explained when we remember the powerful hold religion yet had upon these people. The first step toward freedom is to emancipate the mind from some of its superstitions. There can be no political liberty without some degree of religious liberty. It was primarily for religious liberty that the puritans had come from England to America; and the first step thus taken toward political liberty, they were prepared. to throw off the yoke for slighter cause than were the people of Mexico, who were satisfied with their religion, and had no desire to change it. Thus while their religion, still the strongest sentiment possessing them, constrained them to loyalty, they were ready to endure much by way of duty, and to escape damnation so much that it was rather Spain's weakness than Mexico's strength that secured independence, as we shall in due time see.
But gradually reason, long dormant if not dethroned, began to show signs of vitality, first in other quarters, and finally in Mexico. It was a period of political turnings and over-turnings in Europe and America, and it were a pity if Mexico, ground into the very dust by the iron heel of despotism, should not find some relief.
The downfall of monarchy in France, and the in dependence of the British colonies in North America, had established precedents of the successful uprising of peoples against the oppression of rulers. More especially was the acquisition of freedom by the United States regarded as a solution of the difficulty in regard to the right of revolution, as Spain in 1783 had somewhat imprudently recognized the independence of the English colonies, thereby tacitly excusing revolt in her own.[1]
- ↑ The reader is already aware that the conde de Aranda at this time proposed to Cárlos III. the independence of the Spanish colonies in America. See Hist. Mex., iii. 388-90. Dr Luis Quixano, a prominent leader of the revolution in Quito, made prisoner when Toribio Montes entered that city, deemed it advisable to retract his views on the right of a colony to assert its independence. He based his reconstructed argument on the principle that what is useful and convenient is not necessarily lawful and just. His exceedingly defective logic went no further, however, than to show that an oppressed colony has no more right to free itself from the mother country than has a slave to acquire freedom without the consent of his owner! 'Aunque á un esclavo le sea útil gozar de su libertad, el no se la puede tomar por si mismo contra la voluntad de su amo.' Hernandez y Dávalos, Col. Doc. Indep., v. 63-4
