Chapopotli Bicentenario-Parte 1

Chapopotli Bicentenario
(Primera de tres partes)
Por Juan Ramón Jiménez de León
Economista, Académico y Periodista
http://www.yumka.com/

Todo mundo hablando y escribiendo sesudos análisis de los héroes bicentenarios, muchos de ellos con absoluta profesionalidad, otros tantos pura basura, los estadounidenses, me enseñaron follow the Money, y preguntamos de donde sale tanto dinero, absolutamente desperdiciado mientras el país esta en absoluta decadencia, si no vea las siguientes cifras obtenidas del Fondo Monetario Internacional y publicados en Reforma por el economista permanente del diario capitalino, Enrique Quintana, quien a grandes rasgos escribe en su articulo llamado El Segundo Lugar de China (p.6 del martes 17 de agosto del 2010, sección financiera), el PIB de México en 1980, era final del Nacionalismo Económico que tenia un modelo económico de Capitalismo de Estado y que China sigue manteniendo, era de 332,827 MDD, ajustados bajo el parámetro del Poder de Compra de la Moneda (PPP-Parity Purchasing Power), mientras el PIB de China Comunista era de 247,846 MDD, es decir el PIB de México era 35% superior al de China, ahora en el 2010, el PIB de México es de 1.465 trillones de USD, mientras China tiene un PIB de 8.765 trillones de USD o sea que China es ahora 6 veces superior al nuestro. Esto demuestra que no solo el Gobierno panista de ultra-derecha esta fallido, sino el modelo económico neoliberal importado de la Universidad de Chicago, esta totalmente fallido, pues en 30 años México creció en promedio 2.2% anual y China creció en ese mismo periodo 9.46%. China supo adecuar y adoptar el Modelo Mexicano de los años 70s de los presidentes Echeverría y López Portillo, mientras aquí EUA hacia el “coco-wash” a los dirigentes mexicanos para que adoptaran el modelo de “Libre Mercado” y “Libre Competencia” que hasta la fecha no existen todo ha sido una mentira para saquear el país abiertamente, veámoslo en el caso de nuestro principal activo, el commodity del petróleo, la sangre del sistema capitalista global.

Ahora la historia, cuando la invasión francesa a México, 1862-1867, que dio origen al glorioso evento de la batalla del 5 de mayo de 1862, en donde las tropas mexicanas comandadas por el joven general Ignacio Zaragoza, nacido en Corpus Christi, Coahuiltejas, entonces México y luego Texas ya separado de nuestra nación, y a la cabeza de una gran cantidad de indios zacapoaxtlas, que a machete tendido derrotaron a las tropas de elite, la famosa Legión Extranjera de Napoleón III, ese acto heroico, fue mal pagado por la oligarquía poblana que puso moños negros en señal de duelo, por la derrota de los franceses, al exclamar Zaragoza que “mejor hubiera quemado Puebla” selló su destino, fue envenenado. Benito Juárez, un indígena de nacimiento y nuestro mas grande Presidente de todos los tiempos, prefería escuchar la Marcha Zaragoza como su himno preferido, las tropas prusianas cuando derrotan a las tropas francesas, les tocaban dicha marcha militar para desmoralizarlos, mencionado por Carlos Marx en su estupendo trabajo llamado “El 18 Brumario de Luis Napoleón Bonaparte”, una vez sin líder militar, las tropas mexicanas fueron derrotadas por las francesas.

Ya estando instalado en México, Maximiliano de Habsburgo, segundo heredero del Imperio Austro-húngaro, y estando enterado que en 1859, los norteamericanos habían descubierto en Pensilvania el uso industrial del petróleo, supo el Emperador Austriaco que en Campeche había petróleo o chapopotli que eran lodos superficiales que servían para que los mayas iluminaran sus ciudades.

A partir de ese momento los acontecimientos se acercaron a Campeche. Empezaron con un pronunciamiento alentado por las intrigas de un corto número de individuos en Isla del Carmen, de modo que la marina invasora comenzó a dominar aquella parte del litoral con la colaboración del general poblano Tomás Marín, de filiación conservadora y monárquica. El 28 de febrero de 1863 el comandante Hocquart, al mando del buque Grenade, envió una comunicación al gobernador Pablo García asegurándole que si hostilizaba a la isla del Carmen, población protegida por la bandera francesa, recibiría represalias. No fue muy lejos por la respuesta, que le dio García el 1º de marzo, rechazando las amenazas y advirtiéndole que cualquier acción sobre el Carmen estaba sostenida por el derecho, así como por su deber de defender la integridad territorial de Campeche, posición que también dio a conocer al comandante de la cañonera L´Eclair. Los marinos franceses se dedicaron a bombardear Campeche, la ciudad amurallada en junio de 1862. En el interior, Puebla cayó después de un prolongado sitio, iniciándose el recorrido trashumante del gobierno liberal de Benito Juárez que se desplazaba a Saltillo, luego a Torreón y finalmente a Paso del Norte (hoy Ciudad Juárez en su honor).

A fines de 1863 Campeche comenzó a padecer un bloqueo por mar y por tierra por parte de tropas imperialistas que desembarcaron en Champotón el 16 de noviembre y se apoderaron del fortín costeño de San Antonio. Mientras el ejército expedicionario francés avanzaba por el centro del país hacia el Norte, en la península yucateca, los conservadores cercaban Campeche y la escuadra invasora con sus cañoneras Magellan, Brandon, Fleche y L´Eclair llenaba de plomo todo el litoral. Sin mayor esperanza las fuerzas nacionales capitularon el 22 de enero de 1864 a bordo del vapor Brandon. Entonces Maximiliano se desplaza a Campeche para supervisar el inicio de la explotación de petróleo, pero los franceses no pudieron establecer una base solida debido a los continuos ataques guerrilleros de los patriotas campechanos liderados por Pablo García y los tabasqueños liderados por Gregorio Méndez. Tiempo después en 1884, Porfirio Díaz, también héroe de la batalla del 5 de mayo, emite la primera ley minera y petrolera, que no permitía la inversión extranjera sin permiso y supervisión del Gobierno Federal.

En 1900 llega a México la Standard Oil (ESSO hoy EXXON) de Rockefeller, y en 1901, el Secretario de Hacienda Porfiriano, el franco mexicano José Yves Limantour, otorgaba los primeros permisos para explotar el petróleo, con duración de 10 años y con carácter revocatorio pues Porfirio Díaz no quería que ningún país pudiera controlar totalmente nuestro petróleo, en 1908 arriba a México la London Trust Oil (hoy la British Petroleum) del magnate Cecil Rhodes, que después crearía la Republica de Rodesia hoy Zimbabwe, región llena de diamantes, oro y rodio. Rhodes fundó la famosa marca diamantífera DeBeers (Ref: Petróleo y Revolución en México de Jonathan Charles Brown, Siglo XXI).

En 1909 estalla la crisis de la plata, sostén del Patrón Bimetálico Oro-plata, el movimiento especulador devaluaba la plata de 3 USD a 0.25 USD la onza troy, para superar la crisis fiscal, Díaz decide que Hacienda grave con 0.15 centavos de dólar por tonelada, la exportación de crudo, lo cual molesta a las petroleras. En 1911 se tenían que renovar las concesiones y Díaz decide no renovar algunas de ellas a los norteamericanos y a los británicos, apoyándose mas en inversiones de Francia, Italia, Holanda, Alemania, Japón, entre otros, lo que inmediatamente suelta los idus de la Revolución Maderista, financiada por los intereses petroleros de la Standard Oil de Rockefeller, que tenia como sus representantes a la familia de Harry Fleishman en Tampico, entonces la ciudad petrolera mas importante.

La ESSO se acerca a Francisco I Madero y en San Antonio, Texas le entrega 10 millones de dólares para que inicie su revolución para derrocar a Díaz que se mostraba proeuropeo. Ante las presiones de un grupo de senadores demócratas estadounidenses se instala el Comité Smith-Fall para investigar "...hasta que punto la Standard Oil de Rockefeller contribuyo a la causa de Madero". El nombre del Comité surge de sus impulsores: Albert Bacon Fall (amigo personal de Doheny, con el tiempo Chevron) y William Alden Smith, ambos demócratas y contrarios a los republicanos petroleros (hoy todavía se mantiene el poderío petrolero en Estados Unidos una Petrocracia). Haciendo un análisis detenido del impuesto decretado por Madero diremos que: por un lado en el presupuesto presentado por Madero a la Cámara en 1912 (y que era de $109,245,944 pesos, apenas mayor en un millón en relación al de 1911 presentado por Díaz) se contemplaba un déficit de $9,352,654 pesos, el cual se pretendía cubrir aumentando los siguientes impuestos: a) a la Lotería (de 5% a 10%) del cual se buscaba captar $300,000 pesos,; b) de los Tabacos, aumentándolos al doble, pretendiendo recaudar $2,500,000; c) de las bebidas alcohólicas con un estimado de recaudación de 1,850,000; d) del petróleo (cuya propuesta original era de $0.30 la tonelada producida y que la Cámara, dominada por porfiristas bajo a $0.20) con el cual sé pretendía un rendimiento de apenas 600,000 pesos; y e) del pulque, que paso de $0.75 a $1 pesos calculándose un ingreso de 300,000 pesos, todo lo cual nos confirma que la propuesta era tímida y los reclamos exagerados, a menos que el fondo que se perseguía fuera otro, que lo era. En el peor de los casos las empresas tabacaleras y de bebidas alcohólicas tenían mayores razones de peso para conspirar tan abiertamente en contra de Madero, sin embargo la prensa de la época no recoge ninguna información al respecto.

Hay autores motivados por el extraño comportamiento del Embajador Henry Lane Wilson, que va del halago a la acusación directa, señalan que la animadversión de Wilson era personal o que tenia que ver con las disputas entre los intereses mineros y los de la Guggenheim (la American Smelting & Refining Company-ASARCO del grupo Morgan, hoy Industrial Minera México) quienes monopolizaban casi por completo la industria de la fundición controlando las plantas de Monterrey, San Luis y Aguascalientes. {Guggenheim continua ligado con Tampico debido a su casamiento con la Dra. en Arquitectura, Ariela Katz, Directora Adjunta (Paris) New York / Paris Program, de la Universidad de Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation de la ciudad de Nueva York, egresada de Yale University, 1987; Maestría en Arquitectura., Columbia, 1991; Doctorada del Instituto de Bellas Artes de la Universidad de Nueva York con la tesis "The Maison du Peuple: Modernity and Working-Class Identity in French Architecture and Urbanism, 1914-1940", hija de Marcos David Katz, un agente del Mossad encargado del trafico de armas de la Irán-Contra, el padrino de la boda Katz-Guggenheim, fue Elliot Abrams el operador directo de esa acción encubierta}.
Los Madero controlaban la única empresa minera de importancia, La Compañía Metalúrgica de Torreón (hoy Industrias Peñoles del segundo hombre mas rico de México, Alberto Bailleres, creador del ITAM de donde salen ahora los cuadros del PAN, la mayoría niños imberbes sin experiencia alguna), pero la magnitud de esta, con un capital de apenas 5 millones de pesos no hace pensar que fuese un competidor importante de los Guggenheim.

El Embajador Wilson entre otras cosas también protegía a la Tlahualilo Company que explotaba la zona algodonera de la Laguna .Los Madero ya habían tenido enfrentamientos con dicha compañía anglo-norteamericana a finales de siglo, pues haciendo coalición con otros hacendados laguneros se opusieron a sus intentos de monopolizar el agua. Pero en los Estados Unidos había también un terremoto, el Presidente Teodoro Roosevelt, decretaba aplicar la ley anti-monopolios a la ESSO y la partía en una miríada de empresas, por ello Rockefeller presionaba a Madero para que protegiera la zona petrolera de las Huastecas de los revolucionarios. Entre los meses de junio a octubre de 1912, se presenta una movilización de barcos norteamericanos a puertos mexicanos entre los que se encontraban el "Vicksburg" que es enviado al puerto de Guaymas, el "Denver", el "Colorado", "Prometheus", entre otros rumbo al Golfo de México. El llamado "Des Moines" llega el 20 de octubre al Puerto de Veracruz, casualmente coincide con el levantamiento de Félix Díaz, sobrino de Porfirio Díaz, quien toma el Puerto de Veracruz el 16 de octubre de 1912. Tardíamente en los Estados Unidos es descubierta esta operación militar por el Senador Hopkins quien encuentra la amistad de los senadores Fall y Adler - voceros de intereses petroleros en el Congreso de la Unión - con Pascual Orozco y el cacique Terrazas, ambos de Chihuahua, así como lo publicado por el magnate del periodismo amarillista Randolph Hearst respecto a las visitas de estos al Presidente Taft para persuadirle que permita la exportación de armas a México, en donde aparece el nombre de Samuel Bush, (abuelo de George Bush I, después Director de la CIA, Vicepresidente y autor de la Irán-Contra y Presidente), entonces llamado el Mercader de la Muerte (AGN-Archivo General de la Nación, Gal 3, R, S.G. Hopkins a Juan Sánchez Azcona, 29 de diciembre de 1912, exp 37 5 fs).

