¹ Both Mecham, J. Lloyd, Church and State in Latin America (Chapel Hill, 1934), XIV and Callcotte, Wilfred H., Church and State in Mexico, 1822–1857 (Durham, 1926), IV Google Scholar, have good accounts of these laws.

² The choice of words here is important as brought out in the debates at the convention. Apparently “liberty of conscience” was not taken to be synonymous with “tolerance,” for one of the members of the constitutional commission explained: “El proyecto no habla de tolerancia religiosa, sino de libertad de conciencia. La comisión no ha dado cabida a la palabra tolerancia, porque se tolera lo que se puede impedir y no hay quien tenga derecho para impedir la libertad en lo íntimo de la conciencia.” Zarco, Francisco, Historia del congreso estro-ordinario constituyente de 1856 y 1857 (Mexico, 1857, 2 vols.), I. 658.Google Scholar

³ The liberals were split into two factions, the Moderados and the Puros. On the difference between them probably one of the best definitions appears in Justo Sierra’s work on Benito Juárez. He points out that the liberals of the period wanted certain innovations such as doing away with special privileges, depriving the clergy of their riches, realizing a program of equality, submitting to law and not to a man and destroying inequalities because only then could democracy function. Those who believed that these things could be accomplished only bit by bit were the Moderados. Those who believed they could be accomplished all at once were called Puros. Sierra, Justo, Juárez su obra y su tiempo (Mexico, 1906), 78.Google Scholar

⁴ None of the great conservative leaders were there. Callcott, Church, 268. Callcott also states that the Moderados were represented by a few delegates. Ibid. Yet it seems to the author that they had more power at the convention than Callcott indicates. The fact that they were aided by the Comonfort government, which carried weight, would seem to give them influence beyond their number. If the Moderados had not had power probably the convention would not have taken so long. There are continual references throughout the meeting by the Puros that they are being obstructed. Futhermore, by May of 1856, the Comonfort government and the convention were disagreeing with one another. As a member of the cabinet, Manuel Siliceo, expressed it in a letter to Manuel Doblado: “… estamos al entrar en pugna abierta los diputados nosotros.” García, Genaro, ed., “Los Gobiernos de Alvarez y Comonfort según el archivo del General Doblado,” Documentos Inéditos ó muy raros (Mexico, 1906–1913, 36 vols.), XXXI, 191.Google Scholar

⁵ At the convention such members as Ponciano Arriaga and Ignacio Ramírez pointed out the need of real economic changes. Zarco, , Congreso, I, 546–570, 664–65 Google Scholar. Yet, as Arriaga also said in introducing the constitution, the commission felt the need of dispensing with economic questions and dealing with other matters. Ibid., 435–467. In a way this would contradia the general impression of the convention given, for example by Callcott who states that all the men were theoretical and never got down to economic actualities. Callcott, Church, 269. Yet in the minds of the leaders the question was the clerical one. What they did therefore was to attempt to resolve this issue.

⁶ This statement may seem to be in contradiction with the previous footnote yet it is not necessarily so. As explained the clerical question was the question in the minds of many and their feeling was that the only way to get Mexico started on the road to progress was to limit the economic and political power of the church. It must be remembered that most of the delegates were not members of the industrial, commercial or laboring groups. Callcote infers criticism because of the lack of these men. Ibid., 269. But the trouble is that the first two groups were just starting on their way to power. Their thought, however, could easily be represented. Even during the period of Diaz foreign economic interests had more influence than did Mexican industrial and commercial men. And in what nineteenth century constitutional assembly was there representation of the laborbing groups? Finally, and what seems to be the gist of the argument, the men who were at the convention were lawyers, journalists, teachers and government employees, or the group from which doctrines of fear of centralistic power and the church arose, as for example in France in the late eighteenth century. These men were eager for economic development of the country but first they felt that a way had to be cleared for it. This road led to a limitation of the power of the personal control of the state and the power of the clergy. Thus these Mexicans did not differ much from English or French predecessors on the path to a middle class control of the state. In accomplishing their aims the Mexican intellectuals would use a bastard form of Comte’s doctrine of positivism, adapted in such a way as would most adequately serve Mexico’s needs. The background of the doctrine had its real start in Mexico under Luis Mora in the 1820’s and 1830’s. His ideas of “progress and retrocession” were to carry over and were to play their part in influencing the demands for restrictions on the military and clergy. Leopoldo Zea’s El Positivismo en Mexico (Mexico, 1943) has an excellent discussion of Mora and his influence. In developing his background for the culmination of positivism under Porfirio Diaz, Zea touches very lightly on the constitutional convention. Had he gone into it more he would have found more material for his thesis.

