Visit ebookmass.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook or textbook

Redeeming La Raza: Transborder Modernity, Race,

Respectability, and Rights Gabriela González

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookmass.com/product/redeeming-la-raza-transborder-
modernity-race-respectability-and-rights-gabriela-gonzalez/

Explore and download more ebook or textbook at ebookmass.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Nordicism and Modernity Gregers Einer Forssling

https://ebookmass.com/product/nordicism-and-modernity-gregers-einer-
forssling/

(eBook PDF) Child 2nd Edition By Gabriela Martorell

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-child-2nd-edition-by-gabriela-
martorell/

Homegrown by Father & Son: Grow And Cook Your Own Food
John Burton-Race & Pip Burton-Race [Burton-Race

https://ebookmass.com/product/homegrown-by-father-son-grow-and-cook-
your-own-food-john-burton-race-pip-burton-race-burton-race/

Looseleaf for Experience Human Development 14th Edition

Gabriela Martorell

https://ebookmass.com/product/looseleaf-for-experience-human-
development-14th-edition-gabriela-martorell/
Tropical Forests in Prehistory, History, and Modernity
Patrick Roberts

https://ebookmass.com/product/tropical-forests-in-prehistory-history-
and-modernity-patrick-roberts/

Books and Bribes Lucinda Race

https://ebookmass.com/product/books-and-bribes-lucinda-race/

Applications in High Resolution Mass Spectrometry: Food

Safety and Pesticide Residue Analysis 1st Edition Romero-
Gonz Lez
https://ebookmass.com/product/applications-in-high-resolution-mass-
spectrometry-food-safety-and-pesticide-residue-analysis-1st-edition-
romero-gonz-lez/

Under the Bhasha Gaze: Modernity and Indian Literature Pp

Raveendran

https://ebookmass.com/product/under-the-bhasha-gaze-modernity-and-
indian-literature-pp-raveendran/

Bach against Modernity Michael Marissen

https://ebookmass.com/product/bach-against-modernity-michael-marissen/
Redeeming La Raza
Redeeming La Raza
Transborder Modernity, Race,
Respectability, and Rights

GABRIEL A GONZ ÁLEZ

1
 1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: González, Gabriela, author.
Title: Redeeming La Raza : transborder modernity, race, respectability, and rights /
Gabriela González.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2018] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017056469 (print) | LCCN 2018017172 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780199914159 (Updf) | ISBN 9780190902155 (Epub) |
ISBN 9780190909628 (paperback) | ISBN 9780199914142 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Mexican Americans—Texas—Politics and government—20th century. |
Mexican Americans—Political activity—Texas. | Mexican Americans—Texas—Biography. |
Mexicans—Texas—History—20th century. | Transnationalism—Political aspects—
Texas—History—20th century. | Texas, South—Politics and government—20th century. |
Mexican-American Border Region—Politics and government—20th century.
Classification: LCC F395.M5 (ebook) | LCC F395.M5 G665 2018 (print) |
DDC 323.1168/720764—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017056469

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America

Parts of this book have been adapted from “Carolina Munguía and Emma Tenayuca: The Politics of
Benevolence and Radical Reform” in Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2/3, 2003,
pp. 200–229, courtesy of the University of Nebraska Press, and “Jovita Idar: The Ideological Origins of a
Transnational Advocate for La Raza,” in Texas Women: Their Histories, Their Lives (2015), edited by Elizabeth
Hayes Turner, Stephanie Cole, and Rebecca Sharpless, courtesy of University of Georgia Press.
I dedicate this book to my parents,
Jorge G. and María B. González,
and to my husband and daughter,
Roger and Isabella Landeros,
with much LOVE.
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix
Note on Usage xv

Introduction: Redeeming La Raza in the World of

Two Flags Entwined 1

PART I MODERNIZING MEXICO AND

THE BORDERL ANDS, 1900–1929

1. Social Change, Cultural Redemption, and Social Stability:

The Political Strategies of Gente Decente Reform 15

2. Masons, Magonistas, and Maternalists: Liberal, Anarchist, and

Maternal Feminist Thought within a Local/​Global Nexus 51

3. Crossing Borders to Rebirth the Nation: Leonor Villegas de

Magnón and the Mexican Revolution 82

PART II BORDERL ANDS MEXICAN AMERICANS

IN MODERN TEX A S, 1930–​1 950

4. “Todo Por la Patria y el Hogar” (All for Country and Home):

The Transnational Lives and Work of Rómulo Munguía and
Carolina Malpica de Munguía 111

vii
viii Contents

5. La Pasionaria (the Passionate One): Emma Tenayuca and the

Politics of Radical Reform 145

6. Struggling against Jaime Crow: LULAC, Gente Decente Heir to a

Transborder Political Legacy 167

Conclusion: “La Idea Mueve” (The Idea Moves Us): Why Cultural
Redemption Matters 190

Notes 197
Bibliography 223
Index 249
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I begin by thanking the civil and human rights activists I write about in this book
and their family members who granted me oral history interviews. At the begin-
ning of the semester I sometimes ask my UTSA students to look around and rec-
ognize the great diversity represented in our classroom. Then I encourage them
to pay attention to the men and women in history who worked to make diverse
classrooms like ours possible. The genesis of this book started with my desire
to pay attention to transborder activists who shared a vision for a just and equi-
table society and pursued it by using their privileges to take on the challenges
they faced.
This project, or at least part of it, started while I was a master’s student at the
University of Texas at San Antonio. I thank fellow graduate students and friends,
Joe Belk, Dave Hansen and Sandy Rubinstein Peterson for their kindness and
moral support during those early days when I was fumbling through the process
of learning how to become a historian. In classes taught by Antonio Calabria,
Gilberto Hinojosa, David Johnson, Juan Mora-​Torres, Cynthia Orozco, Linda
Pritchard, Jack Reynolds, Jim Schneider and Linda Schott I dove into local, state,
national, and global histories, relishing each opportunity to place my research
interests within broader contexts. In the mid-​1990s, I was not yet using such
terms as transborder and transnational, yet my awareness of the historical phe-
nomena that these concepts describe grew alongside my research agenda. An
internship at the Institute of Texan Cultures, organizing the Spanish colonial
history files of then UT Austin professor, Antonia Castañeda, further shaped
my intellectual development, introducing me to Chicana history. A class titled
“Hispanics in the United States” taught by UTSA Visiting Professor Cynthia
Orozco introduced me to Latina/​o history. The ideas for this study germinated
at the intersection of that internship with Antonia, Cynthia’s course, and an
independent study focused on the theme of women’s voluntary associations
supervised by Linda Schott. My thanks to Linda for introducing me to