Todos estos intereses petroleros, traerían como consecuencia el brutal asesinato del Presidente coahuilense Madero y del Vicepresidente tabasqueño Pino Suarez. Posteriormente salió publicado en periódicos americanos y mexicanos noticias como "Cowdray, Primer Ministro Británico ayuda a Huerta a derrocar a Madero" "que Cowdrey compra el reconocimiento ingles de Huerta" "que Cowdrey arregla prestamos al gobierno de Huerta" "que Cowdrey apoya como embajador a Sir Leonel Carden' "que Cowdrey y Carden critican la política de Wilson hacia México" "que Huerta da a El Águila nuevas concesiones petroleras y ferroviarias" "que Cowdrey vende sus intereses a la Standard Oil" "que Huerta estaba por nacionalizar las tierras petroleras para transferirlas a Cowdrey por 50 millones de dólares, por toda esa corrupción de Huerta, se desató de esta forma la parte mas brutal de la Revolución Mexicana encabezada por el Gobernador de Coahuila, Venustiano Carranza, quien al llegar al poder mantiene los impuestos a la exportación de petróleo y se ve amenazado y al final asesinado por las guardias blancas petroleras del General Manuel Peláez. Carranza sin embargo estaba por formar una empresa estatal del petróleo en Campeche, llamada Petróleos de México, y además impulsó la nueva Constitución de 1917, que en su artículo 27 le da al estado la soberanía sobre el agua, los minerales y los hidrocarburos. En el libro The Politics of the Mexican Oil, de George W Grayson, U. De Pittsburg Press, pagina 12, actualmente Profesor del Colegio de William y María, escribe que Venustiano Carranza declara a Manuel Peláez como bandolero en las adiciones de 1914, al Plan de Guadalupe emitido el 26 de Marzo de 1913 en las cercanías de Monclova, Coahuila. Carranza que ya había derogado los contratos petroleros y mineros otorgados por Porfirio Díaz y ratificados por Madero. Estados Unidos invade Veracruz en 1914 para detener los envíos de armas de Alemania para Carranza (telegrama Zimmerman) y para controlar los intentos del General Lucio Blanco de quemar los pozos petroleros, ahí se radicaliza otro personaje Cesar Augusto Sandino de Nicaragua que en ese entonces trabajaba en las empresas petroleras y empieza a admirar a Lucio Blanco, el ala izquierda del carrancismo revolucionario.

También para esas fechas empieza a destacar el movimiento sindical aglutinado en el Gremio Unido de Tampico. El 5 de junio de 1917 inicia la conspiración comunista, incluso antes que la gran revolución bolchevique de Octubre en la Rusia de los Zares, en la Faja de Oro, inicia la huelga en la Huasteca Petroleum Company alentados por la nueva Constitución promulgada el 5 de Febrero de 1917 y especialmente su articulo 123 y su fuerza se dejó sentir en 1919 en la huelga de la Petrolera Waters-Price en donde se tuvo que emplear a las guardias blancas para sofocar la rebelión obrera, esta mantuvo una calma tensa después de la represión pero de nuevo se alborotó cuando las petroleras suspendieron sus embarques de crudo debido a que Carranza les impuso un impuesto a la exportación de 25 centavos de dólar por cada tonelada extraída y exportada gravando toda la cadena productiva, lo que de facto es un impuesto en cascada, para ese entonces los EUA mandaron barcos de guerra a Tampico como “medida precautoria”, el sindicalismo revolucionario nace entonces con los Hermanos Rojos que fueron la vértebra del Sindicato Único de la Región Petrolera quienes tenían círculos de lectura y de discusión en base a los escritos de Ricardo Flores Magón, Emilio Zolá y Carlos Marx, ahí nace el Partido Comunista alentado desde Nueva York y que después se formalizó en la Ciudad de México en la Casa del Obrero Mundial que terminó contrario a Carranza y aliado con Álvaro Obregón que posteriormente manda asesinar a Carranza y luego a Villa para congraciarse con los norteamericanos. El artículo 27 de la Constitución era el tema delicado pues ponerlo en vigor representaba de hecho una nacionalización. Otro tema fue el de los impuestos en cascada hacia la producción petrolera, lo cual fue retomado por Huey Long, Senador y Gobernador por Louisiana y le significó ser asesinado en 1935, después en 1977 bajo la presidencia de James Carter se les llamó WPT (Windfall Profit Taxes), pero con la diferencia de que a Carranza y a Long les costó la vida y a Carter solo la reelección. Carranza vislumbraba que alrededor del petróleo (materia prima) debería de existir la industria petroquímica (para darle valor agregado a la materia prima), por ello quería imponer en la Presidencia al Ing. Químico Ignacio Bonillas, graduado en el MIT de Boston, sin embargo los generales sonorenses no se lo permitieron y empezó la conspiración que detuvo la institucionalización de la Revolución. Por otra parte, Randolph Hearst contrató a los pistoleros Butch Cassidy y Sundance Kid, el alias de Billy The Kid, para asesinar a Carranza, pero el General Francisco Murguía , jefe de inteligencia del Jefe Máximo del Ejercito Constitucionalista {a cuyas ordenes se encontraba mi abuelo, Teniente Cruz Jiménez de León}, lo evitó, sin embargo Peláez sería el conspirador-operador para asesinar a Carranza por órdenes de Woodrow Wilson y con el apoyo de las petroleras asentadas en Tampico, debido a que el Presidente mexicano quería nacionalizar el petróleo con la recién promulgada Constitución de 1917; en dicha conspiración que se inició en el Hotel Paso del Norte, en El Paso, Texas , estuvo organizada por George Cupples Carrothers, Cónsul en Torreón pero en realidad un agente enviado por el Presidente Wilson, y en ella estuvieron presentes el Jefe del espionaje de EUA, Zack Lamar Cobb y Félix A. Sommerfeld - de quien el renombrado historiador de la Universidad de Chicago, Friedrich Katz dice que era un doble o triple agente representando los intereses alemanes en este asunto y que se querían vengar de Carranza por no haber declarado la guerra a EUA, este personaje venía fogueado de la guerra de los Boxers en China y había traicionado a Carranza plantándole un espía ingles llamado Sherbourne Hopkins que trabajaba para el cónsul alemán en Torreón, a la conspiración se les unió el General Álvaro Obregón, líder de la rebelión de Agua Prieta; se acordó que Jefe Constitucionalista fuera asesinado, lo cual ocurrió el 21 de mayo de 1921 en Tlaxcalantongo, Puebla, en dicha conspiración estuvieron involucrados Samuel Bush, Randolph Hearst, Álvaro Obregón, Manuel Peláez, Rodolfo Herrero, asesino material que era parte de las fuerzas de Peláez, ascendido luego a General, quien con dinero de la Defensa vivió luego en Monterrey, Nuevo León. Las palabras escritas de Herrero son ilustrativas del asesinato que los “intelectuales” mexicanos no han querido dilucidar plenamente, “Al empezar el combate, el único que salió del campamento montado a caballo, haciendo fuego, fue el ingeniero Ignacio Bonillas, candidato carrancista a la Presidencia de la República; iban con él dos asistentes. Era un valiente, hizo fuego sobre las fuerzas obregonistas que se acercaban al lugar.

El General Urquizo después de la refriega huyó al rancho de Zilima y por el rumbo de Tabacal llegó a Juárez con la ropa que le proporcionó Miguel Esquitin. Don Venustiano se batió como un león. El General Murguía- jefe de la inteligencia carrancista y quien había querido fusilar a Herrero, pero Carranza se negó- también salió del campamento tirando balazos y en paños menores, recogiendo sus prendas de vestir, como un fuete con cabeza de león de marfil que luego entregué al General Gómez; llegó al rancho de Guaunepizcoa el Viejo y como iba descalzo le proporcionaron costales de yute y se envolvió los pies para poder llegar a La Unión donde le proporcionaron zapatos”. Después del magnicidio se firman los nefastos Acuerdos de Bucareli el 13 de agosto de 1923, actualizados y mejorados en el Capitaulo 9 en los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio de 1994, esos tratados significaban que México se abstenía por 50 años de refinar su petróleo, desarrollar su industria pesada, aeronáutica, ferrocarrilera y naviera y entregar toda la riqueza gasera de la Cuenca de Burgos a las empresas texanas, el redactor de dichos acuerdos fue el Ing Juan Urquidi, padre del renombrado economista, mucho tiempo Director del Colegio de México, Víctor Urquidi, quien nació en Francia a donde huyó su familia temiendo ser asesinada por las fuerzas carrancistas. (continuará)

Juarez-Red Voltaire de Francia

Juárez, el Benemérito, y sus detractores por Edgar González Ruiz*
Benito Pablo Juárez García (San Pablo Guelatao, Oaxaca, 21 de marzo de 1806-ciudad de México, 18 de julio de 1872), el Benemérito de las Américas, puede considerarse el principal héroe de la historia de México.

Su lucha contra el fanatismo y la reacción abrió para nuestro país caminos de justicia y libertad que durante mucho tiempo no fueron igualados en parte alguna de América Latina.

El matrimonio civil, la educación laica y, en general, la separación entre la iglesia y el Estado, aspecto en el que durante mucho tiempo México dio ejemplo al mundo, fueron posibles gracias a la valentía, energía y claridad ideológica del Benemérito y de los destacados liberales que lo apoyaron.
En el siglo XIX, gracias al empeño de Juárez y de los liberales, México alcanzó avances que apenas hoy en día se llevan a cabo en otras naciones.
En Bolivia, el año pasado en el marco de las transformaciones encabezadas por Evo Morales, se reconoció la separación de la iglesia y el Estado, en contraste con su constitución anterior, que en su artículo tercero establecía que el Estado “reconoce y sostiene a la religión católica, apostólica, romana”.
Empero, en Costa Rica, el catolicismo sigue siendo la religión oficial y en la mayoría de los otros países del subcontinente goza de enormes privilegios y subsidios, lo mismo en la educación, las instituciones del gobierno, las fuerzas armadas, etcétera.
A lo largo de la historia, la simbiosis entre el clero y el ejército en naciones de América del Sur fue factor importante en el mantenimiento de gobiernos golpistas, como fueron en la década de 1970 los de Pinochet y Videla, en Chile y Argentina, respectivamente.
Hoy en día, algunos de esos países luchan por liberarse de la tiranía clerical, mientras México ha vuelto a ella con el ascenso del Partido Acción Nacional al poder en 2000, y especialmente luego del fraude electoral de 2006 y la llegada del gobierno de Calderón.
Juárez ha sido el miembro más distinguido de la masonería en México, institución a la que pertenecieron otros destacados personajes, como Lázaro Cárdenas y, como tal, luchó de manera ejemplar en defensa de los principios de libertad, igualdad y fraternidad.
Lo hizo en una época en que el clero tenía mucha más influencia social que actualmente, en la que la ignorancia y la superstición predominaban en grandes sectores de la población, pero también la libertad y la patria contaban con defensores más valientes y comprometidos que hoy en día.
Haciendo honor a sus orígenes humildes y a su extracción indígena, Juárez dio ejemplo a todos los demás estadistas al triunfar en la lucha contra la reacción clerical y contra la intervención extranjera que en su tiempo sufrió México por parte de la Francia regida por Napoleón III.
Entreguista y reaccionario, Santa Anna fue uno de los más enconados enemigos de Juárez. Sin embargo, en aquella ocasión, tratando de ganarse su perdón, le ofreció su espada contra los franceses, a lo que Juárez se negó juiciosamente.

Leemos en el libro Santa Anna, el dictador resplandeciente, de Rafael F. Muñoz (FCE-SEP, México, 1984, p. 267), que Juárez le respondió a Santa Anna que “si hubiera sido únicamente imperialista, podría recibirlo con agrado, pero como además ha sido un viejo aliado del clero y de los conservadores, no le inspira ni le inspirará confianza”.

