Miranda's Dream. ¡Por una Latino América fuerte!.- A Gran Colombia TL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Appendix: Characters of the TL
  • I've decided to start writing some mini biographies of characters of the TL, to make it easier for you all (and for myself) to follow. A kind of appendix, which I will update from time to time. I will also update the appendix with Presidents and Heads of State, and write a long overdue appendix about the Mexican Empire and its system of government. You can request mini biographies of characters whose fate you'd like to know!

    1. Colombia.

    Francisco_de_Miranda_by_Tovar_y_Tovar.jpg

    "The size of your effort will be the size of your success."

    Generalissimo of the Republic of Colombia and its first President. Born in March 28, 1750, in Caracas, then part of the Spanish Empire. In 1771, he left Caracas and started his adventures around the world, which would take him to Europe and the United States, and have him participate in the American and French Revolution. In 1783, he met and fell in love with Susan Livingston, daughter of Chancellor Livingston. This brought Miranda closer to the American political elite, and affected him profoundly when it came to his views regarding Federalism and the need for joint action against Spain. He briefly returned to Caracas in 1784, re-establishing relations with the local elite, before going to New Granada and also establishing ties there. He took Susan with him to a new European tour, at the end of which Miranda settled briefly in Britain. He married Susan there, and they would have a son together, Leandro. Miranda's failure to get official support for his Latin American project frustrated him, but he established ties with many leading reformers and merchants. Miranda moved back to the US, and remained there until the start of the Latin American revolutions in 1809. Decided that Union was needed, he went to the Cartagena Junta, and then to the Federalist Tunja Junta, and convinced them to offer an alliance to the Caracas Junta. Caracas accepted after General Monteverde started to rally soldiers to the Royalist Cause. This eventually resulted in the formation of the Supreme Junta of New Granada and Venezuela, and the Proclamation of the Republic of Colombia in 1812. Miranda led the country as provisional President until the final victory over Peru. in 1816, he ran unopposed and was elected as President of the Republic, serving until 1824.

    After playing a decisive part in the failure of Bolivar's coup d'état attempt, Miranda retired and moved to Caracas. He had brought Susan and his son to Colombia in 1815, and now they settled together in Miranda's old home. Miranda would serve as an important check on Venezuelan separatist, who steadily lost power thanks to economic recovery. A proud and even arrogant man who nonetheless held progressive and enlightened views, Miranda was sometimes a critic of the Santander administration, but largely supported it. He rallied volunteers and patriots during the Colombo-Peruvian War, and though at times he despaired and toyed with returning to Santafé, victory at Tarqui helped to convince him that the country was secure. Miranda enjoyed his status as the father of Colombia. He remained vain and proud, but also educated and affable, and maintained correspondence with several important figures of the world stage. His dream of going down in history as the Liberator of South America had been accomplished. He lived in tranquility in his Caracas estate. When it comes to personal relationships, he remained aloof from Bolívar, and generally respected men like Santander and Sucre. He died at 86 years old in August 19th 1836 in Caracas, an event that resulted in a wave of national mourning. His wife, nine years younger, survived him and would die 10 years later, when she was 87 years old. Their only son would live until the 1880's, never getting involved in politics.

    Miranda is hailed as the greatest Colombian, and a true man of the enlightenment. Colombians can be proud of how he intervened in every major revolution, and met practically every figure of importance of the XVIIIth century. Like with other historical figures, his flaws of pride and vanity have been forgotten in favor of emphasizing his legend. Fondly remembered as the Father of Colombia and admired almost universally, Miranda can rest in peace knowing that his dream of going down in history as the Liberator of the New World has been fulfilled.

    14-santander.jpg

    "Colombians! The arms have granted you independence, but only the laws can grant you freedom."

    Known as el General Santander and nicknamed the Man of Laws, he served as the Second President of the Republic of Colombia from 1824 to 1836. Born in Cúcuta, in April 2nd, 1792, he was a young law student in Santafé when the Massacre occurred. A firm patriot and a federalist, Santander travelled north and joined the forces of the Tunja Junta. Later, the Supreme Junta was formed, and they welcomed the Venezuelans who fled from Monteverde. Royalists coming from Santafe attacked Tunja, but the Granadino soldiers and some Venezuelan reinforcements recently arrived managed to stop them at the Boyaca Bridge, thus saving Colombia. Afterwards, a second insurrection took place in Santafe and much of the garrison deflected, allowing the Patriots to move to the city and take the armory and treasury. The Supreme Junta moved there, and would soon declare the Republic of Colombia. Santander personally took part in all of these glorious events. Now a general, he was sent north to serve together with other Venezuelan forces in the campaigns around the Magdalena. A talented and able man, Santander quickly gained fame, though he was eclipsed by Simon Bolivar. Bolívar would go to Venezuela in his Admirable Campaign, while Santander remained around Cartagena. In 1814, he took part in the lifting of the siege of Cartagena. His popularity among Granadinos and his great commitment to law and order made Miranda chose him as his Vice-President in 1816, with the Constitution having been explicitly written so as to allow him to serve despite his young age.

    Santander was mostly a representative of Granadino Liberalism during the Miranda administration. He developed ties with Venezuelan officers and politicians who otherwise were suspicious of him, but at the same time he gained the enmity of Antonio Nariño, who led a group of conservatives against the Administration. He went on to win the 1824 Presidential Election as the Federalist candidate against the Centralist, Bolívar. The dirty and hard-fought campaign had already strained their relationship, and when Bolívar attempted a coup, it was definitely broken. Santander was known for his commitment to the law and the constitution, thus Bolívar's action were unacceptable. The coup failed and Santander assumed the Presidency. He never took any punitive actions against Bolívar aside from offering him some far-off posts (which Bolívar refused). Both men would remain bitter enemies for the rest of their lives. Santander ruled with the help of a Liberal coalition, which included several Venezuelans and Southerners who benefited from free trade and modernization, and wanted even more federalism.

    As President, Santander was an efficient administrator. He was personally very irritable when it came to criticism, asking Congress to investigate even petty accusations. Yet he never deviated from the law. He was also known as a throught statesman, that worked tirelessly, setting a rigid schedule and reading every bill and decree that came to his desk. He would even correct the grammar of the decrees before singing them, and reportedly didn't even have time to eat. Foreign diplomats compared him disfavorably with Miranda, because while Miranda had been a gracious host, Santander was stingy. He worked hard, and though many personally disliked him, especially separatist who called him a "Granadino Alzado" and other nicknames, he was known for being pragmatic in the persecution of his ideals. Nariño also left behind many bitter enemies of Santander's liberal administration, which would ultimately coalesce in the Centralist Party. Despite these difficulties, Santander managed to pull through and lead the country to victory during the Colombo-Peruvian War, which earned the love and trust of many. His selection of Marshal Sucre as his minister of War strengthened the ticket in Venezuela and among soldiers.

    The war had consolidated the nation, giving a powerful coup de main to the Venezuelan separatists, who were unable to threaten Colombia's unity by themselves ever again. Santander now had enough political capital to pass his Great Reforms, a series of important laws that strengthened and expanded education in Colombia, encouraged immigration and the settlement of land, started the process of industrialization and the diversifying of the economy, and created a more rational and democratic system of governance. The Great Reforms are Santander's crowning achievement, which basically laid down the blueprint for modern Colombia. Other great achievement of his was the perpetual abolition of slavery in Colombia in 1833, despite the opposition of some slave-owners.

    However, 12 years overworking himself as President took their told, and just two years after leaving office, Santander had fallen seriously ill. He did everything he could to rally support during the Grand Crisis, but his illness stripped the Federalists of the leadership they needed. After the Grand Crisis, Santander remained ill and would die in March 18th, 1844, at the relatively young age of 52, his plans for a Federalist comeback never realized. President Esteban Cruz decreed a week of national mourning, and although El Hombre de las Leyes still aroused passionate feelings within many, most regretted his death. When it comes to his personal life, Santander is known to have had a few passionate loves, including with Doña Nicolasa Ibañez. He fathered a total of five sons, all of whom went into politics. He would finally settle with Sixta Ponton in 1836. Their son, named Francisco de Paula just like his father but known by his mother’s surname, served as Senator for Boyacá.

    Santander left behind a legacy as the greatest Colombian liberal. His name and policies were venerated in an almost sacred manner by the next generation of liberals, who often cited him as the greatest statesman of his time. Many men of great reputation themselves, such as Noboa and Armas, mentioned him as their inspiration. Santander has often topped lists of the greatest Colombian presidents, and his legacy is felt even today.

    simon-bolivar.jpg

    "Maintaining the balance of liberty is harder than enduring the weight of tyranny."

    El Libertador Simon Bolivar, the final member of the legendary Colombian triumvirate that brought independence to the South American Nation. Born in July 24, 1783 in Caracas, Bolivar was the son of one of Caracas' oldest and most respected families. Tragedy quickly struck them, however, for his father died when he was but a child, and his mother a few years later. Bolivar grew in comfortable conditions, as an unruly child who liked to roam Caracas and could not be tamed by any kind of tutor. His family had large estates, slaves (including the famous Hipolita, whom Bolivar loved as a mother) and mines. Destiny seemed to prep him for a comfortable and obscure life as a landowner. The only tutor who managed to get to him was Simon Rodriguez, who instituted a love for liberty and the doctrines of the enlightenment. Yet Bolivar did not show any interest in becoming a statesman. The young man travelled to Spain to continue his studies, and there he met and fell in love with Maria Teresa Rodriguez del Toro. They married, but when they came back to Caracas María fell ill, and died.

    Feeling lost and hurt, Bolivar returned to Europe. He felt disgusted at the decadence of Spain, and compared it unfavourably with France's splendor and progress. In the Monte Sacro in Italy he made a famous vow to never rest until his fatherland was liberated from the Spanish yoke, in the same place where the Roman plebs had started their revolt against the Consul. Bolivar then returned to Caracas, and offered his service to the Caracas Junta when the Revolution started. In those days, he was a fervent supporter of further union and cooperation with other American juntas, such as the Junta of Tunja. He and his supporters called themselves the "Patriotic Society", and quickly established contact with the Venezuelan Francisco de Miranda. But the zealous Caraqueños were not willing to fully cooperate yet. Bolivar fought admirably in the first battles of the war, but the Republicans were overwhelmed by General Monteverde's forces. The Caracas Junta accepted the alliance with the Granadinos then. Their leaders, Bolivar and some officers managed to evacuate Caracas, even as Monteverde unleashed a reign of terror over the patriots. Out of pragmatism or a genuine belief that they would be stronger together, the Venezuelans accepted to join the Granadinos, and they formed the Supreme Junta. It had to face a final Royalist attack, which was stopped at the Boyaca Bridge by a combined Granadino-Venezuelan force. His participation in the battle earned him a promotion to general.

    Bolivar was put in charge of troops around the Magdalena, where he would for the first time met Francisco de Paula Santander. After the successful end of the campaign, he launched his Campaña Admirable, which saw him defeat Spanish force after Spanish force and take town after town with the help of an united army of Venezuelans and Granadinos, retaking Caracas in 1813. It was there that he received his famous title of El Libertador, being welcomed by big celebrations that included a dance by several young ladies in white dresses. Bolivar would go on to defeat the Royalists decisively at Carabobo, which trapped them in Maracaibo and Puerto Cabello. Afterwards, he went South and again defeated a Spanish attempt to take Santafe, thus securing the capital from this final try at reconquest. The Spanish would never again take the initiative. Bolivar led the army South, sieging and taking Quito, and then Lima. He would end the war at the Battle of Ayacucho, which forced the surrender of the final Royalist forces in South America.

    Following his dreams of becoming the Colombian Washington, Bolivar simply intended to settle down as a farmer. He did briefly take up arms again to take part in the liberation of Hispaniola, beating back twin attacks by the Haitians and the Spanish, but for the most part he stayed off the public light during the first years of the Republic. However, he was displeased by the Democratic and peaceful direction the Miranda administration had taken, especially his demobilization of the army and his refusal to continue the war to take Cuba. Though he did no want to be a politician, he naturally became the rallying figure for conservatives and Venezuelan separatists, who hoped to use him to secure secession from Colombia. By 1824, they had convinced him that Santander was a snake who would destroy the "pobres militares" and Venezuela if allowed to take command. The execution of Leonardo Infante, widely considered a miscarriage of justice, and the persecution of the corrupt Miguel Peña served to convince him. He ran against Santander in the 1824 election, but lost. Undeterred, he attempted a coup, storming Congress with a core of loyal soldiers and officers. But he found that there was neither popular support, nor political support for him. The fact that Venezuelan separatist elected to Congress refused to take their seats meant that there was no one to speak for him in Congress. Bolivar realized that the separatists had tricked him. Feeling betrayed, he issued a warning against any rebels, saying that he would personally ensure Colombia's unity with his sword if necessary. After the coup attempt, Zulia, Apure, Maturin and some Venezuelan cities like Valencia and Barcelona all issued declarations of their support for Santafe and the Colombian union.

    Bolivar's mere presence was enough to deter any attempt at separatism, since no general or politician dared to cross him. There were some hopes that he would lead another coup or separation attempt during the Colombo-Peruvian War, but then Marshal Sucre turned the tide at Tarqui. Victory consolidated the nation, and gave a final coup de grace to Venezuelan separatism. Yet Bolivar felt restive and out of place in the Liberal Colombia that Santander was building. He finally decided to exile himself like San Martin had done, and went to live in Britain for a few years. He did not find respite there either. In 1840, he travelled to Brazil by invitation of the Emperor. He stayed for around a year, before moving to Paraguay. When the Triple War started, he offered his services to the Paraguayan government, and was instrumental in several victories over the Brazilians and Platineans. But again, his soul remained restive. After writing a new constitution for Paraguay, Bolivar sailed North and returned to Caracas in 1851, the first time he set foot in his home in 15 years. He was once again welcomed by young ladies in white dresses and cries of "hail El Libertador!" Bolivar died soon after that, having largely fulfilled his dream.

    The legacy of Bolivar is still difficult to judge. Some point to his authoritarian streak, his coup attempt, and his attempts to start a bloody "War to the Death" as fatal flaws of character. But at the same time he was determined, hard working, and charismatic. Even if he was misguided, there is no doubt that he always wanted the best for Colombia and his people, and that he truly and deeply loved his country. He left a mark in the conservative movement, which saw his principles as their guiding light even if he never held elected office. But by far his greatest legacy was conquering Colombia's freedom. Despite his mistakes and flaws, no one can deny that he was instrumental in the founding of Colombia and the achievement of independence.

    2. México

    376398477.gif

    "Mexicans! We have before us a great ordeal. Just like the Spanish, these Americans are now trying to force our Mexico into the dark piths of suffering and fear. But just like before, the brave men of Mexico will rise to fight them."

    Mexican commander, known as the Victor of New Orleans for his defeat of Zachary Taylor, which earned him the title of Marshal of the Empire. Born in September 2nd, 1811, in México City, Ruiz was the son of a merchant and commander of the Trigarante Army, who had earned a noble peerage for his loyalty towards Emperor Agustin I. Raised in comfortable richness, Ruiz quickly decided to become a military man, obtaining an appointment to the National College of the Armed Forces in 1827 - two years short of the required age of 18, but he obtained a special permission. He showed decision and assertiveness, and a talent for the command of artillery, supporting reforms within the armed forces that would lead to the switch to "flying artillery." Appointed a colonel in the frontier army, Ruiz quickly rose through the ranks thanks to a combination of personal charisma, connections, and raw talent. During the crisis of the 40's, Ruiz was commanding a corps of artillery that was attacked by a group of American filibusters. He dispersed them with ease and ruthlessness, earning accolades from Mexico city and the hate of the Texians. War was averted thanks to the Emperor's successful diplomatic maneuvers, but Ruiz was retained in the frontier, and given command of the army there, one of the youngest generals of the Empire. This earned the jealousy of many, such as General Gabriel Valencia. On the other hand, he forged friendships with men such as Augusto Noble, who would later become the commander of the Indian Cavalry.

    Though his family wanted Ruiz to get involved in politics, he refused, feeling more comfortable as a military man than a statesman. He married the daughter of a Member of Parliament for the National Patriotic Party in 1847, but reportedly did not discuss politics with her. He remained rather apolitical, though he was a firm nationalist and an enthusiastic monarchist. In his personal life, Ruiz was known for portraying an image of a secure, affable and brave man, but internally he often questioned and second-guessed himself. At times, he seemed to suffer from crippling depression. The loving relation he developed with his wife, Doña Camila Sierra de Ruiz, helped him. He was, however, an aloof and demanding father, seemingly because he wanted to make sure his children would be able to fend for themselves. He was similar in his relations with his men, being prone to launching into motivational speeches but also demanding and enforcing strict discipline. The men loved him for the most part, finding him fair and unpretentious. Though he enjoyed the battles at first, the bloody war would change his opinion as the casualties mounted. And even if he hated to be harsh with civilians, he was ruthless in his dealings with guerrillas. Many have also noticed great apathy on his part towards the slaves and indigenous soldiers, though he always treated them with dignity and respect. He definitely shared the prejudices of his era.

    When the Mexican-American war started, Ruiz rose to prominence as the commander of the army closest to the frontier. He was supposed to simply delay the Americans, but he turned them back at San Jacinto and invaded Louisiana. He was subsequently promoted and given command of all Mexican troops in the area. His successful campaign, called the Eagles Offensive, would give him fame and recognition, though he seemingly didn't crave either. "Lighting Ruiz" as he came to be known, would defeat Taylor and take New Orleans, starting a year of military occupation, during which his anxiety and depression only grew as he found himself outside of his element, and this reflected on his skills as a commander. He had special trouble coordinating with his lieutenants, especially Valencia. In the Battles of Avoyelles, he dithered and held off reinforcements even as Valencia fought tooth and nail against the Americans. He paid dearly for the mistake. A sharpshooter's bullet would end the life of the Marshal during the battle at Breaux Bridge. Ruiz left behind a legacy as one of Mexico's greatest military heroes, but one of the most hated foes of the United States as well, being seen as a butcher and a tyrant - to this day, many refer to him as "King Lewis" and talk of the atrocities of the Mexican occupation of Louisiana. His army was taken over by Valencia, who was never able to instill the same pride and loyalty as Ruiz did. History would make many forget his flaws, and the government of Salazar often used his image as a rallying point. His widow, two sons and a daughter survived him, and although they formed a personal friendship with Marshal Salazar, who offered a sizable pension, they stayed off the public scene.

    Pedro_Ampudia.gif

    "The horrible privations of war should teach us to appreciate peace, to grant forgiveness, and to toil for prosperity."

    Mexican general and statesman, hailed as the Hero of Veracruz for his successful defense of the Port City during the Mexican-American War. Born into a poor family in Puebla, in March 23, 1803, Salazar was always attracted to military life, watching the militias drill around the city square. He stayed out of the first chaotic stages of struggle for Independence, but joined the army as a drummer boy in 1816 when Agustin I formed the Trigarante Army, which instilled in him a lifelong loyalty to the monarchy and to order. Two years later, he had obtained a command as a lieutenant due to his sheer talent and bravery. After the war, he enlisted in the National College and obtained the education he had lacked. Appointed a commander, he earned the affections of his superior officer, who helped him rise through the ranks. Yet, Salazar’s conflictive aptitude, his low birth and poor economic status, and his frequent insubordination stalled his career. When his superior officer retired, the higher ups decided to get rid of the problematic colonel and appointed him to the Army of Central America, which was seen as an army of cutthroats and thieves. Salazar turned things around and instilled pride and discipline in his men, earning their loyalty and admiration. At the same time, he became infamous due to his cruelty and ruthlessness towards the native population.

    His status as an officer allowed Salazar to marry with the daughter of an hacendado, something that would usually be off limits for someone from a poor family. The relation was good, even genuinely loving at times. Salazar was, however, a frequent womanizer and liked to drink, though he was never abusive towards his wife or his children. Strict and demanding, Salazar was known for being easy to anger and hard to please, but he also was bright, capable and could even be charismatic and grandiose. He was not afraid of showing attention from time to time, looking at affection as a reward. He also showed extreme loyalty and diligence, which earned the trust and affection of many. The story of how he did not forget his mother and father and did everything to give them a comfortable life after becoming an officer is well known. In any case, Salazar's refusal to engage in empty flattery and his non-aristocratic manner stopped his military career. Had it not been for the war, he may have languished in obscurity.

    When the war came, Salazar and his army were transferred from Central America to the frontlines at Veracruz. By the time he arrived, the situation had turned desperate. General Veintimilla, who assumed command after the death of Zapatero, proved unsuited to the task at hand. After his nervous collapse, Salazar assumed command and drove back the Americans with the famous war cry of "No gringo shall set a foot in Agustin I's Plaza!" As a general, Salazar was a capable administrator, and his personality attracted the loyalty of his lieutenants, men of difficult personalities that Salazar managed to nonetheless balance effectively. He suffered enormously due to the sight of horrible tragedy that struck Veracruz, which manifested itself in an undying hatred for the US. He seems to have developed a firm belief that he was the chosen instrument of God for the salvation of Mexico, even if he was not particularly religious before the war, and would not become a devout believer even after it. He finally managed to force the surrender of Patterson, giving him the title of the Hero of Veracruz and the national fame and glory that he had so desperately wanted even from his days as a drummer boy. Afterwards, Salazar joined the conspiration known as the Plan of Veracruz, which wanted to overthrow parliament to assure a successful prosecution of the war without the weight of petty politics dragging them down. Not a friend of direct democracy, Salazar was not a tyrant either, and he favored constitutional, limited government. Yet the experience in Veracruz and the fight between Parliament and Empress Louise convinced him that Parliament had to be out of the way for Mexico to be saved. He led the coup and installed himself as President of the Regency Council under Princess Isabel. After the war, he restored Parliament and obtained a seat from Mexico city, and continued as Head of Government as Prime Minister.

    c61e0e0f3040c78aba3e47285fa4eb13.jpg

    "Let us work together, for we can only achieve an united and prosperous Mexico when the people are educated and laborious."

    Eldest daughter of Emperor Agustin II and Empress consort Louise, and Princess Regent of Mexico for her brother the Emperor Carlos I. Born in July 28th, 1833 in Mexico City, Princess Isabel grew in the peaceful and prosperous later half of her grandfather's reign. She was known for being an independent and sweet girl, who preferred to run around playing instead of learning etiquette. Her grandfather adored her, and nicknamed her "Little Flower." As she grew up, she learned to be more disciplined. She especially discovered a love for literature, importing several European books and learning English and French. She also developed an appreciation for politics, though according to Agustin II she was remarkably naïve, thinking that all nations always had the best interests of their peoples in mind. Her curiosity pushed her towards travelling her Empire instead of remaining in the palace. To her father's dismay, she often liked to talk to commoners and even tried street food once.

    Her aptitude earned the appreciation of the people of Mexico city, and soon enough she was declared the "Fairest Flower of Mexico". Her independent spirit still remained within her, and she sought to have a voice in the nation's politics. For example, she befriended her father's personal friend, Eduardo Castillo, then a simple Member of Parliament but later the leader of Mexico during the war. She also travelled to various points of the Empire, though her father forbade her from leaving the country barring a brief sojourn in the Colombian Caribbean. She was the Heir Presumptive until the birth of her brother Carlos Augusto in 1842, and as such received a complete education. But she was always more interested in the human aspect, and she led several social programs in favor of the poor and needy, which only increased her popularity.

    At the start of the war she did what was expected of her - help in galas and other reunions in the palace as a hostess. But when the Battle of Veracruz started, she went against her father's wishes to the front and served as a nurse of the 3M, directly helping several poor soldiers. She met Marshal Salazar there, a man with whom she would establish a fatherly bond. When her father died, a political struggle started because her mother wanted to establish herself as regent against the wishes of Parliament. Her relation with her overwhelming mother had always been tense, and it broke as a result of the crisis. She accepted to form part of Salazar's Plan of Veracruz, and was installed as regent. She largely referred to Salazar's genius as an administrator and politician, but she did push for several laws in favor of the needy of Mexico. Her personal diary is a good account of the Mexican-American War, and it also shows her genuine pain at the suffering of her people.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 55: Guerrillas and Filibusterers on the Mexican Border
  • With Kearny as our leader and Taylor in the van
    We will plant the flag of freedom in our fair and happy land
    We will drive King Lewis' minions to the Bravo's rolling flood
    And we'll dye her waves in Crimson with the invader's coward blood

    And we'll march, march, march!
    To the music of the drum!
    We were driven off in exile
    From our fair Louisiana home


    -The Louisiana Battle Anthem, a popular song of the Mexican-American War

    The problems at the Mexican-American border did not start and did not end with the Mexican-American War. During the years previous to the war, many empresarios went against the laws of Mexico and tried to introduce more slaves, a form of slave trade that had been abolished by the Duchy of Texas. Mexican attempts to enforce the rules and abolish slavery slowly were seen as a threat by the Texians, who prepared by stashing arms.

    They grew bolder when it became clear that the pro-war James K. Polk would win the election, bringing in the hardliner Castillo, who took steps to ensure the army would be prepared for the fight. When rumors flew that the nearby Mexican army planned to disarm them, the Texians raised the flag of rebellion and defiantly proclaimed “come and get it!”. Soon, they constituted themselves as a Congress and asked for admission to the US, starting the Mexican-American War.

    During the war, many Texians marched north with Sam Houston and became the Texas Rangers, now known as the legendary rivals of the Mexican Indian Cavalry. But many also stayed home, and soon thousands of guerrilla bands started to swarm around the territory. Though the Mexicans did have an official answer to them, conducting often brutal anti-guerrilla campaigns, the Tejanos also raised their own guerrillas to fight against the gringos.

    Soon, two large guerrillas became the main powers in the territory: a Mexican band led by Alejandro Ponte, nicknamed “El Coyote”, and the band of Howard Whitehouse, from which a group led by the psychopathic killer Sheldon Bush split. In Louisiana, a similar story took place, this time pitting the men of Vicente Guzman Blanco, called “Blanco’s Brigands” and the Louisianan guerrilla of David Andrew Johannsen, or “Johannsen’s Raiders”. The legacy of these bloody combats helps explain the political divisions that struck the US in the 1850’s, and the mistrust and hate that plagued the border for years to come.

    Ironically, the first guerrilla chieftain to rise was not a citizen of any of the involved states. Vicente Guzman Blanco was actually a Spaniard living in New Orleans. He didn’t seem to be guided by any true affinity with the Mexicans, but rather by hate for the elite of New Orleans. He especially came to despise slavery, mostly because he thought it had made him fail in business. Propaganda and anecdotes said he had a Black mistress, but it’s hard to confirm. In any case, Blanco actually welcomed the coming of the Mexican Army under Ruiz as a way to strike back against the “aristocracy” that kept so many down. He joined the Mexican Army, but soon enough he found that he did not like the discipline and restraint Ruiz enforced, and was more allured by the possibility of pillaging and robbing. He led a group of deserters to a nearby plantation, and murdered the white family there before setting the slaves free, recruiting the men for his growing band of deserters, escaped slaves and others who were interested in riches.

    Soon enough, Blanco was declared an outlaw and he and his men received the name of “Blanco’s Brigands.” In the chaos of war, the Brigands were mostly able to avoid the forces of law and order. More preoccupied with the American troops than with these outlaws, Ruiz ignored them at first. Some officers offered arms and help, realizing the potential they had for disrupting the American communications and supply. Indeed, Blanco and his men in many occasions captured supply trains or ambushed solitary detachments.

    However, Blanco was simply interested in revenge and gain for himself. He refused to develop any kind of strategy or coordinate with the Mexicans, and even in the first days where the army turned a blind eye to their actions, Blanco never really cooperated in any way. His brutal ways were seen as distasteful and appalling. As Ruiz settled down into a military administration, he realized that he could not endorse slave uprisings and wholesale murder. Doing so would only strengthen his foes. Even if he could never win the hearts of the Americans, he could keep them inactive for the moment. Of course, Mexican atrocities were also a powerful propaganda tool, and the “Rape of Louisiana” motivated many to fight. To openly ally with Blanco would only weaken Mexico’s diplomatic and military position.

    US_Buffalo_Soldiers_Battle_of_Carrizal.jpg

    Some of the men under Blanco's command

    Two months after New Orleans, Blanco’s Brigands were declared outlaws by the Mexican Army and bounties were issued for Blanco’s head. Nonetheless, Ruiz never actually pursued or attacked him, and an informal understanding that he wouldn’t unless Blanco provoked him developed. Blanco thus refrained from attacking Mexicans, but that provided little respite for the occupation force had to deal with its own guerrillas. Blanco himself had started to lose strength due to this counterattack, which was led by a Louisianan who matched him in brutality yet surpassed him in tactics.

    David Andrew Johansen had decided to stay home and take care of his mother and sister while his brother and father enlisted in the army. His brother died in battle; his father was captured and would perish in far away Texas as a prisoner. The rest of his family was safe in the American side of the Mississippi, but Johansen still blamed himself for the lost of his father and brother. After reading reports of Blanco’s atrocities, he decided to recruit a guerrilla of his own formed out of deserters from the Army and people who hadn’t volunteered. “Johansen’s Raiders” made their first appearance by a daring ride all the way to Baton Rouge, where they wrecked several Mexican cannons and stole whole crates of supplies. Aside from this, the raid resulted in the death of several Mexican soldiers.

    Unlike Blanco, Johansen and his boys enjoyed wide popular and official support. Though Winfield Scott, as a Whig committed to law and moderation, loathed to give support to outlaws, he recognized that it was necessary to fight fire with fire. Johansen soon started to receive Army rifles and rations, which allowed him to fight without resulting to plundering. It also enabled his vengeance, for he now could simply destroy Mexican detachments instead of robbing them.

    The greatest factor of Johansen’s success is of course the support of the Louisianans themselves. Seeing him as a popular hero, a man on horseback come to liberate them from “King Lewis” and his mongrel invaders, they opened their homes and hearts to him. Mexican regiments would fruitlessly pursue Johansen, who knew every inch of Louisiana and could simply disperse whenever he wanted, seeking refuge in the houses of his supporters. Though Ruiz could at times be brutal in his suppression of guerrillas, shooting or hanging them immediately, he was unwilling to scorch the land or imprison civilians as some suggested. In any case, his government prohibited such actions, knowing that they would make concluding a peace harder.

