Part 15 (1/2)
Dayton, the United States minister at Paris, that all that France wanted was that there should be a stable government in Mexico, not an anarchy with which other nations could have no relations.
That if the people of that country chose to establish a republic it was all well; France would make no objection. If they chose to establish a monarchy, as that was the form of government here, it would be charming (charmant), but they did not mean to do anything to induce such a course of action. That all the rumors that France intended to establish the Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico were utterly without foundation.[213]
M. Thouvenel's disclaimer to the British government was equally emphatic.[214]
To return to the situation of affairs at Orizaba, the disagreement between the allies requires some explanation. The immediate cause of the rupture and of the withdrawal from the convention of London was the protection extended by the French agents to General Almonte, Padre Miranda, and other leading men of the reactionary or church party who had been banished from the country and who now from the French camp maintained an active correspondence with Marquez, Cobos, and other notorious chiefs of the armed bands then in open rebellion against the const.i.tuted government of the country. Almonte and his a.s.sociates openly favored the scheme of placing Maximilian on the throne.
The Mexican government demanded the removal of General Almonte and his a.s.sociates from the camp of the allies, and in this demand the British and Spanish representatives concurred. A somewhat stormy conference was held between the commissioners of the allied powers at Orizaba, April 2, 1862, at which the French agents virtually said that they did not regard the convention of London or the preliminaries of Soledad as binding upon them. Specifically then the two causes of the rupture were (1) the persistency of the French commissioners in opposing the removal of the Mexican exiles, and (2) their refusal to take part in the conferences which had been arranged by the convention of Soledad to be held with the Juarez government at Orizaba, April 15, 1862. The British government heartily approved of the action of its agent, Sir Charles Wyke, in breaking up the conference and putting an end to the joint action of the three powers.[215] The policy of Spain was completely in accord with that of England.
The French government was not satisfied with the convention of Soledad, but did not dispute its validity, and declared that if the negotiations should be broken off, its provisions in regard to the withdrawal of the troops from their vantage ground must be observed. The French government further a.s.sumed that, when negotiations with the Mexican government should be broken off, the allied forces would proceed to act jointly under the convention of London.[216] The British and Spanish governments, however, having become convinced of the duplicity of the French government in the matter, terminated the London convention without further discussion and ordered the immediate withdrawal of their forces and agents from Mexican territory.
The government of Louis Napoleon, thus left to its own devices by the withdrawal of Great Britain and Spain, and by the helpless condition, for the time being, to which the war of secession had reduced the government of the United States, greatly reinforced its Mexican expedition and placed General Forey in command. Soon after the withdrawal of the British and Spanish contingents, General Almonte inst.i.tuted a government in the territory occupied by the French and a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of ”Supreme Chief of the Nation,” but it soon became evident, as Mr. Dayton expressed it, that instead of the emperor having availed himself of the services of General Almonte, Almonte had availed himself of the services of the emperor. Accordingly, shortly after General Forey a.s.sumed command, he issued an order dissolving the ministry of Almonte, depriving him of his t.i.tle and limiting him thereafter ”in the most exact manner to the instructions of the emperor, which are to proceed as far as possible, with other Mexican generals placed under the protection of our flag, to the organization of the Mexican army.”
The misfortunes which had overtaken Mexico and the dangers that threatened the permanence of her republican inst.i.tutions, had now thoroughly alarmed her sister republics of Central and South America, and a correspondence began between them relative to organizing an international American conference to oppose European aggression.
During the remarkable series of events that took place in Mexico in the spring of 1862, Mr. Seward consistently held to the opinion well expressed in a dispatch to Mr. Dayton, June 21, 1862:
France has a right to make war against Mexico, and to determine for herself the cause. We have a right and interest to insist that France shall not improve the war she makes to raise up in Mexico an anti-republican and anti-American government, or to maintain such a government there. France has disclaimed such designs, and we, besides reposing faith in the a.s.surances given in a frank, honorable manner, would, in any case, be bound to wait for, and not antic.i.p.ate a violation of them.[217]
For some months the French troops gradually extended their military operations and occupied a greater extent of territory without, however, any material change in the situation. The Juarez government still held the capital. In the spring of 1863, however, military operations were pushed forward with greater activity, and in June, General Forey organized a junta of government composed of thirty-five Mexican citizens designated by decree of the French emperor's minister. The members of this supreme junta were to a.s.sociate with them two hundred and fifteen citizens of Mexico to form an a.s.sembly of two hundred and fifty notables. This a.s.sembly was to occupy itself with the form of the permanent government of Mexico. The junta appointed an executive body of three, of whom General Almonte was the head.
On the 10th of July, 1863, the capital of Mexico was occupied by the French army, and on the following day the a.s.sembly of Notables declared:
1. The Mexican nation adopts as its form of government a limited hereditary monarchy, with a Catholic prince.
2. The sovereign shall take the t.i.tle of Emperor of Mexico.
3. The imperial crown of Mexico is offered to his imperial and royal highness the Prince Ferdinand Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, for himself and his descendants.
