|
COUNT OF LAS LAS CASES MEMORIAL
PRIZE’S
GENERAL LIST OF LAUREATES |
|
|
|
|
FOREWORD
By Eduardo Garzón-Sobrado
President-founder
of the Mexico-France
Napoleonic Institute
Founder and
General Director
of the Count
of Las Cases
Memorial Prize
|
|
|
«
The peoples
that do not recognize
their true benefactors
aren’t worth
to be free, nor
shall ever be
» Simon
Bolívar |
|
It
is a great honour for
us to present the following
paper, laureate essay
of our II Count
of Las Cases Memorial
Prize, in its
2nd edition 2007.
Unanimously congratulated
by the international
jury, this valuable
dissertation, The
Path to Liberty,
assumes of course a
particular interest
in what refers to its
literal content, but
also, doubtless, a very
special value while
being signalled at an
historic moment of great
importance for Mexico,
when the preparations
for the commemoration
of the bicentenary of
the beginning of our
country’s fight
for the Independence,
to be celebrated in
2010, have officially
begun.
In this unique context,
and facing the alas
inevitable advance of
officialised dismemory
which ineludibly approaches,
it appears to us being
of a particular necessity,
on one side, to seize
the occasion of the
conjuncture of these
celebrations to firmly
emphasize the powerful
influence that the Napoleonic
heritage, and through
it the beneficial ascendant
of generous France,
carried out upon the
men and the events which
at length consumed our
Independence in 1821,
and which gave rise
to our country as a
free and sovereign nation.
On the other side, and
principally, we need
to consolidate and vindicate
the glorious memory
and imperishable legacy
of H.I.H. Augustine
I, Emperor
and liberator of our
Fatherland, a goal that
our text – we
are convinced of it
– brilliantly
contributes to reach.
In effect, today when
our country passes through
moments of a strong
identity crisis, prey
to the continuous assaults
of foreign cultural
and social models that
question our essential
values and traditions,
it turns to be primordial
to clarify and diffuse
the history of our liberator
and first monarch, whose
memory has been clouded
and sullied through
so many decades of disinformation
and iniquities. In this
essential labour for
the recovering and the
revivification of this
fundamental part of
our national patrimony
and identity, historic
clarity, academic analysis,
but before all free
expression, are our
more solid basis in
favour of the vindication
of the Fatherland through
the just retribution
of a debt of honour
which we all Mexican
have towards the memory
of the Father and liberator
of our country.
As well, thanks to this
renewed union, and above
the sectary ideologies
and partisan divisions
that have only ripped
up our country during
two centuries, we will
be able to lay the foundations
for the reconciliation
of our people with its
most glorious past,
a heritage and a tradition
always alive and embodied
today in the illustrious
person of H.I.H.
Count Maximilian of
Götzen-Iturbide,
Imperial Prince of Mexico.
This being said, let
us give way to our author
not without evoking
previously, as truth
and justice demand it,
the last words that
the hero of Iguala expressed
in his memories: «
When you instruct
your children about
the history of the Fatherland,
inspire them love for
the chief of the Trigarant
Army (...) who
spent the best time
of his life for you
to be happy ».
|
 |
H.I.H.
Emperor
Augustine
I of Mexico
By the
Divine Providence,
Constitutional
Emperor
of Mexico |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Arms
of the First Empire of Mexico |
|
“Similar
to this is the story of many minds of our time,
We believe that it's useful to follow, step by step,
all of their phases”.
Víctor Hugo.
From
a historical and sociological point of view, the
XIXth Century can be defined as the milestone which
marks the advent of the Modern Age. Great epics
and huge dreams had resounded on one side of the
world, and have reached the other one, through the
pen, the sword or the cannon.
New
ideas were born, which have forged new men.
Great men made their banner out of them, offering
their own peace and even their own lives themselves
so that they could turn these into palpable
deeds, which were if not perfect, at least
functional for present and future generations,
for their fellow citizens, and for foreign
peoples as well.
Liberty, source
from which the noblest principles spring out,
erects itself as the sovereign, and soon becomes
the standard seized by prodigal beings who,
in spite of the limits of their space, manage
to glimpse, in the twilight of an era, a great
new shaft of light.
This is neither
fortuitous nor against nature. Each epoch
is translated into a series of events finely
intertwined, in which each link precedes the
other: each step determines the following
step, and even, by a strange subversion (which,
in reality, isn’t one), every step forward
that is made in the name of the progress of
nations, as well as that of people’s
destiny permits us at the same time to justify
the steps that precede it, giving to the following
echelon the greatest importance. This is how
history is forged.
