Braggadocio., September 16, 1866
Braggadocio.
The Patrie replies to the very calm article we produced day before yesterday, in a philippic of inexcusable violence. Instead of helping us to contrive some way to put an end to this unfortunate Mexican business, it attacks our patriotism, accuses us of taking the part of assas sins and robbers, and desiring the defeat of our armies. Such abuse we despise, and we will merely say the mode of discussion is unworthy of a journalist who has any respect for his profession in the person of his colleagues. Cannot questions of public interest be discussed with moderation, and is it necessary to calumniate a man to refute his argument? Have we accused the Patrie of bad faith, during the four years it entertained its readers with the most dangerous illusions? Did we accuse it of evil intentions, when it persuaded the credulous to buy Mexican bonds, by publishing news that was contradicted the next day? No; we continued to sustain what we thought was right, and we did not say it was a want of patriotism to insist upon France’s paying Maximilian’s debts.
Now we will resume the subject under discussion.
The Patrie pretends to believe we want Juarez restored, when it knows it is not so. All we want is, for France to withdraw from Mexico as soon as possible, consistent with the safety of our countrymen, who are threatened with retaliation. That is what we wish and what we ask. For this reason we say, that if Maximilian decides to abdicate for want of funds or soldiers, the best thing we can do is to treat with Juarez. If the Patrie knows a better plan, let it be proposed; if it is good, we will advocate it. If the Patrie knows of any way to keep up the Mexican empire, after our troops quit, when its last financial resources were cut off by the convention of the 26th of July, let us hear of it.
If it knows of none, then it must admit with us that the empire is nearly over, and all that remains for Maximilian to do is to renounce the throne he was forced to take, and retire with dignity from an enterprise he did his best to carry out If he makes this resolve he will be blameless, and history will relieve him from all responsibility. Does the Patrie want Maximilian to hold on to power, after our troops have left, and without men and without money, see his provinces taken from him, one by one, by the malcontents?
After Maximilian has left, with whom will France treat, if not with Juarez? Let the Patrie tell us.
What are the objections to our plan? The Liberié affirms (says the Patrie) that Juarez is popular, has kept up the war four years, and is the only constituted power.
If he is the only constituted power, where is this power? Where is the government that gives the best guarantee of durability?
That power fell with Puebla, and when Juarez’s constitutional term as President expired.
The Liberié affirms that Juarez has kept the field for four years. Nobody will deny that. Has Juarez been driven out of Mexico once in these four years? Even now half the provinces are in his hands, and the republicans hold the power in all places where our troops are not stationed. Have they not retaken Matamoras and Tampico? Are they not at Medellin, only half an hour from Vera Cruz?
The Liberté says again that Juarez is popular. What audacity! Certainly Juarez must have some influence since he has kept unhappy men without bread and without shoes, fighting for four years against the best army in the world, braving privations, defeat, and death.
We said that Juarez would be the only constituted power to treat with after Maximilian’s departure; let those who contradict us, show us some other. It is simply ridiculous for Mr. Dréolle to put the Mexican constitution against Juarez. Have there been any elections in Mexico since Juarez was elected? In every country in the world the holder of power keeps it till another is elected, particularly in revolutionary times.
The Patrie’s great argument is, that France cannot treat with Juarez because she has been fighting him for four years. Because France is at war with Juarez is the very reason why she should treat with him. Is it a rule we must not treat with those we fight? If it is, there is no end to wars, and Prussia would still be fighting Austria.
But, says the Patrie, Juarez is an agent for the United States. If the Patrie had read the history of the country before talking about it, it would know that the grants of provinces to the Americans were made by the conservative party, by Santa Anna, against the will of the liberals.
After encouraging the Mexican expedition, and urging France and its government to it, by echoing the false reports circulated by Mexicans in Paris, one ought to be more modest and more civil to those who are trying to repair the errors.
When one has upon his conscience so many counsels condemned by experience, he ought not to sit down in his office and forgot that there are thousands of French in Mexico who did not ask for intervention, and who now run the risk of being massacred the day after our departure. Under pretext of a point of honor, we ought not to expose the fortunes and perhaps the lives of our unfortunate countrymen by imprudent advice.
What the Patrie calls discussion, is: substituting abuse for argument, accusing the intentions of its opponents instead of answering their questions, endangering the lives of people three thousand leagues off; and all for the pleasure of making a few high-sounding sentences. That is not politics; it is braggadocio,