THE UNITED STATES AND THE SPANISH

AMERICAN COLONIES.

BY M. ROMERO, MEXICAN MINISTER TO THE UNITED STATES.

I FEEL under deep obligations to Senator Money for his able article published in the NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for September, 1897, in answer to one of mine which appeared in the July number, because it gives me the opportunity to dispel certain misunderstandings and set myself right in this case..

But before proceeding further I desire to make a short statement as to how my article originated. Dr. Ricardo Becerra, a very distinguished man of letters from Colombia, South America, who for several years represented his country at Washington, and who is now living at Caracas, Venezuela, wrote recently a biography of General Don Francisco de Miranda, the principal promoter of the independence of the Spanish colonies of South America. I found in Dr. Becerra's book valuable information, that had not come to my knowledge before, about the work done in Europe in the latter part of the eighteenth century by native Americans and Spanish Jesuits, whom the father of the then reigning King of Spain had previously expelled from his dominions in America, to establish the independence of the Spanish colonies on this continent. I found that the promoters of that cause professed to act in behalf of all the Spanish colonies of America, including Mexico, and as I was sure that Mexico had not been represented at the meetings which were held in Europe in the last quarter of the 18th century, I determined to rectify that statement, and with that purpose in view I wrote an article to vindicate the historical truth in regard to that important event in Spanish American history.

When I began to write my paper I found that the course which the United States pursued towards the revolted colonies

of Spain during their struggle for independence had a close connection with my subject, and about the same time, on January 11, 1897, Senator Hale, of Maine, presented to the Senate a paper entitled "Power to Recognize the Independence of a New State," which was published by order of the Senate, as Senate Document Number 56, Fifty-fourth Congress, Second Session. That paper, which in my opinion had been prepared at the State Department, contained a concise statement of the policy of the United States government towards the Spanish American republics, written especially with a view to support the contention that such recognition is an executive prerogative, and does not rest with Congress, and showing at the same time that the United States has always acted with deliberation in the recognition of belligerent rights or independence of a new foreign state, and complied faithfully with her international obligations, a fact which shows that the policy of the present and the last administration regarding the disturbances in Cuba is in accordance with the precedents established by the fathers of the country at the beginning of the century. I found a great deal of valuable information collected in that paper, which I included in my article.

Reviewing the subject, I also found that the United States had prevented Mexico and Colombia from carrying to Cuba in 1825 the war against Spain, which in all probability might have resulted in the independence of that island, and thinking that that was a pertinent subject, I also mentioned it in my paper.

I entitled my paper "The Origin of Mexican Independence," which I considered an appropriate title, but when I sent it to the editor of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for publication, he suggested a more comprehensive one, namely, "The United States and the Liberation of the Spanish-American Colonies," and out of deference to his greater knowledge and experience I consented to make the change. This pretentious title caused wider circulation of some passages of the article than would otherwise have been the case, as it was telegraphed all over the country that I had written a paper censuring the United States for not having assisted the Spanish colonies in their war for independence, and for not having permitted Mexico and Colombia to make Cuba independent, when my paper did not contain a word of censure against the United States government, and was only a brief statement of historical facts with quotations from high American

authorities. I thought that the reason for this misunderstanding was the fact that my paper was not read in its entirety by those who telegraph to us press extracts from the same, but only such extracts from it as were thought to be of importance, and thus its object was misapprehended. I was under the impression that anybody who read carefully the whole text could find nothing improper in it, much less disrespectful, either to the United States or to the Spanish government.

I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to see that a man of Senator Money's great abilities should share such views, and it affords me pleasure to have the opportunity of making clear that my article did not contain a word of censure against the United States of America.

Senator Money regards my statement that "this government did not render any material or moral assistance to the cause of independence of the Spanish-American colonies," as a complaint against the United States and considers my assertion to be incorrect. In stating that fact, far from making any complaint against the policy of this government, I on the contrary defended it, by adding that the United States government being at peace with Spain, considered that it would be a breach of neutrality to aid the movement for the establishment of independence in her colonies." I think that every nation is in honor bound to comply with her treaty stipulations and with the provisions of the law of nations, and that a state that is zealous in fulfilling such duties deserves a great deal of commendation, especially if, for any reason whatsoever, it be to its interests or coincide with its views to set aside such obligations.