Men are the
children of their time; this is an irrefutable
truth. But frequently, those who believe in
this axiom have a tendency to forget another
truth, as important as the first and one that
is inseparable from it: there are men who
engender new times. It is to one of these
men that this essay is dedicated.
Conqueror,
restorer, reformer and creator, a singular
genius of word as well as of action: these
pages are dedicated to a great man and to
his influence, still palpably alive, in the
spirit of Europe and America.
|
 |
| H.I.H.
Emperor Augustine I of Mexico |
|
|
On the Old Continent,
he raised the French nation from the ruins of the
Old Regime, and imprinted on it a splendour that,
in his era and even today, seems incredible to us.
But he was still more prodigal, as he dedicated
his life not only to the grandeur of his fatherland,
but also to that of the nations to which the latter
was tied, leaving there that grandeur and that noble
spirit that characterize the Europe that we know
today. Creator of institutions inspired by the Enlightenment,
as important as they were in the past, he obtained
victories quite beyond honour and the battlefield:
in the world of Arts, of Science and in the mentality
of many generations.
In America, in our
America, his voice found a fertile echo in the libertarian
epics of the peoples who, deprived during three
centuries of liberty of expression, had forged an
identity that, by its nature itself, implicated
autonomy and equality for all of those who were
born upon its soil. His image and his glory also
found a worthy reflection in the heart of those
great men (Iturbide, Bolivar, San Martin) who, for
the love and glory of their fatherland, challenged
the whole world, and undertook, with heroism, the
fight for Independence, vanquishing almost insurmountable
obstacles.
He stands, effectively,
among those few giants to whom we owe the modern
world as we know it. The evocation of his name alone
describes equally well his work as well as his person:
Emperor Napoleon I.
I would like to
dedicate this text to the tutelary genius of the
French nation, as well as to the Liberator of the
Mexican Nation: Don Augustine I of Iturbide.
I dedicate these
pages as well to the memory of Dr. Enrique («
Henri ») Sada Quiroga, decorated Mexican,
in 1947, with the Médaille de Bronze
de la Reconnaissance Française, who,
pouring doubtless his inspiration from the great
man of Austerlitz and pushed by the love of liberty,
joined the effort of many men of his time to break
the yoke of usurpation and tyranny which then ripped
off the heart and the greatness of the French people
during the German occupation. It is to him, as well,
that these words are addressed.
Torréon,
Coahuila-México, D.F.,
May 18th 2007,
20th anniversary
of the imperial proclamation of the throne of France;
185th anniversary of the imperial
proclamation of the throne of Mexico.
| THE
NAPOLEONIC ERA: EUROPE AT THE DAWN OF
THE XIXth CENTURY |
|
“I want
your descendants to remember me
and say: he is the regenerator of our fatherland”
Napoleon.
 |
Napoleon
crossing the Alps
Painting by Jacques-Louis David.
First version of Versailles (detail). |
|
The
last third of the XVIIIth Century and the first
decades of the XIXth saw the end of the Old Regime
and the transition to the modern age. The political
revolutions that took place during this period put
an end to absolutism and replaced it with new forms
of government founded upon equality before the
law, democracy and individual liberty. France
is the clearest example of the suppression of ancestral
models: it witnessed the crumbling of its out-of-date
feudal social institutions, and saw the violent
fall of its monarchy. The reasons were natural and
evident.
On the legal level,
French society was constituted as an absolute monarchy,
incarnated by a king « by divine right, »
and by a strongly centralized state that leaned
on the division in orders founded upon privileges
and social inequality. The only beneficiaries of
this structure were the nobility and the clergy,
both holders of exemptions. Along with these two
groups, there was a third one that was constituted
by burgers, craftsmen, peasants and other marginal
groups that comprised the great majority of the
population. It is through this heterogeneous ensemble
that taxes and other charges enabled the financial
support of the State.
But, around 1789,
this form of organization had become obsolete, and
the administrative and judiciary apparatus no longer
worked properly. For many people, a deep reform
was necessary, a reform the privileged states were
very little attracted to. The Enlightenment underlined
these contradictions; it criticized and denounced
them, though contributing to mine the social and
political basis of the Ancient Regime. The theories
of Montesquieu and Rousseau, founded upon separation
of powers, national sovereignty and equality
of all citizens before the law, contributed to that
particularly.
