The Clergy and the Independence of New Spain Author(s): Karl M.

Schmitt Reviewed work(s): Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1954), pp. 289-312 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2508876 . Accessed: 16/10/2012 11:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hispanic American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

TrheClergy and the Independence of New Spain

KARL M. SCHMITT

HE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE of the clergy in the movement for Mexican independence presents many difficulties. Clerics were to be found on both sides of the conflict, engaging in activities that ranged from violence and bloodshed, through preaching and sermonizing, to simple expressions of sympathy. Many took no part whatever, but, long accustomed as they were to submission to authority, accepted the regime in power, whether it were Liberal or Conservative, patriot or royalist. Probably a majority were untouched or unmoved since the violent manifestations of the revolt in fact involved only a small part of the vice-royalty. Before proceeding to a consideration of the respective roles of loyal and insurgent clergy, it is important to understand the organization and composition of the church in New Spain in the closing years of the colonial era. The ecclesiastical government of the viceroyalty consisted of one archdiocese, that of Mexico, and eight suffragan sees. The bishops, the members of the cathedral chapters, the officers of the Inquisition, and the heads of the religious orders and institutions formed the upper clergy. These men, for the most part, were peninsular Spaniards, many of whom never saw the country in which they were to hold such important positions, until they were sent out to enjoy its richest benefices.' The lower clergy, mostly creoles and mestizos,2 were regarded as social inferiors by their clerical superiors. They generally lacked the training and culture of the latter and were, on the whole, subject to local influences and prejudices. Furthermore, they shared in all the disadvantages of their creole countrymen through the jealous policy of the mother country exercised through the Pa-

* The author is an instructor in the department of history, Niagara University, New York. 1 H. G. Ward, Mexico in 1827 (2 vols., London, 1828), I, 321-322. 2 A. de Humboldt (Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, John Black trans. [2 vols., London, 1811], I, 229-230) estimates the number of the lower clergy at about ten thousand, equally divided between regulars and seculars.

290

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

tronato Real. They were generally excluded from the higher degrees of church preferment, and left to fulfill the laborious duties of parish priests. Economically, as well as socially, there existed a wide gulf between the two groups. The income of the hierarchy ranged from six thousand double piastres for the bishop of Sonora to one hundred thirty thousand for the archbishop of Mexico ;3 the salary of many parish priests ranged from one hundred to one hundred twenty pesos per year.4 Humboldt claimed that many priests suffered from extreme poverty, while the bishops possessed revenues that surpassed those of many of the sovereign princes of Germany.5 Froin 1810 to the summer of 1820 all of the bishops of Mexico and most of the upper clergy were opposed to the independence movement. Their attitude was conditioned among other factors by their oath of allegiance to the king of Spain under the terms of the Patronato Real, and their fear of the ideas of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution, some of which the Mexican rebels espoused. As they saw it, the course of revolt in France led to regicide in politics, anarchy in economics, and atheism in religion. Though they remained loyal to the mother country in spite of the "liberal" features of the Constitution of 1812, they were much relieved when Ferdinand VII returned as an autocrat in 1814, overthrowing constitutional governmnentand repealing anticlerical laws such as those restricting clerical fueros and suppressing the Inquisition. Not until the Riego revolt of 1820, which reestablished the Constitution of 1812, did the hierarchy and upper clergy question the wisdom of remaining loyal to Spain. At the latter date the Liberals of the mother country seemed firmly in control, and apparently were determined to reenact the anticlerical laws. At this juncture, leading clergymen helped to plan and to carry out a Conservative revolt which attained independence. The fact that the bishops favored union with Spain during the upheaval did not mean that all were hidebound reactionaries opposed to aniy and all reforms. Bishop Gonzalez of Puebla, one of the few creoles to attain episcopal rank, offered to open negotiations in his own name with the insurgent chieftains Rayon, Bravo, and Morelos. The bishop sent commissioners to the rebels late in 1811 pronmising full pardon in return for recognition of the Spanish government. Privately, they were assured of reception into official favor, but the offer was
L. E. Fisher, The Bacloground of the Bevolution for Mexican Independence (Boston, 1934), p. 217. I-umboldt, op. cit., I, 229.
4

8 Humboldt, op. cit., I, 231.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

291

declined.6 Though Bishop Gonzalez had his differences with the gachupines and the royal government of New Spain, he did his best to promote the Spanish cause once the revolt began. HIenever resorted to vituperation, however, as did some of his colleagues, and on several occasions tried to save the lives of insurgent captives.7 The Spanish Bishop-elect Abad y Queipo of Valladolid was another who recognized the nieed for reform in the Spanish-Anmericanldependencies. Addressing himself to the Regency in Spain on May 30, 1810, the bishopelect maintainied that men in New Spain were thinking seriously of independeencesinee the motherland had fallen to Napoleon Bonaparte. While many individuals approved of, and even desired, independence, he continued, there was unquestioned loyalty, on the part of prudent men at least, to the sovereign, Ferdinand VII, and to the Bourbon dlynasty. The bishop then pointed out some of the most notorious evils existing in the viceroyalty. He condemned the fact that twotenths of the population, i.e., the Peninsular and American Spaniards, owned practically all the land, that the Peninsulars held most of the important offices, and that eight-tenths of the population, i.e., the Inidians and the castes, had no share in the governilmentand owned but little property. To renmedythe situation somewhat and to keep New Spain loyal the bishop proposed the abolition of several of the most onerous taxes, an increased and strengthened military force, and the removal of trade restrictions and monopolies. Elsewhere, the bishop indicated that he would not be adverse to an independent Mexico unlder a Bourbon kilg, if the dynasty were unable to overthrow the Bonapartes in the peninsula.8 The sentiments of the lower clergy on independence are not so simple and clear-cut as those of the hierarchy, and historians have disputed the importance of the role that they played. Gareia and Pereyra, in the introduction to their volume of documents on the independence movement to September, 1811, state that the lower clergy were not partisans of independence, as generally asserted, and that their docu6 See correspondence of the Bishop of Puebla with Morelos, Ray6n, and iber, 1811, J. E. HernAndez y D'avalos, Colecci6n de Bravo, September to Decem docurnentos para la historia de la gterra de independencia (6 vols., M6xico, 18771882), III, 372-373, 467-470, 489-492. H. H. Bancroft, History of Mexico (6 vols., San Francisco, 1883-1888), IV, 346-347. 8Manuel Abad y Queipo, "'Represenitacion a la primera Regencia, en que se describe compenidiosamente el estado de fernientacion que anunciaba un proximo rompimienito, y se proposvian los medios con que tal vez se hubiera podido evitar," May 30, 1810, Coleccion de los escritos mas irmportantes que en diferentes epocas dirigio al gobierno D. Manuel Abad y Queipo (M6xico, 1813), pp. 140-150, 152159.

