Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:36:05.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alvaro Obregón and Anticlericalism in the 1910 Revolution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

David C. Bailey
David C. Bailey*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A social revolution must concern itself immediately with the past, since it is a basic conviction of the revolutionist that the moribund and corrupt order which causes society's distress makes impossible the kind of future that he sees as desirable and necessary. Old institutions, structures, and habits of thought must be abolished or severely modified, and persons who direct or personify those vestiges must change, step aside, or be removed from positions of power and influence.

Religious institutions and beliefs present a peculiarly complicated problem to a social revolution. Invariably associated with traditional ways, they are often too deeply rooted in the national mentality and sentiment to admit of any easy or rapid modification. Obliteration, even if though to be the desirable solution, is usually recognized as impossible; and to change mass attitudes by persuasion alone, is at best a long and uncertain process.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 1969 , pp. 183 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A Ford Foundation grant awarded by the Latin American Studies Center at Michigan State University made possible the research for this article.

References

1 The word “Church” as used in this study refers to the corporate body of archbishops, bishops, priests, and religious, and to the laity who consciously profess adherence to Catholic doctrine as they understand it. No particular degree of devotion or observance is implied, nor total agreement on all matters of belief or discipline.

2 Calcott, Wilfrid H., Liberalism in Mexico, 1851–1929 (Stanford, 1931), p. 215.Google Scholar

3 Sedano, Alicia Olivera, Aspectos del conflicto religioso de 1926 a 1929: Sus antecedentes y consecuencias (México, D. F., 1960), p. 46.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 55.

5 Quirk, Robert E., The Mexican Revolution, 1914–1915: The Convention of Aguascalientes (New York, 1963), p. 6.Google Scholar

6 Olivera Sedano, pp. 58–60.

7 One of the many allegations of the Constitutionalists was that the Church paid Huerta 10 million pesos in return for political favors. Catholic sources maintained that the incident involved a loan of 25 thousand pesos, obtained from financial interests in Mexico City at the behest of the Archbishop of Mexico for the purpose of enabling Huerta to pay his troops, who were threatening to sack the capital. As in other aspects of the controversy, conclusive evidence is lacking. See Olivera Sedano, p. 59.

8 Ibid., pp. 61–67.

9 Quirk, p. 15.

10 Obregón, Alvaro, Ocho mil kilómetros en campaña: Relación de las acciones de armas efectuadas en más de veinte estados de la República durante un período’ de cuatro años (México, D. F., 1917), pp. 189, 190.Google Scholar

11 Will Β. Davis, U. S. Consul in Guadalajara, to Secretary of State, July 21, 191?, Department of State Archives, 812.404/96.

12 Taracena, Alfonso, La verdadera revolución mexicana (17 vols.; México, D. F., 1960–1965), 2, 231.Google Scholar It is not clear whether the object of imprisoning the clergy was to punish antirevolutionary activity or to force financial contributions. Davis, in the dispatch cited above, tends to the latter view.

13 Taracena, II, 230.

14 Ibid.

15 Orozco, Francisco y Jiménez, , ¡Acerquémonos a Dios! Memorandum del Arzobispo de Guadalajara (4th ed., 1918), pp. 17, 18Google Scholar; Mena, Mario, Alvaro Obregón, historia militar y política, 1912–1929 (México, D. F., 1960), p. 110.Google Scholar

16 Orozco y Jiménez, p. 18.

17 Various writers have accused Obregón of atrocities, but evidence, if presented at all, is tenuous. For example, Miguel Palomar y Vizcarra relates that Obregón directed the shooting and decapitating of statues in the church of Santa Brígida in Mexico City, but offers no supporting evidence. Palomar, Miguel y Vizcarra, , El caso ejemplar mexicano (2d ed.; México, D. F., 1966), p. 113.Google Scholar

18 Obregón, Ocho mil kilómetros, p. 223.

19 Obregón to Carranza, January 17, 1915, Archivo histórico de la Secretaría de Defensa Nacional (Puebla, 1915).

20 Obregón, , Ocho mil kilómetros, pp. 405, 406.Google Scholar

21 Mexican Herald, February 19, 1915, p. 1. Obregón later said the number was 180. Ocho mil kilómetros, p. 417.

22 La Prensa, Mexico City, March 3, 1915, pp. 1, 2.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., March 6, 1915, p. 1.

25 Obregón, , Ocho mil kilómetros, pp. 436, 437.Google Scholar Obregon’s account is at variance with the news story in La Prensa, which reported on March 7 (p. 1) that Obregón had announced that all ill clergymen and those over 60 years of age had been released. Press accounts at the time made no mention of the venereal disease report. Catholic writers have sharply challenged Obregón’s version. Antonio Rius Facius, for example, states that a military doctor, called to attend several of the priests who were ill, did not examine them, but told them: “You say you have stomach ailments, but what you have is syphilis,” whereupon he drew up the report which Obregón later reproduced in his book. Facius, Antonio Rius, La juventud católica y la Revolución Mexicana, 1910–1925 (México, D. F., 1963), p. 88.Google Scholar

26 Silliman to Secretary of State, March 19, 1915, Department of State Archives, 812.404/80.

27 La Prensa, Mexico City, February 21, 1915, pp. 1, 3.

28 Obregón, , Ocho mil kilómetros, pp. 405, 406, 433, 434.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., pp. 405, 406.