    Blanco tried to fight against Johansen, but the latter was a gifted tactician. Blanco’s resources were also dwindling. With most Americans on the other side of the Mississippi, stealing supplies or arms involved difficult and costly raids. Blanco had no problem robbing civilians of their food, but Marshal Ruiz’s Military Administration was far better and much more systematic in this endeavor. Finally, there was the fact that most of Blanco’s men were fugitive slaves or Army deserters. Deserters were plenty, but as the job grew dangerous and the rewards shrank, Blanco found it hard to make them join his band. The slaves were another matter.

    The great majority of slaves wanted freedom, but they wanted security for themselves and their families as well. Blanco was not kind to women or children, and thus Black men with families hesitated to join him. They would either have to take their families with them, exposing them to great dangers, or leave them behind. With Johansen taking upon himself the work of slave patroller, remaining in a plantation could be dangerous if a relative had cooperated with the Mexicans. Johansen made it clear when he chained dozens of women and children who had escaped their plantation and brought them north to be sold to Mississippi’s planters. Of course, not everyone completed the journey.

    Compared with Blanco, the idea of seeking refuge with Ruiz seemed more alluring. Ruiz never saw himself as an Emancipator, and in fact did not want to be one. He was not in favor of slavery, but did not hate it vehemently either. His main concern was winning the war. Personally, he was compassionate and respectful with the slaves. But he never issued any call for them to escape and join him, nor did he organize a rational system to provide for them. He did refuse to return fugitive slaves, and offered them accommodations and food if they in turn worked as laborers and constructing trenches and fortifications. He could not pay the escapados, but his conditions were humane, even if many Mexican soldiers were not.

    james-william-bloody-anderson.jpg__400x427_q85_crop_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg

    David Andrew Johansen

    Limiting the number of slaves who escaped to Mexican lines was the fact that many plantations still had overseers, making escape difficult. Many feared punishment if recaptured, or for that punishment to fall on their relatives who could not flee. The lack of an official policy meant that many Mexican regiments could turn them back to their owners, or simply refuse to take them in. Other took them in, only to subject them to cruel treatments. Many plantations along the Mississippi were on the American side, or their owner had been evacuated to that side, taking their slaves with them, of course.

    There was also the fact that the Mexican occupation was not permanent – eventually, the escapados would have to leave and go to Mexico. Some skipped a step and went to Texas directly. In any case, the Mexican occupation represented a hard hit, though not a fatal one, against slavery in Louisiana. Amid the chaos of war, as many as 45,000 slaves escaped thorough the entire Mexican occupation (which was just 20% of Louisiana’s slave population), 30,000 of them joining the Mexicans. One of Ruiz’s nobler actions was the evacuating slave women and children when he finally left New Orleans – most men chose to remain with him and fight, playing a big part at the Alamo. Few joined Blanco by contrast.

    Constantly outwitted and outgeneraled by Johansen, Blanco tried to cross the river to get more supplies. There, he was pinned by a regiment commanded by Joseph E. Johnston, recently returned from Veracruz. Blanco’s Brigands, and Blanco himself, met their end there.

    For his part, Johansen continued his violent campaign against the Mexicans. Enacting a kind of warped justice against Blanco, he massacred many fugitive slaves who took refuge in backwoods or abandoned plantations. He was also known for annihilating all the Mexican soldiers he caught. His most infamous act was, of course, the massacre of a camp of escapados. Ruiz had left them in an army camp until he could assign them to different units to clean, cook and build for them. But Johansen’s Raiders came, overwhelmed the small Mexican detachment, and massacred all the people they could, not making distinctions for women or children. In total, 300 people were murdered.

    After the Mexican Army left Louisiana for good following Scott’s campaign, Johansen’s Raiders remained active for some months, “hunting” fugitive slaves and taking revenge on those accused of collaborating, including, undoubtably, many innocent gens de couleur libres. Johansen himself received a commission in the American Army as a Captain as a thanks, and he received a pension and extensive lands. As a Louisianan gentleman, Johansen quickly bought some slaves. Ironically, he was apparently a permissive master.

    Compared to Blanco, the Tejano guerrilla of Alejandro “El Coyote” Ponte was far more successful. Ponte had developed a great mistrust of the Americans during the rocky years of the 1840’s. Now that war had come, this simple tanner took up arms and together with neighbors decided to help the cause of his country. Unlike Blanco, who only wanted to pillage, or Johansen, motivated by vengeance more than anything, Ponte was more aware of political realities. Believing that Mexico needed a Tejano counterpart to the Texian guerrillas, he also saw his own efforts as part of a wider strategy to weaken the Americans and keep Texas in Mexican hands.

    Nicknamed El Coyote because his attacks often took place at night, Ponte destroyed plantations and liberated slaves. He was a genuine humanitarian in this regard, feeling great sympathy for “this race, so long wronged by the greatest tyrants the New World has seen since Spain herself.” Ponte’s actions were in line with other Mexican attempts to destroy slavery in Texas without an express decree. Prohibition of the trade, lack of fugitive slave laws, freedom of womb and confiscation of slaves (both enacted during the war) slowly chirped away at the institution. When the war finished, the slave population of Texas had gone from 30,000 (out of 120,000 Texians and 150,000 Tejanos) to scarcely 5,000 – and almost half of those were liberated as soon as the guns fell silent.

    3590_6-640x400.jpg

    Idealized image of Ponte and his men coming to the rescue of Tejanos

    Opposing Ponte was the appropriately-named guerrilla chieftain Howard Bush. Once an empresario who brought settlers (and slaves) to Mexico for a profit, he worked fervently to get Texas to join the United States. He formed part of the small rebellion of 1840 led by Stephen Austin. Unlike him and others like Crocket, he survived. Austin’s rebellion almost caused a war, but the Imperial Treaties of 1840 stopped it. Afterwards, Bush became a leading figure in Texian politics. He was part of Houston’s Congress, an event that did start a war. But unlike Houston, he couldn’t bear to leave his beloved Texas until he was sure that it would not fall to Mexican depredations. Bringing many young men to his banners, Bush started a bloody but effective bush war against Ponte and the Mexican government.

    Bush was overshadowed by his former subordinate, Sheldon Whitehouse. A psychopathic killer motivated not by nationalism but by murderous desire, Whitehouse led many men like him out of Bush’s band. He killed slaves, but also massacred many Tejano civilians. In response, Ponte conducted massacres of his own. With most of the Mexican Army in Louisiana and Veracruz, Texas was awash in blood and anarchy. Ponte, who enjoyed more popular and institutional support, became basically the power of the land during the last months. General Valencia would give him a commission, similar to the case of Johansen. Unlike the Raider, the Coyote would enter politics and be appointed as governor of the province of the Alamo and also a member of Parliament. For their part, Whitehouse would die in one of his many raids, while Bush would live to see his dream of an American Texas fulfilled – never to face any kind of punishment for his crimes.

    The bloody legacy of all these guerrillas contributed to an air of mistrust and hate that would remain in the border for many years to come. The region, as a whole, would not see real peace for a long time, as guerrilla bands, deserters, draft dodgers and hostile tribes kept wandering through it, their respect for life or property low. For a moment, the government of Marshal Salazar was hopeful that they could be able to pacify the area. Their efforts in the Mexican side were successful. But much to the Hero of Veracruz’s chagrin, an old foe would come back to haunt the area. Now calling themselves “filibusterers”, these Americans sought to start war anew so as to fulfill Manifest Destiny.

    The first of the filibusterers were inconsequential, at least for Mexico. A band crossed into Mexican Territory, and declared that all land between the Colorado and Bravo rivers ought to be American. A Mexican patrol quickly subdued their little attempt at revolt, for, understandably, the filibusterers could find no support among the Mexicans there. Salazar decided to be merciful, and they were handed back to the Americans. This was to no avail – a few months later, they tried again. This time, they brought more arms and more men, and ended up capturing a small border town and killing some soldiers. Enraged, Salazar vowed “to enforce the Treaty of Peace at the price of their coward blood.” Once again defeated, the Americans perhaps expected mercy, but Salazar quickly executed them. The event perhaps sobered some fiery delegates at the southern conventions of 1855.

    E7U6XHWRKZC7BNE6P5G474BUNI.jpg

    American Filibusterers

    The second filibuster was not more successful, but he was more memorable. A small man with piercing eyes that earned him the nickname of “The Grey-eyed man of destiny”, William Walker focused on another area of the Empire. The Treaty of la Habana had left many of the gold mines under American control, but men like Walker wanted to have the mines in Southern California too. He organized an expedition and marched off to find riches. But his party grew smaller in size. Like the Texians, he found only hostility in this area of Californios, which was receiving great internal and international immigration as a result of the Gold Fever. He had more luck on one regard – he made it out of Mexico alive. Salazar, once again, threatened to hang Walker. He was running low on provisions, and many of his men had deserted him. Turning tail, Walker fled back to the US where the Scott Administration indicted him for violating the Neutrality Act. But the Californian jury refused to convict him.

    Walker was free to make another try, but this time his ambition was greater, for he looked south to Cuba. Another man was also looking towards Cuba – Narciso Lopez. The actions of Lopez and Walker would have far greater consequences, as they involved not only the United States and Mexico, but Colombia and Spain as well. They were, definitely, one of the reasons why the Colombian government started to seek a treaty of alliance with Mexico, a treaty that seemed to annunciate a war with Spain.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 56: The Eagle and the Condor
  • The Colombo-American rivalry, which has antecedents in 1810-1830 era, grew in prominence in the 1840’s and came to a head in the 1850’s, where the ambitions of both nations clashed. The main point of contention was the island of Cuba, which both Colombia and the USA saw as theirs to take. But the rivalry had also economic and social causes, and ultimately it came down to a clash between the two countries' visions and ideologies. As the rivalry grew, Colombia came closer to Mexico, which had always had an ambivalent opinion of Colombia. The complex diplomatic relationships between these three countries came to shape the struggle for the Caribbean, and as such deserve to be analysis in depth.

    Colombia’s opinion of the US had changed immensely come the 1840’s. At first, the fledgling Republic saw the United States as a “sister Republic”, an older state founded on the same principles that would thus constitute a natural ally. In fact, Colombians saw the United States as an ally against Mexico, something that would become deeply ironical later. Most Colombians believed that the Mexican Empire was a “remnant of despotism”, and some went as far as characterizing Agustin I’s ascension to the throne as an illegitimate coup. Miranda, who despite his great ambitions always focused on the domestic scene first, was not too keen on Mexico being an Empire. Many diplomats even wished that a Republican revolt could succeed. One did take place – that of Guadalupe Victoria, but it could not gather enough support and failed at the end, forever associating Mexican republicanism with radicalism and federalism. Victoria’s revolt only helped to consolidate Agustin I’s reign, for he now had the support of moderates, conservatives, and the Army. In any case, this did not ender the Empire to Colombia, which continued to see Mexico as a military dictatorship under the guise of a democratic monarchy.

    By contrast, the Colombians admired the US and its institutions. Miranda in particular was a big fan, and it’s no surprise that the Colombian Constitution was modeled after its American counterpart. Admiration for the British was higher, however, and when push came to shove, Miranda often sided with the British over the Americans. Infamously, he retained American volunteers while allowing the British ones to leave and fight in the War of 1814, which deprived the US of experienced soldiers or officers. Nonetheless, and barring some strong disagreements over the Caribbean, Colombo-American relations remained cordial and positive.

    Proof of this is how the Americans often framed the question of recognizing Colombia’s independence in how that would advance the rights of man and the cause of liberty. Of course, the cynical desire to take over Colombian trade or get ahead of the British also played a part. But it’s still worth noting that Americans, including Henry Clay, felt genuine sympathy for the South American nation. Much of the credit must be given to the Colombian agent, Manuel Torres, who worked without rest for the cause of his country. Men such as Madison, Quincy Adams and Clay greatly appreciated him, and he remains the unsung hero of Latin America diplomacy, for it was his efforts that convinced the US to recognize the new Republics (it would not recognize Mexico until later).

    American expressions of friendship were warmly received by Colombians. A Congressman would say of Colombia that “everything from that Republic fills us with admiration. The valor of its armies, the patriotism of the people, their devotion to the cause of independent, entitle them to our profound regard. But above all, their constitution, similar in all its important features to our one, is most flattering to our pride, and most consoling to our hopes.” His words were so appreciated that there were celebrations in the streets of Santafe over them.

    Nonetheless, there were already some people who considered that the US was more of a threat than an ally. Simon Bolivar’s famous quote that “the United States seem to have been destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty” proves that some Colombians saw the US’ greater strength with worry. This maybe drove them into the British sphere, despite cries that they were just exchanging the Spanish King for the English one. The Monroe Doctrine especially soured the Colombians, and although Mexico and France were the ones behind most opposition, and also the final cause of its demise, Colombia and Britain also decried it as arrogant.

    monroe_james.jpg

    James Monroe

    In any case, relations remained cordial. For the most part, however, both countries did not interfere with each other. Trade was on the rise, but besides that diplomatic relations were limited because Colombia was focused on South America, and the US in North America. But things started to change in the 1840’s, when the sense of nationalism and exceptionalism started to grow within both countries. As both looked towards the Caribbean, a clash became more and more likely.

    Colombia’s mixed feelings towards the US have been interpreted as simple jealousy. The unique combination of smugness and an inferiority complex has been observed in several Latin American countries. In Colombia, this manifested as a continuous belief that Colombia needed to catch up with Europe and the US. This gave birth to such ideas as “blanqueamiento”, but also produced envy towards the US and its powerful economy, large territory, and its appeal to immigrants. Unwilling to face and come to terms with these feelings, Colombians adopted arrogance as a defense mechanism, and started to attack the US for its fallings and proudly declare that they were the true land of the Free.

    The points of contention were many. For one, Colombians accused the United States of being a land of anarchy, where violent mobs ruled the day – a criticism the British also voiced. Many Colombians also accused the Americans of being greedy and soulless, of only “praying at the altar of gold”, and said that Colombian society was better because it encouraged small and tight communities. But by far, the greatest criticism was deserved for the American system of slavery.

    Colombians were not free of that sin, and they recognized it for the most part. However, no great political front had ever opposed emancipation per se, and at most conservatives demanded it to be more gradual. Just one newspaper of importance ever declared it to be positive; the great majority of Colombians, including the big triumvirate of Miranda, Santander, and Bolivar, condemned it. Freedom of womb was passed shortly after the Proclamation of the Republic. Slavery was finally abolished by constitutional amendment in 1834 during the administration of Santander, who passed it with virtually no opposition, though he had to offer generous compensation to owners. Though Colombia can be faulted for simply liberating the slaves without taking steeps to right the systematic inequalities that held them down, its commitment to slave emancipation was clear from the very beginning, and its efforts to improve the condition of the slaves and later give them freedom are undoubtedly noble.

    Colombia and Mexico considered themselves the guardians of freedom because they abolished slavery, and constantly criticized the United States for declaring itself the Land of the Free yet holding millions in bondage. Slavery became a greater topic after the Mexican-American War, which Colombians saw as an imperialistic conflict for the sake of slavery. Horrified at the prospect, Colombians turned against the US and eagerly supported the Mexican Empire, not only rhetorically, but also materially for fairs and associations raised funds for Mexican soldiers, even if the Colombian government refused to allow official volunteers (thousands of Colombians enlisted anyway). Moreover, the war shattered the Colombian conception of the US as a “sister republic”, and instead Colombians, from peones in Ecuador farms to merchants in Caracas and the statesmen of Santafe, started to see it as a direct and imminent threat.

    The war also marked a shift in American opinion. Americans had always focused more on Mexico, and their relations with Colombia were cordial if a little aloof. But with American exceptionalism on the rise, and the popularity of the idea of Manifest Destiny that included a vision of the Americas as the US’ turf, Americans started to form a negative opinion of the Andean nation. Generally, they accused Colombia of being “English lapdogs”, who did the bidding of John Bull. The Oregon Treaty had resulted in greater Anglophobia within the US, and as a result the Americans charged that Colombia was a “pawn in the Great British Game” for defeating them.

    Colombian actions did not calm them. The infamous sinking of the Maryland off the coast of Hispaniola almost caused a war, though we should note that most congressmen actually spoke against the UK, arguing that the incident had been planned by them. In any case, the US ended up simply embargoing Colombia and breaking off diplomatic relations. The fact that the Colombian minister was so hated by the American politicians did not help matter, of course (see below). Bonifaz later managed to patch up relations with the US, but both nations remained antagonistic ever since. Criticism of the US also rose.

    It seems that Colombian aptitudes towards the US went hand in hand with the rise of Colombian liberalism. As liberals pushed for legal equality, universal voting and other reforms, they acquired greater consciousness of racial and social problems elsewhere. The US, naturally, received most of the criticism. Colombians charged that they were “hypocritical man-stealers”, who “held millions in terrible bondage to satisfy their greed”. They used this criticism to elevate themselves, saying that by contrast Colombia “recognized the universal principle of human liberty” and declaring themselves “free of any irrational prejudice.”

    john-bull.jpg

    John Bull, the common representation of the UK.

    Of course, this was but a bare lie. But Colombians could take comfort in the fact that they were at least better than the US when it came to racial relations, and thus ignore their own issues. In fact, in many occasions Colombians used the comparison to the US to deflect criticism at their own social problems. For example, a newspaper from Venezuela chastised a strike of Black laborers by saying that they should feel grateful “that our government recognizes your liberty and rights, whereas other nations uphold slavery as a blessing. To abuse the freedom that our country has given you is treasonable ingratitude.” An Afro-Colombian man from Hispaniola bitterly said that the white elites were always parroting “behave, my Negro children. Mother Colombia knows best. If you don’t, the big bad American will come and enslave you!”

    Colombian criticism, however, was mostly genuine, and it can’t be denied that Colombian minorities had a better lot than American Negroes did. A Black American, a former slave who had emigrated to Colombia, was invited to talk to a meeting celebrating 20 years since the abolition of slavery, and he praised Colombians for being “steadfast and loyal allies of liberty and equality, a people who have manfully stood to proclaim that all men, no matter their color, are truly created equal.” Frederick Douglass was also surprised by the degree of egalitarism and integration he observed, and was gratified by the fact that “Colombians treat me as a man, not as chattel.”

    Liberal politicians also genuinely fought for legal equality, and were known for the respect and dignity they afforded towards minorities. This compared favorably with the anti-slavery men of the US, some of whom were virulently racist and only opposed slavery because it degraded white labor, not because it was morally wrong. Americans observed that even Colombian conservatives treated minorities as people, which is shocking when one takes into account that American conservatives actively denied the basic humanity of African-Americans. Alarcon, for example, despite opposing legal equality completely, had Mestizo and even Indigenous friends, and was sincerely disgusted by slavery, which he categorized as “barbarous”.

    This is not to say that racism did not exist in Colombia, which is something that Colombians now and then like to claim. The same Alarcon considered that Indigenous peoples were “dwarfed imbeciles, who barely know how to grow corn.” Statements like this one shows the ambiguities of Colombian racial aptitudes. The Colombian minister to the US from 1850 to 1852, Oscar Burgos, was frankly disgusted by slavery, which he thought was “a sinful practice, not fit for any civilized people.” Yet, he thought minstrel shows were fine entertainment, and believed in blancamiento as a way to “improve the moral and intellectual attributes of the nation.”

    Even among more progressive men, prejudice was still common. At worst, there were Liberals like Mateo Cevallos (“the most conservative Liberal of the land”), who supported legal equality but doubted that “ignorant Indians and lazy Negroes could leave behind their present stupidity.” But progressives like Noboa or Schwimmer-Hernandez still believed that the economic inequality of minorities was due to their “hate of honest work and earnest effort.” Nonetheless, they always fought for legal equality and tried sincerely to improve the lives of minorities.

    In any case, Americans were right when they accused the Colombians of being hypocrites who didn’t own to their prejudices. Their common counter-argument was that American slaves were protected by “patriarchal and beneficial slavery” while Indians and Pardos suffered terribly. “The evident superiority of the slave system is proved once again,” said a reporter who was appalled by the condition of Black free laborers in Hispaniola, though he played loose with the facts. They also claimed to have a superior democracy, because they did not have requirements for voting or holding office at the Federal level (certain states did place limits, but overall a greater percentage of Americans were enfranchised). They charged that Colombia was nothing but a petty oligarchy under a tight British leash.

    220px-Frederick_Douglass_as_a_younger_man.jpg

    Frederick Douglass

    Moreover, it seems that Americans started to worry about Colombia as a rival. The Mexican-American war is arguably an American victory; but the truth is, it was also a deep psychological defeat. By shattering the image Americans had of themselves as the undisputed masters of the continent and creating sectional discord, the war had introduced doubt and insecurity into the American psyche. Many Americans started to believe that a shady conspiracy orchestrated by Britain and France was afloat, a conspiracy that would use Mexico and Colombia to destroy them. And although they could not bring themselves to admit it, the Americans were afraid of facing both Latin American nations at the same time. The Colombian diplomatic maneuvers that culminated in the Muñoz-Gomez Treaty of Alliance only increased this worry.

    This helps explain the simply terrible diplomatic relations between Colombia and the US in the 1850’s. Traditionally, Burgos has been blamed for that. The Dominican was very outspoken against slavery, and had a high sense of personal honor. Blunt and rude, he did not endear himself to the Americans, who accused him of being an agitator. When diplomatic relations were finally broken, many Gringos celebrated. This was a great contrast to Manuel Torres, who died in the US while serving as Colombian minister and received a state funeral with military honors and a parade in his honor.

    When relations were normalized and another minister had to be appointed, Bonifaz recommended a “man of moderation” who would not inflame the Americans by speaking against slavery. Bitter recriminations followed, as Senators vowed to “never submit to the demands of slave traders.” Bonifaz’s choice was ultimately approved, but this did not augur well for future relations.

    The next point of contention concerned the island of Hispaniola. Southerners did not focus on it as much as they did on Cuba, but they sometimes included it in their plans for Manifest Destiny. When a New Orleans newspaper made its infamous declaration that their destiny was to rule “over the islands of Cuba, Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico”, Colombians raised a hue and cry. A Hispaniola congressman even went as far as declaring it “an act of war.” A bizarre incident took place when some Americans asserted that colonization of Black Americans in the island would be beneficial because they could bring “American culture and thrift to a desolate area.” Outraged Colombians then argued loudly that their “Negroes are of superior intellect, and are endowed of the responsibility and morality that only free education and labor can give.” When news came that the American filibusterer William Walker had invaded Nicaragua, the Colombians cried that the “Americas are plotting our destruction and subjugation. They mean to enslave us.

    Cuba remained at the forefront. Many Colombians, especially young men, dreaming of “finishing the work of Bolivar” by liberating this last vestige of Spanish oppression. In general, Colombian ambitions grew just like their nationalism and exceptionalism did. By 1860, a diarist said that “the names of Miranda, Santander and Bolivar are sacred” and that every child “knows every heroic moment of the history of the nation, and can recite our laws as easily as the Lord’s Prayer.” Events like Jose Antonio Paez cry of “¡vuelvan caras!” in his battle against Boves; Colonel Rondon being tasked with “saving the fatherland” by Bolivar; or Marshal Sucre’s charge at Tarqui were engraved in the national memory. As a result, Colombians started to see themselves as liberators with a “national mission”, a duty to liberate Cuba and Puerto Rico from the evils of Spanish government and “welcome them into our Republic in condition of equality and dignity.” Some Colombians who opposed imperialism were able to conciliate this by believing that they would be actually performing a “service in favor of humanity.”

    Cristobal_Rojas_01-1-e1380562444320-540x405.jpg

    Many young Colombians wanted to emulate their glorious forefathers by dying for the cause of liberty.

    This exceptionalism saw Colombia as a unique nation that “appears to have been destined by the author of nature as the centre and empire of the human family.” Believing that Colombia ought by right to “control the Caribbean as fully as the Maracaibo lake”, Colombians set forth in an agenda of imperialism over the Caribbean and other South American countries, which naturally made them clash with the Americans, who had an exceptionalism of their own. Though Colombia was to embroiled in domestic disputes to fully act towards the late 1850’s, the start of a revolution in Cuba and Civil War in the United States in the next decade gave them an opportunity that they could not throw away, and their actions would have great repercussions in the future.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 57: The Daquilema Uprising
  • Cristian Jose Hurtado’s assumption of the presidency of Colombia is an event that had great historical significance. Though the actions of a single man cannot be seen as the only factor behind great economic and social changes, and Hurtado himself was as much a victim of fate as any other Colombian, his policies, personality and legacy had a profound impact in the South American nation. Though Hurtado has recently fallen into oblivion and is only remembered in relation with his successor, it’s undoubtable that Hurtado’s actions helped to propel Colombia in a new direction, where it assumed a new role as a Great Power.

    Hurtado was never meant to be President. Born in 1813 in a rich landowning family in Azuay, in Southern Colombia, Hurtado received a profoundly religious education that installed moralistic conservatism into him. He lived a comfortable life as a member of the upper echelon of Colombian society, and was a skilled lawyer. He did not like Santander, because he believed that the President’s actions were unconstitutional and violated states’ rights. Elected to the House, he served without distinction as a Centralist, until after the Grand Crisis, when he became more interested in politics. Still wary of a powerful government, he quickly decided to align himself against President Cruz and the National Conservatives. As his sister observed, he became a Federalist “not because he agreed with the Federuchos” [an insulting name for Federalists], but because “he distrusted and even hated the President.”

    As a result, Hurtado represented one of the few defections from the old Centralists to the Federalists. He also was one of the most conservative members of the Party. The Federalists were in bad shape, and this led to a conservative reaction within the party, which was later described “as an internal coup against the Liberal men.” The Cali Triumvirate took command of the party during the Cruz era, and it would not be until 1852 that the Liberal men, such as Noboa or Armas, were able to re-assert themselves.

    But that still laid in the future when Hurtado was elected as a Senator. Following the informal system of assigning Senators based on House districts carried, the Federalists managed to elect one Azuay Senator. This was because the city of Cuenca was firmly on the Federalist column. A learned city of culture and press, known as the Athens of Colombia, Cuenca elected Federalists to Congress. It’s thus ironical that the Senator the state chose was such a stalwart Conservative.

    Hurtado was not a protagonist in the party squabbles and the eventual division of the Federalist Party. His only notable contribution was apparently good fighting skills in the “Congressional brawl” after the Santafe riots. But when the Federalist Party actually split, Hurtado was at the forefront as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of forming a new Party. He also showed his capacity for working, returning to his home state to marshal his supporters, because the Representatives of Cuenca quickly sided with the Liberals. In the National Convention, he made a name for himself as a strong voice that attracted many doubtful and afraid people. When the PCN proposed a fusion ticket, he was chosen partly due to his newfound popularity, partly to get him out of the way. But the move ended up backfiring, and now Hurtado was President.

    The Triumvirate was worried about this sudden development. Alarcon, with usual smugness, believed that the “Morlaco” (someone from Cuenca) would be an easy puppet. Santoya was less convinced, while Solis reluctantly supported Alarcon’s position. In any case, the Triumvirate remained united for the moment, and they presented their demands together as well. Since the Pelucones held the balance in the Senate, they could easily block any bills and stop the wheels of government. But their relation with the PCN was damaged because despite what the Pelucones hoped, the PCN had remained the party of industry and enterprise. National Conservatives were more willing to cooperate with Liberals than they were with the Pelucones. Senator Kelly’s tax decree was described as a “cold, pompous insult” because of how it seemed to target landowners and give advantage to merchants and industrialists.

    8191973892_b8de5e6304.jpg

    Liberals liked to portray Pelucones as greedy oligarchs who robbed the people

    Pelucones sought to ally with the National Conservatives to repeal and replace the decree with a friendlier measure. But the PCN did not welcome the move. Kelly, in particular, was outraged by its mere suggestion. A reserved man with few friends, Kelly was close with the late President Font, and he considered the tax decree to be the crowning achievement of his friend’s brief administration. “By putting forward that dammed bill,” Kelly wrote about the repeal, “the pelucon party has spit in Mr. Font’s grave.”

    Kelly was known as one of the most economically progressive PCN politicians. Together with other men of similar views, such as Senator Casas of Ecuador, he was part of a group dubbed “the Gardeners” (Jardineros) after the little Santafe café where they often met – El Jardín. To their right stood most of the PCN, people who were friendly to industry but still supported social conservatism, and included men like Senators Mejía and Perez, or Governor Sepulveda of Venezuela. To the extreme right of the party there were statesmen like Governor Nueces of Ecuador, who were nicknamed “pelucones azules” for being Pelucones in all but name.

    Though the center of the party may have been willing to entertain the possibility of a repeal, the progressive block opposed it vehemently as an “attack on the common hard-working men of the nation” for the sake of “an entitled oligarchy.” Liberals welcomed their help because it made the opposition seem like “the defenders of the people” rather than a group of partisans. The Liberals could still not shake off the view many had of them as willful agitators who only sought “to rule or to destroy,” and as such presented their opposition as “the efforts of labor” rather than the efforts of party.

    The struggle over the decree was waged over the first months of the Hurtado presidency, and did much to destroy what little goodwill existed between the PCN and the Pelucones. Ultimately, the PCN would join the Liberals and vote down the repeal by overwhelming margins. But Liberals who expected the PCN to join them to pass legislation had their hopes dashed when a bill of electoral reform was voted down by a Pelucon-Conservative block. That bill had been introduced after the ruling of the Ordoñez v. Ecuador case had finally been issued, a ruling that could not really be claimed as a victory by either side.

    The case that had started with the indigenous Ordoñez suing to overturn Ecuadorian laws that set greater standards for voting for indigenous peoples “that have not fully embraced civilization” had by then become a true cause célèbre. At the center of the controversy was whether states could set additional qualifications for voting aside from the constitutional requirements of “oficio honesto”, literacy and a certain amount property “to be determined by law”. A ruling in favor of Ordoñez would mean that a simply Federal decree would be enough to install universal voting; a ruling against him would allow states to continue enacting discriminatory laws. At the end, the court ruled for a consensus that satisfied no one.

    The Colombian Supreme Court, like other institutions, was made with the necessity of compromise and equality between regions in mind. As a result, it was decided that it would be made of 3 judges for each district. However, it was considered unfair for one district to have the Chief Justice, and New Granada protested because it believed that its greater population entitled them to another judge. At the end, it was decided that the judges themselves would choose a Chief Justice from among their ranks, and that the empty seat would be filled with another judge of the same district. To ensure an odd number of judges, a judge from Santafe would be selected as well; to ensure equality, the first Chief Justice would be Venezuelan. The result was an 11-judge court with 4 Granadinos, 4 Venezuelans and 3 Southerners.