292

HAHR

I AUGUST

I KARL M. SCHMITT

ments prove this.9 Without doubt, many priests in New Spain were loyal.'0 In addition to those cited by Gareia and Pereyra we might note that in the fall of 1810 the bishop of Guadalajara enrolled a body of troops consisting of regular and secular clergy. A royalist commander commended thirty-three Franciscans of Michoacan who had served the royalist cause up to 1812,1" and the loyalty of the Carmelites of Orizaba remained constant throughout the struggle.'2 Most contemporary commentators, however, took the opposite position. Zavala maintained that the lower clergy on the whole supported the revolt,13 and Ward insisted that the first phase of the movement might well be entitled the insurrection of the clergy.14 Alaman, critical though he was toward the rebel clergy, also gave the impression that there was a general cleavage between the upper and the lower clergy on the question.15 Some later historians have been even more specific. Lea argued that the hatred of the creoles and Indians for the gachupines was so bitter that four-fifths of the native clergy cooperated with the insurgents despite the censures of the church.'6 Father Cuevas estimated that three-fourths of the clergy were active rebels.'7 Besides the famous Hidalgo and Morelos, one constantly encounters, often incidentally, other little-known clergymen in all histories of the period.18 For example, Medina Aseensio in his article on the Holy See and Mexican independence mentions a Fray Jose Pedroza who acted as a courier,19 and three other clergymen whom Rayon proposed to Archbishop Carroll as candidates for apostolic
9 Docurmentos in6ditos o muy raros para la historia de M6xico, publicados por Genaro Garcia y Carlos Pereyra (36 vols., Mexico, 1905-1911), IX, 7 (cited hereinafter as Garcia and Pereyra). 10 See Jose Bravo Ugarte, "El clero y la independencia,'' Abside (October, 1941), pp. 614-615. 11'Franciscanos de Michoac'an y la guerra de independencia," Boletin del Archivo General de la Naci6n, XI (1939), 513-533. 12 J. Arr6niz, Ensayo de una historia de Orizaba ([Orizaba], 1867), pp. 457, 538ff. 13 L. de Zavala, Ensayo hist6rico de las revoluciones de Mlgico desde 1808 hasta 1830 (2 vols., Paris, 1831), I, 66. 14 Ward, op. cit., I, 322-323. "s Cf. Lucas Alaman, Hiistoria de M6xico desde los primeros movimientos que prepararon su independencia en el aiio de 1808 hasta la 6poca presente (5 vols., M6xico, 1849-1852), Vols. I and II. 1I( H. C. Lea, The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies (New York, 1908), p. 280. 17M. Cuevas, Historia de la iglesia en M6xico (5 vols., El Paso, 1928), V, 92. "I The author has collected over two hundred names of individual clergymen wAhoparticipated actively in the rebellion. 19 L. Medina Ascensio, "La Santa Sede y la emancipaci6n mexicana," Estudios Historicos, I (July, 1943), p. 36.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

293

delegate.20 Obviously, the evidence indicates that both sides of the conflict attracted adherents from among the lower clergy. In undertaking this study, then, we shall first examine the loyalist role of the hierarchy and then that of the other members of the upper clergy such as the heads of religious orders and institutions, the officers of the Royal and Pontifical University, and the officers of the Inquisition from 1810 to 1820. Next we shall consider the patriot role of some of the lower clergy in conspiracy, in military affairs, and in spiritual and intellectual matters. At this point we shall attempt to resolve the discrepancy in the opposing points of view of past historians. Finally, we shall investigate the causes and results of the defection of the bishops in 1820 and 1821, and their championship of the independence movement under Iturbide and the Plan of Iguala. Despite the fact that Hidalgo's uprising proclaimed allegiance to the Bourbon dynasty, it was not the type of reform program envisioned by Bishop-elect Abad in his remonstrance to the Regency in May. On September 24, just eight days after Hidalgo raised the banner of revolt, an excommunication was fulminated from Valladolid against him "for having proceeded against the person and liberty of the sacristan of Dolores, of the curate of Chamacuero, and of various religious of the Convent of Carmen of Celaya, imprisoning them and keeping them under arrest. '21 Anyone who favored or gave aid to Hidalgo, and any soldiers who served under him were also excommunicated. A second edict was proclaimed on September 30, and a third followed not long after. In the latter document the bishop-elect declared that Hidalgo's project was "condemned by natural law, by the Holy Law of God, and by the laws of the kingdom...." He also asserted that Hidalgo's land policy would lead either to the oppression of the Spaniards and the castes or to the exterminiation of the Indians. Who, he asked, was to say who were the true owners of the land. According to the bishop-elect, two-thirds of the land was in the hands of Spaniards, Peninsular and American, of which the church owned a small portion. The other third, he said, the Indians owned communally.22 Finally, he announced that Hidalgo was guilty of sacrilege and heresy in leading the Indians to believe that in "the execution and commission of such horrible crimes" they were actually nerforminL'meritorious deeds.23
Ibid., I, 32. Pastoral letter of Bishop-elect Abad y Queipo of Valladolid, September 24, 1810, Garcia and Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 25. 22 In his "Represenitacion'' of May 30 of that year Bishop-elect Abad stated that the Indians owned practically no land at all. 28 Maniuel Abad y Queipo, Edicto (Valladolid, 1810).
20

21

294

HAI

A,UGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

The pronouncements of Bishop-elect Abad were accompanied by others from the archbishop24 and several of his suffragans, notably the bishops of Puebla and Guadalajara. The former, with 289 members of his clergy, at a solemn assembly swore to uphold the regime, the rights of Ferdinand VII, anid to guard against any persons preaching sedition in his area.25 The latter formed a body of loyal troops consisting of secular and regular clergy, and any others who might wish to join.26 By edict the bishop laid the same penalties of excommunication as were aninounced from the See of Valladolid.27 Olnce the revolution of Father Hidalgo collapsed, the bishops showed themselves far more lenient than the civil authorities. Though the insurgent priest was condemned for his actions by his ecclesiastical judge, and eventually defrocked, the religious authorities of Durango, where the trial was held, made an earnest appeal for the commutation of the death penalty.28 They were ignored, and Hidalgo was executed ill July, 1811, ten months after his rebellion was begun. Other leaders were quickly rounded up and brought to trial. The more important were shot, and common soldiers imprisoned, but more formality was required for friars and priests out of respect for ecclesiastical jurisdictionl. Six were condemned to be shot, but had to be degraded before they could be executed. Dr. Olivares, the bishop of Durango, refused aild exchanged angry passages with the intendent. Not until Bishop Olivares died in February, 1812, and the capitular vicar proved more complacent were the clerics executed.29 The bishops sought, too, to extinguish the last embers of revolt. As we have seen, the bishop of Puebla tried to accomplish this goal by negotiation. He also attempted to turn the minds of the people fromthe disturbances in New Spaill to the struggles of the mother country .30 and requested aid for its liberation from Bonapartist domination of Oaxaca was more direct. Not only did Bishop Bergoso y Jordan he demand that the insurgents reneew their allegiance to Spain, the monarchy, and the church, but he instructed the priests of his diocese, under pain of greater excommunication, to discover and to denounee conspirators and conspiracy.3'
24 Pastoral letter of the archbishop of Mexico, September 24, 1810, Gareia a-nd Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 9. 26 Ibid., II, 5. 25 Alaman, Op. cit., I, 463-464. 27 Edict of the bislhop of Guadalajara, October, 1810, Garcia and Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 60. 28 Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 280-282. 29 A. Villasefior y Villasefior, Biografias de los heroes y caudillos de la indepenidencia (2 vols., M6xico, 1910), I, 90. 30 Pastoral letter of Bishop GonizAlez of Puebla, May 20, 1811, Hernaddez y Davalos, op. cit., II, 467-470. 3t Pastoral letter of Bishop Bergoso of Oaxaca., June, 1811, ibid., III, 315-328.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