That is how the
14th of July, 1789 began in France as an uprising
that would constitute an example for the whole world:
the seizure of the Bastille would mark the beginning
of the French Revolution. A little after that, the
Bourbon banners would be replaced by the tricolour
flag which, taking the colours of the city of Paris
(blue, and red), and adding the royal white, would
embody from then on the guarantees that free people
would adopt as fundamental rights before «
despotism »: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
 |
|
 |
| Before
and after: Napoleon on
the bridge of Arcole by Baron
Gros, and as Emperor of the French,
portrayed here on the imperial
Throne of France, by Jean-Baptiste
Ingres. |
|
|
The French Revolution
was the first bourgeois political revolution of
the European continent. It permitted the establishment
of liberalism, and represented a decisive blow for
monarchical absolutism, in that it replaced by such
principles as national sovereignty, the distribution
of powers and the recognition of individual liberties.
It was the abuse of royal power, as well as the
tyranny of the decadent nobility that had caused
the insurrection. The latter would carry, however,
other reactions of a nature that was as contradictory
as disastrous. France went from an excess of power
to an excess of liberty, which degenerated very
soon into anarchy and death with the installation
of the Terror. There was no way out. Neither present
nor past could assure the future: the revolution
seemed destined to tyrannize and devour the common
people, as well as its own children.
Despite their errors
and failures, the very different governments that
had followed one another in power between 1789 and
1800 had contributed to something positive: the
integrity and the independence of the French Nation
had been preserved in spite of the assaults and
the menaces of the neighbouring European powers,
which saw in it a potential menace; the decadent
feudal system represented by the old regime had
been abolished and the best principles of the Enlightenment
were diffused in numerous places. Nevertheless,
the institutions that would permit the safeguarding
of the principles and the interests of the people
were still to be established.
The spirit of Liberty
that had just sprung from the Revolution scared
the various peoples as much as it did the sovereigns.
But fear ended when that spirit, which followed
the French battalions, was held by a man gifted
with military genius, a great natural political
talent and unequalled courage: Napoleon Bonaparte.
It is at Arcole where the epic of a new era begins.
It continues at a fast pace until the campaigns
of Egypt and returns to a France that expected impatiently
the return of the man who seemed to be the depository
of Glory and Triumph.
Once he was in power,
thanks to people’s support, Napoleon quickly
proceeds to the abolition of all arbitrary laws
and anti-social divisions. He closed the wounds,
rewarded merits as well as individual courage, and
kept ties with the best ideals of the Republic,
conducting Frenchmen to their national unification
for the grandeur and the prosperity of the Fatherland.
When he appeared on the political stage, «
he understood that he should represent to the eyes
of his compatriots, just as to those of the whole
world, the trustee of the best principles of the
Revolution and of the Enlightenment » (1).
The Napoleonic legacy
materialized on different levels: on the socio-political
and military level, it permitted the diffusion of
revolutionary forms, of civil liberties (consecrated
by the Civil Code in 1804) and the definitive annihilation
of feudal structures. This work was concretized
by the appearance of a series of moderate liberal
constitutions, such as the Bayonne Constitution,
the uprising of the bourgeoisie as a new dominant
class, before the nobility and the clergy, the introduction
of modern Rights and of innovations in the armies
and in military tactics. His most remarkable achievements
were concretized by the creation of a local administration
of centralized structure, a judiciary organization
in which the judges became functionaries and the
restructuring of the bureaucratic apparatus. The
corollary of this policy appears in the Civil Code,
which guaranteed individual liberty, equality
before the law, private property and economical
liberty.
The result is the
creation of a large empire in Europe directed by
France, organized and governed in person, or through
members of his family or military officers who had
his confidence, along with the collaboration of
the upper classes of the conquered countries, where
constitutions and codes similar to France’s
are promulgated.
Nationalism also
was reinforced. Contrarily to the personal ties
upon which loyalty to the feudal lord or submission
to the absolute monarch was founded, this new hierarchy
opened the way to a new way of relating within society:
that of the free citizen in the framework of the
Nation-State, which constituted a unity around common
elements such as language, culture and history,
and where territorial limits enclosed a State formed
by a community that was clearly different from others.
The French Revolution
reinforced this tendency as a way of exalting the
nation above absolutism. Napoleon encouraged nationalisms:
in Italy, he criticized the presence of the Austrians
and supported the creation of an autonomous realm
of Naples under the aegis of Murat. The promoters
of German unification invoked this kind of nationalism
which, some time later, would also be promoted and
adopted by the Latin-American nations, and more
particularly by the Mexican Empire at the moment
of the proclamation of its independence from Old
Spain.
