T ABLA 23: A NÁLISIS DE V ARIANZA AL P ORCENTAJE DE DISMINUCIÓN DE LA

3.

Ideology

The Mariano Otero that emerges from the biographical sketch is a man shaped by the events of the early national period. His earliest political stances were influenced by local and national politics and during the decade of the 1840s his position in parliament, his journalistic career and even his personal freedom were dependent on the state of affairs. The statesmen of the early national period were forced to mould their actions and goals in accordance with who was in power, the state of the economy, or the constitution in force. The ideology of these men was equally reactive, and as Mexico’s situation altered, the way they thought and their political priorities also shifted; the opinions of these men “were likely to be fluid, changing to some extent in accordance with experience and the prevailing circumstances.”308

This second part of the thesis will therefore explore Mariano Otero’s political ideology, compromising a general introduction to his political thought in this chapter, and three further chapters, 4, 5, and 6, which will explore his views in detail on three key issues of the decade; the army, the Church and constitutionalism/federalism. Before approaching his political thought and an in-depth analysis of his political stance on these, it is essential to ascertain just who the moderates were, what their beliefs were and how they were seen by the other political factions in the ongoing struggle for power. The monochrome liberal tradition that pitched conservatives against liberals during the early national period has been discredited, and it is now widely accepted that the struggle was between “monarquistas y republicanos, centralistas y federalistas, yorquinos y escoceses, imparciales, hombres de bien y progresistas” among others and,

308

furthermore, that “antes de 1846 no existían partidos políticos, es decir, grupos coherentes que conjugaban intereses concretos, en base a una serie definida de principios.”309Fowler narrows this down to four prominent political currents; “a variety of heterogeneous traditionalist, moderate, radical and santanista factions all of which changed and evolved as the hopes of the 1820s degenerated into the despair of the 1840s.”310The term “moderate” was not used of a specific political faction until 1838, when it emerged to define the group led by Manuel Gómez Pedraza.311Many of the men who made up this group can be recognised from Otero’s earlier biographical sketch and yet others can be found in his correspondents: among the most prominent were José María Lafragua, Mariano Riva Palacio, Guillermo Prieto, José Joaquín de Herrera, Ignacio Comonfort, Octaviano Muñoz Ledo and José Espinosa de los Monteros.312 Shortly after his arrival in Mexico City, Otero was already considered as “el líder ideológico de los nuevos moderados.”313Accused by many of their contemporaries as being opportunist turncoats with no original ideas of their own, the moderados were often identified as sharing the political goals of the puros, but of holding a different view on how these should be achieved.314According to Fowler they wanted to exercise moderate reform, which, without riding roughshod over the country’s customs and traditions, would bring about a slow and gradual modernization of Mexico’s political life, avoiding any major or abrupt changes at any cost. Thus, it was not the ideas they held but the speed of implementation that distinguished the moderates from radicals and traditionalists.

309_{Vázquez, “Los años olvidados,” p. 314.} 310

Fowler also dedicates a specific chapter to the proposals of Carlos María de Bustamante, but I have chosen to use the four main factions he identifies. See, Fowler,Mexico in the Age of the Proposals, p. 267.

311_{For further information on Manuel Gómez Pedraza and the moderate faction see Solares Robles,Una}

revolución pacífica.

312_{Ibid., p. 135.}

313_{Luis Medina Peña,Invención del sistema político mexicano. Forma de gobierno y gobernabilidad en}

el siglo XIX(Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2004), p. 259. 314