295

The counter-revolutionary activity of the hierarchy declined markedly during the fall and winter of 1811-1812. The bishop of Oaxaca did, however, raise a body of troops, many of whom were ecclesiastics,32 and continued to condemn the insurrection in sermons and pastorals. The bishop of Guadalajara urged his priests, especially, to inspire the people with loyalty and to watch carefully for any publicaitons of the rebel press.33 Bishop-elect Abad again demanded an end to the disorders.34 When the new Constitution of 1812 arrived in Mexico in October, the bishops of Puebla, Valladolid, Yucatan, and Monterrey, and the cathedral chapter of Mexico opposed its liberalism particularly because of the disturbed conditions in New Spain at the time. Press freedom would be used, they argued, to propagate revolution, but the bishop of Oaxaca thought that to suppress these freedoms at this time would only give rise to fresh complaints.35 Freedom of the press, however, lasted but two months for all the old regulations were restored on December 5, and most of the provisions of the constitution were left unexecuted, which perhaps explains the continued loyalty of the hierarchy. When the decree for the suppression of the Inquisition was issued in Mexico in June, 1813, there seems to have been no objection among either the upper or the lower clergy. When the archbishop-elect proceeded to carry it out, the inquisitors promptly surrendered the records and the property of the Inquisition without subterfue. 36 In the meantime several of the bishops had renewed their efforts to destroy the revolution now led by Morelos. In the summer of 1812 the bishop of Puebla excommunicated those who read the insurgent newspaper, Ilutstrado Americano37 and stiffened his attitude toward the rebels. He excommunicated eleven clergymen and deposed six curates from their parishes for taking an active part in the revolt. His pastoral letter declared that any ecclesiastic who embraced the rebel party, or in any manner aided or protected it by word or deed, would also be excommunicated. Those, too, would suffer the same
Alaimn, op. cit., II, 439. Pastoral letter of Bishop Cabanas of Guadalajara, April 4, 1812, Hernandez y Davalos, op cit., IV, 148-157. 3 Manuel Abad y Queipo, "Edieto importante, dirigido 6a evitar la nueva ailarquia que nos amenazan si Ino se dividen con equida.d entre deudores y acreedores los danos causados por la insurreeeion, y no se pone modo y termino en las ejeeuciones,'' May 19, 1812, Colecci6n de los escritos. . ., p. 160. 35 AIanmin, op. cit., III, 284. 3" Baneroft, op. cit., IV, 504. 37 J. M. Miquel i Ver.ges, La independencia mexicana y la prensa inswrgente ([M6xieo, 1941]), p. 22.
32

33

296

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

penalty who detained, imprisoned, apprehended, or violently handled any ecclesiastic, as well as all those who coo6peratedin such acts.38 In September, Bishop-elect Abad damned the insurgents as heresiarchs and schismaties, if not outright dogmatic heretics. He accused them further of tampering with canonical regulations on matrimony and other affairs, and ended his proclamation by calling the people back to their loyalty to Spain.39 Abbots, provincials, superiors, and other heads of religious institutions, orders, and congregations seem to have been almost unanimously loyal as well. The few regular clergy of high standing in their communities who joined the patriot cause were perhaps the exceptions that proved the rule. The Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico complied with a request of Viceroy Venegas by drawinig up a manifesto in October, 1810, protraying the evils of Hidalgo's rebellion, and the advantages to be enjoyed from union and fraternity with the motherland.40 In that same month the viceroy was given further assurance of loyalty by the clergy of Mexico City when Abbot Jose M. Beristain wrote him that the Congregation of St. Peter had agreed unaniimously "to dedicate themselves with the greatest ardor in confessionals, in pulpits, and in conversations, public and private, to inspire and maintain in the faithful people of this capital, horror for the diabolical enterprise alid This profession of projects of those delinquent factionaries. ..."41 loyalty was followed in a few days by another from the superior and council of the Franciscan college of Pachuca. The superior proposed to send out in pairs certain members of his community to sound out leading citizens of the neighboring towns as to their loyalty. Once assured of it, the friars were to begin preaching publicly, and exhorting the people to maintain order and the faith.42 Among others, the provilncial of the Franciscan convent of San Luis Potosi was outspoken in his criticism of the rebellion.43 On the other hand, the Franciscan superior and the provost of the Congregation of St. Philip Neri, both
letter of Bishop Gonzalez of Puebla, July 10, 1812, Heriidiidez y 38 Pastoral Davalos, op. cit., IV, 275-276. 39 Pastoral letter of Bishop-elect Abad y Queipo of Valladolid, September 26, 1812, Herndadez y Davalos, op. cit., IV, 439-462. 40 J. T. Lanning, "La Real y Pontificia Universidad de Mexieo y los preliminares de la incdependencia mexicana,' Universidad, II (October, 1936), 7. 41 Baristdin to Venegas, October 5, 18.10, Garcia and Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 3638. 42 Superior of the Franiciscan college of Pachuca to Venegas, October 13, 1810, Garcia and Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 55-57. 4F . Ocaianza, Capitulos de la historia franciscana (Mexico, 1934), p. 222.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

297

of San Miguel el Grande,4 accepted patriot rule with little or no objection, possibly out of fear. Submission such as this perhaps strengthened, though indirectly and unintentionally, the patriot cause. The Inquisition, for its part, revived charges of heresy and apostasy of which Hidalgo had been accused ten years previously,45 and sought to ferret out conspirators in several areas. However, the institution declined rapidly in the years from 1810 to 1820. One indication of this was that Hidalgo's death sentence was executed before the calificadores of the Holy Office had completed the formulation of his heresies, and no report was submitted to the Inquisition concerning his execution.46 Suppressed by the Liberal government of Spain in 1812, the institution was revived upon the restoration of Ferdinand VII and participated in the condemnation and trial of Morelos. He was the last person tried by the Inquisitioll to be executed. It never regained its former prestige, though it did handle the case of Father Servando Mier who was captured with Mina in 1817. Father Mier was the last prisoner of the Holy Office in New Spain; the institution was abolished in 1820.47 The cathedral chapters were almost unanimously loyal although a few canons, such as the Rev. Drs. Jose M. Aleala of Mexico City and Francisco Velasco of the collegiate church of Guadalupe actively aided the insurgents.48 However, when the bishops of Valladolid, Guadalajara, and Monterrey fled before the attacks of Hidalgo and his Indians in the fall and winter of 1810-1811, the canons left in charge of these dioceses lacked the courage to condemn the insurrection after the towns were occupied, and compromised themselves with the rebels. The canon of the cathedral chapter of Valladolid, the Count of Sierra Gorda, lifted the ban of excommunication imposed on Hidalgo and his followers by the bishop when the city was captured, and then reimposed it when the loyalists retook it. He justified his actions on the grounds that the citizenry was greatly agitated at the time of the occupation by the rebels, and that he feared further violence. Insistence upon excommunication with Hidalgo in control, he felt, would lead only to greater disturbances, and perhaps to bloodshed.49 Similar situations developed in Guadalajara and Monterrey when those cities
44 Gaceta del Gobierno Americano en el Departamento del Norte, September 30, 1812, reproduced in Miquel i Verges, op. cit., p. 153. 4 Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 161. 46 Lea, op. cit., p. 284. 47 Ibid., p. 297. 48 See biographical sketches of Alcala and Velasco in Villasenor y Villasefior, op cit., IV, 167-174 and 467-479. 49 Decree of Mariano Escand6n y Llera, Count of Sierra Gorda, October 16. 1810, Garcia and Pereyra, op. cit., IX, 27-29.

