Mexico's Struggle Towards Democracy/Chapter 1

by Margaret Maude Shipman

MEXICAN REVOLUTION of 1857

The Ayutla Revolution

1. BASIC CAUSE OF THE REVOLUTION.

THE basic cause of the Mexican Revolution of 1857 was the struggle between an oppressive and decadent feudal aristocracy and a rising middle class. Economic antagonisms were rendered more bitter by racial division between the classes.

The Mexican ruling class was exclusively of Spanish descent. The followers of Cortez had imposed upon the people of Mexico a drastic system of exploitation. The masses became peons of the land and slaves of the mines. From intercourse between conquerors and natives, there arose the half-castes or mestizos, most of whom remained in the status of the natives. Some became wage workers, artisans, traders, professionals, and small property owners, but were excluded from governmental and higher economic positions.^[1]

It was mainly this mestizo class, lead by some of the lower clergy, that started the revolution for independence in 1810, arousing the apathetic peons to fight for their land. They were finally put down by the upper clergy and the creole property owners. Thereafter, the efforts of this reactionary ruling class to suppress the rising ambition of the middle class and the land hunger of the peons was the underlying cause of Mexico's internal struggles which culminated in the revolution of 1857.^[2]

2. IMMEDIATE CAUSES.

The immediate causes of the revolution may be summed up as the aftermath of the defeat suffered in the war against the United States (1846–48). This defeat was followed by economic distress, political agitation and disorder on the one hand, and by dictatorship and oppression on the other.

The poorly equipped Mexican volunteers and non-combatants suffered much in trying to repel the invaders from the United States. The terms of peace, by which Mexico surrendered more than one-half of her territory, were humiliating. For the three years following the war, the expenditures of the government were more than twice its receipts. Taxes and levies upon industry became exorbitant. The masses and the middle class suffered while the upper classes, clergy and military, flaunted their luxury. Crimes and banditry increased. Yucatan and the states on the northern border were in revolt. To quell the rising disorder, the army was enlarged. A law, passed in 1848, which limited government troops to 10,000, was evaded by increasing state militias and bringing them under central control.

Santa Anna, upon his re-election in 1853, took control of all state properties and revenues and dissolved state legislatures. In 1847, Congress had passed a law authorizing sale or mortgage of certain church property to meet war expenses.^[3] It was now proposed that the unused property of the church be pledged to secure a loan. The opposition of the church was so bitter that neither of these measures was carried out. Freedom of the press had been virtually abolished. The secret police became oppressive. A conspiracy law was passed, according to which anyone suspected of opinions adverse to the government or the church was tried before military court and punished by imprisonment or death. Santa Anna proclaimed himself dictator but he was, in reality, the tool of his conservative cabinet, the chief of whom was Lucas Alaman, mouthpiece of the church and an outspoken monarchist.^[4]

3. GROUPS TAKING PART IN THE
REVOLUTION.

The creole ruling class, represented by the conservative party, and standing for a strongly centralized government, opposed the middle class, represented by the liberal party, and standing for autonomy of the states. The working class, though divided in its allegiance, fought mainly with the liberals, As the struggle progressed, imperialistic France, England and Spain, and the Pope of Rome assisted the conservatives while the influence of the United States and the liberal elements of Europe aided the revolutionists.

The conservatives, forming less than one-fifth of the population, were composed of the ecclesiastical, military and civil aristocracies, and were dominated by the Catholic church. The church is estimated to have owned in 1856 from one-half to one-third of the most valuable land, and one-third of Mexico's real and personal property.^[5] It owned the schools, most of the fine buildings, and collections of art and literature. Catholicism was the legally established religion, embraced by all classes, and the church managed to control most of the lay and military feudal groups. The clergy were exceedingly corrupt, both in private and public life, and church officials had repeatedly plotted with rulers in Europe for establishment of monarchy in Mexico.^[6]

The middle class, chiefly mestizo, was small but vigorous. The mining industry, since the expulsion of the Spaniards, had fallen into the hands of small owners. These mine operators, the rancheros (farmers), other provincial property owners and traders were opposed to the strongly centralized government with its exorbitant levies upon industry. Lawyers, merchants and shop-keepers were also influential. Through study of law and military prestige, some liberals entered politics and public office. This middle class was responsible for the constitutions of 1824 and the beginnings of church reform in 1833, at which dates they briefly controlled the central government. When suppressed, they carried on secretly through the Masonic order, which was an important political organization, the York rite being liberal and the Scottish rite conservative.^[7]

The laboring class was composed of peons and free wage-workers. The relative size of these two classes is difficult to estimate as Mexican statistics are usually based on racial and property-owning rather than occupational classification. It is certain, however, that the peon class was the larger.