    The 24 years of Federalist government resulted in a rather liberal court, but during the Cruz era many judges retired and were replaced with conservatives. The result was a court that was half old Santanderean liberals, half young National Conservatives. The balance was held by the eccentric Justice Armando Cabrera, son of Peruvian merchants who settled in the state of Tumbes. A maverick who sometimes supported social progressivism, Cabrera has been criticized then and now for “legislating from the breach”, that is, allowing political considerations to influence his rulings. His rulings held a lot of weight, especially because the moderates of the court felt more comfortable following him than the staunch conservatives or liberals. Cabrera was waiting for the people’s verdict in regard to social reform before giving his opinion – and since the people’s verdict was not clear, his was not either.

    31182d2dd1ab6131ed040b745af4d8e6.jpg

    Armando Cabrera, "el Peruano"

    Cabrera’s ruling was non-partisan and ambiguous enough to attract the support of 4 of the 11 judges. The six others could not unite behind a single ruling, and ultimately Cabrera’s opinion was approved with 7 votes – a convincing enough margin. The decision struck down targeted voting requirements as unconstitutional because equality under the law was recognized. But states were still allowed to set their own voting requirements as long as they conformed with federal law and did not target a religious, racial or ethnic group specifically.

    What this meant in practice was that disenfranchisement laws such as the compulsory “character boards” of Venezuela and Choco, which refused to register Black and Indigenous voters due to their bad character, were not technically illegal. Sure enough, Ecuador soon passed a law requiring such boards before elections. As one of Ordoñez’s lawyers bitterly said “it does not matter if the law does not contain the word indio”, the law was still an unlawful act of discrimination if “it brands the indian with the shame of not being a citizen.”

    The main reason for dissatisfaction with the ruling is the simple fact that it did not settle whether the Federal government could overturn such laws out of its own initiative. Since the Court said that state requirements for voting could not go against federal law, Liberal jurists held that if a decree disposing that states may not limit the franchise was passed, states could not limit it either. In other words, a simple decree was enough to enact universal voting throughout Colombia. On the other hand, Conservatives argued that the ruling was limited in scope, only preventing the states from targeting people for their race, but that “natural and reasonable legislation to limit the right of vote to men worthy of it” were still allowed.

    By sidestepping the issue instead of meeting it head-on, the Supreme Court only intensified the controversy as conservatives decided that they could never allow the Liberals to take control lest they try to enact their vision and “trample the rights of the people and governments of this Union” for “their radical and brutal objectives.” When Mateo Cevallos, a former judge of the Central District Court of Appeals turned Senator, put forward a bill for universal voting, skeptic National Conservatives and firmly-opposed Pelucones voted it down. Especially disheartening was that “men of solid progressive timber” like Kelly and Casas had also voted against the bill.

    In any case, it was clear that with Hurtado in the Casa de Nariño no real reform could ever take place. This helps to explain the brewing discontent in the Southern District and the Pacific coast, where more self-conscious indigenous and Black communities were starting to organize and demand their rights. The case of the indigenous communities is particularly notable, and it directly relates with the earlier Peruvian revolution. This movement, largely propelled by Indigenous armies that would be later betrayed, led to a spark in consciousness among the indigenous population of Colombia as well.

    The first signs of this indigenous revival were the new interest in the history, language, and customs of the community. In 1853, the New Standardized Dictionary of the Indian tongue of Southern Colombia was published. Aside from being an in-depth study of the Kichwan language, the Dictionary also compared the Peruvian and Colombian varieties and posited the thesis that, although related, both variants were distinct enough to be considered different languages. A History of the Indigenous People of Colombia was also published, and although it suffered from usual 19th century biases (most infamously portraying the Indigenous community as a passive one that needed to be liberated by Miranda and Bolivar), it was a through and genuine attempt at research. In 1856, the first theater play in Kichwa opened in Quito as well, together with one of its first newspapers.

    However, the newspaper failed miserably due to the lack of literacy of most Kichwa speakers. Since all schools taught only in Spanish, and were intended to assimilate the indigenous peoples rather than integrate them, not many people knew how to write or read their own language. Furthermore, the government of Ecuador was particularly repressive when it came to their rights. Aside from continuing the colonial tribute, a special tax levied only on them, the state prohibited bilingual education and considered their efforts to assert their rights to be “calls for a servile insurrection against their greatest benefactors.”

    Abolici%C3%B3n-de-los-tributos.jpg

    Political cartoon about the tributo

    Especially worrying were some neo-Incan ideas that were being floated around. Some Indigenous speakers argued that the “Indians of Peru and Colombia ought to liberate themselves” and create a new Incan Empire. “We want no condescending saviors”, the speakers thundered, “we want to decide our own fate, and take our own decisions. Only in complete and full freedom can we assure our security and dignity.” Interpreting these calls as an attempt “to destroy the security of our people and the integrity of our nation”, Ecuadorian authorities often rounded up speakers and threw them in jail under suspicious claims. The National Conservatives turned a blind eye to these events, and the Federalists were more preoccupied with their factional disputes.

    At the core of the discontent, nonetheless, was the simple fact that Indigenous communities had for the most part just traded masters. “Instead of serving a Spanish lord,” an English merchant observed, “the Indians of this country serve Colombian lords. They have not shared the hard-earned fruits of freedom with their supposed liberators.” Indeed, most Indigenous communities were still trapped in a system of share cropping known as huasipungo. Though supposedly abolished by law, that decree quickly became a dead letter.

    Under the huasipungo, Indigenous families received a small parcel of poor land to till, along with seed and tools, and in turn they owed labor to the larger plantation of the owner. The Republican regime had disposed that the huasipungo itself would be the property of the Indigenous families at the end of a certain period of payment, and that they still had to receive a salary minus the cost of the seed and tools. The natural result was that they were paid a misery and ended trapped in predatory contracts that “reeked of the most degrading serfdom.”

    huasipungo.jpg

    El Huasipungo indigena

    Furthermore, indigenous peoples were denied representation on the organs of government. Though some state and even federal lawmakers had indigenous ascendency, they for the most part had fully assimilated into the Colombian mainstream. Indigenous communities thus lacked people who could speak for them. Legislation specifically keeping them from seeking office was relatively rarer, if only because the wealth and education requirements were enough to exclude most of them anyway. The great majority of Senators, Governors, and other high-ranking offices remained in the hands of White Colombians of Spanish descent.

    When compared with Mexico, another nation with a large indigenous population, Colombia had more legal obstacles for indigenous political organization and representation, while Mexico had more systematic and widespread economic obstacles but did not have targeted legislation like Colombia did. It’s pretty telling that the prominent Mexican statesman Benito Juarez was of Indigenous ascendency; it’s also pretty telling that he was the only major Mexican figure of indigenous background, and that he did not embrace that heritage but was rather thoroughly assimilated into mainstream Mexican culture and customs.

    The Colombian circumstances meant that the economic crash affected the Indigenous peoples the hardest. The urban indigenous suffered the most. Though the paternalistic National Conservative administration used workshops and bread coupons to try and relieve the social pressure, most indigenous found it hard to actually receive fair aid relative to their struggle. The Chicaiza affair, when a man was unfairly executed, was especially outrageous. When these bad circumstances are taken into account, it’s no surprise that an alzamiento would eventually take place.

    Despite that, the Daquilema Uprising, as it was later dubbed, took the authorities at both the state and federal level by surprise. It can even be said that it took its eventual leader, Fernando Daquilema, by surprise as well. “El Indio Daquilema” was not a revolutionary, nor was he a learned man. He was not a kind of romantic and ideologically committed professional revolutionary, not did he have any kind of grand vision like Medina, the leader of the Peruvian revolution, did in Peru. He did not seek to overthrow the Colombian government; it’s doubtful he could have. And lastly, he was not a second coming of Tupac Amaru, bent on recreating the Incan Empire. His uprising started as an effort to assert the rights of his people, and later, inspired by the Caste War of Yucatan, into a campaign to force the national government to enact much-needed reforms.

    The Daquilema Uprising started in middle 1859 in the Hacienda El Arbolito, in the Department of Chimborazo of the State of Ecuador. The owner of the hacienda was known for being cruel and unjust towards the indigenous who worked for him. Instead of paying his workers with money, he just gave them a part of the hacienda’s total produce, which has illegal but the poor workers had no way to sue. After the economic crash, he suspended these “payments”, forcing the indigenous to live with the small quantity of food they could grow in their huasipungos creating a “situation that approached the level of famine.” Despite the economic improvement, he still refused to give them the food, preferring to sell it for a profit.

    Fernando Daquilema, who had lost his wife because she ate rotten meat in desperation, organized the community to go and demand fairer treatment, or at least a salary paid in piastras so that they would be able to buy food outside of the hacienda. Considering this a rebellion, the hacienda owner armed his sons and some loyal workers and drove back the pacific protesters. In response, the indigenous took up their tools and assaulted the manor, taking over the small armory and capturing the owner and his “soldiers.” Some of them, however, escaped and send a telegraph to Quito, requesting the militia.

    fernando-daquilema.jpg

    Fernando Daquilema

    It was at this pivotal moment that a small act of rebellion turned into a full-on uprising. Deciding that they could not trust the militia, and that the government was in the hands of people who would rather die than offer them their rights, the indigenous community decided to resist. Daquilema’s small group was bolstered by the inclusion of hundreds of workers, including women, from nearby plantations. Just a couple of hundred were armed – the rest only had farm tools. Their objective was the Federal armory in Riobamba, where enough arms could be found for a rebellion to be sustained. Before leaving, Daquilema ordered his “prisoners” flogged with stinging nettles and then washed in freezing water, according to the indigenous custom.

    Believing that the “ignorant half-savages” would not put up resistance, Governor Nueces sent a small detachment of 100 militiamen. The militiamen, however, were but young boys of abysmal morale and inadequate to non-existent training. Most of the actual militia remained in Quito, were they were used to maintain order. The result was predictable disaster as the boys did not know how to march or reload. A wave of angry indigenous workers overwhelmed them, and the militia scattered ingloriously. The prize had been high, with scores of wounded and dead indigenous men and women, but the armory was captured. The news of the rebellion quickly spread, and soon Daquilema had a couple of thousand men under his command.

    By then the seriousness of the situation had impacted Nueces. The defeat of the “gallant Ecuadorian militia by a group of starved dwarves with rocks” caused ridicule, but also fear. In August, 1859, he appealed to President Hurtado for army troops to put down “the infernal domestic insurrection”. Without waiting for the approval of Congress, Hurtado quickly dispatched the troops. But in doing so he would only escalate the situation, and lead to a series of events that would eventually cause his own downfall and the liberal revolution that he so feared.

    340px-Quintin_detenido.jpg

    El Alzamiento de Daquilema
     
    Chapter 58: The Fall of the Pelucones
  • Under normal circumstances, a President calling for troops to put down a domestic insurrection would not be a controversy. Sucre had used troops against Venezuelan rioters during the period of civil strife known as La Violencia, while Cruz was often ruthless in putting down strikers for the benefit of industrial expansion. In calling for army troops to put down the Daquilema Uprising in Ecuador, Hurtado was simply fulfilling his Constitutional obligations. But the partisan conflict had already reached such a degree that Liberals were unwilling to trust this Pelucon president with any power, while National Conservatives held certain reservations. Ultimately, it would not be the uprising itself that spilled into a national debacle, but the actions of Hurtado and the Army.

    In the first place, the President released a hasty proclamation calling for around 10,000 volunteers to put down the “rebellion”. It’s true that by then Daquilema had gathered thousands of followers, but this was not a military force. Instead of trained soldiers, it was made of farm hands, and even had women and children. 10,000 volunteers were an excessive number, especially when the Regular Army was available. It was true that the Regular Army had fallen into disrepair after the Colombian-Peruvian War – Cruz had justified this switch from Regulars to Militiamen and from the Army to the Navy by wryly observing that “it would be much more difficult to overthrow the government at Santafe from the docks of Cartagena.”

    In 1859, when the uprising started, there were around 40,000 Regulars, divided between three armies: Caribbean, Central America, and Southern District. Hurtado considered that he couldn’t withdraw troops from any of those commands without raising replacements, and as such he called for 10,000 volunteers while simultaneously ordering 5,000 troops from these Armies to the “front”. But he unwittingly created a venue of attack, for opponents could charge that he had acted unconstitutionally – after all, only Congress could raise and support armies, and Hurtado, fearful of partisan gridlock, had not asked for a Congressional resolution approving his actions.

    The second mistake he committed was declaring Martial Law in the Ecuadorian departments affected by the rebellion. The subject of Martial Law was complicated. Although the Constitution gave the power to the President with the approval of Congress, some asserted that he could only declare it after getting the approval of both Congress and the state legislatures affected. A bill defining more clearly the power was vetoed by Cruz, who didn’t want to restraint his own powers. Historical precedent was of no help – when Santander and Sucre declared martial law for the Peruvian War and the Grand Crisis respectively, they obtained the approval of the state legislatures but only after the fact.

    In this case, Governor Nueces assured Hurtado that the Ecuadorian legislature would give him approval, if it was needed. But Hurtado hadn’t waited for Congress either, arguing that approval for his actions could be given after. He even told one of his ministers that the rebellion would be over and martial law lifted before Congress had even managed to bring the bill up for a vote. Allowing himself to be carried away by a sense of urgency and distrust of Congress into hasty actions, President Hurtado weakened his position and opened himself for attacks from vitriolic Liberals.

    zh_dFOELoFUoP9iitDXa52fYc42y9-BoyEY9IWbTtrYS8d3rbW3_RdXnlX9w7aIxBpKtbtvRSfmNJAisYwPyXxEub11BojDWP9uVcjODSXlcwtV9lLFkQw0rbUItBQ

    Manuel Leon was one of the many women who fought together with Daquilema

    Those same Liberals would scarcely some years later support the right of a different President to suspend martial law on his own authority without the authorization of the state legislatures. Such a decision was vindicated by the Supreme Court case Proaño v. Venezuela, where Liberal judges voted to expand the power of the Liberal president that appointed them, all so that a true war could be won more easily. But for the moment, all Liberals united in bitter denunciation of the President. Senator Schwimmer-Hernández denounced him as a “tyrant leading a band of ruffians into a campaign of rapine and devastation”, while Noboa was more restrained when he called Hurtado “the despotic opponent of the Constitution, who sneers at the law and at humanity.”

    The Liberal press joined their leaders in this chorus of denunciation, though of course they also downplayed the dangers of the Daquilema Uprising. The Cartagena Commercial Journal sardonically warned of “an invasion by starved Indians, armed with bronze shovels and wooden sickles.” National Conservatives, whose relationship with the President had already been strained due to the debacle over Font’s tax decree, did not criticize the President. But neither did they defend him. The Conservatives quickly decided to not commit themselves one or other way, but in doing so they alienated the Pelucones, who demanded unconditional support for the Administration. When the Conservatives refused, the alliance between the PCN and the Pelucones, begun at the Convention of 1857, was definitely broken.

    The only National Conservative who did not follow this neutral position was Senator Ignacio Casas of Ecuador. The bitter political rival of Nueces, Casas was a proponent of reform and indigenous rights, and as such he quickly took to the floor to denounce Hurtado. As a good Conservative of the Cruz school, he did not frame his denunciation as a defense of States Rights that would limit the Federal power, bus as an appeal to the humanity of the nation. “This unfortunate race, prey to prejudice, victims of corruption, and who suffer from oppression from all levels, is about to be slaughtered by an army sworn to protect the rights of all Colombians, without mention of color or wealth. Do you not see the utter immorality of this insult to God and the Constitution?”

    The Army commanders in charge of suppressing the uprising did not. Hurtado had, naturally, chosen a Pelucon to command, in this case Colonel Alejandro Neira. Though politics within the Army had become a taboo, Neira was known for being a supporter of the President. This Cauca officer soon moved into Ecuador with the intention of “exterminating this plague… perhaps this province would finally be beautiful like all others, instead of being a den of ruin and dirt.” Accordingly, and acting with the carte blanche Hurtado had given him, he started a ruthless repression campaign, that paid no mind to the sacred rights of life, liberty, property or free speech. Neira, in fact, went much further than the President had intended, and Hurtado would even chastise him for his actions. But this was now a fait accompli, and to repudiate Neira would be to admit he made a mistake – the obstinate Hurtado, his pride already hurt by Liberal attacks, could never accept that.

    Soon enough, reports of the Ecuadorian situation started to circulate throughout the entire Republic. The advent of railroad and telegraph had done much to join all Colombians together in a market of goods and information, and both local and national newspapers carried stories of the rebellion and the Congressional debates that ensued to even the smallest localities. Liberals were quick to seize the propaganda initiative and carry reports of wholesale slaughter and terrible violations of rights. Even fierce conservatives could not help but weep as they read accounts of women and children being cruelly murdered. Young men, intellectual reformists, skilled laborers and artisans, the bedrock of the Liberal Party, all answered with outrage to these reports.

    The hearts of Congressmen were also melted by them. One Orinoco Representative was reportedly moved to tears, while another limited himself to sadly saying that the Colombian army in Ecuador “is not the heir of Bolivar’s liberators, but of Pizarro’s conquistadores.” Both of these men were National Conservatives, not rabid Liberals looking for ways of hurting the President. Though some Liberals did play loose with the facts, the truth is that the Colombian army under Neira was indiscriminate in its suppression of the Daquilema Uprising, and even after it had been effectively suppressed by a combination of overwhelming military force and betrayal by Daquilama’s lieutenants, he continued the military occupation of Ecuador. By January, 1860, the Daquilema uprising had disintegrated, but the troops remained there. And whether their presence was legal or not was still undetermined, for neither Congress nor the Legislature had voted to approve the proclamation of martial law.

    Huasipungo-5-e1552232957249.jpg

    The Daquilema Revolt

    In the case of Congress, National Conservatives and Liberals had joined to defeat a measure for its approval, after months of emotional debate. Without Congressional approval, the decree of martial law was revoked and power returned to the Ecuadorian authorities. But the situation in Ecuador had degenerated beyond that, and even though martial law had been revoked, the fight raged on. This different struggle had begun by Liberals and Progressive National Conservatives of the Casas faction, who opposed the bill for approval. “To approve that monstrous bill”, a constituent wrote Casas, “would be to surrender our entire existence and will to the whims of two tyrants. One is at Quito, the other at Santafe.” Many National Conservatives were probably angrier about Neira’s iron rule and the President’s heavy hand than about the plight of the Indian, but soon enough all of Nueces’ opponents joined in a united front.

    When it seemed like the decree would pass the legislature, they decided to resist by simply leaving, preventing the formation of a quorum. The legislature then made another mistake by trying to expel enough of the absent members to get a quorum – this only outraged moderates, who joined the protesters. To maintain the cohesion and discipline of the group, they all decided to retire to the mansion of a wealthy Liberal merchant, Carlos Mendoza. But Nueces refused to give up, and he gathered the militia, ordering it to forcibly take enough legislators to the chamber to pass the vote. This fatal step resulted in a radicalization of the resistance movement. “The vase has been broken”, wrote a university student, referencing the episode that started the Revolution of 1810 in Santafe. Now it seemed like a Revolution would start in Quito.

    Radical students were as conspicuous in this revolution as they had been in the European Revolutions of 1850. Organizing themselves into a Citizen’s Militia, they marched to the Mendoza Mansion and vowed to resist to the last. The alarmed legislators now found themselves trapped between two rival factions, and they could do nothing as radicals seized control and drafted a defiant message to Nueces: “The people of Quito never submitted to the murderer that the tyrant of Madrid planted here. We will not submit to the criminal the despot of Santafe put here either.” A resolution to declare themselves the legitimate state government and call for elections was defeated because most legislators didn’t support actual revolution. But for all intents and purposes, Nueces now had to deal with two insurrections.

    Again, under normal circumstances the President would not be opposed in his effort to suppress this coup d’état. But further bloodshed would damage his position irreparably, especially if it was against Criollo and Mestizo young men instead of Indians. Senator Alarcon, a Pelucon leader, was blunt in stating that “a war in Quito will end with hangings and guillotines in Santafe.” Nonetheless, allowing an insurrection to triumph like that would not be permissible either. Congressional Liberals were also flagger basted about this effort, knowing that it was doomed to failure. Senator Mateo Cevallos, for instance, wrote to Armas to tell him that “the Quito mess can only result in our destruction. Whether we want it or not, we have been branded as Robespierres.”

    The Ecuador situation would defuse after the Daquilema uprising ended and martial law was revoked. Tempers cooled off, and when the Casas faction managed to deny the nomination to Nueces for a third term, most Liberals and Independent Conservatives were willing to lie down their arms. But Noboa and Armas outsmarted their enemies by producing a decree providing for a peace settlement, that included expanded political participation in Ecuador (and, of course, nationwide) and fair elections. The decree was passed, but Hurtado then vetoed it and Congress was unable to muster the 2/3rds needed to pass it. Whether the decree was what defused the crisis is controversial, but it seemed like the President and his National Conservatives allies had precipitated a crisis, while Liberals had solved it.

    The incident, combined with the Daquilema Uprising, had irreparably damaged the image of the President, and it ended up producing what’s known as the “shellacking of 1860”. In these sectional elections, where governors and state legislatures were elected, the Pelucones and the National Conservatives suffered a crushing defeat. The Liberals captured the governorships of Apure, Zulia, Azuay, Tumbes, Cauca, Costa Rica and Panama, gave serious fight in the Conservative strongholds of Venezuela and Ecuador, and successfully defended their control of Cundinamarca, Magdalena, Guayaquil and Hispaniola. The Pelucones would control no governors’ chairs or state legislatures, while the National Conservatives had been badly beaten as well.

    5c4366fa38c86.jpeg

    Political cartoon depicting the PCN and the Pelucones as dogs dancing for money

    Liberals were now in control, as the PCN definitely broke with the Administration. National Conservatives leaders hastened to negotiate with the jubilant Liberals before their position worsened even further, and in middle 1860 the Liberals obtained control of two important Senate Committees: War and Ethics, which the young prodigy Schwimmer Hernández and the brilliant legal mind Cevallos would respectively chair. In exchange, House Liberals would give the Economics and Taxation Committees to the National Conservatives. This exchange was highly beneficial for the Liberals, who were put in a great position to exploit the new allegations of corruption that appeared against the Hurtado administration.

    Corruption was, sadly, not a new phenomenon. Colombians had become infamous for their viveza criolla, their willingness to exploit anything and anybody for personal gain, even at the price of the public good. The slow bureaucracy encouraged bribes and the unabashed use of contacts to get things done. Senator Naranjo had once bitterly complained that because he refused to bribe an official, validating his charter for a trade company took almost two months, while other people could get it done in a week. To be sure, the situation never reached the critical levels of the post-Independence War era, when contraband and bribery were endemic, but a certain measure of corruption was, sadly, accepted as part of life.

    In the 1830’s and 1840’s, an uptick of Federalist corruption had given strength to the Cruz administration and the PCN, but it was not critical either. The industrial revolution, of course, gave ample opportunities for what nowadays would be seen as corrupt, or at least unethical, behavior. For example, it was common for congressmen to hold stock of companies or allow themselves to be swayed by “favors.” But this was not illegal, and although it definitely had bearing on the details of legislation, it constituted a conflict of interests at worst. By 1860, corruption was, for the most part, petty and small-time, committed mostly by minor officials rather than by the great offices of the Republic. Perhaps that’s why the corruption of the Hurtado administration was so shocking.

    Before the elections, some reports of irregularities in Army contracts and the logistics of Neira’s campaign had been published. Now with control of the Ethics committee, Cevallos launched a full-on investigation, that uncovered several abuses. For example, the government had bought shoes at almost 30 piastras a pair, when good leather shoes sold at 8 piastras at most. “Not even the golden slippers of China’s Emperor cost as much,” joked Armas in response. Evidence then showed that a lot of that money had gone to the coffers of the Pelucon Party. Corruption from the tax collector of a Hispaniola port was also reported, and Hurtado hurt his case by once again holding onto his mistake, denying the guilt of his friend despite overwhelming evidence.

    Perhaps the greatest scandal, with one exception that we’ll get to later, was the so-called Never-ending Railway. The scandal was so damaging to Hurtado because it involved him in a personal level, and to many Colombians it branded the Pelucones and National Conservatives as a group of corrupt aristocrats, and the Liberals as defenders of the law. For context, it’s necessary to understand the details of the 1847 National Railroad Decrees, which provided for Federal assistance to Railroad companies. In exchange, the government would be able to freely move its goods. This system of charters and financial assistance helped along the growth of Colombia’s railroad network, but it also provided for new opportunities for graft and corruption. Juan Jose Cajas, an Azuay investor, quickly grasped this fact.

    Cajas and some associates decided to form the Austro Railroad Company in 1850 (Ferrocarriles del Austro), a phony company that promised to build a railroad connecting the cities of Cuenca and Loja. Usually, a company would need certain credentials in order to get Federal approval, so Cajas turned towards his friend, Senator Cristian Hurtado, then a member of the Senate Committee that oversaw these internal improvements. Hurtado then used his influence and forged papers to convince the chairman, the National Conservative Carlos Martinez, that the Austro Railroad Company was legitimate, and that it had received aid from the state government of Azuay. After being approved for Federal assistance, Cajas actually requested aid from the Azuay legislature. Believing it to be a real company, Governor Ignacio Arboleda (PCN), supported the measure. Thus, the Austro Railroad Company became something of a circular scheme.

    Llegada_ferrocarril_Quito.jpg

    Though the Andean Railway Company was the biggest and most important in the Republic, there were dozen of other companies that also build railroads throughout the entire country. Often, they employed indentured labor, foreign or domestic.

    Cajas just pocketed the money giving to him. The most he did was bringing some indentured Chinese workers, and, of course, contribute to the campaign of Senator Hurtado. Hurtado was, however, the only Federalist Cajas helped – all other beneficiaries of the scam were National Conservatives, many of whom knowingly aided Cajas in hopes of getting money or other favors. Governor Arboleda did try to oversee the progress of the railroad, but Cajas claimed complications due to factors outside of his control and asked for more funds. Hurtado once again provided Federal assistance, and this in turn convinced Arboleda to do so as well. Arboleda would then be succeeded by Gustavo Rojas as Governor, also a National Conservative. Rojas was also part of the Cajas cabal, and as such he continued to give money to Cajas, who didn’t even lay a single meter of track.

    By 1861, Cajas and the Austro Railroads had received hundreds of thousands of piastras in economic aid, yet there was no tangible proof of any advancement. The case was finally uncovered by a young reporter, who found abundant evidence of the scam and, most shockingly, also realized that the President of the Republic himself was part of it. The scandal broke out at a very unfortunate time for the President, since now the competent and incorruptible Cevallos was in control of the Ethics Committee. Soon enough, all Colombians learned of this sorry record of corruption, which showed National Conservatives and the President complicit in a “junto of thieves, that have plundered the Colombian people to fill their greedy pockets.” Indeed, the scandal was more painful because it was not people simply taking bribes or allowing themselves to be swayed, but because it was the elected officials taking the money of all Colombians, raised through taxes and devoted to the cause of national progress, for their own benefit.

    The full extent of Hurtado’s participation and knowledge would only be discovered after he had left the Casa de Nariño. But what was discovered was damaging enough. Congressional investigations would end up indicting the incompetent Arboleda and Martinez, though both would be eventually exonerated. Rojas and some PCN members of the Azuay legislature would be successfully trailed and send to prison for corruption. However, the main perpetrator managed to get away. Cajas was in Guayaquil when he received a tip from a friend that worked at the telegraph office. In an undignified and somewhat bizarre event nicknamed the Southern Marathon, Cajas and some police officers literally raced to get to the docks, where Cajas took a Peruvian boat. Unable to detain the boat lest they cause an international incident, Colombian authorities watched helplessly as Cajas got away.

    After a year in the Presidential chair, it seemed like the Hurtado presidency would end up as an embarrassing failure. The PCN had deserted him, his own Party was badly divided and weakened, and the Liberals were now in ascendancy. Worse of all for the Pelucones, the scandals had convinced many that the only way to bring back integrity and dignity to the government would be through Liberal reform. Universal suffrage, many had decided, would allow for the election of honest men, instead of arrogant aristocrats. The desperate attempts of the Pelucones to stem back social and political progress would only give greater strength to the reformist, and by the time of the next election, universal suffrage was already the law of the land. But the Hurtado administration still had to go through a year of conflict before that.

    Hungarian-Revolution-of-1848.jpg

    The Political process of the Decade of Sorrow has often been seen as part of the nationbuilding process of the 19th century
     
    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.

    Portada.jpg

    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.

    laflaca-gloriosaweb.jpg.jpg

    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.

    RestauranteDeLosPobres.JPG

    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.”

    images

    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.

    Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Luis_Mora.png

    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.

    AD0968_F01.jpg

    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:
    Chapter 60: A House Divided
  • The growth of sectionalism in the United States was a complex process with simple causes. In hindsight, the fact that slavery was the main divisor was clear. But at the time, the American Republic seemed more unified than other nations of the world. Certainly, they were more unified in language and custom than the countries of Europe were. Even when compared with its New World counterparts, the United States seemed more stable and unified – men from Virginia and Massachusetts apparently had more in common than men from Yucatan and Mexico City, and the rivalry between New York and Charleston, for example, seemed less vitriolic than the one between Santafe and Caracas. Different explanations have been given to the sectional division that would ultimately end in Civil War, but all of them have their origin in slavery.

    Economic factors, such as the difference between the industrial North of free-labor and the agrarian South, dependent on King Cotton. But slavery was the reason of these economic differences. Cultural differences between the Yankees and the Dixie boys could perhaps be seen as an explanation, as the individualistic, industrial North of laborers and artisans and the hierarchical, traditional South of slaves and master fought for dominance over the Union. But again, slavery was the main cultural factor that separated both sections.

    The fact that, with the exception of a handful of abolitionists, most Northerners did not want to accord equality or immediate liberty to Blacks has been used to argue that the war was not over slavery, but in truth all Americans believed that slavery, if contained, would slowly perish. Northerners wanted to contain it, a threat to the Southern way of life that they simply could not accept. As the North unified behind the principle of anti-slavery, the South saw itself threatened and isolated, and it decided that the Union could no longer exist if it did not tolerate their peculiar institution. Slavery was, simply put, the cause of the American Civil War.