There’s no
doubt that the Emperor contributed more than any
other man of his time to speeding the pace of Liberty
and of Equality, by preserving the moral influence
of the Revolution and attenuating the fears that
the latter could arouse. Without the Consulate and
without the Empire, the Revolution would have been
but a historic and significant tremor that would
have left a trace, but few concrete benefits. It
is thanks to the fact that Napoleon set himself
up solidly that the revolution could survive to
propagate its ideals throughout Europe and in America.
Such is the reason
why (in additions to the re-establishment of religious
worship) the transition from the Republic to the
Empire, far from producing uncertainty or distrust,
established peace and security, as it corresponded
to the needs and the wishes of the majorities. This
is how we observe that, like never before, such
momentous changes had been introduced with so little
effort.
In
Napoleon’s case, it had been necessary,
in order to palliate this absence of stability
and of national continuity, constantly menaced
by the interests of factions or by a return
to the past, to found a new hereditary order,
the power of which had to be founded upon
the democratic spirit. Therefore, it is not
surprising that such a man had so easily acquired
an immense ascendancy, and this is due to
two reasons: because he was necessary in the
consequent historical order, and because no
one could represent better than he did the
most positive principles of power, as well
as the best ideas of his time
(2).
The laws that
ruled the Empire, as well as the nations that
were under its protection, were built upon
the following principles: civil equality,
in accordance with democratic principles,
and a hierarchy in accordance with the principles
of order and stability.
The power of the family constituted then the
only hereditary dignity, no other post nor
trade was so designated during that period.
It was superiority of merit, courage and personal
virtue that prevailed, and as testimony we
have the creation of the Order of the
Legion of Honour; all occupations, without
any exception, were within reach for all citizens.
|
 |
|
 |
| The
instauration and the recognition
of a new nobility
founded upon personal courage,
merit and virtue
were the fruit of the Napoleonic
inspiration, adopted by Emperor
Augustine I and the Mexican Empire:
The Order of the Legion
of Honour and the Imperial
Order of our Lady of Guadalupe;
its motto: Religion, Independence,
Union. |
|
|
If we analyse the
spirit of the laws that were created by the hand
of a single man, in an epoch when disagreements
were arranged more in terms of spirit of faction
than of justice, in a moment when the rest of the
world constituted a menace to the principles of
Liberty and of Equality, we notice that Napoleon
enacted the settlement of a pluralist system, precursor
of our contemporary democracies, founded upon effective
and permanent institutions, that represented the
best guarantee for the future generations.
The Napoleonic system
outside France consisted of convoking the ecclesiastic
powers, the magistracies, the provincial, municipal,
industrial, academic, and commercial administrations,
and even the military corps, in order that all the
classes which formed society felt represented (3).
Thus, Napoleonic
politics assured the primacy of common good over
individual interests and the ambitions of the factions,
placing the latter under a similar spirit, which
was to find very soon an echo in the mentalities
of the Latin-American peoples in their struggle
for Liberty.
| THE
DAWN OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE |
|
“The glory
of Europe is extinguished for ever”
Edmund Burke.
To France’s height under the Napoleonic Empire
is opposed, in Europe, the dawn of the Spanish Empire,
a historic drama which will become the main cause
of the independence of Mexico and of the rest of
America. Some agree that this fall began during
the reign of Philip IV, who begins to suffer military
defeats, as well as a loss of influence in his own
territory, after the separation of the kingdom of
Portugal. Nevertheless, historians –including
the most recalcitrant– agree that the decadence
of the empire that, at other times, didn’t
witness the sunset, begins with the advent of a
new dynasty: the Bourbons.
 |
 |
 |
 |
| In
our first image, the last of the
Austrias, Charles II
“the bewitched”
(1665-1700),
in front of despotism without
luster (following protraits):
the Bourbons Charles
II (1665-1700), Charles
III (1716–1788),
Charles IV (1748-1819),
and Ferdinand VII
(1784-1833). |
|
|
The death of Charles
II, « the Bewitched », puts an end to
the glorious chapter of the House of Spanish Habsburgs.
As a consequence of last minute changes, the succession
to the throne of the kingdom of Spain goes to the
duke of Anjou, who will be known later as Philip
V of Bourbon, grandson of Louis XIVth and first
monarch of this dynasty to rule the two worlds.