ix
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
x Ack nowl edg ments

comparative women’s history and for supporting my decision to pursue a proj­

ect focused on the life and work of Carolina Malpica de Munguía; to Cynthia
for her comparative Latinas/​os history course instruction and for introducing
me to the Munguía Family papers and the LULAC archives at UT Austin; and
to Antonia for inspiring me to interrogate power dynamics and study the ways
in which naturalizing inequities breeds and sustains injustice. My thanks also to
Antonia for introducing me to the human and civil rights work of San Antonio’s
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center led by Graciela Sánchez, which continues
in the tradition of consciousness-​raising, questioning of power, and grassroots
activism.
Besides my internship, I also had the privilege of working as a research assis-
tant for Professor Jack Reynolds in his Camino Real project and as a graduate as-
sistant for the Center for the Study of Women and Gender directed by Professor
Linda Schott which was housed in the Dean’s office, where I got to interact with
Associate Dean Linda Pritchard. I am grateful for the guidance I received from
these individuals who mentored me and encouraged me to pursue a PhD.
At Stanford University, my good fortune continued thanks to the dedicated
mentoring I received from my primary advisors, Professors Albert Camarillo
and Estelle Freedman. Al and Estelle brought a wealth of expertise and experi-
ence into their teaching and cultivated a sense of intellectual community in the
classroom and beyond through university centers and institutes whose program-
ming enhanced my understanding of issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality.
From Professor George Frederickson, I learned about the role that ideologies
play in shaping political philosophies and practices. During my time at Stanford,
Professor Richard White joined the faculty. A couple of conversations with him
about my work helped me to properly identify it as transborder and transnational
history. Three teaching assistantships helped me develop my teaching skills and
added to my understandings of related historiographies. I am grateful to Al and
George who co-​taught a comparative course on race and ethnicity in the United
States. Among other things, from this experience I learned that racism and eth-
nocentrism in this country developed alongside democratic principles enshrined
in founding documents. In my second TAship, I worked with Professor David
Kennedy in his course on twentieth century US history. One of the things
I picked up from his lectures was the importance of the 1930s and 1940s be-
cause of the Great Depression and World War II and more fundamentally, the
transformative nature of these events in American life and culture. Finally, the
Introduction to Asian American History course I TAed for Professor Gordan
Chang helped me to reflect upon the diverse experiences within communities.
In the section I led, many of my students identified as Asian American but our
discussions often revealed differing levels of perceived as well as unexamined
privilege and power dynamics based on phenotype, class, gender, immigrant or
 Ack nowl edg ment s xi

citizenship status, and so forth. These were social relations I had casually noticed
within ethnic Mexican communities, but something about playing the role of
mediating teaching assistant, raised my level of consciousness about the internal
dialogues that occur within ethnic and pan-​ethnic communities.
This book has benefited from a vast secondary literature revealing mul-
tiple historiographies with plenty of intellectual cross-​pollination. Rather than
attempting to list all the scholars whose work this book draws insights from and
risk forgetting someone, I will direct the interested reader to the notes and bibli-
ography. Other influences have been the many scholars with whom I have served
on conference panels and roundtables over the years. My thanks to conference
participants who provided questions and comments on my work.
At various critical points in my career, Professor Vicki Ruíz has offered val-
uable advice about my work. I join the impressive list of scholars who have
benefitted much from her committed mentoring and pioneering scholarship
and who see her as a role model. Others who at various times have offered me
advice about my career, read my work, or in some other way assisted me in-
clude: Norma E. Cantú, Stephanie Cole, Deena González, David G. Gutiérrez,
Elizabeth Hayes Turner, Raquel Márquez, Marie “Keta” Miranda, Paula Moya,
Cynthia Orozco, Emma Pérez, Harriett Romo, Ricardo Romo, Rodolfo Rosales,
Sonia Saldívar-​Hull, Stephen Pitti, George J. Sánchez, Rebecca Sharpless, Andrés
Tijerina, Ruthe Winegarten, Elliot Young, and Emilio Zamora.
My Stanford cohort enriched my grad student experiences in significant ways.
The diverse cultural and geographic backgrounds of Noemí García Reyes, Mónica
Perales, Shana Bernstein, Shawn Gerth, Joe Crespino, Paul Herman, and my
own underscored the concept of “unity in diversity” for me, because despite our
differences, we rooted for each other and enjoyed each other’s company. Special
thanks to Mónica, Shana, Joe, and Paul for reading sections of my dissertation
and offering excellent feedback. Other wonderful friends and colleagues who
made my time at Stanford enjoyable and memorable include: Magdalena Barrera,
Matthew Booker, Michelle Campos, Alicia Chávez, Marisela Chávez, Roberta
Chávez, Jennifer Chin, Raúl Coronado, Rachel Jean-​Baptiste, Benjamin Lawrence,
Dawn Mabalon, Martha Mabie Gardner, Shelley Lee, Carol Pal, Gina Marie Pitti,
Stephen Pitti, Amy Robinson, Lise Sedrez, Cecilia Tsu, and Kim Warren. I am so
proud of my Stanford friends for their many wonderful contributions in their re-
spective fields. Finally, a very special thank you to Professor Richard Roberts and
two members of the Department of History staff who kept the graduate students
sane, Monica Wheeler and the late Gertrude Pacheco.
My work colleagues at the UTSA Department of History have also pro-
vided me with a sense of community and inspiration and several with valuable
feedback on my work. My thanks to department chair Kirsten Gardner for her
brilliant leadership and unwavering support and encouragement. Kirsten, you
xii Ack nowl edg ments

are integrity personified. Before Kirsten, other supportive chairs included Wing
Chung Ng, Jim Schneider, Jack Reynolds, and Gregg Michel. My thanks to them
and to Dean Daniel Gelo for believing in the significance of my work as a teacher
and scholar. Elizabeth Escobedo and I started at UTSA at the same time and be-
came fast friends. Though she no longer works at UTSA, she remains a dear friend,
and I am very proud of all she has accomplished. At the UTSA Department of
History I have enjoyed the friendship and collegiality of amazing women faculty.
My heartfelt thanks to Sistorians Catherine Clinton, Kirsten Gardner, Rhonda
Gonzales, LaGuana Gray, Kolleen Guy, Anne Hardgrove, Catherine Komisaruk,
and Catherine Nolan-​Ferrell. My fellow Sistorians, know that I greatly admire
your work as teachers, scholars, and engaged university citizens. Félix Almaráz,
Brian Davies, Jerry González, Patrick Kelly, Andrew Konove, Gregg Michel,
Wing Chung Ng, Jack Reynolds, and Omar Valerio-​Jiménez have been terrific
colleagues whose work I also appreciate. I am grateful for conversations and
advice received from John Carr-​Shanahan, Andria Crosson, Jennifer Dilley,
Dave Hansen, Lesli Hicks, Dwight Henderson, Jodi Peterson, the late Patricia
Thompson, and Elaine Turney.
A special thanks to all my students and advisees throughout the years.
Countless classroom and office hour discussions, plus assorted faculty/​student
projects on many topics, including the ones addressed in this book, have enriched
my teaching and research in immeasurable ways. Some of these students are cur-
rently pursuing Master’s and doctoral degrees with specializations in Chicana/o
history and allied fields, while others have completed their education in these
areas and are teaching in colleges and universities. This is gratifying because they
are pursuing their dreams and because issues of representation matter in the
classroom setting as in the rest of society. I am proud of the Latina scholars cur-
rently in the pipeline or practicing in the profession, among them Terri Castillo,
Jessica Ceeko, Sandra Garza, Philis Barragan Goetz, Corina González Stout,
Delilah Hernández, Nydia Martínez, Sylvia Mendoza, Laura Narváez, Patricia
Portales, Lori Rodríguez, Micaela Valadez, and Vanessa Valadez.
During my time at UTSA, I have had the privilege of working with research
assistants Nydia Martínez, Sandra García, Sandra Wagoner, Efraín Torres, Amber
Walker and Kuba Abdul; reader/​grader Gabrielle Zepeda; teaching assistants
Michael Ely, Erica Valle, and Jared Gaytán; and Department of History staff
members past and present, Sherrie McDonald, Cheryl Tuttle, Andrea Trease,
James Vagtborg, Marcia Perales, Roschelle Kelly, Judith Quiroz, and Carrie
Klein. Funding from a post-​doctoral Ford Foundation fellowship, a UTSA fac-
ulty development leave, and departmental travel funds have made it possible for
me to visit archives and present my work at conferences.
This book could not have been written without the work of archivists and
librarians at The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of
 Ack nowl edg ment s xiii

