Miranda's Dream. ¡Por una Latino América fuerte!.- A Gran Colombia TL
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
- Status
Messy indeed.
1. Perhaps. I must confess that I do not relish the prospect of a Triple Alliance War that could only end with Paraguay devastated. ITTL, Paraguay is mostly satisfied for now since they did obtain new territory out of their last war with Brazil and La Plata.
2, 3 and 4. I plan to talk about Europe and their imperialist ventures on Asia and the Middle East in the future. Suffice it to say that for the moment France is in the ascendancy, having gained influence in Japan and Egypt. Russia, for her part, is eyeing the weakened Ottoman Empire, while Britain is kind of freaking out at this disregard of the balance of power.
5. Not likely. They already lost in 1814, and barely won against Mexico. Facing mighty Britain is not something they feel prepared to do, especially because such a war can only add territory to the Free States - the Slavocrats will thus block any attempt to invade Canada.
Thank you!
Universal Suffrage isn't actually universal, though, since most Liberals still support literacy and being employed somewhere as requirements. They only want to eliminate property requirements for voting and holding office. Instead of allowing the poor to take part in Colombian democracy, reform here would open the doors to the Colombian middle class. Some populism, however, is probably inevitable, but the fears of demagogues taking control of the Republic are probably overblown.
Chapter 59: El Salazarato
The era of Mexican history where almost all political power was in the party of Marshal Marco Antonio Salazar, the hero of the war against the United States, is known as El Salazarato. Following a period of dictatorial rule in the immediate aftermath of the war, Salazar called for elections, and his smashing victory confirmed his position as the single most powerful man in Mexico. Like in other countries and periods, to attribute every advancement and event to Salazar and his actions would be wrong, but the truth is that the period Salazar presided over saw a consolidation of Mexico as a nation, enormous industrial and economic expansion, and political developments. The process for the forging of modern Mexico, started in the Mexican-American War, would continue and reach its climax during the Salazarato.
Perhaps the most important development of the Salazarato, at least politically, was the consolidation of the political parties into true national organizations. The previous parties, the National Patriotic Party and the Federal-Liberal Coalition, can’t be really considered parties in the modern sense, but rather local coalitions of similar interests that came together in the national stage to defend those interests. The result was that there was no true national leadership, and whereas party politics were more developed in Colombia and the US, the political apparatus in Mexico remained less bound to political organization and national strategy than to the personalities, interests, and objectives of individuals.
The war had a natural centralizing effect, and neither of the parties really survived it. In both cases, the parties were broken up and reformed around the leadership of a single, inspiring man – Salazar for the conservatives, Juarez for the liberals. Initially clunkily named Mexican Unity and Leftist Union, both parties eventually adopted clearer and easier names: Partido Nacional Mexicano, or simply Nacionales (Nationalists in English) and Unión Liberal, known as the Liberales. Representing the eternal Latin American struggle between Liberals and Conservatives, both factions would pursue political power. It’s true that the Nationalists were the overwhelming majority during the Salazarato, but the Liberals were an effective opposition that had a real effect both in local and national politics.
Of course, the centralized nature of the Mexican state limited the influence of the Liberals. Provincial governors were selected in Mexico City, and the influence of city and province councils was limited. Yet, Salazar did not arrest the developments that had taken place before the war, and during the Salazarato most provincial governors were actually proposed by the local juntas. Consequently, Local Liberals did have real power over the lives of their constituents, for example, pushing for secularism, more trade and education. Ultimately, the government at Mexico City reigned supreme, however, and this meant that politics were more nationalized than before.
Whereas most people voted for their local interests or simply ratified the position of a local notable before the war, now national concerns entered their calculations. The enfranchisement of thousands of middle-class Mexicans and war veterans as a result of the post-war reforms also resulted in a greatly expanded electorate, though it paled in comparison with Colombia (post reforms) and especially the US. The war also resulted in the solidification of the political loyalties of many Mexicans. Salazar, in especial, had long coattails, and many veterans rallied to their old commander. “It is not that we do not appreciate your efforts, sir,” one explained to his recently ousted Liberal MP, “but we need men who will support our Marshal.” Even years after the war, and indeed after Salazar’s death, the cry that the Nationalists were the party of Salazar helped them produce majorities in the ballot box, a fact that was often satirized in Mexican theater and, later, cinema, where “Grandpa the Veteran” became a stock character.
Political cartoon showing the Nationalists as the Party of the Army and the Aristocracy
On the other hand, in areas where the war had not been so glorious but instead had brought economic and social disaster, the people’s allegiance for the Liberals and Juarez was firm. Veracruz, for example, never quite forgave the National Patriots or their descendants the Nationalists for the destruction of their province or the inept efforts of the government for the refugees. Some long-time MPs were defeated in re-election because people disgruntled with the conservative vision for Mexico that Salazar embodied wanted politicians “who will stand like men and tell the Marshal that his achievements do not justify military despotism.” In general, Liberal strongholds were characterized by being coastal areas that depended on trade, where religion and the hacienda were weaker, and the middle class seemed ascendant. Standing firmly behind Juarez, Liberals advocated for reform in all facets of Mexican politics and culture.
