Mexico and its reconstruction/Chapter 17

Layout 4

 

CHAPTER XVII

COLONIZATION

It is hard for Americans, who have seen their country welcome immigration of European stocks and prosper from so doing, to realize that other states, even American states, have not uniformly followed the same policy.

In Mexico an illiberal exclusive policy was followed before its existence as an independent state. Spain first kept foreigners out because she wished to keep all the benefits of local resources for her own people and to keep all the people under the unquestioned dominance of Spanish institutions. Later to these motives was added the fear that to abandon that policy would mean to open the way for foreign aggression.

As early as 1602 the attention of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities was called to "the evils resulting from foreigners going to the Indies, to reside in the ports and other places, it being found that our Catholic faith is not secure, and it being important to see that no errors may be sown among the Indians and other ignorant persons." The officers were commanded to "aid in cleansing the land of these people, and that they cause them to be expelled from the Indies."^[1]

Twelve years later even trade with the non-Spanish world was prohibited to the colonies "under a penalty of death, and confiscation of the property of those who violate this our law."^[2]

The suspicion of foreigners continued a part of Spanish policy to the end of the colonial period. Mexican distrust was studiously turned against the then weak United States. From time to time the governors "were admonished to keep a vigilant eye upon the restless sons of the Northern Republic." When New Spain threw off the yoke of the mother country it might have been expected that this policy would be reversed, that the foreigner would be welcomed and that a rapprochement between the young republics of North America would occur. To some degree this did happen. Discriminatory legislation was repealed and the laws above cited were suspended by decree of October 7, 1823.^[3]

There can scarcely be said to have been an established policy on international affairs in Mexico in the years following the winning of independence, for domestic problems kept her statesmen so fully occupied. Toward foreigners there was a clearer policy than on most lines. Those in power realized more clearly, it appears, than have some of their successors that the foreigner was essential to the development of a strong Mexico. Persons of European stocks were to be encouraged to settle in the republic. It was believed that it would be best for the central government to deliver over to the states the encouragement of immigration since each would be anxious to increase its population. A decree to that end was issued in 1824. The only limitation was that lands 20 leagues from the frontier or 10 leagues from the coast could not be colonized by foreigners except with the permission of the central government.

By 1831 at least two colonization projects had been launched. The legislature of the state of Vera Cruz gave the valley of the Goazacualco (Coatzacoalcos) River to a French company which sent out various expeditions. These enterprises met disaster. The colonists gradually drifted away to regions better developed or back to the home land.

The other venture was the only one of the early colonization contracts that was successful. It was from the Mexican point of view also the most disastrous, for it ultimately brought with it the dismemberment of the republic. This was the colony of "Texas, in the State of Coahuila and Texas." Under the colonization contracts of April 11, 1823, 6,391 families had entered from the northeast by January 2, 1830. Others "entered without contract and without the knowledge of the authorities," establishing themselves "at their will, especially near the frontier." Already the northern colony was displaying some features that were the cause of anxiety, for in some of the settlements "in view of the lack of adequate legislation, the customs and laws of the country from which the colonists have come have been observed." No advance "worthy of notice" had at this time been made "in the territories of Mexico and California."^[4] Later, Mexico attempted to redress the balance by inviting "all persons of the Republic to colonize in Texas, offering to transport them at the expense of the Treasury," to give them tools, and to maintain them for the first year, but the proposal did not attract popular support.^[5]

