When President Lyndon B. Johnson unveiled a statue of Abraham Lincoln in a residential area of Mexico City on April 14, 1966, he unwittingly contributed to perpetuating a very unhistorical legend about the relationship between Lincoln and Mexico’s Benito Juárez—two great liberators.1 Because the two men were contemporaries, and had similar careers and personalities, their alleged “friendship” has become symbolic of amiable relations between the United States and Mexico. Remarks by both President and Mrs. Johnson, as well as President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz of Mexico at the dedication ceremonies, emphasized this picture of the two men.2

The Lincoln statue was a gift from the United States to the people of Mexico in belated commemoration of that nation’s 150th anniversary of its independence in I960.3 Senator Thomas H. Kuchel first proposed to present a gift of a monument to Mexico in January 1960. Kuchel, along with a bipartisan group of seven other senators,4 introduced an appropriate bill in the Senate.5 To perpetuate good relations between the United States and her southern neighbor, the senators proposed that a statue of Miguel Hidalgo, the Mexican patriot who inspired the independence movement, be presented, but Mexico suggested a statue of Lincoln instead.6 No final action was taken in the Congress to pass such a bill that year. In 1961 and 1963 similar bills were proposed, but largely because of House inaction they met the same fate as the first bill.7 Finally, on August 4, 1964, President Johnson signed a bill (S.944) authorizing the Lincoln statue.8

Although a question soon arose about the type of statue to be presented,9 a more significant controversy developed from an exaggeration of the true relationship between Lincoln and Juárez. This resulted from a deliberate effort to symbolize their closeness and the ceremonial oratory that inevitably accompanies such situations. The idea of a Lincoln-Juárez solidarity, however, did not originally result from the gift of a monument but from earlier historical writings about them. Writers have noted that the two men had similar experiences and political backgrounds, and that the crucial period of their careers, in which they sought to preserve the republican system of government in their respective countries, occurred at about the same time. They have also been compared in personality and social status: both were of humble birth and homely in appearance and were considered to have “championed the common man.”10

The question of their relationship centers in alleged correspondence between them. Although it was known that Lincoln and Juárez never met, shortly after the end of the Civil War a writer asserted that the two men had corresponded directly. In a book on Maximilian’s empire in Mexico,11 Count Émile de Kératry declared that the United States gave “decisive support” to Juárez. Kératry made the following comment on Lincoln’s promise of assistance in a letter to Juárez:

. . . certain documents, which were found in General [Ignacio] Comonfort’s baggage abandoned in the foundry at San Lorenzo, have come under our observation. They leave no doubt whatever as to the cooperation of the United States, and the latter comprehended that France desired to profit by the war.. . . President Lincoln, whose honesty was so praised in France, wrote to Juárez: “We are not at open war with France, but you may reckon on money, cannon, and voluntary enlistments, all of which we shall countenance.” He kept his word.12

The authenticity of the quoted offer of aid, attributed to Lincoln, is open to serious question. A promise of substantial military assistance to Juárez was not consistent with known American reluctance to become involved in the Mexican conflict while the United States was preoccupied with the Civil War. A check with the Comonfort papers in the University of Texas Library, moreover, did not reveal any Lincoln-Juárez correspondence. The papers at Texas, of course, may not include all the correspondence discovered by Kératry in 1868 among Comonfort’s baggage.

A newspaper article in the Washington Post revived the question in 1962.13 The Post reported that Ernesto Maurer, president of Mexico City’s Rotary Club, in a speech on July 10, 1962, had referred to “the famous exchange of letters” between Lincoln and Juárez. A subsequent investigation by the American Embassy in Mexico City14 revealed that neither Maurer nor Ernesto Flores Zavala, a speaker at the club’s July meeting who made a similar reference, had actual knowledge of any such correspondence. Their over-zealous remarks were attributed to comments by Mrs. Doris Crans, a step-daughter of Robert Lincoln Beckwith (a descendant of Lincoln), whom she accompanied to Mexico City. Beckwith was a guest of honor at the Rotary Club meeting along with a Mexican lady who was a descendant of Juárez. Mrs. Crans claimed to have seen some correspondence between the two men but did not personally possess the letters, nor did she know precisely where they might be located in the United States.15

The possibility that correspondence might actually exist between Lincoln and Juárez stimulated the Department of State to an extensive search of published and manuscript sources in the United States and Mexico. Principal archival material checked in the United States (in addition to the Comonfort Papers) included the Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress and the Department of State Records at the National Archives.16 No exchange of letters was found. The American Embassy in Mexico, with the assistance of the Benjamin Franklin Library, checked for Lincoln-Juárez correspondence with major national archives and libraries in Mexico City. These included: Biblioteca de México, Recinto de Juárez (Palacio Nacional), Colegio de México, Biblioteca Nacional, Biblioteca de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Archivo General de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, and Archivo General de la Nación.17 The investigation brought negative results.