This did not mean that Liberals were complete progressives in the modern sense. Women especially suffered from a Liberal refusal to see them as part of Mexican public society. Believing that their service as nurses or the fact that they took control of the economy for the most part while the men were fighting entitled them to further rights, Mexican women demanded reforms that would “break the chains of marital submission.” Some Liberals were amicable to some feminist efforts, such as women’s education or civil divorce, but in general the Liberal leadership had no intention to destroy Mexico’s patriarchal order, and instead recommended that women remain in their place “taking care of the men of today, and nurturing the men of tomorrow.”
But women refused to meekly submit. They quickly turned the famous 3M (Movimiento de Mujeres Mexicanas), that had performed vital labor as nurses for the Mexican armies, into a feminist organization that reclaimed rights and even the suffrage for “the brave women whose efforts have saved the fatherland.” Soon enough, Mexican women had the most organized and militant feminist movement in the Americas, far ahead of their Colombian counterparts and only challenged by American women. It must be noted, also, that American women would only truly develop a movement after their Civil War, and, as a result, Mexican women have to be considered the vanguard of women’s rights. Much to the chagrin of Mexico’s old patriarchs, including Salazar, these women would continue to press for women’s right through the entire Salazarato and beyond.
Another group that felt snuffed not only by the Liberals, but also by the Nationalists, were the Indigenous groups of Southern Mexico. Juarez did have some concern for the Indigenous peoples, seeking to defend them against arbitrary abuses. But although he recognized his indigenous roots, he lacked racial consciousness, and the Liberal ideology of his and his followers crippled their efforts to help the communities. For indeed, Juarez and his men, like other good 19th century liberals, believed that integration into the Mexican mainstream and the division of communal lands was the best interest of the Indians, and that the government should only ensure equality under the law rather than engage in concentrated efforts to break the systematic factors that held them down.
Political cartoon satirizing the advocates of women's rights
As a result, and even though Juarez did advocate for the division of communal lands to be settled by the members of the own communities, for the most part he saw indigenous communities as wards of the state who needed to be protected by a patriarchal government, instead of equal partners worthy of the same rights as Mestizo and White Mexicans. For most Liberals, “the Indian can only claim respectability if he acquirees the education and means that respectable men have,” or, in other words, if he renounces his roots and assimilates into the Mexican mainstream like Juarez did.
On the other hand, these paternalist proposals were better than the callousness of the Nationalists. Salazar’s own contempt for the Indigenous communities is well-known, and he was hated by them due to the brutality he employed in putting down Indigenous revolts such as the Caste War. He did try to be conciliatory, and it’s noteworthy that most of the oppression Mexican Indigenous people faced was a result of social and economic factors rather than inequal laws. In fact, Mexican indigenous were equal before the law when it came to Salazar’s programs for land settlement or access to higher education – much superior to the US or Colombia, where written law explicitly barred them from equal protection. Yet, befitting a party of hacendados and priests, Nationalists often saw the Indigenous as a labor force that needed to be disciplined, and people who managed “respectability” as the exception.
Consequently, Nationalists were rather disinterested in efforts to uplift the Indigenous population, usually shielding themselves by stating that such efforts would discriminate against the Mestizos and Whites. They did, nonetheless, afford them equality before the law in accessing the new education system they were assembling. Part of a wider package of reforms that Salazar pushed through in order to secure Mexican development, the National Education Act of 1858 reflected the Nationalists’ vision and their centralization of the Mexican state. Forming a National Education Junta, the Act was the first compulsory education law of Mexico, and it also included a curriculum that sought to teach children, both girls and boys, of all races and social conditions, “respect for God, the Fatherland, and the Emperor, and the duties of a citizen.”
In practice, Indigenous and lower-class schools often lacked the quality of middle-class schools, and most elites preferred private institutions. But the Act was still an important step forward, and it served as the cornerstone of the educative system that would make Mexicans the fourth most literate people of the continent, on part with Platineans, just slightly behind the Colombians, and not that far behind the Americans. Many colleges and universities, including Army and Naval Academies, would also be founded, and they contributed to the formation of many Mexican intellectuals and professionals, men who would take the lead in the future of Mexico.
In order to laid the path towards this future, Nationalists also encouraged industry and foreign inversion, mainly by the French. The process had already started in the immediate aftermath of the war, when reconstruction of many devastated areas was needed. But it reached its greatest expression during the height of the Salazarato, which saw a massive expansion in mining and railroads. Even nowadays, Salazar is credited as the man who united and modernized Mexico through the Iron Horse, and his ability to lead Mexico out of the crisis of war to a flourishing economy cannot be lauded enough.
Nonetheless, even if Mexico as a whole grew economically, the fruits of this bonanza were not shared equally. Mexico also suffered from the “Latino disease” of perpetual inequality, and the development of a new industrial and commercial class during the Salazarato only confirmed and continued the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a privileged few. Not helping matters was the fact that most of these new industrialists were part of the old elite as well – hacendados who decided to try their hand on industry, or wealthy merchants who simply decided to expand their repertoire.
Migration from the country to the cities, mainly the capital, resulted in the worsening of conditions for the urban poor
Lamentably, the condition of the lower class did not seem to change that much. A new class of perpetual wage earners with little hope of improving their social condition joined poor agricultural peones, impoverished artisans and Indian communities as the bulk of Mexico’s lower class. Lack of education and information prevented the formation of class or racial consciousness within these groups, and as a result they did not fight for a voice in politics or governance like their Colombian counterparts did. They often resisted the policies of the Salazarato, including regressive taxation that affected the common man but did little against the wealthy few, but the heavy hand of the state was ready to crush any dissent.