En efecto, hace mal quien por su propia conveniencia apoya intereses extranjeros, pero es mucho más dañina la conducta de los que respaldan el fanatismo, que se opone al Estado laico y a las libertades individuales. El que actúa sólo por interés puede cambiar de bando una y otra vez, puede ser amigo o enemigo según le convenga, pero los conservadores defienden proyectos históricos.

En fin, por todas esas razones, por lo que Juárez fue y por lo que significa para México y para el mundo, ha sido también uno de los personajes más odiados por la derecha católica.

Detractores
Hace cuatro décadas, cuando estudiaba en una escuela católica, regenteada por un cura español más interesado por los negocios que por los asuntos ultraterrenos, tuve oportunidad de constatar el terrible odio de los conservadores contra Juárez.
El rechazo a la figura del prócer se predicaba insistentemente en las lecciones de historia, impartidas con libros de texto como los de Carlos Alvear Acevedo, que era uno de los autores favoritos de la Editorial Jus, de Gómez Morín, manejada en ese tiempo por Salvador Abascal.
Defensor de la Colonia, de la Inquisición y del franquismo, enemigo de la Independencia, de la Reforma, de la Revolución, y en general de la democracia, Abascal escribió contra el Benemérito el libro Juárez marxista (Tradición, México, 1984), en el que contó con la colaboración de su hijo Carlos, quien años después formaría parte del gabinete de Fox.

Leemos en esa obra de Abascal: “Los hechos demuestran que excede con mucho el indio zapoteca al turco (Plutarco Elías Calles), quizás judío en ese bárbaro oficio de odio, en exacta coincidencia con Carlos Marx, a la Iglesia Católica y consiguientemente a su obra, la cultura occidental”.

Específicamente, Abascal listaba los “tremendos golpes de guadaña” con los cuales, según él, Juárez “acertó a cortar el grueso de las raíces religiosas, católicas, de la nación”, entre ellos los siguientes: “La educación atea de la niñez y de la juventud en las escuelas oficiales; especie de terrorismo y secuestro ideológico, que por sí solo fue suficiente para romper la unidad espiritual del pueblo”; “la legislación no sólo atea sino que a la vez ha hecho esclava del gobierno impío a la iglesia”; “el matrimonio civil, que traería consigo lógica y fatalmente el divorcio, para la disolución de la familia, sin la cual no hay iglesia ni patria”; “la introducción, para mayor confusión, de las sectas protestantes, que mutilan la fe y la disocian de la acción, la cual se consagra sin remordimientos a la satisfacción de todas las concupiscencias”.
Amigo y correligionario de Abascal, Celerino Salmerón fue otro de los detractores del Benemérito, de quien se expresó con increíble encono.
Leemos en el libro Las grandes traiciones de Juárez, de Salmerón, publicado por editorial Tradición en 1978, “que fue la Iglesia Católica quien sacó a Juárez de la indigencia; que de indio bárbaro y analfabeto que era Juárez, la iglesia lo elevó a persona civilizada. Por la gran caridad de la iglesia, Juárez aprendió a hablar español, traducir el latín… La iglesia civilizó a Juárez enseñándole a calzar zapatos, y vestir chaqueta y pantalones en vez de andrajos. La iglesia enseñó a Juárez a comer sobre mesa y con cuchara, y de lo contrario él lo hubiera seguido haciendo con los dedos y en cuclillas” (p. xii).

Según ese autor, Juárez “sometió brutalmente a la iglesia al poder del Estado” (p. xiii), por lo que concluye que “traicionó a Cristo” y que “murió impenitente, repentinamente, excomulgado, fuera de la iglesia. ¡Sólo Dios sabe lo que haya hecho de él!” (p. 140).
Décadas después, algunos panistas (ahora en el poder) demostraban haber asimilado ese tipo de ideas. Por ejemplo, en entrevista publicada el 1 de abril de 1997 en La Crónica, el panista mexiquense Noé Aguilar Tinajero hacía gala de un rabioso antijuarismo que evoca textos como los de Abascal y Salmerón.
Decía el panista que, siendo “católico, creyente”, tenía una visión crítica sobre Juárez, pues “atacó a la Iglesia Católica”.
A pesar de sus detractores, la figura y la obra de Juárez son motivo de orgullo para nuestro país, que en contraste con esa herencia gloriosa, hoy vive una de sus etapas más tristes y oscuras, debido al predominio de los explotadores, del clero conservador y del Ejército, precisamente las fuerzas a las que él combatió.
Edgar González Ruiz
Maestro en Filosofía. Investigador y periodista, especializado en la derecha política en México y América Latina. Ha publicado varios libros, como: La Última Cruzada (2001); Los Abascal (2002); Cruces y Sombras (2006); El clero en armas (2007). En 2005 obtuvo el Premio José Martí; en 2006, el Premio Nacional de Periodismo, de México. Colabora en Contralínea.

Tratado McLane-Ocampo

Contexto: Juarez venia de estar exiliado en Nueva Orleans, viviendo en la miseria, y la guerra contra los conservadores estaba en ebullicion en ambos lados de la frontera, Estados Unidos estaba a punto de la guerra civil, Juarez jugó con astucia su carta, que de haber perdido la jugada estrategica, México hubiera desaparecido como Nación.

El tratado deriva su nombre de Robert McLane, entonces embajador de los Estados Unidos ante México y del político liberal mexicano Melchor Ocampo, quienes negociaron el tratado con la esperanza de que el dinero impulsaría el éxito del Partido Liberal en la Guerra de Reforma de México.

El tratado también habría puesto a México bajo la protección militar de los Estados Unidos.


El Tratado McLane-Ocampo, formalmente Tratado de Tránsito y Comercio, fue un acuerdo entre los Estados Unidos y el gobierno liberal de México, encabezado por Benito Juárez, firmado en el puerto de Veracruz en México, el 14 de diciembre de 1859, el cual habría vendido a perpetuidad el derecho de tránsito por el Istmo de Tehuantepec a los Estados Unidos, por cuatro millones de dólares, desde el puerto de Tehuantepec en el sur, hasta Coatzacoalcos en el Golfo de México, y con la carga para México de emplear fuerzas militares para la seguridad de las personas que transiten (artículo V); ceder a perpetuidad el derecho de transito a favor del vecino país del norte, desde la ciudad de Guaymas hasta el Rancho de Nogales u otro punto conveniente de la frontera entre la República de México y los Estados Unidos (artículo VI); ceder a perpetuidad el derecho de tránsito a la unión americana, desde cualquier punto entre Camargo y Matamoros, u otro punto conveniente de la frontera de Tamaulipas, vía Monterrey, hasta Mazatlán (artículo VII), así como en el protocolo correspondiente se cita textualmente lo siguiente: "1.-En vista de la peculiar situación del territorio de la Baja California, el cual, desde que fue cedida la Alta California a los Estados Unidos ha quedado separado y desintegrado del cuerpo principal de la República Mexicana, El Gobierno Constitucional consentirá en traspasar la soberanía a los Estados Unidos por una remuneración que después será convenida por parte de las partes contratantes".

A pesar de que el presidente estadounidense James Buchanan favorecía fuertemente el arreglo y el presidente mexicano Benito Juárez, necesitaba con urgencia el dinero para financiar la guerra que libraba contra el Partido Conservador, el acuerdo nunca fue ratificado por el Senado de Estados Unidos.

Estados Unidos planeaba construir una vía ferrea o un canal a lo ancho del istmo para acelerar el transporte de correo y mercancias entre las costas este y oeste. Los caminos ahí, en Nicaragua y en Panamá ya acumulaban tránsito considerable.


Tratado Mc. Lane-Ocampo.
Diciembre 14, 1859




Artículo 1o. Por vía de ampliación del artículo 8o. del tratado de 30 de Diciembre de 1853, cede la República Mexicana a los Estados Unidos y sus conciudadanos y bienes, en perpetuidad, el derecho de tránsito por el istmo de Tehuantepec, de uno a otro mar, por cualquier camino que actualmente exista o que existiese en lo sucesivo, sirviéndose de él ambas repúblicas y sus ciudadanos.

Artículo 2o. Convienen ambas repúblicas en proteger todas las rutas existentes hoy o que existieren en lo sucesivo al través de dicho istmo, y en garantizar la neutralidad del mismo.

Artículo 3o. Al usarse por primera vez bona fide, cualquiera ruta al través de dicho istmo, para transitar por ella, establecerá la República Mexicana dos puertos de depósito, uno al Este y otro al Oeste del istmo. El gobierno de México no impondrá derechos a los efectos o mercancías que pasen bona fide por dicho istmo, y que no estén destinados al consumo de la República Mexicana.

No se impondrán a los extranjeros y sus propiedades que pasen por ese camino contribuciones ni derechos mayores que los que se impongan a las personas y los bienes de los mexicanos. La República de México continuará permitiendo el tránsito libre y desembarazado de las malas de los Estados Unidos, con tal que pasen en balijas cerradas y que no hayan de distribuirse en el camino. En ningún caso podrán ser aplicables a dichas malas ninguna de las cargas impuestas o que en lo sucesivo se impusieren.

Artículo 4o. Conviene la República Mexicana en establecer por cada uno de los puertos de depósito, uno al Este y otro al Oeste del istmo, reglamentos que permitan que los efectos y mercancías pertenecientes a los ciudadanos y súbditos de los Estados Unidos o de cualquiera país extranjero, se depositen en almacenes que al efecto se construirán, libres de derecho de tonelaje y de toda otra clase, excepto los gastos necesarios de corretaje y almacenaje, cuyos efectos y mercancías podrán ser retirados subsecuentemente para transitar al través de dicho istmo y para ser embarcados en cualquiera de dichos puertos de depósito para cualquiera puerto extranjero, libres de todo derecho de tonelaje y otras clases; y se les podrá sacar también de dichos almacenes para la venta y el consumo dentro del territorio de la República Mexicana, mediante el pago de los derechos hoy puestos o que dicho gobierno mexicano tuviese a bien cobrar.

Artículo 5o. Conviene la República Mexicana en que si en algún tiempo se hiciese necesario emplear fuerzas militares para la seguridad y protección de las personas y los bienes que pasen por alguna de las precitadas rutas, empleará la fuerza necesaria al efecto; pero si por cualquiera causa dejase de hacerlo, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, con el consentimiento, o a petición del gobierno de México, o de su ministro en Washington, o de las competentes y legales autoridades locales, civiles o militares, podrá emplear tal fuerza con este y no con otro objeto; y cuando, en la opinión del gobierno de México, cese la necesidad, inmediatamente se retirará dicha fuerza.

Sin embargo, en el caso excepcional de peligro imprevisto o inminente para la vida o las propiedades de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, quedan autorizadas las fuerzas de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, quedan autorizadas las fuerzas de dicha República para obrar en protección de aquéllos, sin haber obtenido previo consentimiento, y se retirarán dichas fuerzas cuando cese la necesidad de emplearlas.

Artículo 6o. La República de México concede a los Estados Unidos el simple tránsito de sus tropas, abastos militares y pertrechos de guerra por el istmo de Tehuantepec, y por el tránsito o ruta de comunicación a que alude en este convenio desde la ciudad de Guaymas, en el golfo de California, hasta el rancho de Nogales, o algún otro punto conveniente de la línea fronteriza entre la República de México y los Estados Unidos cerca del 111º grado Oeste de longitud de Greenwich, dándose inmediato aviso de ello a las autoridades locales de la República de México.

Y asimismo convienen las dos repúblicas en que se estipulará expresamente con las compañías o empresas a quienes se conceda en lo sucesivo el acarreo o transporte, por cualesquiera ferrocarril u otras vías de comunicación en los precitados tránsitos, que el precio de transporte de las tropas, efectos militares y pertrechos de guerra de las dos repúblicas, será a lo sumo la mitad del precio ordinario que paguen los pasajeros o las mercancías que pasen por dichos caminos de tránsito; quedando entendido que si los concesionarios de privilegios concedidos ya, o que en los sucesivo se concedieren sobre ferrocarriles u otras vías de comunicación por dichos tránsitos, rehusaren recibir por la mitad del precio de transporte las tropas, armas, abastos militares y municiones de los Estados Unidos, el gobierno de éstos no les dispensará la protección de que hablan los artículos 2o. y 5o., ni ninguna otra protección.