298

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

fell to the rebels in November, 1810, and January, 1811, respectively. The rebel chiefs were greeted by the cathedral chapters, Te Deums were chanted in the cathedral, and the festivities were crowned with a banquet.50 Just as in Valladolid, however, when the rebels were cleared from the town the chapters reversed themselves.5' As a result of these actions by the cathedral chapters, the hierarchy suffered a serious blow to its prestige, and there can be no doubt that in this confusion of politics and religion grave misgivings arose concerning the validity of the bishops' excommunicatiolls. Besides, clergy favorable to independlence had not recognized in the first place the validity of the condemnations and censures heaped upon the insurgents, nor had they required their penitents to conifess support of revolution as the edict of the Inquisition provided.52 The chapter of Mexico City was active throughout the rebellion on behalf of the loyalist cause. It addressed pastoral letters to the clergy and to the faithful on the subject of loyalty to king and country ;53 it granted 4000 pesos to the viceroy to aid in suppressing the revolt ;54 and when insurgent newspapers appeared it accused them of advancing schismatical and injurious propositions.55 So firm in its loyalty was the Mexican chapter that it did not protest even when the viceroy infringed upon clerical privileges by subjecting rebel clerics to ordinary courtmartial. Not only did the chapter bow to the viceregal orders, it even codperated in suppressing complaints of loyal but indignant clergy of Mexico City.56 The chapter also condemned the Constitution of Apatzingan in 1815 and excommuanicatedall those who participated in drawing it up. The canons falsely condemned the constitution for not upholding Catholicism. Those who did not inform on others who possessed copies of the document or other rebel publications were also excommunicated, and the clergy were ordered to refute the principles of these documents.57 A vigorous military campaign in 1815 ended with the capture of Morelos in November. Tried and found guilty of ecclesiastical as well as of civil crimes. Morelos was degraded from the priesthood by the
"OLuis Paez Brotchie, Jalisco, historia minima (2 vols., Guadalajara, 1940), I, 208-209; Villasefior y Villasenior, op. cit., I, 290. 5' Proclamation of the cathedral chapter of Guadalajara, July 7, 1811, Herndndez y Davalos, op. cit., II, 500. 52 Alaman, op. cit., I, 392. " Pastoral letters of the cathedral chapter of Mexico, March 28 and September 10, 1811, Herndndez y Ddvalos, op. cit., II, 906-908 and III, 358-367. 64 Catlhedral chapter of Mexico to Venegas, August, 1811, Garcia and Pereyra, op, cit., IX, 242-243. 5 Miquel i Verges, op. cit., pp. 21-22. 56 Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 424. 57 Alaman, op. cit., IV, 176-177.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN
fe.58

299

He was then bishop of Oaxaca, and underwent a public auto de turned over to the civil authorities who promptly executed him despite the pleas of the archbishop-elect, of the bishop of Durango, and of various canons for the commutation of the death penalty.59 With the death of Morelos the revolution all but collapsed. Many of the insurgents, lay and clerical, accepted the amnesty offered them by the royalist government. Mina's futile attempt provoked a condemination from the bishop of Durango who forbade the faithful to read the rebel newspaper published in Soto la Marina.60 For the nmostpart, the hierarchy was silent on the subject of the revolt during the years 1816 to 1820, except for a pastoral by Bishop Perez of Puebla in 181661 and two by the bishop of Durango in 1816 and 1817.62 Lack of further evidence of activity among either the upper or the lower clergy is explained by the fact that in this period Spanish control was maintained over most of New Spain with the exception of a few moulntain strongholds in Oaxaca. The lower clergy, for their part, played a vital role in behalf of independence despite the lack of unanimity in their ranks. Among the conspirators of the pre-1810 period, the names of several clerics appear. In 1808 two friars of Mexico City, one a Mereedariall and the other a Franciscan, were imprisoned at Veracruz for advocating independence; both died the following year, probably of yellow fever.63 In thwarting another conspiracy in the late summer of 1809 in Valladolid, the Spanish authorities arrested three clerics, a Franciscan friar aild two curates.64 In a more dangerous plot in Queretaro and San Miguel during these same years, at least five clergymen were included among the thirty-odd conspirators. These priests had been invited to participate in order to allay any fears that the proposed revolt against political authority involved religious authority as well. One of these rebel clerics was Father Miguel Hidalgo who seized control of the movement when the plot was betrayed in September of
58Ibid., IV, 326. M. Cuevas, Historia de la naci6n nexicana (Mexico, 1940), p. 449. 60 Miquel i Verges, op. cit., p. 22. 61 Alaman, op. cit., IV, 441. 62 Carta Pastoral del Marqu6s de Castaniiza, obispo de Durango, en la Nueva Viscaya a todos sus diocesanos en su ingreso al obispado (Mexico, 1816); Nos, El de Castaitiza, Gonzdlez de Agiiero, Marques de Doctor D. Juan Francisco Castafliza, por la gracia de Dios y de la Santa Sede apost6lica, obispo de Duirango en la Nueva Viscaya, del consejo de sit Majestad &. A nuestros amados curas, vicdrios, coadjutores encargados de las parroquias, y capellanes, salud y gracia en nuestro Senior Jesucristo (Mexico, 1817). 68 Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 163, n. 12; Villasefior y Villasefior, op. cit., I, 9-12, 448-452. Gi Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 81-82; Bravo Ugarte, op. cit., pp. 614-615.

