Richard Barnes

Mexico’s Turbulent History — The Porfiriato — Mike Ashe

August 16, 2022August 16, 2022 Richard Barnes

[I had the privilege of traveling a number of times to Mexico on business, and look back to my visits there with fondness and respect. Mike’s posts have served to cause me to think on Mexico and the major shadow she casts — for good or ill — over most of Latin America’s history, including Venezuela. Thank you, Mike — RMB]

The Porfiriato (1876-1911)

Prelude and setting the stage

To properly set the stage for the Porfiriato, it is necessary to understand that Mexican politics was at times a blood sport. Persecution of liberals like Diaz and Juarez by the conservative leader Santa Anna forced Diaz into the mountains of Oaxaca and becoming an insurgent there, until Santa Anna was exiled to Cuba in 1855. Juarez, more a statesman than a warrior, fled to northern Mexico and New Orleans during this civil war.

Prior to Diaz, the government instability was very much the norm during the 19^th century especially at the presidential level. It was so bad that at times there were three presidents in office at the same time. The first president, Guadalupe Victoria, lasted five years in office but most of his successors’ (mostly army generals) terms were one or two years. The treasury was emptied out periodically most likely due to corruption at the top. Santa Anna was a colorful president but not a successful one. Juarez was the most consequential president before Diaz with a long list of accomplishments.

Diaz and Juarez were both from Oaxaca and both raised in poverty. Both studied for the priesthood and were friends even though their politics were at times in opposition. Diaz joined the army at the start of the Mexican-American war (1846-48) at age 15. He, like Juarez, studied law and rose to command the army during Juarez’s time in office.

Diaz had a brilliant military career including defeating the French on May 5, 1862. After defeating the French again in Puebla (1867) he resigned his commission and started his political career by condemning Juarez’s presidency. In 1870 he ran for president against Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada. Juarez won the election and Diaz called it a rigged election and called for a revolution which was later squelched by Juarez’s forces in 1872 just prior to Juarez’s death in that year. Lerdo assumed the presidency until 1876 when General Diaz defeated Lerdo’s forces at the Battle of Tecoac and occupied Mexico City. Lerdo was exiled in New York and Diaz became an interim president until his election in 1877.

The Porfiriato — First Term

His first order of business was to obtain US recognition of his presidency. Two stumbling blocks to recognition were 1) to stop Apache Raids from Mexico into the US, 2) resolving debt of $300,000 from the Lerdo Government. Diaz agreed to both and the presidency was recognized with a trip from US President Ulysses Grant to Mexico City.

The second order of business was to end armed conflict. This was achieved through the Paz Porfiriana. As a rigid liberal ideology, Díaz made peace with his opposition by supporting their rights to exist and financial incentives in support of their cause. It worked and there was relative peace for the first time in the Republic of Mexico.

The Porfiriato — Second Term

After his first term Diaz stepped down as president and his ardent supporter Manuel Gonzalez took over with Diaz in the background. Diaz took the time to forge greater relationships with US investors and politicians like Grant.

Manuel Gonzalez proved to be an inept and corrupt politician and was replaced by Diaz who amended the constitution to allow him to serve for another 26 years.

The Porfiriato — Subsequent terms lasting 26 years.

Those 26 years of authoritarian style produced a peaceful period which attracted foreign investments by selling Mexican influence for North American investments. The creation of an industrial infrastructure brought Mexico into the 20^th century.

Mining and oil exploration was accelerated during this period. Railroads were built along with schools, and most needed infrastructure. Mexico was at that time considered an economic power along with Britain, Germany, and England.

The political facts are undisputed: he grabbed power by force when he lost a corrupt election, ran on a platform of no reelection. He then ran for reelection and kept power through corrupt elections.

After declaring himself the winner of an eighth term as president, the country had had enough, triggering the Mexican Revolution with Francisco Madero as its president.