General colonization schemes continued to hold the attention of the government in spite of the fear of what was going on in the north. Extraordinary inducements were offered to encourage settlement and guarantees of protection for person and property were freely given.^[6] The general policy adopted was well outlined in the decree of March 11, 1842, issued by that adventurer- . statesman, President Santa Ana. The law declares that "after mature reflection and a most careful examination relative to the advantages that will result to the Republic by permitting foreigners to acquire property therein" it had been decided that "a frank policy and an interest well understood demand that no further delay be permitted in making such concessions as may tend to the prosperity and development of the Republic by the increase of population, by the extension and division of property . . . taking also into consideration the fact that by these measures the security of the nation will be more assured, since the foreigners who are owners of property . . . will be so many defenders of the national rights, considering also the encouragement which will be received by agriculture, commerce, and other industries, which are the fountains of public wealth; and lastly, that the opinion generally manifested is in favor of the concession," it was decreed that foreigners could acquire real estate freely but not more than two country properties in the same department. Foreigners employed in operation of such properties were not subject to military service except of a police character. Though this decree issued from the central government, it did not overthrow the rule that colonization projects were still in the hands of the states.

The war with the United States brought to those interested in colonization a conflict of feeling. They felt that colonization was responsible for the national disaster, which ended with the loss of about half of Mexico's territory, yet they continued to believe that only by colonization could the republic which "found itself spread abroad in an immense territory divided by high mountains, by great rivers, and deserts, which could not be crossed," hold itself together. Its misfortune had been the result of its impotence and of the fact that its more remote districts "found themselves almost foreign. . . to the civilization of the center of the country." For a time efforts seem to have been confined to internal colonization. Military colonies were set up, especially on the northern frontier where "invasions by adventurers from Upper California" were feared. Thirty of these outposts were established, seven in Sonora, seven in Chihuahua, four in Nuevo Leon, six in Coahuila, four in Durango, and two in Lower California. But the enemies of order were not alone in the north and similar establishments had to be set up in Tehuantepec, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, and even in the State of Mexico itself. These colonies were of 100 mounted men and their families, to whom, in return for a promise to stay in the colony six years, the government gave a monthly salary, land, construction materials, laboring tools, and seeds for the first crop.^[7] The settlements were, of course, of exceptional character; they did not promise to satisfy the country's need for greater population nor the desire for European population. Further, the settlements once established could not be given the promised support, because of the poverty of the treasury.^[8]

How real was the Mexican need of immigration is shown by comparing her population and her area. The states of the northern frontier were possessed but in no true sense occupied. Lower California, over which neither Spain nor Mexico had ever had effective control, was practically without inhabitants—it had about one inhabitant to every seven square miles. The character of the country there, it is true, assured that it would never support any large population. The frontier units to the eastward made a somewhat better showing. Sonora had 1.69 inhabitants per square mile, Tamaulipas on the Gulf of Mexico had 3.07. The frontier divisions, with an area of about 400,000 square miles, or over half of that of the republic, had a population of less than a million, and that population lived under such conditions that its rapid increase and material progress were unlikely.^[9]

Practically a generation after state promotion of colonization was authorized it was confessedly a failure. Colonists were unwilling to come to a country torn by disorder. The state governments were not strong enough to carry out the subsidies they promised. The modifications adopted after 1824 were not acted upon any more than the original measure. On June 1, 1839, a great quantity of lands was marked out, which was to be sold for payment of the public debt. Seventeen years later not a single conversion had been made. On December 4, 1846, a junta of distinguished persons was created to foster colonization but nothing was done. In 32 years following 1824 not a single colony had been formed, by a state, of individuals who had come from outside the republic. Lands had been disposed of by the states, it is true; they sold "concessions" and when they could not do so, they gave them away. They even disregarded the rule against alienation to foreigners of the lands near the border and the coast, but nothing was done "which merits the name of colonization."^[10]

