among the most distinguished of Mexico's ecclesiastics.
Juan B. D'Ormaechea had been a member of the junta of reactionary notables, and for his services in the cause of reaction had been rewarded with the newly created mitre of Tulancingo. He was more diplomatic than his metropolitan, whom he represented in the triumvirate. ​The executive gave the force of law to all of Forey's decrees to the 25th of June, including one to outlaw malefactors and bring them to trial by a French court-martial. This act displeased a large number of citizens, who could not see the propriety of Mexicans being tried by French officers. The fact is, that the triumviri forming the executive were controlled by their French superiors. The order of Guadalupe was restored by decree of June 30th, on the plea of respect for Pope Pius IX., who had sanctioned it, and for the foreign sovereigns and distinguished personages on whom it had been conferred.
The junta superior appointed the so-called notables who were to constitute the assembly, and, conjointly with the above-named body, were to meet on the 8th of July, to determine the future form of government. It is hardly necessary to say that the SO-called notables were, with a few exceptions, who also called themselves monarchists, the mere tools of the reactionary plotters. Teodosio Lares was chosen president, and Álejandro Arango y Escandon and José
17 Decrees of June 20th and July 1st. Mex., Boletin Ley., 1863, 57-8, 95-6. General Forey, Coleccion Completa de los Decretos Generales Expedidos por . . .Mexico, 1863, 8vo, pp. 40, contains a collection of decrees issued by General Forey, the principal of which order a reduction of import duties, the confiscation of the property of persons taking up arms against the French intervention, the appointment of a commission to regulate the matter of municipal property sold at inadequate prices, as also the privileges of the press. Others relate to the organization of the government and the establishment of courts-martial for the suppression of banditti. ​María Andrade became the secretaries. The committee named to report on the form of government to be adopted consisted of Ignacio Aguilar, Joaquin Velazquez de Leon, Santiago Blanco, Teófilo Marin, and Cayetano Orozco. After the assembly had been thus constituted, the triumviri, who had arrived at the palace midst the ringing of bells and the thunder of artillery, were introduced into the assembly-chamber by Bishop Ramirez, Doctor Sollano, generals Marquez and Mejía, and two licentiates. Almonte and his colleagues and Lares, the president, took seats under the canopy. Forey and Saligny sat opposite the table. The under-secretaries of state were mixed in with the members of the assembly. Generals Bazaine, Douay, Castagny, Andrade, and Herran, with their aids, occupied tribunes reserved for representatives of the army.
Almonte, speaking for the executive, frankly set forth the gravity of the situation, and of the action the assembly was to take in deciding upon the future of Mexico. He laid stress on the calamities of the last forty years, abstaining, however, from suggesting any particular form of government. Not so Lares, who, assuming to know the proclivities of the body he presided over, in his answer to the executive set down conclusions significant of a preconcerted declaration in favor of monarchism. It was now clear that it had all been arranged beforehand. The holy ghost had been involved, with prayers and masses, for its aid in a not particularly holy business. For several days before the farce was played every one of these notables knew that his part in it was to proclaim a monarchy, with Maximilian of Austria as the puppet ruler. Barrès, editor of L'Estafette, was instigated to say that if a foreign prince was not called to the throne, the French troops would go away, and leave ​the interventionists to their own resources. After listening to Almonte's and Lares' remarks, and looking into Forey's and Saligny's faces, the assembly went into secret session. The committee on the 10th made their report, which, it is said, was read amid great applause. Its author was Ignacio Aguilar, the person who planned the plebiscit for Santa Anna, and gave him the title of 'alteza serenísima.' His picture of the evils Mexico had undergone from the year of independence till 1857 was, to say the least, highly colored. It did not in all its points meet with the approbation of those calling themselves the oldest and firmest monarchists; but in consideration of the idea proclaimed, and of certain paragraphs they deemed truthful, it was accepted as a whole. The document terminated with the following propositions: 1st, the Mexican nation adopts for its form of government a moderate, hereditary monarchy, with a Roman catholic prince; 2d, the sovereign will assume the title of 'emperor of Mexico'; 3d, the imperial crown of Mexico is tendered to his imperial and royal highness Prince Ferdinand Maximilian, archduke of Austria, for himself and his descendants; 4th, in the event that, owing to circumstances impossible to foresee, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian should not take possession of the throne tendered him, the Mexican nation appeals to the benevolence of his majesty Napoleon III., emperor of the French, to nominate another catholic prince,
We are told by the friends of the scheme that the ​propositions were received with the warmest satisfaction, by an immense concourse of people of all classes thronging the galleries of the chamber, the spacious corridors and courts of the government palace, and the great plaza of the cathedral. There is no doubt of it. The theatrical exhibitions prepared to grace such occasions have been applauded often enough in Mexico and other places. The populace is fickle; money properly distributed will work wonders. French rulers and Mexican reactionists well knew how to manipulate such evolutions. The propositions having been approved, they were on the 11th published by edict. The assembly gave a vote of thanks to several persons for their labors in favor of a monarchy. On motion of Bishop Ramirez, José M. Andrade, and Secretary Arango, it was resolved that a copy of the proclamation of a monarchy should be forwarded to the pope, beseeching his blessing on the work now inaugurated, and on the prince chosen by the nation. On the 13th a committee of the assembly waited on the triumviri, and placed in their hands the record of their resolutions, among which was one adopted on the 11th, on the title to be borne by the executive, namely, that of Regencia del Imperio Mexicano ​After this pronunciamiento — to use a favorite Mexican word — arrangements were made to obtain adherence thereto by cities and towns not occupied by republican forces. The acts of acceptance were duly forwarded to the monarch elect in Europe. The asamblea de notables then addressed a communication to Forey, congratulating him on the series of victories which had brought him and his army to the capital, and assuring him Mexico would ever remember his name with respect and gratitude. The notables wished his name to be accompanied in history with the unanimous testimony of their warm acknowledgment.
Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Hapsburg, or Fernando Maximiliano, as he was known in Mexico, second son of Archduke Franz Karl and Archduchess Sophie, and a brother of Franz Joseph, emperor of Austria, was born in Schoenbrunn on the 6th of July, 1832. After completing a classical education and mastering six languages, he devoted himself to the study of branches required for the naval profession which he had adopted, and with the view of acquiring a practical knowledge of its duties, he made several voyages. He also visited some of the most prominent countries in Europe and the Orient. In 1854 he was summoned to Vienna to assume the command in chief of the Austrian navy. In 1856 he travelled in northern Germany, France, and Holland, and was in Paris a fortnight as the honored guest of Napoleon III., who placed at his disposal the palace of Saint Cloud. It was then that the most friendly relations were established between Napoleon and Maximilian, destined to be subsequently interrupted by events in Mexico. The latter paid a visit in 1857 ​to England, and a second one to Belgium, where he wedded the princess Marie Charlotte Amélie, afterward known in Mexico as Carlota, a daughter of King Leopold I. and his queen, Louise of Orleans.
On the arrival of the young couple at Milan, September 16, 1857, they were the objects of a popular ovation. They visited together Sicily, southern Spain, the Canaries, and Madeira, the bride sojourning at the last-named island till her husband's return from a voyage to Brazil. Maximilian afterward introduced many improvements in the Austrian naval service, directed the construction of a navy-yard at Pola, and the rebuilding of that town. By his orders the frigate Novara made a voyage round the world, and the sloop of war Carolina a scientific one to the coasts of South America.
At this time the emperor, his brother, desiring that he should take part in civil affairs, appointed him governor-general of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, retaining at the same time the command of the imperial navy. His two years' tenure of office was at a stormy period, a violent commotion then raging among the Italians; but by his liberal and conciliatory spirit, Maximilian won their esteem, even though they were earnest in their resolve to throw off the Austrian yoke, and link their fate with a united Italy. It was said at the time that the Austrian government, then among the most despotic in Europe, relieved him of the office because of his liberalism. Whether true or not, the world gave Maximilian credit for his good administration. After his release from the cares of state he fixed his residence in the ​picturesque palace of Miramare, furnishing it with magnificence and taste, and there devoting much of his time to scientific, artistic, and literary labors. Several works are witnesses of his industry; namely, Sketches of Travel, Voyages to Brazil, Aphorisms, Marine Objects, Austrian Navy. Two volumes of his poetical compositions were likewise published.
The question to be now elucidated is how the plan of a monarchy for Mexico came to be considered, together with the grounds for its authors' convictions that it could be carried out, firmly and permanently setting up a throne. When we consider the wars for national independence which culminated in Iturbide's defection from the royal cause, the throne raised for him, and from which he was hurled in a few months, the efforts made to restore him to that throne terminating with the catastrophe at Padilla, we should feel that Mexico's monarchy was a myth but for the fact of its ending with a bloody episode, which proved that the republic could not forgive even the liberator for having dared to wear a crown. The occurrences which filled the country with sorrow for all time to come, the subsequent persecution of the liberator's friends, and of the Spaniards, who were suspected of plotting to restore the Spanish king's domination over Mexico, ought clearly to demonstrate what were the feelings of the masses, and of the thinking class, on the matter of the form of government. Afterward, amid the direst calamities of civil commotion, through a long period of years, there never was any indication that the Mexican people desired a monarchy. There was nothing to make the generation living forty years after the expulsion of that system, when ​it was forgotten, and republican life and language had become a part of Mexican nature — there was nothing, I say, to awaken in these latter-day Mexicans a desire for the restoration of an order of things which they never had known, and never had been taught to venerate.
Turning to the earlier years of the republic, and noting the deadly animosity existing between the escocés, or centralist party, and the yorkino, or federalist, it will be remembered that the remnants of the former in their efforts to rally and face their opponents always showed timidity, because a hated name bore them down — that of monarchists, as the people insisted on calling them. At last, when a writer called them conservadores, they clutched at the new name that should enable them to make recruits, and they again became a political party; but it was a republican party, and as such was sometimes in power, and at others in the opposition, but under no circumstances pretending to advocate monarchism.