[Francisco Madero had opposed him and been jailed for his trouble. He escaped from jail and fled to the United States from whence he orchestrated the Mexican Revolution. His strength was in the north of Mexico where he recruited Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco as revolutionary leaders. Villa and Orozco soon demonstrated they would not submit to Madero, which caused no end of headaches. Díaz resigned soon after — RMB].

Diaz was exiled to Paris and died 4 years later.

Many Mexicans call him a dictator; however, others, and there are many, consider Porfirio Diaz’s legacy as one that brought Mexico into the Industrial Age. The Revolutionary Propagandist had and continues to exaggerate Diaz shortcomings while ignoring his vast and consequential achievements. It’s time to bring his mortal remains to a resting place in Oaxaca where he belongs.

[I am happy to join Mike in this minority opinion. Diaz was a great man who, like all men, had his flaws. However, a hard look at his achievements for his country will demonstrate the vast progress made, along with the relative peace — both internal as well as international. He once exclaimed, “Poor Mexico! So far from God, so close to the United States!”. He thus expressed, in an incredibly concise nutshell, a major reality for our neighbors to the south. Nevertheless, under his administration, Mexico was on the gold standard and the Mexican peso was one of the world’s soundest currencies. He paid off Mexico’s creditors and balanced the budget for the first time in Mexico history — RMB]

Guadalupe Victoria, first president of the United Mexican States (1786-1843)

With his wife, Doña Carmen, in exile in Paris, shortly before his death. His wife survived him for several decades, dying in 1944.

Mexico’s Turbulent History (cont.)

August 10, 2022August 10, 2022 Richard Barnes

Generals and More Generals-One constant is the army involvement in Mexican Politics in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries — Mike Ashe

General Guadalupe Victoria was elected the first president of Mexico in 1824 and ruled until 1829.

After 1829 musical chairs of the Generals began, with one of the most noteworthy being Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna from Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was a colorful military leader and politician serving more than 40 years. He was a hero to many and a failure to most Mexicans, losing half of Mexican territory to the United States was his ultimate legacy.

Tejas Immigration

After Mexican Independence from Spain, settlement of Tejas was encouraged. In 1824 Stephen Austin received approval from the Spanish governor to bring settlers into Tejas.

In 1829 Mexico abolished slavery but it granted exceptions until 1830 to Tejas and reversed itself and made the importation of slavery illegal, which slowed Anglo-American immigration. Incentives to buy land were generous, with a $30 down payment and a 10-year tax holiday.

[As an example of generous incentives, immense tracts of land were sold for as little as 4 cents per acre. Mexico was highly desirous of populating Texas. Foreigners were invited to settle in Texas. In return they had to take the Mexican oath of allegiance and promise to be at least nominal Roman Catholics — RMB]

A ban on US immigration enacted in 1830 along with increased Mexican military presence in the region angered the Texans who pushed for self-rule.

[By 1830, Americans made up over 75% of the population of Texas, and Mexico felt it was losing control and clamped down in various ways. In effect, Mexico had encouraged and welcomed immigration and allowed them to create, without hindrance, their own community on Mexican territory. When this arrangement was rescinded, trouble followed — RMB]

In 1833 Santa Anna became president and opposed self-rule. That same year Texan delegates lead by Austin requested that Mexico roll back the 1830 laws and provide more protection from native people, exempt Tejas from anti-slavery laws, and separate Tejas from Coahuila. Austin presented the proposal to Santa Anna and was imprisoned in Mexico City. The government repealed the 1830 Law but did not grant statehood to Tejas.