The peons were partly mestizo, but chiefly Indians. They were, as a rule, serfs attached to the land. This bondage was not strictly legal, but was rendered practically so by a law which required persons without property to render service in payment of debt. Debts could be transferred and inherited by the children. A large share of the peons lived in little villages on the estates, surrounded by their communal lands (ejidos). These, the Spanish overlords had established, conforming to the native custom. Each village had a cachique, native chief, who now acted as a sort of overseer for the owner of the estate, and frequently exploited those under him for himself as well as for his master.

The peons had no political rights and no opportunity for education. They clung with great persistence to the languages, customs, and traditions of the various tribes to which they belonged. As in the days before the Spanish conquest, they manufactured by hand or with the aid of primitive tools most of the scanty clothing, ornaments, and implements which they possessed.^[8]

The free working-class, mostly mestizo, was an economic as well as racial mixture, shading at the bottom into peonage from which some of the more enterprising individuals escaped temporarily or permanently; and at the top into the middle class. The main part of the wage workers, however, were farm hands during the busy season, domestic servants in the cities, and miners. The last mentioned were the most highly paid and independent, but were not numerous, as the mines at this time were in the hands of small native owners who were not able to work them extensively. It was from this non-descript wage-earning class and the small property-owning class that most of the revolutionary army was drawn.^[9]

4. PHASES OF THE REVOLUTION.

There were five distinct stages of the Revolution of 1857—(A) initial uprising, 1854; (B) period of parliamentary strategy, 1855–57; (C) second military stage, the war of revolution, 1858–61; (D) European intervention, the counter revolution, 1861–67; (E) Constitutional rule, 1867–1876.

The revolution opened with sporadic revolts, but it was soon unified by a typical Mexican proclamation: the Plan de Ayutla, drawn up by a group of liberals under General Alvarez. It proclaimed that Santa Anna should be discharged, that certain definite steps should be taken for election of president, organization of political machinery in each state and election of Congress, that oppressive laws in regard to individual taxation, the army, and the interurban tariff should be annulled. The response was enthusiastic and wide-spread. Repressive measures failed to quell revolts, Santa Anna fled and the conservatives resorted to strategy.^[10]

General Vega, a conservative, called a convention and declared for the Plan de Ayutla. The army now numbered 90,000. Its influence vied with that of the church and had been greatly increased under Santa Anna, who, as a means of consolidating the power of his dictatorship, had filled most of the minor political offices from the military class. General Vega's subterfuge was successful in quieting the people but not in gaining control of the revolution. In 1855, General Alvarez was elected president and Benito Juarez was made minister of justice. Taxes were lightened and organization of state militias authorized, Most important of all, the fueros, established in Mexico ever since the days of the Spanish conquest, were abolished. The fueros were ecclesiastical and military courts in which all clerical and military law breakers, and also many offenders against church and state, were tried. Half the crimes in Mexico were committed by men thus exempt from the civil courts.^[11] The abolition of the fueros caused such a storm of protest from the conservatives, that Alvarez was forced out of office and Comonfort, a prominent liberal, but a compromiser, took his place.

Juarez, however, remained in the administration, and the revolutionary program was continued. In 1856 a law was passed providing for the sale of the great church estates on reasonable terms. The proceeds went to the church, the object of the law being, not confiscation, but distribution of the land to small farmers. During that year, $20,000,000 worth of land passed into private hands; but people of small means dared not face the wrath of the church, so that the sales, largely to foreign capitalists, served to establish a new landed aristrocracy.