300

HRAHR I AUGUST

I KARL M. SCHMITT

1810. With a few troops and several hundred Indians he undertook to overthrow the existing regime.65 Besides the well known military leadership of Fathers Miguel Hidalgo and Jose Morelos, that of a host of other clergymen contributed to the early successes and to the rapid spread of the revolt. The important city of Guadalajara was captured in October, 1810, by a vicar, Jose Torres,66 and Monterrey fell in January to another group among whose leaders was Father Ignacio Jimenez.67 Some clerics commanded patriot bands of only a few score men; others served as subordinates in larger forces. About six clerics were involved in the ill-fated insurrection in Texas early in 1811.68 Seven more clerical chieftains are listed by Bancroft for the year 1812,69 and Alaman claimed that there was hardly a battle in which priests were not acting as commanding officers.70 By the end of 1815, however, military leadership was passing from the clergy to laymen, and from the operations of Mina in 1817 to the completion of the independence movement in 1821 the importance of the clergy from a military standpoint practically ended. Many of the early leaders had been killed in battle, executed after capture, or had accepted amnesty after the fall of Morelos. Only a few hardy veterans fought on until independence was achieved. But the lower clergy also contributed to the rebel cause to an important degree in the intellectual field. Not only did they argue the case for independence in sermons and discussions, but they supplied most of the journalists for the rebel press. In Guadalajara two priests offered Hidalgo valuable assistance. One of them, a Dominican friar, had charge of the only printing press in town and placed it at the disposal of the rebel priest.71 The second, Dr. Francisco Maldonado, a parish priest of the city, had been influenced by the teachings of the French philosophes. Since the insurrection lacked an official organ in which to publish decrees and orders, Father Maldonado assumed the task of founding a newspaper. Though his journal, El Despertador Amiericano, lasted but a month, it had the distinction of
85 P. de la Maza, San Miguel de Allende. Su historia, Sus monumentos (M6xico, 1939), pp. 122-124. 68 Paez Brotchie, op. cit., I, 208-209. 87 Villasejior y Villaseflor (op. cit., I, 290, II, 539) also said that almost all the priests of the western regions embraced the cause of independence not long after Hidalgo proclaimed it in Dolores. { 88 J. Villasana Haggard, " The Counter-Revolution of Bexar, 1811, " Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLIII (1939), pp. 222-235. 88 Bancroft, op. cit., IV, 396, 398 n. 1, 399, 435. 70 Alam'an, op. cit., II, 213. 71 Miquel i Verges, op. cit., p. 37.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

301

being the first paper of the patriot cause and the first in Guadalajara. When Hidalgo was forced to abandon Guadalajara in January, 1811, Father Maldonado fled and in March accepted amnesty from the royalist commander.2 The itustrador Nacional, published in Sultepec, the headquarters of Ignacio Rayon, was the second revolutionary newspaper, appearing about fourteen months after the lapse of Hidalgo's organ. Publication was under the direction of the Rev. Dr. Jose Cos, assisted by a prebendary of the collegiate church of Guadalupe, Dr. Francisco Velasco. From their establishment, which they called "La Imprenta de la Nacion," the two clergymen issued documents and manifestos in addition to their journal. The editorials of the paper were strongly worded and denounced the viceroy as a new Robespierre, atheist, materialist, and Mason.73 A third newspaper, the Itustrador Americanw, began publication after the procurement of new type, and the two clerics aided Andres Quintana Roo, a layman, with his proselytizing organ, the Seminario Patriotico, Americano. Both the Seminario and the Itustrador declined about the same time as did the political power of Ignacio Rayon, who suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the royalists and was weakened by dissension among his own followers. Morelos, too, was convinced of the need of the press to spread ideas of independence to all parts of Mexico. Like Ray6on, he placed in charge a clergyman, Dr. Jose de Herrera, a former royalist chaplain. Dr. Herrera, using the printing shop of a sympathetic priest of Oaxaca, founded the Correo Americcno del Sur. The paper served the revolutionists from February to December, 1813.74 Even during the dark days of 1817 the insurgents attempted to continue publication of an official periodical. In the governing junta at the Fort of Jaujillo in Michoacan, Dr. Jose San Martin, a canon of the cathedral church of Oaxaca, was in charge of the rebel press. From March to October of 1817 he published the Gaceta del Gobierno Provisional Mexicano de las Provincias del Poniente. In July Dr. San Martiln and other officials visited Francisco X. Mina who had pushed inland. Mina joined forces with the junta of Jaujillo, and both went down to defeat in October. Mina and Dr. San Martin were captured by the royalists; the revolution was virtually over.75 From the defeat of Mina in 1817 to the beginning of 1821 there
72 Juan B. Iguiniz, Apuntes biogrdficos del Dr. D. Francisco Severo Maldonado (Mexico, 1911), pp. 134-139. 'I Miquel i Verges, op. cit., p. 65. 74 Ibid., pp. 61-83, 113-119, 169-177. *6 Ibid., pp. 203-209.

302

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

was no insurgent paper. Iturbide, however, realized the importance of the press in winning converts to his cause. He obtained the use of the press in Puebla from Father Joaquin Furlong, provost of the Congregation of St. Philip Neri. On this machine were printed the Plan of Iguala and the manifestos which accompallied it. 76 Returning from Puebla with the imprints, Iturbide's agents picked up Dr. Herrera in Cholula where he was living in retirement. The press itself arrived sometime later from Puebla, and a newspaper, El Mejicano Independiente, began life with Dr. Herrera in charge. Several other journals made their appearance in the next few moliths, but all seem to have been conducted by laymen. In the Liberal phase of the revolution the revolutionary press was almost exclusively in the hands of the clergy, but in the final alid Conservative phase the press favorinig indepeiidence was dominated by laymen. The contribution of the clergy to the insurgent press points up an interesting situation in that many of the lower clergy were in sympathy with the ideas of the Enlightenment, at least in the fields of politics and economics, if not in the field of religion. These men attempted to carry out the plans of the revolution without surrendering their basic religious or philosophical beliefs. Morelos and his followers drew up the liberal Constitution of Apatzingan guaranteeing political liberty and certain individual rights, but they also invited the Jesuits to reenter the country to conduct educational and missionary work.77 They included articles in the constitution which established the Catholic Church to the exelusion of all others and punished heresy and apostasy with loss of citizenship.78 In Yucatan a more coliscious attemuptwas made to reconcile the differences between the old religion and the new philosophy when a small group of priests and laymen formed the Asociacion de San Juan, at first a purely religious society. Within a few years the association had become a social and political club, and some of the newer members began to call themselves Liberals, since they adhered to the ideas of the Liberal party of the Cortes of Cadiz.79 These men received the constitution of 1812 enthusiastically, and the movement spread rapidly in the peninsula. Upon the return of Ferdinand VII, however, the founder of the association was confined to a convent, and other members were imprisoned for several years. The association was reorganized in 1812, but was immediately infiltrated by Masons. The
Ibid., p. 248. Alaman op. cit., III, 570-571. Constitution of Apatzingan, Hernandez y Davalos, op cit., V, 703-704. Ancona, Historia de Yucatdn desde la 6poca mnas remota hasta 79 Eligio nuestros dias (4 vols., Barcelona, 1889), III, 20-22.
76 77 78