[Austin wrote optimistically from Mexico, “All is going well …. General Santa Anna has solemnly and publicly declared that he will sustain the federal representative system, as it now exists ….” He had successfully negotiated resumption of immigration although not self-rule. However, overall he felt a major crisis had been defused. Then as he returned, he was arrested, sent back to Mexico, and placed in solitary confinement. This further enraged the Texans and deeply affected Austin’s outlook on Texas’ future — RMB]

Settlers continued to pour into Tejas and on March 2, 1836 Tejas Declared Independence as the Republic of Tejas. Santa Anna by then was in Tejas with a 6,000 men army. On March 6^th Santa Anna’s troops attacked the Alamo and after fierce fighting the Alamo fell and her defenders all lost their lives including survivors who were executed. The same scenario was repeated in Goliad with all defenders killed or executed. The battle of San Jacinto River took place on April 21 with Sam Houston’s surprise attack on Santa Anna’s troops, killing 630. Santa Anna was captured and the Republic of Texas was inaugurated.

[For those interested in learning more about this period of US and Mexico history, A Time To Stand by Walter Lord is an excellent resource. The book invests valuable time providing biographical as well has contextual bases for the battle. For more detail, another excellent resource is Three Road to The Alamo — RMB]

Sam Houston was elected as its first President and Stephen Austin as Secretary of State and died in office in December 1836 at the age of 43. In January 1839 Tejas adopted the Lone Star flag.

Almost ten years later Texas was annexed under the administration of James Polk.

As an aside, the Louisiana territory was purchased from France in 1803 and Alaska in 1867 from the Russians. In 1898 the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by the US.

U.S. Mexican War 1846-1848

A border dispute resulted in US troops being sent to the Rio Grande. The Mexican government saw this as an invasion and war broke out. Santa Anna returned from exile to play a role in the war. U.S. forces invaded Mexico capturing Monterrey and landing a shipload of men in Vera Cruz. The force marched into Mexico City, and after it fell, the conflict was over. U.S. troops suffered 10,000 losses from illness and about 1,500 from combat.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded to the United States nearly all of the northern territory including New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Tejas and Western Colorado for $15 Million and assumption of citizen claims against Mexico.

In the battle of Chapultepec in Mexico City, six Mexican military cadets were killed defending the castle and are forever revered by the people of Mexico as heroes of the Republic.

Zachary Taylor became a national hero in the US after the Mexican-American War and the War of 1812. Then he became President in 1849 but died in office shortly thereafter in 1850.

President Benito Juarez-First Reform

The first pure blooded indigenous president of Mexico (a liberal politician) was Benito Juarez, born of Zapotec peasants. He worked in the cornfield and as a shepherd until age 12. His sister moved to the City of Oaxaca as a cook and Benito joined her as a house servant. At that time, he only spoke Zapotec. Benito was very intelligent and thirsty for learning and, with help from a Franciscan, to study for the priesthood. In 1829 he graduated from the Oaxaca Institute of law and science. In 1831 he received a law degree and entered politics. Unlike other Mexican politicians, he was honest, modestly unassuming, and lived a simple lifestyle. He was immensely popular as a judge, legislator, and Governor of Oaxaca. In 1853 many liberal politicians were exiled when the conservatives assumed power including Juarez who spent 2 years in New Orleans in semi poverty.

In 1857 Ignacio Comonfort was elected president and picked Juarez as his vice president and leader of the supreme court. True to form Comonfort was ousted by the conservatives. In 1860 the conservatives were losing control which resulted in Juarez being able to return to Mexico City as president.

The first act in his presidency was to suspend all foreign debt for two years which resulted in troops being dispatched from England, Spain and France in 1861 to safeguard their investments. Spain and England backed out when it became clear that Napoleon wanted to conquer Mexico and install Maximilian as Emperor. The French suffered a major defeat in Puebla on May 5^th 1862 (also known as Cinco de Mayo) but they were able to hold onto Mexico City and install their puppet. To keep his government alive Juarez retreated to El Paso del Norte (later renamed Ciudad Juarez).

The Second Emperor Maximillian and his wife Carlota

In April 1864 the Austrian Archduke backed by Mexican monarchists and many conservatives was crowned emperor. Several European countries recognized the new government of Maximillian, however, the United States continued to recognize Juarez as president. With the end of Civil War in the US Juarez began receiving military aid from its northern neighbor in 1866. Also, that year, French troops began to be withdrawn from Mexico due to the Austro-Prussian War.