The result was a rather miserable lot for a class that had also been devastated by the privations of war. A British traveler described with horror how “the Indians of this country survive on the hard maize usually reserved for cattle,” and reports of Southern Mexico show that delicacies such as fried chicken feet, pig’s feet or even insects were common staples, owning to the poverty of the people there. Urban workers also suffered, as their wages were often low and the conditions dreadful.
The government, to its credit, did head efforts to improve their conditions. Salazar’s successful military pension program did much to sustain widows and orphans that otherwise would have fallen into deep poverty. Workshops on the French model helped the urban poor get jobs, and soup kitchens, hospitals, asylums, and other establishments were opened. As a whole, these efforts reflected the paternalist belief that the state and the dominant classes were responsible for the welfare of the poor, since they were unable to take care of themselves.
On the other hand, the Salazarato also resulted in the raise of a Mexican middle class. Independent farmers, skilled workers, the owners of small workshops, professionals, and others formed the backbone of this new social group. Mexico is somewhat unique because while in both Colombia and the US the middle class rallied behind the Liberals, in Mexico this class was split. The split was usually between “respectable citizens” who feared the rabble, and “independent men” who resented the elites and wanted more power for themselves, but this is an overt generalization. In any case, it was the Salazarato’s policies of industrial expansion, land redistribution, material reconstruction, and expanded trade that allowed this class to emerge.
In general, Salazar’s “national conservatism” (name taken from the Colombian Party) also now as “national progressivism” (a more Mexican name), was based around the idea of social harmony, presided by a benevolent and paternal state that provided for the poor and the minorities, but maintained important men as the leaders of the community and the country. With the Church, the Hacienda, and the Patriarchal Family as the good pillars of society, Salazar and his men sought to contribute to the development of Mexico through education and industry, but without upsetting the traditional social order.
The achievements of the Salazarato are notable because they took place after Salazar had relinquished complete power and had to start taking part in normal parliamentary politics. Salazar, who had never been part of high society despite his martial distinctions, seemed out of place in a party of “aristocrats and curas of powdered wigs and silk stockings.” Indeed, some expressed horror at his uncouth manners and blunt way of acting. Some also were confused by his style of leadership, “proper for a General and his soldiers, but not for a statesman.”
Political cartoon showing the distribution of the loaves and the fishes, that is, political patronage
Indeed, satirists were fond of showing Salazar literally whipping MPs into place, similarly to how he treated his men at Veracruz. The only bill that Salazar ever wrote personally was criticized as “appearing more like a military report than a law” by one of his own Ministers. At first, Salazar was unable to deal with the details of parliamentary work, and the subtilities of patronage and political favors escaped him. But soon enough, Nationalists rallied round their leader, whose own capacity started to shine through. His experience dealing with officers of inflated egos helped him deal with similarly arrogant politicians, and his capacity as an administrator and keen mind for the problems Mexico faced made him enormously popular, and even nowadays he’s seen as one of Mexico’s best Prime Ministers.
Salazar’s dealing of the rivalry of the two powerful Nationalists, Andres Iñarritu and Gabriel García Negrete, is evidence of this. Both men, despite having careers that started before the war and continued through the wartime Parliament, are examples of the new Nationalist leadership that for the moment shared power with traditional leaders but would soon enough displace them: pro-business men who envisioned an industrial Mexico. This kind of men had already started to gain prominence, in both parties; in fact, the last Liberal-Federal Prime Minister, Daniel Jacome, had been an industrialist with French ties. But during the Salazarato they started to gain more and more power, and also to be more associated with the Salazarists.
In the case of Iñarritu and Negrete, both men headed powerful parliamentary committees: internal improvements and taxation. Ideally, they would work together for the economic health and development of the nation, but both men, once allies, had come to hate each other virulently. The feud started mainly due to a fight over patronage, when Parliament declined to build the Mexico City-León railroad through Negrete’s home of Celaya, instead opting for a more direct route. Iñarritu had advocated for this other route, not to spite Negrete, but because he owned real state there. But Negrete never forgave him, and in revenge he blocked a tax plan that would have benefited Iñarritu’s province of Tamaulipas.
When Iñarritu went to Negrete’s residence to try and patch things up, Negrete simply ignored him, seeing Iñarritu’s actions as “a base insult, an unforgivable and spiteful personal attack.” He even refused to acknowledge Iñarritu’s presence when they both attended Mass. Enraged by this, Iñarritu also broke with Negrete. Both men would continue to bitterly attack each other, and both, naturally, sought the support of their party leader, Salazar.
Solving the feud was necessary because, towards the end of 1858, the friendly cooperation of both committees was needed in order to pass the budget of 1859. One of the post-war reforms, alongside directly elected MPs and laws requiring deputies to live in their constituency, was regular Parliamentary elections, every 6 years, and a law stating that an election would take place if Parliament was unable to form a government or pass a budget. Since the elections had taken place in 1856, Nationalists were not anxious to dissolve their majority and allow Juarez a chance to at least snag some seats, thus, finding a compromise was imperative.