I also stated that Mexico did not expect any aid from the United States for the simple reason that there was no ground to expect it, and that she depended only on the patriotism of her sons. In my opinion, it is rash to inaugurate a movement for independence relying mainly on foreign assistance, for obvious reasons; and especially because such assistance is a contingency which may fail for various causes. Then the whole movement would fall through, and the cause of independence would thereby suffer greatly and be highly discredited.

I am glad to see that Senator Money's views agree with mine in that a nation should comply with her international obligations when he says: "It must be remembered that the

warning words of Washington in his farewell address against foreign complications were so recent as to have hardly lost their echo, and had, with other causes, induced an exceedingly conservative and cautious foreign policy."

With a view to show that the recognition by the United States was made long after independence had been achieved, I will state briefly when each of the Spanish colonies accomplished its independence.

The independence of South America proper, that is from the Isthmus of Panama to Cape Horn, was accomplished mainly by two great military geniuses, equal to the greatest in the world, assisted, of course, by several very able and distinguished lieutenants. The two great generals were José de San Martin, born in Yapeyú, in 1778, a small town of the Argentine Republic, on the borders of Paraguay, who operated in the southern part of South America, and Simon Bolivar, born in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, on July 25, 1783, whose field of operations covered the northern portion of that continent. Both belonged to distinguished families of Spanish descent, and both had received a military education in Spain and had served with distinction in the Spanish army, having flown to their country's assistance when they heard that independence had been proclaimed. Bolivar was of an impulsive and reckless disposition, and suffered, therefore, many serious defeats, while San Martin, being a much more cautious man, was never defeated.

Buenos Ayres or the Argentine Republic, as it is now called, had not only practically established her independence in 1813, after the decisive battles of Tucuman, fought on September 24, 1812, and Salta, on February 20, 1813, although she formally declared her independence only in 1816, but had also driven the Spaniards from Uruguay and Paraguay, and had assisted the adjoining provinces of Upper Peru, which had also rebelled against Spain. The Argentine Republic was, therefore, the base of operations against the Spanish government in the southern portion of South America, and her capital, Buenos Ayres, was the only capital on the continent which, once occupied by the patriots, was never recovered by the Spanish. Peru was at the time, after Mexico, the main seat of Spanish power in America, and the viceroy of Peru sent frequent expeditions not only to subdue the insurgents of Upper Peru, which was a compara

tively easy task, but also against those of Buenos Ayres, who suffered serious defeats in Vilcapujio on October 1, 1813, and in Ayouma on November 14 of the same year, after having obtained an important victory at San Elezario in 1813. San Martin was for some months commander of the Argentine army in Upper Peru during 1814, and he soon became satisfied that the war could not end until a mortal blow was given to the Spanish power in Peru, and he realized that the only effectual way to accomplish that end was to march from Chile to Peru by the Pacific. He was therefore transferred, at his own request, to the Province of Cuyo, at whose capital, Mendoza, which commanded the main pass of the high cordillera dividing Argentina from Chile, he organized and disciplined his army, availing himself of the assistance of the Chilean patriots who flocked to his banner, among them being O'Higgins, who subsequently took such a leading part in public events in Chile.

On January 17, 1817, San Martin's army left Mendoza and crossed the high cordillera by the Uspallata pass, an undertaking accomplished in the face of the enemy, and which may well be compared with the crossing of the Alps by Hannibal, several centuries before, when he invaded Italy. While in Chile San Martin defeated the Spanish army at Chacabuco on February 12, 1817, which permitted him to occupy Santiago, the capital of that country. The viceroy sent from Lima another army of Spanish veterans, which was defeated by San Martin at Maipo, near Santiago, on April 5, 1818, thus achieving the independence of Chile, and putting the Spanish viceroy at Lima on the defensive.

The governments of the La Plata Provinces and Chile had agreed by a treaty signed at Buenos Ayres on February 5, 1819, to send a joint expedition of their forces to liberate Peru; but before the expedition started a revolution broke out in the Argentine Provinces, necessitating the return of the Argentine army from Chile, and instructions were sent to San Martin to hasten back. San Martin, realizing that if he went back to Buenos Ayres the cause of independence would be seriously jeopardized, made up his mind to disobey his instructions, and he resigned his command, but was recognized as general-in-chief by his army at Rancagua, in Chile, and finally appointed general-inchief of the joint Chilean-Argentine expeditionary army by the Chilean government. Before San Martin left Chile for Peru,