These essays show clearly that the Mexican deputies to the Spanish Cortes were both more numerous and influential than many scholars have thought. The early reforms, however, were obviously pressed by Spaniards rather than by Mexican deputies. Even so, Charles R. Berry states that between 1810 and 1822 “the Mexican provinces experienced five elections … each being held on three different levels and each involving all citizens who had a right to vote” (p. 41). Evidently the last phrase carries a substantial qualification, but the fact was that by 1822 colonials had gained valuable experience. The same idea is confirmed by the discussion of municipal electoral reform by Roger L. Cuniff (p. 82).
The essay by David T. Garza outlines the efforts of Mexican deputies to secure for the Mexicans equality of rights with the Spaniards. Unfortunately this writer is somewhat careless about details not pertinent to his main interest. He should have explained the discrepancy between a footnote (p. 48) which quotes population figures for Mexico alone as 16,000,000, while on page 55 is the figure of only 15,000,000 for the vast “territorial area of the Americas.”
To many readers the conservatism of the Mexican deputies in the early Cortes will be surprising. Clarice Neal shows the lack of interest of Mexican deputies in the freedom of the press in 1810 (p. 87); and James M. Breedlove (p. 113) does the same in connection with church reform. At best the latter author implies that the Mexican deputies gave endorsement through silence. Interestingly two of the three Mexican deputies who endorsed church reform came from the frontier provinces of Tabasco and New Mexico. After the restrictions had been voted by the Cortes the Mexican clergy veered in the direction of independence, obviously fearing Mexican liberalism less than the Spanish variety.
A similar story appears in the essay of Neill Macaulay with regard to restrictions placed on military fueros. Of the four Mexican deputies urging army reform three were priests and the fourth a disgruntled army officer who had spent several years in prison for revolutionary activity. The implications arising from clerical support of army reform deserve further investigation for the later period. Was it lack of foresight that caused these clerics to support the type of reform which they later opposed in Mexico ? John H. Hann’s story of economic reform sought by the Cortes also reaches the conclusion that the record of Mexican delegates was “not so solid” (p. 175). Incidentally the writer attributes the success of the movement to repudiate trade reforms to the effective lobby of Cádiz and Mexico City merchant guilds. The effects of unrest in the New World (the movements of Hidalgo, Morelos, and others) seem to W. Woodrow Anderson to culminate in a general feeling among both Old and New World deputies that independence had become inevitable.
In her conclusion the editor warns that the whole story is not here, but evidently a worthwhile start has been made in tracing the awakening of Mexicans to the political implications of the Enlightenment. The reader would like Miss Benson to consolidate these findings with her own extensive studies to give a thorough treatment of a long-neglected but significant topic. She notes that by 1822 the Mexican people had reached such a point in their thinking that centralized government would “fail miserably” in their country. Tragically enough, this was not sufficient: their little learning was still dangerous. The efforts of liberals (the federalists) were to fail with equally disastrous results until Porfirio Díaz practiced centralism in the garb of liberalism. Only after this and the holocaust of the Revolution (1910-1920) was Mexico ready for government by the people. But that is another story.
Here is a capital set of seminar papers reflecting bona-fide research that sheds new light on a dark corner of Mexican history. Students of Latin American history will welcome this contribution by a rising young group of their colleagues.