State colonization had proven such a fiasco that, after examining many grants, it was decided to annul all acts taken under the legislation that established the system. On November 25, 1853, all alienations of land since 1821 were declared void. The central government now tried its hand. On the 16th of February of the following year a decree was issued inviting European immigration and offering to settlers land and pecuniary aid. President Santa Ana then appointed a Spaniard, General Agent of Colonization, to whom he gave nearly 50,000 pesos with which the appointee promptly disappeared. Other contracts were made in 1856 for colonizing Germans in Nuevo Leon, Jalapa, and Vera Cruz and the consul of Genoa contracted to bring over a colony of Sardinians. Colonies in Sonora and Durango were to be of persons from Upper California. Others were planned in Yucatan, Chihuahua, and the Federal District. All these ventures met the same fate. What the states had not been able to do, the central government did no better. Ministers of Fomento, or the Interior, had to report failure after failure. Immigrants turned aside from Mexico to the northward. ^[11] The next serious attempt to deal with the colonization problem was made in the '70s by the eminent Secretary of Fomento, Vicente Riva Palacio. By this time it was realized that the government owed it to the public treasury to see that the public lands were not carelessly disposed of to companies that had no serious purpose to develop them or to promote immigration. It was recognized that lands that had been alienated could not be taken again without payment, but the government should ascertain what land it held and in the future dispose of it only in ways that would fully protect the rights of the nation. On August 25, 1877, the Secretary addressed to the governors of the states a circular that indicated both the problem confronting the administration and how ill fitted the government was to cope with it. Colonization legislation, it was shown, still proved a failure; colonization, however, was one of the greatest needs of the country,^[12] but the government, unlike that of the republic to the north, had no way of telling where public land lay nor what was its extent.

The state governors were asked to outline the system adopted locally to handle immigrants on their arrival. They were asked to inform the central government what, if any, lands belonged to it within their respective commonwealths, what the fertility of such lands might be, and what would be a fair price. In short the government confessed a complete "lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of the national lands, due to the fact that they are not explored nor surveyed." Obviously it was "impossible that the central government should divide what it does not know of among settlers."^[13]

The answers received were disappointing. There was in no state any system of taking care of immigrants worthy the name and the state governments were as ignorant of where the national lands were as was the central government itself.^[14] All agreed that immigration of foreigners and foreign capital were needed to rouse Mexico from its inactivity but none had succeeded in attracting either. A series of letters to the agents of Mexico in foreign countries brought answers not more encouraging. Their general tenor was that Mexico could not hope to attract immigration so long as the United States offered lands on better terms. If the country put its house in order and could point out definite lands that would be given to foreigners, some might come. Even so, many would not come to Mexico because it was largely a tropical country and in the opinion of many immigrants wholly so. The discouragement then felt has proved to be justified. The government has continued its efforts, but with little success. Those who headed the numerous colonization enterprises of the period often received a fixed sum plus a bonus of as much as $35 or $60 for each immigrant above seven years of age. Additional bonuses were normally forthcoming for the establishment of families. One contract bound the government to pay $700 for each European agriculturist and $350 for each member of his family over seven years of age. One stipulated a payment of $315,000 annually for 30 years. The colonization contracts granted in the three years 1881-3 would have taken from the treasury $800,000 per annum had the enterprises been successful.^[15] On December 15, 1883, another liberal and comprehensive colonization law was passed. It did not, however, bring settlers.

In 1892, roughly at the middle of the Diaz régime, the Ministry of Hacienda was still hopeful that conditions would change. It was declared that every immigrant was worth 10,000 pesos to the country and that soon the long looked-for stream of colonists was sure to come. The United States would soon fill up, "this at least within the period of a few years" "and then the current of emigration, until now directed toward them will have to seek a new field."^[16] To hasten that end a new colonization law was adopted on March 26, 1894, removing the limit of 2,500 hectares, which former legislation had allowed to be granted to one person.^[17]

As time went on free land could no longer be secured in the United States, order was established in Mexico, and commerce was freed from its former limitations. These circumstances, which, it was thought, explained failure of immigrants to come to the republic, disappeared but settlers did not turn their steps southward. Foreign capital went to Mexico and with it the managers who would supervise the industrial undertakings, which order within the republic made possible. But the laborer who, by performance and the example he would give the native, was to transform its entire economic structure did not come in great numbers.