In September 1840 Jose Maria Gutierrez de Estrada — the man so prominent in the events of 1861 and subsequent years connected with the monarchial scheme — returned to Mexico, after an absence of some years in Europe, when the expediency of a change in the constitution was publicly discussed. Declining a position in the cabinet and a seat in the senate, Gutierrez availed himself of the opportunity to bring forward the ideas he had become imbued with in his European travels — the establishment of a monarchy in Mexico. In a pamphlet, accompanied with a letter to President Bustamante, he endeavored to show that Mexico would never enjoy peace and ​welfare till she discarded the republican form of govment and accepted the monarchial, with a foreign prince for the first occupant of the throne.
The publication of such a document — at a time of popular excitement, when the people wanted to do away with the central régime existing since 1835, and to restore the federal constitution of 1824 — may well be imagined. The government did not prevaricate on that occasion. The author was treated as a political heretic; his letter and pamphlet were condemned as scandalous, offensive to the nation, and in the highest degree unconstitutional. During his subsequent residence of many years in Europe he did not lose sight of his pet scheme. Its introduction in Mexican politics was again tried during Herrera's administration in 1844, the remnants of the monarchists coming together and resolving to strike a blow at their federalist foes. A revolution broke out, headed by General Paredes, which is fully detailed in the proper place. If we are to believe Gutierrez, Paredes was the active instrument of the monarchists. Whatsoever their number — and it could not be large — they certainly had no strength to effect the transformation, ​notwithstanding Gutierrez' assertion that they comprised the first men in the country for their social standing, the greater portion of the clergy, and all who had changed their opinions as a result of their past experience. It was quite evident that without European aid the so-called monarchist party was powerless.
Coming now to the French intervention period, with Juarez' triumph over Miramon, the ascendency of liberal republican principles was for a time considered as permanently secured. But it was not yet to be so; for the reactionists, though in a hopeless minority, and without means to push their pretensions, would not, as we have seen, give up the contest. Hopes were held out to them from abroad. The plan to continue the civil war was adopted at Tlalpan, January 18, 1861, under the leadership of Leonardo Marquez. It was to be, they said, a fight for law and order. At the same time, a number of their affiliated, residing in Paris, went to work at the French court to obtain help, and later, through the influence of the exiled bishops, the pope favored their plans; but it appears that at first they only hoped for aid to restore their strength, without any thought of the European powers entertaining the idea of a monarchy in Mexico. The thought was, most probably, put into their heads by Napoleon III., who saw his opportunity in the disturbed political condition of the United States, and especially after the latter refused to take part in the intervention proposed. The reactionists in Mexico had no idea, at least expressed, of any form of government other than the republican, as was made evident in their organ. Then again, we have the evidence ​of one of the most prominent leaders of the party, José María Cobos. In his manifesto published at Saint Thomas he clearly gives the views of his party, after the French had invaded the country, and they were republican.
It has been asserted that the same persons who invited foreign intervention had hoped for aid from the United States government; and when it failed them, raised a large fund — not less than eight million dollars from Mexico alone — and proposed to a number of influential men in the United States to join then in establishing a stable government in Mexico. It has been further stated that a number of the most distinguished officers of the United States army were enlisted in the cause. A government, with probably an Iturbide at its head, but with the administration of affairs in the hands of United States citizens, was to be created.
The Mexican monarchial scheme was not taken up at hap-hazard and at the eleventh hour by the French government. Billault, the minister, denied that it had originated with his government. In a speech of June 27, 1862, in the French chamber, he stated that numerous Mexicans had declared themselves in favor ​of monarchy as the only form of government capable of restoring order in Mexico; that several presidents had intended to open negotiations in Europe toward securing it for their country; that several statesmen believed it the only recourse to end the anarchy kept up by a few hundred men, who to hold the central power were ruining the people; and finally, that it was thought a foreign prince would be more acceptable than a Mexican one, as he would awaken less rivalry, better control the situation, and present a stronger and more lasting arrangement. Billault added that Archduke Maximilian would be the best qualified prince for the position. Be it remembered, that, according to this minister, the matter had been broached in a diplomatic conversation, as a suggestion, subject at all events to the will of the people. It was said — after the French reverse at Puebla, but before the arrival of Forey's army — that Billault was careful, to avoid even a semblance of rivalry between the allied powers, and was, therefore, very reticent as to the real motives prompting the choice of Maximilian over other princes equally entitled to be candidates. ​Napoleon had said that he had no candidate of his family. Mexico would not for a moment think of a British protestant prince. As for Spain, a large portion of the Mexican people would look on the selection of a Spanish prince as a reconquest of their country. Moreover, the three allied powers, it was decided, should be left out of any combination by which either of them would have an undue advantage in Mexico. Maximilian was then selected and accepted by France and England. Hidalgo has it that Gutierrez de Estrada had ascertained, early in October 1861, that the archduke would accept the throne on two conditions: 1st, that Mexico should spontaneously ask for him; 2d, that the support of France and England should be given him. It was on these conditions that Maximilian, on the 8th of December, in a letter to Gutierrez de Estrada, answering one dated October 30th from several Mexicans, gave in his acceptance of the crown. The question would remain unsolved but for certain circumstances that throw light upon it, showing that the treaty of peace at Villafranca between France and Austria might be mixed with Mexican affairs.