Artículo 7o. La República Mexicana cede por el presente a los Estados Unidos, a perpetuidad, y a sus ciudadanos y propiedades, el derecho de vía o tránsito al través del territorio de la República de México, desde las ciudades de Camargo y Matamoros, o cualquiera punto conveniente del Río Grande, en el Estado de Tamaulipas, por la vía de Monterrey, hasta el puerto de Mazatlán, a la entrada del golfo de California, en el Estado de Sinaloa; y desde el rancho de Nogales o cualquier punto conveniente de la línea fronteriza entre la República de México y los Estados Unidos cerca del 111º grado de longitud Oeste de Greenwich, por la vía de Magdalena y Hermosillo, hasta la ciudad de Guaymas en el golfo de California, en el Estado de Sonora, por cualquier ferrocarril o ruta de comunicación, natural o artificial, que exista actualmente o existiere o fuere construido en lo sucesivo, del cual usarán y se servirán en la misma manera y con iguales condiciones ambas repúblicas y sus respectivos ciudadanos, reservándose siempre para si la República Mexicana el derecho de soberanía que al presente tiene sobre todos los tránsitos mencionados en este tratado.

Todas las estipulaciones y reglamentos de todas clases aplicables al derecho de vía o tránsito al través del istmo de Tehuantepec y en que han convenido ambas repúblicas, se hacen por el presente extensivos y aplicables a los precitados tránsitos o derechos de vía, exceptuando el derecho de pasar tropas, provisiones o pertrechos de guerra desde el Río Grande hasta el golfo de California.

Artículo 8o. Convienen asimismo las dos repúblicas en que, de la adjunta lista de mercancías, elija el Congreso de los Estados Unidos las que, siendo producciones naturales, industriales o fabricadas de una de las dos repúblicas, puedan admitirse para la venta y el consumo en uno de los dos países, bajo condiciones de perfecta reciprocidad, bien se las reciba libres de derecho, bien con el derecho que fije el Congreso de los Estados Unidos; proponiéndose la República Mexicana admitir los artículos de que se trata a más módico tipo de derecho y hasta completamente exentos del mismo, si el Congreso de los Estados Unidos conviene en ello.

Su introducción de una a otra de las dos repúblicas tendrá efecto por los puntos que los gobiernos de ambas designen, en los límites o fronteras de las mismas, cedidos y concedidos para los tránsitos y a perpetuidad, por este convenio, al través del istmo de Tehuantepec o desde el golfo de California hasta la frontera interior entre México y los Estados Unidos.

Si México concediere privilegios semejantes a cualquiera otra nación en los extremos de los precitados tránsitos sobre los golfos de México y California y sobre el mar Pacífico, lo hará teniendo en cuenta las mismas condiciones y estipulaciones de reciprocidad que se imponen a los Estados Unidos por los términos de este convenio.

LISTA DE MERCANCÍAS, ADJUNTA AL ARTÍCULO 8o.

Animales de todas clases.-Arados y barrotes de hierro, sueltos.-Arroz.-Cacería y huevos frescos.-Azogue.-Carbón de piedra.-Carnes frescas, saladas y ahumadas.-Casas de madera y de hierro.Cueros al pelo.-Cuernos.-Chile o pimiento colorado.-Dibujos y modelos de máquinas grandes, edificios, monumentos y botes.-Botes de todas clases y tamaños para la navegación de los ríos de la frontera.-Escobas y materiales para hacerlas.-Bocados para caballos (Brille Bits).-

Frutas frescas, secas y azucaradas.-Tipos, espacios, planchas para imprimir o grabar, reglas, viñetas y tinta de imprimir.-Libros impresos de todas clases a la rústica.-Arcos.-Madera en bruto y leña.-Manteca y queso.-Mapas geográficos y náuticos y planos topográficos.- mármol, en bruto y labrado.-Máquinas e instrumentos de agricultura, y para el laboreo de minas, y para el desarrollo de artes y las ciencias, con todas sus piezas sueltas o para ser compuestas.-

Palos de tinte.-Pescado, alquitrán, trementina y ceniza.-Plantas, árboles y arbustos.-Pizarras para techos.-Sal común.-Sillas de montar.-Sombreros de palma.-Estuco (gypsum) —Vegetales- Pieles de carnero.-Toda clase de granos para hacer pan.-Harina.-Lana.-Tocino.-Sebo.-Cuero y efectos de cuero. Toda clase de tejidos de algodón, excepto la llamada manta trigueña.

Artículo 9o. En aplicación de los artículos 14 y 15 del tratado de 5 de Abril de 1831, en el cual se estipuló lo relativo al ejercicio de su religión para los ciudadanos de México, se permitirá a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos el ejercer libremente su religión en México, en público o en privado, en sus casas o en las iglesias y sitios (places) que se destinen al culto, como consecuencia de la perfecta igualdad y reciprocidad que, según dice el segundo artículo de dicho tratado, sirvió de base al mismo.

Podrán comprarse las capillas o sitios para el culto público, serán consideradas como propiedad de los que las compren, como se compra y se conserva cualquiera otra propiedad, exceptuando de ello, sin embargo, a las comunidades y corporaciones religiosas, a las cuales las actuales leyes de México han prohibido para siempre el obtener y conservar toda clase de propiedades. En ningún caso estarán sujetos los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, residente en México, al pago de empréstitos forzosos.

Artículo 10. En consideración a las precedentes estipulaciones y por vía de compensación a las rentas a que renuncia México permitiendo el transporte de mercancías libre de derecho por el territorio de la República, conviene el gobierno de los Estados Unidos en pagar al gobierno de México la suma de 4,000,000 de duros, dos de los cuales se pagarán inmediatamente después de canjeadas las ratificaciones de este tratado, y los otros dos millones quedarán en poder del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, para pagar las reclamaciones de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos contra el gobierno de la República Mexicana, por daños y perjuicios sufridos ya, después de probada la justicia de esas reclamaciones según la ley y el uso de las naciones y los principios de equidad, y se pagarán las mismas á prorrata, hasta donde o permita la citada suma de dos millones, en cumplimiento de una ley que expedirá el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, para la adjudicación de la misma, y lo restante de esta suma se devolverá a México por los Estados Unidos, en caso de que sobrase algo después del pago de las reclamaciones reconocidas como justas.

Artículo 11. Este tratado será ratificado por el presidente de los Estados Unidos, con el consentimiento y consejo del Senado de los Estados Unidos, y por el presidente de México, en virtud de sus facultades extraordinarias y ejecutivas, y las respectivas ratificaciones serán canjeadas en la ciudad de Washington, dentro del preciso término de seis meses, a contar desde la fecha de su firma, o antes si fuese posible, o en el asiento del gobierno constitucional, si el presidente y el Senado de los Estados Unidos hicieren algunas alteraciones o enmiendas que fuesen aceptadas por el presidente de la República de México.

ARTÍCULOS CONVENCIONALES

Por cuanto, a causa de la actual guerra civil de México, y particularmente en consideración al estado de desorden en que se halla la frontera interior de México y los Estados Unidos, pueden presentarse ocasiones en que sea necesario para las fuerzas de las dos repúblicas obrar de concierto y en cooperación para hacer cumplir estipulaciones de tratados y conservar el orden y la seguridad en el territorio de una de las dos repúblicas; por tanto se ha celebrado el siguiente convenio:

Articulo primero. Si se violaren algunas de las estipulaciones de los tratados existentes entre México y los Estados Unidos, o si peligrara la seguridad de los ciudadanos de una de las dos repúblicas dentro del territorio de la otra y el gobierno legítimo y reconocido de aquélla no pudiere, por cualquier motivo, hacer cumplir dichas estipulaciones o proveer a esa seguridad, será obligatorio para ese gobierno el recurrir al otro para que le ayude a hacer ejecutar lo pactado y a conservar el orden y la seguridad en el territorio de la dicha república donde ocurra tal desorden- y discordia, y en semejantes casos especiales pagará los gastos la nación dentro de cuyo territorio se haga necesaria tal intervención; y si ocurriere algún desorden en la frontera de las dos repúblicas, las autoridades de ambas más inmediatas al punto donde existe el desorden obrarán de concierto y en cooperación para arrestar y castigar a los criminales que hayan perturbado el orden público y la seguridad de una de las dos repúblicas, y con este objeto podrá arrestarse a los culpables en cualquiera de las dos repúblicas y entregárselos a las autoridades de la república en cuyo territorio se haya cometido el crimen: la naturaleza y carácter de esa intervención, lo relativo a los gastos que ocasione y a la manera de arrestar y castigar a dichos criminales, serán determinados y reglamentados por un convenio entre el departamento ejecutivo de los dos gobiernos.

Artículo 2o. Este convenio será ratificado por el presidente de los Estados Unidos y por el presidente de México, en virtud de sus facultades extraordinarias y ejecutivas, y las respectivas ratificaciones serán canjeadas en la ciudad de Washington, dentro del preciso término de seis meses, a contar desde la fecha de su firma, o antes si fuere posible, o en el asiento del gobierno constitucional, si el presidente y el Senado de los Estados Unidos hicieren algunas alteraciones o enmiendas que fuesen aceptadas por el presidente de la República de México.

Fuente:

De la crisis del modelo borbónico al establecimiento de la República Federal. Gloria Villegas Moreno y Miguel Angel Porrúa Venero (Coordinadores) Margarita Moreno Bonett. Enciclopedia Parlamentaria de México, del Instituto de Investigaciones Legislativas de la Cámara de Diputados, LVI Legislatura. México. Primera edición, 1997. Serie III. Documentos. Volumen I. Leyes y documentos constitutivos de la Nación mexicana. Tomo II. p. 947.


Críticas [editar]Justo Sierra, escritor liberal escribió: El Tratado o pseudo-Tratado McLane-Ocampo no es defendible y todos cuantos lo han refutado, lo han refutado bien, porque representó la constitución de una servidumbre interminable...[2]

Francisco Bulnes, diputado y posteriormente senador liberal escribió que ...la marina de guerra americana (de Estados Unidos) hubiera arrojado a Juárez de Veracruz y hubiera dado el triunfo a la reacción. Los reaccionarios (es decir, los conservadores) sacrificaron sus intereses de partido a su aversión por vender territorio a los Estados Unidos...[3] cosa que sí hicieron Juárez y los suyos con el tratado McLane-Ocampo.

José Vasconcelos escribió: ...Juárez, en Veracruz, no estaba solo. Su metrópoli estaba en Washington, y hasta allí fue a dar un obsequio que los juaristas ofrecían a la gran República del Norte a cambio de su apoyo cada vez más urgente. Consta este obsequio en el Tratado McLane-Ocampo que, dice el mismo Justo Sierra, apologista de la Reforma, "otorgaba franquicias sobre el Istmo de Tehuantepec y parte de la frontera, que equivalían a un condominio". Y concluye diciendo (Sierra) que "Juárez y Ocampo se hallaban alucinados" al dictar ese documento. Que las nuevas generaciones consulten el Diccionario de la Lengua, cotejen la definición de alucinado con la de traidor, y resuelvan cuál es la que conviene al caso...[Juarez, su obra y su Tiempo)

Para mayor profundidad ver la obra historicaEl Tratado McLane-Ocampo; Lic. Patricia Galeana; ed. Porrúa. México Tierra de Volcanes; Joseph H. L. Schlarman; ed. Porrúa.

The ecstasy and agony of Benito Juarez

Mexico's Lincoln: The ecstasy and agony of Benito Juarez

by Jim Tuck
Published or Updated on: October 9, 2008 by Jim Tuck © 2008
Historian Jim Tuck founded the only chapter of Americans for Democratic Action outside the U.S., now named in his honor

Since it is the near unanimous verdict of authorities on American history that Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president, it has become a facile formula among historians of other nations to describe their greatest leaders as "Lincolns." Was Clemenceau a French Lincoln? Was Churchill a British Lincoln?

In a way, yes. Both leaders presided over their nations in time of war and both showed the steadfastness and courage to survive periods of crisis and early defeat. But there the resemblance ends. Clemenceau, a fiery journalist-politician known as "the Tiger," passionately defended Dreyfus but at the same time broke strikes and was tainted by the Panama financial scandal. Churchill, implacable foe of Nazism, was still sufficiently imbued with prejudices of race and class that he could call Mohandas Gandhi a "half-naked fakir."