The days tickled by while Negrete and Iñarritu “played tennis” with the bill, by passing it to each other’s committee and back without approving the bill or allowing it to come to a vote in the full parliament. Nationalists then decided to engage in perhaps the most cynical parliamentary maneuver in Mexican history. In November, with just two weeks before the session ended, news came that the Nationalist Zacatecas MP Rodolfo Lara had killed himself. Lara was, in blunt terms, a political non-factor, a very private bachelor who had few friends and almost never spoke in Parliament. Reports paint him as a lonely, depressed man, who had failed at business. He had lost his wealth, and since Parliament kept a property requirement that meant that if it was dissolved, he would lose his seat. Thinking of that as “a painful humiliation”, Lara hanged himself in his house, and was found later the same day by his maid.
Andres Iñarritu
As soon as the news reached the halls of Parliament, Nationalists seized them as an excuse to postpone the session and thus obtain more time to resolve the impasse. Feigning hurt at the death of their “esteemed colleague”, Nationalists pressed for three days of mourning. Liberals were sickened by this cynic display, denouncing how “men who could not care less for this poor man, now proclaim him their dearest friend and cry rivers for his passing”. One Nationalist even forgot Lara’s name, calling Rafael. Altogether, the incident is a rather embarrassing episode for the Mexican parliament. Even Salazar reproached the members of his party.
Despite this, Salazar quickly went to Negrete and Iñarritu and sought some way of allowing the budget to pass. Negrete, a stubborn man, held firm, but Iñarritu was more pliable, and after Salazar promised some patronage (including a position as Port Inspector for Iñarritu’s son), he acquiesced to Salazar’s proposed maneuvers. When Parliament reconvened, many of the “mourners”, a Liberal noted, “clad in bright, joyful colors”, Salazar put his plan in action. Negrete, as expected, sent back Iñarritu’s bill, but before it reached the Committee, Iñaritu had first sent his own bill, without Negrete’s modifications, to the full Parliament, a movement usually not allowed. Iñaritu instead should have sent it to Negrete’s committee. Instead, there were now two bills, Negrete’s and Iñaritu’s, the later of them improperly sent for a full vote before obtaining the approval of both committees.
When Negrete protested, the full Parliament returned Iñarritu’s bill to Negrete’s committee, where the “tennis game” would presumably continue. But Iñarritu took the first bill that Negrete had sent back, modified it, and sent it to the full Parliament. With Negrete in committee, working to strip the second bill of the features he disliked, there was no one left to protest while Parliament approved the movement retroactively and then approved the bill. The result of these confusing measures was that a budget, with technically the approval of both committees, had been passed, just in time to prevent the dissolution of parliament. Negrete was so outraged by this “act of deceit”, that he threatened to resign, but after Salazar coolly told him to go ahead, his temper cooled off. He was forced out of his committee into a minor position that did not come into conflict with Iñarritu, and Parliament was able to resume its normal functions. The whole affair showed decisively Salazar’s capacity as Party leader.
Criticism of the Salazarato through political cartoons was becoming more common
The Salazarato is justly remember as one of Mexico’s most important historical periods due to the national consolidation and economic expansion that took place under it. It has recently come into scrutiny due to its failure to act for the rights of women, minorities and the poor, and its obvious bias in favor of the rich and powerful. But it cannot be denied that it was an era of prosperity for most Mexicans, and that Salazar and his party were the ones that laid the blueprint for modern Mexico.
Perhaps the most important development of the Salazarato, at least politically, was the consolidation of the political parties into true national organizations. The previous parties, the National Patriotic Party and the Federal-Liberal Coalition, can’t be really considered parties in the modern sense, but rather local coalitions of similar interests that came together in the national stage to defend those interests. The result was that there was no true national leadership, and whereas party politics were more developed in Colombia and the US, the political apparatus in Mexico remained less bound to political organization and national strategy than to the personalities, interests, and objectives of individuals.
The war had a natural centralizing effect, and neither of the parties really survived it. In both cases, the parties were broken up and reformed around the leadership of a single, inspiring man – Salazar for the conservatives, Juarez for the liberals. Initially clunkily named Mexican Unity and Leftist Union, both parties eventually adopted clearer and easier names: Partido Nacional Mexicano, or simply Nacionales (Nationalists in English) and Unión Liberal, known as the Liberales. Representing the eternal Latin American struggle between Liberals and Conservatives, both factions would pursue political power. It’s true that the Nationalists were the overwhelming majority during the Salazarato, but the Liberals were an effective opposition that had a real effect both in local and national politics.
Of course, the centralized nature of the Mexican state limited the influence of the Liberals. Provincial governors were selected in Mexico City, and the influence of city and province councils was limited. Yet, Salazar did not arrest the developments that had taken place before the war, and during the Salazarato most provincial governors were actually proposed by the local juntas. Consequently, Local Liberals did have real power over the lives of their constituents, for example, pushing for secularism, more trade and education. Ultimately, the government at Mexico City reigned supreme, however, and this meant that politics were more nationalized than before.
Whereas most people voted for their local interests or simply ratified the position of a local notable before the war, now national concerns entered their calculations. The enfranchisement of thousands of middle-class Mexicans and war veterans as a result of the post-war reforms also resulted in a greatly expanded electorate, though it paled in comparison with Colombia (post reforms) and especially the US. The war also resulted in the solidification of the political loyalties of many Mexicans. Salazar, in especial, had long coattails, and many veterans rallied to their old commander. “It is not that we do not appreciate your efforts, sir,” one explained to his recently ousted Liberal MP, “but we need men who will support our Marshal.” Even years after the war, and indeed after Salazar’s death, the cry that the Nationalists were the party of Salazar helped them produce majorities in the ballot box, a fact that was often satirized in Mexican theater and, later, cinema, where “Grandpa the Veteran” became a stock character.