An article in the Italian journal Nuova Italia said that one of its friends had seen in the office of Count Cavour, Piedmontese minister of foreign affairs, an Italian map wherein the island of Sardinia and Liguria were indicated as possessions to be ceded to France, the former in compensation for the abandonment of Gaeta and the recognition of the new kingdom of Italy, and the latter in exchange for the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. The latter exchange ​was supposed to be connected with Mexico in this way: the republican government was to be destroyed, and replaced by an Austrian archduke, with the hope of negotiating afterward with his brother the cession of Loumbardo-Venetia.
We must now ascertain when, how, and by whom the propositions were made in Vienna. The Gazette, a semi-official organ of the Austrian government, said, in August 1863, that in the autumn of 1861 both the chief and representative of the Mexican nonarchists, then in Paris, confidentially asked if, in the event of an initiative by France, with England's sanction, an Austrian archduke were invited to occupy the throne of Mexico, specially naming Ferdinand Maximilian, there would be good reason to apprehend a repulse. It was then asserted that the archduke would not refuse the crown if his brother, the emperor, approved of the arrangement. The answer was, that no such proposals could be considered unless conditioned upon guarantees of success to secure the dignity of the archduke and of the imperial house. The Austrian court resolved to maintain a passive attitude, without approaching France or England on the subject, and quietly awaited the formal tender on the basis of the conditions it had demanded. ​Another Austrian organ, Le Mémorial Diplomatique, confirmed the foregoing statement, adding that Emperor Franz Joseph had left to his brother the right of accepting or not the proffered crown at the proper time. However, he sent, immediately after the receipt of the confidential overtures from the French court, Count de Rechberg, his minister of foreign affairs, to Miramare to apprise Maximilian of what was in reserve for him on the successful issue of the French intervention, and the expression of the will of the Mexican people, together with the personal benevolent feeling of Napoleon III.; and it was left to Maximilian to decide for himself. The archduke appeared much moved at this manifestation of goodwill on the part of the French emperor. Now, this semi-official statement does not agree with Hidalgo's version, and never having been contradicted by the imperial government, it must be accepted as the true one, even though it overthrows Billault's and Hidalgo's stories, as well as Thouvenel's sincerity. Therefore, it would seem that it was Napoleon himself who made the communication to Franz Joseph, and that Almonte went to Vienna as a bearer of confidential despatches.
Amidst all that, Billault, on the 26th of July, 1862, in answering Jules Favre, affirmed that the French army, on marching upon Mexico, would appeal to the people of the country to ascertain if they wished or not to support what he called the tyranny of Juarez; and when hard pressed by his opponent, declared that if the nation reëlected Juarez, the French government would acquiesce without demur. ​Saligny, on the contrary, resorted to no subterfuges. He said plainly that the object of the intervention was not to find out the opinion of the Mexicans on the form of government, but to fix in the family — that is to say, among the conservatives — the basis of the establishment that Mexico anxiously expected from the friendly interposition of the third Napoleon. The official newspapers received orders to prepare public opinion for this much-desired monarchy, and Almonte, on his return from Vienna, sailed for Vera Cruz, where he arrived early in March 1862. We have already seen what he did.
While the aforesaid proceedings were going on in Europe, which culminated in Mexico as I have detailed, the government of the United States, being occupied with its internal war, was simply a looker-on, pursuing a prudent course. Secretary Seward, on the 15th of December, 1862, wrote Matías Romero, Mexican representative at Washington, that as war existed between France and Mexico, the United States must "act in regard to it only on the principles which have always governed their conduct in similar cases." Upon Juarez abandonment of the capital, the minister of the United States, Corwin, declined his invitation to follow him to San Luis Potosí. This course was approved by Seward. On the 26th of September, 1863, the French being in possession of the capital, and a crown having been tendered to Maximilian, Seward wrote the ministers of the United States at Vienna and Paris, and on the 23d of October to the minister at the British court, that the American government would pursue a policy of strict neutrality. From the words and spirit of the ​secretary's correspondence, it appears that if an imperial government were firmly established in Mexico, by the consent of the Mexican people, the United States government would hold friendly relations with it, as it was doing with Brazil. But the course of the Washington cabinet toward Maximilian's government, and its continued recognition of that of Juarez, made it evident that in its estimation the empire lacked stability, and its fall, after the French intervention should cease, must follow.
* ↑ The junta was to meet two days after the publication of the decree of its appointment, presided over by the senior in age, and the two junior members were to act as secretaries. Mex., Boletin Ley., 1863, 48-54; Niox, Expéd. du Mex., 292-3.
* ↑ Two suplentes, or substitutes, were also to be chosen. Among other duties of the junta were to constitute itself into several sections for deliberating on affairs of the various departments of government, such as relations, treasury, war, etc.; when called upon by the executive, to sit as a general assembly to treat of matters of high import.
* ↑ Neither the members of the junta superior, nor those of the asamblea, were to receive any pay.