If we're looking for a true "Lincoln," one who resembled the Emancipator in spirit as well as in his political role, it is instructive to look at the life and career of Benito Juárez. Outwardly, they were a quintessential "odd couple," as dissimilar in appearance and ethnic background as two people can be. Lincoln was tall and angular; Juárez short and stocky. Lincoln was of old American stock; Juárez a full-blooded Indian.

The similarities were in chronology and background. Lincoln lived between 1809-1865 and Juárez between 1806-1872. Both were born poor, both cared more for political power than riches, and both believed law was the best preparation for a political career. Though neither was conventionally handsome, both compensated for a lack of matinee idol looks by radiating an impressive charisma and commanding presence. Though they never met personally, they formed a lifetime mutual admiration society and helped each other whenever they could. Instances of their interaction will be recorded as this narrative develops.

Juárez was born on March 21, 1806, in the Oaxaca village of San Pablo Gueletao. His parents, members of the Zapotec tribe prevalent in Oaxaca, were small farmers. When he came to Oaxaca City at the age of thirteen, he could neither read, write nor speak Spanish. His destination was the house of the Maza family, where his sister worked as a servant. Sr. Maza, head of the household, not only took in the boy but showed an interest in his development. A friend of Maza was Antonio Salanueva, a devout Catholic and lay member of the Franciscan order. Salanueva taught the boy reading, writing, arithmetic, Spanish grammar and bookbinding. Both older men were so impressed with Benito's aptitude that they sent him to the Franciscan seminary in Oaxaca with the idea of turning him into a priest. Though young Juárez immersed himself in the study of Aquinas and other great Catholic philosophers, he decided in the end that his career lay in law rather than religion. Graduating from the seminary in 1827, he entered the Institute of Science and Art, emerging with a law degree in 1834. During this period he was reading works by the rationalist philosophers of the Enlightenment. In the end, he became completely imbued with their secular doctrines and abandoned the Catholic faith of his early days.

All this time Juárez was interested in politics. Between 1831-33, even before receiving his law degree, he served as a city councilman in Oaxaca and was a strong defender of Indian rights. In 1841 he became a civil judge and two years later married Margarita Maza, the daughter of his patron. After a stint as a federal deputy, he served as governor of Oaxaca between 1847-52. Though he took no part in the war with the United States, he did support a controversial measure in the legislature calling for the confiscation of church lands. Finishing his term as governor, he became director of his alma mater, the Institute of Science and Art.

The dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna returned to power in 1853 and Juárez was one of a group of liberals expelled from the country. Arriving in New Orleans in October 1853, he joined forces with such kindred spirits as Melchor Ocampo and José Guadalupe Montenegro to organize a Revolutionary Junta aimed at the overthrow of Santa Anna. During this period of exile, Juárez supported himself by working in a cigarette factory.

In March 1854 the liberal General Juan Alvarez and other activists proclaimed the Plan de Ayutla, a manifesto calling for the overthrow of Santa Anna. Returning from New Orleans, Juárez joined the widespread liberation movement that drove Santa Anna into exile in the fall of 1854. Alvarez's troops marched into Mexico City November 14 and the general took over as president, with Juárez serving as his minister of justice. In that post, he produced the "Juárez Law," one abolishing clerical immunity by limiting jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts to ecclesiastical cases.

In December 1855 Alvarez stepped down in favor of Ignacio Comonfort, a moderate who had been a collector of customs in Acapulco. 1856 saw Juárez serving again as governor of Oaxaca. There he re-established the Institute of Science and Art, suppressed under Santa Anna. On February 5, 1857, a new constitution was adopted which further restricted the privileges of the Church. In November of that year Juárez was named minister of the interior and the following month he was elevated to chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The new constitution greatly displeased the conservatives and clericals. In December 1857 a right-wing general named Félix Zuloaga led a coup in which Congress was dissolved and Juárez arrested. Comonfort, more a centrist than a liberal, was intimidated into approving Zuloaga's action. Then Zuloaga deposed him and assumed the presidency himself. An angry Comonfort released Juárez, who escaped to Querétaro January 11. Eight days later, in Guanajuato, he proclaimed himself president. Under the Mexican constitution, the chief justice of the Supreme Court is next in line for the presidency if the chief executive dies or is unlawfully removed from office.

Thus began the bloody, fratricidal Reform War of 1858-61, pitting liberals against conservatives and so named because of the Reform Laws that had curbed the power of the Church. The Liberals almost lost their leader two months after the conflict began. In March Zuloaga's forces entered Guadalajara and captured Juárez near the Palace of Justice. He was saved from a firing squad only through intervention of the poet Guillermo Prieto, who courageously thrust himself in front of Juárez, crying: "Brave men do not assassinate." The soldiers lowered their rifles and Juárez was able to escape to Manzanillo, where he re-kindled resistance.

In the beginning, the rightists completely had their own way. They commanded most of the army and had by far the better generals. In fact, it wasn't until 1860 that the Liberals first defeated the Conservatives in a pitched battle at Silao. Three main factors led to the Liberals' eventual victory: popular support; control throughout the war of the port of Veracruz, from where customs fees gave them money to finance their war effort; the iron will and dogged, unwavering determination of Juárez. Like Lincoln, he suffered crushing early defeats but never lost hope.

While it is not known exactly when Juárez came to Lincoln's attention, we know that Lincoln was his strong supporter as early as 1857, eve of the Reform War. When Juárez had to flee Mexico City in 1858, Lincoln sent him a message expressing hope "for the liberty of .. your government and its people."

The bond between the two leaders was strengthened in 1861, the year the Civil War began. Juárez, then president of Mexico, had been forced by the financial toll of the Reform War to suspend debt payments to Mexico's chief European creditors, France, Britain and Spain. These powers organized a punitive expedition, seizing Veracruz, but Britain and Spain pulled out when they learned of Napoleon III's desire to install a puppet regime in Mexico City. The French, defeated at Puebla in 1862, poured in reinforcements and captured Mexico City in 1863. Evacuating the capital, Juárez organized resistance in the north.

Though Lincoln obviously had his hands full with the Civil War, he did what he could to help Juárez. Union General Phil Sheridan wrote in his journal that "we continued supplying arms and munitions to the liberals, sending as many as 30,000 muskets from Baton Rouge alone." To Sheridan came this order from General Grant, which of course originated with Lincoln: "Concentrate in all available points in the States an army strong enough to move against the invaders of Mexico."

How Juárez reciprocated Lincoln's friendly attitude is shown by his response to an ill-advised overture he received from the Confederate government. The South had sent a delegation, under John T. Pickett, to try and win over the juaristas. Juárez, to put it mildly, sent the Confederates a message -- throwing Pickett into a Mexico City jail for thirty days and then expelling him from the country.

Though Lincoln was dead by 1867, the year Juárez vanquished Maximilian, the initiatives he had put in place inexorably worked their way in ensuring victory for the juaristas. Louis Napoleon had sympathized with the South, but growing Union power made him stop short of granting recognition to the Confederacy. In 1867, with the Civil War over and the Union-backed juaristas growing in strength, Napoleon III pulled his troops out of Mexico and left Maximilian to his fate. Perhaps the greatest dividend attained by the informal but highly effective alliance between Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juárez was the way it served to ease the bitterness felt by Mexicans thanks to the disastrous consequences of the U.S.-Mexican War.

The ecstasy of Juárez's career came in the heroic years when he remained steadfast during the Reform War and the war against Maximilian; the agony came in the anticlimactic five years between 1867, when Maximilian was executed, and 1872, the year of his death. It is virtually axiomatic in history that a period of glory is followed by one of letdown and leaders who acquire an almost godlike status during the glory years are subject to a sharp and sudden downward revision of their image. Winston Churchill was an inspirational figure as he defied Hitler in the darkest days of the Second World War -- yet he was turned out of office within weeks of victory over Nazism.

In the flush of victory over Maximilian and his European sponsors, Juárez won the 1867 election by a wide margin. But he faced serious problems. Two devastating wars had left the treasury empty. There was an oversized army and resentment among the European powers over Maximilian's execution had shrunk investment capital and dried up markets.

Attempting to cope with the situation, Juárez adopted a policy of centralization. To weaken Congress, he used all his prestige to ram through a constitutional amendment that would add a Senate to the Chamber of Deputies. Another amendment, designed to further strengthen the executive branch, gave him the right to veto any bill, with a two-thirds majority required to override the veto.

To raise money for his bankrupt treasury, Juárez sold off lands that had been expropriated from the Church to hacendados (big landowners) who had supported the Liberal cause. There were more of those than one might think. Land stripped from the Church, instead of being distributed to the campesinos (peasant farmers), was sold to the highest bidder. So in many areas a peculiar situation prevailed where landowners supported the Liberals and campesinos -- religious by nature anyway -- the Conservatives. It should never be ignored that the juarista movement was far more directed against the Church and the Conservative-dominated army than against the landowners. And now, under Juárez, there was a new class consisting of Liberal hacendados and a Liberal-dominated officer corps. As for dispossessed peasants and former soldiers who had fought against Juárez, they were increasingly being driven into banditry. In 1868 it was estimated that over a thousand bandits were operating in the outskirts of Guadalajara.

In this chaotic situation, Juárez was increasingly plagued by uprisings. Some were mounted by peasants, some by Indians, and some by Liberal military chiefs who had become dissatisfied with the president.

In 1868 there were insurrections in central Mexico under the peasant leaders Plotino Rhodakanati and Julio López. The former claimed that Jesus Christ was "the divine socialist of humanity" and the latter advocated a socialist system "to destroy the present vicious state of exploitation." So Juárez, whose enemy had long been the Christian right, now faced a challenge from the Christian left. Though liberal and anticlerical, Juárez had never sympathized with socialism. So he had no compunction about sending federal troops against the rebels.

The most troublesome Indian insurgents were the Maya in the south and the Apache in the north. Following the caste wars of 1847-55, the Maya set up an independent state in southern Yucatan that endured until 1901. Their position was strengthened by their ability to buy arms in neighboring British Honduras. Apache attacks were triggered by westward movement of American settlers. As the U.S. pioneers acquired lands in the Southwest, the volume of Apache incursions into sparsely populated northern Mexico increased exponentially, Bands led by the famous Cochise, and his successors Victorio and Ju, caused the death of over 15,000 Mexicans in the northern territories.

Within Mexico, Juárez's main rival was his former ally Porfirio Díaz. Like Juárez, Díaz was an Indian from Oaxaca, but a Mixtec rather than a Zapotec. A military leader, he had distinguished himself in the wars against the Conservatives and Imperialists. He challenged Juárez at the polls in 1867 but did poorly against a statesman who was at the height of his popularity. He tried again in 1871, this time claiming that he lost through electoral fraud. Rising in revolt, Díaz's ideological standard was the principle of "no reelection." In seeking another term, Díaz claimed, Juárez was attempting to perpetuate himself in office. Bringing his rebel forces to the gates of Mexico City, Díaz called for a general uprising. It was not forthcoming and his forces were routed by troops loyal to Juárez. As is well-known, Díaz not only lived to fight another day but this "crusader" against reelection would also live to impose a 35-year dictatorship over Mexico.

Worn out from five years of frustration and disappointment, Juárez succumbed to a heart attack on July 17, 1872. Working at his desk in the National Palace, he truly died in harness.

That last unfruitful segment of Juárez's life does nothing to detract from his stature as Mexico's Lincoln. Faced with an almost impossible situation, his courage and perseverance never flagged.

An interesting speculation: what if Lincoln had lived to serve out his second term? Thanks to an assassin's bullet, he had the "luck" to die a martyr. But what if he had been faced, as was Juárez, with the challenge of rebuilding a war-torn nation? Would he not have suffered some of the frustrations and disillusionments that plagued his Mexican counterpart?

CIA y Napoleon III

APPROVED FOR RELEASE
CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM
22 SEPT 93

CONFIDENTIAL

The story of a critical intelligence finding almost unrecorded in the history of French intervention in Mexico during and after the Civil War is reconstructed here from official records in the National Archives.


A CABLE FROM NAPOLEON

Edwin C. Fishel

The years 1864-67 saw the United States facing one of the severest international problems in its history: an Austrian prince ruled Mexico and a French army occupied the south bank of the Rio Grande. It was toward the end of this period that the Atlantic cable went into permanent operation. Thus the United States had both the motive and the means for what was almostcertainly its first essay in peacetime communications intelligence.l

The nation had emerged from the Civil War possessing a respectable intelligence capability. Union espionage activities were generally successful, especially in the later stages of the war; Northern communications men read Confederate messages with considerable regularity (and received reciprocal treatment of their own traffic from the rebel signalmen) ; and there were intelligence staffs that developed a high degree of competence in digesting and reporting these findings.2
_________

1 No earlier use of communications intelligence by the United States in peacetime is known to the writer. Any reader who knows of one is urged to present it.

