Wednesday, February 26, 2014

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. 

Liberals knew that Mexico needed a strong central government and thought that, "a strong federal government would be necessary to strip the church of its temporal power" (pg. 219). The people of Mexico needed a constitution in order for society reforms to occur. Conservatives brought many issues against the 1857 constitution. Though liberals had progressive plans to separate the church and government, there were many problems with the land reforms and restrictions on wealth. It is difficult to comprehend the just complete lack of government during this time in Mexico. I think issues with the church are obvious but I think the demographic and geographic Mexico is still to be blamed in the lack of order. Mexico City being centrally located would be ideal in any country, but not one as Mexico that was facing major political problems. On page 219, Russell describes the Plan of Tacubaya which, "declared Roman Catholicism to be Mexico's sole religion and restored Church control over its property. This plan was proclaimed by moderate liberals. I think if there was a centralized, strong federal government these overruns of laws would obviously not be allowed to happen. The corruption wouldn't occur if Mexico was a more politically centralized country and it was clear it was going to take some time before that happened. Juarez served as a member of Alvarez' cabinet and went to Veracruz after the Plan of Tacubaya went in to effect. There he established a liberal government. Back in Mexico City, many conservatives were gaining the support of the church and military. Juarez still maintained his position in Veracruz when he became president and continued to take power away from the church and military. This separation led to the War of Reform. Most fascinating about this war is the amount of people in Mexico not fighting in it. Of the nation's 8 million people, no more than 25,000 men were fighting in the war (pg. 222). This civil war between liberals and conservatives was not popular to the people in Mexico. I wonder if that was because the people of Mexico were just tired of fighting and still having no order. While some may have associated themselves with either the conservative or liberal parties, it was clear that neither party had brought consistency to Mexico. They were trying to move away from the inconsistency and dictatorship of Santa Anna but Juarez and other liberals could not remain under control during this time. 

After Maximillian's defeat the liberals rose to power again but still could not agree to new laws or reforms. The generation gap was part of this reason. Juarez could not come up with an effective solution to the land issue leading to more unrest throughout Mexico. Juarez did lead Mexico to peace and unity and has been credited for the biggest change in Mexico prior to that time however. He knew the corruption that was occurring and I think his fight to end it was something to commend him for. Mexico had begun to flourish and it was because of Juarez and his willingness to fight for his country. "He merely declared all men to be equal before the law" (pg. 229). 

2 comments:

  1. In another class of mine, we've discussed the Great Chain of Being, an idea from the medieval ages that gives order to the whole world. At the top was God, and below God were the angels, pope, and king, in that order. And if we consider that the Spanish were heavily impacted by this way of thinking and then brought their system to Mexico, it might make it a little easier to understand why so much emphasis was placed on the Church over the government, and why the Church was able to gain special privileges. When the Renaissance happened, this idea broke, somewhat, and the Church had a really tough time copping with it and understanding where their position in society was now. I must be hard going from nearly the top, to somewhere in between. I think that's why the Church fought so hard against the Liberals that were trying to take away it's power.

    I think the point you bring up about the War of Reform not having many soldiers is an interesting one. I would agree that it's strange that so many people did not fight in this war. To me, it almost seems like the elite bickering amongst themselves, while the poor and middle class just try desperately to hang on to any form of normalcy they have. There is obviously problems with the Mexican government, no matter who is running it, at this point. I would imagine that a lot of people stopped trying to keep up with what was happening in Mexico City, especially if it didn't impact their day to day lives, or if it did, that the law in question wasn't enforced. I imagine this type of feeling toward the government existed much more so in the outer regions of Mexico where the government was hard pressed to influence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought it was interesting on how you called the clergy corrupted, I agree with you on this. At the end of the day they're still people just like us. I agree that Mexico in a way wanted to compete with the United States, since the U.S. took half their land, I don't think they would want to waste an opportunity to show the U.S. that Mexico can modernize, but it would be hard because of so much political instability during this time in Mexico. A strong government would be necessary both for modernization and taking power away from the church and money, lots of money. Very interesting recap, it was something I enjoyed reading.

    ReplyDelete