30 Speech in Tepic, July 13, 1927, Discursos del General Alvaro Obregón (2 vols.; México, D. F.: Dirección General de Educación Militar, 1932), II, 123.

31 Speech in Monterrey, August 28, 1927, ibid., p. 254.

32 Speech in San Luis Potosí, August 14, 1927, ibid., pp. 199, 200.

33 Speech in Progreso, May 5, 1928, ibid., p. 427.

34 Obregón, , Ocho mil kilómetros, p. 14.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., p. 504; Islas, Felipe and Blanco, N. Múzquiz, De la pasión sectaria a la noción de las instituciones (México, D. F., 1932), p. 40.Google Scholar

36 Statement of June 25, 1927, Discursos, II, 52.

37 Ibid., p. 56.

38 Speech in Mexico City, November 23, 1927, ibid., pp. 292, 293.

39 Speech in Monterrey, August 28, 1927, ibid., pp. 255, 256.

40 Obregón, , Ocho mil kilómetros, pp. 433, 434.Google Scholar

41 Statement of June 25, 1927, Discursos, II, 56.

42 Speech in Mexico City, November 23, 1927, ibid., pp. 292, 293.

43 Speech in Ciudad General Terán, Nuevo León, August 27, 1927, ibid., pp. 248, 249.

44 Speech in Mexico City, September 30, 1921, ibid., I, 358–360.

45 “Respuesta que dió el ciudadano Presidente de la República a la carta que la dirigieron los señores arzobispos y obispos, José Mora y del Río, Leopoldo Ruíz, Francisco Orozco y Jiménez, Enrique Sánchez y José Otón Núñez, con motivo de la expulsión de Monseñor Ernesto Filippi,” printed handbill dated January 27, 1923, Archivo de la Nación, “Archivo de los Presidentes, Obregón-Calles,” 242-C-6.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 The statement appeared in several Mexico City newspapers on November 7, 1926. It was later printed in pamphlet form under the title, “El conflicto religioso en México, juzgado por Alvaro Obregón” (Mexico, D. F., 1926), from which the above reference is taken (pp. 6, 7).

49 Ibid., pp. 7, 8.

50 There is general agreement on this point by writers on both sides of the religions question. See, for example, Ruíz, Leopoldo y Flores, , Recuerdo de recuerdos: Auto-biografía del Excmo. Rdmo. Sr. Dr. Don Leopoldo Ruíz y Flores, Arzobispo de Morelia y Asistente al Solio Pontifìcio (Mexico, D. F., 1942), p. 82 Google Scholar; and Gil, Emilio Portes, La labor sediciosa del clero mexicano (Madrid, 1935), p. 167.Google Scholar

51 Miguel Cantón to Obregón, June 15, 1921; Obregón to Miguel Cantón, June 16, 1921; Procurador General de la Nación to Secretario Particular del C. Presidente de la República, August 8, 1921, No. 18544, Archivo, de la Nación, “Archivo de los Presidentes, Obregón-Calles,” 421-S-4.

52 Virginia E. Vda. de Palacio and J. Toribio Guzmán to Obregón, November 29, 1922; Obregón to Virginia E. Vda. de Palacio and J. Toribio Guzmán, November 30, 1922, SP-K.1133; in ibid., 438–0–6.

53 Obregón to Governor of Veracruz, May 2, 1923, SP.D.22; Obregón to Ricardo Vargas, May 2, 1923, SP.D.23; in ibid., 438–0–06.

54 Olivera Sedano, pp. 90–92; Ruíz y Flores, pp. 81, 82.

55 There had been several exchanges of letters during the two years previous in which a growing frankness and mutual good will is evident. See, for example, Filippi to Obregón, December 30, 1921; Obregón to Filippi, January 2, 1922; Filippi to Obregón, June 3, 1922; Archivo de la Nación, “Archivo de los Presidentes, Obregón Calles,” 438-F-l.

56 Olivera Sedano, pp. 92, 93.

57 Speech at Zitácuaro, February 5, 1923, Discursos, I, 370.

58 Carreño, Alberto María, El Arzobispo de México, Excmo. Sr. Dr. D. Pascual Díaz y el conflicto religioso (2d ed., annotated and enlarged; México, D. F., 1943), pp. 161–163.Google Scholar

59 Morrow, to Secretary of State, July 23, 1928, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1928 (3 vols.; Washington, D. C., 1943), III, 331.Google Scholar Morrow stated that his infor-mation came from Aarón Sáenz, Obregón’s campaign manager and recently-elected governor of Nuevo León.

60 Speech in Cañitas, Zacatecas, March 22, 1928, Discursos, II, 361.

61 Statement of June 25, 1927, ibid., p. 80.