2 At the beginning of the war the government's conception of military intelligence work was so limited that it employed Allan Pinkerton, by that time well known as the head of a successful detective agency, as the chief intelligence operative in Washington. Pinkerton proved effective in counterintelligence work, but his intelligence estimates so greatly exaggerated Confederate strength that he is commonly given a large share of the blame for the super caution that caused his sponsor, General McClellan, to stay close to Washington with far superior forces. Pinkerton left the service with McClellan in 1862, however, and long before the end of the war competent intelligence staffs, entirely military in character though composed of men drawn from civil life, served the principal headquarters.



With the war over in 1865, this new capability was turned against Napoleon III and his puppet, Emperor Maximilian of Mexico. In the struggle to get the French army out of North America and Maximilian off his throne, this government had the use of an intelligence enterprise which, though conducted on a small scale, turned out to be very effective. Up to the last weeks this intelligence operation consisted of competent reporting on the part of espionage agents and diplomatic representatives; but when a crisis developed at that point, these sources were silent, and it was a cablegram from Napoleon to his commanders in Mexico that yielded the information needed by the nation's leaders.

As an intelligence coup the interception and reading of this message were hardly spectacular, for it passed over fifteen hundred miles of telegraph wire accessible to United States forces and, contrary to later assertions that it had to be deciphered, it appears to have been sent in the clear. Nevertheless, the event was an outstanding one in the history of United States intelligence operations, not simply because it represented a beginning in a new field but also because the message in question was of crucial importance.

State of the Union, 1861-65

The crisis in which America's intelligence capability asserted itself did not come until after the nation had spent five anxious years watching the European threat develop.

Napoleon had sent an army to Mexico late in 1861, assertedly to compel the payment of huge debts owed by the government of Mexico. His object, however, was not simply a financial one: a new commander whom he sent to Mexico in 1863 received instructions (which leaked into the press) to the effect that the Emperor's purpose was to establish a Mexican government strong enough to limit "the growth and prestige of the United States." 3 At a time when the American Union appeared to be breaking up under pressure from its southern half, such a statement meant to American readers that Napoleon had no intention of stopping at the Rio Grande.
__________
'3 J. Fred Rippy, The United States and Mexico (New York, 1926), p. 261, citing Genaro y Carlos Pereya Garcia, Documentos ineditos o muy raros para la historia de Mejico (20 vols., Mexico City, 1903), XIV, pp. 8-20.


In June 1863 French arms swept the Liberal government of President Benito Juarez from Mexico City, and in the summer of 1864 Napoleon installed the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, thirty-two-year-old brother of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, on the new throne of Mexico. During this period the Northern people, their belligerence aroused by the Southern rebellion, were clamoring for action against France - action that might well bring disaster upon them. Aggressive behavior by the United States might give Napoleon the popular support he needed to join hands with the Confederacy in a declaration of war, a development that could provide Secession with enough extra strength to prevail.

While the Civil War lasted, Congress and the public were held in check largely through the prestige and political skill of the Federal Secretary of State, William H. Seward. But when the War was over - by which time the government had reason to believe that Napoleon had become disenchanted with his puppets in Mexico - Seward was ready to turn his people's aggressive demeanor to advantage, and he warned Napoleon that their will would sooner or later prevail. Before this statement reached Paris, however, the United States Minister there, John Bigelow, who had been mirroring Seward's new firmness for some months, had in September 1865 obtained a tentative statement from the French that they intended to withdraw from Mexico .4

While Bigelow was shaking an admonitory finger at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an American military fist was being displayed before the French along the Rio Grande. Promptly upon the silencing of Confederate guns, General Grant sent Philip Sheridan, second only to William T. Sherman in the esteem of the General-in-Chief, to the command of the Department of the Gulf, with headquarters at New Orleans. A considerable force was posted along the Mexican frontier and designated an "army of observation."
_______
4Rippy, op. cit., pp. 264-65 and 269-72; Seward to Bigelow, September 21, 1865. All diplomatic correspondence sent or received by United States officials that is cited herein will be found in the Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session, Thirty-Ninth Congress (covering the year 1865), Second Session, Thirty-Ninth Congress (1866), and Second Session, Fortieth Congress (1867-68).


Sheridan and Intelligence

Sheridan, thirty-four years old and the possessor of a reputation as a gamecock, adhered strongly to an opinion prevalent in the Army that a little forceful military action now would save a full-scale war later. The audacious statesman who was directing foreign policy at Washington was, to Sheridan, "slow and poky," and the general found ways of giving considerable covert aid to the Juarez government, then leading a nomadic existence in the north of Mexico.5 Sheridan and Seward, though the policy of each was anathema to the other, made an effective combination.

One of the ways in which Sheridan could exercise his relentless energy against the Imperialists without flouting Seward's policy was in collecting intelligence on what was going on below the border. There was an interregnum at the United States Legation in Mexico City, and all the official news reaching Washington from below the Rio Grande was that supplied by the Juarist Minister to the United States, Matias Romero, a scarcely unbiased source if a prolific one .6 Sheridan quickly undertook to fill the gap.

This task must have been decidedly to the general's taste, for he had been one of the most intelligence-conscious commanders in the Civil War.7 He had achieved something of an innovation in organizing intelligence activities when, during his 1864 campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, he established a group of intelligence operatives under military control. His previous sources of information, local citizens and Confederate deserters, had both proved unreliable. "Sheridan's Scouts" were a military organization in a day when it was customary to have civilians perform most of the intelligence-gathering tasks other
_________
5 John M. Schofield, Forty-Six Years in the Army (New York, 1897), p. 381; Philip H. Sheridan, Personal Memoirs (2 vols., New York, 1888), II, pp. 215-19;Percy F. Martin, Maximilian in Mexico (London, 1914), p. 432.

6 Dozens of examples of this intelligence will be found in the Romero-to-Seward correspondence in the Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs described in footnote 4.

7 When a division commander in 1862-63, Sheridan had exercised an initiative in intelligence collection that was more likely to be found in an army commander. His Memoirs reveal a constantly high interest in intelligence activities.




than battle-zone reconnaissance. After the war, Major Henry Harrison Young, the Scouts' commander, and four of his best men went to the Gulf Department with Sheridan.

Sheridan also, in common with numerous other commanders North and South, had an acquaintance with communications intelligence as it was produced in the field command of that day. By the time the Civil War was well advanced, Signal Corpsmen in every theater had learned how to solve the enemy's visual-signaling alphabets, and they derived much information for the commanders by keeping their field glasses trained on enemy signal stations.8 There was not likely to be any opportunity for such methods along the Rio Grande, however, and no more likely was the possibility of tapping telegraph lines carrying useful information.

Young and his four men were dispatched to important points in northern Mexico to report on movements of the Imperial forces and the various projects of ex-Confederates who were joining Maximilian's forces and attempting to establish colonies under his flag.8 Judged by the accuracy of the reports reaching Sheridan and the strong tendency of the Southerners' projects to abort after coming under his notice, the work of these five men was most effective.10

1866, Year of Telegrams and Tension

The critical question - whether the French would tire of their venture and withdraw -was, however, one to which no intelligence service could divine an answer, for the French for a long time did not know the answer themselves. In 1865 Marshal Franois Achille Bazaine, now Napoleon's commander in Mexico, was informed by the Minister of War that he must bring the army home, and at about the same time he received
__________
8War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, 1884-1901) contains hundreds of decipherments resulting from such interceptions, chiefly in the operations of 1863-65 in Tennessee and Georgia, the operations along the South Carolina coast beginning in 1863, and the Richmond-Petersburg siege of 1864-65.

9 Sheridan, op. cit., II, p. 214.

10 See, for example, intelligence reports sent by Sheridan to Grant, March 27, May 7, June 24, July 3 and 13, 1866. All Army correspondence cited hereafter in this article will be found in the United States National Archives, except where otherwise indicated.



word to the opposite effect from the Emperor himself.11 Napoleon's treaty with Maximilian by which the latter accepted the throne of Mexico contained a secret clause providing that French military forces to the number of 20,000 were to remain in Mexico until November 1867.12 As events were to prove, however, this compact was less likely to determine Napoleon's course of action than were the pressures on him represented by the United States' vigorous diplomacy and the rising military power of Prussia.

In April 1866 Minister Bigelow succeeded in pinning Napoleon down to a definite understanding, to the effect that the 28,000 French soldiers in Mexico would be brought home in three detachments, leaving in November 1866 and March and November 1867. Seward's reply to this promise was characteristic of his tone at this time: dwelling only briefly on the diplomatic niceties, he suggested that the remaining period of occupation be shortened if possible. The Secretary was in high feather; in the same month a protest by him induced the Austrian government to abandon an effort to send substantial reinforcements to the small Austrian force in Maximilian's army.13

In June Maximilian received a studiously insolent letter from Napoleon containing the stunning announcement that the French would withdraw. Attention now focused on whether he would attempt to hold his throne without French arms. The unhappy sovereign reacted first by dispatching his Empress, twenty-six-year-old Carlota, to Paris in a vain attempt to change Napoleon's mind. He soon decided to abdicate, then determined to remain on his throne, then wavered for many weeks between abdicating and remaining. 14

Napoleon meanwhile had to contend not only with his protege's indecision but with some apparent recalcitrance on the
_____________
11 Philip Guedalla, The Two Marshals (London, 1943) p. 130.

12 Ibid., p. 112.

13 Seward to de Montholon, April 25, 1866; Seward to J. Lothrop Motley (United States Minister to Austria), April 6, 16, 30, May 3, 30, 1866; Motley to Seward, April 6, May 1, 6, 15, 21, 1866; James M. Callahan, American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932), p. 235.

14 Martin, op. cit., pp. 266-267 and 272-273.



part of Bazaine, who was variously suspected of having a secret agreement with Maximilian to remain in the latter's support, of being secretly in league with the Mexican Liberals, of profiting financially from his official position, and of having hopes of succeeding Maximilian. (There is evidence to support all these suspicions.) 15 Soon Napoleon realized he had made a bad bargain with the United States; to attempt to bring the army home in three parts would risk the annihilation of the last third. Early in the autumn of 1866 the Emperor sent his military aide, General Castelnau, to Mexico with instructions to have the army ready to leave in one shipment in March, and to supersede Bazaine if necessary. Thus the evacuation was to begin four months later than Napoleon had promised, but to end eight months earlier.16

No word of this important about-face was, however, promptly passed to the United States government. At the beginning of November - supposedly the month for the first shipment - the best information this country's leaders possessed was a strong indication that Napoleon intended to rid himself of Maximilian. This was contained in a letter written to Maximilian by a confidential agent whom he had sent to Europe; it showed the failure of Carlota's visit to Napoleon. Somewhere between its point of origin, Brussels, and its destination, the office of Maximilian's consul in New York, it had fallen into the hands of a Juarist agent .17 Soon after Minister Romero placed it in Seward's hands, Napoleon's new Foreign Minister, the Marquis de Moustier, wrote his Minister in Washington, de Montholon, that the evacuation timetable was raising serious difficulties but that in no case would the November 1867 deadline for its
_________
15 Castelnau to Napoleon, December 8, 1866, quoted in Georges A. M. Girard, La Vie et les souvenirs du General Castelnau (Paris, 1930), pp. 112-124; Marcus Otterbourg (United States charge d'affaires in Mexico) to Seward, December 29, 1866; Martin, op. cit., pp. 298-99; Lewis D. Campbell (United States Minister to Mexico) to Seward, November 21, 1866.
16 De Moustier (Foreign Minister) to de Montholon (Minister to the United States), October 16, 1866, in Foreign Affairs; Bigelow to Seward, November 8, 1866; Martin, op. cit., pp. 56-57; Guedalla, op. cit., p. 133; Girard, op. cit., p. 122.

17 Romero to Seward, October 10, 1866; New York Tribune, January 4, 1867.








completion be exceeded.18 This note should have reached Seward in early November (1866), but if it did, its strong hint that there would be no partial evacuation in that month was apparently lost on him.