Political cartoon showing the Nationalists as the Party of the Army and the Aristocracy
On the other hand, in areas where the war had not been so glorious but instead had brought economic and social disaster, the people’s allegiance for the Liberals and Juarez was firm. Veracruz, for example, never quite forgave the National Patriots or their descendants the Nationalists for the destruction of their province or the inept efforts of the government for the refugees. Some long-time MPs were defeated in re-election because people disgruntled with the conservative vision for Mexico that Salazar embodied wanted politicians “who will stand like men and tell the Marshal that his achievements do not justify military despotism.” In general, Liberal strongholds were characterized by being coastal areas that depended on trade, where religion and the hacienda were weaker, and the middle class seemed ascendant. Standing firmly behind Juarez, Liberals advocated for reform in all facets of Mexican politics and culture.
This did not mean that Liberals were complete progressives in the modern sense. Women especially suffered from a Liberal refusal to see them as part of Mexican public society. Believing that their service as nurses or the fact that they took control of the economy for the most part while the men were fighting entitled them to further rights, Mexican women demanded reforms that would “break the chains of marital submission.” Some Liberals were amicable to some feminist efforts, such as women’s education or civil divorce, but in general the Liberal leadership had no intention to destroy Mexico’s patriarchal order, and instead recommended that women remain in their place “taking care of the men of today, and nurturing the men of tomorrow.”
But women refused to meekly submit. They quickly turned the famous 3M (Movimiento de Mujeres Mexicanas), that had performed vital labor as nurses for the Mexican armies, into a feminist organization that reclaimed rights and even the suffrage for “the brave women whose efforts have saved the fatherland.” Soon enough, Mexican women had the most organized and militant feminist movement in the Americas, far ahead of their Colombian counterparts and only challenged by American women. It must be noted, also, that American women would only truly develop a movement after their Civil War, and, as a result, Mexican women have to be considered the vanguard of women’s rights. Much to the chagrin of Mexico’s old patriarchs, including Salazar, these women would continue to press for women’s right through the entire Salazarato and beyond.
Another group that felt snuffed not only by the Liberals, but also by the Nationalists, were the Indigenous groups of Southern Mexico. Juarez did have some concern for the Indigenous peoples, seeking to defend them against arbitrary abuses. But although he recognized his indigenous roots, he lacked racial consciousness, and the Liberal ideology of his and his followers crippled their efforts to help the communities. For indeed, Juarez and his men, like other good 19th century liberals, believed that integration into the Mexican mainstream and the division of communal lands was the best interest of the Indians, and that the government should only ensure equality under the law rather than engage in concentrated efforts to break the systematic factors that held them down.
Political cartoon satirizing the advocates of women's rights
As a result, and even though Juarez did advocate for the division of communal lands to be settled by the members of the own communities, for the most part he saw indigenous communities as wards of the state who needed to be protected by a patriarchal government, instead of equal partners worthy of the same rights as Mestizo and White Mexicans. For most Liberals, “the Indian can only claim respectability if he acquirees the education and means that respectable men have,” or, in other words, if he renounces his roots and assimilates into the Mexican mainstream like Juarez did.
On the other hand, these paternalist proposals were better than the callousness of the Nationalists. Salazar’s own contempt for the Indigenous communities is well-known, and he was hated by them due to the brutality he employed in putting down Indigenous revolts such as the Caste War. He did try to be conciliatory, and it’s noteworthy that most of the oppression Mexican Indigenous people faced was a result of social and economic factors rather than inequal laws. In fact, Mexican indigenous were equal before the law when it came to Salazar’s programs for land settlement or access to higher education – much superior to the US or Colombia, where written law explicitly barred them from equal protection. Yet, befitting a party of hacendados and priests, Nationalists often saw the Indigenous as a labor force that needed to be disciplined, and people who managed “respectability” as the exception.
Consequently, Nationalists were rather disinterested in efforts to uplift the Indigenous population, usually shielding themselves by stating that such efforts would discriminate against the Mestizos and Whites. They did, nonetheless, afford them equality before the law in accessing the new education system they were assembling. Part of a wider package of reforms that Salazar pushed through in order to secure Mexican development, the National Education Act of 1858 reflected the Nationalists’ vision and their centralization of the Mexican state. Forming a National Education Junta, the Act was the first compulsory education law of Mexico, and it also included a curriculum that sought to teach children, both girls and boys, of all races and social conditions, “respect for God, the Fatherland, and the Emperor, and the duties of a citizen.”
In practice, Indigenous and lower-class schools often lacked the quality of middle-class schools, and most elites preferred private institutions. But the Act was still an important step forward, and it served as the cornerstone of the educative system that would make Mexicans the fourth most literate people of the continent, on part with Platineans, just slightly behind the Colombians, and not that far behind the Americans. Many colleges and universities, including Army and Naval Academies, would also be founded, and they contributed to the formation of many Mexican intellectuals and professionals, men who would take the lead in the future of Mexico.
In order to laid the path towards this future, Nationalists also encouraged industry and foreign inversion, mainly by the French. The process had already started in the immediate aftermath of the war, when reconstruction of many devastated areas was needed. But it reached its greatest expression during the height of the Salazarato, which saw a massive expansion in mining and railroads. Even nowadays, Salazar is credited as the man who united and modernized Mexico through the Iron Horse, and his ability to lead Mexico out of the crisis of war to a flourishing economy cannot be lauded enough.