Upon arrival in Mexico the Maximillian and his wife, Carlota, took residence in Chapultepec Castle. One of his first orders was to cut a wide avenue from the Castle to the city center called Paseo de la Emperatriz (now known as Paseo de Reforma). They also had a country retreat in Cuernavaca (the Palace of Cortes).

Maximillian and Carlotta had no children so they adopted two nephews of the daughter of Iturbide, the first emperor of Mexico. When one of the mothers (an American) protested, she was deported from Mexico. The truth was that these boys would never become true royalty due to not being of royal blood. The boys were later returned to their real families.

Maximillian did uphold many liberal causes to the surprise of many in Mexico including Juarez. In the end the emperor was executed by firing squad along with loyalist Generals Miramon and Mejia in 1867. Carlotta was in Europe at the time and never returned to Mexico.

Juarez could have commuted the death sentence but chose not to because he believed it was needed to send the message that foreign intervention in Mexico should never happen again.

The French influence and legacy in Mexico included making pastries. The bolillos (French rolls) are a staple in Mexico served in even the most upscale restaurants in Mexico City. Pan Dulce is a treat for many of us with a sweet tooth.

There was even a Pastry War between Mexico and France in 1839 involving — who else? — Santa Anna.

My wife’s family claims French ancestry but has yet to prove it in the kitchen (of course just kidding).

Juarez was returned to power after the emperor’s death. In 1871 after being reelected he served for one year and in 1872 died of a heart attack. His legacy of domestic reform was the start of the end of neocolonialism in Mexico and his leadership in the face of Napoleonic aggression made him a true hero.

Next: The Porfiriato

Santa Anna surrenders to a wounded Sam Houston (1836)

Doña Dolores Tosta de Santa Anna. Santa Anna was considered the uncrowned monarch of Mexico.

Execution of Emperor Maximilian (right) and Generals Miramon and Mejia, 1867.

Last moments of Emperor Maximilian. Note his courage which was further attested by his final words (in Spanish) before execution: “I forgive everyone and I ask everyone to forgive me. May my blood, which is about to be shed, be for the good of the country. Viva Mexico, viva independence!”

Mexico’s Independence from Spain — Mike Ashe

August 3, 2022August 3, 2022 Richard Barnes

I much appreciate these guest posts by Mike Ashe. We Americans are often accused — sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly — of being somewhat insular. I have always been impressed meeting folks from South America, Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico, who possess a knowledge of the United States — sometimes incomplete, sometimes imperfect, but that, nevertheless, often far surpasses our knowledge of their lands.

Thank you, Mike

Part I

Mexico’s Independence from Spain

I always wondered how a small European Country could rule over vast lands in Mesoamerica for three centuries.

In the case of New Spain, the conquest of the Aztecs preserved the colonization of Mesoamerica. The principal reason to invade was to secure a large population of somewhat docile/sedentary people. Its principal architect and leader was Hernando Cortes; it would be very doubtful if anyone else would have been that successful. Cortes was a driven person for the Crown but also for himself.

In the early 16^th century and pre-industrial revolution, a large labor force was a tremendous asset for the Crown. The population in the central valleys were over 19 million; as a frame of reference Europe’s population was 61 million and Spain’s was almost 10 million, but after expelling the Jews and Moriscos it fell to 7.5 million. The Inca empire was the only population that was comparable to New Spain. The Incas were a very technologically advanced culture but unfortunately with no written language like the Aztecs.

The consolidation of the central valleys (present day states of Mexico State, Mexico City, Morelos, Puebla, Tlaxcala and Veracruz) was ultimately the key to longevity in New Spain. Any attempts to venture out of that central region proved to be difficult and the risk reward was not there. There was an attempt to conquer the Mayan controlled area south of Vera Cruz but the oppressive heat and the ferocity of the Mayans resulted in a Spanish retreat and complete abandonment of any future plans of conquest.