    The election of 1855 served to further alienate Americans from one another. As the ailing Senator John Calhoun explained, several ties united the American people, such as religion, language, culture, history. More than anything, the two main parties, the Liberals and the Democrats, served as a unifying force. By virtue of each having a sectional wing, they required cooperation and reduced the extremism of the other wing. But the war destroyed the good will between each wing, and between each party. Now the Liberals, who had already been favored in the North, were a thoroughly Northern Party, and the Democrats, already strong in the South, were completely Southern in allegiance.

    Furthermore, due to how the U.S. Congress worked, the Northern Liberals tended to dominate the House and the Southern Democrats the Senate, increasing the deadlock in a time where the government had to deal with several pressing issues arising from the war and its aftermath. The weakness of the American central government also was an issue, because, as historian David Potter explains, it “meant, in effect, that Congress could do little about slavery except to talk about it. While serving as a sounding board for ceaseless sectional recrimination. Congress lacked power to act as an effective arbiter of sectional disputes.”

    71BZBb1x-7L._AC_SX522_.jpg

    The Dis-United States, by Punch Magazine

    The Colombian President or the Mexican Prime Minister could use the strong arm of the state to submit states to the will of the government; Scott and his Liberals could not. This did not mean that states would not resist what they saw as unjust treatment, but there were not sectional forces that pushed them to resist whatever the cost. Hispaniola may grumble about trade laws, or Veracruz may resent some post-war measures, but no state would rise in rebellion, owning mainly to the consolidation of national identity in both nations. But in the United States, still seen by many as a compact between states rather than a true nation, the entire Democratic South believed that resistance to the Liberal Administration was a matter of life or death. Separated by culture, economy, party and section, they saw no reason to cooperate or acquiesce to the central government, which had little power to force them to.

    In the case of Colombia, greater centralization and direct elections gave the President legitimacy in the eyes of the people and the states, and contingents of Liberals in Conservative states and Conservatives in Liberal states made the directives of the National Government seem not like the work of a vengeful, hostile section, but of the nation as a whole. With Southern Liberals and Northern Democrats extinguished for all practical purposes, the actions of a Liberal President seemed an affront by the North to the South, further undermining the legitimacy of the National government in their eyes. The same could be said of the actions of a Southern Senate, and Northerners who already faulted them for the war could only grow more resentful as they blocked all measures that did no aid slavery.

    Moreover, both Scott and Polk lacked legitimacy in the eyes of one section. Polk had been awarded the nomination by pro-slavery Southerners, and his election was highly irregular, requiring a Constitutional amendment to give it some retroactive credence. Scott had failed to win either the popular vote or the electoral college, and some Southerners still believed that some kind of corrupt deal had been struck to award him the Presidency. An award that had been given by the mostly Northern House of Representatives, with the help of abolitionists and Nativists.

    Thus, the session of December 1855, the last of Polk’s Presidency, started. Liberal majorities forged in wartime vanished as Southern Liberals bolted the party. Now, new National Liberal majorities were created, as abolitionists, nativists and Northern Democrats who had previously rejected the Liberals joined them. The pressing issue was, of course, what was to be done with the territories acquired from the war. Polk had lost the Oregon territory, but almost all the territory acquired was north of the Missouri Compromise Line, which would technically secure the freedom of these territories and thus the sectional balance. But Southerners did not want to accept such a settlement, wanting to open the territories to slavery. When a Senate vote failed to implement the Oliphant Proviso, which would secure free-soil for the Mexican cession, the Liberals moved to block the admission of Texas, which would join as a slave state.

    This debacle raised tension within the Senate chambers, because sectional disagreement had prevented Texas’ admission for over a year. In fact, some Southerners had wanted to accept Texas as soon as the war started, but Liberal opposition had blocked it and some Southern plans for it to be admitted as two states or more prevented this. Now all of the South unified behind two demands: Texas to be admitted as two-states, and the territories to be open to slavery. This alienated the few Northern Democrats who remained.

    220px-Stephen_A_Douglas_private_collection.jpg

    Stephen A. Douglas

    The exception was Stephen A. Douglas and his men. Douglas’ decision to ally with the South has been interpreted as naked opportunism, or even love for slavery. In truth, Douglas did not particularly like slavery, but it was not because he lamented the injustice committed towards the slave, but rather because he rejected any moral considerations from politics. For him and his men, who mostly represented the “Lower North”, areas of Ohio, Illinois and Indiana near the South and settled by Southerners, the “negro cannot claim any right from the nation” and the government had “been erected by white men, for the benefit of white men, to be managed exclusively by white men.” The fact that Southerners offered to build a transcontinental railroad with an eastern terminus in Chicago, where Douglas owned real state, surely helped.

    The resulting bill would not only open the Mexican cession to slavery; it would also repeal the almost 25-year-old Missouri Compromise and add two slave states to the Union, Texas and Houston. What it exactly meant to “open” the territories was purposely left ambiguous. Polk and Douglas believed that it meant popular sovereignty as described by Cass, thus leaving the settlers to decide if they wanted slavery. The popular sovereignty formula was popular because it promised to take the slavery question out of national politics, and it made constitutional sense: after all, Americans were able to rule themselves whether they were in a territory or a state. Furthermore, they believed that climate and economy would prevent slavery from taking hold anyway. “There is no probability that in any territory acquired from Mexico slavery could ever exist," Polk wrote in his diary.

    But it was this ambiguity that horrified Northerners. As Senator Abraham Lincoln declared, opening the territories to slavery would be a “total repudiation” of the Founders’ doctrine, which had sought to contain slavery “where the public mind could rest at ease, knowing that its ultimately extinction would come one day.” Only a free-soil approach, supported by positive law, could keep the territories free. Popular sovereignty did not specify, either, when exactly would a territory be able to decide for or against slavery. As one Northern Senator pointed out acidly, the South could simply “rush ten overseers and ten negroes and form a slave government” in any territory unless Congress took action.

    Most Northerners were willing to admit Texas as a slave state, but a single one, and they wanted to keep the Mexican Cession and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase free. Southern intransigence and their aim to repeal the Missouri Compromise arose bitter protests. The Liberal House, with all Southerners opposed and almost all Northerners in favor, passed a resolution condemning the war and its "triple object of extending slavery, of strengthening the slave power, and of obtaining control of the free states." Around the same time, Salmon P. Chase and other National Party men started to circulate the “Appeal of the Independent Americans”, which called the bill a “gross violation of a sacred pledge," an "atrocious plot" to convert free territory into a "dreary region of depotism, inhabited by masters and slaves."

    Northern resistance, in turn, generated a violent response by Southerners who believed that “the blood nobly shed in the late struggle” earned them the territories, and that to not allow slavery into the Mexican cession would “be an unjust and intolerable negation of the rights of the living, and the heroism of the fallen.” For the South, the matter was not one of morality or constitutional interpretation, but of survival, for failure to do so would inevitably result in the supremacy of the North and, presumably, the destruction of slavery, the cornerstone of the South’s economy and society. Jefferson Davis made this point: "What do you propose, gentlemen of the Free-Soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? . . . It is not humanity that influences you ... it is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory. ... It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement."

    220px-Mathew_Brady%2C_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P._Chase%2C_officer_of_the_United_States_government_%281860%E2%80%931865%2C_full_version%29.jpg

    Salmon P. Chase

    Emotional and vitriolic debate took place as both sides refused to bulge. In one instance, a Northern congressman rose from his seat and tearfully said that his brother, fallen at the Battle of Shreveport, had not died so “that slavery may survive, and extend its hateful clutches over the virgin territories of the nation.” An irate Southerner then stood up, and after informing the Chamber that he had lost a son at the Battle of Baton Rouge, loudly declared that “if you deny the sacred rights for which my son and the sons of thousands of Southern women died, sir, then you are spitting in his grave.” Debate gave way to a shouting match, and then to a physical altercation that ended with two broken noses and at least one black eye.

    Next day, several Congressmen came armed, even a New England clergyman who bought a revolver for self defense. "The members on both sides are mostly armed with deadly weapons, and it is said that the friends of each are armed in the galleries," commented a Senator. It seemed like the bowie knife and the pistol instead of rhetoric and arguments would settle the debate. Indeed, great displays of oratory were sorely lacking. All of the great orators of the past were now dead: Clay, Webster, Calhoun. The news leadership seemed unable to rise up to the occasion, and instead of working together for a sensible compromise, most party leaders from both sections spent their times in futile constitutional debates and endless recrimination.

    News from California intensified the debate, for a gold fever had started. Of course, the presence of gold had been discovered during the war, something that intensified the battle for the territory. But it would not be until after the Battle of Mount Diablo, that destroyed the Mexican Army of General Lombardini, that migration started in earnest. By 1855, the population of American California (known as Sacramento, to avoid confusion with the Mexican province) had jumped from 12,000 in 1840 to almost 100,000. It was bolstered by the fact that many Yankees in areas that remained Mexican or had been acquired by the British moved to California. Naturally, they had little love for the Slavocrats, and thus, when they asked Congress for admission to the Union, bypassing the territorial stage, they did so as a Free state.

    Southern Senator evidently did not want to admit a free state, but in this case their arguments boiled down to simple spite. They could not argue that bypassing the territorial stage was unconstitutional; after all, Texas would do so as well. Neither could they appeal to popular sovereignty, for the Californians were the ones making the decision. Instead, Southerners loudly asserted that excluding slavery would be unconstitutional in and of itself. By considering slaves property, not different from any other kind, they could argue that Congress had no power to take away a man’s slaves, a direct disposition of the Constitution which clearly stated that the government could not take life, liberty or property without due process of law. Thus, slavery was legal in all territories.

    Abolitionists answered that the Constitution referred to slaves as “persons”, never using the actual word. Since slavery needed positive law to exist, a principle articulated in the Somerset decision that abolished slavery in England when the U.S. was still a colony, it could not exist in any territory. In fact, wherever the U.S. Constitution ruled exclusively, such as the high seas, the national territories, or even the District of Columbia, it could not exist because the Constitution did not sustain it. This was the principle of Freedom National. The South’s principle was, for all practical purposes, Slavery National.

    6815540.jpg

    Religious revival and the aggression of the South contributed to the growth of abolitionist thought

    The fight became a dogmatic one, for both sides introduced principles in the bills that would either vindicate free-soil for all territories or assert that Congress had no power to exclude slavery. The simple solution of admitting Sacramento and Texas both, thus preserving the sectional balance, was not implemented because both sides insisted to add their constitutional interpretation into the bill. The struggle was not completely senseless, as it would determine whether other territories, such as Nebraska, would be free or slave, but it produced a deadlock that kept Congress from doing much to address other questions.

    For example, what to do with the hundreds of thousands of veterans was left unanswered. While Mexico had quickly moved to implement a very successful system of pensions and bonuses, the Americans were paralyzed as the debate turned to ask whether soldiers should receive compensation for lost slaves. Symbolically important as that might have been, it actually had little practical effect since slave-owning soldiers were a tiny minority. Similarly, when military intervention to cope with the violence in post-war Sacramento was proposed, the initiative floundered as Senators debated whether the military would be allowed to enforce Sacramento’s anti-slavery laws.

    The state that suffered the most from the deadlock was Louisiana. Materially and psychologically destroyed due to the Mexican occupation, the so-called “Rape of Louisiana”, the state desperately needed aggressive reconstruction efforts. Nonetheless, Southern politicians, including Louisiana’s own leaders, pushed for the government to assume the full price of the slaves liberated by the Mexicans. The Treaty of La Habana had made it so that the restitution of slaves was to be counted as part of the debts Mexico owned to American citizens that would in turn be assumed by the U.S. government. In other words, it was a Federal obligation.

    Abolitionists, however, seized upon the opportunity and sought to prohibit the inter-state slave trade, which would cripple slavery in both Louisiana and Texas. Moderate Liberals did not support this effort, but the South was outraged by what they saw as a united North attacking them and their institutions. Liberals offered a program of government action to reconstruct Louisiana, but the South refused to accept it unless it included provisions for slaves. Some even wanted the Federal government to buy slaves itself instead of paying money, something that would “transform the nation into a vulgar slave trader.”

    The slavery debate thus continued to paralyze the actions of the United States Congress, and when the session ended in March, 1856, no constructive piece of legislation or comprehensive plan for action had been passed. Texas was in limbo, its status unclear, and some in Austin even whispered of declaring complete independence as a separate Republic; Sacramento had apparently no law or government despite the increase in migration and violence due to the gold rush. "In every step you take, it threatens you which way soever you go," said Senator Corwin of Ohio about the slavery debate, and, indeed, it seemed like old questions of banks, tariffs and expansion had given way to bitter and continued wrangling over slavery.

    220px-Thomas_Corwin%2Cbetween_1844_and_1860.jpg

    Thomas Corwin

    This was the situation when Winfield Scott assumed office as the new President of the United States. Southern states, probably with an approving nod from the deceased Calhoun, had called for a convention in Nashville so as to “decide the best way to protect our rights and institutions from despots who seek to despoil us of sacred property and honor.” Sacramento and Texas both organized “state guard” regiments that chased Federal appointees out of the state, and for all intents and purposes both were acting as independent countries. Civil war loomed over the United States.

    Scott decided that the crisis was too great to be ignored, and called for a special session of Congress to be held in July, 1856. Unfortunately, no solution was found. Instead, recrimination continued, such as Columbus Delano who threatened to “establish a cordon of free states that shall surround you; and then we will light up the fires of liberty on every side until they melt your present chains and render all your people free." Southerners answered angrily that they would rather destroy the Union than share it with abolitionists. Finally, a special committee was established, chaired by John Clayton of Delaware and including Douglas.

    The crisis seemed the most serious the Union had faced. In 1832, there was conflict over the so-called Tariff of Abominations, passed to protect Northern industry, but the weakness of the Democrats and the conciliatory approach of then President Webster prevented a crisis from forming. The situation was now different, and many Southern state legislatures openly threatened to nullify any Federal laws that they did not agree with, or even secede from the Union. A compromise was urgently needed.

    To avoid Civil War and preserve the balance of the sections, the resulting Compromise decided that Sacramento would be admitted as a Free State, and Texas as one Slave State. The bill refused to say anything about the power of Congress as such, but it also did not explicitly repeal the Missouri Compromise. Instead, Congress would prohibit territorial government from making any laws concerning slavery, while slaves were empowered to sue in Federal courts to determine the status of slavery in the territories. Thus, Congress would avoid the issue of whether it actually had the power of prohibiting slavery, and throwing it to the Courts.

    This was not enough anymore. The Missouri Compromise line had been used to determine the new border with Mexico. The South wanted an explicit repeal, because otherwise all the territories that were left would be free. Moreover, the Supreme Court had prevented Cass’ Vice-President from assuming office and forced another election. Southerners simply did not trust the Courts or the government. The Clayton compromise failed to gather majorities in any Chamber, and the special session of July expired. Congress would not meet again until December. In the meantime, in September 27th, a Convention of Northern States met in Buffalo to demand the implementation of Free-Soil as a national principle.

    John-Calhoun-detail-daguerreotype-Mathew-Brady-1849.jpg

    John C. Calhoun

    Desperation continued when the December session started. Douglas proposed to divide the rest of the territories into two enormous states, one free and one slave, to by-pass the question, but that failed too. Then, after hearing the resolutions of the Nashville Convention, virtually all the Southern congressmen met in a private caucus and drafted the “Address of the Southern people of the Union”, calling for the South to stand united against the North. The Buffalo Convention responded with a Northern Address, which denounced the Slave Power in bitter terms. The Buffalo Convention was a meeting of abolitionist radicals, and that started to alienate Liberals such as Seward and even Scott, who now feared civil war.

    "My soul sickens at the threats to dissolve the Union," said John M. Clayton, while William A. Richardson of Illinois believed that "There is a bad state of things here, and, as little as it is thought about, I fear this Union is in danger. ... It is appalling to hear gentlemen. Members of Congress sworn to support the Constitution, talk and talk earnestly for a dissolution of the Union.” The Scott administration, already weakened by illegitimacy and the rupture of the Liberals, had seemed unable to find a coherent program or assert its leadership in the crisis. But as the debacle continued and divisions deepened, it threw its full weight behind compromise.

    Finally, in January 17th, 1857, a second bill was reported from the Douglas-Clayton Committee. The bill was in actuality an “omnibus” that packed several measures. Under the Compromise, Texas and Sacramento would be admitted as states, slave and free respectively. Three-large territories would be formed, Salt-Lake, Lakota and Nebraska, all of them capable of deciding for or against slavery for themselves, though climate would seemingly keep slavery out. At last, slavery would be abolished in the District of Columbia, and the government would pledge itself to capture fugitive slaves but would not pay for the slaves freed by Mexico. All question regarding slavery would be given to the courts.

    The canny Douglas was able to pass the omnibus compromise by forging blocks that voted for one measure but not for another. Northerners voted for abolition in D.C., repudiation of slave debts, and the admission of Sacramento; Southerners voted for the admission of Texas, the organization of the new territories, and the Fugitive Slave Act. A group of pro-Compromise Unionists, which included the President and his men, and Douglas Democrats, managed to get all bills to pass by razor-thin margins. A tired Scott signed the omnibus into law in February 9th, 1857.

    G0304_alt_0.jpeg

    The Compromise of 1857

    Far from setting the slavery question once and for all, the Compromise of 1857 only created a larger and more bitter fight. In Buffalo, the Nationalists decided to repudiate the President and the politicians who had betrayed them to the Slave Power. They decided to create a new Party – the Republican Party, committed to the extinction of slavery. Fatally wreaked after being abandoned by Northern Liberals and by the dead of Southern Liberalism, the administration would be little more than a lame duck, unable to stop the continuous growth of sectional tensions than in less than 2 years would result in the start of a great Civil War.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 61: The Rise of the Liberals
  • Perhaps the greatest irony of Cristian Hurtado’s presidency is that among his many mistakes and scandals, the one fiasco that finally destroyed his administration was entirely outside of his control. To be sure, the Pelucón Party had ceased to exist, and most seemed to accept that the next president would be a Liberal. But the “Selling of the Flag” still fatally wrecked his presidency and created a situation where in the last months of his presidency he was nothing more than a lame-duck, subjected to the desires and objectives of congressional Liberals.

    It happened this way: In 1861, civil war was looming over Japan, where the Shogun and the Emperor struggled for which course the country would take. France supported the Shogun against the British-backed Emperor Meiji, and although both European powers were technically at peace, a strong British blockade sought to keep the French and their supplies out. On April 15th, 1861, a French navy crew reached the port of Buenaventura, in the Colombian Pacific Coast. Carrying supplies for the Shogun that included artillery and small-arms, the Frenchmen asked the local Pelucón authorities to allow them to fly the Colombian flag in order to avoid the British blockade.

    Without consulting the local Navy commander, the Governor of the state or the President, the prefect of the department allowed the French ship to do so. The following day, the French tricolor was replaced by the Colombian one, and the ship set sail. Some two months later, the ship was captured by a British naval vessel, because the captain had been informed by a nearby Colombian merchant fleet that no incursions to the Sea of Japan would be attempted. It was soon discovered that the sailors abroad were French, and the British quickly relayed the information to the Colombian Naval command at Guayaquil.

    When the news was given to Santafe and the national press, an associate of the prefect of Buenaventura came forward and testified before Schwimmer-Hernandez’s Ethics committee regarding the conduct of the Pelucón politician. Soon enough, the widespread narrative throughout the nation was that president Hurtado had deliberately instructed the prefect to provide the Colombian flag to the French vessel in exchange for money that was to be divided between Party coffers and the pockets of the prefect and Hurtado.

    Further digging revealed some questionable transactions around the tariffs of the port, and the prefect would be arrested and condemned under charges of corruption on September. As for Hurtado, no hard evidence connecting him to the event could be found at the moment, but coming out of the electoral disaster of 1860 and the revelation of his corrupt dealings in the Austro Railroads, most Colombians had little doubt that he was completely guilty. The nation quickly took to the streets to protests this new act “of appalling corruption . . . a complete betrayal of the fatherland’s honor and security.”

    220px-Lebreton_engraving-26.jpg

    The French vessel that bought the Colombian flag.

    In an age of strong nationalism, adjectives such as beautiful, glorious or loved were common for the Colombian tricolor. Designed by Miranda and consecrated as the symbol of liberty and honor, the Colombian flag was a representation of Colombia herself for the Republic’s citizens. To see it “reduced to a mere piece of cloth, sold to foreign mercenaries for a handful of pounds” horrified a large swathe of Colombian public opinion. Newspapers, from the conservative Gaceta Nacional and Anglo-Colombiano to the Liberal El Patriota and El Telegrafo denounced the president and his entire government in bitter terms: “a flat failure and a disgrace to his august office . . . no better than a common street ruffian . . . the very essence of bad faith and bad government.”

    Colombians took to the streets to make their opinions heard. In Santafe, there were wide cries of “Long live Noboa and Armas! Down with Hurtado and Alarcon!” Even in Caracas, a National Conservative town, there were threats to “Hang the vende patrias!” It was reported that even Pelucones in cities such as Quito and Cauca were now saying that they would accept Noboa if it meant getting rid of Hurtado (“aunque suba al poder Noboa, con tal que se vaya el morlaco idiota”). Within the Senate, Senator Santoya, hitherto a Pelucon leader and member of the Cali triumvirate, said that he could no longer support Hurtado and declared himself an independent. Many anti-Hurtado Pelucones joined him in deserting the President.

    Liberal leaders hastened to make hay of the scandal, and in a famous moment Noboa appeared before a Santafe crowd and declared that “Colombia is overwhelmed by the oligarchic regime that has filled our nation with shame and condemned our people to ignorance and poverty.” The solution, Noboa continued, was “liberal institutions, capable of achieving national development in moral and material areas” and “an honorable administration, that shall triumph in the battle of ideas and carry our beloved Colombia to greatness.” The moment had come to strike, and in October, with the elections but a few months away, the Liberals introduced a bill enacting universal manhood suffrage throughout the nation.

    The resulting National Civil Rights decree of 1861 was the result of several months of debate and work. The first version of the decree had been introduced in early 1861, but the October version was the one that would be approved over Hurtado’s veto in December 1861. As Senator Julio Armas had declared, “the iron is hot now” and the time had come for the Liberal Revolution to start. But there were widespread differences and disagreements within the Liberal party, and the need to carry reluctant National Conservatives along created a situation where the bill had to carefully construed.

    All Liberals could agree that it was necessary to implement some form of universal suffrage to ensure “national honor and integrity.” But there were some real fears that conservatives would simply intimidate or mislead the “degraded and ignorant” of Colombia and obtain their votes that way. This belief reflects Liberal ambivalence towards the Colombian poor and the fact that even among the Liberals prejudice was still alive and well. Nonetheless, the idea of literacy tests for voting was rejected by the Liberal caucus. Certainly, there were many deserving citizens who were illiterate, and some of the literate ones were barely so, such as a constituent who wrote to Senator Naranjo asking “qe la jente pobre puede botar” (for poor people to vote).

    Misiones-2.jpg

    Poverty and illiteracy was still widespread, especially among the Indigenous and Pardo.

    Though statistics are sparse and by the very nature of the era can’t be trusted, evidence points to some 40% of the total population being able to read and write. Numbers varied depending on sex, race and social conditions. Some 50% of Mestizo and White Colombians were literate; the number rose to 65% if only middle-class and upwards were counted. On the other hand, only around 25% to 30% of Black and Indigenous Colombians were literate. The picture was bleaker for women: even among Mestizo and White women, literacy was at most 30%, and seems to be lower than 10% among minorities. Some areas were characterized by their high literacy, such as the main cities or states like Costa Rica and Boyacá (both with more than 60% literacy); on the other hand, in poor states such as Chocó or Orinoco less than 20% of the population was literate.

    Under such circumstances, limiting the vote to the literate would not bring about the great revolution Liberals hoped to create. The final decree thus just declared all men born in Colombia or naturalized to be citizens, and required nothing more than citizenship to vote. No mention was made of race or wealth. Men would have to be 21 years or older; they could also vote if they were 18 or older and were or had been married. Some expressed worry about the rather unethical practice of matrimonios al vapor, that is, fake marriages arranged only for a young man to be able to vote, but ultimately it was decided to retain this disposition.

    Liberals hoped to further expand the education system of the Republic after taking charge, but until that could be accomplished, Republican liberty certainly required for educated men to lead. Consequently, even as they stroke down wealth requirements for holding office, the Liberals retained literacy requirements for holding office. A disposition allowing those who didn’t work under another person to hold minor offices even if they were illiterate was added. Such disposition, the Liberals believed, would allow community leaders who worked as independent farmers or artisans to be elected. Their financial independence would then protect them from duress or threats from other people.

    Nonetheless, Liberals recognized that more than that would be required for elections to be truly fair. With this in mind, they also ordered secret ballots to be implemented, made threatening someone to vote for a certain candidate or preventing a person from voting a Federal crime, and created the new position of Intendente de Elecciones to oversee the electoral process and assure fairness and the faithful execution of the laws. The law also provided for violations of the civil rights of Colombians to be expedited to the respective Court of Appeals as a way of fighting the notorious slowness of Colombian justice. To prevent states from adding further conditions for voting, the law provided for the franchise to be taken from a man only in case of insanity, being a “well-known” vagrant or drunkard, or being condemned for committing a crime – thus, no more “character boards” as a form of disenfranchisement.

    Finally, the law established equality before the law, prohibiting discrimination based on race, wealth, religion, social condition or country of origin, and committing the Federal government to enforcing this equality. Standards for voting would be uniform throughout the land, and though the literacy requirement would still keep many of the poor from public office, it would also hopefully result in governance only by the truly deserving. Some Liberals, such as Senator Cevallos, also expressed the idea that making education a requirement would spurn the indigenous and the pardo to dedicate themselves to learning instead of engaging on vices.

    Some last-minute provisions were included, mostly regarding the rights of labor. In first place, and in direct response to the events of Venezuela that will be discussed next, the bill banned the exploitative practice of paying workers in “company dollars” that could only be spent in stores set up by the company itself. The prohibition of the indigenous huasipungo was also restated and the government was given power to enforce it, so as to prevent exploitation. Finally, regarding the indigenous themselves, it was decided to allow them to hold, sell and purchase land as a community, abandoning the Santanderean ideal of private ownership through the division of the lands. To aid them, an Intendente de Asuntos Indígenas would be assigned to protect the rights of the community.

    mule-shearing-in-granada-spain-historical-illustration-circa-1886-picture-id629431773

    The creation of the Intendant positions reflect the paternalist beliefs of the Liberals, who thought minorities to be wards of the state that needed guidance and protection

    The final version of the bill was reported in October, 1861. Three months earlier, in July 18th, the Liberals had held their National Convention. The only real competitors for the candidacy were the two most prominent Liberals, Armas and Noboa. The dealings that went behind the scenes have never been confirmed beyond doubt, but ultimately Armas withdrew from the race and Noboa was nominated unanimously. It’s widely believed that, having reached second place behind Noboa, Armas decided to bow out in the name of party unity, obtaining the post of Canciller (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) as a reward. This interpretation has been contested – after all, Armas was the natural choice for the most important cabinet position. In any case, the Liberal convention displayed great adroitness and enthusiasm, which forecast the coming revolution.

    By contrast, the Pelucones did not even hold a convention. In the Senate, the “treachery” of Santoya caused the Cali Triumvirate, which had been a force of conservative resistance for more than a decade, to crumble and dissolve. Alarcon never forgave Santoya, and both men didn’t talk to each other ever again – Alarcon even refused to attend Santoya’s funeral. Senator Solis, the final member, announced his intention to retire from politics after the end of the term. With their old enemies bitterly divided, Noboa and Armas approached Santoya with the proposition to create a broad anti-Hurtado coalition, letting him believe that the addition of the anti-Hurtado pelucones would “moderate” the Liberal Party. The resulting “Santafe Summit” resulted in a name change – the Liberal Party would now be known as the Liberal Democratic Party (Partido Liberal-Demócrata), though in practice there was no change in policy.

    Aside from a handful of politicians and some voters, it’s doubtful whether the “fusion” actually attracted many of the former Pelucones. The election of 1862 is definitely a re-aligning election, for it created the conditions under which a two-party system under the National Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats could flourish. Previously, regionalism and loyalty to long-time party officials created a situation where the Federalist dominated New Granada and the Centralists the South and Eastern Districts. Due to this, allegiance to either party was more important than actual ideology, and a marked disconnect between the National parties and their state chapters could be observed. Consequently, Santander and the Federalists could push for secularism even as Federalists in Cauca and Cundinamarca upheld the Church.

    When the National Conservative Party was formed by Esteban Cruz out of the remnants of the moderate faction of the Centralists, it became the first truly national party, in that its regional and national organization shared the same commitment. But the Federalist party did not truly become a national one, and the PCN was not consolidated yet. As a result, for more than a decade, Conservative tendencies in Federalist states were expressed in Conservative Federalism, and liberal tendencies in Conservative states were expressed through the Progressive faction of the PCN.

    The Federalist split that gave birth to the Liberals and the Pelucones as two distinct parties, and the national consolidation from the 1840’s onwards created the necessary conditions for both parties to transition from coalitions of local regional interests to true national parties, with real ideologies and coherent programs from the local to the national levels. Moreover, the coming of universal suffrage presaged a change as many local farmers in states such as Cundinamarca or Cauca were religious people devoted to order and tradition, and thus much more likely to support the PCN. Likewise, in states like Venezuela or Ecuador there were many men who resented the dominance of wealthy elites and desired legal equality and social mobility – the perfect Liberal constituency.

    This marked resentment resulted in one of the most lamentable incidents of the Decade of Sorrow. Southeastern Venezuela, scene of bloody combat during the independence wars, had transitioned to an area of farmers and ranchers, where industry and agriculture flourished. But this did not mean that the wealth was distributed equally. Many workers remained exploited and underpaid, and racism by the white elites against the mostly pardo workers was common. No explicit law based on race had been passed, but the state was extremely centralized around Caracas, a fact showed by a quote often misattributed to Governor Federico Sepulveda: “Caracas is Caracas, and the rest is mountains and snakes” (“Caracas es Caracas y lo demás es monte y culebra”).

    5b441f9fd58608770b75683e50e01795.jpg

    Féderico Sepulveda, a veteran of the war with Peru, is still considered one of Venezuela's most important governors

    For instance, all judges and prefects were named by the governor, and a gerrymandered legislature resulted in most seats being in Caracas while southeastern Venezuela received almost no representation. No wonder, then, that Caracas received the lion’s share of investment and infrastructure, and though its position as the Republic’s largest city and industrial heart entitled it to at least some of this attention, the fact is that other areas were largely forgotten by the state government. Sepulveda, to his credit, did try to install social programs to help with the hunger and unemployment during the height of the crisis. However, as a National Conservative, he had no interest in radically changing the power relations and did not push for the labor and political reform that opponents demanded.