4. If, under circ.u.mstances which cannot be foreseen, the Archduke of Austria, Ferdinand Maximilian, should not take possession of the throne which is offered to him, the Mexican nation relies on the good will of his majesty, Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, to indicate for it another Catholic prince.[218]
The crown of Mexico was formally offered to Maximilian by a deputation of Mexicans headed by Senor Estrada, October 3, 1863; but Maximilian replied that he could not accept the proffered throne until the whole nation should ”confirm by a free manifestation of its will the wishes of the capital.” This was a wise decision, had it been given in good faith and had it been wisely adhered to, but the sequel shows that the archduke was either not sincere in his protestations or else was woefully deceived by representations subsequently made to him. Six months later he accepted the crown without the question having been submitted to the wishes of any but a very small portion of the Mexican people.
In spite of the declaration of the Mexican a.s.sembly, which showed so unmistakably the hand of Napoleon, the French government continued to repudiate the designs imputed to it against the independence of Mexico, and Mr. Seward continued to express, officially at least, the satisfaction of the American government at the explanations vouchsafed by France. September 11, 1863, he stated the case as follows:
When France made war against Mexico, we asked of France explanations of her objects and purposes. She answered, that it was a war for the redress of grievances; that she did not intend to permanently occupy or dominate in Mexico, and that she should leave to the people of Mexico a free choice of inst.i.tutions of government. Under these circ.u.mstances the United States adopted, and they have since maintained entire neutrality between the belligerents, in harmony with the traditional policy in regard to foreign wars. The war has continued longer than was antic.i.p.ated. At different stages of it France has, in her intercourse with us, renewed the explanations before mentioned. The French army has now captured Pueblo and the capital, while the Mexican government, with its princ.i.p.al forces, is understood to have retired to San Luis Potosi, and a provisional government has been inst.i.tuted under French auspices in the city of Mexico, which being supported by arms, divides the actual dominion of the country with the Mexican government, also maintained by armed power. That provisional government has neither made nor sought to make any communication to the government of the United States, nor has it been in any way recognized by this government. France has made no communication to the United States concerning the provisional government which has been established in Mexico, nor has she announced any actual or intended departure from the policy in regard to that country which her before-mentioned explanations have authorized us to expect her to pursue.[219]
The probable acceptance of the crown by Maximilian was, however, the subject of frequent communications between the governments of France and the United States. In the course of a somewhat familiar conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the French minister of state, in August, 1863, Mr. Dayton expressed the fear that in quitting Mexico France might leave a _puppet_ behind her. De Lhuys replied: ”No; the strings would be too long to work.”
The chances of Maximilian's success in Mexico had been from the first deliberately calculated on the basis of the probable success of the Southern Confederacy; and, therefore, the cause of the Juarez government and the cause of the Union were considered the same. The active sympathy of the Unionists with the Mexican republic made it difficult for the administration to maintain neutrality. This difficulty was further enhanced by the doubt entertained in the United States as to the intentions of France. In this connection Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Dayton, September 21, 1863, as follows:
The President thinks it desirable that you should seek an opportunity to mention these facts to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, and to suggest to him that the interests of the United States, and, as it seems to us, the interests of France herself, require that a solution of the present complications in Mexico be made, as early as may be convenient, upon the basis of the unity and independence of Mexico.[220]
In reply, the French minister declared that the question of the establishment of Maximilian on the Mexican throne was to be decided by a majority vote of the entire nation; that the dangers of the government of the archduke would come princ.i.p.ally from the United States, and the sooner the United States showed itself satisfied, and manifested a willingness to enter into peaceful relations with that government, the sooner would France be ready to leave Mexico and the new government to take care of itself, which France would, in any event, do as soon as she with propriety could; but that she would not lead or tempt the archduke into difficulty, and then desert him before his government was settled.
He said that the early acknowledgment of that government by the United States would tend to shorten, or perhaps to end, all the troublesome complications of France in that country; that they would thereupon quit Mexico.[221]
To this communication, Mr. Seward replied that the French government had not been left uninformed of the opinion of the United States that the permanent establishment of a foreign and monarchical government in Mexico would be found neither easy nor desirable; that the United States could not antic.i.p.ate the action of the Mexican people; and that the United States still regarded Mexico as the scene of a war which had not yet ended in the subversion of the government long existing there, with which the United States remained in the relation of peace and friends.h.i.+p.[222]
Before formally accepting the crown, the archduke visited England with a view to securing a promise of recognition for his new position. He was, of course, to pa.s.s through Paris, and in view of his approaching visit, Mr. Dayton asked for instructions as to his conduct on the occasion. Mr.
Seward replied, February 27, 1864:
I have taken the President's direction upon the question. If the Archduke Maximilian appears in Paris only in his character as an imperial prince of the house of Hapsburg, you will be expected to be neither demonstrative nor reserved in your deportment toward him. If he appears there with any a.s.sumption of political authority or t.i.tle in Mexico, you will entirely refrain from intercourse with him.