Texas, Austin; UTSA’s Institute of Texan Cultures; the Webb County Heritage
Foundation; Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico, D.F.; Mary and Jeff Bell
Library, Texas A&M, Corpus Christi, Texas; the Stanford University Libraries;
Berkeley Library, University of California; The Laredo Public Library; Blagg-​
Huey Library, the Woman’s Collection, Texas Woman’s University, Denton,
Texas; M.D. Anderson Library, University of Houston; and the National
Archives in College Park, Maryland. I am especially grateful to Dr. Michael
Hironymous and Margo Gutiérrez at the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American
Library, University of Texas, Austin, Texas and Shari Salisbury and Dr. Agnieszka
Czeblakow at the UTSA John Peace Library, San Antonio, Texas.
Susan Ferber, OUP Executive Editor, has encouraged me from the earliest
days when I met her while still a doctoral student at Stanford. Vicki Ruíz gave a
brilliant talk on From Out of the Shadows and advised me to meet Susan and get
her business card. This is an example of what I mean by Vicki being there for me
during critical points in my career. Susan, too, has been a strong supporter. The
first manuscript I sent to Oxford came back from reviewers with a revise and re-
submit. Susan was the first person to encourage me to go for it and has helped me
to navigate through a process that for first-​time book authors can be daunting.
She also provided excellent editorial guidance that helped me to clarify ideas and
writing style while thinking deeper about the implications of my work.
At Oxford University Press, I have also had the pleasure of working with my
project manager, Maya Bringe, who has been so kind and helpful, providing me
with the guidance and structure I needed. The countless doings and happenings
that add up to a service-​oriented professional career and a full family life
bring fulfillment and happiness, but they can also compete for a writer’s time
and energy so having press-​related deadlines and a sense of accountability to
an editor is a beautiful thing. My other good fortune is working with the great
copy editor, Patterson Lamb, and indexer, John Grennan. Thank you for your
wonderful work.
I am also grateful to the reviewers for their generous feedback. Some of the
most valuable commentary about my work and advice on how to sharpen my
arguments and other such issues came from two sets of blind reviewers. Not
only is this book a different book because it went through a process of multiple
revisions, but I feel like a different person for having gone through it all. And in
the same way I felt a deep sense of joy and gratitude once my daughter was born
after a 30-​hour labor, I can now happily release this book after years of gestation.
Finally, I am grateful to my family, the source of so many blessings in my
life. My loving parents, Jorge G. and María B., served as my first teachers and
mentors. She taught me never to give up, and he taught me how to read. They
provided me with a strong foundation and always expressed faith in me. I am for-
tunate to still have my mami with me on earth and to have a papi angel in heaven
xiv Ack nowl edg ments

watching over me. My siblings, Graziela, Jorge Jr., Ira, Malcolm, and Aléxiz were
the original BFFs (best friends forever) in my life. Through the ups and downs
of life, love and friendship remain. It is gratifying to see my siblings happy, and
I thank their life partners, past and present, for bringing joy into their lives and
blessing to us all. Thanks especially to Araceli, Hassan, David, and Denise.
When I married Roger, I inherited a beautiful kinship with the Landeros
Family. My thanks to in-​laws, Rogelio Sr. and Fidela S. Landeros for their
kindness and generous spirits. My marriage brought more wonderful siblings
into my life with sisters-​in-​law Leticia and Elisa and brother-​in-​law Robert. Their
life partners, Jaime, Jerry, and Cristina have added more blessings to our family.
Between the two of us, Roger and I have seventeen nephews and nieces, one
great niece, and of these young folks, we have baptized five and confirmed one.
Luis, Lisa, Araceli, Albert, Alejandra, Isaac, Cheyenne, Emilio, Alex, Iván, Layla,
Jaimito, Robbie, Lea, Germán, Cristián, Diego, and Aria, thank you for your
smiles and laughter, for your hopes and dreams, and for being uniquely you.
I thank my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends for their caring
support and best wishes, especially Bernita, Conchita, Miguel, Chela, José,
Raymundo, Alicia, Elvira, Lourdes, Lupita, Maricela, Claudia, Elvia, Paty,
Minerva, Hugo, Marissa, Laura Elvira, Hugo Eduardo, Alma, Bruno, Alonso,
Jaime, Tony, Luis, Cindy, Caitlin, Lauren, Luke, Laura, Glen, Norman, Amanda,
and my entire St. Augustine High School graduating class and high school
teachers, Raquel Garza, Lupita Jiménez, Diana Garza, and Peter González. We
recently celebrated a reunion. Go Knights!!
To my husband Roger and our daughter Isabella, I say, I love the two of you
to the moon and back. Roger, eres mi media naranja. You are my soulmate,
and I admire your strength of character, integrity, and kind-​hearted nature. We
met when we were teenagers and from the first day, my heart told me you were
the one. All these years later, you’re still the one. Isabella, you are our biggest
blessing, proof of God’s grace in our lives. When I was pregnant with you, I made
plans to teach you so many things which I have, but in all candor, I believe I have
learned as much from you as you’ve learned from me. And for all my mama bear
instincts and habits, one big smile from you or a hug makes me feel so nurtured,
supported, and loved that perhaps you’ve already mastered the mama bear way.
It is with great pleasure that I dedicate this book to the family of my birth
and the family of my creation. Our bonds are deep and meaningful and our
entwined lives have taught me the most important lesson of all. The answer is
always LOVE.
 NOTE ON USAGE

In its usage within the United States, the appellations “Mexican-​origin” and
“ethnic Mexican” refer to people of Mexican descent, whether they are native-​
born citizens, naturalized citizens, legal residents, or undocumented residents.
The term “fronterizo” emphasizes the borderlands experience more than na-
tional identity. “Mexican immigrant” will be used when making references to
those involved in the migratory experience from Mexico. These terms are used
throughout the book.
In Part I, “méxico-​tejano,” on rare occasion spelled “méxico-​texano,” appears.
Spanish language newspapers in Texas often used this term during the first
couple of decades of the twentieth century to refer to the Mexican-​origin com-
munity in Texas. “Mexico” in the appellation highlighted the Mexicanist iden-
tity and nationalism common in the community during this period. Transborder
activists often referred to themselves and others they represented as “mexicanos”
(Mexicans), regardless of citizenship status, as a form of ethnic kinship and po-
litical solidarity. Anglo-​Texans did not make distinctions between US-​born
and Mexico-​born people, often referring to all people of Mexican descent as
“Mexican” or pejoratively as “Meskin.” Occasionally, the term “Tejano” is used
in this book to refer to Texas-​born Mexicans. In Part II, the appellation “Mexican
American” appears, reflecting the emphasis on American nationalism starting in
the 1920s but especially during the 1930s and 1940s. In a few instances, specifi-
cally in Chapter 6, where LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens)
is discussed, the term “Latin American” is used in the context in which activists
used it such as to describe the Spanish-​Speaking Parent Teacher Association, at
times called the Latin American PTA.
Transborder activists used the term “la raza” (literal translation—​the race)
as a shorthand name for the Mexican-​origin community. Early twentieth-​
century political activists sought to foster ethnic pride and unity across the
axes of gender, class, and national differences, and so the use of this appellation