    Even within Caracas, many young men associated with the Young Colombia movement resented what they saw as undue control by a wealthy few. “It is unacceptable,” one wrote, “that the cradle of liberty, home of Miranda and Bolívar, is under the cruel rule of a handful of merchants and industry owners.” Their steadfast insistence on political reform pushed Sepulveda and other National Conservatives towards reform, and would later form a Liberal base on the very heart of the National Conservative party. Calling themselves the “Patriotic Society”, after the political party Miranda had formed to support the Colombian union, these young men played a pivotal role in the events that occurred in May 1861.

    That month, a strike of the laborers employed by a Caracas company that produced shoes and leather started in Calabozo, a medium-sized city in the middle of ranching areas. This company had been one of the most affected by the economic crash, and the laying off of employees and pay cuts for the rest had been very painful. Adding insult to injury, the company started a policy of paying the workers in “company dollars”, which only increased their misery. In February, 1861, agents of the Patriotic Society taught the workers about the Chilean strike that ended a similar practice a few years prior. The laborers imitated the Chileans, and when the local prefect sent in the militia, most militiamen refused to put down the “uprising”, which included friends and family. In fact, women were conspicuous during the strike, so that many of the militiamen were probably husbands or brothers.

    The prefect appealed to Governor Sepulveda, who sent the Caracas militia in to break the strike. Both groups stared at each other for some tense minutes, before the strikers decided to surrender and work was resumed. However, the situation did not improve. For one, the majority of the Caracas militiamen were white or mestizo, thus intensifying the perception of a few Mantuanos oppressing the Black and Pardo workers. The government formally indicted several of the members of the Patriotic Society as “agitators”, and though charges would be eventually dropped, discontent continued to fester throughout the state.

    On May 12th, 1861, news that the company would continue the “company dollars” policy after momentarily abolishing it caused another strike. This time, the prefect didn’t even bother to call in the local militia, instead appealing directly to Caracas. A representative of the workers was sent to parlay with the prefect and the company owners, but he was quickly arrested on charges of “rebellion.” A tragicomic scene followed, as other representatives tried to hide in a wine cellar, before the militia broke down the door and arrested them too. When news of this abuse came, the strikers quickly transformed into a mob. The memories of the February strike did not help, of course, but the strikers were also distrustful of any law-enforcement body due to the reports of corruption and abuse by the national authorities during the Daquilema Uprising.

    The strikers refused to back down this time. As it often happens when mobs face armed troops, it’s unknown who started the massacre. Accounts are distorted and self-serving; it’s only known that a shot rang through the air and, believing themselves attacked, the militiamen returned a volley from their bayonets. The massacre of Calabozo took the lives of around 21 workers, and injured 25. News spread throughout the nation. Although the national government was not involved, many said its “bloody and brutal” policies had inspired this massacre. The Leather company was forced, in this instance, to give up the company dollars policy, but the affair weakened the PCN at a critical time, for many who already associated them with the corruption and abuse of the Pelucones now saw them as one and the same.

    7b355-haymarket-riot1.jpg

    The Calabozo Massacre

    When the National Conservatives met for their National Convention, the mood was rather perfunctory, as most had seemingly accepted a Liberal victory as inevitable. Hurtado, though a beaten man, had announced his intention to run for election, and he even made overtures to the PCN for a second fusion ticket. The Convention, naturally, rejected this offer, but the question of whether they would run a candidate at all remained. There was seemingly no one who could defeat Noboa (at that moment, still just the presumptive nominee). There was also an ingrained fear of a three-way race, and Esteban Cruz himself appeared to remind the delegates that the last three-way race had almost ended the Republic.

    At the end, the PCN did not run a candidate for President, and although it did not endorse the Liberals, it did publish a scathing denunciation of Hurtado. The PCN continued to run candidates at the local level, and since the Pelucon Party had all but collapsed, in most places it was a two-way race between Liberals and Conservatives. This prevented another situation like in 1858 when the conservative vote had been split. And even if the PCN lost ground in many states as a result of universal suffrage, it gained votes in others – religious, conservative men in Southern New Granada, for example, flocked to their banners.

    Perhaps the National Conservatives had been able to somehow predict this outcome. Or they had simply accepted the need for universal suffrage. In any case, more than half of the PCN joined the Liberals in voting for the November Civil Rights Decree, and when Hurtado, as expected, vetoed it, they joined the Liberals again in overriding the veto. After two decades of struggle, universal manhood suffrage was finally the law of the land in the Republic of Colombia, and the Liberal Revolution could now start in earnest.

    The elections of 1862 seemed more like a national celebration than the bitter or uncertain struggles of past years. Running against the very unpopular Hurtado, Noboa expected an easy victory, yet he still campaigned vigorously, moving up and down through Colombia and spreading the news of the coming revolution to the people. Clubs of Young Colombia men marched down the streets of several cities, shouting hurrahs for Noboa and the Liberals, and in many areas of Colombia Indigenous and Pardo men exercised their new right of suffrage with enthusiasm and hope. A French observer even reported a celebration of Black Dominicans, which included women dancing with tricolor skirts.

    For the first time in the history of the Republic, Indigenous and Pardo candidates presented themselves as candidates for public office, and the Liberal party hastened to endorse them as a way to augment their vote among minorities. Ecuador elected Indigenous representatives for the first time in its history; similarly, Black legislators were elected in Chocó, Venezuela and Apure. Around 15 Black and Indigenous men were elected in total as National Representatives. The first three non-Mestizo/White Senators were elected: one Indigenous man for Ecuador, and two Black men, one from Hispaniola and other from Magdalena.

    George-Ruffin.jpg

    Eduardo Antonio Bustamante, the first Black Hispaniola Senator

    Detailed analysis has proven some measure of corruption in the election, the most common being friendly judges of election voting for a person without the need for him to come personally, or even know that he was voting. After the election, some trials took place over attempts to prevent voting – in one Boyacá hacienda, the entire workforce was threatened with unemployment, and in Panama the owner of a shipping company tried to force his workers to sign a contract allowing him to see who they were voting for. Nonetheless, there is no proof that these attempts managed to alter the result of the election.

    Nasty rhetoric abounded as the Pelucones, in a desperate last stand, accused Noboa of being a Revolutionary Robespierre that would bring ruin to the Republic. But after the disaster of the Hurtado Administration, few believed that a Liberal could be that bad, and the majority in fact believed that a Liberal presidency was the only way to bring public honor and dignity back to the Casa de Nariño. Noboa, for his part, did not bother with attacking Hurtado. When they faced each other in the traditional debates, the easy-going Liberal easily trounced his Pelucón rival.

    Even if the National election seemed a fait-accompli, fierce campaign between National Conservatives and Liberals took place locally. The coming of universal suffrage changed the tactics of campaign, as politicians adopted a more populist tone in order to appeal to the masses. The natural Liberal constituency of the middle-class professional, the urban artisan, the skilled worker, and the independent farmer came forward in large numbers. Nonetheless, the PCN managed to mobilize its own base of religious small-town folk, unskilled workers, plantation owners, industrialists and immigrants. The results were often shocking, as districts that had been firmly in the column of one party swung to the other, marking the transition to a new party system.

    When the votes were counted, Noboa had achieved the largest victory in a Presidential election since Cruz in 1842, getting 58% to Hurtado’s 30% (the rest having voted for third party candidates). The Liberals also obtained majorities in both Chambers, and though they were not as overwhelming as Cruz’s, they represented a strong mandate from the people. In 1858, around 3% of Colombians had cast a vote for President, amounting to some 450.000 voters. In 1862, the number rose to 11% of Colombians, a total of 1.650.000 votes, and a respectable turnout of around 50 to 55% of all eligible voters. They were the most democratic elections in the history of Colombia up to that point. With the elections over, now the Liberal Revolution could start in earnest.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 62: The Balkan War
  • The 19th century was something of a lost century for Spain. The Latin American Revolutions wrestled the great majority of its new world Empire from it, leaving only Cuba and Puerto Rico as possessions, both of them eyed by the ambitious Colombians and Americans. How its former colonies were surpassing it was painful for Spain, which saw how both Mexico and Colombia now had equivalent economies and populations – it was but a matter of time till this Old-World power had been permanently banished from the world stage. Perhaps it had already happened.

    The first Carlist War had ended with the victory of Isabel II and her mother, Regent Maria Cristina. But despite the reactionary creed of the Carlists, the reign of Isabel, or rather, Maria Cristina wanted to instead turn the tide of progress and return Spain to how it was before the Liberal age General Riego had inaugurated. The Spanish crown suspected liberalism as nothing but a French fabrication, designed to assure Spanish submission to French interests. Though it was true that Napoleon III was not the most liberal or the most democratic leader, for Spain’s conservatives, liberalism would always be a foreign imposition: the French had refused to crush Riego’s revolt and had prevented Austria and Russia from doing so. It stood to reason that, in order to rid Spain of the Bonaparte’s and their influence, liberalism had to be crushed.

    When France intervened in favor of Maria Cristina against the Carlists, it did so with the understanding that Isabel would be a liberal monarch, aligned with the principles of the citizen king Louis Philippe. But the King had been overthrown and the Emperor of the French was more interested in a stable European order. With Napoleon III looking to the far away lands of Egypt, Mexico and Japan for influence and power, Isabel and her government were free to oppose any kind of reform or modernization that could have helped to arrest the decadence of Spain. Soon enough, the achievements of the Liberal years Riego had inaugurated were rolled back and Spain entered into an era of conservativism.

    Spanish Liberals bitterly opposed these developments, which they saw as treachery. The Liberal general Baldomero Espartero, a hero of the First Carlist War, rose in rebellion against Isabel II and the María Cristina in 1845, followed by a second Carlist uprising in Catalonia because they believed the Queen’s government was not quick enough to roll back the reforms that had been accomplished. Both revolts were ultimately crushed, with bloody consequences – as Spain was still reeling from their aftermath when the Revolutions of 1850 started, it’s usually believed that that’s the reason why Spain was relatively unaffected by the Springtime of Nations.

    Isabel_II_of_Spain.jpg

    Isabel II of Spain

    But even if the Revolutionary wave of 1850 came and went without great changes in Spain, the spirit of liberalism was still alive and well. By that point it was widely believed that Liberal principles and monarchy were incompatible, and that to have a monarchy was to invite eventual reaction. Seeing how France had “once again returned to the ancient regime” under Napoleon III and, more importantly, how Spain’s monarch had instituted liberal reforms “only at the point of a bayonet”, Spanish Liberals started to believe that the only way to achieve the change they desired was to establish a Republic. The people’s anti-monarchic feelings were further roused when Isabel’s scheme to form a “Liberal Union” government under Leopoldo O’Donnell failed and a pronunciamiento forced her to appoint Espartero instead in 1858.

    Espartero was a reformist, and he quickly started to implement some much-needed reforms in finance and administration, but the General was heavy handed and, instead of the liberal utopia moderates desired, Espartero engaged in his own kind of authoritarianism. The Church, stripped of its lands and the diezmo, suffered greatly. Espartero also bloodily crushed several reforms from both ends of the political spectrum, alienating practically everyone. María Teresa had by that point decided to exile herself, and most of the conflict was between Espatero and Isabel, both of them authoritarian and more preoccupied with their own power. This did much to aid the Republican cause.

    One of Espartero’s failures is in regards with the colonial administration. Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines were still being held under colonial subjugation, which conserved a highly injurious monopoly of the islands’ goods and kept the colonial subjects away from participation in the governments. This was especially notable in Cuba, where a clique of slaveholders who had grown rich through the cultivation of sugar and other cash crops. Making profit out of the slave trade and the labor of African slaves, Cuban elites did not support revolution, and most preferred to maintain their ties with Spain. Ghastly images of race war supported by the 37% of enslaved people and 17% free people of color, and prophesies of Haiti-style massacres solidified Cuban allegiance, to the point that the island obtained the epithet “the ever-faithful island.”

    This did not mean that pro-independence revolts did not exist, and there were several republican movements. Independentists usually split along four groups of varying strength: pro-United States, pro-Colombia, pro-Mexico, pro-complete independence. The pro-Colombia group, represented by the conspiracy of Soles and Rayos de Miranda, sought to emulate the example of Santo Domingo and join Colombia. Amid some irrelevant arguments, such like how Colombia would force a name change much like how Santo Domingo was renamed Hispaniola because it was supposedly more dignified, the Cubans expressed real fears of not actually joining Colombia in condition of equality but becoming a puppet like Haiti. Colombia was the preferred choice of most liberal Cubans at first, but as the century progressed and sentiments of nationalism developed, many of the pro-Colombia faction would start to turn towards full independence instead.

    The pro-Mexico faction was always a small one and it suffered from the fact that Mexico was an Empire. There was no desire to “grant the Mexican Emperor the title of King of Cuba” as had happened with Central America, and although some Cubans probably believed that the Mexican Empire would be more willing to preserve Cuba’s “institutions”, Cuban independence was associated with republicanism. A similar desire to keep the plantation system fueled support for the United States among the plantation owners of Western Cuba. American schemes for “liberating” Cuba mostly came from the Southern politicians who were anxious of increasing their power in the aftermath of the war with Mexico. By contrast, most Cuban independentists came from the “Oriente”, that is, the Eastern half of the island.

    1zB9Oi_aMDJSKlCb5oQ6vTrv-fdALJPr0dnsMOvQG6O33XJcaUGup1HRSyNonNpPb8pBtSV_SWIWn0OiC93JAv-QW_CYa1Ka143fccCFXpsOd51SEkrCy_u8WoAhhS9j4vaX3-6RhEYoDlgH1uJPN8QxoSANCA

    Colonial Cuba

    Cuban division over independence reflects more fundamental differences within their society. A slave society built on the backs of African bondage, Cuba maintained a thick color line, rather uncharacteristic for a Latin American country but right at home with other slave economies like the American South. The natural result was that it was widely believed that no Cuban nation could exist due to the supposed inherent incompatibility between slaves, Free Blacks and Whites. These groups, it was argued, were too different to form a unique nation, and in an era of wide romantic nationalism, principles of multiculturalism had not been created yet. But a philosophical change was taking place: the Cuban independentists, though they could not be called real abolitionists, were developing a new conception where all the residents of Cuba were Cuban regardless of their race. This has been called a “raceless nationalism”, and it would be necessary if Cubans were going to achieve independence.

    At the same time that tensions rose in Spain and its colonies, they were also raising in France. The Empire was still a long way from fully retaking its Napoleonic glory, but under the nephew of the Little Corporal it was closer than ever. Having defeated Prussia (albeit with the help of South Germany) and with influence in Italy, Mexico, Egypt and Japan, France seemed close to its ideal of building an Empire that could even rival Britain. The British were, of course, worried about this prospect. They regarded the Bonapartes and their “plans of subjugation” as an existential threat, and this show in how they conducted their diplomacy. The British Empire still ruled the waves and was the workshop of the world, but still it was necessary to assert this influence. Defeats at Japan and Egypt were rather painful, but soon enough Britain obtained another chance when a crisis started in the Balkans.

    The crisis started thanks to Tsar Constantin of Russia. A reformer who had taken steps to modernize Russia and liquidate serfdom, the Tsar still wanted to expand Russian influence and power. The Revolutions of 1850 did much to this end, for it had been with Russian support that France defeated Prussia. Thanks to this, it had obtained influence over Hungary, Romania and other areas of the Balkans. The ideal of a Europe divided between France in the West and Russia in the East seemed close, but Russia still maintained great ambition over the ailing Ottoman Empire, in especial the Dardanelles. Taking the ancient city of Constantinople, after which the Tsar had been named in the hopes that he would one day reclaim it for Russia, would finally grant the Empire a warm water port and access to the Mediterranean. The defender of the balance of power, Britain could not allow this.

    Under the pretext of protecting Orthodox minorities from the Ottomans and liberating other Slavs, in May 1860 Russia sent troops to Romania, a member of their sphere of influence. Britain immediately demanded a withdrawal. France now had the choice of supporting either Britain or Russia. Though the war against Prussia is usually a footnote, it was in actuality a rather titanic effort that had tired France and its people. The “Social Republican” opposition, broadly aligned with Republicanism, was moreover opposed to war in all its forms and pushed for strict neutrality instead. They argued that there was no need for France to intervene. Some raised the issue of the Levant Catholics, but they were already protected by Egypt, by then a practical French puppet. Though France’s alliance with Russia was never formal and it was a tenuous and practical arrangement, some within France said that opposing Britain was the coup de main they needed to become the greatest European power.

    But in truth Napoleon III was an anglophile with no special love for the Russians. Indeed, he feared a Europe dominated by the “huns” that had defeated his uncle’s dreams. Though they would be useful in another war against Prussia, South Germany was a firm French ally and France, with certain arrogance, believed that the Prussians would not be a threat anymore. Napoleon III at times even envisioned a future where both France and Britain stood at the cusp of the world. If both nations competed it was because France was not willing to sacrifice its interests and, naturally, French and British ambitions came into conflict because they were the two most influential Great Powers. France had to make a choice, Napoleon III believed, because otherwise it would lose the confidence of both Great Powers and end up isolated. Moreover, the Emperor of the French thought that his nation had to assert itself to be respected in the international stage. He decided to side with Britain, and in July France and Britain issued an ultimatum to Russia.

    270px-Grigoriy_Myasoyedov_Reading_of_the_1861_Manifesto_1873.jpg

    Serf liberation in Russia

    Russia felt betrayed, even if this was not altogether unexpected. In any case, when it refused to back down, war was declared and an orthodox coalition invaded the Ottoman Empire. For a while, it seemed like a pan-European war the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the French Revolution would engulf the continent, but ultimately both South Germany and Prussia refused to get involved. North Italy was not interested either and South Italy, where French troops in Rome did their best to uphold a quasi-theocracy with the Pope as a figurehead, decided to keep out of the war. The conflict would pit France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Egypt against Romania, Serbia and Russia.

    Neither Britain nor France entered into the war or their tedious alliance out of charity. Both sought to increase their influence and defend their interests. France wanted to have full control over the Levant and for that control to be recognized by Britain; on the other hand, Britain had a vested interest in getting rid of Russia to finally win the “Great Game” in Central Asia, and breaking the Franco-Russian alliance would assure the balance of power in Europe. Both powers agreed that, even though Constantinople certainly should not be Russian, the Ottoman Empire was more of a hindrance than anything. Britain’s Prime Minister, the National Liberal Lord Palmerston, believed that both the Ottoman and Russian Empires had to be “liquidated”, and he pushed for a future where Greece took most of the Ottoman territories in Europe and Constantinople became an independent city state.

    The greatest problem of the Palmerston plan was that it was not practicable for Greece to take over the Balkans, and the alternative of creating a series of little Slav kingdoms was not attractive – after all, it would be easy for them to fall under Russian influence. The British only supported Greece in its bid to take over some territory because they were indebted to the British crow, whose support had been elemental on the Greek War of Independence. The French offered lukewarm support, because there was a chance those Slav kingdoms would support South Germany instead, but it seemed like a distant possibility. There was also the issue that “liquidating” the Ottoman Empire while being its allies was neither “honorable nor practicable”.

    Palmerston also planned to take down Russia. With the knowledge of the long history of dissent in mind, French and British statesmen believed that they could dismantle the Russian Empire and form several new states as buffers. The linchpin would be a revived Poland, but there were also plans to liberate Finland, Ukraine and some states in the Caucasus. Again, whether these plans were practicable was debatable: Russia would certainly not yield any of these possessions unless completely conquered and neither Britain nor France could really stage a wide invasion. The last time it had happened Napoleon had died and with it the Revolutionary era of Europe.

    The Palmerston proposal would have wide effects in the future in which a bigger and deadlier conflict than this Balkan War would make such sacrifices possible. For the moment, British, French, Greek and Ottoman forces, the so-called Four Nation Army, held the line against the Russians in the Balkans. Diplomatic maneuvers obtained the cooperation of the Swedes, but try as they might the Allies never managed to obtain the cooperation of either Prussia or South Germany. Both were tired of war after the devastating 1850 revolutions, and Prussia in special distrusted France enormously; indeed, there were rumors that a war to retake the French territories in the Rhine would be started. It was not, but tensions within Europe remained high.

    1592537064893.jpeg

    Henry John Temple, the Third Viscount Palmerston

    The Palmerston Plan could never be fully implemented due to its contradictory aims and how harsh it would be. France in special did not want to forever alienate Russia, and Palmerston’s designs called for both German involvement and Polish independence, Ottoman cooperation and Greek aggrandizement, Balkan independence and the limitation of Russian independence. It was altogether difficult to imagine such goals being achieved. In any case, the war was still devastating to the poor Russian state, which had started towards the path of modernization but still languished under ancient procedure and technique. The very weak economy, still suffering aftershocks after the end of serfdom hadn’t brought in an industrial revolution, was unable to compete with the two greatest economies of the world.

    Britain and France faced their own problems. Though their Baltic campaign was able to easily take Aland, attempts to start a campaign in Finland floundered. Economic aid was given to the Polish partisans, who started a bloody uprising that was suppressed with usual brutality, though it did much to weaken the Russians and endear the Polish to the Franco-British alliance in the long term. Crimea was captured after a costly siege that saw a bloody fiasco in the Battle of Baclava, where only a “thin red” line of British troops saved the Allies from disaster. On the other hand, the Russians suffered in the Balkan theater, where a combination of panic regarding German intervention and lack of coordination resulted in them being driven to the Danube. Attempts to incite Hungary to join the war on the Russian side failed, mostly because the Hungarians had ambitions over Romanian land.

    By 1863, Tsar Constantin had to sadly admit that “We cannot deceive ourselves any longer; we must say that we are both weaker and poorer than the first-class powers, and furthermore poorer not only in material terms but in mental resources, especially in matters of administration.” Russia decided to plea for peace, and France and Britain, both faced by virulent opposition to the war at home, accepted, even though Palmerston was not happy that the terms of his plan hadn’t been accomplished. In any case, the resulting Treaty of Paris did change the geography of Europe by granting some territories with ethnic Greeks to Greece and creating a new independent state, Bulgaria, which was to serve as a buffer between the Russians and Ottomans. Constantinople would remain in Ottoman hands for the moment, the same as with Crimea which was returned to Russia, but both the Baltic and the Black Sea would be demilitarized and Aland ceded to Sweden.

    The First Balkan War, also sometimes known as the Crimean War, was a disaster for Russia. Orlando Figes comments that “No compulsory disarmament had ever been imposed on a great power previously”, so the terms imposed were a humiliation. This caused “The image many Russians had built up of their country – the biggest, richest and most powerful in the world –“, to suddenly shatter and enormously discredited Constantin’s government, which had made reform a cornerstone with the promise that it would achieve greatness for Russia. Under pressure from all fronts, Constantin finally abdicated. He was in bad health in any case. Since he did not have any legitimate children, the crown passed to his nephew, who would be crowned as Tsar Alexander II.

    revolutions.png

    Europe after the Balkan War

    The war was also a defeat for the Ottoman Empire, despite being on the winning side. By that time, the weakness of the old Empire was apparent, for the European powers felt free to redraw its borders as they pleased. One famous anecdote of the Paris conference is that after hearing the terms, the Ottoman delegate asked the British one what his country would obtain in exchange for giving up “our lands, pride and honor”. The British delegate replied dryly, “your country, sir, shall simply survive”. The Sick Man of Europe was now dying, that much was clear, and the resulting internal dissent threatened ever the ancient reign of the Sultans as many clamored for modernization.

    Altogether, and although it’s often forgotten, the Balkan War did much to change the diplomatic map of Europe, creating two blocks, one with France, Britain, and South Germany; and another with Russia, Prussia and the Ottomans. The powderkeg of Europe was starting to be filled, though it would still be many decades until its dramatic explosion ensued and changed the world. First, much conflict and bloodshed that slowly filled it up took place.
     
    Appendix: The Colombian National Army
  • At last... AM HERE¡

    with what I had promise:

    Colombian National Army up until approximately the 1860:

    given the initial underfunding that the republic had to face and the consequential shortage, that cause many regiments to go barely dress to battle but thanks to the efforts and good business of the founding fathers with a good many nations, eventually the national army was able to have an appropriate funding and provide itself with a proper uniforms a la suit that eventually came to represent la crème de la crème of the army coated in their shining and colourful uniforms. Of note, is also important to say that in spite of each regiment’s designations, this were made again a la suit in the british and polish styles, courtesy of Miranda and his european staff, that is to say, each regiment is numbered and followed by its (later on, just ceremonial) type designation (grenadiers, chasseurs, line, etc). The Cavalry arm is, along with the artillery arm, the only land units that are fully manned during peace as well as wartime due to the high standards of training require, set by the officer class.

    Officers:

    Officers can entered to the National Military Academy of Colombia as early as 12 years by having the aspirant a recommendation of a respected citizen and are expected to serve throughout their lives until age 60, or either retirement, by request, illness, dishonourable discharge, lack of sufficient vacant posts (in which case, the officer pass to the reserve list), nonetheless there´s in place a providence that states that retire officers can be recall to duties in case of national emergency that require a great expansion of the army, which otherwise implies a full-scale war that is, this being the main advantage of the Colombian army with regards other powers of the region, its ability to embraced total war if needed, following napoleonic principles learn by Miranda during its time as Marshal of France during that country's revolution (the president been the man who fought the Austrian army led by Archduke Charles of Austria at the battle of Fleurus, the same person that eventually beat Napoleon at Aspern-Essling in 1809). The Academy has sub-divisions for each of its branches, with Bogota, Caracas and Quito being for infantry, cavalry and artillery respectively, and each city housing a regional centre for early recruits before being sent for superior studies at the main centre in Bogotá.


    Infantry:

    initially all infantry regiments were mixed, generally they had a company of grenadiers, one of cazadores/tiradores/rifles/fusileros (hunters/sharpshooters/rifles/fusiliers, i.e. light infantry), and 6 of line, but later the specialized companies (i.e. the grenadiers and light infantry) were segregated and group in battalions and eventually regiments. Initially every company of every regiment was of an establish strength of 80 men, but this was gradually enlarged to 120 and finally, at nearly the war´s end, to 160, for a total of 5 companies for each battalion, with a regiment having an establish strength of 2 battalions, one for field (active) duty and the other as depot and reserve, the regulations establishing that active service should be for 7 years and reserve for 4 years, then following an honourable discharge, was retirement. Recruits were expected to be between 17 and 33 years old, with good health and good shape.



    Grenadiers:

    2.jpg


    1st infantry regiment of Grenadiers of Colombia in field uniform, copied of the french grenadier regiments, inspired by Miranda, they had the bearskin only for parade dress, this same uniform applied to the 2nd infantry regiment of Grenadiers of Cundinamarca.

    3.png
    5.jpg


    3rd infantry regiment of Grenadiers of Tarqui official uniform (left); (right) Marshal Sucre at the battle of Ayacucho, with the Grenadiers of the Peruvian Legion on the background, this was a Peruvian recruited, later naturalized Colombian, unit that, due the Peruvian-Colombian war, was later re-style Grenadiers of Tarqui, they did wore in combat the bearskin, being a sign of pride and honour for them.


    9.png


    Detail of the picture



    Line:

    6.jpg


    Early infantry of the independence era, being mostly peasants, wore what they could initially, most of them use alpargatas (left and right figures), a native semi-enclosed sandal of Latin-America, wore mostly by the peasants but also, due to and by virtue of its commodity, by the aristocracy in their rural estates, but in time Miranda, urged by Bolívar, Santander and Sucre, managed to give them certain uniformity. The center figure is a volunteer line infantry regiment uniform; the hat was not standardized to the more known shako until past half the war, varying widely on an individual basis. Later the uniforms of the colombian-recruited (and after the war, the naturalized foreign troops) regular line infantry were as represented at the famous panorama of the battle of Carabobo, such like this:

    BatallaCarabobo01.JPG


    dark marine blue coats and trousers, white belts and straps, red sleeves, shoulder pads and collars. Each regiment adding its particular badges, distinctions and battles fought to their colours in time, given each regiment a distinctive heritage to which look at.

    Other units:

    The superb British Legion, the volunteer foreign division recruited in Britain for service in the independence wars, its members were contacted with Colombia´s authorized plenipotentiary envoy in London, the Honourable Deputy for Caracas, Don Luis Lopez Mendez, who in turn assigned the rank commissions and gives the presentation letters for the government, initially a force of 5 regiments and an artillery brigade of five 6-pounder and one 5.5 pounder howitzer (i.e. a mixed regiment) was envisioned but this rapidly expanded. It is said that due to the rapid demobilisation of the expeditionary forces and the lack of necessity for an occupational force in France due to Napoleon´s death and Bourbon restoration, the Duke of Wellington was willing and even pushing secretly for its returning men to be sent to new jobs in other hemispheres, this in turn provided readily available manpower for the rapidly expanding effort of the patriot cause and provided an important replenishing source for the increasing casualty list that was generated by nearly continuous combat and disease, that involve this elite division, whose numbers never were up of 7000 men due to this, but fortunately, rarely shrink below 4000, although all the composing units were never together on one battlefield at any given time, but they at least work with each other in at least one campaign or battle.

    TRANS_Bolivar_s_British_Volunteers_1817_-_26.gif


    The foot units that composed the division remained mixed, that is, line-light-grenadier company formula.

    lopez.jpg


    Don Luis Lopez Mendez

    TRANS_Venezuelan_infantry_incl_British_legion_1821.gif


    The plate represents a private of the Albion battalion (later regiment) (extreme left), officer of the same unit (left-center), private of the grenadier company (sitting figure) and gunner (extreme right)

    6139.jpg


    Battalion, later regiment, of Rifles. This regiment, and its uniform, formed the basis of all light infantry regiments within the army and was an all-Irish unit, but given that it was use also as a line regiment (having arguably the largest casualty list of the whole war), it ended eventually becoming one.



    Of the 22 regular infantry regiments that remained of the independence era, 14 were line, 3 of grenadiers and 5 of light infantry. This were, in order of seniority; as follows:

    1st infantry regiment of grenadiers “of Colombia”:first unit rise for the republic, initially as the Senatorial Guard, later reassign for field duty an replace in their bodyguard position by the Presidential Guard and the Honour Guard. It distinguished itself at the Araure and Carabobo campaigns.