Nonetheless, even if Mexico as a whole grew economically, the fruits of this bonanza were not shared equally. Mexico also suffered from the “Latino disease” of perpetual inequality, and the development of a new industrial and commercial class during the Salazarato only confirmed and continued the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a privileged few. Not helping matters was the fact that most of these new industrialists were part of the old elite as well – hacendados who decided to try their hand on industry, or wealthy merchants who simply decided to expand their repertoire.
Migration from the country to the cities, mainly the capital, resulted in the worsening of conditions for the urban poor
Lamentably, the condition of the lower class did not seem to change that much. A new class of perpetual wage earners with little hope of improving their social condition joined poor agricultural peones, impoverished artisans and Indian communities as the bulk of Mexico’s lower class. Lack of education and information prevented the formation of class or racial consciousness within these groups, and as a result they did not fight for a voice in politics or governance like their Colombian counterparts did. They often resisted the policies of the Salazarato, including regressive taxation that affected the common man but did little against the wealthy few, but the heavy hand of the state was ready to crush any dissent.
The result was a rather miserable lot for a class that had also been devastated by the privations of war. A British traveler described with horror how “the Indians of this country survive on the hard maize usually reserved for cattle,” and reports of Southern Mexico show that delicacies such as fried chicken feet, pig’s feet or even insects were common staples, owning to the poverty of the people there. Urban workers also suffered, as their wages were often low and the conditions dreadful.
The government, to its credit, did head efforts to improve their conditions. Salazar’s successful military pension program did much to sustain widows and orphans that otherwise would have fallen into deep poverty. Workshops on the French model helped the urban poor get jobs, and soup kitchens, hospitals, asylums, and other establishments were opened. As a whole, these efforts reflected the paternalist belief that the state and the dominant classes were responsible for the welfare of the poor, since they were unable to take care of themselves.
On the other hand, the Salazarato also resulted in the raise of a Mexican middle class. Independent farmers, skilled workers, the owners of small workshops, professionals, and others formed the backbone of this new social group. Mexico is somewhat unique because while in both Colombia and the US the middle class rallied behind the Liberals, in Mexico this class was split. The split was usually between “respectable citizens” who feared the rabble, and “independent men” who resented the elites and wanted more power for themselves, but this is an overt generalization. In any case, it was the Salazarato’s policies of industrial expansion, land redistribution, material reconstruction, and expanded trade that allowed this class to emerge.
In general, Salazar’s “national conservatism” (name taken from the Colombian Party) also now as “national progressivism” (a more Mexican name), was based around the idea of social harmony, presided by a benevolent and paternal state that provided for the poor and the minorities, but maintained important men as the leaders of the community and the country. With the Church, the Hacienda, and the Patriarchal Family as the good pillars of society, Salazar and his men sought to contribute to the development of Mexico through education and industry, but without upsetting the traditional social order.
The achievements of the Salazarato are notable because they took place after Salazar had relinquished complete power and had to start taking part in normal parliamentary politics. Salazar, who had never been part of high society despite his martial distinctions, seemed out of place in a party of “aristocrats and curas of powdered wigs and silk stockings.” Indeed, some expressed horror at his uncouth manners and blunt way of acting. Some also were confused by his style of leadership, “proper for a General and his soldiers, but not for a statesman.”
Political cartoon showing the distribution of the loaves and the fishes, that is, political patronage
Indeed, satirists were fond of showing Salazar literally whipping MPs into place, similarly to how he treated his men at Veracruz. The only bill that Salazar ever wrote personally was criticized as “appearing more like a military report than a law” by one of his own Ministers. At first, Salazar was unable to deal with the details of parliamentary work, and the subtilities of patronage and political favors escaped him. But soon enough, Nationalists rallied round their leader, whose own capacity started to shine through. His experience dealing with officers of inflated egos helped him deal with similarly arrogant politicians, and his capacity as an administrator and keen mind for the problems Mexico faced made him enormously popular, and even nowadays he’s seen as one of Mexico’s best Prime Ministers.
Salazar’s dealing of the rivalry of the two powerful Nationalists, Andres Iñarritu and Gabriel García Negrete, is evidence of this. Both men, despite having careers that started before the war and continued through the wartime Parliament, are examples of the new Nationalist leadership that for the moment shared power with traditional leaders but would soon enough displace them: pro-business men who envisioned an industrial Mexico. This kind of men had already started to gain prominence, in both parties; in fact, the last Liberal-Federal Prime Minister, Daniel Jacome, had been an industrialist with French ties. But during the Salazarato they started to gain more and more power, and also to be more associated with the Salazarists.
In the case of Iñarritu and Negrete, both men headed powerful parliamentary committees: internal improvements and taxation. Ideally, they would work together for the economic health and development of the nation, but both men, once allies, had come to hate each other virulently. The feud started mainly due to a fight over patronage, when Parliament declined to build the Mexico City-León railroad through Negrete’s home of Celaya, instead opting for a more direct route. Iñarritu had advocated for this other route, not to spite Negrete, but because he owned real state there. But Negrete never forgave him, and in revenge he blocked a tax plan that would have benefited Iñarritu’s province of Tamaulipas.