xv
xvi Note on Us ag e

conveyed Mexican cultural nationalism. In this vein, it resembles the term

méxico-​tejano, but la raza has a broader reach. It can be used and was some-
times used by transborder activists to describe all Spanish-​speaking people or
all people connected to the mestizaje experience that created Latin America and
their collective struggles. The appellation la raza will appear occasionally in this
study within the contexts in which these activists used it. Interestingly, in the
1930s and 1940s activists also used the term la raza from time to time to refer to
Mexican-​origin people, but for them it did not carry the same political currency.
For Mexican American activists, la raza served more as a cultural identifier than
a political one, whether they used it in reference to people of Mexican descent
or to the larger family of Spanish-​speaking people throughout the western hem-
isphere or the world.
The term “gente decente” that translates to “decent people” was commonly
used among the middle and upper classes in Mexico as well as among middle-​
class Tejano communities to distinguish those deemed to be “respectable” be-
cause they lived in compliance with a set of bourgeois values from those who did
not subscribe to this lifestyle or the ideological assumptions undergirding it. The
term could carry both class and race undertones, but despite this, some within
the lower classes adopted gente decente identities to the extent that they strove
to climb the socioeconomic ladder or that they associated gente decente with
notions of goodness and living an exemplary life.
“Anglo-​American,” “Anglo-​Texan,” “European American,” or “whites” is used
throughout this study to refer to people socially constructed as white, both those
who are Texas born and those migrating to the state later in life. When a refer-
ence is needed to denote migrants from Europe, the term “European immigrant”
is used.
Redeeming La Raza
 Introduction
Redeeming La Raza in the World of Two Flags Entwined

Our society is comprised of women of Mexican-​origin and birth. . . . It

is dedicated to educational goals among the less fortunate sisters of our
community who live in a state of real intellectual, moral and economic
abandonment.
—Carolina Malpica de Munguía to the Governor of Querétaro,
Querétaro, Mexico, March 26, 1939

In 1939, Carolina Malpica de Munguía wrote to the governor of Querétaro and

other Mexican governors asking them to send representative handicrafts from
their states to display at an art exhibition.1 She organized this event to promote
Mexican culture among impoverished Mexican-​ origin Westside residents,
especially the women, in San Antonio, Texas. Uplifting Mexican women
formed the core of Malpica de Munguiá’s community activism. On June 12,
1938, “influenced by the social and cultural redemption labors so successfully
sponsored by the Consulate General of Mexico,” she formed a female volun-
tary association to help lower-​middle-​class and working-​class Mexican-​origin
women in San Antonio.2
Under the slogan “Todo Por la Patria y el Hogar” (“All for country and
home”), Malpica de Munguía founded the Círculo Social Femenino, México
(Female Social Circle, Mexico). Later renamed Círculo Cultural “Isabel, la
Católica” (Cultural Circle, “Isabella, the Catholic”), this organization engaged
in charitable projects, such as collecting donations for individuals and families in
need; participated in cultural events such as the Fiestas Patrias (Mexican holiday
celebrations); helped the Mexican consulate, the Mexican Library Association,
and the Mexican clinic; procured legal aid services and medical services for
people in need of these; organized English-​language and sewing courses; and
carried out myriad other activities that instilled a sense of Mexican cultural na-
tionalism in Mexican-​origin people as they navigated everyday life in American
society.3

1
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
Other documents randomly have
different content
showing what ideas the first Christians held on the subject of civil
power, and how calumniously they have been accused of being the
disturbers of public order.
"Omnis anima potestatibus, &c. Pergit hic Apostolus docere Fideles
vitæ ac morum officia. Quæ superiori capite vidimus, eo desinunt, ut
bonus ordo et pax in Ecclesia interque Fideles servetur. Hæc
potissimum spectant ad obedientiam, quam unusquisque
superioribus potestatibus debet. Christianorum libertatem atque a
Mosaicis legibus immunitatem commendaverat Apostolus; at ne quis
monitis abutatur, docet hic, quæ debeat esse subditorum subjectio
erga Reges et Magistratus.
"Hoc ipsum gravissime monuerant primos Ecclesiæ discipulos Petrus
et Jacobus; repetitque Paulus ad Titum scribens, sive ut Christianos,
insectantium injuriis undique obnoxios, in patientia contineret, sive
ut vulgi opinionem deleret, qua discipuli Jesu Christi, omnes ferme
Galilæi, sententiam Judæ Gaulonitæ sequi, et principum authoritati
repugnare censebantur.
"Omnis anima, quilibet, quavis conditione aut dignitate, potestatibus
sublimioribus subdita sit; Regibus, Principibus, Magistratibus, iis
denique quibus legitima est authoritas, sive absoluta, sive alteri
obnoxia. Neminem excipit Apostolus, non Presbyteros, non Præsules,
non Monachos, ait Theodoretus; illæsa tamen Ecclesiasticorum
immunitate. Tunc solum modo parere non debes, cum aliquid Divinæ
Legi contrarium imperatur: tunc enim præferenda est debita Deo
obedientia; quin tamen vel arma capere adversus Principes, vel in
seditionem abire liceat. Repugnandum est in iis tantum, quæ
justitiam, ac Dei legem violant; in cæteris parendum. Si imperaverint
aut idolorum cultum aut justitiæ violationem cum necis vel bonorum
jacturæ interminatione, vitam et fortunas discrimini objicito, ac
repugnato; in reliquis autem obtempera.
"Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo. Absolutissima in libertate
conditus est homo, nulli creatæ rei, at uni Deo subditus. Nisi
mundum invasisset una cum Adami transgressione peccatum,
mutuam æqualitatem libertatemque homines servassent. At libertate
abusos damnavit Deus, ut parerent iis, quos ipse principes illis daret,
ob pœnam arrogantiæ, qua pares Conditori effici voluerunt. At,
inquies, quis nesciat, quorumdam veterum Imperiorum initia et
incrementa ex injuria atque ambitione profecta. Nemrod, exempli
causa, Ninus, Nabuchodonosor, aliique quamplures, an Principes
erant a Deo constituti? Nonne similius vero est, violenta Imperia
primum exorta esse ab imperandi libidine? liberorum vero
Imperiorum originem fuisse hominum metum, qui sese impares
propulsandæ externorum injuriæ sentientes, aliquem sibi Principem
creavere, datamque sibi a Deo naturalem ulciscendi injurias
potestatem, volentes libentesque alteri tradiderunt? Quam vere igitur
docet Apostolus, quamlibet potestatem a Deo esse, eumque esse
positæ inter homines authoritatis institutorem?"
He points out four ways in which power may be said to emanate
from God, and it is remarkable that none of them are extraordinary
or supernatural; all of them serve to confirm more and more what
reason and the very nature of things teach us.
"Omnino Deus potestatis autor et causa est. I. Quod, hominibus
tacite inspiraverit consilium subjiciendi se uni, a quo defenderentur.
II. Quod imperia inter homines utilissima sint servandæ concordiæ,
disciplinæ, ac religioni. Porro quicquid boni est, a Deo ceu fonte
proficisciter. III. Cum potestas tuendi ab aggressore vitam vel opes,
hominibus a Deo tradita, atque ab ipsis in Principem conversa, a Deo
primum proveniat, Principes ea potestate ab hominibus donati, hanc
ab ipso Deo accepisse jure dicuntur; quamobrem Petrus humanam
creaturam nuncupat, quam Paulus potestatem a Deo institutam:
humana igitur et divina est, varia ratione spectata, uti diximus. IV.
Denique suprema authoritas a Deo est, utpote quam Deus, a
sapientibus institutam, probavit.
"Nulla unquam gens sæcularibus potestatibus magis paruit, quam
primæ ætatis Christiani, qui a Christo Jesu et ab Apostolis edocti,
nunquam ausi sunt Principibus a Providentia sibi datis repugnare.
Discipulos fugere tantum jubet Christus. Ait Petrus, Christum nobis
exemplum reliquisse, cum sese Judicum iniquitate pessime agi
passus est. Monet hic Paulus, resistere te Dei voluntati, atque
æternæ damnationis reum effici, si potestati repugnas. 'Quamvis
nimius et copiosus noster populus, non tamen adversus violentiam
se ulciscitur: patitur,' ait sanctus Cyprianus. 'Satis virium est ad
pugnam; at omnia perpeti ex Christo didicimus. Cui bello non idonei,
non prompti fuissemus, etiam copiis impares, qui tam libenter
trucidamur? si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret, quam
occidere,' inquit Tertullianus. 'Cum nefanda patimur, ne verbo
quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimus ultionem,' scribebat
Lactantius. Sanctus Ambrosius: 'coactus, repugnare non novi. Dolere
potero, potero flere, potero gemere: abversus arma, milites, Gothos
quoque; lacrymæ meæ arma sunt. Talia enim sunt munimenta
Sacerdotis. Aliter ne debeo nec possum resistere.'"
I have said in the text, that there was to be remarked a singular
coincidence of opinions on the origin of society between the
philosophers of antiquity, deprived of the light of faith, and those of
our days who have abandoned this light; both wanting the only
guide, which is the Mosaic history, have found in their researches
after the origin of things, nothing more than chaos, in the physical
as well as in the moral order. In support of my assertion, I will insert
passages from two celebrated men, in which the reader will find,
with very little difference, the same language as in Hobbes,
Rousseau, and other writers of the same school.
"There was a time," says Cicero, "when men wandered in the fields
like the brutes, feeding on prey like wild beasts, deciding nothing by
reason, but every thing by force. No religion was then professed, no
morality observed; there were no laws of marriage; the father could
not distinguish his own children, and the possession of property by
virtue of principles of equity was unknown. Hence the blind,
unrestrained passions ruled tyrannically in the midst of error and
ignorance, and used the powers of the body for their gratification as
their most injurious satellites."
"Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum
more vagabantur, et sibi victu ferino vitam propagabant; nec ratione
animi quidquam, sed pleraque viribus corporis administrabant.
Nondum divinæ religionis, non humani officii ratio colebatur; nemo
nuptias viderat legitimas, non certos quisquam inspexerat liberos;
non jus æquabile quid utilitatis haberet, acceperat. Ita propter
errorem atque inscitiam, cæca ac temeraria dominatrix animi
cupiditas ad se explendam viribus corporis abutebatur,
perniciosissimis satellitibus." (De Inv. 1.)
The same doctrine is to be found in Horace:
"Cum prorepserunt primis animalia terris,
Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter
Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro
Pugnabant armis, quæ post fabricaverat usus:
Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,
Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello,
Oppida cœperunt munire et ponere leges,
Neu quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter.
Nam fuit ante Helenam mulier teterrima belli
Causa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi,
Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum,
Viribus editior cædebat, ut in grege taurus.
Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est,
Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi,
Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum,
Dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis."
Satir. lib. i. sat. 3.