When the French felt able to promise complete withdrawal in March, de Moustier revealed to Bigelow the abandonment of the three-stage plan. So alarmed was Bigelow by the prospect of a major outbreak of anti-French feeling in America that he refrained from sending the news to Seward until he had heard it from the Emperor himself, whom he saw on November 7. The November shipment had been cancelled for reasons purely military, the Emperor said, showing surprise that the United States had not known of the change. The order had been telegraphed to Bazaine and had been sent in the clear in order that "no secret might be made of its tenor in the United States." 19 Undoubtedly the Emperor was perfectly sincere in implying that he expected the United States government to make itself a tacit "information addressee" on telegrams of foreign governments reaching its territory.

Receiving Bigelow's report of this interview, Seward struck off a peremptory cablegram to Paris: the United States "cannot acquiesce," he declared. The 774 words of this message unfolded before Bigelow on November 26 and 27, their transmission having cost the State Department some $13,000. On December 3 Bigelow telegraphed the Foreign Minister's assurance that military considerations alone were responsible for the change of plans and his promise, somewhat more definite than the previous one, that the French "corps of occupation is to embark in the month of March next." 20

So strongly had this government relied on Napoleon's original promise that President Johnson had dispatched an important diplomatic mission to Mexico (republican Mexico, that is) - a mission that was already at sea, expecting, on arrival at Vera
_________
18 De Moustier to de Montholon, October 16, loc. cit.

19 Bigelow to Seward, November 8, 1866.

20Seward to Bigelow, November 23, 1866; Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1826-1867 (Baltimore, 1933), p. 534; Bigelow to Seward, December 3, 1866.




Cruz, to find the French leaving and Juarez resuming the reins of government. The mission consisted of ex-Senator Lewis D. Campbell, newly appointed Minister to Mexico, and General William T. Sherman, sent with Campbell to give the mission prestige, to advise Juarez in regard to the many military problems that would be plaguing him, 21 and possibly to arrange for the use of small numbers of United States troops to assist the Liberal regime by temporarily occupying certain island forts .22

Evidence was accumulating that Maximilian and his European troops would soon be gone from Mexico, 22 but it stood no chance of general acceptance in Washington. Such was the degree of trust now accorded Louis Napoleon that his promise to evacuate Mexico would be believed on the day when the last French soldier took ship at Vera Cruz.

At this juncture Sheridan's headquarters came into possession of a copy of a coded telegram to Napoleon from Bazaine and Castelnau. The message had left Mexico City by courier on December 3 and had been delivered to the French Consulate at New Orleans, from where it was telegraphed to Paris on the 9th. As will be explained below, there is every reason to believe that this message went unread by United States cryptographers. The possession of its contents would have been of great value, for the message (as translated from the version given by Castelnau's biographer) said:
__________
21 Seward's instructions to Campbell, dated October 25, 1866, are perhaps the most impressive of the numerous masterful documents produced by the Secretary in the Mexican affair. Grant was the President's first selection as the military member of the mission and was excused only after a number of urgent requests. Correspondence relating to the inception of the Sherman-Campbell mission includes: Andrew Johnson to E. M. Stanton, October 26 and 30; Grant to Sherman (at St. Louis), October 20 and 22; Grant to Johnson, October 20 and 21, and Grant to Stanton, October 27.

22 Sherman to Grant, November 3, 1866 (Sherman MSS, Library of Congress) ; Grant to Sheridan, November 4, 1866. Sheridan was directed to "comply with any request as to location of troops in your department that Lt. Gen. Sherman . . . may make."

23 Campbell to Seward, November 21, 1866; unaddressed, unsigned military intelligence report dated at Washington, November 18.





New Orleans, 9 Dec 1866
To His Majesty the Emperor Napoleon at Paris. Mexico, 3rd December.

Emperor Maximilian appears to wish to remain in Mexico, but we must not count on it. Since the evacuation is to be completed in March, it is urgent that the transports arrive. We think that the foreign regiment must also be embarked. As for the French officers and soldiers attached to the Mexican Corps, can they be allowed the option of returning?

The country is restless. The Campbell and Sherman mission, which arrived off Vera Cruz on November 29 and left December 3, seems disposed to a peaceful solution. Nevertheless it gives moral support to the Juarists through the statement of the Federal government.

Marshal Bazaine and General Castelnau 24

As December wore on, rumblings from Capitol Hill indicated that Congress - the same Congress that was even then moving to impeach President Johnson - might attempt to take the management of the entire affair out of the Administration's hands. Word arrived from Bigelow that transports to bring the army home were ready to sail from French ports, but that information would by no means be convincing enough to reassure Washington. And that word was the last to be heard from Bigelow, as competent a reporter as he was a diplomatist. He was relieved as Minister by John Adams Dix, ex-senator, ex-general, who did not manage to turn his hand to report-writing until mid-February, after the crisis was past.25

Similarly, nothing that would clarify the situation was coming out of Mexico. General Grant received a report from Sherman, at Vera Cruz, containing two items of intelligence, highly significant and completely contradictory: two ships, waiting at Vera Cruz to take Maximilian home, had been loaded with tremendous quantities of royal baggage; and the Emperor had just issued a proclamation to the Mexican people announcing (continued on page 92)
________
24 Girard, op. cit., pp. 117-18.

25 New York Herald, December 7, 1866, p. 4, col. 3; Bigelow to Seward, November 30, 1866; Morgan Dix, Memoirs of John Adams Dix (2 vols., New York, 1883), II, 150; Dix to Seward, December 24, 1866.






First and last pages of the five-page message to Napoleon III from his commanders in Mexico, reporting on the situation there and asking instructions concerning the evacuation of the European forces. The French clear-text version, as repeated by General Castelnau in a letter to Napoleon on December 8, 1866 (and quoted by Castelnau's biographer), reads:

L'empereur Maximilien parait vouloir rester au Mexique, mais on ne peut y compter. L'evacuation devant etre terminee en mars, il est urgent que les transports arrivent. Nous pensons que le regiment etranger doit etre aussi embarque. Quant aux officiers et soldats frangais detaches aux corps mexicains, peut-on leur laisser la faculte de revenir? Le pays est inquiet. La mission Campbell et Sherman arrivee devant Vera Cruz le 29 novembre et partie le 3 decembre semble disposee a une solution pacifique. Elle Wen donne pas moins un appui moral aux Juaristes par la declaration du gouvernement federal.


(from page 90)
his intention to remain. Sherman and Campbell were facng a dilemma, in that they could not reach Juarez without crossing territory held by the Imperialists, with whom they were supposed to have nothing to do. Sherman invited Grant to instruct him to go to Mexico City to see Bazaine, who, he was sure, would tell him the truth about French intentions, but nothing came of this suggestion. Wrote the general of the colorful pen and the fervid dislike of politics: "I am as anxious to find Juarez as Japhet was to find his father, that I may dispose of this mission." 26
Tension mounted in Washington early in January as the Senate prepared for a debate on the Mexican question, and a wide variety of reports circulated, the most ominous being that half of the French forces were to remain in Mexico through the summer, and that Assistant Secretary of State Frederick W. Seward, who had sailed mysteriously from Annapolis on Christmas day, was on his way to see Napoleon. (He was en route to the West Indies on one of his father's projects for the purchase of territory.) 27 But on January 12, before the Senate got around to the Mexican question, the War Department received a message from Sheridan at New Orleans transmitting the following telegram:

Paris Jany 10th
French Consul New Orleans
for General Cast[elnau] at Mexico.

Received your dispatch of the ninth December. Do not compel the Emperor to abdicate, but do not delay the departure of the troops; bring back all those who will not remain there. Most of the fleet has left.


NAPOLEON.
___________
26 Sherman to Grant, December 1 and 7, 1866. Sherman, despite his reputation for hard-headedness, was not one of those who favored military action by the United States in Mexico. He wrote Grant, "I feel as bitter as you do about this meddling of Napoleon, but we can bide our time and not punish ourselves by picking up a burden [the French] can't afford to carry."

27 New York Herald, January 3, 1867; New York Evening Post, January 8, 1867; Frederick W. Seward, Reminiscences of a War-time Statesman and Diplomat (New York and London, 1916), pp. 348-55. Seward's project, a very closely kept secret, was the acquisition of a harbor in San Domingo. A treaty was later concluded but buried by the Senate.



(from page 90)
his intention to remain. Sherman and Campbell were facng a dilemma, in that they could not reach Juarez without crossing territory held by the Imperialists, with whom they were supposed to have nothing to do. Sherman invited Grant to instruct him to go to Mexico City to see Bazaine, who, he was sure, would tell him the truth about French intentions, but nothing came of this suggestion. Wrote the general of the colorful pen and the fervid dislike of politics: "I am as anxious to find Juarez as Japhet was to find his father, that I may dispose of this mission." 26
Tension mounted in Washington early in January as the Senate prepared for a debate on the Mexican question, and a wide variety of reports circulated, the most ominous being that half of the French forces were to remain in Mexico through the summer, and that Assistant Secretary of State Frederick W. Seward, who had sailed mysteriously from Annapolis on Christmas day, was on his way to see Napoleon. (He was en route to the West Indies on one of his father's projects for the purchase of territory.) 27 But on January 12, before the Senate got around to the Mexican question, the War Department received a message from Sheridan at New Orleans transmitting the following telegram:

Paris Jany 10th
French Consul New Orleans
for General Cast[elnau] at Mexico.

Received your dispatch of the ninth December. Do not compel the Emperor to abdicate, but do not delay the departure of the troops; bring back all those who will not remain there. Most of the fleet has left.


NAPOLEON.
___________
26 Sherman to Grant, December 1 and 7, 1866. Sherman, despite his reputation for hard-headedness, was not one of those who favored military action by the United States in Mexico. He wrote Grant, "I feel as bitter as you do about this meddling of Napoleon, but we can bide our time and not punish ourselves by picking up a burden [the French] can't afford to carry."

27 New York Herald, January 3, 1867; New York Evening Post, January 8, 1867; Frederick W. Seward, Reminiscences of a War-time Statesman and Diplomat (New York and London, 1916), pp. 348-55. Seward's project, a very closely kept secret, was the acquisition of a harbor in San Domingo. A treaty was later concluded but buried by the Senate.




CONFIDENTIAL
Napoleon III's "Bring the army home" message, and the one by which General Sheridan transmitted it in translation to General Grant. The notation on the Sheridan-to-Grant message "Recd 230 PM In cipher" refers to its receipt and decipherment in the War Department, and so does not bear on Sheridan's later assertion that Napoleon's message was sent in cipher.

The phrase "will not remain there" was a translation error. It was corrected to "are not willing to remain" when Sheridan forwarded a confirmation copy of his telegram by mail later on January 12. "Most of the fleet has left" (referring to the departure of transports for Mexico) would have been better translated "Most of the ships have left."

Here now was a conclusive answer to both of the pressing questions, the French evacuation and Maximilian's future. The entire French force must be leaving; else there would scarcely be a question of compelling Maximilian to abdicate. And with the French gone, Maximilian, even if he remained firm in his decision to keep the throne, could hardly stand against the rising Liberals very long. The European threat to American soil could be considered virtually at an end.


How It Happened

Because of the historical importance attaching to the interception of this message and the Mexico-to-Paris message of a month earlier, the circumstances surrounding the interception are worth examining.

The two telegrams owed their existence to the successful installation of the Atlantic cable a few months before. The cable's own history went back to August 1857, when the first attempt to lay it ended in failure. A year later a connection was completed and the cable was operated for eleven weeks before it went dead, apparently because the use of a very high voltage had broken down the insulation. Renewal of the attempt awaited the development of better electrical techniques and the end of the Civil War. In 1865 a new cable was laid from Valentia, Ireland, but was lost six hundred miles short of Newfoundland. Another was started July 13, 1866, and brought ashore at Heart's Content, Newfoundland, on July 27. The ill-starred steamer Great Eastern, which laid it, then picked up the buried end of the 1865 cable and ran a second line to Newfoundland. Service to the public opened August 26.28

Thus Napoleon's September message to Bazaine passed after the permanent operation of a telegraph line across the Atlantic had been a reality for only a few weeks, and it must be conceded that the United States was reasonably prompt in availing itself of this source of intelligence -despite Napoleon's opinion to the contrary.
__________
28 Robert Luther Thompson, Wiring a Continent (Princeton, 1947), pp. 299-301, 319-20, 323, 433-34; S. A. Garnham and Robert L. Hadfield, The Submarine Cable (London, 1934), pp. 19-40. The cable laying was the only success in the long career of the leviathan Great Eastern, which bankrupted a succession of owners as a passenger and cargo ship, as an exhibition ship, and finally as a gigantic dismantling and salvage operation. Its history is told by James Dugan in The Great Iron Ship (New York, 1953).



