The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Minister at Washington
M. LE Marquis: I have had a conversation recently with Mr. Bigelow, of which I think it well to give you the substance. In that conversation the United States minister enumerated the reasons the cabinet at Washington had for not establishing diplomatic relations with the Mexican government. The origin of that government, the antagonism between its form and the republican institutions of the neighboring country, and the small progress the emperor Maximilian would make in the affection and confidence of his subjects, these are the three motives that oppose, according to Mr. Bigelow, the relations we desire.
The representative of the federal government at the same time criticised certain measures adopted in Mexico. He quoted to me particularly the decree relative to the suppression of brigandage, and one other concerning the introduction of blacks; then he mentioned the sinister interpretations that might be given to the honors accorded to the Iturbide family, and expressed to me the unfavorable sentiments that all these resolutions would cause in the American people.
Although the greater portion of this question was not new, I thought I had better answer it. I will not return, I said to Mr. Bigelow, to the causes that determined the Mexican expedition. These causes are the same that carried the federal flag to Mexico some years ago. A double question of interest and dignity forced us to resort to arms, after uselessly exhausting all other means to have justice done to our citizens. Finding neither reparations for the past nor guarantees for the future in Mr. Jaurez’s administration, we were happy to see the Mexican people assume a new government, and faithful to the maxims of our public law we applauded that manifestation of the national will. Our army has not exercised the least force upon that great act, and the new government once established, we have made ourselves an absolute law to respect its independence.
The monarchical form, far from constituting an innovation, is rooted in the traditions of the country, and the other system of government did not assure the Mexican nation enough strength, comfort, and stability to cause us to blame it for the resolution it has taken. We do not dispute the greatness and prosperity that republican institutions have given to the United States; but there is nothing absolute in politics, and a government that suits one country may not suit another. It is very certain that there was nothing but disorder and anarchy in Mexico previous to the new rule. Was not the cabinet at Washington the first to complain of that violent and troubled situation? Was not its interest, like that of all other powers, to see a more normal order of things, and more in harmony with the conditions of vitality of modern societies, established in that country? A monarchical form is certainly a menace to nobody. An empire in Mexico is certainly not more incompatible with the dignity of the United States than an empire in Brazil. There is, besides, in this affair a principle that governs all others—the privilege of every nation to choose its own political rule, and the United States have certainly too just a sentiment of their own independence to wish to control that of their neighbors.
As to the degree of confidence and affection that the Mexican nation feels for its sovereign, the reports that reach us do not agree with those received by the cabinet at Washington. I understand that the new government is daily growing stronger; that Jaurez, whose term has just expired, represents nothing, not even in the eyes of his few followers; that constantly changing his residence, having neither army nor finances nor administration, he is, in fact as well as in law, clothed with no characters that constitute the chief of a state. Can the emperor Maximilian, then, under these circumstances, accord the rights of belligerents to bands still in the field? Did not the federal government deny that quality to the confederates of the south? And yet the confederacy had a vast territory, powers obeyed everywhere, generals of rare talent, armies that the federal troops could only conquer by patience and courage. The pretended authority of Juarez, on the contrary, is but a fiction. Where is the seat of his government? Who knows the names of his functionaries or of his officers? What province or what city is subject to him? Where are the regular traces of his administration? What remains of it but undisciplined bands that live by robbery? If the remnants of the southern armies were to form to-day bands to overrun the federal territory, would the United States treat them as belligerents? In such a situation there is no question of international law, the question is internal, and the first duty of a government well organized is to maintain order in the country.
[Page 699]As to the Iturbide family, I have nothing to say to the reasons that influenced the spontaneous decision of the emperor Maximilian. He might have desired to raise the once illustrious name from obscurity, and his resolution might have been inspired by a sentiment of benevolence and respect for the historic recollections of the Mexican nation. I will say, by the way, that it is untrue that the rights of succession have been conferred upon young Iturbide.
Moreover, if certain measures adopted in Mexico provoke the criticism of the cabinet at Washington, they ought not to call us to account for it. Autonomical and independent, the Mexican government is responsible for its own acts. True, our troops are still in Mexico; but the aid we lend to the emperor Maximilian constitutes in no manner a bond of vassalism.
In giving you this summary of my conversation with Mr. Bigelow, I desire, now that Congress is about to meet, to enable you to rectify the erroneous opinions that might be conceived around you, and I authorize you to make use of the present despatch in your conversations with Mr. Seward and the political personages of the Union.
Accept, &c.,