Juarez and Diaz 1856-1909

Once Santa Anna was overthrown in 1855, Mexico was dominated by liberals who gained their fortunes from the export of minerals and agriculture goods.  The main issue that they had to deal with was the uniting of the country, but there was also division between the liberals including Puros and Moderados.  The puros or “pure ones” believed the poor should participate in the political process, whereas the moderados were reluctant to give significant power to the lower class.

Juan Alveraz was chosen by radical liberals on October 4^th 1835, to lead the country and resigned in December of the same year.  Although he wasn’t in power for long, he was able to implement the Juarez law, which forced priest and military personnel charged with common crimes and civil suites to be tried in ordinary courts. The Lerdo Law was another one that hurt the church by prohibiting the Church and Indian villages from owning land. During this time the Church owned one-fifth of the land, as well as half the houses in Mexico City.   I understand that they wanted to take away the power of the church while increasing the amount of land on the market, but they failed one of their main goals of converting peasants into yeoman farmers.  It’s always a little suspicious when the wealthy landowners, including some of the legislators who voted for the law, end up with most of the land that was auctioned.

The 1857 Constitution didn’t help the tension between liberals and conservatives, due to the fact that conservatives were underrepresented in the constitutional congress.  I find it very interesting that they removed the prohibition against religions other than Roman Catholicism, by neglecting a declaration that Catholicism was to be the religion of the land.  This constitution also guaranteed the freedom of press, of association, and right to bear arms.  Although the constitution created a stronger central government as well as pushed civil liberties, it failed to help with the inequalities in land ownership as well as wealth.

                The inability of the moderate and the radical liberals to find a happy medium, led to the coup against President Comonfort, leaving General Felix Zuloaga and Benito Juarez both claiming to be president.  The civil war between 1857 and 1860 is also known as the War of the Reform. The conservatives had support from the Church, military officers, and Indian villages. The liberals had the support of lawyers, doctors, and journalists. They also had miners, merchants and cattlemen on their side looking for a political voice.

                I find the War of the Reform interesting because it never saw more than 25,000 people under arms at one time in a country of 8 million people.  Liberals were able to use the money they gained from selling the land from the church against conservatives. They also gained the support of the people who bought this land because if the liberals lost, the church would return, wanting their land back.  Although liberal forces were able to regain Mexico City December 25^th, 1860, there were still uprisings in central Mexico.

                Mexico was unable to bounce back after the war because there was so much unrest and destruction. “The Mexican congress suspended payments on foreign and domestic debts for two years, but did not repudiate the debts.”(Russell 223) Hindsight helps a lot in this case but I believe since they accepted the fact that they had debts, France shouldn’t have attempted their occupation of Mexico. They had signed the Tripartite Convention of London with Spain and England, stating they would occupy Mexico’s customs houses to collect funds.  The British and Spanish both gave up occupation once they came down with yellow fever and Mexico promised to pay back the debts as soon as possible.  On the other hand we have the French to thank for Cinco De Mayo.  The Battle of Puebla on May 5^th 1862 united indigenous people with mestizos and remains an outstanding military victory in the history of Mexico.

                Once the French eventually take Mexico City, conservatives creating the interim government believed a foreign Catholic monarch would help unite the country.  They asked for and received, Ferdinand Maximilian. Surprisingly, he showed  moderate European liberalism by abolishing corporal punishment, as well as guaranteed a minimum wage for agricultural workers. (225) These moves lost the support of conservatives, while appointing moderate liberals pushed away the more radical liberals.  

                Its frustrating to read about the amount of destruction and death that happened during this period for very small victories. There were some advancements but  the major issues were still intact. When Diaz was elected, "he faced the challenge of establishing peace and stability in a nation plagued by poverty, illiteracy, social inequality, political turmoil, financial penury, and woefully inadequate infrastructure- the same problems Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada had faced. "(231)

Liberals Strive for Separation

I thought the most interesting part of the reading in Russell was learning about Juarez' quest to separate the church from the government. Since Santa Anna was overthrown, liberals now had an opportunity to separate the government from the church and allow more focus on modernizing Mexico. Like most countries, a push to modernize and industrialize will help the country become a global power. I don't think that is necessarily what liberals wanted but the fact that the US to the north was having success in their Industrial Revolution was something to compete with. While Alvarez was president in 1855, he implemented two important laws that would help with the push for separation. Russell describes the Juarez Law and the Lerdo Law on page 217. The Juarez Law got rid of the special courts that were for the military and clergy, and the Lerdo Law prohibited the Church and Indian villages from owning the land. I thought it was interesting that these laws offended the clergy members. Prior to this time, they were practically treated like royalty, given complete immunity and now that they were forced to be tried with common crimes in ordinary courts was appalling to them. The fact that the bishop also wanted Juarez' Law to be suspended until the pope's opinion was heard does not make sense to me logically. Clergy members are respected in today's society but they aren't held above us and I think this shows the shear corruption that was occurring in Mexico prior to the 1850's. 

The Dawn of Industrialization

As we talked about in class Mexico was now independent, but what how good is independence if Mexico has to rely on other countries to invest in its industries? Mexico looked like a chance for European countries to make significant profits if they invested in it. Mexico was independent, but many factors created a state that couldn’t be totally self-sufficient.