"When men first began to crawl upon the earth, they were only like
a herd of brute and speechless animals, contending with their nails
or their fists for a few acorns or for a den. They afterwards
contended with sticks and such arms as experience taught them to
invent. At length they discovered the use of words to express their
thoughts; gradually they became weary of fighting, and built cities,
and made laws to prevent theft, robbery, and adultery; for, before
Helen, women had been the cause of terrible wars. He who was the
strongest, abusing his power, after the manner of brutes, attacked
the weak, like a bull among a subject herd; they thus contended for
the favors of inconstant Venus; but their end was inglorious. If you
consult the origin of things, you will acknowledge that laws have
been made in apprehension of injustice. Nature enables us to
discern good from evil, what is to be sought after from what is to be
avoided, but she is incapable of distinguishing justice from injustice."

Note 29, p. 311.

Concerning this question, as to the direct or indirect origin of civil
power, it is remarkable, that, in the time of Louis of Bavaria, the
imperial princes solemnly sanctioned the opinion that power
emanates directly from God. In an imperial Constitution, published
against the Roman Pontiff, they established the following
proposition: "In order to avoid so great an evil, we declare that
imperial dignity and power proceed directly from God.—Ad tantum
malum evitandum, declaramus, quod imperialis dignitas et potestas
est immediate a Deo solo." That we may form an idea of the spirit
and tendency of this doctrine, let us see what kind of man this Louis
of Bavaria was. Excommunicated by John XXII., and at a later period
by Clement VI., he went so far as to depose this latter Pontiff, in
order to exalt to the Pontifical Chair the antipope Peter, for which
reason the Pope, after repeated admonitions, divested him of his
imperial dignity, substituting Charles IV. in his stead.
Ziegler the Lutheran, a zealous supporter of direct communication, in
order to explain his doctrine, compares the election of a prince to
that of a minister of the Church. The latter, says he, does not receive
his spiritual authority from the people, but immediately from God.
From this explanation it is evident with how much reason I have
said, that such a doctrine tended to place the temporal and spiritual
powers on a level, by making it appear that the latter could not
claim, by reason of its origin, any superiority over the former. I do
not mean, however, to assert, that this declaration, made in the time
of Louis of Bavaria, had directly this aim, since it may rather be
regarded as a sort of weapon employed against the pontifical
authority, the ascendency of which was dreaded. But it is well known
that doctrines, besides the influence resulting immediately from
them, possess a peculiar force, which continues to develop itself as
opportunities occur. Some time after, we see the kings of England
defenders of the religious supremacy which they had just usurped,
supporting the proposition advanced in the imperial Constitution.
I know not with what foundation it can be said that Ziegler's opinion
was general before the time of Puffendorf; in consulting
ecclesiastical and secular writers, we do not find the least support
for such an assertion. Let us be just even to our adversaries.
Ziegler's opinion, defended by Boecler and others, was attacked by
certain Lutherans, amongst others by Boehmer, who observes, that
this opinion is not favorable, as its partisans pretend, to the security
of states and princes. To repeat what I have already explained in the
text, I do not consider that the opinion of direct communication,
rightly understood, is so inadmissible and dangerous as some have
imagined; but as it lay open to an evil interpretation, Catholic
theologians have done well to combat its tendency to encroach upon
the divine origin of ecclesiastical power.

Note 30, p. 317.