Despite the growing certainty that Lincoln and Juárez never corresponded, the legendary relationship was again publicized in March 1964 by Secretary of State Dean Rusk. At the opening session of the Mexican-United States Parliamentarians Conference in Washington Rusk said:

Some one hundred years ago our two Presidents—Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juárez—were friends. They were never able to meet personally because each was deeply engaged in preserving the unity and the integrity of his country at a time of trial and danger. But their correspondence clearly reflected their common dedication to liberty and independence.18

The speeches in Congress supporting proposals for a Lincoln statue reflected a conscious effort to perpetuate good relations with Mexico. Colorful oratory re-emphasized the relationship between Lincoln and Juárez. When Senator Kuchel reintroduced his bill proposing the statue in the senate in January 1961, he referred to the Mexican people’s high regard for Lincoln because of his “crucial support of Benito Juárez.” He further declared that “disregarding European hostility, Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward, provided encouragement and, later, active support for the brave new government of Mexico.”19 These allegations about correspondence, friendship, and enthusiastic support of Juárez produce a misconception of American interest in Mexico during the United States Civil War, and particularly, of Lincoln’s actual relations with the Liberal leader in Mexico.

As scholars know, Lincoln gave his attention to Mexico on two occasions: during the United States-Mexican War (1846-1848) and during the American Civil War. In the former instance, Lincoln’s concern with Mexico was due to the controversy between President James K. Polk and the opposition Whig Party concerning responsibility for the outbreak of the Mexican War. In his “war message” of May 11, 1846, President Polk claimed that the clash between American and Mexican forces on April 25, had taken place on American soil between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers. The Whig Party, supported by antislavery men, strongly disapproved of Polk’s position. It was Lincoln’s insistence at this time that the exact spot where the conflict had begun be determined that brought him the appellation “spotty Lincoln.”20

France’s military intervention to create a puppet monarchy headed by Maximilian of Hapsburg caused Lincoln to turn his attention to Mexico a second time. In accordance with the Monroe Doctrine and despite an official assertion of neutrality, the United States continued to support the embattled republican government of Benito Juárez, according it recognition and moral and legal support.21 The exigencies of the Civil War and concern about a possible French alliance with the Confederacy, however, limited the efforts of the United States government to dislodge Maximilian. Despite Juárez’ effort to obtain American assistance through his brilliant young diplomat, Matías Romero, Secretary of State William H. Seward steadfastly resisted material involvement in Mexico’s troubles.22

American relations with Mexico in this period are exceedingly complex and require fuller treatment than can be given here. Suffice it to say, unless later proven otherwise, Lincoln and Juárez were not personal friends, they never met, nor did they ever correspond. Whatever similarity they may have had was a circumstantial likeness in personality and career, attributed to them not by contemporaries but by later writers.

1

The two and one-half ton Lincoln statue was a reproduction of the one made by Augustus Saint-Gaudens now standing in Lincoln Park, Chicago. It was cast in bronze by the American sculptor, Felix de Weldon of Washington, D.C. The Luis G. Urbina Park in Mexico City, where the reproduction was placed, has since been renamed after Lincoln.

2

New York Times, April 15, 1966, 18:1; April 16, 1966, 6:3, 6:7.

3

It was also the 100th anniversary of the final triumph of Juárez’ Liberal forces in the field.

4

The original supporters of the proposal included Senator Wayne Morse (D.-Oregon), Dennis Chavez (D.-N.Mex.), Clair Engle (D.-Calif.), Ernest Gruening (D.-Alaska), Barry Goldwater (R.-Ariz.), Mike Mansfield (D.-Mont.), and Everett M. Dirksen (R.-Ill.).

5

United States, Congressional Record, 86th Cong., 2nd Sess., January 14, 1960, 486, Bill S. 2826; similar bills were introduced in the House of Representatives, ibid., January 6, 1960, 43 (H.R. 9340), February 1, 1960, 1,689 (H.R. 10054).

6

Cong. Record, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., September 7, 1961, 18,459.

7

Cong. Record, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., February 28, 1963, 3,123-3,124.

