For all practical purposes, where class rivalry was involved, these racial groups were reducible to three, namely, the Spaniard, the Creole and wealthier Mestizo, the lower class Mestizo and the Indian. The first element comprised the aristocracy of the land. Though constituting only one-seventieth of the population they were the dominant factor in the government, and through their official position were able to amass royal fortunes by the misuse of public revenues, the sale of political favors, the manipulation of commerce, the control of land and other natural resources. So universal was the practice of filling the higher colonial positions with Spanish officials that only four of the sixty odd viceroys who ruled over Mexico from Mendoza to O'Donojú were native born. The Creoles (who outnumbered the Gachupines 14 to 1) and wealthier Mestizoes, many of whom were mine owners, hacendados, and powerful merchants, monopolized, like the Spaniards, the resources and wealth of the country. Between them and the Spaniards there were deep-seated sources of friction regarding political preferment and social superiority; yet there was no more real sympathy for the great mass of the common people of the land on the part of this second class than on the part of the first. To put the matter bluntly, the Creoles and wealthier Mestizoes would gladly have seen the European-born Spaniards withdrawn from Mexico, leaving in their own hands a complete monopoly of the government and wealth of the country; but they had no intention whatever of sharing either the political or economic advantage thus obtained with the people as a whole. The lower class Mestizoes and Indians, who constituted at least ninety per cent of the population, possessed neither unity, education, property, nor even complete personal freedom. Three centuries of Spanish rule had not given them any conception of the duties and responsibilities of self-government; it had not changed in any essential their native characteristics; it had not extinguished, though it had partially smothered, their instinctive readiness to revolt; it had not welded them in any respect into a law-abiding, unified, property-respecting people. Thus, between the first two classes in control of the government and the wealth of Mexico, and the vast bulk of the population, there was a great gulf fixed, with no middle class to give the country strength, stability, and soundness in its national life. This unfortunate situation, from which Mexico has not yet freed herself, was well pictured to the crown by the bishop of Michoacán in 1799. The Indians and the castes (lower class Mestizoes) cultivate the soil," he wrote; "they are in the service of the better class of people.... Hence there results between the Indians and the whites that opposition of interests, and that mutual hatred, which universally takes place between those who possess all and those who possess nothing, between masters and those who live in servitude. Thus we see, on the one hand, the effects of envy and discord, deception, thefts, and the inclination to prejudice the interests of the rich; about $13,000,000, and exports $22,000,000. Agriculture yielded approximately $15,000,000. Various forms of taxes brought into the royal treasury some $20,000,000 yearly. Yet despite these evidences of prosperity, signs were not lacking of a serious weakening of Spanish control. The government at Madrid had already lost most of the prestige it had gained during the reign of Charles III. In 1790 the Nootka Sound controversy, in which the French alliance-so long the cardinal element of Spain's foreign policy-proved but a broken reed, forced a definite relinquishment of Spain's claims to the northwest coast. A few years later with the rise of Napoleon to power, Spain sank into a mere appanage of France, and the welfare of Mexico, as of other Spanish colonies, became entirely submerged in the turbid stream of European politics. In Mexico, this French entanglement resulted in multiplied taxes and other exactions and in the diversion of funds from colonial objects to supply the ever-increasing demands of the home government. The cession of Louisiana to Napoleon and its subsequent sale to the United States was but another indication of the evil consequences, from the colonial standpoint, of Spain's subservient French policy. Abuses in government, some of which Charles III had sought to correct, became even more pronounced. Indian forays on the frontier went on unchecked. Along the California coast, in Florida, and especially across the Mississippi, American adventurers began to threaten the continuance of Spanish rule. In short, whatever advantage and protection Mexico had enjoyed under Spain's sovereignty since the time of Cortés, was fast disappearing as the first decade of the nineteenth century neared its close. Racial Intermixtures and Rivalry: As Spain's control over Mexico grew weaker, numerous factors within the colony began the work of revolution with unexpected and startling success. One of the chief sources of discontent was the bitter rivalry that obtained between the various classes of the population. The intermarriage of Spaniards and Indians, owing to the dearth of white women, was an essential element of Spain's colonial policy. This, and the introduction of negroes, had given rise to some six or seven racial intermixtures. These, to use the classification of Humboldt, included the following groups: 1. Gachupines or Chapetones, Spaniards born in Europe. of Spai es and r 3. Mestizoes, the descendants of Spanish and Indian blood. Mulattoes, a mixture of negro and white. 5. Zamboes, the offspring of Indian and negro. 4. in any es shed, thou *to revolt ding, unifie wo classes and the v A with no and soundi. From which the crown Caps and the They are in th etween the In hatred, whic e who posse Thus we see, o and the inc Asiatics brought over by the Philippine Island trade (a, 6. Negroes. 7. Indians. HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY 35 For all practical purposes, where class rivalry was involved, resources. The Creoles (who outnumbered the Gachupines 14 to 1) and wealthier Mestizoes, many of whom were mine owners, hacendados, and powerful merchants, monopolized, like the Spaniards, the resources and wealth of the country. Between them and the Spaniards there were deep-seated sources of friction regarding political preferment and social superiority; yet there was no more real sympathy for the great mass of the common people of the land on the part of this second class than on the part of the first. To put the matter bluntly, the Creoles and wealthier Mestizoes would gladly have seen the European-born Spaniards withdrawn from Mexico, leaving in their own hands a complete monopoly of the government and wealth of the country; but they had no intention whatever of sharing either the political r economic advantage thus obtained with the people as a whole. The lower class Mestizoes and Indians, who constituted at ast ninety per cent of the population, possessed neither unity, lucation, property, nor even complete