In the same year, a constitutional Congress was called and the famous constitution of 1857 was framed. The church, meanwhile, was excommunicating all who bought her lands, and a ferocious papal bull was sent from Rome, denouncing the government and ordering disobedience to its decrees.^[12]

With the promulgation of the new constitution, the conservatives abandoned parliamentary procedure, and three years of very bitter civil war ensued. Comonfort deserted the revolutionists, and Juarez took his place. Benito Juarez, called the Lincoln of Mexico, was a full-blooded Zapotec Indian, who had risen from poverty to positions as judge, state governor and public administrator. Under his leadership, the radical and racial character of the revolution deepened.^[13]

Despite the utmost efforts of the clerical party to create the issue of a "holy war," the soldiers of both sides continued throughout the whole struggle to fight with religious zeal in the name of the holy Catholic church. In 1859, the Reform Laws of Juarez confiscated the remainder of the church property, real and personal, and completed the separation of church and state. The sale of church lands brought funds to the liberals and "greatly contributed towards ending civil war."^[14]

President James Buchanan, in 1859, recognized the government of Juarez and recommended to Congress military intervention in Mexico, with or without the co-operation of the revolutionists, for the purpose of redressing United States citizens for damage to property rights, and protection of immediate and future commercial interests.^[15] The problem of transit across the Isthmus between the two oceans had been under consideration for many years, and its importance to the United States had been greatly increased by the acquisition of Mexican territory and the discovery of gold in California in 1848. Since 1850 negotiations had been going on with England concerning joint control of a proposed canal across Nicuaragua. Under Buchanan a treaty was negotiated with Juarez for a loan of four million dollars from the United States in return for the privilege of perpetual unlimited transit across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and states of northern Mexico. The United States Congress failed to ratify the treaty or to undertake intervention. The United States navy, however, prevented shipments of arms from Cuba to the conservatives, while munitions were permitted to go across the border to the revolutionists.^[16]

The forces of the revolutionists steadily increased and in 1861 were definitely victorious. Juarez re-established his government in Mexico City, obtained a re-election, continued to execute confiscation of church property, and to wrestle with the problems of reconstruction.^[17]

The reactionaries now intrigued with the European powers for intervention and monarchy. A few months after the revolutionists entered Mexico City, England, France and Spain signed a pact for joint military intervention in Mexico.^[18] Their excuse was protection of their financial interests as Juarez had temporarily suspended payment of interest on the national debt. Their real object was to gain a stronger foothold in the commercial fields of the new world where they saw that the United States was rising to a position of control. Juarez negotiated tactfully in adjustment of the financial situation and England and Spain soon withdrew their small quotas of troops. France continued to press unreasonable financial demands and, in 1864, began military operations which continued until 1867. Maximilian was imported and welcomed exultantly by conservatives. The church encouraged the Indians in their superstitious belief that in him they saw the return of their mythical hero-god. Maximilian, however, soon won the disapproval of the church by refusing to comply with its demand for restoration of lands, and by favoring, to quite an extent, liberal policies.^[19]

The French invaders captured one city after another. Juarez and his cabinet were obliged to change their headquarters frequently, and in being thus chased about over the country, came much in contact with the people. Large estates encountered in their travels were divided up and distributed to the peons. Revolutionary education by word and deed was spread broadcast.

The United States was busy with her own civil war, and at first took no decided stand against French intervention. The government, however, recognized Juarez as the head of the Mexican government, all through the struggle. He in turn abstained from recognition of the southern confederacy. "The chances for Maximilian's success in Mexico had been from the first deliberately calculated on the basis of the probable success of the southern confederacy."^[20] The confederate government sought alliance with Maximilian and after its defeat several influential southerners identified themselves with his government. In the north there was considerable pressure, in which General Grant played a leading part, for military intervention on the side of the revolutionists and the government allowed munitions and volunteers to go to them. Finally, Seward formally demanded the withdrawal of French troops, but already Napoleon III had announced intention of withdrawal to the French chamber. His action was due in part to the unexpected difficulty and cost of the Mexican campaign, to the military success of Germany, and to pressure from liberal elements in France.^[21]

Among the first measures of the Juarez administration was the reduction of the army to 16,000, which threw two-thirds of the revolutionary soldiers upon their own resources. This aroused much animosity and was one cause of the disorder which continued during the five years that Juarez remained in office. Ambitious officers headed revolts which restless and impoverished soldiers were ready to join. The defeated conservative elements added to the spirit of discontent.^[22]