A few scattered colonies have come into existence that have had some prosperity. The Mormon colonies in the northwest are the most important. Two Italian colonies of specially chosen, vigorous men are reported to be prospering ^[18] and there are groups of foreign nationality in other parts of the republic, which are, however, not as a rule "colonies" in the sense in which that word has been used in Mexico. In fact real agricultural colonization in the extensive way in which the republic had hoped to secure it has never had a single example.^[19] It remains true to-day, as it always has been true, that Mexico is a land in which Western European peoples can succeed as colonists only under the most exceptional conditions. As a French writer of the beginning of the century declares, "If you have no money, only strong arms and good habits, do not come to Mexico for you will find in competition several millions of Indian laborers who have arms and sufficiently good habits for farm work and who are satisfied with salaries which would make your condition more miserable here than at home."^[20]'

After the early '80s there was a small but increasing immigration of foreigners into Mexico, not as members of organized colonies, but as individuals or members of groups who came to develop some of the latent industries. The most numerous of these immigrants were Spaniards and later Americans. Of the latter, the immigration before the railway era was negligible. Many of those who went to Mexico failed and had to ask the aid of charity to enable them to return. The people who went to Mexico from the southern states after the Civil War failed. Those who did not die, with few exceptions, came back. The attempts to colonize Lower California from the United States failed also.

Nevertheless, with the development of better economic conditions in Mexico, the number of individual Americans who suceeded in making homes in the country increased. Some were those whose presence was no longer welcomed in their home countries, but the great majority left the communities they abandoned poorer by their absence. They were a forceful and adventurous contribution. They did not expect and they did not find the routine sort of life that they left in the better settled north. They did not go to Mexico without hope of great gains, larger gains, at least, than had been possible in the countries from which they came. For this they are not to be blamed—who risks fortune, health, and life in a rough and ill-ordered frontier community unless there be some lodestone of opportunity to draw him from the surroundings among which he was born? They were promised protection, rights such as were guaranteed them at home, in a new land where opportunities were alluring. They accepted the new life, willing to endure its privations, as a return for its opportunities. That they received the sort of protection they were promised and expected can not be maintained. Buffeted by the natural disadvantages of the frontier, their enterprises limited by the ignorance of the laborers upon whom they had to rely, and too often harassed by the local governments whose promises had been their illusion, their lot was not an enviable one. That they made a success of their ventures is evidence of their individual capacity. As the Diaz régime progressed they were given better protection of their rights. They could look forward to a day when life and property could be enjoyed under conditions of safety approaching those of the land they had left. They conferred a great and too often unappreciated boon upon the republic which was their host. The pioneers, by their success, won in spite of repeated disappointments and misfortune, drew other foreigners after them. The stagnant Mexican life of the middle century was stimulated by their enterprise. Foreign capital entered new fields, into which the insufficient and timid local capital would not venture. The foreigner created new national wealth, which laid the foundation for greater national income and for a government that might in time have approached true republican standards.

Shrewd was the discernment of the Mexican statesmen who saw in those who came from beyond the national boundaries the salvation of their backward country. What they failed to secure by means of "colonies" they received in large degree by the coming of the fearless and enterprising individuals who entered the local life to transform it. Without the foreigner, it is safe to say, Mexico would not have reached for generations the condition of which she was justly proud in the beginning of the century. In some cases Mexico has paid heavily for his aid, but to the great mass of foreigners who made her lot their own Mexico owes a debt of gratitude that she cannot repay.

Nevertheless neither American nor any other foreign immigration has as yet helped solve the greater number of the fundamental problems that Mexico had hoped would be settled by her colonization and immigration legislation. The economic basis of the country was remade but the native population was not leavened.

