No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
The Late 1860’s and early 1870’s marked for Mexico the end of an era, for Benito Juárez was serving his last years in the presidency. At the same time there were the stirrings of a new personal order; Porfirio Díaz was making his first overt attempt to gain control. In this period some of the greatest liberals turned against Juárez and toward Díaz. The charges which they hurled against the former during the year 1871 resemble those used against Díaz during the later years of his reign. To many of the liberals Juárez was the bureaucratic leader of a personal party and Díaz was the rising dynamic liberal. Their views are well reflected in the newspaper El Mensajero, published in Mexico City from January 2 to September 30, 1871.
1 The most convenient place to find these is in Carleton Beals, Porfirio Díaz, Dictator of Mexico (Philadelphia, 1932); see also Valadés, José C., El Porfirismo… El Crecimiento (Mexico, 1948) II Google Scholar, Zea, Leopoldo, Apogeo y Decadencia del Positivismo en Mexico (Mexico, 1944)Google Scholar, and Cumberland, Charles, “An Analysis of the Program of the Mexican Liberal Party, 1906,”The Americas (IV, 3, 1948 Google Scholar). The element of nationalism is not as forceful in 1871 as it was in the platform of the liberals in 1906.
2 The paper did not necessarily print only political news but it also contained articles on literature, the theater and on other subjects.
3 Zamacona was an old supporter of Juárez. He had been in the Juárez cabinet and had edited the important official government paper, the Diario Oficial, in the early 1860’s. During the intervention he wrote letters of advice to Juárez which indicated increasing concern with the way in which Juárez was governing the country then under his control. See for example, Zamacona to Juárez, Saltillo, June 16, 1864, Archivo Juárez, Biblioteca Nacional, México, Núm. 1201.
4 Ramírez was with the Juárez government in Veracruz during the Three Years War and he was Minister of Justice when Juárez returned to Mexico City. He resigned his position on May 11, 1861. Galindo, M. Galindo y, La Gran Década Nacional… 1857–1867 (3 vols., Mexico, 1904–06Google Scholar) IL 42. From then on Ramirez became increasingly critical of Juárez.
5 Ramírez, Ignacio, Obras de Ignacio Ramírez (2 vols, in 1, Mexico, 1947 ed.) II.Google Scholar
6 León Guzmán had been with Juárez as his Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1861. His increasing dislike of Juárez can be found in “El Partido Constitucional la, 2a y 3a época del Presidente D. Benito Juárez,” Documentos relativos a la Reforma, 1850–1861, Genaro García Archive, University of Texas, Folder No. 28.
7 José María Mata had worked with Juárez for quite some time. He had been Juarez’s representative in Washington for part of the Three Years War and later he had been Minister of the Treasury for a short time in 1861.
8 As stated by Díaz: “Así lo manifesté en esa capital a los delegados de la asociación democrática constitucionalista, entre los que figuraban algunos de los redactores del Mensajero, cuando presentaron a mi aprobación el programa que vdes. han hecho despues suyo, que yo acepté entonces, y al cual no tengo inconveniente en ratificar mi adhesión.” El Mensajero, Jan. 28, 1871.
9 Ibid., Feb. 13, 1871.
10 Ibid., April 25. As one studies nineteenth century Mexico the conviction increases that clubs played a tremendous part in political affairs.
11 Ibid., Jan. 20.
12 For example, see Ibid., Mar. 11.
13 As an example, see Ibid., Jan. 19.
14 Ibid., April 25. There is probably a great deal of truth in this statement for the author has found that in the letters of the period this is one matter of common complaint.
15 Ibid., June 3; quoting from El Correo de México, Sept. 23, 1867. The latter was Ignacio Altamirano’s paper. He was constantly opposed to Juárez. The article suggested further that after Zaragoza’s death Juárez turned the defense of Mexico over to Doblado, Comonfort and Uraga. All of them were of dubious quality and all were moderate liberals. In the same vein, El Mensajero looked over the Juárez cabinet as of March 3, 1871 and carried a critical attack on it. It was especially harsh on Manuel Saavedra, Minister of Gobernación, saying that he was practically a nonentity. The implication is that Juárez himself was running this post, which would mean that he personally was controlling the internal political affairs. While Lerdo was still in the cabinet it was claimed that he completely dominated it. El Mensajero, Jan. 4.
16 Ibid., May 7; quoting from Revista de Zacatecas, April 22, 1871, from an article signed by “Ezequiel” [Montes?]: “… hoy tenemos un Luis XIV en Benito Juárez.”
17 El Mensajero, Jan. 2. To some extent this was true; in Oaxaca, however, where Félix Díaz was governor it certainly was not. On this point a rather interesting question arises about the period 1867–1872. The letters which were sent by Juárez to governors or outstanding men in the states always tell them to allow free elections. As a typical example: “El gobierno no tiene ni puede tener an… (illeg.) personal contra ninguna entidad tratandose de elecciones como no tiene ni puede tener predilección de ninguna especie en favor de determinados candidatos. Desea simplemente que haya paz, que se conserve el orden, que los pueblos tengan completa independencia al escojer sus funcionarios y que se respeten las autoridades legalmente constuidas porque de otro modo no habrá gobierno posible en nuestro pais. Jamás podrá verificarse ni aqui ni en ninguna parte del mundo una elección sea cual fuere que sea igualmente agradable para todos; pero deber es y deber sagrado aceptarla cuando cuente con la sanción y el voto de la mayoría.” Juárez to D. Vicente Márquez, May 25, 1868. Copiadores, Archivo Juárez, Biblioteca Nacional, México. Yet it is hard to believe that Juárez, who had been governor of Oaxaca, who had been in politics for so long, did not realize that the governors and other public employees fixed the elections. It seems quite possible that Juárez, while governor of Oaxaca, did his best to see that supporters of his ideas were elected. Hutchinson, C. A., Valentín Gómez Farias, A Biographical Study (Ph. D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1948), 809–810.Google Scholar
18 El Mensajero, Jan. 4.
19 Ibid., Feb. 9. There are some very intelligent articles in La Iberia, the Spanish paper in Mexico City, in this period about economic questions in Mexico.
20 El Mensajero, Mar. 7; quoting from La Sombra de Ocampo. No date given from La Sombra.
21 El Mensajero, Jan. 5, Feb. 21, April 13.
22 Ibid., Feb. 22.
23 Ibid., Feb. 28.
24 Ibid., Mar. 7.
25 Ibid., Mar. 21. As can be seen here, free elections were the chief interest. The Minister of Gobernación in Mexico is the one who generally is given credit for seeing to the election of the “right” officials. The Diario Oficial, as the official government publication, was in theory to be unbiased and simply list the news and the laws of the government, but it was, and continued to be used in many ways as a propaganda vehicle for the government in power.
26 El Mensajero, Mar. 21–22.
27 Ibid., May 30, June 23.
28 Ibid. For example, reports were given of interference with municipal elections in Guadalajara. Ibid., May 16, June 10. Infractions of the law were cited in the Federal District where 300 to 400 persons were arrested on the pretext that they were disturbing the public order. Ibid., June 30. Many of the protests were printed intact, as for example one dated June 25, 1871, from San Luis Potosí, which complained that public gatherings had been prohibited, that the army had been used for the Juaristas on election day, and that there had been fraudulent counting of the votes. Ibid., July 6.
29 Ibid., Aug. 10, 25.
30 Ibid., Aug. 30, Sept. 1.
31 But the editor, Ignacio Ramírez, said he was against a revolt. Yet he said he had great faith in the people and knew that they would not allow themselves to be tricked, which seems to imply that, although he disapproved, he thought a revolution very possible.