    2nd infantry regiment of grenadiers “of Cundinamarca”: second unit rise for the republic in the homonymous region. Distinguish itself at the Boyacá and and Apure campaigns.

    3rd infantry regiment of grenadiers “of Tarqui”: first “foreign” unit of the republic, forming part of the Peruvian Legion but later due to their services and forming date, was naturalized and given the position as the third more senior regiment of the army. It distinguished itself during the whole southern campaigns, working first under the command of San Martín and later under Colombian banners. Its last combat action was its namesake, the battle of the Portete de Tarqui during the Colombo-Peruvian war.

    4th line infantry regiment of “Voltigueros de la Guardia” (Voltigeurs of the guard): first urban unit rise in Venezuela, at the instance of Bolívar to act as the General´s guard of honour. It distinguished itself during the Venezuelan campaigns with especial mention to Carabobo where it led the second republican division in its famous flanking manoeuvre.

    5th line infantry regiment of “Bravos de Apure”: the first rural unit rise in Venezuela by general Paez to act as his bodyguard, becoming its elite foot soldiers and arguably the fiercest soldiers in the army. It distinguished itself during the Apure, Center and Carabobo campaigns, in this last action gaining glory by virtue of being the first to engaged the Spanish army while leading the first republican division in the opening stages of Bolívar planned oblique movement, along with its cavalry twin.

    6th line infantry regiment of “Vencedores de Boyacá”: one of the most valued units in Bolívar´s army. This unit, among other actions, is more known by its glorious storming of Boyacá bridged while spearheading the republican charge that overwhelmed the Spanish, for the rest of the Venezuelan campaigns it performed admirably.

    7th line infantry regiment of “Vencedores de Araure”: this regiment was initially the leftover and scattered pieces of 3 former regiments known as Caracas, Aragua and Agricultores but due to being shamelessly routed without fight, Bolívar punished them by coalescing them into a single unit, stripping it from its distinctions and names, and adding insult to disgrace, armed with pikes rather than muskets, and from them on to be call the “Sin nombre” (Without name). But fortune caught with them and at the battle of Araure they were giving the chance to proof their worth and in turn they led the charge of the republican forces and routed the vaunted and fierce “Numancia” regiment, taking its colours and capturing their colonel, hence the Libertador awarded them with their current name, that they carry with pride and as remainder of their feat, they use the pikes on parade.

    8th regiment of “Tiradores de Hannover” (German-recruited): first unit sent by Lopez Mendez from Europe, this regiment was recruited as their name says in the Kingdom of Hanover, at the time in personal union with the british crown due to the King´s dynasty being, previous to their rise to the british throne, the sovereign of this territory. The unit was initially 300 strong and was recruited by german Colonel Johan von Uslar, who after an interview with the Colombian deputy, he agreed in rising a force of veteran mercenaries that constituted a well disciplined and experience corps. Later sent to Venezuela with the first british expeditions, they landed in margarita island, being inmediatly put under General Arismendi´s orders were this troops force the elite of the margaritan soldiers, themselves reckon as one the fiercest of Venezuela, and instilling in them the Prussian discipline that were so renown in those days, eventually being given General rank and assign the duty of training the army on the same principles, in which was successful. A its most known descendent was Dr Arturo Uslar Prieti, the famous philosopher and politician of 20th century Colombia

    9th regiment of “Fusileros del Magdalena” (Fusiliers): this unit was form of a mixed of peasants and town Indians of the Magdalena river, that was formed for attracting the low castes of the country, which to a certain degree, it work, although that didn´t stop the indians from choosing one side or the other depending on their convinience, but when patriot victory seemed inminent, they flock to republican banners and becoming staunch supporters of the Miranda administration as their only hope against the wrongs and abuses that could be committed on their communities by the higher echelons of society.

    10th regiment of “Tiradores de los Andes” (Sharpshooters): this as a south-grenadine unit formed by locals of villages at the near or at the foot of the Andes. They performed their duty mostly in the Nueva Granada and Southern campaigns, participating with distinction at Popayán, Pichincha, Guayaquil and Ayacucho, as well as the Portete de Tarqui.

    11th line infantry regiment of “Cartagena”: formed in the homonymous city and its surrounding region, distinguishing itself during the Magdalena and southern campaigns.

    12th line infantry regiment of “Popayán”: unit formed in the homonymous region, distinguishing itself in the Magdalena and southern campaigns.

    13th line infantry regiment of “Vargas”: formed in the coastal region of Caracas Province, it as known as the regiment of the fishermen. it distinguished itself in seaborn actions along the coast, together with the “Anzoátegui”, their outstanding participation in the siege of Puerto Cabello, often catalogued as the Yorktown of the south, elevated them as one of the hard fighting units of the army.

    14th line infantry regiment of “Anzoátegui”: this was also a coastal recruited regiment, that was explicitly to be coupled with the “Vargas” as seaborne regiments, this in particular had its elements pulled from the region of Puerto la Cruz city

    15th line infantry regiment of “Rifles” (Irish-recruited): first british-proper unit that landed on Colombia, arriving at Angostura, Guayana Province. This was part of the so called “1st british legion”, otherwise known as the first wave of relief expeditions, this was entirely composed of Irish volunteers decommission of Wellington´s army. It should be noted that, although, they were strong and reckon warriors by the Spanish, they were prone to indiscipline and with the tendency to rioting and looting when dispersed. At the siege of pampatar, they were heavily engaged and suffered badly losing half of their strength, testimony of their toughness, but when reorganized their elements were split and recycle to create the next two regiments on this list, that made the next wave of british troops that arrive later. From the moment they landed they were arguably in all the campaigns of the independence wars, a credit to their reliability as soldiers, as such they represented the archetypal of the Colombian regiment and an example to the whole army, and excepting the siege, they can be prize for never losing a battle, a banner and holding their position always.

    16th line infantry regiment of “Carabobo” (English-recruited): second regiment formed of british troops that arrive with the second wave sent by Lopez Mendez, initially they were 150 officers and enlisted but eventually this numbered soured to gather 500 men, the initial core of this unit was extracted of the “Rifles” regiment but they acquired their own identity with time, winning the first battle of Carabobo were they gain their name, and actively participating in the rest of the campaigns in Venezuela.

    17th line infantry regiment of “Albion” (English-recruited): next unit of volunteers that arrive in the third wave of british reinforcements, and by far the largest and strongest contingent sent, the expedition was composed of 23 vessels of corvette size purchased for the Colombian navy as well as their crews, as for the troops proper they were at 1500 men that made up the cadre of officers for the cavalry regiments, mainly hussars, as well as replacement for the existing units. Like the “Carabobo”, the core of the regiment was composed of segregated elements of the “Rifles”, but they too acquired their own identity, participating in the Center, Guayana and Carabobo campaigns, this last were they covered themselves in glory by holding the line against overwhelming odds and providing the relying point for the scattered elements of the first republican division, suffering horrendous casualties and losing in the process many officers, it is said that at the end they were commanded only by a captain.

    18th regiment of “Cazadores de Guayaquil” (Hunters): one of the most effective regiments in the army, they were effectively an elite force that specialized in accurate shooting and skirmishing in the high, rough and rocky terrain of the Andes. It participated in all the southern campaigns.

    19th line infantry regiment of “la Legión irlandesa” (Irish-recruited): one of the last foreign troops to arrive to Colombia, it was the second largest contingent sent, their numbers were up to 1200 men. Rise in Ireland by general Deveroux, this force due to their size was initially treated as an independent all-Irish brigade, given the size of a regiment in that period, but casualties reduce their rank more faster than it could be replenish and, by the end of the war, they barely were above battalion size at 200 men all ranks.

    20th regiment of “Cazadores Britanicos” (british-recruited): propably the last of the European- recruited regiments to be formed and one that gained distinction not just as a fighting elite unit, but also as one with iron discipline that was require to make the job of the light infantry, seeing service in Guayana, Apure and Magdalena campaigns where they put to good use their experience in the low-level combat to good effect.

    21st line infantry regiment of “Pichincha”: this regiment although of the independence era, by its origins, didn´t participated in nearly any combat of the war, this due to being rise in the final stages of the siege of Guayaquil, in which it participated as garrison and occupation troops, but during the Peruvian war, it distinguish itself as a hard fighting force while leading a ferocious charge at the head of its brigade at the Battle of Tarqui, being nickname “the fury of Pichincha” in allusion to their elán as strong as that of the homonymous Volcano.

    22nd line infantry regiment of “Bomboná”: this unit effectively just could serve as the “Pichincha” as garrison and occupation troops in Lima, but as the former it time came during the Peruvian war, were it covered the gap created in the Colombian line when justly the “Pichincha” charge, and with its fire held a great number of Peruvian soldiers in spite of the casualties, being nickname “the rock”.
     
    Last edited:
    Appendix: The Colombian Cavalry
  • Part two:

    Charge¡¡¡... Ahem¡, ups, wrong paper...

    Light horse:
    they were probably the most romanticized units of the army and the most active during the independence and following conflicts, being the incarnation of the dashing cavalier clothe in their colourful uniforms as well as the more mobile and skilled riders, there were 10 regiments, denominated as Husares y Lanceros (Hussars and Lancers), but again to practical purposes all regiment were to a certain degree lancers, this due to half the strength of each hussar regiment being fitted with lances for shock action (the idea being that in battle they were to act as front rankers), however they still all more nimble in nature and thus more versatile troops, though they were expected to perform mainly mounted service, were use accordingly as scouts and intelligence gatherers (the eyes and ears of the army), recklessly at times due to their eagerness to charge at everything, nevertheless they were above all, professionals. The regiments were usually larger than their heavy counterparts, being of an stablish strength of 800 all ranks divided in 8 squadrons, this is due not just to the afore mention colourful shine of their clothes (that largely accounted for the number of recruits attracted to the service) but specially by their cheapness, which explain why later the state regiments were generally recruited as light cavalry. The horses employed were of native breeds, stout and tough and easy to maintain due to their native environment being the Llanos in the Venezuela region that made them excellent as workhorse and could be feed with nearly any type of grass, giving them great endurance as well as being more easy to train due to their steadiness, this also is why there was always more willingness on the government´s part to expand this type of units rather than the heavies, the horsemen themselves were also easy to train and maintain due to one important factor: members of all the regiments initially were limited to the recruiting area of the venezuelan llanos (especially in the lancer´s case), but later it was open to any Colombian with prove riding skills, made in front of the regiment´s colonel to maintain the high-level standards of the units, which largely explains their efficiency. On an individual level, all carried a number of pistols as all-time use weapon, but a small carbine was issued to the Húsares and the Cazadores, largely for skirmishing, either mounted or dismounted. A curved sabre rounded up their weaponry.





    p.jpg


    Initial outfit of the 7th and 8th regiments of Lanceros, called “de Apure” and “de Honor”, the centre figure is General Paez, as describe by British legion officer Richard Vowel of the 1st Hussars of Colombia (another volunteer regiment for the British Legion), in its first meeting with Bolívar in 1813, the figure on the background is Panchito, the 12 year old protégé and standard bearer of the General. The right figure is a llanero of Paez´s Guard of Honour, whom is wearing the eventual uniform for both regiments. The 7th regiment is still considered one of, if not the, elite and senior regiment of the Colombian cavalry together with the horse carabineers and horse grenadiers, being highly praise by the few polish officers that came to campaign with Bolivar in Venezuela as the best cavalry in the world (the poles were considered the best Lancers, is not the best cavalry in Europe at the time, being a polish lancer regiment a part of Napoleon´s Imperial Guard). The “llaneros” were so vaunted even by their enemies, that at a meeting with King Ferdinand VII, Marshal Pablo Morillo, who was in charge of the Spanish Pacifying expeditionary army sent to Venezuela to face Bolívar, reputedly told the monarch when recriminated by his failure before “colonial savages”: Dadme un Paez, Majestad, y 10.000 llaneros del Apure y os juro postrar Europa a vuestros pies. (“Give me a Paez, your Majesty, and ten thousand llaneros of Apure and I swear to kneel Europe to your feet”).







    Presentación1.jpg


    Outfit of the 9th regiment of Húsares (centre) and the regiment of Húsares (right), called “de Colombia” and “de la Legion Peruana” this last a Peruvian Legion regiment that fought under Sucre during the southern campaigns, and the Dragones de la Guardia Presidencial (right).



    440px-José_Antonio_Páez,_1828.jpg


    General Paez in his uniform of the 10th regiment of Lanceros, called “Valientes” in his british supplied uniform, note the Czapka cap, this was copied by the british of the polish uhlan regiments. This same uniform was use by the 11th regiment of Lanceros, called “de Llanos Arriba” of famous colonel Rondon, who led the final charge at the Battle of Boyacá that routed the Spanish main body.





    captain o´connell.png
    2dd5646edf7986c5252ed77221311528.jpg


    Captain Morgan O´Connell, son of famous politician Daniel O´Connell called the Liberator of Ireland, here seen in his uniform of the 12th regiment of Húsares, called “de la Legion irlandesa” due to its place of origin, it was part of the expedition brought by General John D´Evereux.





    Presentación3.jpg
    d.gif


    Officer of the 2nd regiment of Húsares Colombianos (left), renumbered later as the 13th and were called “Husares Rojos”, this was another cavalry unit that came with the second expedition of british troops which came with colonel Gustavus Hippisley. Along with this regiment came the 1st regiment of Húsares Colombianos (left figure, right image), this was also renumbered as the 14th.



    sabre carbine.jpg
    scabbard.jpg


    Sabre, carbine and scabbard issued to the hussars, this was a borrow of the one use by the Habsburg´s Hungarians



    Presentación4.jpg


    Finally, General Paez in more formal clothes during the resting periods between campaigns.


    Again, due to lack of space, the artillery is left for later.
     
    Appendix: The Colombian Artillery
  • Final Chapter

    Artillery:
    although it should be noted that artillery pieces were few and thus their participation secondary, when compare to the more known charge of infantry and cavalry, were nevertheless important, and they played their part well in the great trust for liberty, either in small actions and battles alike, always effective and out of proportion to their numbers, sometimes crucial to the success of the patriot armies. Initially their basic organization was the battery, although due to their aforementioned small numbers, in practice were more like small sections, . However this did not deter the patriots in battle or stop them from increasing their numbers, swallowing them to progressively, at least, give each republican division 2 guns of 6-pounds. In time organization and money made available the acquisition of some quantity of 12-pounders for heavy artillery, but this was mostly for long-range bombardment of enemy lines or defensive fire for holding a position, and thus acted as a reserve keep at the discretion of the army commanders. Aside of those, the initial number of guns was distributed as follows: the 1st of Husares Colombianos had two 5.5 inch howitzers assigned as regimental artillery but due several complications on the voyage to Colombia some of the equipment was lost in several forms; later arrive five 6-pounders and one more howitzer, this was also 5.5 inch, part of the artillery brigade commanded by Colonel Joseph Albert Gillmore brought in the expedition of Colonel Hippisley, colonel Gillmore was an Irishman who according to Hippisley “his talents in the mechanism and improvement of the musket is far above mediocrity”, this was manned by a cadre of ten officers and 80 NCOs, the idea being to recruit the gunners on Colombia; next came the artillery brigade commanded by Captain Charles Brown brought in the expedition of General John Towers English who arrive at Angostura in Guayana Province when Bolívar occupied the region, it had the same number and type of guns as Gillmore´s, this was manned by a cadre of ten officers and 90 NCOs with the same expectation of recruiting from natives, this was the last supply of guns from abroad purchased by the Government and essentially form the core of the patriot artillery throughout the war (the 12-pounders were home-manufactured or mostly capture stock). Of note, is important that before embarking of the expedition, Colonel Gillmore had the luck of ingratiate himself with William Graham, a wealthy blacksmith that ensure to supply the artillery under his command and, consequently, there was a connection with whom to make the dealings for the guns that were require for arming the many small ships of the Navy, the first pack came with Gillmore himself and was composed of 9 18-pounders, 9 18-pounder carronades and 9 of 32-pounders for the arming of some of the schooners, brigantines and corvettes that conform the Caribbean fleet, with Mr Graham being allowed a concession to expand some dependencies of his agency on the country for the supply of larger vessels that were eventually constructed. The end of the wars led to a reorganization and acquisitions of guns for 12 regiments, being form properly and with a structure varying depending on the type: 8 foot artillery regiments encompassed the heavy and light field pieces, usually comprising 8 batteries of 6 guns of which 6 were made of 6-pounders and the other two of 12-pounders; the other four regiments were of horse artillery and comprise also 8 batteries, but of 4 guns each of the 5.5 inch howitzers, invariably all guns were serve by 9 gunners, finally it should be note that during the war the number of guns were widely distributed between the different armies and just were massed for sieges.



    12 pounder.jpg
    c6.jpg


    Servers of a 12-pounder, their uniforms were simple.



    6 pounder.jpg
    main-qimg-9fe6b6083ad81192684d87d405512657.jpg


    6-pounder gun, this was and still is the most regular and popular weapons at all levels, being light, fast to reload and above all reliable. Again, in their case certain characteristic were borrowed from the Austrian system, in this case the carriage and ammunition container which is inserted on the design.



    images.jpg
    images (1).jpg
    images (2).jpg


    Lastly, there was the 5.5-inch howitzer from Britain, this was mainly distributed to the cavalry because was considerably easier to handle for the fast movement of those troops, and although not long range were, however, accurate.



    Miscellaneous:

    main-qimg-f4937a22eff93d7132208bf666958cb1.jpg


    General de Division (Major General) William Miller, better known in spanish-speaking countries as Guillermo Miller, this man was the victor at the Great Cavalry Clash that was the Battle of Junín, a great patriot victory.

    guard.jpg


    Grenadier of the Presidential Guard, the senior regiment of the Guards.

    dragoons_vs_guerillas.jpg


    Elements of the 3rd of Granaderos a Caballo de Colombia, fighting on foot during the siege of El Callao during the Peruvian war.
     
    Last edited:
    Appendix: The Colombian Navy
  • The Navy on the eve of Independence


    Before the movement for emancipation began, there was already some sort of establishment of a colonial navy, although this was mainly an anti-pirate/raider coastal defence force, its numbers could be swallowed to considerable numbers if needed, not it vain Spain was still a major naval power and the fourth in world ranking at the time (after Britain, France and the Netherlands), though most of the Spanish fleet was anchor in its Peninsular bases, nevertheless this was sufficient maintain the country on the European stage as a major player and a key reason why it could still be considered when it came to disrupting the balance of power but neither this nor the colonial fleet could reliably be counted when the integrity of the empire was as stake to prevent episodes like Cartagena de Indias or Montevideo nor were guaranty to repel an full scale landing, even when there was a large number of Coastal and river Forts of different sizes spread all over the continent. Nonetheless the small vessels that serve for the purpose of guarding Spanish sovereignty, when independence was declared and war was joined, they were the ones called to defend the republic and, upon which its power and maritime sovereignty would rest.

    According to the rating systems of the age of sailing ships, the vessels that compose and still conform the core the republican navy could be classified from the smaller to the biggest, as follows:

    Flechera: meaning literally “Arrowman”, a boat of the form of a canoe but the size of a small yacht, used originally by the native aborigines. This is the smallest vessel afloat and is mainly use as a cutter and river patrol boat, it carries a small of short guns, mainly for self-defence but also to enforced effectively the law on riverine zones.

    Goleta: known as a Schooner in English-speaking regions, as the former again this type serve as a shallow water vessel though it had a limited beyond-the-coast capacity. These ships were nearly a third of the strength of the fleet even after the war´s end, and were usually equip with a number of up eight 6-pounder guns or more but smaller calibres, like carronades which were like short-range naval shotguns.

    Bergatín: known as a Brigantine in English-speaking areas, this was the other type of ship, that along with the Goleta, constituted the next third of the fleet. It was equip also with few guns but had capacity to carry more or bigger but not much, this could be either a mix of up to 8-pounder long guns and carronades for short-range actions, a full complement of carronades, or a full complement of 6-pounder long guns, usually it was prefer the carronades because this ships were fast and manoeuvrable enough to extricate themselves of disadvantageous situations or engage more closely if is the case. It was initially the biggest vessel available in the republican fleet until the purchased or capture of some of next type of ship.

    Corbeta: better known either as Sloop-of-war or Corvette, this was during the war the biggest vessel available for the patriots and one which give an excellent service as front-line units. These ships were usually arm with a complement of up to eighteen 18-pounder long guns, which could vary or mix with the other types of guns for better performance and to good effect in a one-to-one engagement, which fortunately were the most of the cases during the war. They constituted the last third of the fleet and their numbers expanded with new design vessels due to one factor, money, it was cheaper to maintain a good number of these class of vessels than a large number of expensive Frigates, known as Fragatas in Spanish-speaking countries.



    The Navy after the Independence



    As stated above, until the very end of the war and because of financial considerations, the number of ships were small and never of the biggest types. But as economy recovered and the army progressively demobilised and reduce along with the corresponding budget, the opposite happens with the navy. This took a especial apprising course due to various factors, immediately after the independence it was not a certain thing that Spain would not try to make more attempts to reconquer its colonies, as the battle of Caracas prove, but also because this same type of events led to the Government realising that a strong navy was needed if the integrity and safety of Country was to be assure, and that in any case the Royal Navy wouldn´t be always on the neighbourhood to watch for Colombia´s interest. To all this the final nail in the issue of a navy was the annexation of Hispaniola, if commerce and communications with the island as well as the recognition of Colombian sovereignty over it was to be taken for granted as a serious fact. This led to an order for british yards to construct a large number of Corbetas along the lines of the Snake class of the Royal Navy and a 3-ship class of fifth rate Fragatas and in US yards another 3-ship class of Fragatas, copied respectively of the designs of the Leda-class fifth rate Frigates and the USA Heavy Frigates in each case.

    In the meanwhile, the Corbetas, Bergatines, Goletas and Flecheras would have to be enough for preventing any Spanish invasion attempt, which they fulfilled admirably in the Congress age, mainly thanks to the tireless work of the admirals that commanded them, men like Admiral in chief of the Republic Lino de Clemente, who had the merit of organizing the navy in a pragmatic way, Admiral of the fleet Luis Brion commander of the Caribbean fleet and Rear Admiral José Prudencio Padilla the victor of the Naval battle of Maracaibo among others.

    Unfortunately, although some of the Corbetas were ready to sail from Britain, neither of the Fragatas was ready for the conflict with Peru and even if they were, they would have to travel around the Horns cape and never arrive in time to prevent a defeat even of themselves at the hands of the experience Peruvian commanders.

    In other aspects while the navy reinforce its tradition in the Royal Navy, the coastal defences were reinforced and the major ports and arsenals of the country weren´t neglected but greatly improve, during the course of the decade slowly but steadily, sending commissioners to the USA for acquiring knowledge and experience in some of the most modern fortifications on the Continent, and calling for the advise of some important architects such as Jonathan Williams the renown engineer that elaborated the second system of fortifications for the United States, who introduce some novel ideas and was succesful in seeing some of its contructions realized before leaving for home in the Forts protecting Puerto Cabello Harbour, such like this:

    325px-Castle_Williams_SIF_jeh.jpg


    But returning to naval matters, some examples of the ships that were ordered were very similar to the following ships:

    300px-HMS_Rosario_-_The_gallant_action_off_Dieppe,_March_1812_BM_1917,1208.4643_(cropped).jpg
    300px-H.M._Sloop_Chanticleer_off_Valetta,_Malta,_by_Nicolas_S._Cammillieri.jpg


    corbeta-1200x828.jpg
    corbeta-1.jpg


    This is one the examples that made the Intrepido class of Corbetas (second row images) that were destined to replace the oldest and hard-worked of the fleet, note the great resemblance to its british cousins. This ships were built to similar designs as the Beagle of Charles Darwin.

    300px-GoletaSarandi-Biggen1.png
    goleta.jpg


    Here represented are some examples of a Goleta, one observer noted that they look like a glorified yacht, certeinly it was not meant for the battleline, but as anti-raider/pirates and law enforcer were effective for the republic´s needs.


    bergantin.jpg
    ilustra05.jpg


    A Bergatín of the Congress period (left) and one of the independence era (right), they were excellent complements to harbour defences and to squadrons of Corbetas or Fragatas.


    finally the designs by which the Fragatas of the Republic were constructed

    uss constitution.jpg
    300px-HMS_'Arethusa'_KT_DOV_04_024.jpg


    Pictures of the USS Constitution (left) and HMS Arethusa (right), noted that both are very similar due to one factor, the brititsh ships were design as a response to the american ships and resulted in a perfect match in size, speed and firepower, both were rated as 44-gun frigates and had the superb 24-pound long gun as main battery, with the only real difference laying in the methods and materials of construction, the american ship and thus the colombian contracts were made of live oak, a very resistent material that prove its worth in the engagement of the Anglo-American war; the british on the other hand were more durable and agile, thus having certain tactical advantage in combat. The Constitution was known for this as "Old Ironsides" because arguably its thick sides could make a round bounce on impact, repelling completely its effects on the vessel, and was much love by the american people.​
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 63: The Liberal Revolution
  • As Arturo Noboa took office as President of the Republic of Colombia, he and his Liberal majorities in the Congress undertook a marked effort to modernize the country and adequate it to the 19th century ideal of modernity. This process of change is often known as the Liberal Revolution, which brough great and profound changes in Colombia and its people even though it did not achieve the Colombia of complete justice and equality Liberals had once envisioned.

    The most striking feature of the Liberal Revolution is the extreme expansion of Federal power and the bureaucracy. Heirs of Santander, Noboa and his Liberals believed that the state should play an important part in the social development of the nation, both through laws and the enforcement of them. It was quite ironic to see former Federalists centralizing the government, but these old issues had long ago been abandoned. Thus the Liberals had no qualms to massively expand the power of the state to make sure that the progress they envisioned would actually take place. Consequently, the structure of all branches of government was modernized and expanded.

    In the first place, the Liberals created a system whereby several Ministries would have Secretariats (Secretarías) under them, to oversee and enforce specific areas of national life. The first and only Secretariat till then had been Santander’s independent Secretariat of Land, but the Liberals created many more in order to centralize and rationalize executive administration:
    • Ministry of the Interior: Secretariats of Land and Colonization, Posts, and Education
    • Ministry of Justice: Secretariat of Indigenous Affairs.
    • Ministry of Economy: Secretariat of Taxes and Excises.
    • Ministry of Labor and Agriculture: Secretariat of Public Works.
    • Ministry of Defense: Secretariats of the Army and the Navy.
    • The only Ministry without Secretariats would be the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but the Chancellor was already a powerful position.
    Each Secretariat was to enforce its policies and the laws of Congress through a system of Intendants, one assigned to every department of the Republic. Since the powers of the intendant were limited to Federal policy from a national perspective, they could not be chosen by the locals, though in practice Intendants were often assigned based on the recommendation of local Department Assemblies or Congressmen. The exception was some areas where more politically motivated appointees were selected instead, like Caracas where the Liberal administration sought to create a base for itself.

    diez.jpg

    An Intendant of Indigenous Affairs meeting with a community

    To aid the intendants, some Secretariats could appoint commissioners (comisarios in Spanish), one to each canton or more if the population justified it. The Secretariats of Education, Taxes, and Posts were allowed to appoint commissioners. All intendants and commissioners within a district would be overseen by a Superintendent that would in turn report to the Secretary. This new system naturally increased the Federal bureaucracy by hundreds of new public officials. Trying to prevent the system from becoming a patronage machine and maintain honesty, Liberals had several requirements to be appointed an Intendant, including minimal requirements of education and a test by a specialized board.

    But the unintended effect was that these new posts were barred to a large section of Colombians, being practically limited to the middle class and upwards. In contrast, positions such as postmaster were often awarded to men of humble origins in the United States. This of course disproportionately affected racial minorities and the poor, who were unable to elect one of their own and instead were ruled by middle-class or rich outsiders. Some change had taken place, as poor men were for the first time elected to leadership posts like local Juntas or even as Mayors, but Department Prefects, State Governors and other offices remained overwhelmingly in the hands of middle-class and rich Colombians. The Liberal Revolution, concluded the German revolutionary Karl Marx, was a bourgeois movement that had simply elevated the Colombian middle class to power while the poor proletariat was still largely barred from public office.

    In truth, some startling changes had already taken place. The 1864 midterms saw many poor men elected to public office throughout the nation, including racial minorities. One Ecuadorian legislator complained how it was an “humiliation” to see “rustic Indians prancing around in alpargatas and ponchos in these halls of legislation”. What really mattered here was not that they were indigenous legislators, because many lawmakers had partial or even complete indigenous ancestry, but that they keep their culture and their ties to their communities. Never before, no matter their ancestry, had a lawmaker introduced bills dealing exclusively with indigenous issues; now, these new legislators tried to grant their communities more independence and protect their lands from seizure through laws.

    Thus, the greatest achievement of the Liberal Revolution is that thanks to universal suffrage the poor finally could place men in office who truly represented them and reflected their desires and aspirations. But overall, the Liberal Revolution helped the respectable Colombian middle class the more. No important Liberal politician could call himself a man of the people, and even the few who had been born in poverty regarded their origins as a shame rather than an honor. The American Senator Lincoln could pronounce himself the rail-splitter candidate and his campaigns featured references to him being born in a log cabin; Senator Naranjo regarded his birth as the son of poor farmers to be an embarrassment and much preferred to talk of his achievements after he had escaped that poverty.

    Liberals liked to believe that simple honest work was enough for any man to improve his condition. But they also thought that certain conditions had to be changed for such social mobility to be achieved. Thus, a furry of laws were passed early into the first session to assure the success of the revolution. One of the most important ones was the Law of Education of 1862, which sought to improve the educative system of Colombia. The positions of Intendente and Comisiario de Educación were created to make sure the law was actually enforced, for one of the most serious problems had been that many children never went to school despite the fact that it was compulsory under the law. The new Law of Education created several new schools and universities; declared that education had to be accessible by everyone no matter his class, nationality or race; waived the price of schools for the poor, establishing a governmental contribution to the school system and a new system of scholarships to allow the deserving to access to further education.

    vieja%2Bescuela%2B1.jpg

    Education in rural Colombia

    The law, of course, was not perfect. Time and time again the Intendents found problems when it came to actually making the children go to school, for many parents needed the labor of all their children in home farms or simply did not desire for them to be away. One commissioner apparently had to flee for his life in a Boyacá town where the people accused him of being a kidnapper. In some parts of rural Colombia, often referred to as las provincias, only “one single miserable little school” could be built, forcing children to walk many kilometers to reach them. The law also required girls to be educated, but some women reportedly opposed this, believing it was not a woman’s place to go to school, much to the consternation of Colombian feminists.