The administration was notable for mildness towards opponents, vigorous administrative reforms, and adherence to constitutional methods. Confiscation of estates of hostile families of the old aristocracy was soon commuted to fines. Few political adversaries were executed, and general amnesty was declared in 1870. Law breakers were allowed regular trials in civil courts. "Every department of state was rendered less costly and more efficient."^[23] Financial difficulties were great. Most of the national income was derived from duties which were now all mortgaged to foreign creditors. The administration was held responsible for acts of the defeated reactionaries. The European governments refused for sometime to recognize Juarez and put in exaggerated claims of which Juarez recognized about $79,000,000 as the national debt.^[24]

Juarez died in office, 1872, and was succeeded by Lerdo de Tejada, as justice of the Supreme Court, soon confirmed in office by election. The following years were comparatively peaceful and prosperous. A notable event of the administration was the completion of the first railroad in Mexico, connecting Vera Cruz and Mexico City. The railroad question was much discussed in political circles. Lerdo favored the ideas of Juarez, who had declared for government ownership, construction and operation of railroads and telegraphs, and also shared his fear of too intimate connection with the United States. "Between the weak and the strong there must be a desert," is credited to Lerdo. He was accused by his opponents of favoring English construction companies and of paying them too high subsidies. On the other hand, Diaz favored United States investors.^[25]

Porfirio Diaz had been the most important general in the war against French intervention. He considered the constitutional methods of Juarez and Tejada inadequate and in all of the elections after the war was the opposition candidate, representing the disgruntled military and property-owning classes. After each defeat, his adherents arose in armed insurrection. After the second election of Juarez (1869) Diaz issued a revolutionary proclamation and the revolts were quite wide-spread. Under Lerdo he accepted terms of general amnesty and was restored to his rank in the army. He used his position for organization and probably for negotiations with foreign capitalists, who were increasingly active in Mexico. Early in 1876, he spent some weeks in Brownsville, Texas, in conference with United States business men. While he was still there, a revolutionary proclamation was issued by one of his military adherents. The main points of the "Plan de Tuxtepec" were denunciation of Lerdo, demand for his retirement, allegiance to the constitution, and demand for constitutional amendments, establishing effective suffrage, and non-re-election of president and state governors. Lerdo was able to hold revolts in check for several months, but finally his forces were defeated by those of Diaz. Iglesias, Justice of the Supreme Court, claimed the presidency by legal succession, negotiated with Diaz, and finally advanced to fight him with superior forces. These, however, rapidly deserted to the more popular leader. In November, Diaz entered the capital and his reign of thirty years began.^[26]

5. RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTION.

The chief results of the revolution were (A) declined in the power of the church and the old feudal aristocracy; (B) rise of the new capitalistic aristocracy; (C) crystallization and promulgation of the revolutionary ideas embodies in the constitution of 1857.

The economic power of the church was wrecked by the revolution, and loss of economic power very largely destroyed its political and social control. With it fell the old feudalism of which it was the bulwark. No ecclesiastical courts and very few monastic orders were ever re-established. Under Diaz, the church was allowed to evade constitutional prohibitions, and thus regained some land and power, but it never again became the dominant element in Mexican life.^[27]

The military element was now very strong and in conjunction with it there developed that of capitalistic owners of large estates, which had been started by sale of church lands in 1856. These estates, however, were still worked by the labor of peons whose status was practically the same as before the revolution. More and more, the ownership of lands, mines, factories, and means of transportation came under the control of foreign investors.^[28]

The constitution of 1857 was in the main modelled after that of 1824 which had been the standard liberal document of Mexico up to 1857. They both divided authority betwen the federal government and the states and provided machinery quite similar to that of the United States. The outstanding difference between the constitution of the United States and the Mexican constitution of 1824 was the latter's provision that the Roman Catholic religion should be forever established to the exclusion of all others.^[29]

The constitution of 1857, with the Reform Laws of 1859, which were incorporated as amendments in 1874, made the following important changes and additions:—church and state to be independent (Amendment 1); marriage made a civil contract (Amendment 2); private law and special courts for civil offenses forbidden (Art. 13); religious institutions forbidden to acquire real estate (Amendment 3); slavery and imprisonment for debt prohibited (Art. 2 and 18); everyone declared free to engage in any honorable calling suited to him and to avail himself of its products (Art. 4); no one to be compelled to render personal service without just compensation, contracts to the contrary and monastic orders forbidden (Amendment 5); monopolies, civil or ecclesiastical forbidden (Art. 8); all adult citizens to have right of suffrage (Art. 35); instruction to be free (Art. 3); bill of rights, liberal regulations in regard to aliens, and steps looking towards the abolition of capital punishment provided.^[30] This constitution remained theoretically in force until 1917, though many of its provisions were never put into practice.