I might quote a thousand remarkable passages showing the reader
how unjust it is in the enemies of the clergy to accuse them of being
favorable to despotism. But, to be brief, and to spare him the fatigue
of perusing so many texts and quotations, I shall merely present to
him a specimen of the current opinions on this point in Spain at the
beginning of the 17th century, a few years after the death of Philip
II., the monarch who is represented to us as the personification of
religious fanaticism and political tyranny. Among the numerous
books published at that time on these delicate points, there is a very
singular one, which does not appear to be very well known; its title
is as follows:
A Treatise on the State and Christian Politics, for the use of Kings
and Princes, and those holding government appointments, by
Brother John de Ste.-Marie, a religious in the province of St. Joseph,
of the order of our glorious Father St. Francis.
This book, printed at Madrid in 1615, furnished with all the
privileges, approbations, and other formalities in use, must have
been well received at that epoch, since it was reprinted at Barcelona
in 1616, by Sebastian de Cormellas. Who shall say whether this work
did not inspire Bossuet with the idea of that intituled Politics derived
from the very words of Scripture? The title is certainly analogous,
and the idea is in fact the same, although differently carried out. "I
think," says Brother John de Ste.-Marie, "I shall escape all difficulty,
by laying before kings in this work, not my own reasonings, nor
those afforded by eminent philosophers and the records of profane
history, but the words of God and His saints, and the divine and
canonical histories, whose teaching commands respect, and whose
authority cannot be prejudicial to any one, however powerful a
sovereign he may be; in fact, to these a Christian cannot but submit,
since every thing in them is dictated by the Holy Ghost, the author
of these divine maxims. If I cite examples of Gentile kings, if I
appeal to antiquity, and adduce passages from philosophers
unconnected with the people of God, I shall do so incidentally only,
and as we resume possession of what of right belongs to us, and
has been unjustly usurped by others." (Chap. 2.)
The work is dedicated to the king. Addressing him, and praying him
to read it, and not to allow himself to be imposed upon by those
who would dissuade him from its perusal, the good religious says,
with a pleasing candor, "Let no one tell you that these things are
metaphysical, impracticable, and all but impossible."
The following inscription is placed at the head of the 1st chapter:
"Ad vos (O Reges) sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam et
non excidatis: qui enim custodierint justa juste, justificabuntur: et
qui didiscerint ista, invenient quid respondeant." (Sap. 6, v. 10.)
In the first chapter, the title of which is, "A treatise in which the
import and definition of this word commonwealth are briefly
discussed," we read these remarkable words: "So that monarchy
must degenerate if it be absolute and without restraint (for power
and authority thus become unreasonable); in all things falling under
the cognizance of law, it should be bound by the law; and in special
and incidental matters it should be subject to advice, from the
connection which it ought to have with the aristocracy, which is its
assistant, and forms a council of learned and powerful men. Without
this wise modification, monarchy will create great errors of
government, will give but little satisfaction, but, on the contrary, will
cause great discontent among the governed. The wisest and most
enlightened men of every age have invariably considered this form
of government the best; and without such a modification no city or
kingdom has ever been considered well governed. Good kings and
the wisest statesmen have always been in favor of this system; bad
kings, on the contrary, elated by their power, have pursued the
opposite course. Hence, if a monarch, whoever he be, decides by
himself, without taking advice, or against the advice of his
councillors, he passes the legitimate bounds of monarchy, and even
when his decisions are fortunate, he is a tyrant. History is full of
these examples and of their disastrous consequences; it will be
enough to adduce one only, that of Tarquin the Proud, as related in
the 1st book of Livy, a king whose pride was unbounded, and who,
to render himself absolute, and to put every thing under his feet,
strove to weaken the authority of the Roman Senate by diminishing
the number of Senators, thus arrogating to himself an absolute right
of decision in all the affairs of the empire."
In chapter 2, in which the author treats of "the meaning of the word
king," we read as follows: "We meet here very opportunely with the
third meaning of the word king, which is the same as that of father;
as we find in Genesis, when the Sichemites gave to their king the
name of Abimelech, which means 'Father and Lord.' Kings were
formerly styled the fathers of their states. Whence King Theodoric,
defining royal majesty (as Cassiodorus relates), makes use of these
words: 'Princeps et Pastor publicus et communis.—The king is the
public and common father of the state.' From the extreme
resemblance between the office of a king and that of a father, Plato
was induced to call the king the father of a family; and the
philosopher Xenophon says: Bonus Princeps nihil differt a bono
Patre. The difference solely consists in one having few and the other
a great number of persons under his dominion. And it is certainly
very reasonable to give kings this title of father; for they ought to be
the fathers of their subjects and of their kingdoms, watching over
their welfare and preservation with the love and solicitude of a
Father. Royalty, says Homer, is nothing else than a paternal
government, like that of a father over his children: 'Ipsum namque
regnum imperium est suapte natura paternum.' The best manner of
governing well is, for the king to be possessed with the love of a
father, and to regard his subjects at his own children. The love of a
father for his children, his solicitude that they should want for
nothing, his devotedness to each of them, all this bears the greatest
resemblance to the love of a king for his subjects. He is called father,
and this name lays him under the obligation of acting in accordance
with the meaning it conveys. This name, so well adapted to kings,
and which, when well considered, is the greatest of all titles and
epithets of majesty and power, since it embraces all, the genus and
the species, the father being alone the lord, the master, or the chief;
this name, I say, is above all human names for expressing authority
and solicitude. Antiquity, with a view to confer upon an emperor an
extraordinary degree of honor, called him the Father of the State,
which was greater than Cæsar, Augustus, or any other glorious
name; it decreed him this title, either to flatter him, or to lay him
under the weighty obligations required by the name of father. In
fine, to give kings this name is to remind them of their duty, viz. to
direct, govern, and maintain their states and kingdoms in justice;
like good pastors, to feed their rational sheep; like physicians, to
care for them and heal them; to take care of their subjects, as a
father does of his children, with prudence, love, and solicitude; for
the king is for them, rather than for himself. 'Kings are under greater
obligations to their kingdoms and states than to themselves;' in fact,
if we consider the institution of kings and monarchs, we shall find
that the king was appointed for the good of the kingdom, and not
the kingdom for the good of the king."
In his 3d chapter, of which the following is the title, "Whether the
name of king necessarily implies an office," he thus expresses
himself:—"Besides what we have advanced, it may be proved that
the name of a king is the name of an office, by the common maxim,
'the benefice is the reward of the office.' Since, therefore, kings
receive such great benefices, not only from the considerable tributes
they receive from the State, but also from the advantage they derive
from benefices and ecclesiastical rents, they certainly do hold an
office, and that the greatest of all, for which reason the entire
kingdom so bountifully assists them. This is what St. Paul says in his
Epistle to the Romans: Ideo et tributa præstatis, &c. Kingdoms do
not contribute for nothing; all those states, taxes, and great
revenues, that name, that high authority and eminent dignity, are
not given gratuitously. They would have their title of king for nothing
if they had no subjects to rule and govern, and if they were freed
from this obligation: In multitudine populi dignitas regis. This great
dignity, wealth, rank, majesty, and honor, are possessed by them
with the perpetual obligation of ruling and governing their states, so
as to preserve them in peace and justice. Let kings bear in mind,
therefore, that they are only invested with this title to serve their
kingdoms; and the latter, that kings ought to be paid. They hold an
office requiring them to labor: Qui præest in sollicitudine, says St.
Paul. Such is the title and the name of king, and of him who rules:
one who is the first not only as regards honors and enjoyments, but
also as regards cares and solicitude. Let them not imagine that they
are kings merely in name and representation, and appointed only to
make themselves honored; merely to exhibit their royal person and
sovereign dignity in a pompous manner, like some of the kings of the
Persians and Medes, who were mere shadows of kings, forgetful of
their office, as though they had never received it. Nothing is more
destitute of life and substance than the shadowy image which stirs
its arm or its head only when some one acts upon it. God forbade
