Liberty in Mexico: Writings on Liberalism from the Early Republican Period to the Second Half of the Twentieth Century

1. Against Amnesty. Speech before the Second Constitutional Congress, July 10, 1861

299 Sir: With the full conscience of a pure man, with the full heart of a liberal, with the just energy of the representative of an outraged nation, I here raise my voice to request that the chamber reject the report in which the decree of amnesty for the reactionary party is proposed.1 And I request this because I judge that this decree would today be too untimely and highly impolitic. Let me begin by saying that I very much respect the virtues of the gentlemen deputies who have endorsed the report, that I recognize in them excellent hearts, filled with sensitivity and mercy; but I believe that they have erred in believing that the nation should pardon its enemies with the same ease that these gentlemen, because of their magnanimous nature, pardon theirs. That is to say, they have confused their individual selves with the entire nation, and in that lies the error, in my opinion. With this duty fulfilled that my openness imposed on me, I am now going to broach the question. I have said that the decree would be untimely and impolitic. Here are my reasons: It would be untimely because mercy, like all virtues, has its hour. Beyond that, mercy has no good outcome, or speaking in all truth, it produces the opposite of what might be desired. Original title: “Contra la amnistía” [intervención en la Cámara de Diputados durante la sesión del 10 de julio de 1861]. Source: Felipe Buenrostro, Historia del Segundo Congreso Constitucional de la República Mexicana, que funcionó en los años de 1861, 62 y 63. Extracto de todas las sesiones y documentos relativos de la época, vol. 1 (Mexico: Impresa Políglota, 1875). 1. The Three Years’ War between liberals and conservatives had just ended with the victory of the liberal faction. (Editor’s note) 1 Against Amnesty. Speech before the Second Constitutional Congress, July 10, 1861 300 : iGnaCio manuel altamirano Amnesty, sir, is the completion of victory, but it must follow victory immediately.The history of all nations tells us this, and it is in the nature of these very things. A victor who has just defeated his enemies, who still holds in his hands the bloody sword of battle, whom one supposes is still enraged and thirsty for vengeance, and whom one sees suddenly put aside the terrible expression on his face, throw away that threatening sword, open his arms to embrace against his chest his humiliated enemies, trembling with fright, this man, I say, is to be admired and loved. The greatness of soul captivates, because the human heart instinctively admires everything that is great and sublime. Gaius Caesar won more sympathy with his generosity in Rome than with his sword in Pharsalia, and the Romans, intoxicated with enthusiasm and gratitude, dedicated the temple of clemency in his honor. Henry IV, the Huguenot, made himself loved by his old enemies with his general pardon. But Caesar and Henry IV were timely. Because in effect, sir, amnesty is forgetting the past completely, it is an absolute pardon. Amnesty must be granted as a gift of mercy, as a concession that strength makes to weakness; it is rage that absolves repentance . But we, are we in the time for pardoning? Here is the question . And it can it be answered with equal precision: “Now is not the time or it is still not time.” If after the triumph of Calpulalpan the government had come out with a word of amnesty, if it had opened its arms to the enemies of public peace, this would have been immoral, but perhaps it would have been successful, because I am sure that two roads were open then to the liberal government, that of absolute, open amnesty, or terrorism, that is to say, righteous power. The government did not take either of those paths, but rather, wavering in its steps, uncertain in its decisions, adherent to routine in its methods, was half magnanimous and half severe, with the result that it made everyone discontent and it came to be censured by opposing factions . Never let it be said that I slander: the nation knows it; Mexico has seen it. When plain and firm justice was expected, the government exiled bishops instead of hanging them, as these apostles of iniquity deserved ; it fired some employees and others no, of those who had served aGainSt amneSty...