CHAPTER XIV

UNION AND DISUNION

THE National Constituent Assembly differed in one particular from our own Constitutional Convention of 1787. The United States at that period had a Congress and a Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) under which some kind of general government could be carried on while the convention was framing the new instrument. The National Assembly of Central America, however, had to form a new constitution out of hand and in the meantime to provide a provisional government over the various states concerned. This government was made to consist of a legislative assembly, an executive of three persons, and a judiciary, the duties of which were to be performed by the existing courts. Laws were also passed, recognizing the public debt, the freedom of the press, and the Catholic religion as the religion of the state. This narrow religious policy was offset by decrees forbidding the slave trade, pronouncing free all slaves coming to Central America, and emancipating those already in the country. Those emancipated amounted only to about one thousand, and the indemnity offered to the owners, it is said, was claimed by none. Thus Central America can claim the honor of having been the first nation on our continent to emancipate its slaves.

In the convention there was an almost immediate alignment of political parties. Practically all were in favor of absolute independence, but these separated into the Moderates, called by their enemies Serviles or Aristocrats, and the

Radicals or Liberals, called by their enemies anarchists. One is reminded of the Girondins and the Mountainists in the National Assembly of France during the Revolution-a resemblance that is borne out by the fierce hatred with which the two American factions came to regard each other.

The Moderates wished a centralized government, with a continuation of the old laws and with Guatemala as a paramount influence in the Confederacy. The stronghold of this party was the city of Guatemala, which had been the seat of the vice-royal court and where the so-called native nobility was numerously represented. The Liberals were more radical in their views. They desired a federal republic, with the abolition of old abuses and unjust privileges, and no undue influence on the part of any state. Thus these two parties corresponded roughly to the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians in the first part of the nineteenth century.

In the first enthusiasm of independence the Liberals naturally had a majority, and the three provisional presidents were chosen from their ranks. Then having persuaded General Filisola to withdraw his troops, which were thought to exercise an undue influence over the action of the convention, this party proceeded to clear away old aristocratic forms, even the title of "don" being abolished by law, in imitation of a similar proceeding in the time of the French Revolution. A far less popular measure was a decree, ordering the executive to exclude from office all officials appointed by the Spanish or Mexican governments. This was a natural and salutary provision, but it aroused much discontent. About the same time the soldiers, who had not received their pay, were stirred into revolt by an ambitious leader, who gave much trouble before he was finally put down.

On the 22nd of November, 1824, the constitution was completed. On the 15th of April, 1825, it was sworn to, and on the first of September of the same year it was ratified by the National Congress. No further ratification by conventions of the people seems to have been thought neces

sary.

This fundamental law was modelled after the Constitution of the United States, though with some important modifications. Chiapas was omitted until it should apply for admission; but the other five states represented the original thirteen States of the American Union, each being given the same division of powers as the general government, with the same functions for internal administration.

The departments of the general government were the usual executive, legislative, and judicial. Unlike the strong executive of the United States, the president had no share in the making of the laws; he could neither approve, veto, nor suspend them. This office was performed by the senate, consisting of two members elected by the people from each state. Besides acting as an executive council for the revision of the laws, the senate nominated officials and supervised them in the discharge of their duties. If it refused to ratify an act, it could be made a law by a three-fourths' vote of the lower house or congress, which was a body elected by the people, one member for every thirty thousand inhabitants. Guatemala was to have seventeen representatives; Salvador nine; Honduras five; Nicaragua six, and Costa Rica two, which proportion indicates what was believed to be their relative populations. The judiciary was also elected by the people. As no federal district had been provided for the general government, it met in Guatemala City, which fact was a prolific source of trouble later on.

The enemies of this constitution affirmed with some justice that it was the beau ideal of imitators and dreamers; that there had been established a senate null and void, an executive that was impotent, and a congress that was absolute. Certainly the congress, with a three-fourths' majority, could override the other departments, and Guatemala with its seventeen representatives out of thirty-nine was sure to excite the jealousy of the smaller states. If that province had been willing to cede its capital as a federal district and move its local capital to the ancient city (Antigua), it would have helped matters greatly, but this action would have

reduced its representation in the congress and forced it to give up some important buildings, concessions it was not prepared to make. The new government needed some Benjamin Franklin to adjust the differences between the smaller and the larger states and to calm their animosities; but such a mediator was conspicuous by his absence.

A student of political science would have predicted the failure of a federal constitution lacking those "checks and balances" that distinguish the Constitution of the United States. But it was not the fundamental law alone that promised disaster; the people themselves were excitable and totally lacking in that experience of self-government which was the heritage of the people of the United States in 1787. Instead, therefore, of trying by calm discussion to amend the constitution and adapt it to the needs of the states, the political factions soon came to regard each other with bitter hatred and fomented a series of revolutions, unparalleled for number, if not for importance, in the history of the world.

The first Constitutional Congress of the Estados Federados de Centro America replaced the Constituent Assembly on the 6th of February, 1825. Two of the provisional presidents, José de Valle and Manuel José Arce, had been candidates before the Assembly for the office of first president; but neither having received the majority required by the constitution, the congress assumed the right to choose between them. The choice fell upon Arce, who was the preference of the Liberals, while Valle was designated as vice-president. The latter, believing that injustice had been done him by the action of the congress, declined the office, and Mariano Beltranena was selected in his place. At the same time the justices of the supreme court having been elected, they assumed the duties of their office.

The new republic was now generally recognized by the other powers. In the United States there had been for several years intense sympathy with the efforts of the Spanish colonies to throw off the yoke of the mother-country. There was naturally an earnest desire to see the spread of

republican principles on this continent to the exclusion of the monarchical forms of government existing in Europe. In 1822 the American government had acknowledged the independence of the revolted colonies, and in the following year the proclamation of President Monroe gave notice to Europe that any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power, could not be viewed in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

In addition to this sympathy with colonies striving for self-government, the merchants of the United States desired trade with the Spanish possessions, which they knew would not be possible under the régime of Spain. In 1825 a treaty was negotiated between the United States and the Republic of Central America, in which favorable terms as to trade, reciprocal citizenship, etc., were agreed upon. A chargé d'affaires, Mr. William Miller, was duly accredited to the new republic.

About the same time the President of the United States accepted an invitation issued by the South American patriot, General Simon Bolivar, to send delegates to a Pan-American Congress, which should meet in the city of Panama in 1826, and consider the present status and the future welfare of the states that had revolted from Spain. There was so much difference, however, as to the advisability of the United States concerning itself with the affairs of the southern republics, and Congress discussed the question at such length, that when the American delegates finally reached Panama, the Congress had adjourned. Thus our republic lost a favorable opportunity of extending its influence over the countries of the South and of guiding their destinies. It would have been well for them if such influence could have been exerted.

The new republic was also recognized by Great Britain and the Netherlands; but Spain, though she was too weak to offer the resistance to the secession of Central America