⁷ The convention also acted as a legislative body and the discussion of the fueros came up before consideration of the constitution in itself. Later the law was incorporated into the constitution.

⁸ The law concerns itself with much more than simply fueros, for it sets up a new court system for Mexico. But for the purposes of this article only the fueros will be considered. The entire law is given in Zarco, , Congreso, I, 140–157 Google Scholar. The law aroused a great deal of protest and on November 27, 1855, the Archbishop of Mexico protested to Juárez. “He declared that the ecclesiastical privilege of special courts had been generally recognized since the establishment of the Church in New Spain; and that it was in fact an essential and inherent element of the Church, and that the only legitimate and canonical procedure for modifying it was through appeal to the pope. Juárez replied that the measure did not touch religion in any way, and the sole purpose of promulgating the decree was to establish social equality.” Mecham, Church, 429. Those against the law, however, “claimed that the dignity of the church and the maintenance of a respected priesthood required separate trials for the clergy.” Ibid. There followed an uprising against the government and Alvarez resigned and Comonfort came in as provisional president It is worthy of note here to see the difference in the cabinet of the two men. Puros dominated the cabinet of Alvarez which included Melchor Ocampo, Benito Juárez, Guillermo Prieto, Ponciano Arriaga, Miguel Arrioja and Ignacio Comonfort. When Comonfort took over the stress was on the Moderados, for the cabinet included Luis de la Rosa, Ezequiel Montes, José M. Lafrangua, Manuel Payno, Manuel Siliceo and José Maria Yáñez. Enriquez, Rafael de Zayas, Benito Juárez su vida— su obra (Mexico, 1906), 55–57.Google Scholar

⁹ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 100.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The law did not abolish all fueros but left the church the criminal fuero. The law did say, however, that later this fuero could be abolished. Articles 42 and 44 deal with the ecclesiastical fuero. Ibid., 148.

¹¹ The word “retrocession” is used throughout the debates and would seem to show the influence of Mora on the convention. It was his belief that the clergy and military caused retrocession in Mexico. Such a view is in harmony with the later positivistic doctrine in Mexico. Zea, , Positivismo, 77–106.Google Scholar

¹² The word “progress,” like “retrocession,” is used many times. The frequency with which it appears is another indication that there existed, among some of the deputies, the feeling that what Mexico needed was a reform to bring about order and progress. To be successful, as has already been suggested, the liberals considered it necessary to include suppression of military and clerical influence. This is genuine Mora doctrine.

¹³ The text of the report is in Zarco, , Congreso, I, 137–140.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., 166–68, 174.

¹⁵ Marcelino Castañeda and Arriaga were those who held this point of view. Ibid., 167, 172–73, 179.

¹⁶ Cf., p. 14.

¹⁷ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 178–79.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., 171.

¹⁹ Ibid., 176–77.

²⁰ José Antonio Gamboa took this point of view. Ibid., 168–69.

²¹ Ibid., 179.

²² Ibid., 168.

²³ Statement by Fuente, Juan Antonio de la. Ibid., 175.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 181.

²⁵ Ibid., 182. The only vote against it was Castañeda’s.

²⁶ As presented at the convention it was one section of Article 2 of the original constitution. It read as follows: “Todos los habitantes de la república, sin distinción de clases, ni de orígen, tienen iguales derechos. Nadie puede ser juzgado por leyes privativas ni por tribunales especiales. Ninguna persona ni corporación puede ser investida de fueros o privilegios esclusivos, ni dotada de emolumentos que redunden en gravamen de la sociedad.” Ibid., 467–68. In its final form it became Article 13 of the constitution, but parts of the above were changed. It read: “En la República Mexicana nadie puede ser juzgado por leyes privativas, ni por tribunales especiales. Ninguna persona ni corporación puede tener fueros, ni gozar emolumentos que no sean compensación de un servicio público, y estén fijados por la ley.” Ibid., II, 995.