This second part of the thesis examines Otero as the “líder ideológico” of the moderate factions in the following decade. Chapter 3 will cover what it meant to be a moderate and the key points of Otero’s political thought in order to establish the central tenets of greatest relevance to it. These were; the colonial legacy and the importance of the struggle for independence, the social question, the issue of class divisions, the need for reform in all branches of government, the prominence of the Church and the army as political institutions, the problems caused by factional disputes, the debate on the correct system of government and, the need for constitutionalism, the rule of law and the importance of the rights of man.315In exploring Otero’s approach to each of these grandes temas we will begin to form a picture of his political standpoint, as well as an introduction to his ideology. François-Xavier Guerra took these grandes temas and narrowed them down to “a series of permanent problems,” created by “the precocious adoption of modern political principles and an imagined liberal nation by a society in which war had forced the strengthening of the corporate political structures.”316Guerra argued that “there were multiple conflicts between the builders of the modern state and the corporations of the old society; the army, the pueblos, and ecclesiastical bodies” and and Otero's views on the army and the church will be examined in greater depth in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively before addressing his version of federalism in Chapter 6.317

315_{Fowler identifies the “grandes temas” as; “la política económica a seguir, el sistema político más} apropiado, la posición de la Iglesia, el papel del Estado, la libertad de imprenta, la tolerancia religiosa, la reforma del ejército y la situación de Texas con relación al expansionismo estadounidense.” I have modified the list to show the specific issues that can be identified in Otero’s work and that will be the basis of this chapter. Ibid., p. 282.

316_{François-Xavier Guerra, “Mexico from Independence to Revolution: The mutations of Liberalism,” in} Elisa Servin, Leticia Reina, John Tutino,Cycles of Conflict, Centuries of change. Crisis, reform, and revolution in Mexico(Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2007), pp. 134.

317 _{Guerra uses the word pueblo to incorporate the idea of “provinces/states, municipalities, or} villages/communities”, for Otero, the problem of thepueblocan be identified in his call for federalism, and the need for adequate representation of the provinces/states on a national stage. Ibid., pp. 134, 137.

Beginning in the decade immediately following independence, analysing the state of the nation “el estado de la nación or la situación actual” at particular points in time, as well as the historical events which shaped it, developed into a constant concern of the Mexican intelligentsia. Indeed, Luis G. Cuevas went so far as to state that “casi no hay discusión, conferencia privada ni escrito periódico en que no se hable de las causas de nuestros males, del remedio que debe aplicárseles y del peligro que amenaza nuestra nacionalidad.”318 The country stood in disarray and the years following independence had been marked by constitutional failures, economic chaos, constant pronunciamientos, and external threats to its very independence. The situation of the nation, and the search for a better understanding of why the nation stood as it did at various points in time was, therefore, one of the most recurrent themes in all the writings of the early national period.319Mariano Otero was no exception. Through the drafting of two constitutions, one that remained theoretical, one eventually implemented, in his speeches in congress, his votes in the senate, during his term as Minister of Internal and Foreign Affairs, and even in the tender letters he wrote to his wife, the analysis of the state of the nation was always central to his work. Fortuitously this enables us to follow the changes in his visions and beliefs as these were shaped by the events of the 1840s, as well as clearly identify the themes running through his work.

318_{Luis G. Cuevas, Porvenir de México (Mexico City: Colección CIEN de México, Consejo Nacional} para la Cultura y las Artes, 1992), I, p. 43.

319_{For examples of this phenomenon see Cuevas, Porvenir. 2vols., Lilian Briceño Senosiáin, Laura} Solares Robles, and Laura Suárez de la Torre,José María Luis Mora. Obras Completas. 8 vols., (Mexico City: Instituto Mora, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1986) and by the same authors

Valentín Gómez Farías y su lucha por el federalismo, 1822 – 1858 (Mexico City: Instituto Mora, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 1991). Also, Lorenzo de Zavala.Ensayo Histórico de las Revoluciones de México; desde 1808 hasta 1830 (Mexico City: SRA/CEHAM, 1981), Manuel Crescencio Rejón,

Pensamiento Político (Mexico City: UNAM, 1996), Melchor Ocampo, Textos Políticos (Mexico City: Colección SepSentas, Sep, 1975), Laura Solares Robles, La obra política de Manuel Gómez Pedraza 1813- 1851 (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Dr José María Luis Mora, Instituto Matías Romero, Acervo Histórico Diplomático de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1999), Galeana de Valdés, José María Lafragua, José María Gutiérrez de Estrada, “La monarquía como posibilidad,” in Álvaro Matute, México en el siglo XIX. Fuentes e interpretaciones históricas (Mexico City: UNAM, 1992). This is merely a sample of the vast information available, detailing the main works and individuals to be quoted in this chapter.

