Bull. LatinAm. Res.,Vol. 15, No. 1,pp. l-6.1996 Elswier Science Ltd

Copyright 0 1995 Society for Latin American Studies printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0261-3050/96$15.00 + .OO

0261-3050(95)00007-0

Introduction: The ‘Forgotten Century’: Mexico, 1810-1910’

WILL FOWLER University of St Andrews, UK

The nineteenth century remains, surprisingly, to this day, one of the least studied and one of the most misrepresented periods of Mexican history. To quote Michael Costeloe, ‘the Revolution in particular has been subjected to intense sc~tiny. [. . .] The colonial period has been equally, if not even better, served. [. . .] There remains, however, one substantial gap in the historio- graphy[;] the nineteenth century (Costeloe, 1993: 1). This can be seen most specifically in terms of political history. As Josefina Zoraida Wzquez points out, ‘the study of the political reality behind the foreign interventions and the pronuncimnientos has been avoided’ (Vaizquez, 1993: 626). Historians have, in fact, only recently started to voice the need to put aside the simplifications which have come hand in hand with a cuudi1Zi.m interpretation of the political tensions of nineteenth-century Mexico and focus on the actual political ideas, movements, groups, individuals and governments which emerged and developed from independence to the revolution. According to Donald Stevens, part of the problem has been that ‘historians have preferred military to civilian subjects’ (Stevens, 1994: 257). Given that, in his mind, ‘the caudillo model ]. . .] is not consistent with available historical data’, he arrives at the conclusion that we need ‘an explanation that takes political differences seriously’ (Stevens, 1991: 27). This special issue of the Bulletin of Latin American Research is clearly representative of this more recent shift in Mexican historiography towards concentrating on the politics of nineteenth- century Mexico, granting, to quote Timothy Anna, ‘nineteenth-century political leaders the simple respect of recognising that they may have held genuine political principles’ (Anna, 1993: 137).

However, although this move would appear to receive the applause of most of the specialists concerned, Barbara Tenenbaum has not failed to notice, regarding the first three decades following independence (1821- 185 5), that ‘while Mexicans and historians of Mexico have progressed away from the lingering fascination with “the enigma that was Mexico”2 [. . .], the broad public in the United States and even those who should know better have not’ (Tenenbaum, 1995: 228)? Regarding the Reforma, and speci6cally the political role of Benito Juarez, Brian Hamnett has criticised the mythology which remains overpowering in the official hagiography in which, in complete contrast to the demonology which has surrounded the figure of

2 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

Santa Anna, the existing literature on the ‘symbol, the statue of bronze’ of Jubrez, ‘detracts from the historical reality’ (Hamnett, 1994: xii).

Lack of research paired with what Krauze has defined as a historical manicheism resulting from the fact that ‘Mexico has not been able to reconcile itself with its past’, in which the ‘conservative villains’ (Iturbide, Santa Anna, Maximilian, Dfaz) have been portrayed as ‘traitors, vende- patnbs, reactionaries, cangrejos’, and in contrast, the ‘liberal heroes’ (Hidalgo, Morelos, Mora, Juarez) have been beatified in the ‘official’ history (Krauze, 1994: 20-21), has meant not only that the nineteenth century has been overlooked, but that it has also been misinterpreted. Paul Gamer con- firms this regarding the portrayal of the Dfaz era, ‘and especially that of Dfaz himself’, stating that it ‘has long been character&d and distorted by a power- ful mythology’, arguing that ‘Porfirismo has been subjected to a virulent form of historiographical tyranny’ (Garner, 1996: 38-39).

Ulzquez has gone beyond condemning this so-called ‘official’ inter- pretation of the nineteenth century, directly accusing the current political and educational system in Mexico; ‘The task of revising this interpretation is difficult. Evidence of this is the scandal which exploded over the changes which were made to the free school textbooks destined for primary educa- tion’ (Wzquez, 1994: 10). Nevertheless, Vazquez does accept that these recent trends in the historiography may allow some scope for improvement; ‘It is possible that in a not too distant future we may have a more complete understanding of these forgotten years’ (Xzquez, 1993: 628).

What becomes clear from the recent research which has been carried out on the politics of nineteenth-century Mexico is that several of the key inter- pretations we have inherited from the nineteenth century itself and from post-revolutionary Mexico appear now as having been completely mislead- ing. To begin with, more and more historians have ceased to see the independence movement of 18 10 as a reaction to the constitutional turmoil which followed the French occupation of Spain in 1808, but more as a continuation or a climactic response to the Bourbon reforms which had severely shaken colonial society throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century (Archer, 1994; Brading, 1994; Guedea, 1994; Hamnett, 1986; Patch, 1994; Rodrfguez O., 1994). Furthermore, the three decades following independence, from 1821 to 1857, have also ceased necessarily to be associated either with Santa Arma or with chaos. Research has started to show the extent to which the ever overstated instability which has been traditionally associated with the period was always relative, and that, in fact, there was far more stability and continuity than has been generally acknow- ledged (Carmagnani, 1983; Costeloe, 1993; Fowler, 1995; Stevens, 1991; Tenenbaum, 1985).