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

303

latter favored adherence to Spain, while the clergy and their associates favored independence under Iturbide. After some agitation, unity with Mexico was proclaimed in Yucatan.80 Many priests aided the war for independence spiritually by accompanying the troops as chaplains. These priests celebrated Mass and administered the sacraments, thereby ignoring the thunderbolts of excommunication hurled against them and their spiritual charges by the hierarchy and the Inquisition. Other clergymen acted as diplomats, and one of them journeyed to the United States in 1812 as an agent of Rayon to ascertain American views on Mexican independence. En route to Washington, the agent, Father Peredo, picked up the false information that Archbishop Carroll of Baltimore was a Papal Legate with faculties for all North America. Although this news was relayed to the rebel chieftains, they were never able to verify it since the ports of New Spain were closed to them. The attempt to make contact with Archbishop Carroll was abandoned by 1816.81 In addition to giving such active support as has been cited above, many other ecclesiastics were passively sympathetic to the insurrection. An excellent example is contained in the reports of Father Sim6n Mora to the Inquisitor, Ruiz de Molina. Father Mora had been commissioned to post the notices of excommunication issued by the Inquisition, the archbishop, and Bishop-elect Abad y Queipo in the Intendency of Guanajuato. He related in December, 1810, that in the towns of Celaya and San Miguel el Grande the edicts were cursed by the clergy, the priests of his college were called Jews and heretics, the bishop-elect of Valladolid was called a heretic, and confessions heard by gachupines were declared null.82 Within two weeks the Inquisition ordered Father Mora to compile a report on the persons who were condemning the edicts against Hidalgo.83 Accordingly, he gathered a list of names and statements by which he demonstrated to his own satisfaction that there was widespread discontent in the area with the measures taken by the upper clergy against the rebels. Though his information was for the most part taken from secondary sources, this loyalist priest presents an imposing picture of disaffected clergy, even if we take inito account some measure of exaggeration.84
Ibid., III, 37-38, 114-121, 188-189. Medina Aseensio, op. cit., I, 30-32, 36-42. 82 Father Simon Mora to Ruiz de Molina, December 20, 1810, Hernhndez y Dsvalos, op. cit., I, 97. 8S Orders of the Inquisitioni to Father Sim6n Mora, January 2, 1811, Herndndez y Davalos, op. cit., I, 99-100. 8" Report of Father Simon Mora to the Inquisition, February 22, 1811, Hernandez y Davalos, op. cit., I, 101-103.
88 81

304

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

Granting that the lower clergy took a prominent part in leading the revolution, there still remains the question of how mally became actively involved. Estimates range from that of Gareia and Pereyra, who held that the lower clergy were genlerally loyal, to those of Cuevas and Lea who calculated that three-fourths to four-fifths of the lower clergy were partisans of independenee. Most other historians assume the a general cleavage betMTeen upper and the lower clergy. Without doubt, all are exaggerations. The total number of clergymen in the documents of Gareia and Pereyra amounts to less than one hundred, not counting 289 priests of Puebla who, with their bishop, pledged practisupport to the viceroy.85 Furthermore, of these one huLndred, cally all were stationed in the Intendency of Mexico, and the majority in the northern half of the intendency.86 No final conclusions can be drawn from such restricted figures, especially since the important Intendeley of Guadalajara is completely ignored. Cuevas based his figures on the total known killed up to 1815, and computed them at 5 percent of the number captured. He added to this the clergymen involved in other campaigns, and by this method estimated that 6000 out of 8000 clergy joined the rebellion. However, 5 percent seems too low an estimate of the number killed, given the bitterness of the conflict. Not one of these accounts considered the possibility that many, perhaps a majority, of the lower clergy were neutral, or at least had no strong sentiments for either side. Only through further research in local history can their position become known. A few examples are available, however. On September 16, 1810, the day on which the revolt began, Captain Allende demanded the surrender of all Spaniards in the town of San Miguel. The curate and other priests of the place pleaded for leniency. Fearing that the revolt had religious as well as political implications, the curate forbade the celebration of Mass, even though the sixteenth was a Sulnday.7 Allende, however, gave the clergy of San Miguel complete assurance that the faith and its priests and churches would be defended, and that there would be no changes in the liturgy. Accordingly, when the rebels reorganized the town government, the names of the curate and another priest of San Miguel were to be fouind on the Committee for Police, apparently cooperating with the patriots.8
85See note 25 infra.
86

1 in Zacatecas 3 in Guanajuato 3 in southern Mexico 3 in San Luis Potosi c. 15 in central Mexico Remainder in northern Mexico 88 Ibid., pp. 148-149. De la Maza, op. cit., p. 136.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

305

The subsequent history of San Miguel to 1821 shows that its clergy were politically submissive to whatever authority held power. In October of 1810 loyalist forces recaptured the town. The welcoming committee consisted of the curate and other clergymen, but when the towil fell a second time, on September 30, 1812, to the patriot army all the clergy, secular as well as regular, offered their services. A solemn Te Deum was chanted, and a fiesta held.89 In May of 1814, with the town again in loyalist hands, all dutifully swore to the Spanish Constitution of 1812 following religious services. When Iturbide proclaimed the Plan of Iguala, the municipal leaders, including the curate, wrote the viceroy pledging their allegiance to Spain. Finally, however, when there arrived an envoy of a rebel general, the townspeople, lay and clerical alike, quietly submitted and adhered to the Plan of Iguala.90 On the negative side, too, a strong argument can be made for the widespread neutrality of many of the lower clergy. Of the approximately ten thousand clergy in New Spain at the time of the rebellion, perhaps one thousand are known by name to have participated actively on one side or the other. Of the nine thousand unaccounted for at least half were never called upon to take sides one way or the other since the revolt did not extend to all parts of New Spain. Included in this group were almost two thousand clergy in Mexico City alone. In the cases which Garcia and Pereyra cite, the loyal curates who were forced to flee their parishes mention in their complaints to the archbishop that they left in charge vicars and other priests. Presumably, these individuals were neutral since they were acceptable to the rebels, and still had the confidence of the loyal curates. Moreover, of 289 priests to Puebla who signed the loyalty pledge of October, 1810, it is impossible to ascertain how many were sufficiently interested in the affair to offer real aid should it be demanded, and how many initialed the document solely out of obedience to, or pressure from, the bishop. When news of the Riego revolt in Spain and of the readoption of the Constitution of 1812 arrived in Mexico in April, 1820, those among the lower clergy who favored independence apparently were little effected, but the hierarchy became somewhat apprehensive. The Inquisition, however, for the second time offered no opposition to dissolution, ceased functioning of its own accord, and quietly turned its archives over to the archbishop. The archbishop and his cathedral chapter swore adherence to the constitution on June 1, and from the
89 Gaceta del Gobierno en el Departamento reproduced in Miquel i Verges, op. cit., p. 153. IO De la Maza, op. cit., p. 176.