Before continuing with Otero’s analysis of “la situación actual” it is important to note the peculiarities of Otero’s methodology, particularly visible in theEnsayobut also apparent in many of his other contributions. As already touched upon in the historiographical analysis, Jesús Reyes Heroles noted a “concepción y método” in the way Otero wrote.320 Reyes Heroles’ defined Otero’s method as a move from a subjective analysis of events to an objective analysis of Mexico’s past. This método, according to Reyes Heroles, is what distinguishes the Ensayo from many of its contemporary works. Lucas Alamán and his Historia de Méxicoor Lorenzo de Zavala inEnsayo histórico de las revoluciones de México, for example, are just that, histories. Whatever the reason for writing them –a justification of the author’s actions or the construction of a timeline to support an ideological stance– they are a chronological retelling, covering the actions of individuals and the causes and outcomes of certain events. In Otero’s Ensayo, on the other hand, we find less specificity. His aim, in his own words, was to

prescindir de los actores para examinar el drama […] descendiendo al examen del origen de esta sociedad, y analizando sus partes constitutivas y las revoluciones que ha sufrido, nos es dado conocer su verdadera situación actual. Dejemos por un momento las pasiones fugaces del día, para examinar la larga obra de los siglos; y entrando en ese análisis indaguemos cuales son los males de esta sociedad, las causas por que esos males subsisten, y el modo de disminuirlos o aniquilarlos321

The Ensayo was written in support of the Revolución de Jalisco, and many of the justifications he gave refer to revolts and revolutions as one of the causes of themales that Mexico suffered. However, he went beyond this to apply his system of analysis to all the issues he identified. There is little or no mention of individual actions, specific men or particular events. He sought to ascertain and analyse the general, underlying causes that had brought the nation to such a sorry state by 1842, standing a step away 320_{The section by Reyes Heroles on Otero’s methodology in the Ensayo can be found in Jesús Reyes} Heroles, “Estudio Preliminar,” I, p. 46-66.

321

from a historical perspective and taking on a more sociological one –that is, the study of social problems. HisEnsayo emphasised that the origins of Mexico’s problems had to be established and comprehensively understood before there could be any realistic hope of improving the state of the nation. He placed little or no emphasis on the actors or on specific events, preferring to focus on the general issues that permeated all levels of society. Only after pinpointing these problems, which coincided with the great themes of the decade as outlined above, and unravelling them could an adequate solution be proposed and instigated. For example, turning his attention to write about the revolt initiated by Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga in Jalisco in 1841, Otero argued that although the successful pronunciamiento had covered the immediate grievances it was nothing more than “las luchas de las ambiciones personales que se excitan en ellas, y que no forman sino la parte más secundaria y menos importante de esas revoluciones.”322Otero firmly believed that though an initial victory had been accomplished, it was essential that the “grandes cuestiones sociales” be identified and addressed, in order for the revolts and revolutions to cease completely. In the Ensayo, therefore Otero set out to discover and examine these causes, it can be seen how he developed and sought to construct solutions to these great social questions in the years that followed. It is these cuestiones socialesthat provide us with the main themes of Otero’s political thought.

The first of these themes to emerge from Otero’s writing is that of the problems that arose from “la diversa situación de las clases,” class divisions and the unequal distribution of property.323 The importance of class divisions, particularly during the colonial period, was also highlighted by men such as Mora, Zavala and Alamán.324

322_{Ibid., p. 9.} 323

Ibid., p. 39.