It has also become evident that neither the army or the Church were ever monolithic or homogeneous political forces/institutions. Similarly, it has become clear that they contained a whole mosaic of beliefs and believers, mirroring the tensions of society itself. Regarding the military and their involvement in the political struggles of the period, their renowned pro- nunciamientos and coups d’&at were seldom a consequence of their own praetorian initiative, but were in fact, on the whole, brought about, inspired

INTRODUCTION 3

and incited by the civihan politicians. Moreover, the Church seldom organ&d political movements or responses to the different governments. Generally, the Church and religion merely served as an excuse for one faction of politicians or another to conspire to overthrow each other by force, inviting the participation of the high ranking officers (Costeloe, 1989; Hamnett, 1987; Staples, 1994; Vazquez, 1988,1994).

It has also become obvious that the majority of the population were not necessarily unconcerned, unaffected or apolitical during the first half of the nineteenth century. The constitutional experience of 1812-1814 and in 1820-l 82 1 opened up politics to a broad spectrum of society. This popular participation, which was further encouraged in the 1824 Constitution, found other forms of expression at a village level, through patronage, electoral mobilisation and military education (Archer, 1993; Arrom, 1988; Buve, 1992; QuinIan, 1994; Rodriguez O., 1994; Thomson, 1991; Tutino, 1986).

Furthermore, research has started to move away from the Valley of Mexico, and the previous centralist-oriented/capital-based interpretation of Mexican politics has shifted towards provincial, regional and municipal politics (Brading, 1994; Hamnett, 1991; Meyers, 1994; Thomson, 1989). This has evidently provided a much more complete picture of the intraehte conflicts which arose between the provinces, regardless of theoretical class common interests. Moreover, a new understanding of the period has emerged from this shift away from the capital in which we can appreciate that there was a sense of Creole patriotism matched with a strong sense of regional belongingAiegiance at the beginning of the nineteenth century; but that it is impossible to defend the official belief in the existence of such a thing as Mexican patriotism during the War of Independence. This interpretation has further taken us away from the view that nationalism emerged folIowing the Reforma. In Brading’s view, ‘The Reforma is [. . .] best viewed not as an essay in “nationbuilding”, but rather an exercise in “state-building~’ (Brading, 1988: 41). Carmagnani’s most recent book certainly confirms Brading’s view in economic terms (Carmagnani, 1994).

The contributors in this special issue take further some of the points detailed above. Timothy Anna argues in the first article that the first great victory of federalism in 1823-1824 was a distinctly mixed achievement. The compromises which were made then, and which have continued to be made up to the present day, between centralists and federalists emerge as never having been satisfactory. Moreover, Anna’s research into the constitutionaI discussions and surrounding events of 1823-1824 emphasises greatly the extent to which the provinces formulated their own political agenda and in turn the extent to which we need to focus more on regional politics to under- stand this forgotten and misunderstood period. Josefina Zoraida Vazquez illustrates in the second essay the extent to which the view that the period from 182 1 to the Reforma was one of dictatorship and mihtarism is entirely inaccurate, and provides three case studies of pronunciumientos (1832, 1844 and 1845) and political plans to back up her argument. The third essay is a revisionist re-interpretation of the political role of Dr VaIentin Gomez Farfas which challenges the traditional view that Farfas was a radical throughout his life. The fact that Farias does not emerge from this study as the

4 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

jacobin of previous portrayals begs the question of how many other out- standing politicians of this period are there who have been labelled with one political tendency or another and who probably, in reality, like Fat&s, defy easy categorisation. In the fourth article, Michael Costeloe provides an insightful account of the conflict which broke out in the summer of 1849 between the governor of the state of Mexico, Mariano Arizcorreta, and a group of hacendados over Arizcorreta’s intention to ask the hacenakrdos to make concessions of land to the villages in order to stop the spread of the caste war. Costeloe’s examination of the episode and its background reveals several factors which help towards an understanding of the growing problem of rural unrest which afflicted Mexico from the 1840s until well into the Po@iirto. Brian Hamnett, in the fifth article, offers a study of the ‘forgotten’ presidency of General Ignacio Comonfort (1855-1857). By providing an examination of the political processes immediately before and after the formulation of the 1857 Constitution, Hamnett illustrates the extent to which the Comonfort presidency proved to be a decisive period in Mexico’s constitutional development, and how the tensions which were exposed at the time eventually brought down the constitutional system altogether and plunged the country into a 3-year civil war. FinalIy, Humberto Morales Moreno provides, in the sixth essay, an analytical account of how the Compaiifa industrial de Atlixco, SA., came to attract foreign investment while at the same time encouraging through the Consejo de Adminisfmcih y Asumbleu de Accionistus the involvement of influential individuals who actively formed part of Porlirio Dfax’s economic policies between 1890 and 19 10, during the so-called period of ‘accelerated economic growth’.

