The situation in Mexico., September 20, 1866
The situation in Mexico.
The Patrie believes in the future of Mexico; it has a right to do so, but that is not the question; the question is to know what France ought to do now to protect its citizens in Mexico.
Does the Patrie advise France to continue military intervention beyond the time fixed for its termination? If that is our colleague’s opinion, why does he not speak it outright? Why doesn’t he say plainly, France has not spent enough men and money; why does he not propose a new loan and more troops? In his disinterested tenderness for Mexico and its government, why does he not advise France to risk a war with the United States, when its honor and its interests are against it?
If that is what the Patrie wants, why doesn’t it have the courage to say so? But while it laments the decrease of our effective force in Mexico, why doesn’t it blame the convention of the 26th July? Though France was not obliged to undertake the regeneration of Mexico, when it did undertake it, it should have carried it out. It should not hesitate in the efficacy of its plans, nor leave Mexico bankrupt.
On the other hand, does the Patrie want Mexico evacuated at the time fixed, and the convention of the 26th July executed? It must believe one of two things: either that the empire will survive intervention, or that it will not. If it believes the former, let it tells us by what kind of miracle that phenomenon is to be caused; let it show us the financial resources to support Mexico and pay its debts. We want no fine phrases; we want facts and figures!
If, on the contrary, the Patrie thinks Maximilian will abdicate, why doesn’t it say so, and not deceive its readers? But, what does it propose when Maximilian abdicates? It will not treat with Juarez. We don’t know why; but it will not, and that is enough. Sit pro ratione voluntas. Then, what does it want? what does it advise? Does it agree with the Epoque to cede Mexico to the United States? Does it propose to treat with Santa Anna, the representative of a broken-down party, or with Ortega, who is a second Juarez? It proposes nothing!
Again, Mr. Dréolle is certainly in jest when he says France cannot give up the Mexican job; and yet he advises evacuation, and declares the empire shall live, without saying how it shall live: and approves of the July convention that ruins the empire. On one occasion it praised the nomination of General Osmont as war minister, lauding it as a Franco-Mexican organization; and the next day, when the Moniteur announced that General Osmont was not authorized to accept a Mexican portfolio, it rubbed its hands and exclaimed, in an important air, “That’s just what we told you yesterday!”
Now, the Patrie takes refuge behind Count Keratry, when we don’t know what his singular articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes can have to do with the question in discussion.
What says our author who has lived in Mexico, not in palaces and garrisons, but in the ranks of Colonel Dupin’s gallant band, called the contra guerilla? He tells of the defects in the present government; he shows us the errors, neglects, hesitations, and precipitations that have ruined it. He knows more about it than all those who went to Mexico only to solicit grants, or obtain favors. The writer, who has lived everywhere, leading a rugged life with his heroic companions, mostly in the open air, marching from village to village after Juarists, and finding out what they were good for, after enumerating government mistakes, concludes by telling what might have been done, and what could yet be done. Not a word of discouragement falls from his pen! The empire can live by contracting its limits. Why should it seek to govern where even the vaunted republics did not rule? It can live by giving a place in the sunshine to the noble race of oppressed Indians; by ousting the bandits from their hiding-places, those lawless disciples of Juarez or of Santa Anna; and by suppressing the shameless representatives of an immoral clergy, who encourage anarchy so as to make their fortunes and ruin the country!
But what does all that prove? It shows the Mexican empire would live with plenty of money, a large army, and a firm policy, if it gave up one-third of the provinces left to it by the republic. And who denies that? Perhaps “those who went to Mexico to solicit grants or obtain favors.”
But where are those concealed whom the Patrie seems to be acquainted with? Mr. Dréolle does not mention those famous claimants, the cause of the expedition, whose claims have been greatly reduced, and are not yet paid. Will he mention those encouragers of the loan, who pocketed large commissions, and whom he took under his disinterested protection? Will he mention all those who obtained favors without going to Mexico? Why doesn’t he speak openly?
As to ourselves, we went to Mexico, but not to solicit grants or obtain favors; and we agree with Keratry, except in one particular. We think with him that Mexico is an admirable country, and that an empire might be established there; all that is wanting to this one is, money and independence! It does not lack the good will, nor the intelligence, nor the firmness. Money it never had, and it can do little with the thirty-four millions obtained from the two loans. It needs five hundred millions, and that was the sum we suggested before it was too late.
Independence! How could it be independent with an army over which it had no command? We proposed to give it an army.
Though Keratry’s writings show Mexico to be a good country, deserving an empire, they do not prove that the present empire can live unsupported by France, nor do they prove that a succession is open and is to be settled.
One word more. The Patrie is astonished at our acrimony in blaming its mode of debate. Well may it be astonished, for its article to-day confirms us in our estimation of its severity, and we persist in saying editors ought not to accuse each other of dishonesty and want of patriotism when there is no occasion for it.
Reading Dréolle’s articles suggested the above moral observations.