* ↑ Among its members were some who had prominently figured in the country's past history, such as José Ignacio Pavon, Manuel Diez de Bonilla, Teodosio Lares, Francisco Javier Miranda, generals Mora y Villamil and Adrian Woll, Fernando Mangino, Juan Hierro Maldonado, General Santiago Blanco, and others. Méx., Boletin Ley., 1863, 55-6; Periód. Ofic. Imp. Mex., July 21, 1863; Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 283-4; Zarco, La Junta de los 35, in La Estrella de Occid., Sept. 11, 1863. This last authority positively asserts that upwards of six out of the 35 were beggars, 'vivian de pedir limosna,' which guaranteed their christian humility, and stamped the new order of things with an almost democratic origin; there were also among them a number of decrepit men and imbeciles.
* ↑ A biographical sketch of his early life was given in this work at the time he became president of the republic.
* ↑ There is no evidence that Pavon had any part in the acts of administration. The following persons were appointed under-secretaries: José Miguel Arroyo, for foreign affairs; José Ignacio Anievas, Felipe Raygosa, José Salazar Ilarregui, Juan de Dios Peza, and Martin de Castillo y Cos, respectively for government, justice and ecclesiastical affairs, fomento, war, and treasury. Domenech, Hist. du Mex., ii. 123-4; Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 122; Iglesias, Intervencion, ii. 15-27.
* ↑ Forey had, on the 23d, announced the appointment of the provisional chiefs, thanking the people for what he called their active and intelligent cooperation. The triumvirate's address reviews the past, and promises that the Franco-Mexican army would pursue the constitutional government till it surrendered or was driven from the country. As to the religious question, the Roman worship was now restored and free; the church would exercise its authority without having an enemy in the government; and 'el Estado concertará con ella la manera de resolver las graves cuestiones pendientes,' or in other words, pending questions would be referred for settlement to the papal court. The atheism and immoral anti-social propagandism, which they unblushingly declared to have been under a cloak established in the schools and colleges, would cease. 'La instruccion católica, sólida, y mas estensa posible,' would engage their especial attention. Difficulties with foreign powers would be arranged, and with the protection of France and the other nations Mexico would be respected abroad. Méx., Boletin Ley., 1863, 59-6O, ap. 493-8; Periód. Ofic. Imp. Alex., July 21, 1863; La Voz de Méj., Aug. 27, 1863; Flint's Mex. under Max., 42-8.
* ↑ To amuse him, Morelos organized a company of boys of his own age, which was known as the 'compañía de los emulantes,' of which Almonte was made captain. The boys used to appear at the intrenchments. One day they triumphantly brought in a dragoon as prisoner, though the latter said that he was on his way to surrender to Morelos. Alaman, Hist. Méj., ii. 528.
* ↑ He accompanied Santa Anna to Texas in 1836, and was taken prisoner at San Jacinto on the 21st of April. Conveyed with his chief to the U. S., they returned together the next Feb. on the man-of-war Pioneer. He continued in the military service and rose to the rank of general of division.
* ↑ Arrived at Habana, he found Santa Anna was on the point of returning to Mexico, and came back with him.
* ↑ The fact appeared in a manuscript record of 197 pages found in Maximilian's private office. The notes to the manuscript are in French, many of them in the handwriting of Félix Eloin. The document was later lodged in the foreign office of Mexico. Lefévre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 318; Traidores pintados por sí mismos, in Libro Secreto de Maximil., 1-2.
* ↑ It has been said against Almonte that he denied recognition to his mother, and never offered her any assistance though she lived by alms. Cabezút, Los Tres Malditos, in La Estrella de Occid., Dec. 25, 1863.
* ↑ His parents, Manuel Luciano de Labastida and Luisa Dávalos y Ochoa, were of pure white blood, in good social standing, and possessed a moderate fortune, which was inherited by their son. In 1831, after a course of preparatory instruction, young Labastida entered the ecclesiastical seminary of Morelia, where by his superior talents, application, and amiable character he soon won himself a distinguished place. At the consecration of Bishop Portugal he was afforded the opportunity for a display of his attainments in philosophy, mathematics, and belles-lettres, being rewarded therefor with a scholarship, to which was added permission to study law, though it had been founded exclusively for that of theology. On the 18th of July, 1838, he received the order of subdeacon, and the next year was admitted to the bar. About this time he was appointed professor of grammar, belles-lettres, and philosophy, a position that had been declined by Clemente de Jesús Munguía, who later became bishop, and first archbishop of Michoacan. These two personages bore for each other a life-long friendship, and in their career, both literary and ecclesiastical, advanced side by side. They not only held professorships in their alma mater, but also important ecclesiastical offices in their diocese. They became prebendaries, and five years after canons. Finally they were proposed together for the mitre of Michoacan at the death of Bishop Portugal. Munguía became the bishop, and had Labastida with him as his provisor, vicar of nuns, and in his absences left him as guardian of the diocese. The latter was also proposed for the new mitre of San Luis Potosí, which was not conferred on him, as it seems, he was reserved for higher places. Sosa, Episc. Mex., 229-32; Alm. Calend. Galvan., 1864, 47-50.
* ↑ For what it may be worth, reference is made to a report circulated at this time, that he paid the pope's legate 400 doubloons, or $6,400, for his mitre. Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, 318. This statement, together with other things not creditable to the archbishop, was secretly communicated to Maximilian. Maury, Bioy. de Monseñor Labastida, 53-62.