When Iñarritu went to Negrete’s residence to try and patch things up, Negrete simply ignored him, seeing Iñarritu’s actions as “a base insult, an unforgivable and spiteful personal attack.” He even refused to acknowledge Iñarritu’s presence when they both attended Mass. Enraged by this, Iñarritu also broke with Negrete. Both men would continue to bitterly attack each other, and both, naturally, sought the support of their party leader, Salazar.
Solving the feud was necessary because, towards the end of 1858, the friendly cooperation of both committees was needed in order to pass the budget of 1859. One of the post-war reforms, alongside directly elected MPs and laws requiring deputies to live in their constituency, was regular Parliamentary elections, every 6 years, and a law stating that an election would take place if Parliament was unable to form a government or pass a budget. Since the elections had taken place in 1856, Nationalists were not anxious to dissolve their majority and allow Juarez a chance to at least snag some seats, thus, finding a compromise was imperative.
The days tickled by while Negrete and Iñarritu “played tennis” with the bill, by passing it to each other’s committee and back without approving the bill or allowing it to come to a vote in the full parliament. Nationalists then decided to engage in perhaps the most cynical parliamentary maneuver in Mexican history. In November, with just two weeks before the session ended, news came that the Nationalist Zacatecas MP Rodolfo Lara had killed himself. Lara was, in blunt terms, a political non-factor, a very private bachelor who had few friends and almost never spoke in Parliament. Reports paint him as a lonely, depressed man, who had failed at business. He had lost his wealth, and since Parliament kept a property requirement that meant that if it was dissolved, he would lose his seat. Thinking of that as “a painful humiliation”, Lara hanged himself in his house, and was found later the same day by his maid.
Andres Iñarritu
As soon as the news reached the halls of Parliament, Nationalists seized them as an excuse to postpone the session and thus obtain more time to resolve the impasse. Feigning hurt at the death of their “esteemed colleague”, Nationalists pressed for three days of mourning. Liberals were sickened by this cynic display, denouncing how “men who could not care less for this poor man, now proclaim him their dearest friend and cry rivers for his passing”. One Nationalist even forgot Lara’s name, calling Rafael. Altogether, the incident is a rather embarrassing episode for the Mexican parliament. Even Salazar reproached the members of his party.
Despite this, Salazar quickly went to Negrete and Iñarritu and sought some way of allowing the budget to pass. Negrete, a stubborn man, held firm, but Iñarritu was more pliable, and after Salazar promised some patronage (including a position as Port Inspector for Iñarritu’s son), he acquiesced to Salazar’s proposed maneuvers. When Parliament reconvened, many of the “mourners”, a Liberal noted, “clad in bright, joyful colors”, Salazar put his plan in action. Negrete, as expected, sent back Iñarritu’s bill, but before it reached the Committee, Iñaritu had first sent his own bill, without Negrete’s modifications, to the full Parliament, a movement usually not allowed. Iñaritu instead should have sent it to Negrete’s committee. Instead, there were now two bills, Negrete’s and Iñaritu’s, the later of them improperly sent for a full vote before obtaining the approval of both committees.
When Negrete protested, the full Parliament returned Iñarritu’s bill to Negrete’s committee, where the “tennis game” would presumably continue. But Iñarritu took the first bill that Negrete had sent back, modified it, and sent it to the full Parliament. With Negrete in committee, working to strip the second bill of the features he disliked, there was no one left to protest while Parliament approved the movement retroactively and then approved the bill. The result of these confusing measures was that a budget, with technically the approval of both committees, had been passed, just in time to prevent the dissolution of parliament. Negrete was so outraged by this “act of deceit”, that he threatened to resign, but after Salazar coolly told him to go ahead, his temper cooled off. He was forced out of his committee into a minor position that did not come into conflict with Iñarritu, and Parliament was able to resume its normal functions. The whole affair showed decisively Salazar’s capacity as Party leader.
Criticism of the Salazarato through political cartoons was becoming more common
The Salazarato is justly remember as one of Mexico’s most important historical periods due to the national consolidation and economic expansion that took place under it. It has recently come into scrutiny due to its failure to act for the rights of women, minorities and the poor, and its obvious bias in favor of the rich and powerful. But it cannot be denied that it was an era of prosperity for most Mexicans, and that Salazar and his party were the ones that laid the blueprint for modern Mexico.
Last edited:
so it looks like Mexico is going to transition into a permanent Parliamentary system, though there is a distinct gap between the rich and the poor and only a burgeoning middle class. This is actually all kinds of interesting. I'm super enjoying this timeline and, though an American myself, it's kinda nice to see an American-screw that gives breathing room so that the Latin American nations have a chance to develop and proper. Kinda fascinated to see the trainwreck of an American CIvil War that you'd hinted is coming.
Great job!
Great job!
Much better than OTL, at the very least.
The American Civil War here is going to be very different from its OTL version. I'm glad you're enjoying the TL!
Huh... thank you for telling me. I'll correct it at once.
1. Great chapter!
2. Glad that this timeline isn't a Mexico screw like most timelines are!
3. How many people do Mexico and the US have in comparison to Colombia?
2. Glad that this timeline isn't a Mexico screw like most timelines are!
3. How many people do Mexico and the US have in comparison to Colombia?
I wonder if a pan-Hispanic movement is going to become a major thing in the Americas. Especially when Colombia becomes more powerful.