8

Cong. Record, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., August 6, 1964, 18,339. On July 22, 1964, the Senate had agreed to an amendment to a House bill, passed the previous day, calling for a maximum expenditure of $150,000 for the statue (ibid., July 22, 1964, 16,669). However, the House appropriations bill (PL88-339) for the Lincoln statue was not passed until June 1, 1965, when the Department of State budget for 1966 included an allowance of only $100,000 (ibid., 89th Cong., 1st Sess., June 1, 1965, 12,203; United States, Department of State News Letter, September 1965, 14). By this time Mexico had already dedicated its own statue of Lincoln, placed in the border city of Juárez “as a symbol of Lincoln’s ties with Benito Juárez.” New York Times, April 5, 1964, 84:6.

9

The Fine Arts Commission in Washington and the Department of State preferred an original work, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee reportedly decided on a replica of a “traditional” statue lest a contemporary sculptor distort Lincoln’s likeness in a modern “abstract.” In response to the Congressional view, sculptor Carl Tolpo demonstrated in protest at the Saint-Gaudens statue of Lincoln in Chicago and warned that it would be a “ghastly mistake” to accept a “horse and buggy Lincoln”; see the article by Carlos Gutiérrez, “Mexico’s Lincoln: Safety in Statuary,” Washington Post, April 14, 1966, A16.

10

For example, see Hubert Herring, A History of Latin America (New York, 1955), 329-332; Nina Brown Baker, Juárez, Hero of Mexico (New York, 1942), 112, 228; Père Foix, Juárez, (4th ed., México, 1959), devotes a chapter to comparing the two men (Chapter XI, “Juárez y Lincoln”).

11

Émile de Kératry, The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian. A Narrative of the Mexican Empire, 1861-7. From Authentic Documents. With the Imperial Correspondence (London, 1868).

12

Ibid., 16.

13

Washington Post, July 15, 1962, A20:5.

14

U.S. Department of State Records, American Embassy, México, D.F. to Department of State, Airgram No. A-415, September 24, 1962.

15

It was determined that the Rotary Club members received the impression that either the Library of Congress or some other library in the United States possessed: “(a) an exchange of letters (apparently only one in each direction), presumably a mutual reassurance of victory; (b) a statement (or speech?) to Congress by Lincoln praising Juárez and his struggle against the French; and (c) a letter from Juárez to Mrs. Lincoln shortly after the assassination.” Ibid.

16

Scholars familiar with Lincoln’s writings, such as Roy P. Basler, editor of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (9 vols., New Brunswick, N.J., 1953), were also consulted.

17

U.S. Department of State Records, American Embassy, México, D.F. to Department of State, Airgram No. A-595, October 31, 1962.

18

U.S. Department of State, Press Release No. 95, March 5, 1964. Carlos Gutiérrez, writing on the Lincoln statue, must be credited with the rare comment that Lincoln and Juárez never corresponded. Gutiérrez, “Mexico’s Lincoln.”

19

Cong. Record, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., January 30, 1961, 1,377; for similar remarks see ibid., 88th Cong., 1st Sess., February 28, 1963, 3,123.

20

For Lincoln’s “spot resolutions,” see Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., January 12, 1848, 155, appendix, 93-95; and Roy P. Basler (ed.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, I, 420-422.

21

Between Lincoln’s election and inauguration, the Buchanan administration sought to clarify the American intention to defend Mexico against foreign domination. On December 20, 1860, H. R. La Reintrie, a special American agent in Mexico City, had dispatched a circular letter to the foreign envoys there, warning that in the event of foreign interference in Mexican affairs the United States would “to the extent of its power defend the nationality and independence” of the Mexican republic. United States Congress, House Executive Documents, No. 100, 37th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Ser. 1136), 17-18.

22

Dexter Perkins, A History of the Monroe Doctrine, (rev. ed., Boston, 1955), 127-128; Robert B. Brown, “Guns Over the Border: American Aid to the Juárez Government During the French Intervention” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951), 15; Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (New York, 1940), 381; House Exec. Doc., No. 100, 37th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Ser. 1136), 19. For two studies of Romero’s efforts in the United States see Ernest G. Hildner, Jr., “The Mexican Envoy Visits Lincoln,” The Abraham Lincoln Quarterly, VI (September 1950), 184-189, and Robert R. Miller, “Matías Romero: Mexican Minister to the United States during the Juárez-Maximilian Era,” HAHR, XLV (May 1965), 228-245.

Author notes

*

The author is Associate Professor of History at Purdue University.