* ↑ Such is the character generally given of him. Sosa, Episc. Mex., 231.
* ↑ He had been so proclaimed March 19, 1863, and together with his friend Munguía, received the pallium on the next day at the hands of Cardinal Antoneili. The ephemerides of his private and public life may be seen in La Voz de Méj., July 8, 9, 10, 1881.
* ↑ Forey was at the head in military matters, Saligny in political affairs, and Budin in financial matters.
* ↑ 18
* ↑ Instituted by Iturbide in 1822; abolished after his dethronement; revived by Dictator Santa Anna in 1853, and again definitively suppressed by his successor in 1855. It is here revived a second time, and its grand cross conferred, perhaps pensioned with $2,000 a year, on Forey and Saligny by their creatures. Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, 320-1; Méx., Derecho Intern., 3d pt, 695-706; Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 123; Méx., Boletin Ley., 1863, 91.
* ↑ June 29th, Méx., Boletin Ley., 1863, 66-8.
* ↑ It has been asserted that the clothing with which some of the members presented themselves was bought with French money. Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 327. This has been denied, and pronounced 'la calumnia de un republicano francés.' Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 124. Henry M. Flint, who in his work, Mexico under Maximilian, approves the acts of the French and the whole affair of placing Mexico under a monarchy, assures us, on page 55, that the assembly of notables comprised the men who had in 1848 and 1849, and again in 1860, 'implored the United States to save Mexico and give her a good government,' which is quite possible.
* ↑ The three first named were ministers during Santa Anna's dictatorship. Marin held the same position under Miramon, and all were rank reactionists.
* ↑ The tribunes were filled with spectators, among whom were many women.
* ↑ Iglesias, Interv., ii. 45-6. The proceedings of this memorable day were fully described in L'Estafette, Saligny's organ.
* ↑ Hidalgo, Apuntes, 174, assures us that it stirred a deep enthusiasm, and was afterward read with much interest and appreciation in Europe.
* ↑ Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 125, declares it exaggerated. Of course the constitution of 1857 and the reform laws were the reactionists' eye-sore, and made their patriotic hearts bleed. They alleged that Mexico had been during forty years ruled by robbers, vagabonds, and incendiaries, forgetting that their own party had ruled the greater part of that time, and that some men, 1ow members of the asamblea de notables, had committed the worst outrages recorded in Mexican annals.
* ↑ Chynoweth, Fall of Max., 43-4, gives a translation of the propositions as they were passed.
* ↑ The minister of relations of President Juarez called them 'demostraciones de júbilo arrancadas por obra de la policía.' Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., ix. 645. Strange though it may appear, notwithstanding the repeated occasions offered since the landing of the French expedition, neither the men who thus truckled to Forey and Saligny, nor even the most hardened conservatives, had, till the arrival of the expedition at the capital, made any public demonstration in favor of the monarchial form of government.
* ↑ The first by 229 ayes against 2 nays; the second and third unanimously; the fourth by 211 against 9. Arrangoiz has it that only 15 of the members failed to sit. Lefêvre makes it 19; the former asserting that some were prevented by sickness, and the greater number belonging to the moderate liberal party had kept away from fear of losing a comfortable position, rather than from political conviction. The truth is, that those persons declined the doubtful honor of belonging to such a body.
* ↑ Napoleon and Eugénie, Forey and the Franco-Mexican army; Saligny; Wagner, minister of Prussia; t'Kint de Rodenbeck, chargé from Belgium; Padre Miranda, Gutierrez de Estrada, Andrade, Hidalgo, and others. In their modesty, they actually omitted to thank themselves. It was also decreed that a bust of Napoleon III. should be placed in the hall of congress. Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 130; Hidalgo, Apuntes, 175-6; Niox, Expéd. du Mex., 294-5.
* ↑ To last till the sovereign's arrival. Méx., Boletin Leyes, 125-6.
* ↑ The document concludes with the following words: 'Acepte, pues, V. E., este voto de gracias, que en medio de los mas vivos aplausos le dirige la asamblea, y con él el homenage de nuestro respeto.' The signatures of Teodosio Lares, president, Alejandro Arango y Escandon and José María Andrade, secretaries, are affixed thereto. Tovar, Hist. Parl., i. 302.
* ↑ He was a hard worker, often beginning the day at 5 o'clock in the morning.
* ↑ The British government testified to it in a despatch of Jan. 12, 1859, to Lord Loftus, ambassador at Vienna, saying that it acknowledged with unfeigned satisfaction the liberal and conciliatory spirit shown by the Lombardo-Venetian government while it was in charge of Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian. Gutierrez de Estrada, Fern. Max., Notic. Biog., 21-7. See also Maxim. y Carl., Adven., 11-17; Rivera, Gob. de Méx., ii. 644-3; Maximil., Docs, 53-4.
* ↑ See Hist. Mex., vol. iv., this series.
* ↑ There was no reason why they should. The Mexicans, the few that visited Spain only excepted, had never known their monarchs. They had merely seen the viceroys, who ruled according to their own judgment, respecting the manners and customs transmitted from remote times. The monarchy left on Mexican soil neither the interests of a secular nobility, nor even a moral interest.