324_{Zavala and Mora focus on the segregation of the Indian. Alamán, like Otero, on the hand focused on} the division betweencriollosand the Spanish colonists. Zavala,Ensayo histórico,pp. 11-12. Jose María Luis Mora,México y sus revoluciones, I, in Briseño Senosiáin, Lilian, Solares Robles, Laura and Suárez de la Torre, Laura, José María Luis Mora. Obras Completas (Mexico City: Instituto Mora, Consejo

Otero argued that in order to reach a comprehensive understanding of the position of the nation in the 1840s, it was essential for him to examine the composition of the social classes within the colonies before Independence because he believed the problems the country faced in the early national period had its roots as far back as the conquest. He compared the North American settlers with the Spanish conquistadors, and concluded that the latter had come looking only for “el oro y los peligros,” and once in the New World were interested only in acquiring great swathes of land and, like Zavala and Mora, he argued that the result of this had been to force the native population into slave- like conditions.325This view of the former Spanish America was by no means unique. Bolívar, writing in 1824, also highlighted this unfavourable aspect of their colonial past when he said

our being has the most impure of origins: everything that preceded us is covered with the black mantle of crime. We are the abominable product of these predatory tigers who came to America to shed its blood and to interbreed with

their victims before sacrificing them ─afterward mixing the dubious fruit of such

unions with the offspring of slaves uprooted from Africa…326

Otero shared this view that the rapidly diminishing Indian population interbred with the conquerors, then with their slaves and, finally, with the Spanish settlers, saying

esa población abyecta y miserable que forma los cuatros quintos del total de la República, y que representa aquella parte que en todas las sociedades humanas está destinada a la miseria, por la escasez de los medios de llenar sus necesidades físicas y morales.327

Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1986), IV: pp. 60-63. Lucas Alamán,Historia de México desde los primeros movimientos que prepararon su independencia en el año de 1808 hasta la época presente

(Mexico City: Libros de bachiller Sansón Carrasco, 1986), I, p. 9, 13-16.

325_{Otero, “Discurso, 1841”, II, p. 407 andEnsayo, I: p. 36. In hisEnsayo Histórico, Zavala talked of the}

indio and described their situation after the conquest as one of slavery. Mora, in Mexico y sus revolucionesmaintained that the Spanish regime had reduced theindio to a state of abject misery, but argued that as soon as independence was achieved, their situation had changed drastically as independence had brought with it “la igualdad de derechos para todas las casta y razas”, though he did admit that this was a change that could not take effect immediately. Zavala,Ensayo historic,pp. 11-12, Mora,México y sus revoluciones,IV, pp. 60-63

326_{Bolivar in a letter to Francisco de Santa Paula, 24 Feb. 1824, quoted in Simon Collier, “Nationality,} Nationalism, and Supranationalism in the Writings of Simón Bolívar,”The Hispanic American Historical Review,Vol. 63, No. 1 (Feb. 1993), pp. 37-64. Quote reproduced on p. 44.

327

He argued that whereas the settlers of the greater part of what was to become the United States had founded their nation on equality, the Spaniards had from the very beginning founded theirs on inequality and the subjugation of one group of individuals by another, leading to many repercussions. He referred to these classes as the “proletario,” which he divided up between country and city, and mining and commerce. According to Otero, agriculture in Mexico was underdeveloped following independence, and those who worked in the sector, although they formed the most numerous segment of society, received derisory wages, and were hindered by their limited skills.328In Otero’s eyes, these men were characteristically indolent, and cared only for satisfying their basic needs, without looking for betterment or participation in civil society.329 Those members of the proletarian classes who lived in cities, worked in the mines or engaged in commercial activities were, in addition, plagued by the backwardness of their respective industries although, Otero added, the latter were more fortunate than those not involved in industry and commerce because they, at least, received higher wages, though this did nothing to lessen their moral and intellectual degradation.330 Otero argued that it was not simply the living and working conditions of this class that was important. In his opinion even the geographical distribution of these people across Mexico was a reflection of their position within society, and this was an area of concern it was essential to address if there were to be any hope of prosperity for the nation. Where minerals or other resources could be found and towns emerged, the situation worsened across the republic. The most important cities contained on the one hand, the upper and middle classes, including the high clergy, men who worked in civil