During the first half of the XVIIth Century, the
Spanish empire, its victories over the kingdom of
Naples aside, will remain in some sort of immobility
before its American colonies, where sciences, production
and arts begin to develop and shine in the eyes
of the rest of the world, clearly showing the birth
of what would later constitute its own identity
before that of the metropolitan Spaniard, an identity
that even the Creole, or American-born Spaniard,
will claim. Even if the privileges the Spaniards
benefited from (in opposition to the Creoles) were
already the reason for some trouble, the situation
worsens after the death of Ferdinand VI, first son
of Philip V, who has no heir, and the access to
the throne of his half-brother, Charles VII, king
of Naples, who from then on shall be king of Spain
and the Indies under the name of Charles III.
Subsequently,
the reforms erroneously called « Bourbon
» came from a Masonic origin, awkwardly
promoted by Charles III and his non-Spanish
ministers. These reforms limited, from a economic
and social point of view, the American colonies,
imposing on them productive restrictions and
overloads, in contrast to the natives of metropolitan
Spain. They were badly received and caused,
even though not all of them were applied,
the distrust and suspicion of the American
subjects, who saw in them some injustice.
However, this was but a prelude of what was
to come.
The attitude
of the king and of his ministers towards New
Spain and the other colonies, far from being
rectified, got even worse after the designation
of José de Galvez as Minister of the
Indies. Galvez showed, as visitor and as minister,
nothing but a deep ignorance concerning the
importance of the New World, and of New Spain
particularly, as the main support of the Spanish
Empire on both sides of the Atlantic. He also
showed a great disdain for its inhabitants.
It isn’t surprising that he had established
policies which blocked Creoles and Mestizos
from occupying important posts in the administration.
One of the
greatest offences of both Galvez and the Bourbons
was the expulsion of the Jesuits and the suppression
of the Company of Jesus in the rest of the
Empire. This measure provoked grave consequences,
as well as the discontent of the population,
which found itself deprived not only of moral
and spiritual support, but also of ninety
percent of the educators of New Spain. The
missions were abandoned and, along with them,
the civilizing progress that had already been
accomplished for the benefit of barbarian
Indians in the distant internal and eastern
provinces.
The edict
of the then viceroy Marques de Croix by which
the royal policies of Charles III were executed
not only afflicted the inhabitants of New
Spain, it also offended them: « From
now on, the subjects of the great monarch
who occupies the throne of Spain must know
that they were born to be silent and to
obey, and not to discuss nor give their
opinion about government issues »
(4).
|
 |
José
de Gálvez y Gallardo
(1720-1787)
Marquis of Sonora, minister
and henchman to Charles III, natural
enemy of the Spanish America. |
|
|
Around the end of
the XVIIIth Century, the general situation in the
colonies was worrying. Many factors converged towards
a situation which was to prepare the field for the
war of independence. Three different observers,
particularly lucid ones, have left us their points
of view on this critical period. In 1783, the Count
of Aranda, Spain’s ambassador to France, wrote
to the king a secret report concerning the situation
of the colonies after the independence of the United
States. He had the impression that the political
apparatus was weakened and that a radical political
reform was urgent in order to avoid Spain's potential
loss of sovereignty over those territories. He also
anticipated that the United States would become
a menace to the Hispanic world, and more specifically
to Mexico.
In 1799, Monsignor
Abad y Queipo, bishop of Valladolid, sent to the
king a report concerning the situation of New Spain.
He underlined the huge economical inequalities and
assured that a social reform to benefit the poorest
was needed, or otherwise, hatred between castes
would go on growing. Finally, in 1806, Baron Alexander
von Humboldt finished gathering information in order
to create his monumental work, Political Essay
on the Kingdom of New Spain. Although it was
published fifteen years later, its diagnosis was
exact: Mexico was a country of great economic inequalities
and of great opportunities, but an economic reform
was needed in order that the majority of the people
might make the most of prosperity.
 |
|
 |
| Noble
visionary favorable to the Spanish
America: Baron Alexander
von Humboldt (1769-1859)
and Count of Aranda (1719-1798). |
|
|
The first report
was perceived as alarmist and wasn’t heeded.
The second one was, but, in the end, didn’t
attain anything concrete. As for Humboldt’s
book, it was published when Mexico was already virtually,
independent, and served only to attract the attention
of the powers to the country’s riches. In
total, the economic growth in the XVIIIth Century,
the unequal distribution of wealth and the lack
of political flexibility of the regime led Creoles
to dispute with metropolitan Spaniards the enjoyment
of the wealth of the vast territory of New Spain,
as David Brading demonstrates (5).