If foreign laborers will not come to give impetus by their manual skill and industry to the national life, the only recourse is to try by other means to attain the same end. Of late years attention has been turning gradually to the necessity of educating the Indian in industrial pursuits. A few realized this necessity a generation ago. In 1892 one of the far-seeing declared: "The duty of the government is to civilize these co-citizens of ours . . . to place them in contact with the rest of the country and with the civilized world. . . . When the Indians, up to the present time disinherited, are subject to the advantages and comforts of civilization, there will have been accomplished, so to speak, the transporting to our country of millions of colonists."^[21] But this task the men of the old régime overlooked, as a rule, or, if they appreciated it, neglected. It was the greatest failure of the brilliant exploit which Diaz and his lieutenants accomplished. They brought an economic transformation to Mexico but they left its social structure very much as they found it.

This is the most important task of the government that will rise out of the Mexican revolution—to drive the Indian from his self-contented, unprogressive state of few desires and waken him to new economic, political, and social opportunities and responsibilities. If Mexico is to be for the Mexicans in any real way, some means of bringing this change must be found. If it is not found and the Indian proves unable to respond to the new conditions now rapidly rising around him, he will become the hewer of wood and drawer of water for the white man who comes to develop the natural resources of his country, or he will be crowded gradually into the less desirable regions of his native land where his experience will parallel that of the native tribes in the United States. Because of the varied climate of the country it is not unlikely that both these processes may occur in different portions of the republic at the same time.

One of the means advocated for dealing with the problem of awakening the ambitions of the lower class Mexican is so-called internal colonization. Unlike other colonization projects this movement is not to depend on foreigners nor to have a military basis. It is not even necessarily to involve transfer of persons from thickly settled to sparsely settled areas.

Under supervision of the federal government it is argued there should be maintained a comprehensive system of agricultural education. There should be established in various parts of the country native agricultural colonies in which agricultural experiment work would be carried on by the younger men. To each would be given a plot, the produce of which would be his own. The government would stimulate competition by granting prizes. Instruction in agricultural methods would be given. Allied with such enterprises could go legislation that would encourage the use of natives in the higher positions in the various industrial establishments, thus making the economic development of the country contribute directly and in the most practical way to the schooling of the rising generation.^[22] These projects aim to assure that if the foreigner himself will not come in the way the governments had once thought possible, there shall at least be brought to the native population the benefit of the enterprise and scientific progress of foreign lands. Of such "foreign influence" there need be no fear and of it no nation can have too much. For the prosperity of the Mexican and for that of the interests of foreigners in the republic it is to be hoped that internal colonization may have the fullest success.

1. Law 9, Title 27, Book 9, Recopilación de Indias, Philip III, 1602.
2. Law 7, Title 27, Book 9, Recopilación de Indias, Philip III, 1614.
3. This reference and the two above are taken from Papers Relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, 1888, vol. 2, p. 1166.
4. Lucas Alaman, Memoria de relaciones, January 5, 1831, republished in Vicente E. Manero, Documentos interesantes sobre colonizacion, Mexico, 1878, pp. 16-18, and Manuel Siliceo, First Memorial of the Minister of Fomento, February 16, 1857, p. 43 et seq. See also the Memoria of Jose Maria Lafragua to the Congress, December 14, 1846, in the same volume, p. 22.
5. Manuel Siliceo, op cit., p. 43 et seq., republished in part in Manero, op cit. This report explains in detail the failure of various colonization schemes.
6. In Papers Relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, 1888, vol. 2, p. 1167 et seq., are cited the following decrees granting protection to foreigners quoted from Legislación Mexicana, o sea coleccion completa de las leyes, decretos y circulares que se han expedido desde la consumacion de la independencia. This volume contains the laws in force at the time of publication and, therefore, does not show all the legislation which had been passed on the subject.
    

   Decree of October 7, 1823, suspending discriminations of the laws of the Indies against foreigners.

    

   Law of Colonization of August 18, 1824.

    

   Decree of September 6, 1833, for protection of persons and property of foreigners.

    

   Decree of March 11, 1842, declared still in force January 30, 1854, allowing acquisition of land and exemption from military service.