the Israelites to have statues or painted images, representing a hand
where there was none, and a face that did not exist, exhibiting to
the eye an imaginary body, and feigning by apparently living actions
to see and to speak; for God loves not feigned images, painted men,
or sculptured kings, like those spoken of by David: Os habent et non
loquentur, oculos habent et non videbunt. What does it avail to have
a tongue that speaks not, eyes that see not, ears that hear not, or
hands which do not work? Is it any thing more than an idol of stone,
bearing only the external representation of a king? To bear the
supreme name and all authority, and not to be capable of any thing,
sounds badly. The names which God has given to things are like the
title of a book, which, in a few words, contains every thing that is
included in the book. This name of king was given to kings by God
himself, and contains every thing to which they are obliged by virtue
of their office. If their actions are not in accordance with the name,
it is as if the mouth should affirm what the head denies, like a
buffoon, whom no one believes in earnest. Every one would regard
as a mockery and a delusion a signboard bearing the inscription,
'Pure gold sold here,' if, in reality, nothing but tinsel was sold. The
name of king should not be an empty thing, a mere superfluity in
the royal person—it should be what it implies and gives itself out for.
Your name indicates that you rule and govern; rule and govern,
therefore, in reality. Do not be mere pasteboard kings, to use a
common expression, that is, kings in name only. In France, there
was a time when kings had nothing but the name, and the
government was entirely in the hands of their generals, whilst they,
like animals, were occupied only with gluttony and luxurious living.
That it might be known they were living, for they never went out,
they used to appear in public once a year, on the 1st of May, in the
squares of Paris, seated on a throne, as kings in a dramatic
representation, and there they were saluted, gifts were presented to
them, and they, on their part, granted certain favors to whomsoever
they thought proper. In order to show to what a degree of
degradation they had fallen, Eginard tells us, in the beginning of his
Life of Charlemagne, that they were devoid of courage and incapable
of great actions; they merely held the empty name of king; for, in
reality they were not kings, neither had they any participation in the
government or riches of the kingdom; every thing was entrusted to
the mayors of the palace, styled majors-domo of the royal
household; and the latter usurped every thing to such a degree, that
they left the wretched king nothing but his title. Seated on his
throne, with his long hair and beard, the monarch played his part,
pretending to give audiences to ambassadors arriving from all parts,
and to furnish them with answers to convey to their masters; whilst
in reality they merely answered according to the instructions they
had received, either by word or writing, although they appeared to
answer on their own responsibility. So that royal power for such a
king was reduced to the mere name, to this throne and this
ridiculous majesty; the real kings and masters were those favorites
by whom the monarch was oppressed. God said of one of the kings
of Samaria, that he was merely to be compared to a little vapor,
which, seen from afar, appeared something, but when touched was
no longer any thing. Simia in tecto rex fatuus in solio suo. (St.
Bernard, de Consider ad Eug. cap. 7.) A monkey on a housetop,
which, presenting the appearance of a man, is taken for such by
those who know not what it is; such is a useless king upon a throne.
Monkeys also serve to amuse children, and the king is a laughing-
stock to him who looks upon him apart from any royal act, invested
with authority, and making no use of it. A king dressed in purple,
seated on a throne with great majesty, suited to his grandeur, grave,
severe, and terrible in appearance, but in reality an absolute
nonentity. Like a painting de la main du Greco, which, placed in an
elevated position, and seen from a distance, looks very beautiful,
and produces a great effect, but when nearly approached is but a
rough sketch. All pomp and majesty, properly considered, are a mere
sketch and shadow of a king. Simulacra gentium, says David,
speaking of kings who have nothing but the name; and according to
the Hebrew text: Imago fictilis et contrita. A figure of pounded
earth, crumbling on all sides; an empty phantom, great in
appearance, but a mere piece of deception. The name which Elifaz
unjustly applied to Job is perfectly applicable here, when he
designated this good and just king, a man void of foundation and
substance, bearing only external appearances; he styled him
Myrmicoleon, that is, the name of the animal which, in Latin, is
called Formica-leo, because it is a monstrous conformation, one half
of its body, in fact, representing a fearful lion, an animal always used
as an emblem of a king, and the other half an ant, that is, a most
feeble and insignificant thing. Such are the authority, the name,
throne, and majesty of a fierce lion and of a powerful monarch; but
as regards the essence, you will find only that of an ant. There have
been kings whose very name filled the world with terror; but these
kings were void of substance in themselves, in their kingdoms they
were as mere ants; their names and offices were very great, but
without effect. Let the king, therefore, bear in mind that he has an
office to fulfill, and not only an office, but that he is obliged to speak
and labor on all offices, of which he is the general superintendent.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas, explaining that passage of St. Paul
which treats of episcopal dignity, say, that the word bishop, in Greek,
is composed of two roots signifying the same thing as
superintendent. The name of bishop, king, and every other superior,
are names signifying superintendence over, and co-operation with,
every office. This is what is expressed by the sceptre used by kings
in public acts, a ceremony used by the Egyptians, who borrowed it
from the Israelites. The latter, in order to point out the duty of a
good king, painted an open eye placed in an elevated position on the
point of a rod in the form of a sceptre, representing, on the one
hand, the great power of the king, the solicitude and vigilance which
he ought to exercise; on the other, that he ought not to be satisfied
with holding the supreme power, with occupying the most exalted
and most eminent position, and, in possession of these, passing his
life in sleep and repose; on the contrary, he should be the first in
commanding and counselling, he should appear in every office,
incessantly watching and inspecting, like a man doing the business
in which he is engaged. Jeremiah also understands it in this sense,
for when God asked him what he saw, he answered: Virgam
vigilantem ego video. Thou hast seen well; and verily I tell thee, that
I who am supreme, will watch over my flock; I who am a shepherd,
will watch over my sheep; I who am a king and a monarch, will
watch without ceasing over all my inferiors. Regem festinantem,
says the Chaldean, a king who is in haste; for, although he has eyes
and sees, if he remains in repose, in his pleasures and amusements,
if he does not go about from place to place, if he does not act so as
to become acquainted with all the good and evil that is going on in
his kingdom, he is as though he did not exist. Let him consider that
he is the head, and even the head of the lion, which even in its sleep
keeps its eyes open; that he is the rod with eyes, that he is the
torch; let him open his eyes, therefore, and sleep no longer, trusting
to those who are blinded, and see no better than moles; who, if they
have eyes, only employ them to see their own interest, and to
distinguish at a greater distance what may conduce to their own
profit and aggrandizement. Such persons have eyes for themselves,
and it would be better if they had them not, for their eyes are those
of birds of prey—of vultures."
In his fourth chapter, the title of which is, "On the office of kings,"
the author thus explains the origin of royal power and its obligations:
—"From this it follows," says he, "that the institution of the state of
royalty, or king, represented by the head, was not merely for the use
and profit of the king himself, but for that of his whole kingdom.
Hence he ought to see, hear, feel, and understand, not only by
himself and for himself, but by all and for all. He ought not merely to
fix his regards upon his own greatness, but on the good of his
subjects, since it is for them, and not for himself, that he was born a
king. Adverte, said Seneca to the Emperor Nero, rempublicam non
esse tuam, sed te reipublicæ.—When men first issued from solitude,
and united to live in common, they knew that every one would
naturally labor for himself or his own family, and that no one would
take an interest in all; they agreed to select a man of great merit,
that all might have recourse to him; a man who, distinguished above
all the rest by his virtue, his prudence, and courage, should be the
chief over all, should govern all, watch over all, and should exert
himself for the advantage of all—for the common weal—like a father
for his children, or a shepherd for his sheep. Now, considering that
this man, abandoning his own affairs to look after those of others,
could not maintain himself and his family (every one was then
maintained by the labor of his hands), it was agreed that all should
contribute to his support, in order that he might not be distracted by
any other occupations than those of the common weal and the
public government. Such was the end for which kings were instituted
—such was their beginning. The good king ought to be more