    The recruitment of teachers and the raising of funds proved problematic as well. Schools had been previously funded by the community itself, but this naturally meant that poor areas had the worse schools, if they had any schools at all. Republican equality clearly demanded that all schools receive the same funding, but there were bitter protests by wealthy communities who dreaded being “reduced to the level of provincial ignorance”. Ultimately, it was decided that all schools would receive the same funding from the national government, but they could also be funded by the communities or the state governments. The result was that wealthy schools only received more money while the poor institutions had to rely on the national grant, which was a respectable 1 million piastras per year (some 2 million USD) that, nonetheless, was often not enough.

    The plight of Chocó’s intendant shows this. “It is impossible to recruit any teachers for our schools”, he wrote to the Secretary of Education. “No one wants to come to this forbidding territory for such a low reward”. The Secretary was furious because there was, reportedly, a surplus of teachers in Santafe but no one could be convinced to go to Chocó unless a high pay was offered, and even then they tended to leave after a short time. Apparently, a bill to forcefully draft teachers was considered at one time, but it was dismissed as unpractical. Consequently, schools in many marginal areas spend their entire budget in securing teachers and were unable to make many necessary repairs or acquisitions. “The children learn in a stable and write in mud,” wrote a Panama intendant. “Some days I don’t have enough for bread, let alone books or ink.” Some resorted to “barely literate” people because the budget was needed for other reasons, but this was not much better when it came to the quality of education.

    The education system also wasn’t completely adequate when it came to racial minorities either. The anachronistic concept of pluriculturalism hadn’t been adopted, of course, and most Colombians, liberal or conservative, agreed that it was for the benefit of racial minorities to learn Spanish and integrate to Colombian culture, and that made the school an instrument of assimilation. Thus no efforts at bilingual education were made, and instead immigrants and the indigenous were forced to learn Spanish. Some noted that immigrants who spoke English or German would be “sweetly taught”, while indigenous children were hit with hard boards “to impose a civilized language” on them. Most schools followed a curriculum that emphasized the equality of all Colombians, claimed racism did not exist, and sung the praises of European culture and Miranda, Santander and Bolivar while naught was taught about the history of the Inca or the bloody legacy of slavery bar some romantic idealization of the “noble and savage Indian” and praise for Santander for liquidating slavery.

    Despite these failures, the law of education still managed to improve the national educative system. The greatest show of its success is how 75% of Colombians were literate by the turn of the century, almost double the 1860 rate. Many prestigious universities, such as the Universidad del Litoral in Guayaquil or the Politécnico Nacional at Santafe were also created. Liberal lawmakers were quick to declare the law “an enormous success” and gleefully talked of the “unquenchable thirst for knowledge” of the Colombian people. For example, it was observed that many illiterate adults willingly assisted to school in the hopes of educating themselves, and for a while reading newspapers out loud so that the illiterate could inform themselves of political affairs was a profitable position. Education did much to improve the nation because it allowed for greater political participation, more economic opportunity, and a more respectful and fair culture.

    One of the aspects of education that Liberals wanted to reform was the role of the Church. Previously, some communities only had Sunday schools taught by priests “more interested in transmitting the word of God than true knowledge”. Not all Sunday schools were liquidated, but whenever possible intendants insisted on replacing them with more secular establishments where a measure of Catholic values was still taught but the doctrine, overall, was much less important. This was part of a wider anti-clerical campaign the Liberals started with the express objective of riding the country of “fanatism”, and that probably produced the most bitter reactions to the Liberal Revolution.

    E31mision-ninos-r.jpg

    Both religion and tradition remained important parts of education despite Liberal efforts

    On the surface, most liberals since the Independence Wars avowed themselves firm and faithful Catholics, but there was worrying anticlerical undercurrent in Colombian liberalism from Santander to Noboa. The Man of Laws had taken away the diezmo and the clerical fuero and forced the Church to educate children, but the priests retained much influence as the only true national institution in the first days of the Republic. Its power had waned somewhat, but priests still remained pillars in local communities, where Churches were spaces of recreation, advice, and education. Thus, priests retained much sway over the mass of Colombians, something that Liberals denounced as “fanatism” that chained the nation to “effete tradition.” Noboa and the Liberals quickly started an anti-clerical campaign in the view of reducing clerical power.

    The most important was a Ley de Cultos that attempted to establish true religious freedom in Colombia. The principle already existed in theory, but in practice non-Catholics were often denied a role in public administration and public exhibitions of other faiths were prohibited. The only ones who had the right were Protestant Britons, through an international treaty. The previous Civil Rights decree had prohibited discrimination based on religion, but the new law expanded the scope and made it an actuality. Furthermore, while some books had been prohibited previously due to how they offended the Church, no book was to be censured now. Finally, the last remnants of the fuero were destroyed, with ecclesiastics now being truly equal before the law. Civil Divorce under a few causes was established, and a Registro Civil created so that public administrators and not priests registered births, defunctions and marriages. Some of the more “ultra” measures such as heavy taxes or laws regulating religious practice were rejected, but altogether the Liberal Revolution sought the separation of Church and State as far as possible.

    National Conservatives, aligning themselves as the party of the Church and the defenders of the one true faith, took part in many of the bitter protests against the law. If the law was a great success for urban Liberals, it was considered an undue assault on faith by rural Colombians, who trusted their local priests more than far away bureaucrats. They argued that divorce was tampering with a divine institution, being judged under the same terms was a degradation for the clergy, and the permission to publish anything was incendiary heresy. Religious freedom was denounced as an invite for “foreign heretics” to settle in Colombia and overturn the precepts of the Church, presumably enticing good Catholics to sin and damnation. Priests in las provincias too took part in these denunciations – there’s a famous tale of one priest that almost started a rebellion due to how acerbic his attacks on the government were. Most of the time, instead of rebellion, the result was that in Catholic areas, even those of Federalist leanings, became fervent in their support for the PCN.

    After it became a party issue, the Liberals responded with attacks of their own, calling religion the tool of reaction and tyranny, and asserting that getting rid of “fanatism” would help Colombia in the path of progress. But the Conservatives gave just as hard as they got. All religions except Catholicism were attacked as hostile elements to be suppressed: Protestants were “powerless deniers of the truth”, Hinduists were “servile and degraded”, Muslims were “barbarous enemies of Christendom”. Even a group as marginal as Jews, of which only a handful resided even in cosmopolitan Caracas, were seen as “greed impersonated”. Cauca and Guayas both tried to enact laws requiring immigrants to convert to Catholicism, it being struck down in the first state and voted down by Liberals in the second. Cundinamarca passed such a draconian censure law that it was compared with the Inquisition. And a Congressman was formally censured when he intimated that the President was the tool of “foreign heretics”, while on the flipside Chancellor Armas was almost impeached because he failed to appear at an important religious event.

    The religious issue helps to explain why the National Conservatives, the party of rich industrialists and hacendados, was the one that absorbed most of the votes of rural Colombians who found little benefit in foreign commerce, saw the expansion of bureaucracy as unwelcomed overreach, and were fervent Catholics. The end result was a political realignment, as some states previously dominated by Federalists now became fully Conservative, such as Cauca, where previous Federalist control gave way to overwhelming Conservative majorities. “The country of godos and royalists”, Senator Cevallos commented, “is once again aligned against progress”, this being a reference to how Pasto once resisted the Patriots and had to be subdued by Bolivar. Now it was resisting this new Revolution, and it was joined by a substantial Catholic presence in Cundinamarca, Azuay, Chocó, and other states that moved away from the Liberals.

    corpus_600.jpg

    Religion remained an important part of the lives of Colombians

    An especially shocking case was Hispaniola, where memories from the Grand Crisis had almost liquidated the National Conservatives there. In this state, racism and classism mixed with nativism to produce a potent conservative reaction. The main factor was, of course, the presence of the black nation of Haiti on the other half of the island. After the annexation of Hispaniola and the victory over the Haitian invasion, Colombians found it hard to actually exploit sugar and tobacco without some kind of forced labor. Trying to take the lands the Haitians claimed would just spark rebellion that Colombia could not really subdue. Slavery was out of the question, but a quasi-serfdom formed by Haitians who signed exploitative contracts with Colombian land owners on the other half of the island started. This, of course, required a measure of free borders so that Colombians could own land in Haiti and Haitians could work in Colombia.

    But the free border was only accepted insofar as it secured cheap labor, for the Dominicans had no interest in allowing Haitians to settle in their half. As a result, Haitians were often violently expulsed once the work season ended. Some crops were, naturally, year-round and thus the laborers could not be expulsed, but the state legislature still enacted several laws that forbid them from enjoying the full privileges of nationality. The result was that there were several Haitian-Colombians who had been born and raised in the Colombian half, but had fewer rights that recently arrived Europeans. Wherever Haitians protested, the response was overwhelming force, often with the participation of the Federal Army of the Caribbean. Thus, the policy of exploiting Haiti and its people was not merely a state quirk, but a national policy focused on maintaining Haiti under Colombian control, any attempt to claim rights being denounced as a race war.

    This reflected in local politics, where despite a large afro population, all important positions were occupied by White elites. At most, “respectable”, that is, wealthy mulattoes could find some political power. Even Dominican Liberals made it clear that when they talked of the rights of labor or equality under the law, they meant it for Colombians, not for Haitians, who were seen as a “feeble and foreign” element. Some Liberals were, in fact, the most acrimonious in their denunciations, talking of Haitians, who made an important part of the labor force, as “lazy, licentious, irresponsible, pagan creatures” who “poisoned the culture and race of our fair island”. Yet, Haitians and Afro-Dominicans recognized that the Liberal premise of equality before the law naturally also concerned them and implied a recognition of them as equals with the wealthy elites who dominated the state.

    Perturbed by this sudden militancy, Dominicans voted out the Liberal government and elected, for the first time in decades, a National Conservative Governor and Legislature. The new administration quickly drafted a series of discriminatory laws that denied the right of any Haitian of holding Colombian citizenship or owning land in Hispaniola, disposed increased penalties for common crimes when committed by “non-nationals” (including, famously, the death penalty for stealing livestock) and disposes that any Haitian not under a labor contract should be expulsed immediately. This infamous law code soon received the nickname of Parsley Laws (Leyes de Perejil), because Hispaniola militiamen asked people to pronounce the word to see if they were Dominican or Haitian. After it passed in late 1864, militiamen and police started to forcibly remove Haitians and even their children, though, according to the Constitution, they were Colombian citizens.

    The Parsley Laws caused great controversy in the Colombian main, where newspapers denounced them as “Hispaniola’s Negro Code” and “an attack against the sacred rights of humanity”. President Noboa called the laws “cruelty disguised as legislation” and warned the Dominicans that his government was “not afraid to use the iron rod”, directing the Federal troops there to “protect the rights and property of all citizens”, resulting in scuffles between militiamen and the government. The Congress quickly passed a bill declaring the Parsley Laws to be unconstitutional and ordering the state not to execute them. The Congress had never before intervened with state laws like that, but the rationale was that there was no time to wait for a judicial opinion when the rights of Haitians were being violated at the moment.

    images

    Despite its extreme diversity, Dominicans shunned the Black Haitians and wanted to whiten the island

    The intervention of a Haitian woman who had been separated from her children and had had her land confiscated moved many Congressmen to the point of “sobbing like schoolchildren”, and controversy surrounding the law ended. In the first test vote, the entire Hispaniola legation bar Senator Bustamante voted against the bill; afterwards, as the overwhelming condemnation their state suffered became apparent, the legation voted for it. Hispaniola stopped its abuses, but it would not formally repeal the law until a judicial decision in the Court of Appeals of the Eastern District declared the Parsley Laws unconstitutional. Neither did the state return seized lands, and only but a handful of Haitians received the Federal compensation of 10 piastras, a practical pittance. “The government has arrested the murderer”, said Bustamante, “but it has not offered help to his victim. What’s the use of throwing a criminal to the gallows if his victims remain bleeding on the ground?”

    The Parsley Laws were merely the most salient example of reactionary legislation enacted in the wake of the Liberal Revolution. In Venezuela, the Eastern District struck down an infamous vagrancy law that sought to force the poor to work in factories or plantations, from where they could then be leased to work. Furthermore, the Revolution did nothing to remedy the over centralization around Caracas or break the power of the wealthy industrial/planter elite of the state. The result was that most local officials, the ones who actually affected the day to day lives of the people, were appointed from Caracas. This is because while in the United States officials like Sheriffs or judges were elected, in Colombia they all were appointed, thus limiting local democracy and opportunities for poor men even more. The few who did obtain political power were often the victims of political chicanery. For instance, the pardo leader Gustavo Burneo was disenfranchised and disqualified from public office just before the sectional elections of 1864, where he was expected to win the position of prefect. The cause was that “respected citizens” had testified that he was seen frequenting “a house of ill fame”. If that was enough to disenfranchise him, Burneo commented, then “all the great men of the state, nay, the Republic, ought to renounce their positions at once.”

    Some weirdly progressive legislation was enacted by Venezuela, such as the abolition of the death penalty, and Governor Salvador Araujo, Sepulveda’s hand-picked successor, did appoint some poor men to minor positions within the state. The situation was more dire in Cauca, where, the local Intendant of Elections reported that “sneezing in public or failing to take off your hat in the presence of a lady” was enough for a man to lose the vote, for he was charged with the criminal offense of “disturbing the public order” and being a convicted felon resulted in disenfranchisement. To be sure, the Intendent threw away most of these convictions, and the law would be invalidated by the Court of Appeals of the Central District, but it couldn’t be denied that “the rights of the poor man are trampled and sneered at by the local aristocracy”.

    If the Liberal Revolution only opened political power to the middle classes instead of the poor man, it also failed to open economic opportunities for all Colombians. Most Liberals broadly agreed that the only thing holding men back from economic success was unequal legislation and how laws that did guarantee liberty and equality were often unenforced. Now that the Liberal Revolution had “demolished the last remnants of caste and privilege” and “positive equality is a national reality”, most Liberals firmly believed that the economic success of a man was purely dependent on his “will to work, his earnestness and his honesty.” The Liberal Revolution did nothing to attack more systematic and profound disadvantages, and as the Noboa administration advanced and a large part of the poor remained poor, the Liberals would turn to blame them for their failure to elevate themselves to respectability.

    El-horror-de-comer-en-Caracas.jpg

    Caracas was emblematic of the inequalities of Colombia, for it was both the wealthiest city of the Republic and had also a large population of poor paupers and laborers

    Nothing was done about the fact that the Banco Agricola preferred to give land to European immigrants than to poor Colombians, or how many agricultural laborers were forced into yearly contracts which, if they left their work behind the year was over, then they would forfeit their pay. Proposals to limit work hours or establish a minimum salary were opposed by Liberals as a source of “demoralization” and undue meddling with business pushed forward by “foolish ultras” within state legislatures. The President even saw fit to personally plead with the Santafe City Council not to establish a program of subsidized housing, which he declared would be a “boom to laziness” that would only encourage “vagrancy and crime.” “Let men work for their own living and toil for their own houses”, the President wrote, “only then can virtue be assured.” Colombia, consequently, followed a pattern of widening inequality just like Mexico and the United States, even as industry and commerce continued to grow.

    The men who suffered the most from inequality were, of course, racial minorities, who were much poorer than the average Colombian and had less opportunity to advance socially. A few Federal positions were given to minorities, but overall, they were reserved for Mestizo Colombians. The highest position ever achieved by a minority was the pardo Juan Antonio Pavon, assistant to the Secretary of Education, a largely symbolical position that held little power. Similarly, within the Congress the new minority lawmakers had little capacity to push forward bills, important positions being denied to them. The poverty of their constituencies and the fact that many of them lacked relations of friendship and kin with other politicians reduced their influence even more. Altogether, most power in Colombia remained with middle- and upper-class Mestizos and Whites.

    Protests in the name of true material equality were often quieted down by Colombians who insisted that racism did not and could not exist in Colombia. Blanqueamiento continued alive and well, most Conservatives accepted equality as a way to prevent race war until mestizaje and immigration resulted in a Lily-White nation. Some even expressed the idea that Colombians, “the mix of the noble Indian, intelligent European and strong African” were a new and improved race. It was true that legal equality was a great achievement in a continent where two slave empires existed, but Colombians seem to have simply decided that racism had been eradicated, poverty was the fault of the poor themselves, and that attempts to increase racial or class consciousness were unnecessary, incendiary, and even downright unpatriotic.

    Despite these misgivings, the Liberal Revolution did achieve its objectives of improving the wealth and power of the nation. Intendants of Public Works helped to expand infrastructure, laying more railways in 1862-1864 than during the entire Decade of Sorrow and also laying down telegraph cables between Hispaniola and the mainland. Intendants of Taxes streamlines and improved administration and Intendants of Elections and Education helped along to protect the rights of Colombians. The Intendant of Education of Chocó, despite his lack of resources, managed to fund schools for many small communities and he’s even nowadays lauded as a hero by the largely impoverished state. The Intendants of Education of Cauca too engaged in highly successful experiments in bilingual education, protecting the children from physical abuse and even taking part in social welfare by giving out lunch to students. The only position that did not fulfill its objectives was the Intendant of Indigenous Affairs, often given out as a patronage plum to “men of little talent or sense”.

    68919_1.jpg

    The Liberal Revolution was, before anything, a bourgeois movement that opened the door to the middle-class.

    The Liberal Revolution, overall, was a great event in national history, resulting in true and meaningful legal equality and a purer exercise of democracy in Colombia. It did not remedy systematic inequalities or eradicate racism, but the achievements of the Revolution when it comes to ushering Colombia into 19th century modernity cannot be understated or forgotten.
     
    Last edited:
    Chapter 64: From the Andes to the Caribbean
  • By 1858, the island of Cuba was ripe for revolt. The island has long been ignored by Spain, and reforms were urgently needed. But aside from these economic grievances and the ideals that conducted many of the Cuban leaders, the island’s people were also galvanized by the multiple filibuster expeditions that tried to seize it for one power or the other. Most of these expeditions came from the most conspicuous of the powers that vied for Cuba, the United States. Specifically, the Southerners.

    The South was at the moment engaged in a deadly battle for control of the American West, yet this did not stifle their desire for Caribbean expansion. Slavery, Southerners believed, would uplift some territories, such as Colombian Hispaniola or Central America. But their main ambition was over Cuba, an island where the cruel injustice was still alive and well. Southern desire for Cuba had economic, political and strategic dimensions. Not only was the island rich in many resources, but it would also “function as one most welcome auxiliary of the Slave States” in their battle against Northern anti-slavery. Furthermore, by its controlling position in the Gulf of Mexico, Cuba would allow the American Navy to trap Mexico and prevent the aid of any foreign power from reaching them – thus assuring American victory in the case of another war.

    The riches of Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Puerto Rico; the tropical wonders of Central America; and the little developed but ripe for taking Mexican provinces in the north were strong temptations. A Mississippian toasted "To the Southern republic bounded on the north by the Mason and Dixon line and on the south by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, including Cuba and all other lands on our southern shore”, while the northern John L. O’Sullivan expressed that the US wanted “more, more, more!”, until “the entire boundless continent is ours.” A Virginian expressed that he saw a “nobler destiny for the South . . . than awaits any other people” in the development of “the labor of the African under the direction of the intelligent Southerner” in the Caribbean and South America.

    Winfield Scott’s victory in the election threw cold water on all these enterprises. Having alienated large swathes of Northern public opinion with his support for compromise, Scott had precious little political capital to spend. The South, already bitterly opposed to his administration, was not a prime target for largesse in that regard. Besides, even if he had a united country behind him, Scott was a Liberal who opposed expansion and was even less likely to back in the aftermath of a divisive and bloody war. Yet this did no quiet American ambition. Jefferson Davis thus declared that the Gulf of Mexico was “a basin of water belonging to the United States” and his fellow Mississippi Senator Albert Gallatin Brown declared: “I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it"

    Diplomacy was an unpromising path. Scott and his foreign ministers were opposed to it, and Spain would “rather see Cuba sink into the piths of hell than see it fall into the hands of the United States”, according to its blunt minister resident. Some Southerners went behind Scott’s back and tried to make deals for buying Cuba. Alexander Stephens, a Liberal during the war who had now deserted Scott, compared it with peddlers approaching Queen Isabel and asking “Have you got any islands for sale today, madam?” Scott, already embarrassed by some filibuster attacks on Northern Mexico, was obviously displeased by these efforts and had the guilty parts prosecuted under the Logan Act. Yet he didn’t act fast enough, allowing these would-be revolutionaries to pen a highly controversial “Cuba Manifesto”.

    5e5fd935713c7541f394be50081b5525.jpg

    The Knights of the Golden Circle was one of the many political organizations pushing for expansion

    The Manifesto declared that Cuba was an “essential part” of the “family of states” that formed the US, and that the American nation would never allow Cuba “to be Africanized and become a second St. Domingo (Haiti), with all its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our own neighboring shores.” This was a reference to how the Cuban colonial government had banned the slave trade, supported mixed marriages and allowed Blacks to serve in the militia. Such measures were frankly seen by the Americans as some kind of horrific “Africanization” and a prelude to White massacre. Thus to save Cuba, it had to become American. If Spain still refused to sell, then "by every law, human and Divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain."

    The Manifesto greatly embarrassed the Scott Administration and caused furor, not only in the South but throughout Latin America. It was denounced as a “Manifesto of the Brigands”, a plea “to grasp, to rob, to murder”. The New York Evening Post called it “atrocious”, while Illinois Senator Abraham Lincoln expressed disgust at the idea of more territory being taken for “the unjust expansion of slave labor.” His fellow Liberal, Seward, was more imperialistic, but while he supported the right of the US to the Caribbean and “distant islands on either ocean”, he expressed that such expansion had to be for the benefit of “civilization and the rights of man.” Scott himself disclaimed it being any official policy, but this weakened his image and prestige even more. “Cuba has killed Old Fuss and Feathers”, said Southerners with glee.

    Seward’s reaction shows that many Americans were not opposed to expansion per se, but dreaded war and were especially wary of one for the benefit of slavery. Latin American reactions were even harsher. Mexican Prime Minister Marco Antonio Salazar said with evident disgust that the Americans were once again “engaged in a campaign of destruction, rapine and murder . . . that will see not only Cuba but all of humanity as victims.” The Mexican Parliament passed a resolution declaring that Cuba ought to “be completely free from any form of subjugation, be it slavery or a colonial relationship with any power, American or European” There were some Mexicans who dreamed of a “Kingdom of Cuba” subjected to Mexico’s crown, however. Nonetheless, Salazar, the head of an isolationist party that proclaimed “peace and order” as national objectives, did not relish the prospect of a war, especially due to the weak Mexican Navy, and instead favored an independent Cuba that, he thought, would naturally gravitate to Mexico.

    The Colombian reaction was more panicky by contrast. Though the Manifesto did not mention Hispaniola, most Colombians interpreted that the seizing of their island would be the natural next step. The Manifesto was at least one of the main motivations for a Law that expanded coastal defenses and provided for an expansion of the Army of the Caribbean. But the Colombian reaction is more owed to the fact that the South American nation also harbored strong ambitions over Cuba, and in the Manifesto they saw an American declaration that they would seize it now. As a result, in Congress there were war proposals, in a secret session. One Senator even declared loudly that he would resign his seat and join the Army as soon as war was declared. President Noboa was informed of the debates by Senator Schwimmer-Hernandez, who became basically the representative of the administration before Congress. It can be assumed, then, that Schwimmer’s declaration that “Cuba’s liberty should be safeguarded from the lackeys of slavery” came from Noboa himself, though that did not directly imply war.

    The issue was rendered moot when Scott disclaimed the Manifesto. But this Caribbean “Great Game” continued due to the unofficial actions of American filibusterers. Ironically, one of the first was born in Colombia. Narciso Lopez had been forcibly recruited by Jose Tomas Boves during the Colombian War for Independence, but he continued serving the Spanish even after Boves was defeated by Paez. When the Spanish were expulsed from Venezuela, Lopez left with them and would later serve in different political and military posts. He eventually joined the anti-Spanish faction of the island, and when a conspiracy was broken by the Spanish authorities, he fled the island towards Colombia.

    narciso-lopez-y-bandera.jpg

    Narciso Lopez created, alongside Miguel Teurbe Tolón, one of the flags of Cuba

    Lopez hoped to obtain military and economic support from Colombia, and thought that being born there would give him a foot in the door. Yet, he found an effectively chilly reception. Arriving in the midst of the Decade of Sorrow, the Colombian government was too preoccupied with domestic problems to entertain foreign adventures. Moreover, Lopez was denounced as a traitor and a royalist. A Colombian businessman even advised him to stay out of Venezuela, where he would likely be lynched. Disgusted with “the weakness and folly” of the Colombians to the point that he could not “believe that I was born in the same country as these cowards”, Lopez went to the United States. But the reception there was not any better. President Polk, to be sure, did support Cuban annexation, but he was engaged in a war with Mexico and could not start another. Lopez’s timing was also unfortunate, for he arrived just after Salazar’s victory at Veracruz, a low point for American morale. Understandably, few Americans were sure of the chances of “pulling a Texas” in Cuba when it wasn’t clear whether they had done so successfully in the actual Texas.

    Lopez bid his time, and would finally find the support he wanted in 1855. Scott had just been elected and Southerners felt snuffed. Anxious of acquiring more land, they quickly “opened their purses and their hearts” to Lopez, who seemed like a dashing, romantic adventurer to them. Lopez was even serenaded by Cubans in New York, and received a hero’s welcome in New Orleans. But the first expedition ended still-born, for the publicity was so great that Scott had no option but to intervene and stop it. Indicted for violating the Neutrality Act, Lopez was acquitted quickly – no Southern jury would convict one of their champions after all. Lopez’s next expedition was done with more secrecy, yet Spanish authorities had got wind of the plans. When Lopez’s filibusterers arrived, a Spanish army was waiting for him. Almost 500 men perished in the Lopez expedition, their leader being executed by garrote on La Havana.

    The result of the Lopez’s expedition was a series of riots in several American cities, that saw open calls for war with Spain. Most damningly, the Spanish consulate in New Orleans was sacked, the Rojigualda inside thorn to shreds and a portrait of Queen Isabel defaced. The Minister of Spain to the US warned that Spain “could do no less than sustain, at all hazards, the honor of the Castilian flag.” Spain demanded compensation to her citizens and an end to filibustering. Despite hawkish calls for war by several officials who wanted to “seize Cuba at once!”, Scott limited himself to friendly overtures towards Spain. Weakening the Americans’ position was the fact that the State Department had several times insisted on the right of any country to try foreign filibusters, and also the fact that Spain had 173 prisoners. The Scott administration finally managed to calm down the furious Spaniards, and the Queen pardoned the prisoners. But Her Majesty made it clear that this was based on the promise that there would be no further filibusterers. The promise was soon broken.

    In this case, a completely American man was involved. John A. Quitman, a veteran of the Mexican War who had faced Mexican steel at Baton Rouge and Louisiana. A fiery expansionist and fire-eating protector of Southern rights, Quitman wished for Cuba to belong to the US and rejected any appeals to peace and reason as cowardice. Not even Lopez’s death could stop him, and when he toured the South asking for support, he received a warm welcome. He failed to recruit the help of war heroes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who had fought in Louisiana and Veracruz respectively. Consequently, Quitman led the expedition himself. The news caused both enthusiasm and horror within the US Congress, and when Senator Slidell, who had taken part in La Havana Peace Talks, introduced a motion to suspend the Neutrality Act, the debate devolved once again into violence. Memorably, one Representative seized the Speaker’s mace and tried to attack a colleague with it.

    Despite the fanfare, Quitman’s expedition met the same grim fate as Lopez’s. Like Lopez, he reached Cuba, took a small town and was chased away by Spanish troops, who quickly executed him as soon as he was captured. Quitman carried some papers showing the involvement of some local Cuban planters plus the “Cuban Junta” of New York, which had promised to name him “Supreme Commander of the Cuban Army” if he managed to start a revolution. Since the Spanish already suspected that the filibusterers were aided by local Cubans, a harsh crackdown came soon. The most immediate result was that several reform proposals were shelved, and further anti-slavery measures were taken. It’s important to stress that these measures did not respond to humanitarian concern, but were an attempt to divide the Black and White populations, preventing would-be patriots from recruiting Black slaves with a promise of freedom.

    1597271131485.jpeg

    John A. Quitman, Governor of Mississippi and would-be Filibusterer

    The implications of this anti-slavery movement, economic downturn and harsh crackdowns on political activity did much to alienate the Cubans. The death of reform as a political possibility too caused great discontent, and pushed many towards extreme measures, including the path of independence. Many Cubans especially felt that their hard-earned money was not being invested in the island, instead being taken to Spain to finance quixotic colonial adventures or Queen Isabel’s conflicts against Liberal forces within Spain. This last point was especially grating, since many Spanish Liberals exposed a pro-colonial reform mentality, including Cuban representation and economic progress. This meant that, effectively, Cuban money was used to put down Cuban aspirations. Among many in Eastern Cuba, most notably Francisco Vicente Aguilera and Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, a conspiracy in favor of independence began.

    Meanwhile, the bitter failure of the Lopez and Quitman expeditions resulted in adventures towards other lands. This time, the victim would be the Federal Republic of Central America. The guilty part was a veteran filibusterer, William Walker, who had already taken part in a failed expedition to Mexican California, barely escaping with his life. “The gray-eyed man of destiny” was able to easily charm the Southerners into thinking of him as a romantic figure. American aspirations over Central America were as old as those towards Cuba. The main reason was because most Americans thought of the region as a rich opportunity for the development of resources, most notably fruit, sugar, coffee, and, of course, cotton. The prominent Blair family even believed that Central America ought to be “our India”.

    Interests in a possible inter-oceanic canal also abounded, in this case represented by the Vanderbilt company. Most Americans regarded Colombian control of Panama, the most used overland route for reaching the Pacific, as humiliating. After all, as Vanderbilt pointed out, Colombian (or Britain) could easily close the route to American shipping. This had indeed happened during the war, when Colombia did not allow American troops or supplies transit but permitted the passage of French goods, including bullets and shells that would then be used against the Americans. By seizing Central America, the United States would be able to build a canal and thus become the masters of the trade. It would, too, give them a strategic advantage over both Colombia and Mexico. The expedition also sought to expand slavery, allowing Southerners to establish new profitable plantations without competition, and, it was thought, without resistance.