It’s in reaction to the Bourbon absolutism
that what was to be called Creole nationalism,
direct precursor of Mexican nationalism, grew up,
with an irrepressible force, in the whole of New
Spain. The characteristic of this nationalism was
a great fondness for the territory of New Spain
and for its inhabitants, mixed with a spirit of
intellectual and economic liberalism of an autonomous
nature.
Around 1788, the
collapse seems imminent. Charles IV accedes to the
throne, where he proves to be weak and even less
intelligent than his father, to the degree that
he allows an upstart, Manuel Godoy, his bodyguard
and lover of his wife, to hold power. During his
reign, the position of Spain before England, on
one side, and France, on the other, became less
advantageous. The result of these policies was inevitable:
he began a war against England and another against
France, both ruinous for the kingdom. Charles IV
had to cede to England the island of Trinidad and
suffered a defeat at Trafalgar, the 21st of October
1805, a battle during which Admiral Nelson destroyed
the Spanish and French fleets.
 |
|
 |
| The
Bournonian decadence:
Manuel Godoy Álvarez
de Faría (1767-1851),
“Prince of
Peace”, main Minister
to Charles III and lover the latter’s
wife, queen Maria Luisa
of Parme
(1751-1819). |
|
|
In the meanwhile,
the war between France and Portugal gave Napoleon
the occasion, which he didn’t expect, to establish
the best ideals of the French Revolution not only
in the Spanish metropolis, but also in its colonies
on the other side of the Atlantic. The influence
of Napoleon, who built a powerful empire upon the
debris of the French Revolution, as well as other
circumstances, discredited Charles IV and the Bourbon
dynasty. The news about the conjugal disputes of
the latter, as well as of Godoy’s and his
regime’s corruption, got to Mexico.
We have to emphasize
that, around 1810, New Spain had a population of
approximately six million inhabitants: a million
Creoles, forty thousand Spaniards, three and a half
million pure Indians, a million and a half Mestizo
and a few less blacks. The unrest of the indigenous
native population was then evident. There were three
causes for that: the former kings and emperors of
the House of Hapsburg in Spain, who had conquered
and brought civilization to the New World, had always
considered America, and Mexico in particular, as
a kingdom or a province of the Spanish metropolis.
The Bourbons, on the contrary, from 1699, with Philip
V, saw it as a colony and had treated it as so.
| INTERLUDE:
THE VOICE OF THE CHAPLAIN OF THE GOD
MARS |
|
“Waterloo
had as sole effect that the
revolutionary work continues on the other side
”
Víctor Hugo.
To speak of Liberty
as the ideal cherished by the men of XIXth Century
Spanish America, or to speak about Independence
as the natural emanation of the Napoleonic spirit,
we have to evoke a precedent and mention a key character.
If there’s one man who can be considered as
Napoleon’s titular heir concerning the idea
of the independence of Mexico, and of Spanish America
and its needs, that man is Dominique de Pradt.
His interest in
the condition of the colonies, as well as their
potential future, was as sincere as it was constant
during his whole life. He didn’t even wait
until Europe got interested in the subject. From
1798, Pradt stated in his works that the colonies
were the children of the metropolis and that that’s
why, once grown up, they should be emancipated,
once they had attained their majority.
After the publication,
in 1802, of his book Les trois âges des
colonies où de leur état passé,
présent et à venir, this priest
of noble origin managed to influence Napoleon and
the mentality of his time. His deep analysis of
the condition of the Americas as independent nations,
as well as of the promising future that they offered
to France and to the world, crossed the frontiers
and the oceans. The Emperor felt a deep sympathy
for the priest’s liveliness, to the point
that he decided to make him his personal chaplain,
calling him « mon petit aumônier »,
my little chaplain; to which the priest
replied wryly, designating himself as the «
chaplain of the god Mars » (6).
 |
 |
 |
| The
chaplain of god Mars: abbé
Dominique de Pradt
(1759-1837),
preceding Francisco Primo Verdad
y Ramos (1760-1808), and et au
viceroy
José de Iturrigaray y Aróstegui
(1742-1815),
precursors of the Mexican Independence. |
|
One of the most
remarkable facts of the priest’s life had
been his participation in the negotiations of Bayonne.