Russell Chapter 6

I chose to recap Chapter 6 of Russell, specifically the section of Democracy, Spanish Style. I found this area to be especially interesting from this chapter because not only was it showing political instability in Spain, but it showed new ideas and plans in order for Mexico to be liberated. I even found some similarities in their plans and actions to those of early Americans before the Revolution. After Fernando was jailed when the French invasion of Spain occurred in 1808, it was up to the people of Spain to form juntas and eventually their own parliament, Cortes. Members of New Spain were also allowed to participate in the Cortes because the Junta Central needed their support. These groups of juntas were more liberal than the royalty had been before. I find this idea fascinating. The fact that there is no one-ruler anymore and it is now up to the people to organize for their country is truly amazing. Russell explains that the Cortes sought reform yet also wanted to keep the colonies loyal. Since the Cortes was composed of many different Spanish individuals, it is no wonder that they sought to reform their country. These are the people who have had to receive their orders from one king with hardly any say in their government, they knew what was and wasn't working within their country. The progress of the new Cortes was also interesting to read. In only two years from when they started they had not only brought the people of the New World to have a voice in their government but they also drafted a constitution that included more rights for the people of the New World and even granting most adult males the right to vote within the Spanish Empire. Though there were still limitations on who specifically could vote, I think this was beneficial in their progress and goal for a more unified Spain. After the elections when the New World took over at a municipal level, it was clear that their concerns specifically were going to be heard. Though there were problems within this new form of government of the people, I think some of their efforts and ideas would have benefited the Spanish Empire. But as historians, we can see a trend with these kinds of governments and how they don't really work out after a while. There comes a sense of superiority  within the new government causing concern and most likely an uprising.

Russell Ch. 7

Reading Chapter 7 in Russell I was amazed by the instability within Mexico between 1821-1855. The beginning of the chapter is divided up by introducing the immediate structure of Mexico after they gained independence from Spain. The chapter highlights three key Mexico leaders of the time in this first section. In these three sections the reader is shown the different leadership roles each ruler played and how the government was set up at the time. The only thing consistent about this time period and the authority within it was the ever changing laws, political parties, and always increasing debt.  The chapter basically describes a constant cycle of trial and error; if one law or system wasn’t working the people of Mexico simply overthrew that government at the time. No leader in that time period was able to successfully unify or control Mexico. As much as the citizens of Mexico were fighting for their individual freedoms, wants, and independence from a centralized Mexico it seems to me as though they held the power all along. Their constant struggle and will allowed at least one group or another to successfully overthrow the government all through this time period. Page 146 stated, “In 1826 President Victoria completed his term, an event that would not occur again for decades.” This is shown throughout the chapter time and time again as each President is exiled, killed, or decides to resign. The statement on page 155, “One has the strongest sense that it mattered very little who occupied the National Palace and that brief sojourns in office should not be counted as ‘regimes’ … It is not clear if any president could get his orders obeyed beyond the outer patio of the palace”, shows just how little control the President and government really had.

Tuesdays Class and the Bourbon Reforms

           During Tuesdays class we talked a lot on the Spanish rule and basically domination over the native populations. The Spanish basically forced their will upon the Indians and took over. They built Mexico City right on top of Tenochtitlan, which shows how dominant the Spanish actually were. The Indians were forced to adopt Spanish religion, way of life, and economic status. They had classifications for many different types of people. The amount of wealth one person had played a big role on their "classification".

            In this society, there was also this idea of something called Coverture, which meant when women got married their possessions belonged to the man now, and women were not really involved as, it was a civilization dominated by men. A new type of economic growth came to life with mining and the miners, the merchants also called the "consulados", and the landowning class also called the "hacendados".

            I thought it was very strange how a society that was flourishing and had many thousands of people, just got wiped out by the Spanish and some other tribes, I mean the Indians were so vast in numbers and power, it's a difficult fact to grasp, you think a stronghold like Tenochtitlan would be able to withstand any attack and live on for many, many years.

           
             In the reading it talks about Charles II, who at age four was dying, he was also the heir to the Spanish throne which raised concern for Spain, He was the last of the Hapsburgs and he had to choose a successor and he chose Phillip of Anjou. the Hapsburgs dynasty died off, and new a new dynasty began with Philip, the Bourbon dynasty. He inherited a Spain that was decimated by wars and revolts. He focused on the Colonies and their economies, mainly the mining industry, he brought back a lot of Silver to Spain and in 130 years Spain minted almost 1.5 billion worth of pesos in silver. That is quite a bit of cash for this time period.

          Their was also church reforms in the colonies because the Jesuits were accused of starting riots against Spain's Prime Minister and without warning they were kicked out and they were took over by the crown. 

          The Bourbon Reforms were basically the Spanish crowns way of taking over New Spain and they basically drained it of its resources, especially silver. Towards the end of it all Spain was consumed by the debts they owed and were swallowed up by their European affairs.

         I thought it was interesting how Spain and New Spain were doing so well, Spain was considered the greatest power at one point, and then it just went south from there on, I think greed by the Spanish crown played a big role in Spain collapsing.

Pueblo Revolt of 1680

    In chapter three and four of Russel, as well as in the in-class discussion, it was denoted that their was a growing change in Spanish rule over New World and the emergence of different social classes from the seventeenth century extending into the eighteenth century (Russel 43-44, 100). This change in social classes came as a direct result to Spanish colonial influence over the peoples of the Americas. With strict and rigged taxing and forced labor exhorted from the native communities, many natives in the 1700's chose to move closer to Spanish settlement, creating a racial mixing. Among the other results of this, was the creation of a new form of society with natives having varying levels of social and economic status depending on how "indian" there blood was. Yet, in the northern regions of Spanish control, the dominant position of the Spanish was much looser. The Pueblos of New Mexico were far removed from the central mandates coming from Mexico City.

     As Max pointed out in a post from last week, the Spanish were heavily dependent on the natives through much of the colonial period. Yet, they also demanded much from the natives in this period. This plays a major role in the Pueblo Revolt in 1680.