The great intellectual gifts which distinguish and recommend the historian Cesar Cantú have properly earned for him the merited reputation he enjoys in the civilized world; and we, who have always been his sincere admirers, are to-day the first to acknowledge that universal opinion. It is precisely because of his fame as a historian that we lament the fact that Cesar Cantú, when referring to matters relating to the Mexican Republic, whether he narrates the history of the past or treats of contemporaneous events, has not adhered to that historical accuracy which it is his bounden duty to observe, and which impartial criticism should not alter in any way.
"In Mexico"—says Cesar Cantú, in his work entitled THE HISTORY OF THE LAST THIRTY YEARS—"while Spain was warring against Napoleon I, the nobles and the clergy unfurled the banner of the ancient Aztec monarchs, the white and blue standard of the Virgin of Guadalupe, and separated from the mother country, etc. This unpardonable error as to the historic origin of the independence of Mexico, is repeated by Cesar Cantú in his biography of Maximilian. It would be difficult to explain this error of judgement on the part of the eminent historian otherwise than by attributing it to the lack of authentic data respecting a matter so well known, and so different from the account presented in the History of the last thirty years. But be it as it may, and even admitting every attenuating circumstance in his excuse, the fact remains that Cesar Cantú has persisted in errors which are foreign indeed to his general impartiality, when, in the biography of Maximilian, he formulates his charges against the great reformer, the great defender of the independence and autonomy of Mexico, Benito Juarez. The charges against that spotless patriot, are as follows:
"Juarez promised the territory of Sonora to the United States, and by these means he secured his recognition (as "President)."
"The body of Maximilian, which the butchers of the Prince had solemnly promised to deliver, had to he ransomed from that dishonorable and heartless oligarchy at the cost of entreaties and of money."
We may casually remark, that in the biography of Maximilian there are some other historical errors which we do not contradict, because they really possess no great importance, and have no bearing upon the principal subject of this refutation. Still, some of them deserve to be pointed out, because they indicate, at least, the incomprehensible carelessness of that historian when discussing the men and affairs of this country. He says, for instance, that Maximilian
"granted liberty to the negroes at the same time in which
"Lincoln decreed that of the negroes in the United States."
What knowledge of Mexico, of its history, of its social condition, can a man have who, without hesitation, thus declares that there were slaves in this country when Maximilian arrived? If Cesar Cantú, in the full compliance with his duties as a historian, had consulted the books that had already been published about Mexico, he would have learned, as we all know here, that in December 1810, the illustrious curate of Dolores solemnly issued a decree granting liberty to the negroes; that Morelos repeated this decree on the 5th of October 1813, and that Guerrero, on the 15th of September 1829, confirmed those prescriptions by another decree which contained these two articles:
"1st Slavery is abolished in the Republic."
"2nd All persons who hitherto have been considered as slaves, are free."
But there is yet something more to he noted. Maximilian, far from having abolished slavery, which did not exist in Mexico, entertained the idea of re-establishing that hateful institution, acting, for this purpose, in accord with the Southern Confederacy, as may be seen by innumerable documents which are to be found in the fifth volume of the Correspondence of the Mexican Legation in Washington, and which were published here in 1871.
He says also that Juarez "from the adjacent territory (alluding to the United States) continued to call himself the legitimate Chief of Mexico," when all the world knows that Juarez never for a moment abandoned the national territory. To such a degree of confusion do the statements and the appreciations of the Italian historian reach, that amongst the few Mexicans whom he eulogizes, he mentions Zaragoza, without considering the fact that the well deserved fame of this noble champion of independence and reform, was won principally by his splendid victory over the French army sent by Napoleon III to realize the most glorious page in the history of his reign, which consisted in placing the Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico.
Let us proceed now to discuss the principal charges preferred by Cesar Cantu against Benito Juarez.