Chapter LXXIX: Part 79

"Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
the 23d of August.
{2175}
The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
recover from the demoralization which had followed their
defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
already completed."

_J. R. Soley,
The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 7, chapter 6)._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20._

_General W. Scott,
Memoirs, by himself,
chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)_

_President's Message and Documents,
December 7, 1847
(Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
Territory ceded to the United States.

"The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies
of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was
favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused
this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General
Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the
Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the
constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride
… bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies
assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of
a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with
Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to
assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the
United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The
lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented
immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the
8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected
Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under
the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a
spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy
issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the
boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not
longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the
right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous
offer of money by the United States for the cession of New
Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d
of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and
signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
… The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the
United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United
States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000
for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed
the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United
States against Mexico for damages, which the United States
agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line
was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf
of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del
Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where
it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward
along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to
its western termination; thence northward along the western
line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the
river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it
empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line
between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one
marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of
June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of
Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's
administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with
Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of
indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were
equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,
embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The
area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United
States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of
Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also
yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520
square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591
square miles of territory was one of the direct results of
this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to
conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region
of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order
adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the
United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has
been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of
New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees
of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio
Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of
sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.
… The mineral resources of the conquered territory,
including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,
Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that
their value is beyond computation."

_H. O. Ladd,
History of the War with Mexico,
chapters 30-31._

ALSO IN:
_Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Countries (edition of 1889),
pages 681-694._

{2176}

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
The new Constitution.
The government of Juarez and
the Nationalization of Church property.

"For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American
army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed
only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In
June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the
opening of the war with the United States) took possession of
the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory
of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without
disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly
reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for
the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano
Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession
of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and
economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could
not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet
merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some
military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the
government. They commenced again the old system of
'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province
distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining
such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they
were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into
the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office
and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years
later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of
Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in
power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than
General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the
successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,
Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced
at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench
himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,
1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him
perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the
country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary
centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful
leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after
repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the
capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly
left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera
Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.
Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing
for a return to power in Mexico."

_F. A. Ober,
Young Folks' History of Mexico,
chapter 33._

"Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the
capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution
assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega
acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …
By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was
elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of
August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,
when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo
Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,
known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and
under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the
country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and
order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in
Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad
interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named
Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he
transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the
12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon
the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made
actual president by a large majority in the popular election
held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of
December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable
rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning
of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun
his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again
broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was
occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them
joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of
16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla
and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in
October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by
Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in
suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis
Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas
Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between
the Church and the government, so long threatened, was
precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the
sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at
its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,
but the land was to become thereby freed from all
ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy
centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the
president sent troops to take possession of the place, and
finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked
an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the
Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present
Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as
Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its
provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days
after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the
oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing
that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and
claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution
impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution
aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the
President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the
supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution
upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort
fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were
seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a
half recognized government.
{2177}
"Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in
connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the
presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the
President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was
held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became
president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of
the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which
gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies
and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the
Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to
say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching
power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion
of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'
had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is
thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man
Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
$20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

_A. H. Noll,
Short History of Mexico,
chapters 10-11._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
and volume 9 (6), chapter 1._

See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
Sale of Arizona to the United States.
The Gadsden Treaty.

See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
The French intervention.
Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
contained in its second article, he had already been making
arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
as our own Pacifico claims had been.
{2178}
A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
$15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
subject of France, and the French Government took up his
claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
Against all this the United States Government protested from
time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
the protests of the American Government with unveiled
indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
this Mexican failure."

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 44._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14._

_H. M. Flint,
Mexico under Maximilian._

_F. Salm-Balm,
My Diary in Mexico (1867)._

_S. Schroeder,
The Fall of Maximilian's Empire._

_Count E. de Keratry,
The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian._

_J. M. Taylor,
Maximilian and Carlotta._

_U. R. Burke,
Life of Benito Juarez._

MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
The restored Republic.

"On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
election established Juarez as President, and order and
progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
a man of great strength of character and capacity for
government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
… During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
his office to his legally elected successor. … The
administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

_S. Hale,
The Story of Mexico,
chapter 41-42._

"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
(about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
$9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
are being made in favor of another term."

_W. Butler,
Mexico in Transition,
pages 284-287._

President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19._

----------MEXICO: End----------

MIAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I.,
King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL
The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

MICHIGAN:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
Traversed by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
The founding of the French post at Detroit.

See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
The surrender to the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
Detached from Indiana Territory and
distinctly named and organized.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
to the British arms by General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
Recovery by the Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
The founding of the University of Michigan.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
and then beyond.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
Admission into the Union as a State.
Settlement of Boundaries.

A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
but primarily upon the great
Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
sought being those established by the article in question.
That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
possesses to-day."

_R. G. Thwaites,
The Boundaries of Wisconsin
(Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
volume 11, pages 456-460)._

ALSO IN:
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 17._

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

----------MICHIGAN: End----------

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

MICHIGAN, Lake:
The Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake:
Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

MICHIGANIA,
The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

_I. Samuel XIV._

_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 21 (volume 2)._

MICKLEGARTH.

"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
to Byzantium, the New Rome.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
of towns,' of the northern legends."

_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 6._

MICMACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
[see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages, author's preface._

"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
… though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
a general point of view, to constitute that period."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages, preface to first edition._

"We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
at different dates in the different lines of
advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
or modern history, the additions which were made during the
middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
most important of them fall within the last part of the
period, and they are really indications that the age is
drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
unless there can be found running through all its confusion
some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
general meaning of the age.
{2181}
The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
had taken possession of the ancient world and become
everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

_G. B. Adams,
Civilization During the Middle Ages,
introduction._

"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
presence of this manifestation of free and productive
intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

_B. Bosanquet,
The Civilization of Christendom,
chapter 3._

"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

_S. R. Maitland,
The Dark Ages,
introduction._

"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
such."

_J. Burckhardt,
The Renaissance in Italy,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

See, also,
EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG:
Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 15 (volume 1)._

MIGDOL.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
His designation in the official translations of modern public
documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
Court as well as the monarch himself."

_B. H. Chamberlain,
Things Japanese,
page 229._

MIKASUKIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

----------MILAN: Start--------

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
Taken by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268.
Aureolus besieged.

During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11._

MILAN: A. D. 286.
The Roman imperial court.

"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
and liberal."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13._

MILAN: A. D. 313.
Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
The Ambrosian Church.

The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
… St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

_G. B. Testa,
History of the War of Frederick I.
against the Communes of Lombardy,
pages 23-24._

MILAN: A. D. 404.
Removal of the Imperial Court.

See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452.
Capture by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539.
Destroyed by the Goths.