Among liberal reformers of the nineteenth century, Lorenzo de Zavala has enjoyed a uniquely bad reputation in Mexico. There has been a begrudging recognition of Zavala’s writings as brilliant social criticism and well articulated schemes for reform, but he has been severely criticized for his mixing of politics and personal economic gain, and he has been almost universally condemned for his act of treason. Zavala became a participant enthusiast for Texas colonization, joined the separatist cause in 1835, and became Vice President of the Texas Republic before his death in 1836.
The author of this book sets out to rescue Zavala from the purgatory of history. She attempts to present an impartial view of his life and political acts and to establish Zavala as the true precursor of the Reforma. The book consists of four separate parts: one, biographical details, presented in strict chronological fashion, free of “sectarian judgments”; two, interpretations and judgments of Zavala, both by contemporaries and by subsequent observers; three, the general historical background for Zavala’s career; four, Zavala allowed to “speak for himself,” that is, excerpts and precis of Zavala’s writings on various topics. There are also bibliographical appendices, listing writings by and about Zavala. The value of the book lies in the thoroughness with which the author has compiled and presented data concerning Zavala, for example, a seemingly complete list of Zavala’s numerous parliamentary speeches and of the many writings which refer to Zavala. Her work complements but does not supersede the complete and balanced biography by Raymond Estep (1952) and the valuable publication of his collected works under the editorship of Manuel González Ramírez (1966).
The organization of the book limits its effectiveness either as a biographical study or as an analysis of Zavala’s liberalism. Instead of weaving together the material of the four parts, she has separated it into compartments, thus undercutting the analytical or interpretive force of her study. Moreover, she has relied too much on direct quotation. For example, of the thirty-eight pages which make up part three, seventeen are devoted to the text of Joel R. Poinsett’s 1829 report to Martin Van Buren, taken from W. R. Manning’s collection. The author’s contention that Zavala is the true initiator of the Reforma, following Manuel Payno’s judgment of 1861, is unconvincing because in her zeal to vindicate Zavala, she loses sight of the 1833 reform program as a whole, which is what Payno identified as inspiration for his generation.
One interesting point that emerges from Parcero’s book is the uniformly favorable judgments of Zavala by historians from his home state of Yucatan. That they did not judge as treason Zavala’s identification with the Texan cause is evidence of the strength of regionalist sentiment in that state. As Yucatecan Justo Sierra wrote in 1898: “No, Zavala no fué traidor, había nacido en Yucatán; pues bien, solo para los dos extremos del país, para Yucatán y Texas, el pacto federal había sido un hecho y no una ficción.” Despite the efforts of Sra. Parcero to reinstate Zavala as a hero of liberalism, his sin of exaggerated regionalism is not likely to be soon forgotten in Mexico City.