²⁷ Ibid., I, 690–92.

²⁸ Ibid., II, 561–62. Callcott states that at this time there was a discussion on the fueros at the convention. He does not cite references from the constitutional convention but a pamphlet of the period. Callcott, , Church, 287.Google Scholar

²⁹ The law is given in Zarco, Congreso, I, 597–603; the way in which it was to be put into effect is in Ibid., 603–07. The law, written by Lerdo de Tejada, Minister of the Treasury, stated that: “no corporation, civil or ecclesiastical, would be permitted to acquire or own real property, except that which was directly used for purposes or worship. The properties then owned by such corporations would be sold at a price which at six per cent would yield the rent actually being charged. Tenants were to be given first choice to purchase, but if they did not take proper steps to secure their rights within three months, the property would be offered for public sale at the same price. Properties not rented or leased would be sold at public auction. All sales were subject to the payment of the alcabala, or sales tax, at five per cent. The law did not confiscate property; it decreed the necessity of alienating Church realty held in mortmain and turning back the proceeds to the Church.” Mecham, Church, 432. The purpose of the law is well summarized by Mecham: “The object of the measure, according to Lerdo de Tejada, was to make all large property holders disgorge and sell to the middle and poor classes, thereby making real property more mobile and conducing to its improvement and development. It would tend to equalize the taxation of all real estate and increase the revenue of the government by the receipts from the alcabala and other forms of taxation. It is to be noted that Lerdo de Tejada emphasized only the economic advantages of the measure. He remained silent on the political aspects of the law which were extremely important, for it was hoped that the disamortization of Church properties would destroy the political influence of the Church.” Ibid., 432–33.

³⁰ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 598–602 Google Scholar. It might be noted here that a later Mexican author thought that this law was the one which touched off the Three Years War which followed the Constitutional convention. Enriquez, Andrés Molina, La Reforma y Juárez (Mexico, 1906), 71 Google Scholar, cited in Mecham, , Church, 437 Google Scholar and in Callcott, , Church, 289 Google Scholar. The law certainly aroused a great deal of opposition. The Bishop of Puebla protested to such an extent that Comonfort felt the necessity of exiling him to Bancroft, Havana. H. H., History of Mexico (San Francisco, 1883–1888, 6 vols.), V, 686 Google Scholar. On December 15, 1856 Pope Pius IX condemned the legislation. “In order that the faithful who live there (Mexico) may know and the Catholic world may understand that we energetically reprove all that the Mexican government has done against the Catholic religion, against the Church and its sacred ministers and pastors, against its laws, rights, and properties, as well as against the authority of this Holy See, we lift our pontifical voice with apostolic freedom, in this full assembly to condemn, reprove and declare null and void the said decrees, and whatever else the civil authority has put into effect with such contempt of ecclesiastical authority and this Apostolic See.” Mecham, Church, 434–35. Mecham also cites from one of the many pamphlets of the period: “Attention, Mexicans! Alarm! Observe with fear how the government of the tyrant Comonfort has calumniated the San Francisco friary only to seize the silver of the Church, and (how he has) begun to destroy our religion, and to profane those holy places that Martin Luther and Peter (sic) Calvin would respect. Do not permit that! Death before the destruction of religion! Eternal hate to the tyrants! The curse of God fall upon those men of nefarious memory; upon these sacrilegious robbers…. Viva the immunity of the Church!” Ibid., 435.

³¹ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 607–08.Google Scholar

³² These ideas were borne out in later years. Phipps, Helen in her study “Some Aspects of the Agrarian Question in Mexico,” University of Texas Bulletin, No. 2515 (April, 1925, Austin), 79–80 Google Scholar has shown that the land did not pass into the hands of the lower classes but went into a new large landholding group.

³³ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 608–09.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid., 615.