Northern Mexico was arid with a population of aggressive indigenous people (The Chichimecas-Zacatecos); there was no plan to colonize the north. That changed in the mid-16^th century when vast deposits of silver were discovered in Zacatecas (located in the Central Mexican Plateau). When the Spaniards moved in, they were met with fierce opposition from a formidable Zacateco warrior culture.

The Chichimeca war proved to be very costly and lasted 40 years. The Zacatecos were smart and fierce fighters with weaponry that could pierce Spanish armor. Like the present-day special forces, they were agile and physically fit, opposing a sedentary Spanish and indigenous ally force. The fighting finally ended through Catholic evangelism from the Catholic church.

The prospects of similar encounters with the Apache and Comanche tamed down any significant move further into the north.

[For those interested in learning further about the pacification of the fierce nations in the north of Mexico, I recommend Mexico’s Miguel Caldera by Philip Wayne Powell. Excellent history with much reliance on primary sources — RMB]

Decolonization of the Americas/Philippines

The decolonization of the Americas began with The American Revolutionary war 1775-1783. The Continental forces fought against primarily against British and Hessians (30,000 German mercenaries forces) with some assistance from colonial loyalists. The Continental forces were interestingly supported by Spain and France against their common enemy the British. Prelude to war included disputes between Royal Governors (Viceroys) and the colonial legislatures in each of the thirteen colonies. Self-rule was the overriding issue for war.

New Spain, all the Spanish Colonies in South America, and Brazil began decolonization in 1808-1825 triggered by Napoleon’s conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. Unlike the American Revolution the combatants were mainly internal (Loyalist vs Insurgents) with only minimal military support from Spain or Portugal.

The war in Mexico was between the Peninsulares and Creoles with some but not much assistance from Spanish forces. The revolutionary/liberator leaders include Iturbide (Mexico) Bolivar (Venezuela, Colombia), San Martin (Argentina, Ecuador, Peru), O’Higgins of Chile, Dom Pedro (Brazil), and Manuela Saenz (Ecuador, Colombia).

However, decolonization was not really completed until the Spanish American War in the late nineteenth century.

The common belief through the years has been that the war started with the mysterious sinking of the US battleship (Maine) in Havana Harbor in 1898. At the time folklore also centered around the roughriders (including Teddy Roosevelt) charging up San Juan Hill to victory. Actually, the war was fought on two fronts: the Philippines and Cuba. The first shot was not fired in Cuba but in the Philippines when Admiral Dewey entered Manila Bay and destroyed the Spanish fleet.

The naval operation was repeated in Cuba with the same results. With their naval forces destroyed and its army stranded, Spain was forced to accept surrender under the US president’s terms. The war was a mostly a naval operation, not a ground war.

Terms of surrender included freedom for Cuba and cession of Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, and the sale of the Philippines to the US for $20 Million.

A second revolt, this time against the US occupiers resulted in the Philippine American war that lasted three years (1899-1902). The war was bloody, with 20,000 Filipino fighters and 4,200 American soldiers killed along with 200,000 civilian deaths. In 1935 the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established and full Independence was granted in July 4, 1946. This was mostly a ground operation.

[For those interested in learning further about this period, a readable history which seeks to be even-handed as possible is Ivan Musicant’s Empire by Default: The Spanish-American War and the Dawn of the American Century — RMB]

Decolonization of New Spain

In 1803 Father Miguel Hidalgo Grito de Dolores lit the fuse for Independence from Spain in 1824 known as the First Mexican Republic with a total population of 6 and ½ million living in 31 states.

The First Emperor of Mexico

The Treaty of Cordoba ended New Spain dependence on Spanish rule in 1821 and established Augustin Cosme Damian y Iturbide as “The First Emperor of Mexico”. Coronated in 1822, he served only one year as emperor. Iturbide’s was the only former Spanish colony that established a monarchy after gaining independence.