    But Walker had unwittingly walked right into a geopolitical mess. The Central American Republic, chronically instable, had changed hands several times, going from the Spanish to independence to the Mexican Empire to independence again. Even then, Colombia and Mexico were fiercely competing for influence within the area. The British and French were also involved, both powers also interesting in the prospect of a canal. The British, in particular, were wary of growing French influence within Mexico. That’s why they had clung to the Mosquito Coast, trying to set it up as an “independent” Kingdom. It soon suffered an American shelling and a Mexican expedition, plus this earned Colombian ire for they considered the territory theirs. Britain finally ceded the land, with the understanding that they would keep their economic and naval interests while Colombia would shoulder the costs of upkeep and defense. It had the added bonuses of mollifying Colombia (thus guaranteeing a British stake in a possible Panama canal) and making the French pause, for conflict between Latin American nations went against their interests.

    Nevertheless, conflict between the Golden Eagle and the Andean Condor over the weak Central American Republic continued. Formed by a revolution started during the American war and led by Francisco Morazan and Rafael Carrera, the Republic had become independent but it remained divided. Carrera and Morazan’s brief alliance ended quickly, as Morazan thought of Carrera as a despot and favored the federalization of the Republic, while Carrera thought that would lead to weakness and maintained a staunch conservatism. The feud would eventually result in a Civil War, where several foreign powers had stakes. Morazan received support from the Anglo-Colombian alliance, while the Franco-Mexican one supported Carrera. It was in the middle of this conflict that Walker arrived, hoping to gain support for a third, pro-American faction that would carry the day.

    walker.jpg

    William Walker

    This third faction failed to materialize when Walker invaded Central America in 1858. To do this, he had to pass through the Colombian Mosquito Coast, which caused a panic as resident thought they were being invaded. Walker’s thousand filibusterers, almost all of them American, found out that the United States was very unpopular among the residents of the area. Certainly, neither Colombia nor Mexico were very loved, and perhaps Walker would have found success if liberation from them was offered. But Walker offered annexation to the United States. The filibusterer did not help his case, for the proclaimed himself President of Central America and declared slavery legal once again. This made it clear to everyone what Walker’s true objectives were.

    Salazar immediately jumped into action, sending troops to Central America to expulse Walker. The Carrera regime quickly approved the movement retroactively. A united Mexican-Central American Army would over the next few months destroy Walker’s troops. His attempt to escape through the Colombian Mosquito Coast was failed by the presence of Colombian soldiers, who openly stated that they would hang Walker if he dared thread on Colombian soil again. Captured by the coalition, “the outlaw Walker” was quickly executed, the great majority of his troops sharing his unhappy fate. Only a tiny portion where spared by the intervention of the British consul. The handful of survivors arrived in New Orleans, decimated by disease and war. By that time, the political crisis in the United States, intensified by another election, ended up further filibustering.

    It’s interesting to note that before the Walker invasion, Colombia had no qualms about moving troops into Central America, permission or not. Yet in this instance they refrained from doing so. This fact points out to how Colombia was attempting to reproach the Mexican Empire and gain their backing for imperialist expeditions into the Caribbean. Colombian imperialism and exceptionalism had a curiously unpartisan characteristic. Whereas in the United States it was associated mostly with the Democrats, in Colombia it transcended party lines and found support within National Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Presidents Hurtado and Noboa, though bitter political enemies, were both in favor of Caribbean expansion. The greatest show of this is the architect of Colombia’s Caribbean policy in the 1850’s, Zulia’s tall and thin Adolfo Dominguez.

    Dominguez was a rarity for the Decade of Sorrow, an era of extreme partisanship, for he never really affiliated with any party except briefly with the Federalists. This association allowed him to be appointed Chancellor during the presidency of Luis Bonifaz (1854-1858). Quickly enough, Dominguez showed that he really did not care about partisan conflicts, and even as the Federalist Party crumbled around him, he remained committed to foreign affairs. Some of the few achievements of the Bonifaz administration (mediating the Caste War in Central America, negotiating the transfer of the Mosquito Coast and smoothing relationships with the US) were a result of Dominguez capable administration. Thus, when President Font was elected, he had no trouble retaining the apolitical Dominguez, as long as he continued pushing for Colombia’s interests. Even when Font passed away and Hurtado succeeded him, Dominguez remained, making him the only Colombian man to serve under three different Presidents and three different parties.

    In that era of nationalism and imperialism, Colombians from all parties and backgrounds could agree that their nation was destined to hold dominion over the entire Caribbean, including Cuba and Puerto Rico. For instance, votes regarding Caribbean almost always commanded unanimity, despite sharp divisions on other issues. By 1860, a Colombian policy that encouraged Cuban revolt and pro-Colombian movements in the island and prepared for possible war had crystalized. Such a policy would be benefited from Mexican cooperation, and, truth to be told, Colombians had already decided that the United States was a greater threat and that a defensive alliance would be mutually beneficial. Charged with executing this policy from the Font administration onwards was the talented Colombian minister in Mexico, Juan Rafael Muñoz.

    agustincodazzi.jpg

    Adolfo Dominguez

    Muñoz was a very inspired choice. The son of a Mexican woman and a Colombian businessman, Muñoz was born and raised in Costa Rica, though he often traveled to Mexico. As a result, he had greater familiarity with Mexican customs and ways than most other members of the diplomatic corps. Muñoz quickly used his easy charm to endear himself to the Imperial Family and to many of the most prominent people in Mexico City. Supposedly, many Mexicans took a liking to him because he was able to withstand the spiciness of Mexican food. Salazar, always suspicious, was not won as easily, but with time even he was willing to consider Muñoz. By 1860, the Marshall, Princess Isabel and Muñoz often travelled to theater together, and Muñoz called on the Princess frequently, delighting her with tales of South America. The continent had a special place in her imagination, for her father, the late Agustin II, had traveled it in his youth.

    Though Muñoz seemingly spent his time in social events, he also worked hard to convince the Mexican government to enter into an alliance with Colombia. Rodolfo Gomez, the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, would complain that Muñoz “haunted” his offices, and some parliamentarians remembered him as a constant presence in the pro-Colombia lobby. The filibuster expeditions proved a most valuable ally to Muñoz, who found it easier to convince Salazar of how big a threat the US was and how valuable an ally Colombia would be. Salazar, of course, was already arrayed against the Americans, but he thought of the Colombians as shifty and untrustworthy and resented their meddling in Central America, which he thought of as Mexican by right. A Colombian Cuba, Salazar believed, would not be any better than an American or Spanish one.

    The ascension of Arturo Noboa to the Presidency of Colombia had both positive and negative consequences. For one, Noboa, from middle-class origins, trained in law and fluent in French, was very different from Salazar, a gruff military man from modest origins. The Liberal Noboa and the Conservative Salazar were also opposed ideologically, with Salazar thinking of Noboa as an “heretic” on the mold of Juarez. At one point, he even intimated to Muñoz that he’d be happier to negotiate with a “Catholic government”. It could be noted, however, that Noboa received the friendship of Princess Isabel, and they often wrote to each other in French. Noboa kept Muñoz in his position, but replaced Dominguez with Julio Armas, a Liberal leader who wielded such power that he was called “Colombia’s other President.” Armas was an able man, but unlike Dominguez with his single-minded focus on international policy, Armas also concerned himself with domestic issues. In any case, Armas built on Dominguez’s legacy and drafted actual terms for a treaty of alliance.

    In 1863, Muñoz stormed into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and argued that Walker was but the harbinger of another war, either against Colombia for Hispaniola or against Mexico to “finish the work of the late conflict”. The American elections, it will be seen later, had but small chances of ending in a victory for Southern expansionists, but the fear the mere possibility of that created was real enough. For Colombia and Mexico to unite in common defense was the only way of safeguarding against gringo aggression. Colombia’s industry and navy, and Mexico’s soldiers and leadership would be able to defeat the Americans decisively if war came. Any such alliance, Muñoz specified, would be strictly defensive. Salazar finally agreed, and negotiations for what eventually became the Muñoz-Gomez Treaty of Alliance started.

    Of course, the matter at hand was not merely a defensive treaty. A Civil War had started in Spain and with it a rebellion in Cuba, and secessional tensions had boiled over and started a Civil War in the United States as well. Colombia was ready to seize the opportunity and “liberate Cuba”, but they needed Mexican support. American conflicts had by then pushed Colombia and Mexico together, showed in greater trade and a red of telegraphs that allowed communication between both countries. Feeling pushed to choose between Colombia and the US, Salazar chose Colombia. The terms of the treaty dealing with Cuba were secret, but later it was known that it included allowing Mexican interests into Cuba, including basing rights, and for Colombia to retreat from Central America. Since Mexican interests had expanded into the Pacific, it’s also widely thought that Colombia promised to support Mexican ambitions over Hawaii. The terms that were not secret included a pledge that each country would support the other in case of “aggression by a foreign power” of the Americas. It was clear who was the foreign power in mind.

    nacionalismo-colombiano.jpg

    Colombian nationalism was characterized by its expansionism

    The Muñoz-Gomez Treaty of Alliance was quickly ratified by both the Colombian Congress and the Mexican Parliament. It was widely seen, then and now, as an anti-American treaty. Indeed, Americans interpreted it as a pledge to destroy them. Punch Magazine lampooned the event through a famous cartoon showing Salazar and Noboa, arm in arm, dancing over the grave of the American Union, both promising to finish the job if the US somehow survived its Civil War. The Treaty emboldened Colombians aspirations, and can be considered one of the reasons why Colombia felt sure enough to declare war the next year, starting its crusade for the Caribbean.
     
    Chapter 65: The Irrepressible Conflict
  • The Compromise of 1857 maybe saved the Union for a few more years. Its flaws would become apparent in due time, and with the benefit of hindsight the great majority of politicians lambasted it as a “deal with the devil” that had just prolonged the life of the accursed institution. But at the time it was celebrated as a final settlement of the slavery question, and an end to all sectional strife. As the people drank and danced to celebrate the salvation of the Union, few could imagine that in truth the Compromise of 1857 had started its disintegration.

    In some ways, the very sense of finality of the Compromise was one of its greatest weaknesses. No party, not the Administration’s Liberals, not the opposition’s Democrats, and less of all the “new ultras”, the Republicans, was satisfied with the Compromise in its final form. The admission of Texas and Sacramento as slave and free states respectively was not contested, and though it was a bitter pill, the Southerners accepted the repudiation of slave debts accrued during the war with Mexico and abolition in DC. Rather, the source of conflict laid in two measures, one due to its ambiguity, the other due to its decisiveness: the repudiation of the Missouri compromise and the Fugitive Slave Act.

    The Fugitive Slave Act was one of the most contentious measures of the Compromise, despite the fact that it was, in some ways, the most legally justified of them all. The US Constitution, using its usual roundabout term of “persons held to service or labuor”, decreed that slaves that escaped to other areas of the United States wouldn’t “in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due”. The issue seemed quite clear – escaped slaves would remain slaves, and they should be returned to their owners. But the devil was in the details, and the vagueness of the Constitution regarding how it was to be enforced and by whom.

    To put this Constitutional provision into effect, the Congress had enacted in 1793 a Fugitive Slave Act that allowed slaveholders to cross into another state, capture the people they enslaved, and bring them before any local or federal court to prove his ownership. The law’s lack of any protections for Black people, including no right to testify or habeas corpus “amounted to an invitation for kidnappers to seize free blacks” in Northern eyes. Indeed, many people were kidnapped and taken South, sometimes without the intervention of a magistrate as required by the law, sometimes with the intervention of apathetic judges who did not care if slave catchers had taken the right man. Perhaps the most famous and tragic example is that of Solomon Northup, a free man who lived years in slavery in Louisiana until the Mexican War gave him a chance to escape.

    640px-Solomon_Northup_001_%28cropped%29.jpg

    Solomon Northup's story became an icon within the anti-slavery press

    Angered by the presence of slavecatchers on Northern soil and outraged by the abuses committed under the law, several Northern states enacted “personal liberty laws” that sought to give substantial protections to Northern blacks, including the right of testimony, trial by jury, and the right of habeas corpus. Slavecatchers could even be indicted for kidnapping, and even if the juries weren’t anti-slavery enough to convict, the result was often the escaped slave remaining in freedom. The Supreme Court was unable to settle the issue in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which resulted from the conviction of Edward Prigg as a kidnapper after he had taken a woman and her children, people who had escaped their enslavement by fleeing to Pennsylvania, back to Maryland. Prigg appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which declared that “the obligation of enforcement of the fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution was essentially federal, and that the states need not devote their law-enforcing apparatus to this function.”

    The supremacy of the federal government meant that most personal liberty laws were unconstitutional, insofar as they interfered with the federal government’s right and duty to secure slaveholders’ property. For that right to be respected, however, the Federal government would have to enact stronger measures, especially in the face of new personal liberty laws that sought to obstruct and limit as much as possible the capacity of slaveholders to re-enslave people under the terms of the 1793 law. For instance, states forbade their officials from cooperating with slaveholders or use their facilities, such as jails or courts. Deprived of the coercive power of the states, slaveholders looked towards the Federal government for the enforcement apparatus necessary. Thus, the demand for a new federal fugitive slave act grew.

    The war with Mexico both stopped these efforts for a time and reinvigorated them afterwards. Pointing to the escape of thousands of slaves to the North or to the territories during the occupation of Louisiana by the Mexican Army, Southerners insisted on the enactment of a stronger fugitive slave act. In truth, the majority of the fugitives had fled to Mexican Texas (now known as Alamo), and had been settled there in small homesteads. Conscious that Marshal Salazar would never accede to returning them or paying any compensation, the American diplomats and later Southern politicians did not press the point. “Mr. Salazar, I’m afraid, would shoot me if I proposed such a plan”, reported the American ambassador. Instead, they focused their energies in the North, whose anti-slavery efforts seemed more egregious because they were countrymen instead of enemies.

    Southerners obtained their prize in the Compromise of 1857, which “seemed to ride roughshod over the prerogatives of northern states” by creating federal commissioners that would decide whether the kidnapped person was to be remanded to slavery, and by empowering federal marshals and deputies to aid slaveholders. The law allowed marshals to deputize citizens on the spot, and imposed steep fines and criminal penalties on marshals that refused to help and people who tried to help the fugitives. Most outrageous, the law gave blacks no power to proof their freedom by keeping them from testifying, bringing witnesses, being trailed by juries or invoke the right of habeas corpus. The fact that commissioners would receive 5 dollars if the fugitive was declared free and 10 if they were remanded to slavery, though “supposedly justified by the paper work needed”, served in practice as a “bribe” that stacked the odds against blacks even more.

    Slave_kidnap_post_1851_boston.jpg

    The Fugitive Slave Act inspired great resistance in Northern communities

    The Fugitive Slave Act was, in the view of a Southern politician “the only measure of the Compromise calculated to secure the rights of the South”. Indeed, while abolition in D.C. was a bitter pill to swallow, the state admissions were more of a draw, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise merely started a more vicious struggle, the Fugitive Slave Act seemed a complete victory over of Southern rights over the abolitionists. In practice, the act was not very consequential since, after an initial flurry of dramatic persecutions, it was rarely invoked. In any case the number of slaves who managed to escape was minuscule when compared with the millions that remained in bondage. This was especially egregious in the view that the region that clamored for a Fugitive Slave Act with the loudest voice was the Deep South, an area few slaves were ever able to escape from.

    Rather, what the South sought to protect was their honor, demanding the act as a matter of principle rather than out of practicality. “Although the loss of property is felt,” Senator Mason of Virginia said for instance, “the loss of honor is felt still more.” The measure was also calculated to strike against the underground railroad, a legendary but loose organization that helped and sheltered the people who escaped their enslavement. “Magnified by southerners into an enormous Yankee network of lawbreakers who stole thousands of slaves each year”, the underground railroad in truth only helped a couple of hundred of enslaved people, at most, the great majority of them coming from the Upper South. It must be pointed out, as David Potter does, that the abolitionists that seldom risked a great deal were also the most lionized by the achievements of the underground railroad, “which draws attention away from the heroism of the fugitives themselves, who often staked their lives against incredible odds, with nothing to aid them but their own nerve and the North Star”. “If anyone helped them”, Porter continues, “the evidence indicates that it was more likely to be another Negro, slave or free, who chose to take heavy risks, than a benevolent abolitionist with secret passages, sliding panels, and other stage properties of organized escape.”

    Nonetheless, the very existence of the underground railroad and the personal liberty laws were offensive to the Southerners, who saw in them nullification of the Constitution and a persistent refusal to recognize their right to enslave people. The Fugitive Slave Act was seen as a way to remedy this problem, and as long as the North acquiesced and respected it, its finality, and thus that of the Compromise, could be maintained and further discord avoided. Naturally, this didn’t happen. Though the law was enacted by a thin margin by the combined votes of Democrats and pro-administration Liberals, the anti-slavery Liberals, most of whom would desert the party in favor of the new Republican organization, resisted it to the very end. Even after it had been signed into law by President Scott, the Republicans, and a large section of Liberals, saw in it a “covenant with the devil” that had turned the Federal government into a “dirty slavecatcher”.

    Again, it was the principle of the law rather than its practical effect that arose the most bitter resistance to it. By protecting slavery to such an extent all over the United States, the law seemed to embrace the “slavery national” Southern doctrine that was fundamentally opposed to the “freedom national” interpretation of the Constitution as anti-slavery in a round-about way. The Fugitive Slave Act, said Senator Seward in a speech that was derided as “monstrous and diabolical”, was a compromise with “an unjust, backward, dying institution” that attempted to “roll back the tide of social progress”. Such a concession to slavery would prevent it from dying “under the steady, peaceful action of moral, social, and political causes, . . . and with compensation”. If slavery was maintained, “the Union shall be dissolved and civil war ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation.” It was, in total, a horrendous law that went against liberty and human rights, and even if it was constitutional “there is a higher law than the Constitution”.

    The Higher Law doctrine contributed to the Republicans’ refusal to recognize the Compromise of 1857 as a final settlement of sectional disputes. Republicans could simply not accept it, and instead sought to resist it by all means necessary. Not only did Republicans file suits trying to get the Supreme Court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but new personal liberty laws were enacted in several Northern states and Republican congressmen attempted in vain to obtain the repeal of the law. Charles Sumner introduced no less than twenty motions to that effect, forcing Southerners and moderates to enact a new gag rule even though Sumner’s motions never came close to a majority. But they did command unanimity among the Republicans and even sometimes obtained a few Liberal defectors.

    300px-Politicalcartoon1850.jpg

    The anti-slavery aptitudes of Northerners helped give strenght to the Republican Party

    Far more enraging for the South was the violent resistance to the act carried by several Northern communities. Mobs of African Americans and White abolitionists had been repealing slavecatchers for decades already, but the Fugitive Slave Act embittered the fight and gave it a new national significance. Fiery abolitionists like Wendell Philipps declared that they had to trample the law under their feet – “it is to be denounced, resisted, disobeyed”, said a Boston anti-slavery society, because “as moral and religious men, we cannot obey an immoral and irreligious statute”. Consequently, local anti-slavery societies and many biracial communities formed vigilance committees that warned Blacks against kidnappers and threatened slavecatchers. This led to many dramatic scenes throughout the North, though the “cockpit of the new revolution” remained in the cockpit of the old one – Boston.

    One of the most “dramatic flights” was that of William and Ellen Craft, a black couple whose escape from Georgia “had become celebrated in the antislavery press”. Their former owner had come to Boston to try and re-enslave them, vowing to capture them even “if we have to stay here to all eternity, and if there are not men enough in Massachusetts to take them, we will bring them some from the South”. Theodore Parker, a local clergyman, was decided to prevent this. Parker guarded the Crafts in his house, where he kept a “veritable arsenal” alongside the revolver he always carried. The enraged slaveholder tried to break into Parker’s house with the help of the Federal marshals and some men he had brought from the South, which started a riot that ended with him and other man dead. By the time that troops had restored order, the Crafts were already in a ship to England.

    The strong Southern backlash forced President Scott to extent his aid, offering “all the means which the Constitution and Congress have placed at his disposal” to enforce the law. Scott did not do this out of love for slavery. Indeed, Old Fuss and Feathers was naturally anti-slavery, but he believed his major obligation was the maintenance of the Union, which necessitated the maintenance of the Compromise. But the Bostoners remained defiant. “I would rather lie all my life in jail, and starve there, than refuse to protect one of these parishioners of mine,” Parker told Scott. “You cannot think that I am to stand by and see my own church carried off to slavery and do nothing.” The Craft drama was repeated when a mob liberated a black man named Shadrach “out of his burning, fiery furnace” by overwhelming the Federal marshals that had captured him and sending him to Canada. “I think it is the most noble deed done in Boston since the destruction of the tea in 1773”, exulted Parker.

    Attempts to enforce the penalties of the law failed as well, as Boston juries refused to convict any men who had taken part in these riots or aided fugitive slaves. “Massachusetts Safe Yet! The Higher Law Still Respected,” celebrated anti-slavery journals, while conservative newspapers and Southerners denounced “the triumph of mob law” and how Boston had been “disgraced by the lowest, the meanest, the blackest kind of nullification”. Especially humiliating was the failure of the Scott administration to punish those who nullified the law, and soon enough the South threatened secession again: “unless the abolitionist rioters are hung . . . WE LEAVE YOU! . . . If you fail in this simple act of justice, THE BONDS WILL BE DISSOLVED.” Violent acts that often resulted in the death of slavecatchers and the liberation of fugitives took place in many Northern communities aside from Boston, such as Syracuse or Christiana.

    The Scott administration found it hard to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Not only did Northern juries and judges refuse to cooperate, resulting in the complete exoneration of those who had taken part in these rescues, but trying to bring down the force of the government only made martyrs out of the abolitionists and increased sympathy for their cause. Already reviled for their Compromise with the Slave Power, the Administration found that the enforcement of the act only resulted in losing strength within the North, something they could not afford when the Liberal Party was already dead in the South due to its support for peace during the war. Moreover, at the same time that these daring efforts for freedom were taking place, Southern filibusterers were attacking Cuba and Central America, and Scott’s failure to stop them proved to be more embarrassing. If Scott brought all his powers against the abolitionists but failed to do so against the filibusterers that would be irrefutable proof of his alliance with the Slave Power – and also a foreign policy disaster for the filibuster expeditions had alienated Mexico, Colombia and Britain.

    1-2-19A3-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0m1j4-a_349.jpg

    Slavecatchers were violently driven away

    Northern resistance to the act should not be overstated. Of hundreds of re-enslaved people, Northern communities only rescued a handful. “The law was defied primarily by spiriting slaves away before officers found them, rather than by resisting officers directly”, and indeed, after the first couple of years the number of escapees captured dropped sharply because most off the vulnerable had fled to Canada (Toronto’s Black population doubled). The commercial elites of the North, the hated “Lords of the Loom” who had supported the Compromise with the “Lords of the Lash” in order to assure stability and continued commerce, extended their hearty support, not out of love for slavery itself but in an attempt to prevent Civil War. Declarations that the law was enforced without troubled everywhere but Boston failed to conciliate the South, however, for the slavocrats were increasingly convinced that the North would not respect the Compromise and could not be trusted to respect Southern rights. In that case, the only answer was secession. At the same time, the Republican party was gaining strength as the only way to prevent the complete victory of the slave power. Far from settling the controversy, the Compromise had only created a far more bitter sectional and partisan struggle.

    Proof of that were the 1857 midterms, which took place later in the year the Compromise was passed and which showed that the Republican revolt was not a mere brief-lived tantrum, but a complete political realignment. Throughout the North, Democrats and the Liberals were defeated in bruising contests where they were portrayed as pawns of the Slave Power. Similarly, to how the Liberals had for all purposes ceased to exist in the South, the Democrats organization was already in the throes of death, all its members reviled due to their support for war for slavery that had taken so many sons, husbands and brothers. The Fugitive Slave Act, the filibuster expeditions and events in Nebraska helped seal their fate, and the Democracy was basically exterminated.

    If Democrats were blamed for the Slave Power’s measures, Liberals were blamed for falling to stop them. The Liberal ruin wasn’t complete, but many Liberals went down in defeat. Only in the “Lower North” areas of Ohio, Illinois and Indiana did Liberals hold, elected by moderates who didn’t like slavery but didn’t like abolitionism either. In most of the North the Republicans swept to victory, showing a decisive repudiation of the Compromise and the growth of anti-slavery sentiments. The defeat was a severe blow to the administration, which believed that it could count on moderate Northerners to show Yankee commitment to the Union and Compromise. It was also a strong hit against Southern faith in the Union for it showed that the North had not accepted the Compromise after all.

    Instead of forcing the administration to grow closer to the South, the midterms forced it closer with the Republicans, who were willing to back and support Scott if he showed “that he could emancipate himself from the Slave Power”. The South, meanwhile, elected a “motley throng” of fire-eaters and secessionists that were bitterly opposed to the administration and the North. Compromise with them was impossible unless Scott accepted measures that would destroy him and what remained of the Liberals in the North. Wishing to hold into power, and be reelected in 1861, as the only way to stave off conflict by preventing a pro-slavery Southerner from being elected, Scott and the Republicans became closer. No formal agreement was made, but a tentative coalition between Liberals and Republicans that could control the House was being envisioned as a counter to the still Democratic Senate. Such a counter would be needed when Southerners, both federal and state, started to push for making a new slave state out of Nebraska.

    8823540.jpg

    An obvious antipathy to the Compromise was evident throughout the North

    The Compromise of 1857 included a measure that repealed the Missouri Compromise, made decades ago, allowing Southerners to enter the territories with their slaves. This was of the utmost necessity for the South, because otherwise those territories would inevitably turn into free states that would presumably vote for anti-slavery measures. The fact that the war had been ended early due to Northern wickedness, at least in Southern eyes, made the need more pressing, because otherwise it meant that the primarily Southern Army had sacrificed so much for territories that would be closed to them. However, the Missouri Compromise had long been regarded as “a sacred covenant sanctified by decades of national life”, whose repeal could raise a “hell of a storm” that would make “even the bloody battles in Louisiana and Veracruz look like a gentle shower.” Like the Fugitive Slave Act, the repeal was passed by thin margins. But Northerners were decided to resist it, this time with more energy because there was a clear goal: keeping the slavocrats out of Nebraska and making it a free state.

    “Since there is no escaping your challenge”, declared Seward, doubtlessly after recouping some of the Higher Law fire, “I accept it in behalf of the cause of freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Nebraska, and God give the victory to the side which is stronger in numbers as it is in right.” The fact that Seward, who had supported compromise and was the Administration’s spokesman, was the one throwing down the gauntlet is significant, for it shows that repudiation of the repeal was strong even among moderate men, and that the President and his circle didn’t wish for new slave states to be accepted. In the South, this smacked of betrayal, for Southerners had understood that the repeal of the Compromise would guarantee the creation of new slave states that would “join their sisters in the protection of our holy institutions”. If the administration and Northerners fought to keep the territories free, then there was no substantial difference and the Compromise was worthless. But the slavocrats would not give up easily, and what could not be enacted by law could be enacted by blood.

    Northerners, aided by Emigrant Societies funded by and coordinated from New England, poured into Nebraska at the same time as Missourians and other Southerners, together with their slaves, did. “The game must be played boldly”, Senator Atchison declared. “We will be compelled to shoot, burn and hang, but the thing will soon be over. We intend to ‘Mormonize’ the Abolitionists.” Groups of “ank, unshaven, unwashed, hard-drinking Missourians”, fueled by their hate for "those long-faced, sanctimonious Yankees" and their "sickly sycophantic love for the nigger”, poured into the enormous territory with the full intent of driving all Free-Soilers out and secure it for slavery.

    The territorial governor, a certain Nathan S. Faulkner, a veteran of the Mexican-American War, was not about to accept these illegal efforts. Though certainly not a fiery abolitionist, Faulkner had no love for the institution either, and the use of violence and fraud by the “Border Ruffians” drew him closer to the Free-Soilers. The declarations of prominent Border Ruffians didn’t help matters: "Mark every scoundrel among you that is the least tainted with free-soilism, or abolitionism, and exterminate him . . . Enter every election district . . . and vote at the point of a Bowie knife or revolver!" The first task was to divide the enormous Nebraska into more manageable territories – indeed, the fact that the territory was so enormous was intentional, for it was hoped that would delay a fight and could lead to two different states being settled, preserving sectional balance. But Southerners wanted all or nothing, and they voted for the creation of a big state that would take most of the border with Missouri.

    Faulkner, with the tacit blessing of the Scott administration, repudiated these proceedings. Aside from intimidation and ballot stuffing, the territorial governor cracked down on the violence that had started to cover the territory with blood. Soon enough, Free-Soilers, now known as Jayhawkers, started to fight tense and bloody battles against Border Ruffians all over Nebraska, though the most bitter fight was in the area of settlement near the Missouri border. There, Atchison led a band of Border Ruffians that attacked the Free-Soil capital at Lawrence, named after one of the Emigration Aid Society’s benefactors. The result was a pitched and bloody fight, that saw many buildings sacked and bombarded. Faulkner attempted to rally the Federal troops at his disposal to put it down, but to his horror he found that many were Southern veterans that saw in Nebraska a just price for their sacrifice. Instead, Faulkner had to rely on Northern veterans that still seethed at how the Slave Power had forced them to fight the war. The groups divided and the fight only grew bloodier and more intense.

    Battle_of_Lawrence.png

    The Battle of Lawrence

    By the time the dust settled, it did so over more than 300 dead men and a completely destroyed town. Faulkner had been badly wounded, but he would survive, unlike Atchison, who fell in battle. News of the “Battle of Lawrence”, alternatively called the Lawrence Massacre, spread quickly. Southerners were horrified at how an administration officer had massacred the “innocent” Southerners that just wanted the government to honor their rights. Northerners hailed Faulkner’s defense of Lawrence, and cried against the Slave Power that had started that fight. A second battle started in Congress, that saw a Yankee congressman shot and a Southern one stabbed. Acts of political violence like that started to happen more often throughout the Union, and Nebraska continued bleeding. It was clear that the Union was tottering to its destruction, but on which terms that would happen was to be determined by the results of the next presidential election, which would take place in just a year. Still, as Southerners and Northerners armed and prepared for conflict, it did not take a prophet to see that Civil War was imminent.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top