³⁵ Callcott states that when it was brought up for discussion as a part of the constitution: “Article 27 stirred up another hornet’s nest in the nation, though the congress was almost unanimous in its approval. To the first part, which provided that private property should not be confiscated except for the public good and then only after due process of law, there was little objection. Then came the prohibition of civil and religious corporations from holding or administering real property except those buildings actually used for purposes of worship. The discussion of this provision brought on a repetition of all the arguments over the Ley Lerdo.” Callcott, , Church, 289 Google Scholar. Yet the second part of the article was not brought up until very late in the convention. When it was proposed only a very short statement was made for the article and it was quickly passed, 76–3. Zarco, , Congreso, II, 808.Google Scholar

³⁶ The power of the state was also shown in the case of the friars of the convent of San Francisco in Mexico City. Mecham states that they were caught trying to start a revolt and as a result Comonfort ordered the convent suppressed, its property nationalized and a street was to be opened through its premises. Mecham, , Church, 435 Google Scholar. Niceto de Zamacois, however, states that the friars were imprisoned for five months but no definite evidence was found to prove their guilt. As a result some of the Mexican leaders, including Castañeda, Zarco, Prieto and Payno wrote to the president on February 17, 1857, “solicitando que se volviese a abrir al culto la iglesia de San Francisco.” On February 19, 1857 Comonfort agreed. Zamacois, Niceto de, Historia de Méjico desde sus tiempos más remotos hasta nuestros días (Barcelona, 1877–1882, 18 vols.), XIV, 501–03 Google Scholar.

³⁷ Zarco, Congreso, I, 117–20 contains the decree. It is interesting to note the protest made by the Bishop of Puebla and the reply given by the government. The Bishop’s statement is in Ibid., 183–95 and the reply follows in Ibid., 195–205. The Plan of Zacapoaxtla (December 19, 1855) mentioned later in this footnote may be found in García, Raros, XXXI, 148–50. Briefly stated, the Bishop asked the Minister of Justice if he really believed that by intervention civil war could be stopped. He implied that it could not because of the tremendous religious feeling in Puebla. He denied that any member of his immediate cabildo in Puebla took part in or aided the revolt, although he did admit that the priest in Zacapoaxtla participated in the movement. The Bisohp stated that he had made attempts to remove the priest but had not been successful for a number of reasons. The Bishop then went on to say that the government attributed to the entire clergy what only three or four of them did and finally he denied that the government had the right to interfere in church property. The government’s reply stated that it was the duty of the church to use its goods for the poor such as widows and invalids from the last war. The Minister of Justice stated that he had carefully examined church documents and could find no way in which the present decree overrode church rights. Moreover if it were known that the priest in Zacapoaxtla had taken a direct part why had he not been reprimanded? Certainly the Bishop had this power. Also it was well known that loans had been made to the head of the revolt in Puebla. He ended by stating that the position of the government would be a sad one if it lacked ample faculties in order to restrain excesses of groups or corporations that abused their power.

³⁸ Portilla, Anselmo de la, Méjico en 1856 y 1857. Gobierno de General Comonfort (New York, 1858), 35.Google Scholar

³⁹ It might also be pointed out here that members of the clergy were ineligible to be elected president or to be in congress according to the constitution.

⁴⁰ The tew of the decree is in Zarco, , Congreso, I, 378–79.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., 379–83.

⁴² Ibid., 383–88.

⁴³ Ibid., 388–97. José María Mata also made the point that it was not liberal to be intolerant. Ibid., 409.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 397–408. Garcia Granados also criticized their plan of study. Ibid., 409.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Callcott, Church, 284.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 285.

⁴⁸ Callcott states: “In spite of a strong opposition, mustering as many as thirty-seven votes at one time, the various clauses of the article were approved.” Ibid., 286. This is misleading, for the thirty-seven opposing votes were cast on the first part of the article which did not deal with religious vows. It states: “Nadie puede ser obligado a prestar trabajos personales, sin la justa retribución y sin su pleno consentimiento.” Zarco, , Congreso, II, 994 Google Scholar. Only twenty-two votes were obtained against the part concerning religious vows which, as stated, was part two of the whole article. Ibid., I, 733.

⁴⁹ Statement by Castañeda. Ibid., 722.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 728–29.

⁵¹ Ibid., 722–23. Ramirez seemed to deliberately use the word “Evangelio” throughout his speech. Others speak of “Dios.” The reason for this possibly comes from Ramirez’ very early attack on the constitution when it was being considered as a whole. He attacked the preamble which began: “In the name of God….” He felt that such statemetns had produced everywhere the idea of divine right and the history of divine right had brought about oppression. Ibid., 660–61.