The first Mexican monarchy reign was short lived when after dissolving congress and operating with a depleted treasury a revolt broke out which resulted in the loss of support of the army. After a revolt he reconvened congress and offered his abdication. A provisional government was appointed which ended the first Mexican Monarch.

In 1824 Iturbide returned from exile in England to Mexico and was arrested and executed by firing squad.

[His words before the firing squad were “Mexicans! In the very act of my death, I recommend to you the love to the fatherland, and the observance to our religion, for it shall lead you to glory. I die having come here to help you, and I die merrily, for I die amongst you. I die with honor, not as a traitor; I do not leave this stain on my children and my legacy. I am not a traitor, no.” — RMB]

While Emperor, Mexico territory included California and all of Central America. After the abdication the Central American provinces formed the Republic of Central America with only Chiapas remaining part of Mexico.

Next: Generals and More Generals — One Constant Is the Army’s Involvement in Mexico’s Politics in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

For those interested in learning more about this critical period, a good place to start.

Theodore (“Teddy”) Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, Cuba, 1898

For those interested in learning more about Mexico’s policies and successes in the north, hardly a better place to start than with Philip Wayne Powell.

July 14, 1789: Further Comments

July 29, 2022July 29, 2022 Richard Barnes

The fall of the Bastille and its attendant, macabre events (see here) were a sinister foreshadowing of what was to come to Paris and to all of France, not to mention much of the world in the ensuing centuries, including the bloodletting in Spanish America.

The King, Louis XVI, had been awakened long before dawn in Versailles to receive the news of the Bastille. The Assembly had been meeting in Versailles. In the morning, as the deputies listened to themselves give speeches, the King was announced, entered, and spoke, “You have been afraid, well it is I who have confidence … in you.”

He then announced further that the troops would be removed not only from Paris, but from Versailles as well. As if to say, “You see? No need to fear me at all.” The announcement was greeted with thunderous applause and cheers.

Two days later, the king journeyed to Paris to further demonstrate his goodwill. But Maximilian Robespierre, one of history’s most blood-soaked names, in a surviving letter to a friend, wrote, “The present Revolution has produced in a few days greater events than the whole previous history of mankind…”

“A patriotic army of 300,000 men, composed of every class of citizen, accompanied by Gardes Françaises, Suisses, and other soldiers, has captured the Bastille and punished its Governor and the Prévost des Marchands for their treachery. The fear that this army might march to Versailles has decided the Revolution.”

That’s how the more astute revolutionaries saw, interpreted, and described the king’s supine actions.

The crowds had been admonished, upon pain of death, to not dare shout out, “Vive le Roi“. Unsurprisingly, they humbly obeyed.

After touring the city, surrounded by deputies and armed crowds, he returned to Paris.

The following is from Otto Scott’s Robespierre. I quote it as a microcosm of what was to follow throughout the country and, through the next two centuries, many corners of the entire globe, but especially Eurasia and China:

“Five days later … on July 22, 1789, ex-Minister Foullon [whom the newspapers had accused of saying the ‘people could eat hay’; this was never proved or sourced] was … surrounded … a bundle of straw [tied] to his back and … a necklace of nettles and thistles around his head. He was dragged to City Hall….”

“The new Mayor Bailly orated about the law. Lafayette, summoned to the scene, argued that if Foullon was taken in safety to prison instead of being summarily lynched, he could be brought to disclose his ‘confederates’. After several hours of this the fiery crowd seemed placated. But when the old man — he was seventy-four — and his guard emerged from City Hall, a man suddenly jumped forward, caught Foullon by the neck, and three him into the crowd. A cluster closed around [him] immediately. Beating him energetically … [dragged him] across the Place de Greve to the lamp iron at the corner of the rue de la Vannerie. A noose was thrown over him; one man hoisted him up while others pulled on the lower end of the rope. After he was strangled to death his cadaver was lowered, his head cut off and stuck onto a pitchfork. The rest of the body was stripped, mutilated, and carved into pieces. A horrid parade through the streets started.”