Pradt himself tells in his Mémoires historiques
sur la révolution d’Espagne (1816)
how, while in Poitiers, he was surprised to receive
the order of the Emperor to follow him to Bayonne.
He affirms that his mission consisted of convincing
the Prince of the Asturias to abdicate in favour
of his father, and that he even suggested that Napoleon
name Ferdinand VII as Emperor of New Spain in order
to stimulate the independence of the colonies.
This depicts clearly
the reciprocal influence of the priest upon Napoleon,
and of the Napoleonic spirit on the work of the
first. We perceive also the influence of Montesquieu
on these two men. The author of L’Espirit
des lois has affirmed that the independence
of the colonies was written in the inevitable course
of events. The Indies and Spain « are
two powers governed by a single sovereign, but the
Indies are the essential, while Spain is the accessory.
It is in vain that politics will try to subordinate
the main to the secondary: it is not Spain that
attracts the Indies, it’s the Indies that
attract Spain » (7).
The reading of the
priest’s works by the most illustrated American
caudillos, as Iturbide, Bolivar, San Martin and
Pueyrredon, shows us the importance accorded by
the patriots to having an ally and a defender of
their cause in Europe itself. Thanks to the Napoleonic
spirit and Pradt’s ideological presence, our
liberators feel understood and legitimized before
the world.
A pre-eminent idea
that we find in his works is faith in institutions,
and the importance of institutions for man to act
and develop for the best. For Pradt, it is evident
that Spain has not at its disposal any means to
retain its American colonies, as it has become a
mother who « exterminates at the same time
in this fight... her children of America for those
of Europe... in one identical act of suicide and
of parricide » (8).
 |
|
 |
| Pradt’s
avid readers, admirers of Napoleon
and liberator fellows:
Simon Bolivar et
Augustine of Iturbide in
1821. |
|
|
Once the Independence
of the new countries was acquired, what worried
Pradt, as well as Napoleon, was American’s
incapacity to govern itself, which could degenerate
into anarchy, or into a new slavery as ignominious
as that of the colonies, if they didn’t appeal
to European experience and institutions: «
Some of them will want a monarchy, the others a
republic, others even absolute chiefs: what a multiplicity
of things, what a confusion, how much blood and
disgrace before a well-cemented arrangement manages
to sort out all these difficulties... an excess
of oppression is followed, quite frequently, perhaps
always, by an excess of liberty, and the despotism
of a single man is followed by that of many, which
is the worst of all despotisms » (9).
It is undeniable
that the influence that the French priest, as Napoleon’s
counsellor, had in America, made him a visionary,
a precursor and the « prophet » of emancipation
for many illustrious Americans. We see that Bolivar
established a friendly correspondence with him;
Chile, Rio de la Plata, Greater Colombia and other
countries considered him a defender of their cause
in Europe, and a man who possessed « the sacred
fire » so much praised by the Emperor.
We can, however,
assert that it was in Mexico, in the former Vice-kingdom
of New Spain, where the typical objectives of the
Napoleonic spirit and, consequently, of “Pradtian”
thinking, were crystallized. As Fray Servando Teresa
Mier used to say: « In August 1821, the viceroy
O’Donoju and Augustine of Iturbide signed
the Cordoba Treaties. This new document, as the
preamble states, wanted to unfasten, without breaking,
the ties that had been established between Spain
and America. It recognized absolute independence.
The government would be monarchical, moderate and
constitutional, and Ferdinand would be approached
to occupy the throne. Pradt obtained thereby a triumph”.
(10).
“Ferdinand,
with all of his fury, will try to keep his sceptre,
but one of these mornings, it will slip from his
hands as an eel”.
Napoleon.
 |
The
Mexican Empire
Arms and allegoric motives |
|
The Epic that will
begin with the Mexican independence process was
the reflection of all the conflicts and underlying
projects that subsisted in the Old World, essentially,
the fight between liberalism and absolutism. It
is evident that the heritage of the French Emperor,
the ideas of Montesquieu and the ideologists of
the Enlightenment penetrated the vice-royalty through
the news and the books that were well-received by
the Creoles and by the Mestizos. However, we will
notice that the anti-religious way of thinking of
the French Revolution was in no way admitted by
the Spanish-American caudillos of independence,
who adopted only the political ideas. We may add
that what precedes the fact of the contribution
of the Christian-Catholic and Spanish tradition
in the fundamental ideas for the formation of political
criteria, such as essential equality among human
beings, is the belief that each person is free and
that his life isn’t fatally predetermined,
among many others.