* ↑ Prim wrote Napoleon III., March 17, 1862, that there were few men in Mexico imbued with monarchial sentiments; that a few rich men, possibly, would accept a foreign monarch, who might retain his throne as long as French bayonets supported him; but those men could do nothing for him after the supporting force had left; he must then fall. Veritas, Nuevas Reflex. Cuest. Franco-Mex., 116-18; Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 292.
* ↑ The old leaven still worked, however, among a limited number of the party, who showed their hand in 1844, as will be made to appear.
* ↑ He ably displayed the best records of the monarchial system, and depicted the republican calamities of Mexico. Gutierrez de Estrada, Carta dirij. . . . Presid., 3-96. Gutierrez de Estrada really had cone to believe that a monarchy was the only remedy for Mexico's ills; he can scarcely be called a traitor. Diaz, Datos Biog., MS., 67.
* ↑ He said it was unsuited to the manners, customs, and traditions of the Mexican people, for everything in the country was monarchic.
* ↑ The copies offered for sale were gathered in and submitted to the action of the criminal court, which had declared the production subversive and seditious. See order of the minister of the interior, Oct. 2l, 1840, to governors, etc., in Méx., Col. Ley. y Dec., 1839-40, 796-7. In a proclamation the president called Gutierrez a traitor and political transfuge, who had gone to Europe a republican and come back a monarchist. Several political leaders, among them Santa Anna and Almonte, published strong protests against the pamphlet. Indeed, its arguments were treated with scorn; and the author's countrymen heaped reprobation on his head, and he was obliged to quit the country as a public satisfaction. On the other hand, European monarchists highly commended his effort. But though his personal friends, relatives, and former political associates were often afterward in power, no administration dared to give him permission to return. He became an old man in exile.
* ↑ It was the most favorable opportunity they could have desired to carry out their views. Gutierrez de Estrada, Méx. y Europa, 33-4; Rivera, Gob. de Méx., ii. 282-3.
* ↑ It will be remembered that Paredes' manifesto reminded the people of the benefits they had enjoyed during the Spanish domination.
* ↑ And yet the ecclesiastical chapters refused funds for the support of Paredes' army, though the cathedral of Mexico had been asked only to loan $98,000 monthly during one year, that is to say, $2,400,000 from all the dioceses.
* ↑ Gutierrez Estrada in 1846 laid before the British and French governments a memorandum containing his views on the necessity of their affording such aid. Extracts from that document were given to the press by him in 1847, Francisco Javier Miranda being the responsible editor.
* ↑ They bad set up what they called a supreme government at Zimapan, in the present state of Hidalgo, and had an organ, the Boletin Oficial, which in its first number said that the conservative party abhorred and rejected every scheme tending to diminish or imperil the national independence. In the second number it advocated centralism in the form proposed in 1855; and in the sixth the language was most explicit: 'piensa que conviene al país la forma de gobierno republicana, representiva, popular, central.' Veritas, Nuevas Reflex. Cuest. Franco-Mex., 111-12.
* ↑ He proposed to Almonte, then placed in power under French influence, to shape his policy on a conservative basis, 'sin mezela de monarquía extranjera, por la que nadie opinaba.' Romero, Intrig. Europ., 46-7.
* ↑ These facts were divulged by Sylvester Mowry, who added that a document embodying the statistics and plan of the enterprise, prepared by a leading man of New York, assisted by Gen. McClellan, C. P. Stone, himself, and several of the first men for talents, influence, and wealth, was laid before Napoleon III., who perused it with pleasure and profit. Success was certain; but the U. S. government, whose neutrality had been asked, interposed its authority, and the project was reluctantly abandoned. Flint's Mex. under Max., 31-6. Mowry, like Arrangoiz, would have the world believe that only the conservatives and their clerical allies, with perhaps a few of the less objectionable liberals, had anything at stake in Mexico worth protecting.
* ↑ Gutierrez Estrada, Padre Miranda, José Hidalgo, Muñoz Ledo, Almonte, and others. Most of them, if not all, had been in Paris a long time, and knew little or nothing of the real state of affairs in Mexico. They were not true representatives of their country, and had no authority to speak for it. What they wanted was to come back supported by foreign bayonets.
* ↑ Referring no doubt to Santa Anna, Zuloaga, and Miramon. The latter may have asked for intervention for his own purposes. Zuloaga's opinion on the subject was the same as Cobos'.
* ↑ The French ministers, and Mon, the Spanish ambassador in Paris.
* ↑ Domenech thought him unfit for it. His words are, 'il crut que le Mexique était une succursale de la Lombardie,' and that by enacting good laws he would be Mexico's benefactor. Hist, du Mex., ii 363.