    

   Decree of October, 1842, absence of a foreign owner does not cancel title.

    

   Decree of June 16, 1856, vessels bringing immigrants for colonies in Vera Cruz not subject to tonnage duty.

    

   Decree of May 10, 1856, establishment of certain colonies and tax exemptions therefor.

    

   Decree of November 15, 1858. Though civil war was going on the government will not tolerate any act of violence against foreigners. They are to be held exempt from all military service and forced loans, "The honor and good name of the Republic and the preservation of its harmonious relations with foreign powers" demand that the rights of foreigners be scrupulously observed.

    

   Decree of March 18, 1861. Exempting from taxation for five years foreigners who purchase lands for agricultural purposes or for any rural industry. Colonizing companies and members of the colonies granted tax exemption for ten years. Granting additional tax exemptions for five years to foreigners who employ Mexicans. Granting freedom from customs for importations of goods for foreign colonists under certain conditions.

    

   Proclamation of the Governor of Sinaloa, January 2, 1862, devoting one-half of the vacant land and waters to encouragement of national and foreign immigration. Lands to be given freely to colonists who will survey and develop them. They are also to have freedom from military service.

    

   Other citations are found in Recopilación de las leyes, decretos y proclamaciones de la union, quoted in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1888, vol. 2. Among which is Circular of the Secretary of Improvement, Colonization, Industry and Commerce, August 25, 1877. It cites failure of former legislation to attract immigration and predicts that the tide will now turn toward Mexico. Peace established and the government "is resolved to make all kinds of sacrifices in order to attract honorable and industrious foreigners to our favored soil. . . ."

7. Manuel Robles, op cit., republished in Manero, op. cit., p. 28 et seq.
8. Memoria of the Secretary of War, Ignacio Mejia, 1873, published in Manero, op. cit., p. 64.
9. The statistics for 1861, on which this estimate is made are, at best, only approximately correct. They are taken from Carlos Butterfield. The United States and Mexico, Washington, 1861, pp. 9-11.
10. Manuel Siliceo, op. Cit, in Vicente E. Manero, op. Cit., pp. 47-50.
11. Lists of colonization enterprises and statements of their troubles in later years are found in Memoria of D. Luis Robles, Minister of Fomento, 1865, and Memorial of D. Blas Balcaral, Minister of Fomento, 1868, published in Manero, op. cit., pp. 53-9.
12. President Diaz in his address to Congress declared immigration to be one of the "imperious necessities of the republic" Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1878, p. 526, quoting the address of President Diaz to Congress as printed in The Two Republics, September 29, 1877.
13. Circular of Riva Palacio published in Manero, op. cit., pp. 89-91.
14. The answers are published in detail in Anexo Num. 3 a la Memoria de hacienda del año economico, de 1877 a 1878, Estadistica de la republica Mexicana. . . Emiliano Busto, Mexico, 1880.
15. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1883-4, p. 637.
16. Memoria de hacienda y crédito público. . . de Julio de 1891, a 30 de Junio de Mexico, 1892, p. 21 et seq.
17. A general description of the land legislation is found in Charles H. Stephan, Le Mexique economique, Paris, 1903, pp. 221-242.
18. Alberto Robles Gil, Memoria de la secretaria de fomento presentada al congreso de la union, Mexico, 1913, p. 94.
19. The hope that European colonists may come is still voiced. It was declared fundamental at the sessions of the National Chamber of Commerce of Aguascalientes. See Circular No. 98 in Alberto Robles Gil, op cit., p. 501 et seq.
20. Charles H. Stephan, op cit., p. 240.
21. Memoria de hacienda y crédito público de 1 de Julio de 1891 a 30 de Junio de 1892, Mexico, 1892.
22. E. Maqueo Castellanos, Algunos problemas nacionales, Mexico, 1909 (1910), pp. 110-116 et seq.