The promulgation of the constitution, the wars of invasion, and the sense of proprietorship in the land and institutions all tended to increase national consciousness. Distrust of foreigners and fear of invasion were inevitable results.^[31]

The most important immediate result of the revolution was the breaking up of the church estates, of those confiscated from lay owners, and of the communal lands. There seems to be very little definite information as to the amount of land distributed to the peons.^[32] Ownership was in a state of flux. New estates were being formed and many who obtained small holdings soon sold or lost title to them. In 1876, Cubas wrote: "Within the republic there are more than 5,700 haciendas and 13,800 farms (ranchos) and not a few other locations of vast extent." (Republic of Mexico, p. 24.) He estimates the average value of the haciendas to be $45,000 and of the ranchos, $5,000, and makes no mention of smaller holdings. From this it would appear that at the end of the constitutional period, most of the small holdings had been absorbed by larger owners. Under Diaz the land was still further concentrated.^[33]

During the years of constitutional rule, there was a decided advance in the political and social status of the middle and working classes. The constitutional party, representing the middle class, increased from a minority before the war, to a strong majority, which controlled the government for ten years, and materially improved administration, finances and economic conditions.

Among the wage workers, beginnings of working-class organization were made, but they were probably social and educational rather than industrial. Says Cubas in 1876, speaking of the mestizos, "Desire of improvement in their social condition and education has developed itself amongst them in most remarkable manner. The idea of forming associations (which in Mexico do not have as their object the interruption of public order, but fraternity and mutual benevolence) has been already carried into effect by some societies of the working classes, as evidenced in their late strikes. Not only in the larger cities but in some of the second and third order, well-regulated organizations are being formed, at which the citizens congregate, in places chosen for the purpose, at times to attend lectures and to promote discussion upon some interesting subjects."^[34]

Even the Indian peons, whose economic condition was least improved, were to some extent aroused from the state of dejection and apathy, which centuries of extreme poverty and suppression had imposed upon them. The success of the Indian leaders, the loosening of the church bonds, the temporary possession of the land and encouragement in education, all hastened the process which had been going on since 1810.

Prior to the revolution there had been practically no public schools. Between 1867 and 1876, schools were established in all villages and hamlets, and attendance was made compulsory. In 1874 there were over 8,000 primary schools of which 5,800 were supported by public money. There were 105 higher schools and colleges, with an attendance of 14,809 students. The attendance of the primary schools of 360,000.^[35] With the advent of Diaz, primary schools, especially in rural communities, disappeared.

 

6. REASONS FOR SUCCESS AND FAILURE.

The revolution was successful in greatly reducing the power of the church and in substituting for decadent mediaeval feudalism, a new capitalisticly controlled economic system, but it failed to establish a permanent constitutional government and to develop a large class of small property owners. The basic reason for this measure of success was that the corrupt feudalism of Mexico had exhausted itself and could no longer stand against the new economic system which was dominant in the world. Immediate factors, working for success, were the victory of the capitalistic element in the United States civil war, contemporaneous events in Europe, the sincerity and wisdom of Mexican leaders and the hardihood of the masses.

The basic reasons for failure to establish permanent constitutional government and a thriving middle class were (1st) the backwardness of the Mexicans in government, industry and education, and (2nd) the power of international capitalism.

The Mexican masses had no tradition of democracy. For three centuries they had been slaves to a foreign power. Since national independence, they had been torn by war. Their only political knowledge was loyalty to military leaders. "To assume that one-tenth of the qualified voters participated in the late popular elections, is a liberal estimate."^[36] Even the small middle class trusted more in force than in parliamentary rule. The people were just emerging from illiteracy, and industrially were of the middle ages.^[37] They had been literally starved by an exploitation that did not afford them enough food to maintain physical strength. When the chance for betterment came, they were mentally and physically unable to break away from serfdom.