* ↑ Spain had her projects, though her government made a denial. Calderon Collantes, minister of foreign affairs, on the 9th of April, 1862, at an interview with Arrangoiz, exhibited much displeasure at the selection of an Austrian instead of a Spaniard. He pretended ignorance of the plan; but it was mere pretence, for Almonte had divulged it to him in Dec. 1861. Collantes thought it was yet time to propose the Spanish princess Isabel, marrying her to the reigning prince of Roumania. But as she was a mere child, he next mentioned the sister of Queen Isabel II., and her husband. Hidalgo asserted that the monarchists had, through Gutierrez and himself, tendered the crown to Isabel's brother-in-law, the due de Montpensier, who neither accepted nor declined it. Arrangoiz wrote to Paris to ascertain if any change could be brought about, and the answer was published in La Época of Madrid, on the 23d of April, 1862. Hidalgo and the others believed in Maximilian's friendship for Spain, which that prince was manifesting at this time, but in the course of events they discovered their mistake. Prim's abandonment of Mexico put an end to Collantes' schemes. Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 7-8, 17, 82-4; Hilalgo, Apuntes, 50, 71-4, 86, 94.
* ↑ Maximilian's letter was forwarded by Gutierrez to Ignacio Aguilar for the benefit of their accomplices. Gutierrez de Estrada, Méx. y el Archid., 13; Domenech, Hist. du Mex., ii. 364-9. The subject occupied the attention of the Spanish ministry and congress. Córtes, Diario Senado, ii., ap. no. 85, 84-8; Id., Congreso, ii., no. 45, 747-55, iii., no. 54, 953; vi., ap., i., no. 133, 53, 84-8, no. 139, 2772-5, no. 140, 2789-91, no. 141, 2813-17, no. 142, 2838-9.
* ↑ The first part of the programme, it is said, failed, owing to British agencies.
* ↑ This province was to be conveyed to Italy in payment for Liguria, which was to become French. Parisian correspondence of L'Escaut, Aug. 16, 1863. The Presse of Vienna, without a clear explanation, also spoke of a demand in compensation as of a very probable thing, declaring beforehand that the Austrian government would not assent thereto. Lefévre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 207-8; Romero, Intrig. Europ., 53. Hidalgo, Apuntes, 72, pronounces the exchange of Venice for Mexico a 'cuento inventado por la malicia.' It may have been a flight of imagination, but as Hidalgo from his own interested motives has indulged in such flights, his assertions are not entitled to credence unless corroborated from reliable and unbiased sources.
* ↑ The document, as semi-official, could not be explicit. As a matter of fact, it said t0o much and too little: the former, inasmuch as it stated that before the signing of the London convention of Oct. 31, 18C1, the Austrian government had been confidentially approached to ask if Maximilian would accept a throne in Mexico, if called thereto by France, with England's sanction; the latter, because the article spoke only of the chief and representative of the so-called monarchial party of Mexico, who could be no others than Gutierrez and Almonte, and these persons had no authority to speak for a party not existing. It is clear that the overtures emanated from some personage occupying a higher plane in the official world. Lefêvre, Doc. Maximiliano, i. 299-300.
* ↑ Mons. Thouvenel, French minister of foreign affairs, being asked by Lord Cowley, British ambassador, denied it; that is to say, he did not deny that there were negotiations with the court of Vienna, but pretended that they were carried on between that court and some Mexicans. Cortes, Diario Sena lo, ii., ap. no. 85, 3.
* ↑ Maximilian, in his memorial to Gen. Escobedo, May 29, 1867, speaks of it, without naming the individual, as a 'persona de alta gerarquía de Austria.'
* ↑ It is at least certain that the French rendercd secret aid; and it is also R fact that the negotiations between Paris and Miramare lasted eight months. Kératry, Max., 7.
* ↑ A Colonel García surrendered Almonte's correspondence to the Mexican government; hence Doblado's request to the allied plenipotentiaries for Almonte's expulsion, and the latter being taken under the protection of Lorencez and Saligny.
* ↑ To the minister in Vienna he said: The United States are not indifferent to the events which are occurring in Mexico. They are regarded, however, as incidents of the war between France and Mexico.' To the minister in Paris he stated that the U. S. 'have neither a right nor a disposition to intervene by force in the internal affairs of Mexico, whether to establish and maintain a republic, or even a domestic government there, or to overthrow an imperial or a foreign one, if Mexico chooses to establish or accept it. The U. S. have neither the right nor the disposition to intervene by force on either side in the lamentable war which is going on between France and Mexico.' To Minister Adams he used these words: The U. S. can do no otherwise than leave the destinies of Mexico in the keeping of her own people, and recognize their sovereignty and independence in whatever form they themselves shall choose that this sovereignty shall be manifested.' Much discussion was had in the U. S. congress and press on the Mexican question, many seeing in the European proceedings a violation of the Monroe doctrine; but a perusal of Monroe's words will clearly show that there had been as yet no attempt at violating that principle. U. S. Govt Doc., Cong. 37, Sess. 3, House Ex. 1, 307-441, passim; Id., vol. vi.; Id., House Journal, 702; Id., Cong. 38, Sess. 2, Sen. Ex., 11, 33; Id., Foreign Affairs, 1862, 193, 338-40, 350-7, 377-8, 384-5, 392, 400-5; Id., 1863, pts i.-ii., 638-762, 1335-41; Id., 1864, pt ii., 710-11, 936; U. S. Govt Doc., Cong. 37, Sess. 3, Sen. Journ., 578; Id., Sen. Miscel., 13; Mex. Affairs, in President's Mess., June 16, 1864; N. Am. Rev., ciii. 137-42.