One thing I’ve been wondering is whether the feminism of the new Mexico will transcend class and racial boundaries over time, or accentuate their differences. Given this is a partly economical question, I’m also wondering how far will the nation grow in this regard. Does the imperial family or Princess Isabel have any say in these matters? Or any leanings towards these issues?
Oy. If there’s one thing I wish the 19th century could be done with, it’s this. Then again, I’m not exactly absolved from this statement *eyes own timelime* .
Oy. If there’s one thing I wish the 19th century could be done with, it’s this. Then again, I’m not exactly absolved from this statement *eyes own timelime* .
Mexico will indeed end up as a much more powerful and united country when compared to OTL. As for population, in 1860 Colombia has around 15 million, the US has 26 millon, and Mexico 14 million. Put together, the gringos are outnumbered, especially because there are 3 to 4 million of slaves in the US. It's important to note that the lower US population is mostly due to lower immigration. Consequently, the sectional desbalance is less step -9 million Southerners (including 3.5 million slaves), and 17 million Northerners, compared with 21 million in OTL.
Pan-hispanism will be big ITTL. Seeds are already being sown as Mexico and Colombia are becoming closer, while Colombia seeks to turn its South American "block" into a real alliance.
Mexican feminism is essentially a middle-class movement, similar to its American counterpart, but Mexican women are much more willing to take poor and indigenous women into their fold. In fact, women's movements are staunch allies of the more radical reformists, those who advocate for truly universal suffrage. Having Princess Isabel as regent is definitely a boost, and she is sympathetic to their fight. But the Imperial family and Isabel, for the most part, stay out of politics, allowing Parliament to reign supreme. Isabel, in especial, feels great admiration for Salazar. The Imperial Family mostly limits itself to charity and advocacy for social policies to improve the lives of their subjects - think soup kitchens and better orphanages, not sweeping reforms.
As for the Liberal position, it's a sad fact that almost all 19th century Liberal agreed that the State should do nothing but guarantee equality in the marketplace and before the law.
I think Colombian and Mexican population are over that I think is possible. Could you explain how can be so high?
Mostly because stable and prosperous democracies tend to have much higher birth rates and lower death rates than poor banana republics. Migration and the fact that people simply have more children because they can afford so also help. Take into account that the migration is not exclusively European - Haitians, Peruvians, Chinese, Philippinos, Indians and people from the Lesser Antilles also migrate to Colombia, while Mexico receives Central Americans and Native Americans, expulsed from American territory, besides its own share of Chinese and Caribbean labor. The resulting figures assume a population growth of 25 to 30%, lower than the American growth of 30 to 35% during the same era.
The Colombian Empire: A (mostly) United Spanish American TL
Hello, everyone. For a few years now I have enjoyed the many fantastic worlds and timelines on this site, but I have never actually created one myself. This will be my first attempt at a timeline, so I'm sure I will make a few mistakes along the way. Hopefully you will bear with me in spite of...
www.alternatehistory.com
This whole TL is reminding me of this other TL.
Mine actually started a year before this one, and Monx said that he was partly inspire but mine. I think Monx's was a great timeline, and it's a shame that he doesn't work on it anymore.
Yeah it really is a shame. To think both of y’all drew from the same well.
First thing, I love this story, I hope you continue it. But I have some questions about the future.
1- Is there a possibility that the disaster of the First World War will happen?
2.- Now that I notice it, the United States can carry out much more aggressive actions with its foreign policy for its military campaign in Mexico, its defeat against Canada and the Colombian threat. Because something history has taught us is that ambition and paranoia are a bad combination.
3.- What is the opinion of this Latin American version of empires like German and Russian?
4.- Can Latin American establish commercial points in Asia? Or in the best of chaos, a colony?
5.- Will there be any Latin colony or commercial point in Africa? Will there be stronger Latin-African relations?
6.- He theorized that the great Colombia is about to suffer a defeat, but its enemy is not that it comes out well.
7.- In this version of history, which Latin country is the strongest, in military terms?
8.- I suppose that in this version of history, the United States will not think of threatening Colombia with snatching Panama and the great Colombia or madmen from Panama, in the pathetic way they did in our history.
9.- If I am not mistaken when black gold is discovered, great Colombia will benefit greatly.
Well that's it. I hope you continue this marvel of history.
1- Is there a possibility that the disaster of the First World War will happen?
2.- Now that I notice it, the United States can carry out much more aggressive actions with its foreign policy for its military campaign in Mexico, its defeat against Canada and the Colombian threat. Because something history has taught us is that ambition and paranoia are a bad combination.
3.- What is the opinion of this Latin American version of empires like German and Russian?
4.- Can Latin American establish commercial points in Asia? Or in the best of chaos, a colony?
5.- Will there be any Latin colony or commercial point in Africa? Will there be stronger Latin-African relations?
6.- He theorized that the great Colombia is about to suffer a defeat, but its enemy is not that it comes out well.
7.- In this version of history, which Latin country is the strongest, in military terms?
8.- I suppose that in this version of history, the United States will not think of threatening Colombia with snatching Panama and the great Colombia or madmen from Panama, in the pathetic way they did in our history.
9.- If I am not mistaken when black gold is discovered, great Colombia will benefit greatly.
Well that's it. I hope you continue this marvel of history.
Not exist yet and with a pod in 1800 ww1 as we know Is Butterfly away
- Status