A side note, Alexander Hamilton had expressed concerns about the nature of the French Revolution to his friend Lafayette, who paid no heed as he hastened back to France. Hamilton’s warning likely rang in his ears a few short years later, when he escaped just ahead of the mob.

Many men and women, including the king and queen, were executed after days, months, and years of imprecations and insults hurled at them, culminating with the same accusations painted on placards and posters as people trudged behind them, shortly before their lynchings.

Words are powerful. And effective. All revolutionaries understand that.

Clarence B. Carson wrote, “What particularly intrigued revolutionary socialists, Karl Marx among them, about the French Revolution was the drastic changes it made in the lives and ways of a people. It demonstrated, at least for them, in embryo form, the potentialities for changing man and men in society by revolution. The relentless thrust to equality especially caught the attention of socialists….

“In sum, society would be completely reconstructed.”

The French Revolution expressed those ideas loudly and made attempts at such. It moved to change the calendar with Year 1 being the first year after the Convention of 1792. But the most virulent attacks were on the church and its priests, nuns, adherents, and property. In Nantes the guillotine could not kill priests quickly enough so the representative-on-mission there, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, conjured up an even more effective way to rid the revolution of clergy, and entire families of men, women, and, children too. “Wolflings grow to be wolves,” he explained.

Boatloads of people were towed to the middle of the Loire and scuttled. Other boatloads were merely emptied into the river and, should any unfortunate attempt to grasp the side of the boat, his or her fingers or hands were slashed or cut off, ensuring drowning. Reports survive of many cases where Carrier ordered men and women stripped, tied together, and thrown into the river. “Republican Marriages” he called them. Modern historians tend to discount this, although they cannot deny the fact of thousands of cruel, inhumane deaths.

Carrier later became yet another fulfillment of Jacques Danton’s exclamation at his execution, “The Revolution, like Saturn, devours her own children!”

But the main objective must be kept in sight at all times: the de-Christianization of France. In this hatred of Christianity, revolutionaries have been consistent throughout the centuries. And this hatred is very knowledgeable, it not only attacks the church and churches, it attacks the home. One of the first acts of Revolutionary France was to make it much easier to dissolve the marriage bonds. It also decriminalized abortion. This was re-criminalized in 1810 with the Napoleonic Code.

As noted before, all this was studied with great interest by Karl Marx. As for Vladimir Lenin, an absolutely pitiless man, he said that he had learned much from the French Revolution, but that the revolutionaries had made one major mistake which he would not make: they had ended the Terror. This he was determined to not do.

The king and the queen were executed by guillotine. Their young son, born in 1785, died in prison ten years later, in 1795, days before physicians were called to perform an autopsy which revealed countless scars reflecting indescribable torture. The people whom the king loved and trusted had repaid him with their own currency.

It pains me to say, yet again, that Venezuela, the land of my birth, had its own birthing pangs in the philosophies and anti-clerical fervors of the French Revolution, however much lip service her revolutionaries paid to the American Declaration of Independence.

Simón Bolivar said, “We need equality to recast, so to speak, into a single whole, the classes of men, political opinions, and public custom,” thereby neatly encapsulating The One while ignoring The Many. His executions of defenseless prisoners of war, his pitiless emptying of Caracas, and his Declaration of War to the Death follow logically from such sentiments.

May Venezuela see better days soon. Meanwhile, may those of us in the USA, learn to push back and not acquiesce so easily as did Louis XVI.

Whenever you hear lofty sounding words and ideals, be sure to check the fruit. That’s always a dead giveaway.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, sounds marvelous. But the fruit is seen in the original’s last three words: ou la mort.

Joseph-Foullon shortly before strangling and beheading.

Depiction of executions by drownings in Nantes. Jean-Baptiste Carrier is in the center.

King Louis XVII, the dauphin in captivity. He died at 10, likely of torture, certainly of neglect. Some believe he was poisoned.

Simón Bolivar. His political philosophies were steeped in Rousseau and other French thinkers.