Although the first interception took place only a month after the French Emperor had virtually invited this government to read his mail, it appears that Napoleon's suggestion had nothing to do with it. The author of the intercept scheme, in all probability, was General Sheridan, and it is highly unlikely that Napoleon's remarks would have been communicated to him. In any case, no instructions for surveillance of the telegraph lines to obtain French messages appear in the correspondence to the Gulf Department from Army Headquarters.29

Years later Sheridan explained how the job was done: his telegraph operator and cipher clerk, Charles A. Keefer, one of the numerous Canadians who entered the Union and Confederate telegraph services, had succeeded in "getting possession of the telegraph and managing [a] secret line," 30 which presumably connected his office with the Western Union wires in New Orleans.

Keefer's "secret line" may not have been so remarkable a thing as Sheridan's cryptic account makes it seem, for there was a high degree of integration between the Military Telegraph system to which Keefer belonged and the commercial system over which the messages passed. Throughout the occupied areas of the South during and after the Civil War, the Military Telegraph service took over commercial and railroad telegraph facilities wherever they existed. These Military Telegraph offices accepted commercial as well as government business, and commercial offices of course sent and received thousands of military telegrams; many a telegraph circuit had a military office at one terminus and a commercial office at the other.

As the Reconstruction period advanced, this integration became even closer; when the wires were returned to the use of the companies that owned them, Military Telegraph officers remained on duty to take care of government business and exercise a loose kind of supervision over the commercial operations. At some places military and commercial operators worked side
________
29 Correspondence from August 1 to December 10, 1866, has been examined for evidence of such instructions. Sheridan's papers in the Library of Congress appear to be incomplete for this period.

30 Unaddressed official statement signed by Sheridan December 8, 1877 (sic). William R. Plum, The Military Telegraph During the Civil War in the United States (2 vols.,Chicago, 1882), II, pp. 343 and 357, is authority for the information on Keefer's nationality.






by side. The fact that Keefer's copies of the French telegrams were written on Western Union message blanks makes it appear that New Orleans was one of the cities where this arrangement was in effect. If it was not, and the Military Telegraph and Western Union offices there were located separately, they were nevertheless using the same wires for communication with distant points, which would have made it comparatively easy for Keefer to connect a "secret line."

This integration of operations went all the way to the top of the two telegraph systems. General Thomas T. Eckert, who had been the second-ranking member and active head of the Military Telegraph service, continued to be closely connected with it after becoming Assistant Secretary of War in 1866. In the period now under study Eckert was apparently occupying his War Department position and at the same time resuming his activities in the industry as Eastern Division superintendent for Western Union at New York.31

Sheridan also credited Keefer with having solved the French "cipher," 32 but there is strong evidence to the contrary :

(1) The amount of material Keefer could have had to work with was very small. The cable in its early years was used sparingly because of the very high tolls (note the $1,979.25 charge, in gold, that the French Consulate paid for the December 3/9 message). Thus Paris was still awaiting word from Castelnau at the end of November,33 although he had been in Mexico nearly two months. The only French messages referred to in any of the documents examined in the present study are the clear-text message that Napoleon said he sent Bazaine in September,34 the message of December 3/9, and the message of January 10. Accordingly, as the January message (to be discussed in detail below) was almost certainly sent in the clear,
________
31Plum, op. cit., II, pp. 345-48. The War Department records for 1866 and 1867 contain frequent cipher telegrams to Secretary Stanton from Eckert in New York; some of these messages bear dates subsequent to Eckert's resignation from the Department.

32 From Sheridan's statement of December 8, 1877, and his Memoirs, vol. II, p. 226.

33 Bigelow to Seward, November 30, 1866.

34 This message has not been found by the writer in either French or United States records available in Washington.


it is highly probable that the December 3/9 message from Bazaine and Castelnau to Napoleon was the only encrypted French telegram that passed between Mexico and France during the entire period of the French intervention.35 It is extremely unlikely that the code - for the message was in code and not cipher -could have been solved from this one message of eighty-eight groups.

(2) An examination of all available United States records that could reasonably be expected to contain such an item (if it existed) fails to uncover a decrypted version of the December 3/9 message or any other evidence that the government during the ensuing weeks had come into possession of the information it contained36

Somewhat surprising is the apparent fact that Sheridan did not send the message to the War Department cryptographers for study. On several occasions during the Civil War, these men had been able to read enemy messages referred to them. This experience (so far as it is recorded) was, however, limited to the solution of certain ciphers (some of which were relatively complex for that day) ,37 and the French code would have presented them with a strange and much more difficult problem. Union cryptographers at New Orleans had also once solved a captured message,38 a fact which may have induced Sheridan to rely on his own headquarters' capability and not turn to Washington.
________
35 This message and the French version of the January 10 message are filed in the National Archives with telegrams sent from the military headquarters at New Orleans during the years 1864-69. This filing is clearly in error, for the messages are foreign to the rest of the material in this file and they bear none of the marks that an operator would have placed on them had he transmitted them. War Department and Army Headquarters records do not show their receipt.

36 Besides the government records cited elsewhere, the following collections have been searched for such evidence: the Andrew Johnson MSS, Sheridan MSS, Grant MSS, Edwin M. Stanton MSS, all in the Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, and the contemporary correspondence between the War Department and State Department in the National Archives. Despite the extreme improbability that the message contents were obtained by solving the French code, this search took account of the possibility that the developments reported in the message were learned by other means.





It was the January 10 message from Napoleon, the only message mentioned in Sheridan's account of this episode, that the general said Keefer had solved. But there is every reason to believe that the French clear-text of this message is the message as received in New Orleans, and not a decoded version of that message. Note:

(1) The message heading. It is filled out in precisely the way that was standard procedure in telegraphic reception at that period. A considerably different format was used for the delivery of plain-text versions of friendly messages received in cipher, and since Keefer was also a Military Telegraph cipher clerk, he would probably have used that format or a similar one in writing up the plain text of a foreign cipher or code message. (This format is illustrated by the photostat of the deciphered version of Sheridan's January 12 message, of which Napoleon's message of the 10th was a part.)

(2) The difficulties that the copyist had with French spellings (Castelnau, décembre, forcez, abdiquer, navires). These are the difficulties of a telegraph operator receiving in a strange language. A cryptographer in writing up a decoded message would scarcely have made so many false strokes and misspellings; and with such a poor knowledge of the French language, he could scarcely have solved a coded message in French.

In addition to the above evidence, there is the extreme unlikelihood that this message added to the earlier one would have given Keefer enough material to have solved the code. There is also reason to believe, from Napoleon's statement to Bigelow regarding the message he sent Bazaine in September,
________
37 The Confederates used two kinds of cipher, both involving the substitution of one character for another. What appears to be a representative if not a complete account of the cryptanalytic experiences of the Washington cryptographers is given by David Homer Bates, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office (New York, 1907), pp. 66-85. Bates was in the War Department telegraph and cipher office throughout the Civil War. The infrequency of such activity was plainly the result of the difficulty in obtaining intercepts (except at the front, where the traffic intercepted was almost always visual). All the cryptanalytic episodes reported by Bates involved intercepted courier and mail dispatches rather than messages obtained by wiretapping.

38 Plum, op. cit., I, pp. 36-39.




that political considerations might well have induced the Emperor to send this message through the United States in the clear.

Impact and Epilogue

Rare indeed is the single intelligence item that is at once so important and so unmistakable in meaning as the intercept of January 10. Its effect on events, however, can only be estimated, for no reference to it appears in the records of the developments that followed.

On the 17th the French Minister came to Seward proposing that France and the United States enter into an agreement for the governing of Mexico during the period that would follow the departure of the French troops. France's only stipulation was that the interim government exclude Juárez. The United States, having consistently pursued a policy of recognition of Juárez and non-recognition of Maximilian, could never have voluntarily accepted such a proposal. And since southern Texas was well garrisoned with troops remaining from the magnificent army that had subdued the Confederacy, involuntary acceptance was likewise out of the question. But Seward might reasonably have entertained the proposal and then engaged in time-consuming negotiations, awaiting news from Mexico that the French were gone. Instead, he dismissed Napoleon's Minister with little ceremony; 39 his firmness probably stemmed largely from knowledge that the French withdrawal was already well advanced and the Emperor's proposal could be only an effort to save face.

The effect that Sheridan's communications intelligence enterprise had on international affairs, then, was probably this: it did not induce a change in policy or any other positive action, but it materially helped the government ride out a dangerous situation simply by sitting tight.

The Administration's domestic position, however, was as weak as its international position was strong. When the Senate on the 15th got around to its foreign policy debate, an earnest effort was made to embarrass the Administration (although the threatened attempt to take foreign policy out
_______
39 Seward to Minister Berthemy, January 21, 1865 (memorandum of conversation of January 17).





of its hands did not materialize). The debate continued into the 16th, when Senator Charles Sumner, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, saw fit to announce that he had reliable information (including a copy of a dispatch to the State Department from the United States Consul at Vera Cruz) that the French were withdrawing. That ended the matter.40 Neither Seward nor the President seems to have said anything to counter the unfriendly speechmaking, having in Sumner a more direct means of silencing the opposition. Although the senator was no friend of the Administration, at least some of its intelligence information had been given to him for that purpose. From the conviction with which Sumner addressed his colleagues, one is tempted to believe that intelligence much more sensitive - and more convincing - than the consular dispatch had been confided to him.

Seward's ability to close out the Mexican affair with firmness and sure handedness must have substantially bolstered the Presidential prestige, which in that year was at the lowest ebb it has reached in the nation's history. Had the government's resistance to the French intervention been anything but a resounding success, Andrew Johnson might well have failed to muster the one-vote margin by which the impeachment proceedings against him were defeated.

Before January ended, the intelligence conveyed by Napoleon's cablegram was supported by details of the French withdrawal received from other sources, one of them an unnamed spy who was sent by Sheridan to the Vera Cruz area and returned with convincing evidence of preparations for the embarkation of the Army.41 Bazaine led the last remnants of the French force out of Mexico City on February 5. Two weeks later embarkation had begun at Vera Cruz, and by March 11 it was complete.

Maximilian's regime quickly collapsed. He foolishly bottled up his small army of Mexicans, Austrians, and Belgians in Querétaro, a hundred miles northwest of the capital. An agent
________
40 Congressional Globe, January 16, 1867.

41 Sheridan to J. A. Rawlins (Chief of Staff to Grant), January 4, 1867. The ordinary period for transmittal of mail would have caused this dispatch to arrive in Washington perhaps a week later than the January 10 telegram from Paris via New Orleans.


of Sheridan, with this army by permission, late in February reported the Imperialists marching out of Querétaro and driving the enemy before them, but the offensive was short-lived. Soon Maximilian was back in Querétaro under siege, and on May 19, as a result of treachery by a Mexican Imperialist officer related by marriage to Bazaine, the garrison was captured. 42

Seward had literally "scolded Napoleon out of Mexico," but if the final issue of l'affaire Maximilien was a triumph for American diplomacy, the fate of the unhappy sovereign himself was a sorry story of nonperformance of duty by an American diplomat. After Sherman had been excused from further participation in the mission, Minister Campbell stationed himself at New Orleans and determinedly resisted repeated efforts by Seward to get him into Mexico. In April, when it had become plain that the siege of Querétaro would end in the capture of Maximilian, Seward sent an urgent plea for Maximilian's life, instructing Campbell to find Juárez and deliver the message in person. It was delivered to the head of the Mexican government not by Campbell, ex-colonel, ex-senator, but by James White, sergeant. Such pleas delivered later on by a diplomatic Chief of Mission were heeded, but this one was of no avail, and Maximilian lost his life before a firing squad at Querétaro on June 19, 1867. Four days earlier, too late to affect the fate of the misguided prince, Seward had given Campbell a new title: ex-Minister. 43
________
42 Martin, op. cit., 295-97; unsigned letter to Sheridan from his agent in Querétaro, February 26.

43 New York Herald, December 7, 1866; Seward to Campbell, December 25, 1866, January 2, 8, 23, April 6, June 1, 5, 8, 11, 15, 1867; Campbell to Seward, December 24, 1866, January 2, 7, February 9, March 12, and June 3, 6, 10, 15, and 16, 1867; Martin, op. cit., pp. 408, 411; Sheridan, op. cit., II, p. 227.