del Norte, September 30, 1812,

306

HAHR

I AUGUST

I KARL M. SCHMITT

second to the eighth of that month, the tribunals and offices, colleges, and religious communities of both men and women did likewise. June 9 was declared the day of solemn proclamation, and by the end of the month the Acordada and other privileged courts had ceased their work. The administration of justice was reorganized as the Cortes had decreed.91 Archbishop Fonte, in a pastoral letter "as much the fruit of his weakness and good faith, as of his ingenuous fidelity to the Monarch, "92 indicated his intention to comply with the orders of the king. On June 7, the archdeacon of Michoacan exhorted the people to swear to the constitution,93 while in Puebla Bishop Perez also counseled acceptance. Bishop Perez found himself somewhat compromised by his participation in the dissolution of the previous Cortes, and by his warm commendation of the Brief of Pius VII in 1816. Nevertheless, in his pastoral of June 27, 1820, he declared that the constitution contained nothing injurious to religion.94 Archbishop Fonte concurred in an edict of July 18 and proceeded to defend each disputed point of the constitution: the suppression of the Inquisition, freedom of the press, and the principles of political liberty and equality. He also ordered the clergy of Mexico to refrain from discussing politics from the pulpit, reminding them that their duties were to instruct the people in truths of greater import, and that in so doing they were rendering the civil authorities their best service.95 It is evident, then, that the general policy of the hierarchy to the middle of July, 1820, was one of coZperation with, and continued loyalty to, the mother country. On July 9 the Cortes convened in Spain, and by the end of October had suppressed the Jesuits and confiscated their property, had removed the ecclesiastical fuero, and had suppressed several monasteries, including some in New Spain.96 By mid-October it was known in Mexico that these proposals were under consideration, and in all probability this news persuaded some of the higher clergy that independence might be preferable to continued union with an anti-clerical Spain. It does seem certain, moreover, that several high-ranking clerical advisers of the viceroy persuaded him early in November to appoint a creole army officer to the comAlam!an, op cit., VI 17-19. Medina Ascensio, op. cit., II, 63. of Dr. Manuel de la Bareena of Valladolid, June 7, 1820, Jesuds 93 Exhortation Guzman y Raz Guzman, Bibliografia de la independencia de Mexico (2 vols., Mexico, 1937-1939), II, 256. op. cit., V, 20-21. 94 Alaman, 96 Edict of Archbishop Fonte of Mexico, July 18, 1820, F. H. Vera, Documentos eclesidsticos de Mexico (3 vols., Amecameca, 1887), II, 341-347. 9G Alaman, op. cit., V, 27-30.
91
92

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

307

mand of the armies of New Spain, ostensibly to crush the last rebel forces in the southern mountains. The viceroy had been duped, for his advisers aiid his new commander, Agustin Iturbide, had been plotting inidependence, and concluded that the best method was to control the army.97 Unfortunately, very little seems to be known definitely concerning these conispirators surrounding the viceroy. One author holds that the viceroy himself called the group together at the convent of La Profesa of the Congregation of St. Philip Neri, in order to consult with the best men to plan the implementation of the Spanish constitutioii. 98 Other authorities state that the real organizer was Dr. Matias Monteagudo of the Congregation of St. Philip Neri, a trusted counselor of the viceroy. Associated with him were Dr. de la Barcena, the archdeacon of Michoacan, Fray Mariano Lo6pezBravo y Pimentel, Miguel Bataller, the audditorde guerra, the ex-inquisitor Tirado, and most of the conservative Europeans.99 The first appearance of unrest among the clergy in New Spain occurred in the diocese of Puebla. Clandestine meetings of the clergy were held, and requests poured in to the viceroy to suspend the anticlerical laws. The vicar-general and the bishop were said to be sympathetic,100and the latter was even in the confidence of Iturbide,101who demonstrated his faith in the bishop by leaving his wife and children in his care during the campaign.102 By early November, then, a conservative plot was underway to accomplish independence, a plot conducted by influential, resourceful, and skillful leaders. By that time, too, importanit changes had taken place in the thinking of certain members of the conservative clergy toward independence which they had been vigorously opposing up to that time. But what brought this change in outlook so soon after the declarations of loyalty to Spain and to the Constitution? One cause, no doubt, was the abuse of freedom of the press as practiced in New Spain ;103 another was probably the reports of the proposals before the Cortes concerning confiscation of church property, and the restrictions of ecclesiastical privileges and on the monastic orders. Some of the
917

Cuevas, Historia de la iglesia en M6xico, V, 100; Alaman, op. cit., V, 50-51. Alaman, op. cit., V, 38-39. 101 A. Carri6n, Historia de ba ciudad de Puebla de los Angeles (Puebla de Zaragoza) (2 vols., Puebla, 1896-1897), II, 288-289. 102 Wm. S. Robertson, Iturbide of Mexico (Durhain, 1952), p. 98. 109 Freedom of the press released a torrent of abuse against the peninsular Spaniards. This violence of feeling may have led to the inclusion of the guarantee of equality for both peninsular and American Spaniards in the Plan of Iguala.
t00

I bid ., V, 45, 67. 98A. Teja Zabre, Guide to the History of Mexico (Mexico, 1935), p. 261.

308

HAHR

I AUGUST

I KARL M. SCHMITT

clergy, as Mecham has said, no doubt "conscientiously interpreted the acts of the Spanish Cortes as an attack on dogmatic religion. " 104 The fact, too, that a plan was conceived which would reconcile their break from the mother country with their sworn loyalty to the person of the monarch probably encouraged the loyal clergy to alter their opinions on independence in 1820 and 1821. This was the Plan of Iguala, proclaimed in February of the latter year by Iturbide, which provided that Catholicism was to be the state religion; that Europeans and Americans were to be equal in the new state; and that, although Mexico was to be independent from Spain, the crown of Mexico was to be offered to Ferdinand VII. It is also likely that such a position was no longer considered radical, since for the past ten years there had been continuous agitation and discussion on the matter of independence. Secondly, the remaining rebels were far less radical than in Hidalgo's time, and although not entirely respectable, by agreeing to the compromises of the Plan of Iguala became more acceptable than the Liberals in Spain. Finally, the clergy were aware that in any compromise with the rebels, the conservative Iturbide would hold the dominant position owing to his control of the army. The conservative clergy could accept independence since their party would be predominant. These views are pure conjecture, and until further evidence comes to light, the problem will have to rest at this poilnt. At any rate, the Plan of Iguala was acceptable to all groups in New Spain except for a few Liberal loyalists and radical rebels centered nmostlyaroulnd Mexico City. The Plan did not mneetwith the ecclesiastical condemnations which greeted the Constitution of Apatzingan of 1814, though their religious provisions were similar.105 In the nieantimle, the clergy as a body had been well prepared for this documient for, during Janluary, the anticlerical laws had been published in Mexico, among which were orders for the closing of the coiivents and for the expulsion of the Jesuits. The latter decree was a serious blunder on the part of the Cortes. The bishop of Guadalajara, who as early as December of 1820 had advanced Iturbide 25,000 pesos for the support of the army,106published a pastoral letter against As yet no open episcopal support was given Iturthese nlew laws.107 bide, but an indicatioll that the tide was turnilg was the fact that the condemnlatioll of his acts by the viceroy was seconded by only one
104 J. L. Mechani, Church andi State in Latin- America (Chapel Hill, 1934), pp. 395-396. 105 See the CoIistitutioil of Apatzingan (Hernandez y Davalos, op. cit., V, 703720) and the Plan of Iguala (Alam'an, op. cit., V, appendix, 9-10. "I Robertson, op. cit., p. 57. 07 Alaman, op. cit., V, 39-40.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