⁵² This was Mata’s argument. Ibid., 723–24. Francisco Cendejas enlarged on this when he stated that keeping a person in a cloister against his will led to mental disorders and engendered desperation. Ibid., 724–26

⁵³ Ibid., 727–28.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 729–31.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 731–32.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 733.

⁵⁷ Ibid., II, 128–39.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 140.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 142–43.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 143. Again in this article Callcott seems to be a bit misleading. He states: “Article 3 got down to the heart of the religious question. Fourteen delegates discussed the matter at length.” Callcott, Church, 284. But as has been pointed out, the discussion that took place did not so much concern itself with the article but its extension.

⁶¹ At the start of a number of sessions protests from people outside the convention came in against Article 15 (the religious freedom article as originally presented). Very seldom did the convention receive any statements from people favoring the article.

⁶² Zarco, , Congreso, I, 644.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., 652–55.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 674–75.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 771–76.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 811–13.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 823–32.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 838–44. Isidoro Olvera also used this argument Ibid., II, 31–33.

⁶⁹ Zamacois makes a great point of the poor taste of the liberal newspapers and their statements against the church. Zamacois, , Historia, XIV.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 852–61.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., 869–76.

⁷² Ibid., II, 5–17.

⁷³ Ibid., 19–31.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 59–65.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 41–51.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 87–89.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 65–79.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 1, 801–810.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 813–21. Prieto voted against the article. Zamacois, , Historia, XIV, 336.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Zamacois states that only protests came in from all over Mexico. Zamacois, , Historia, XIV, 323.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Zarco, , Congreso, I, 776–88.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., 849–52.

⁸³ Ibid., II, 33–38.

⁸⁴ Ibid., I, 788–98.

⁸⁵ Ibid., II, 51–59.

⁸⁶ Ibid., I, 832–38.

⁸⁷ Ibid, 846–49.

⁸⁸ Ibid, 861–67.

⁸⁹ Ibid, II, 93–96. Zamacois lists the vote. Zamacois, , Historia, XIV, 335–36.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Zarco, . Congreso, II, 813.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid, 814–16.

⁹² Ibid., 817.

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Ibid, 817–23.

⁹⁵ Ibid, 824.

⁹⁶ Callcott, , Church, 304–05.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Zarco, , Congreso, II, 859, 866–71, 874.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Bulnes, Francisco, Juárez y las revoluciones de Ayutla y de la reforma (Mexico, 1905), 247–49 Google Scholar, feels that, because only twenty-one of those who had served at the constitutional convention were re-elected to the national congress, the country therefore did not approve of the Constitution. Mecham, , Church, 440 Google Scholar. Mecham simply uses this as a suggestion; however, Callcott, in his Liberalism in Mexico, 1857–1929 (Stanford University, 1931), 7 Google Scholar, seems firmly to believe this theory. The author can only suggest here that possibly the new voting law, which required a deputy to reside in the district he represented according to the constitution, may have had some effect on the composition of the new congress. At the convention some of the delegates, especially the Puros, pointed out the numbers who lived in Mexico City and therefore probably would not be able to take part in the legislative part of the government under the law. Zarco, , Congreso, II, 349–79 Google Scholar. Possibly others, as Melchor Ocampo, did not desire to run. Buenrostro, Felipe, Historia del primero y segundo congreso constitucionales de la República Mexicana (Mexico, 1874–1886, 8 vols.) Ia. 32–34.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ On March 17, 1857. Callcott, , Liberalism, 6–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 9–10.

¹⁰¹ This plan called for: “(1) inviolability of church property and revenues and the reestablishment of former exactions; (2) reestablishment of the fueros; (3) censorship of the press; (4) the Roman Catholic religion as the sole and exclusive religion of Mexico; (5) immigrants to come only from Catholic countries; (6) overthrow of the Constitution of 1857 and the use of a dictatorship subservient to Church only; (7) a monarchy to be established if possible, and if not, a European protectorate; and (8) high tariff, internal duties, and the use of monopolies.” Mecham, Church, 440.