However, the dangers
that threatened the Mexican people in its noble
interests, by far more moral than material, also
frightened the Church. That’s the reason why
the thinkers clearly saw that the separation from
Spain was the only way to get rid of them, as the
Metropolis was, from the beginning of the XIXth
Century, in such a state of decrepitude; a decay
that was completely evident in the scandals and
the abuses of the royal Spanish family, along with
those of Godoy, and which occurred at the same time
as the corruption and disrepute of the royal government
in Spain itself, before the eyes of the world.
Precisely because
the important priests used to participate in the
juntas where the emancipation projects were discussed,
they collided with an obstacle of a moral nature:
rebellion against the legitimate authority of the
kings of Spain, an uprising which they believed
to be necessary to reach the only kind of effective
independence. This situation was expressed in the
principle that the king, in view of his quality
of Christian prince, “can force his infidel
subjects into the observance of the natural law”
(11). Happily, this point
was resolved by itself in the course of events,
just at the moment and by the means that were the
least expected: simply because the crown of Spain
had ceased to exist.
The Spanish monarchical
decomposition is reaching its climax and the nationalist
hopes are put upon the Prince of Asturias. In October
1807, Charles IV discovers the elements of a plot
and orders the arrest of his son. Ferdinand, accused
of projecting the death of his father and of having
asked for Napoleon’s help, giving new proof
of the baseness which his reign will confirm, denounced
all of his companions in the conspiracy: his dead
spouse included. The king forgives his son, and
in the midst of a farce -like judgement, all of
those charged are acquitted.
 |
| “Religión,
Yndependencia y Unión”:
the Three Guarantees of the Plan
of Iguala, which represent
the Mexican nationality, fraternized
in essence with the Napoleonic
France in 1821. From left to right:
Pavilion of the Three Guarantees;
Imperial Eagle of Mexico; Arms
of the First Empire of Mexico;
Imperial Eagle of France. |
|
|
Murat is at the
doors of Madrid and Ferdinand believes that he brings
him the crown, but fearing that his father would
speak to Napoleon before he does, he beats him to
it and arrives in Bayonne, where, once the whole
royal family is gathered, including Godoy, one of
the most shameful displays in history would occur:
in the middle of an exchange of insults and accusations
between the father, the mother and the son, they
all demand that Napoleon be their arbiter, in order
to sort out their differences. Charles abdicates
before Napoleon on May the 5th, handing over to
him the Spanish kingdoms and his properties in exchange
for the Compiègne palace, the castle of Chambord
and an annuity that he wouldn’t receive. Next
day, Ferdinand abdicated in favour of Charles IV,
not aware of the earlier abdication of the latter.
In some vile notes,
the prince of Asturias congratulates Napoleon for
his repeated victories in Spain, while signing the
document as “the humblest subject
of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, whose august
brow Providence crowns”. He asks Napoleon
for the hand of one of his nieces, the first born
of Joseph Bonaparte « in order to remove
from a blind and furious people the pretext of continuing
to drench the Fatherland with blood ».
If after that, the Spaniards who supported the Napoleonic
intervention in the Iberian peninsula were disqualified
with the nickname of « afrancesado »,
we can easily speak of Ferdinand VII himself as
the first afrancesado in Spain, particularly if
we consider strictly the facts and the various statements
that he made during his stay at Valençay.
If feeling “respectful”, “in
love with Napoleon” and “proud
of being under his protection” are words
that can be considered as pertaining to someone
who sides with a pro-French liberal political tendency,
it is evident that the first afrancesado
was the prince of Asturias and the future king of
Spain himself, who sent these words and many others
to the Emperor up until 1813. (12)
The
Emperor, although surprised and infuriated,
knew already the low moral value of the father,
as well as of the son, when the two Bourbons,
in the vilest manner, put the crown of Spain
at his feet. In order to justify himself,
Ferdinand signed the 12th of May of that same
year a decree in which the following words
were to be found: “Absolving the
Spaniards of their obligations in this matter
(the fact of being subjects to his person)
and exhorting them to remain calm, expecting
their happiness from the wise dispositions
of the Emperor Napoleon”. (13)
Analyzing
what we just saw, the king freed all of his
subjects from the oath of submission that
was due to him, and exhorted them only, without
commanding it, to submit to Napoleon. Thus,
Ferdinand VII, with this attitude, by the
fact of abandoning his throne and even through
his own words, left his people in full liberty
to choose for themselves their form of government
and their leaders. I |