Maximillian Robespierre. An absolutely ruthless politician utterly convinced of his own virtue and superiority to other men while proclaiming equality for all. His political thinking was steeped in Rousseau. He too fulfilled Jacques Danton’s cry, “The Revolution, like Saturn, devours her own children!”

July 14, 1789

July 27, 2022July 27, 2022 Richard Barnes

(This was first posted on July 16, 2020. Given that Bastille Day continues to be uncritically celebrated, it is good to be reminded)

I was on an audit in Mexico City on July 14, 1989. The radio station dedicated hours to the meaning of July 14, 1789, Bastille Day, two-hundred years before. The reason I know the program was hours long is that when, close to noon, I got back in the car to drive to another location, it was still going on.

The seemingly erudite, and fawning, discussions about liberté, égalité, fraternité brought back childhood memories from my Venezuelan history classes and my utter frustration at my inability to understand just what the multiple Venezuelan 19th century wars were all about. See here.

If my teachers had told me that the phrase originally ended with three additional words: ou La Mort, it might have helped my understanding. Those last words were eventually dropped. Clever move. “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” sound much friendlier than “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.”

And death was certainly a prominent guest on July 14, 1789.

The King, who was determined to not offend the people, ordered his troops to withdraw from Paris. He was in Versailles, hosting and groveling before the National Assembly while assuring them of his absolute acquiescence to their demands. As his troops withdrew, crowds converged at the Bastille carrying countless pikes and wearing tricolor pins that appeared seemingly from nowhere. But, of course, nothing appears from nowhere.

The Bastille had a hereditary governor, the Marquis de Launay, who, a few days earlier, had been visited by a delegation of Paris who told him the cannons in the building were an insult to the people. He promptly removed them and blocked the embrasures with wood. Then, on the 14th, “the people” began firing and demanding the drawbridge be lowered.

The Marquis appears to have finally realized that his appeasement had only emboldened the mob and, believing the Terms of Surrender the mob had sworn to, he lowered the draw bridge, as the crowd had been demanding.

A few minutes later, the Marquis de Launay’s head, had been severed and was atop a pike, dripping with blood, as it bobbed in the crowd. Several soldiers who had negotiated the Terms of Surrender with the mob, had their heads severed, but not before they had been disemboweled. The entrails carried amongst the crowd did not seem to elicit any horror or reproach from the bloodthirsty rabble. On the contrary, heads, hands, torsos, genitals, and more entrails were soon seen bobbing among the multitudes.

Seven prisoners were released. Seven. Who were astounded to see the head of their former warden, known to be a hesitant, mild sort, with a placard underneath: “De Launay, Governor of the Bastille, disloyal and treacherous enemy of the people.”

The king’s reaction, to the applause of the multitudes, was to send more troops away in order to not further provoke the people. We all know how his acquiescence ended for him, for his family, and for his country. A country that has never, to this day, recovered the heights and glories of its past.

The events of the storming of the Bastille were an ominous foreshadowing of what awaited France, including the French Revolution’s progeny, culminating with the Russian Revolution of 1917, a little over a century later.

This year, on July 14 (when this is being written), I checked a different Latin American land’s radio stations and, sure enough, inevitably, a paean to Bastille Day emerged. As noted in several posts on this blog (see here and here for two examples) Venezuela’s and much of Latin America’s intellectual heritage looks more to Paris than to Madrid. It has always been so in the modern era. And that helps explain the differing trajectories taken by North and South America.

As we observe and react to the current disturbances, let us ask ourselves whether these resemble 1776 or Bastille Day. They are not the same.

And whenever you hear or read liberté, égalité, fraternité, or similar sentiments, be sure to remember to add the remaining words from the original: ou la mort.

The Porfiriato (1876-1911)

Generals and More Generals-One constant is the army involvement in Mexican Politics in the 19th and 20th Centuries — Mike Ashe

Part I

Generals and More Generals-One constant is the army involvement in Mexican Politics in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries — Mike Ashe