Capitalism in Europe and the United States had reached the imperialistic stage. The great industrial expansion that followed the civil war in the United States was under headway. Mexico, one of the richest undeveloped fields in the world, was easily accessible to its powerful neighbor. The proximity of the United States and her eagerness to exploit new fields, which had helped the constitutionalists to win the war, now contributed to their overthrow.

Under these circumstances it is hardly conceivable that constitutional government could hold out. Before it would have time to establish itself and develop, the surplus wealth of the more highly industrialized nations would overflow and sweep it away. It is possible, however, that with wiser procedure, more might have been accomplished for the Mexican people.

During the period of their administration, the constitutionalist leaders were active in political reform, but followed the laissez-faire policy in economics. The bad results of this course are evident in (1st) distribution of the land, and (2nd) disposal of the disbanded army.

The decree of 1856 failed in its object of establishing small farms and served instead to ground a new land-owning aristocracy. This might have been prevented by limiting the size of holdings or putting into execution a law, passed in that year, which says: "the right of property consists in the occupation or possession of the land, and these legal requisites cannot be conferred unless the land be worked and made productive."^[38]

The decree of 1856 also destroyed communal property owned by villages and towns. "The aborigines (Indians) were swiftly transferred from a system of communal to individual ownership for which they lacked preparation—no means whatever was taken to finance the laborers and small agriculturalists nor were laws enacted to render impossible the prompt sale of their lands."^[39] No attempt was made to utilize the communal customs of the Indians by developing collective agriculture and irrigation so much needed in Mexico. Neither did the government take steps to introduce modern farm implements and method.

There was no plan for disposal of the disbanded army. Diaz took advantage of this and, after seizing the government, organized the dissatisfied military element into a constabulary for maintaining his dictatorship.

1. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I, pp. 35–118. Priestley, Mexican Nation, pp. 116–126.
2. Bancroft, History of Mexico, Vol. IV, 117–119.
3. Rives, United States and Mexico, pp. 316–320 and 393–94.
4. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. V, pp. 565–637. Gutierrez de Lara, Mexican People, pp. 149–177.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Mexico.
6. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 345–46.
7. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. VI, pp. 467–69.
8. Bancroft, Op. Cit. Vol. VI, pp. 609–13.
9. Garcia Cubas, Republic of Mexico, pp. 18–20.
10. Gutierrez de Lara, Op. Cit., pp. 174–85.
11. Burke, Life of Juarez, p. 64.
12. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 324–29. Noll, From Empire to Republic, pp. 182–87.
13. Burke, Op. Cit., Chapters 3 and 4.
14. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. V, p. 768.
15. President Buchanan's Annual Messages to Congress, 1858–59, Appendices Congressional Globe.
16. Latane, The United States and Latin America, pp. 149–65.
17. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 334–39.
18. United States Congress, 37:2, House Ex. Doc. No. 100, p. 134.
19. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 342–44.
20. Latane, Op. Cit., p. 217.
21. Latane, Op. Cit., pp. 217–37. Priestley, Op, Cit., pp. 357–58.
22. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. VI, p. 352.
23. Burke, Op. Cit., p. 350.
24. Bancroft, Op, Cit., Vol. VI, p. 368. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 363–68.
25. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. VI, pp, 399–404. Creelman, Diaz, Master of Mexico, pp. 328–35.
26. Priestley, Op. Cit., pp. 871–73. Gutierrez de Lara, Op. Cit., pp. 275–90.
27. Beals, Mexico, pp. 41–44.
28. Gonzales Roa, Mexican People, p. 8.
29. Ward, Mexico, Book III, Sec. I.
30. Rodriguez, American Constitution, Vol. I. pp. 89–96.
31. Priestley, Op, Cit., p. 364.
32. "In the brief space of the Juarez regime (before intervention) at least one million peons became independent farmers on their own land." Gutierrez de Lara, Op. Cit., p. 232.
33. Cabrera, Mexican Situation, p. 250. Gutierrez de Lara, Op. Cit., pp. 277–78.
34. Garcia Cubas, Republic of Mexico, p. 19.
35. Garcia Cubas, Op. Cit., p. 24.
36. Bancroft, Op. Cit., Vol. VI, p. 482.
37. Farnham, Mexico, pp. 28–29.
38. Gutierrez de Lara, Op, Cit., p. 199.
39. Gonzales Roa, Op. Cit., p. 245.