Although this special issue confirms that great progress has been made over the last two decades, our understanding of nineteenth-century Mexican politics remains limited. What emerges in each one of the articles is the need for further research; further research in regional politics and concepts of nationhood; in military political behaviour; in the beliefs of individual politicians; in elite perceptions of rural unrest; in constitutional history and in the companies which exploded during the Porfiriato and their relationship to national politics. It is to be hoped that this issue will encourage other scholars to take up the challenge of understanding and ‘recovering’ the nineteenth century from oblivion.

NOTES 1. This special issue is based on some of the papers which were presented at the Conference

‘Latin America in the Nineteenth Century’ held at De Montfort University, Ixicester, UK, 12-14 May 1995, with the support of the Instituto Cervantes, the Embajada de Espaim, and the Society for Latin American Studies. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to all of those who attended the Conference; Timothy Anna. Raymond Buve, Laura Calve-Garcia, Michael Costeloe, David Cubitt, Elizabeth Dore, Rebecca Earle, Paul Garner, EMa Gillogley-Mari, Brian Hamnett, Laurie Johnston, Patricia Jones, Angelines Knott, Francis Lambert, Brian McBetlt, Humberto Morales Moreno, Brfglda Pastor, Eduardo Posada Carbd, David Ryan, Javier S&tchez Bolado, Verity Smith, Guy Thomson, Luis Valetuuela and J~seflna Zoraida Vtfzquez. I would also like to thank Ian Cairns and Krishna Pate1 for all the work they put into helping me to organise the Conference. I am also indebted to Angela Mulvehill for succeeding in getting me an inter-library loan copy of Hutchinson’s PbD dissertation on Valentfn Gomez Fat& in time for tlte Conference, to Catherine Earp for

INTRODUCTION 5

typing out the Programme and Abstracts, to Angeiines Knott for looking after Josefina

2. Vkquez and Humberto Morales in the warmth of her home, and to my wife, Caroline. Regarding General Antonio L&e.z de Santa Anna, Tenenbaum significantly agrees with the ‘prominent historian of nineteenth century Mexico [who] recently remarked I.. .] that he hoped that the chronicle of that epoch could soon be rendered without reference to Santa

3. AMa’ (Tenenbaum, 1995: 228). It could be argued that two very successful Mexican historians have continued to perpetuate thenotionthat thenineteenthcenturywas an‘ageofcaudiUos’,and thattheyears 1821-1855 should contiaue to be thought of as the ‘age of Santa Anna’, Krause (1994) and E. Go&& Pedrero (1993), Pab de un solo hombre: el M&code Santa Anna, VoL I, Eondo de culmra Economica (Mexico City).

REFERENCES

ANNA, T. E. (1993), ‘Demystifying early nineteenth century Mexico’, Mexican Studics/Esrudios Mexicanos 9: 119-137.

ARCHER, C. (1993), ‘Politicization of the army of New Spain during the War of Independence, 1810-1821’, in The Evolution offhe Mexican Political System, RODRfGUEZ O., J. E. (ed.), SR Books (Wiigton).

ARCHER, C. (1994), Change and continuity in Mexico, 17% 1850’, in Muico in the Age of Democmfic Rewlutions, 175&I850, RODRfGUEZ O., J. E. (ed.), Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

ARROM, S. (1988X ‘Popular politics in Mexico City: the Pari&u riot, 1828, Hispanic American Historical Review 68(2)(May).

BRADING, D. (1985), T?u Origins of Mexican Nationalism, Centre of Latin American Studies (Cambridge).

BRADING, D. (1988), ‘Liberal patriotism and the Mexican Reforma’, Joumal of Lutin American Studies 10: 27-48.

BRADING, D. (1994), Church and State in Bourbon Mexico. The Diocese of Michoaccin 1749- 1810, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge).

BUVE, R (1992), ‘Political patronage and politics at the village level in Central Mexico: continuity and change in patterns from the late colonial period to the end of the French intervention (1867)‘, Bulletin of Latin American Research 11: l-28.

CARMAGNANI, M. (1983), ‘Finanzas y estado en M6xic0, 1820-1880’, Ibero- Amerikunisches Archiv N.F. 9(4).

CARMAGNANI, M. (1994), Es&o y mercaa’o. La economia priblica de1 libemlismo mexicano, 185&1911, EL Colegio de M&ico/Fondo de Cultura Economica (Mexico City).