309

vote of clerical approval, that of Archbishop Fionte, who remained loyal to Spain to the end. In March, when the viceroy requested the archbishop to inform his clergy of the defection of Iturbide, the prelate replied affirmatively, adding that he had been constantly instructing his curates and vicars that they owed obedience to the lawful authorities.'08 The first case in which a member of the hierarchy openly supported the independence movement came early in the spring of 1821 when Bishop Cabanias of Guadalajara requested the viceroy to examine Iturbide's proposals in the Plan of Iguala.109 The bishop demonstrated his complete allegialnce to the cause of independence on JuLne 23 when a Mass of Thanksgiving was celebrated in his cathedral for the victories of the patriot army. Within two weeks the celebrationi was followed by a similar action in the convent of San Francisco in Queretaro, where the sermon in favor of independence was preached by the vicar forane."10 By August the bishop of Puebla announieed his support, while the bishop of Guadalajara ordered the arrest of the Carmelite prior, and forced him to retract statements against in inidependenee which he had made in a sermnon the cathedral on the Feast of the Assumption.11' By this time the suecess of the revolutionl was assured, and oni August 24 the new viceroy, Juan O'Donoju, signed the Treaty of Cordoba with Iturbide. The Spanish Cortes repudiated the agreement, but was unable to offev -ilitary opposition. When Iturbide elntered MIexico City on September 27, 1821, the revolution was over and independeniee woln to all intents anid purposes. In the meantime a provincial deputation in Y-ucatan conisistinlg of civil and ecclesiastical notables was convenied by the captaiin-general, and on Septeimber 15 proclaimed adherelnce to the Plan of Iguala.112 The achievement of independence placed Archbishop Fonte in a delicate anid difficult position. During the summer of 1821 whenl he saw that the end of Spailish rule was approaching, he was faced with the alterniative of recognizing and swearing obedieniee to the new regime, or of retirinig from the country. His deep attachmenlt to the kilng inielined him to the latter course, but Viceroy O 'Donoj'i coutnseled him to renmain. He agreed, but indicated that he would return to
108 J. Garcia Gutikrrez, Apuntes para la historia del oriigen y desenvolvi'iiento del regio patronzto indiano basta 1857 (Mexieo, 1941), p. 282. 109 Robertson, op. cit., pp. 80-81. 110IIEj6reito imperial mnejicalnodle las tres garauitlas, papel volalite No. 9,'' Quer6taro, July 5, 1821, Geniaro Garcia, Docuinentos hist6ricos mexicanos (7 vols., Mexieo, 1910), Vol. IV. Alamali, op. cit., V, 258-259. 112C. Gutierrez, "Efemerides de Mhrida de Yueatdn, 1798-1822,' Boletin cel Archivo Genteral de la Naci6n, XII (1941), pp. 685-692.

310

HAHR

I AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

Spain if Ferdinand refused to accept the Treaty of C6rdoba.1"3 This attitude obliged the archbishop to communicate as little as possible with the independence leaders."14 When Iturbide triumphantly entered Mexico City, the archbishop exhorted his clergy to accept the new government, reminding them that he had always counseled obedience to the civil authorities.1"5 Furthermore, despite his opposition to independence, he received Iturbide at the entrance of the cathedral, coilducted him inside, and then had a solemn Te Deum intoned in thanksgiving for the victory."6 The following day a regency was elected to serve until it could be determined whether or not Ferdinand would accept the proffered crown. When O 'Donoju, the last Spanish viceroy, died in October, the bishop of Puebla took his seat in the regency, and Archbishop Fonte was chosen to preside. The archbishop declinied the offer on grounds of health. He had already withdrawn from the capital, taking up his residence at Cuernavaca, ostensibly for the same reason. Ultimately, he returned to Spain, but his suffragans continued to cooperate with the new regime. Onlelast word needs to be said concerning the Holy See. The role of the Papacy in the independence movement in New Spain seems to have been a minor one. Although the members of the Mexican hierarchy were substantially in agreement with Rome during the four years followinig the Brief of 1816, and demonstrated a hostile reaction to Liberal Spain in 1820, their attitude seems to have been influenced by personal views rather than by any statement of policy from Rome. This is evident from the fact that the bishops and the higher clergy, with the exception of the archbishop, disavowed their allegiance to Spain in 1821 before any change in the Papal attitude could have become known. Moreover, it can be seen that this change in attitude was more radical than the Pope 's. While relations between Spain and the Holy See were not finally broken until 1823, those between Spain ancd Mlexico were broken two years earlier with the full approval of the upper clergy, save for the one exception noted above. Eveen in that case, Archbishop Fonte's objections to Mexican inldepelndence stemmed more from his deep attachment and personlal loyalty to the king rather than from Papal influence. in conclusion, then, it may be said that the hierarchy and the uDDer
lr3 Pedro Jos6 Fonte y Hernalndez, Representaci6n del Ilimo. Sr. Arzobispo de M6xico concerniente a algunos sucesos anteriores a la independencia proclamada en aquella capital (Habanla, 1822), pp. 41-42. 114 Medina Asceeisio op. cit., II, 63. 115 Garcia Gutierrez, op. cit., p. 282. 11I '"Relaci6n d( la entrada de Iturbide a M6xico y de otros sucesos,'' Boletin del Archivo General de la Naci6n, X (1939), p. 485.

THE

CLERGY AND THE INDEPENDENCE

OF NEW

SPAIN

311

clergy were on the whole consistent in their opposition to "liberalism," even to the point of separating a conservative-controlled Mexico from a liberal-governed Spain in 1820. They tried to be consistent, too, in their loyalty to the king and to the Bourbon dynasty by offering the Mexicani crown to Ferdinand VII or to a inember of his family. The lower clergy divided sharply in their reactions to the rebellion. An important segment joined the insurrection, anld led the mass uprising of the early period. The backward Indians produced no leaders of their own, and the laymen among the intellectuals in New Spain who formed the disaffected group that would furnish leadership were not in touch with the lower elements of society. There was only one group that had at least a modicum of education, and yet formed a real tie with the masses-that group was the lower clergy. Until 1815 curates provided the over-all military comnmand,and throughout the struggle members of the clergy were to be found among the patriot forces in both leading and subordinate roles. By 1817 many had been eliminated through execution or amnesty, but those who survived continued to be sympathetic, and some became active once more under Iturbide. The value of their work in propaganda is ilncalculable. From Hidalgo to Mina they practically monopolized the field of rebel journalism, and even uncderIturbide several contributed to the insurgent press. The lower clergy, too, were the only ones who could soothe the consciences of their ignorant countrymen when the decrees of excommunication were hurled against them. Had the lower clergy opposed en masse, the rebellion of 1810 would have been only a minor affair, and the whole course of the Mexican movement for independence have been changed. wouLld Mainy others of the lower clergy remained loyal to Spain. They did not, however, play as important a role in the royalist cause as their rebellious confreres played in the patriot. Though a few led loyal troops in the field, most seemed to lack the dedication and selfsacrifice of their opponents. An important deterrent of course was the chuLrch's opposition to military activity by the clergy, but probably the moist imiportant factor was simply that the loyal lower clergy were not as essential in the intellectual, spiritual, or military leadership of their cause as the rebel lower clergy in theirs. Finally, a nmajorityof the lower clergy were probably neutral in the struggle. If they had some slight sentiment for one side or the other, they were unwilling to risk their lives or their fortunes by opposingothe party in power. If San Miguel el Grande is typical, most of the lower clergy in the area of the rebellion submitted to whatever side held power at a given moment. It must be remembered,

312

HAHR

AUGUST

KARL M. SCHMITT

too that thousands of the clergy were never called upon to take a stand since the rebellion did not spread to all parts of New Spain. Not unltil minlute research is made into local histories of many towns aild provinices of Mexico will the full story be made knownl as to the exact sentiments of these clergymen.