Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:14:19.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anticlericalism in the Mexican Constitutional Convention of 1916–1917

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

E. V. Niemeyer Jr.
E. V. Niemeyer Jr.*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS of the Mexican Revolution was the Constitutional Convention that met at Querétaro from December, 1916, to February, 1917. To a Mexico that had been racked since 1910 by the forces of revolution, counterrevolution, and defection, the Constituent Congress called into session by Venustiano Carranza was the fulfillment of numerous promises that had been made in various declarations and decrees issued since the promulgation of the Plan de Guadalupe.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 1954 , pp. 31 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1955 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carranza, the governor of Coahuila, was the first man of importance in Mexico to pronounce against Victoriano Huerta following his usurpation of the presidency and the assassination of Madero on February 23, 1913. Subsequently he and his followers drew up the Plan de Guadalupe which disavowed Huerta, declared Carranza First Chief of the “Constitutionalist” Army, and pledged the signers to work for the restoration of constitutional government. Following the defeat of Huerta, Carranza designated the period after 1914 as “pre-constitutional.” During this period he issued numerous decree reforms to gain support in the campaign against the defection of Francisco Villa, his erstwhile cohort in the struggle to eliminate Huerta. Since 1913 the Constitutionalists were devoted to the restoration of authority under the Constitution of 1857, considered abrogated by Huerta. But to incorporate the reforms of 1914–1916 into the constitution, it was found expedient to call the constitutional convention that drafted the Constitution of 1917. For a comparison of this constitution with that of 1857 see Branch, H. N., trans., The Mexican Constitution of 1917 Compared with the Constitution of 1857. Supplement to the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Google Scholar, 1917, hereafter referred to as The Mexican Constitution of 1911. The decrees of the “pre-constitutional” period are found in Codificación de los Decretos del C. Venustiano Carranza (Mexico, 1915). For Carranza’s reasons in calling the constitutional convention, see Decree of September 14, 1916, in Diario Oficial, Organo del Gobierno Provisional de la República Mexicana, IX, No. 83 (September 22, 1916), 351–352. See also Palavicini, Felix F., Historia de la Constitución de 1911 (2 vols.; Mexico, 1938)Google Scholar, I, 20–49.

2 On December 1, 1916, Carranza submitted his project of a constitution to the Convention. This was considered too conservative by the radical leftists, who proceeded to add the so-called liberal educational features that characterize the Constitution of 1917. For Carranza’s project see Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente (2 vols.; Mexico, 1917), I, 341–360, hereafter referred to as Diario de los Debates.

3 This committee was elected on December 6, 1916, to study and report on each of the articles in Carranza’s project. The chairman was General Múgica of Michoacán. Other members were Enrique Colunga of Guanajuato, Luis G. Monzón of Sonora, Enrique Recio of Yucatán, and Alberto Román of Vera Cruz. All were pronounced anticlericals.

4 Diario de los Debates, I, 432.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid., p. 446.

7 Palavicini, op. cit., p. 248.

8 Diario de los Debates, I, 446.

9 Ibid., p. 481.

10 Ibid., p. 448.

11 Ibid., p. 463.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., pp. 520–521.

15 Ibid., p. 445.

16 Ibid., p. 499.

17 Ibid., p. 486.

18 Ibid., pp. 530–531.

19 The rightists were so alarmed by the radical first report of the Committee that they asked Carranza to attend the first debates in the hope that his presence would calm the radical leftists and induce them to withdraw the report. But the First Chief's presence did not have the desired effect and he attended no subsequent sessions.

20 Mecham, J. Lloyd, Church and State in Latin America (Chapel Hill, 1934), p. 470 Google Scholar.

21 The Mexican Constitution of 1917, p. 15.

22 Mecham, op. cit., pp. 454–455.

23 Palavicini dsecribes Recio as “A Yucatecan worker, perfectly ignorant, ultra-radical and anticlerical; naturally his co-operation in meeting the great responsibility which the Committee faced was nil.” Palavicini, op. cit., I, 163.

24 Diario de los Debates, II, 742.

25 Ibid.,

26 Ibid., p. 747.

27 Ibid., p. 748.

28 Ibid., p. 746.

29 Ibid.

30 The more important of these were the following: (1) religious bodies were denied juridic personality and ministers were to be considered simply as persons exercising a profession; (2) state legislatures were to be given the exclusive right to determine the number of clergy in each state; (3) only native-born Mexicans could become ministers of the creeds in Mexico; (4) ministers could not criticize the fundamental laws of the country or the authorities, and they were denied the franchise as well as the right to run for public office; (5) new church buildings could only be dedicated with permission of the Secretary of Gobernación, and each building was to be under a caretaker responsible to the government for the observance of the laws; (6) studies in ecclesiastical seminaries were not to be accredited in official institutions; (7) religious periodical publications could not comment on the political affairs of the nation; (8) church buildings could not be used for political purposes; (9) ministers could not inherit real property possessed by a religious association or property of private individuals to whom they were not related by blood within the fourth degree; and (10) no trial by jury was to be granted for the infraction of any of the above provisions.

31 The Second Committee on Reforms was established on December 2? when it was apparent to all that the First Committee would be unable to report on each article of Carranza’s project within the allotted time.

32 Diario de los Debates, II, 702.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., p. 753.

35 Ibid., p. 756.

36 Ibid., p. 757.

37 Ibid., p. 760.

38 Ibid., p. 761.

39 Randolf, L. Melgarejo y Rojas, J. Fernández, El Congreso Constituyente de 1916 y 1917 (Mexico, 1917), p. 727 Google Scholar.

40 Diario de los Debates, II, 760.

41 Ibid., pp. 761–762.

42 Ibid., p. 825.

43 Ibid., pp. 794–795.

44 Ibid., p. 795.

45 Ibid., p. 798.