COSTELOE, M. P. (1989), ‘Generals versus politicians: Santa Anna and the 1842 con- gressional elections in Mexico’, Bulletin ofLu&in American Research 8: 257-274.

COSTELOE, M. P. (1993), Z!re Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846. Hombres de Bien in Ihe Age of Santa Anna, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge).

FOWLEFt, W. (1995). ‘Dreams of stability: Mexican political thought during the “forgotten years”: an analysis of the beliefs of the Creole inteiiigentsia (182 l- 1853)', Bulkfin of Lutin American Research: 14: 287-312.

GARNER, P. (1996), ‘Pragmatism, patriarchy and patronage: Porfirio Dfaz and personaiist politics in Mexico’, in Authoritarianism in Latin America Since Independence, FOWLER, W. (ed.), Greenwood Press (Westport).

GUEDEA, V. (1994), ‘Ignacio Adalid, un equilibrista novohispano’, in Mexico in the Age of Democrafic Rewlufions, 1750-1850, RODRfGUEZ O., J. E (ed.), Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

HAMNETT, B. (1986). Roots of Insutgency. Mexican Regions, 1750-1824, Cambridge Uni- versity Press ICambridaeL

HAMNE’kI’, B. (‘1987), ‘P&dos politicos mexicanos e intervenckk militar, 1823-1855’, in America Latina Dallo Stat0 Coloniale Al10 S&at0 Nazione (175&l 940), ANNINO, A. er al. (eds), Vol. II, Franc0 Angeli (Milan).

HAMNElT, B. (1991), ‘Benito Juti, Early liberalism, and the regional politics of Oaxaca, 1828-1853: Bulletin ofL.arin American Research 10: 3-21.

HAMNETT, B. (1994), Jucirez, Longman (London).

BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

RRAUZE, E. (1994), Sigio de Caudiilos. Biograjia politica de Mtkico (181&1910), Tusquets Editores (Barcelona).

MEYERS, W. K. (1994) Fotge of Progress, Crucible of Revolt. The Origins of the Mexican Revolution in L.a Comarca Lugunera, 188&1911, University of New Mexico Press (Albuquerque).

PATCH, R (1994). The Bourbon reforms, city councils, and the struggle for power in Yucatan, 1770-1796, in Mexico in the Age of Democratic Revolutions, 1750-1850, RODRfGuEZ O., J. E. (ed.), Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

QUINLAN, D. (1994), ‘Issues and factions in the Constituent Congress, 1823-1824, in Mexico in the Age of Lkmocmtic Revolutions, 175&1850, RODRfGUEZ 0.. J. E. @I.), Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

RODRfGUEZ O., J. E. (ed.) (1994), Mexico in rhe Age of Lkmocmtic Rewlutiorrr, 1750-1850, Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

STAPLES, A. (1994), ‘Clerics as politicians: Church, state, and political power in independent Mexico’, in RODRfGUEZ O., J. E. (ed.), Mexico in he Age of Democratic Revolutions, 1750-1850, Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

STEVENS, D. F. (1991). Origins of lnstability in Early Republican Mexico, Duke University Press (Durham).

STEVENS, D. F. (1994). ‘Autonomists, nativists, republicans, and monarchists: conspiracy and political history in nineteenth-century Mexico’, Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 10: 247-266.

TENENBAUM, B. (1985 Econ6mica (Mexico k

M&co en lo kpoca de los agiodstas, 1821-1857, Fond0 de Cultura ity).

TENENBAUM, B. (1995X ‘Mexico, so close to the United States: unconventional views of the nineteenth century’, Latin American Reseamh Review 30: 226-235.

THOMSON, G. P. C. (1989) Puebla de 10s A&es: ltuiu~~ry and Society in a Mexican Ciry, 1 ml850, Lynne Rienner (Boulder).

THOMSON, G. P. C. (1991), ‘Popular aspects of liberalism in Mexico, 1848-1888’, Bulletin of Latin American Re.rearch 10: 265-292.

TUTJNO, J. (1986X From lnsumction to Revolution in Mexico. Social Bases of Agmrian Violence 1750-1940, Princeton University Press (Princeton).

VAZQUEZ, J. Z. (1988), ‘Soldados alemanes en las hue&es santanistas’, Jahrbuch fir Geschichte wn Staat, Wirtschafr und Geselkchaf LoleinAmerikas 25: 415-436.

VAZQUEZ, J. Z. (1993X ‘Un viejo terna: el federalism0 y el centrahsmo’, Hisroria Mexicana: XLB(f)(Enero-Marzo): 621-631.

VAZQUEZ, J. Z. (ed) (1994), La finukci6n de1 Estado Mexicano, Nueva Imagen (Mexico City).