personal freedom. Three nturies of Spanish rule had not given them any conception of e duties and responsibilities of self-government; it had not anged in any essential their native characteristics; it had not tinguished, though it had partially smothered, their instinctive adiness to revolt; it had not welded them in any respect into law-abiding, unified, property-respecting people. Thus, between first two classes in control of the government and the wealth Mexico, and the vast bulk of the population, there was a great fixed, with no middle class to give the country strength, ability, and soundness in its national life. This unfortunate uation, from which Mexico has not yet freed herself, was well tured to the crown by the bishop of Michoacán in 1799. The Indians and the castes (lower class Mestizoes) cultivate the soil," Tote; "they are in the service of the better class of people.... Hence e results between the Indians and the whites that opposition of interests, that mutual hatred, which universally takes place between those who posall and those who possess nothing, between masters and those who live ritude. Thus we see, on the one hand, the effects of envy and discord, tion, thefts, and the inclination to prejudice the interests of the rich; Be 2 ne ish ub eal nese the algo, 1 sinjan to il outbefore lans by >nspira and on the other, arrogance, severity, and the desire of taking every moment advantage of the helplessness of the Indian. I am not ignorant that these evils everywhere spring from great inequality of condition. But in America they are rendered still more terrific, because there exists no intermediate state; we are rich or ignorant, noble or degraded by the laws or the force of opinion."' Additional Sources of Friction: Besides the rivalry between the wealthier native-born Mexicans and the Spanish officials, and the far more significant, though as yet scarcely articulate discontent of the common people because of their social and economic degradation, there were other factors in Mexico that presaged a swift upheaval, unless radical changes should be made. before the century grew much older. The church, like the civil government, was almost entirely in the hands of Spanish favorites, and here, as in secular affairs, there was too wide a gulf between the higher and the lower orders. The parish priests, taken from the ranks of the humbler people, drew but a mere pittance by way of salary; while in contrast, the archbishop enjoyed an annual revenue of $130,000; the bishop of Puebla received $110,000; the bishop of Valladolid, $100,000; and the bishop of Guadalajara, $90,000. In addition, the church, as the greatest money lending agency in the kingdom, had incurred the ill-will of those whose property it had taken over through mortgage foreclosure; while its enormous land holdings, comprising, according to some authorities, more than a fourth of the entire area of the country, had become an object of envy to a certain element of the population, and the basis of legitimate fear to the rest. Tithes and other ecclesiastical exactions added still further to the bill of complaints; while the repressive policy in intellectual matters, adhered to since the introduction of the Inquisition in 1571, alienated the small but influential body of liberal thinkers who were beginning to make their appearance at the close of the century. The commercial policy of Spain, already spoken of, the corruption in government, the multitude of taxes, direct and indirect, the restriction on free economic development of the country, the feudal position occupied by the privileged classes, and the temporal power of the church were furthermore the object of attack by all those whose minds had felt the stimulating influence of the American and French revolutions. The Beginning of the War of Independence: Yet despite these favorable conditions for revolt, Spain, either by the use of force or through the adoption of reforms, might conceivably have continued her hold on Mexico had she possessed complete freedom of action in her own affairs. But this, in 1810, she by no means enjoyed. The abdication of Charles IV in favor of his son, Ferdinand VII, had been followed by the seizure of the Spanish throne by Napoleon on behalf of his brother Joseph. The result was a division among the Spanish populace. A small coterie supported the French usurper, but most of the nation, first led by a central Junta and afterwards under the direction of a regency, defied the government of Napoleon and entered upon a long struggle for national independence. The effect of this movement against the crown in Spain affected very profoundly the course of events in Mexico, where conditions were already ripe for revolution. In the first place, the glamour and awe with which the person of the sovereign had previously been surrounded by his overseas subjects was now destroyed, leaving the colony bound to Spain by physical force alone. A division also occurred in Mexico as in Spain, between those who favored Joseph and those who sought to return the former dynasty to power. The Spaniards, mostly office-holders as they were, generally acknowledged allegiance to the French party; while the Mexicans and Creoles took the opposite position. To the viceroy, Iturrigaray, who was then in power, the situation presented a critical dilemma. Rather than deal with it alone, he accordingly summoned a Junta or assembly in which, for the first time in Mexican history, the popular will was promised some measure of expression concerning an issue involving the entire kingdom. But before this Junta could be held, the audiencia, representing the Spanish party, imprisoned Iturrigaray, chose the archbishop, Lizana, viceroy in his stead and set themselves to govern the country. A number of the Creoles most active in calling the Junta, were also thrown into jail or exiled from the country; organizations were formed in many provinces to suppress any attempt at revolution; and allegiance was professed to the popular party in Spain. Thus in various ways the Creoles and wealthier Mestizoes, who saw in Iturrigaray's plan an opportunity for rising to political power, were driven into renouncing all connection with Spain and agitating a movement for independence. Hidalgo: But the real impetus of revolution was not to come from the more influential Mexicans, aspiring to displace Spanish officials with members of their own party, but from the submerged Indian and Mestizo population, instigated by a few zealous, patriotic, and fairly well educated leaders. Chief of these was Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a parish priest or cura, in the little town of Dolores in the province of Guanajuato. Hidalgo, widely read in the literature of the French Revolution and sincerely interested in the welfare of the common people, began to intrigue in various quarters some months before the actual outbreak of his revolt. The latter, indeed, was precipitated before its time because of the premature discovery of Hidalgo's plans by the authorities. But before the officers could seize the conspira |