solicitous for the public than for his own private interest. He
possesses his grandeur at the expense of great solicitude; the
anxiety, the disquietude of mind and body, which is fatigue for him,
is repose, support, and protection for others. Thus smiling flowers
and fruits, whilst they adorn the tree, exist not so much for the tree,
nor on account of the tree, as for the sake of others. Do not imagine
that all happiness is in the beauty and grace of the flower, and in
those who are the flowers of the world: powerful kings and princes
may be termed the flowers of the world, but flowers who consume
their lives, who are full of solicitude, and whose fruit will rather
contribute to the enjoyment of others than to their own. 'For,' says
the Jew Philo, 'the king is to the kingdom what the wise is to the
ignorant man, what the shepherd is to his sheep, the father to his
children, light to darkness, and what God is upon earth to all his
creatures.' The investiture he gave to Moses, when he appointed him
the chief and king over his people, was to tell him that he ought to
be as God, the common father of all; for the office and dignity of a
king require all this. Omnium domos illius vigila defendit, omnium
otium illius industria, omnium vacationem illius occupatio. (Seneca,
Lib. de Consol.) This is what the prophet Samuel says to Saul,
recently elected king, when he expounds to him the obligations of
his office: 'Consider, Saul, that God has this day constituted thee
king over all this kingdom; thou art bound by the office to govern
the whole of it. Thou hast not been made a king to enjoy repose, to
become proud, and to glory in the dignity of a king; but to govern
thy kingdom, to maintain it in peace and justice, to defend and
protect it against its enemies.' Rex eligitur, non, ut sui ipsius curam
habeat, says Socrates, et sese molliter curet, sed ut per ipsum ii, qui
elegerunt, bene beateque vivant. They were not created and
introduced into the world for their own convenience and pleasure or
to be fed upon every dainty morsel of food (if such were the case,
no one would willingly submit to them); but they were appointed for
the advantage and common good of all their subjects, to govern
them, protect them, enrich them, preserve and serve them. All this
is perfectly admissible; for although the sceptre and crown appear to
be the emblems of domination, the office of a king is, strictly
speaking, that of a slave. Servus communis, sive servus honoratus,
are words which have sometimes been applied to a king, quia a tota
republica stipendia accipit ut serviat omnibus. And the Supreme
Pontiff glories in this title, Servus servorum Dei. In ancient times this
name of slave was one of infamy; but since Christ bore it it has
become a name full of honor. Now, since it is neither repugnant nor
derogatory to the essence nor nature of the Son of God, neither can
it be derogatory to the nature and grandeur of the king.
"Antigonus, king of Macedon, was perfectly aware of this, and said
candidly to his son, when he rebuked him for the severity with which
he governed his subjects: An ignoras, fili mi, regnum nostrum
nobilem esse servitutem? Before his time Agamemnon expressed
himself in the same manner: 'We live apparently in the midst of
grandeur and exaltation; but in reality we are the servants and
slaves of our subjects.' Such is the office of good kings—an
honorable servitude. From the moment of their being created kings,
their actions no longer depend upon their own will, but on the laws
and rules which have been given them, and on the conditions upon
which they have undertaken their office. And although they may fail
to comply with these conditions (which are the effects of a human
convention), they may not fail to comply with that dictated by
natural and divine law, the mistress of kings as well as of subjects.
Now, these rules are almost all included in the words of Jeremiah,
which God, according to St. Jerome, addresses to kings on giving
them the command:—Facite judicium et justitiam, liberate vi
oppressum de manu calumniatoris, et advenam, et pupillum, et
viduam nolite contristare, neque opprimatis inique, et sanguinem
innocentum non effundatis. Such is the summary of the obligations
of a king; such the laws of his institution, which lay him under the
obligation of maintaining in peace and justice the orphan, the
widow, the poor, the rich and the powerful man, and him who can
do nothing for himself. Upon him rest the wrongs of his ministers
towards some, the injustice suffered by others, the sorrows of the
afflicted, the tears of those who weep, not to mention many other
burdens—a flood of cares and obligations—imposed upon every
prince or chief of a state. For if he is the head to command and
govern, and to bear the burdens of others, he should also be the
feet upon which the whole weight of the state is sustained. Kings
and monarchs, says the holy man Job, as we have seen, bear and
carry the world upon their shoulders, on account of their office.
Hence the figure we meet with in the Book of Wisdom: In veste
poderis, quam habebat summus sacerdos, totus erat orbis terrarum.
From the moment a man is created king, let him consider himself
loaded with a burden so heavy that a strong carriage would not
support it. Moses felt this strongly; for God having made him His
viceroy, His captain-general, His lieutenant in the government,
instead of returning thanks for so distinguished a favor, he complains
that so heavy a burden should be placed upon him. Cur afflixisti
servum tuum? Cur imposuisti pondus universi populi hujus super
me? Again, continuing his complaint, he says, Numquid ego concepi
omnem hanc multitudinem? Aut genui eam, ut dicas mihi: Porta eos?
—'Lord, have I conceived all this multitude, or begotten them, and
thou shouldst say to me, Carry them on thy shoulders?' Now, it is
remarkable that God said nothing of that to Moses; he merely tells
him to rule and govern them, to fulfill towards them the office of
captain and chief. Nevertheless, what says Moses? That God
commanded him to bear them on his shoulders—Porta eos. It
appears, then, that he has no reason to complain, since he is merely
told to be the captain, to direct, rule, and govern. It is a common
expression, 'A word to the wise is sufficient.' He who knows and
understands what it is to govern and to be the chief, knows also that
government and obligation are the same thing. The very words
regere and portare are synonymous, and have the same meaning:
there is no government nor employment without obligation and
labor. In the distribution of the offices which Jacob made among his
children, he appointed Reuben to be the first in his inheritance and
the highest in command—prior in donis, major in imperio. And St.
Jerome translates major ad portandum, for command and obligation
are the same thing; and the obligation and the labor are so much
more considerable as the command is more exalted. St. Gregory, in
his Morales, says, that the power, domination, and rule of kings over
the whole world should not be looked upon as an honor but as a
labor. Potestas accepta non honor, sed onus æstimatur. And this
truth was ever received by the blindest among the Gentiles. One of
them, taking the same view of the subject, says, speaking of
another Pagan, that his god Apollo had made him all glorious and
happy by the gift of a certain office: Lætus erat, mixtoque oneri
gaudebat honore. So that power and command composed of a little
honor and weighty obligations. The Latin word for honor only differs
from that for burden by one letter—onos and onus. Besides, there
always were and always will be persons willing to undertake the
responsibility for the sake of the honor, although every one avoids as
much as possible any thing that lays him under an obligation, and
seeks after what is glorious; a dangerous choice, for the latter is not
always the most secure."
If such language is taxed with flattery, it would be difficult to
comprehend what is meant by telling the truth. And observe, that
the above truths are not told without reflection; the good religious
takes such pains to inculcate them, that were it not for the childlike
candor of his language, which discloses the purest of intentions, we
might accuse him of irreverence. This passage is long, but
exceedingly interesting, for it faithfully reflects the spirit of the age.
Innumerable other texts might be adduced to prove how unjustly
the Catholic clergy are accused of being favorable to despotism. I
cannot conclude without inserting here two excellent passages from
the learned Father Fr. Ferdinand de Zeballos, a religious of the order
of St. Jerome in the Monastery of St. Isidore del Campo, and known
by a work intituled, "False Philosophy, or Atheism, Deism,
Materialism, and other new sects convicted of State Crimes against
their Sovereigns and Rulers, against the Magistrates and Lawful
Authorities." Madrid, 1776. Observe with what tact the learned
writer appreciates the influence of religion upon society. (Book ii.
dissertation 12, art. 2.)

"A mild and moderate government is most agreeable to the spirit of

the gospel.
§ I.
"One excellent and estimable point in our holy religion is, that she
offers to human policy, in her important truths, assistance in
preserving good order among men with less trouble. 'The Christian
religion,' says Montesquieu, with much truth, 'is far removed from
pure despotism. Mildness being so strongly recommended in the
gospel, it is opposed to the despotic fury with which princes might
administer justice and practise cruelties.' This opposition on the part
of Christianity to the cruelty of the monarch should not be active,
but passive and full of mildness, which Christianity can never lose
sight of without losing its character. This is the difference between
Catholic Christians and the Calvinists and other Protestants.
Basnages and Jurieu, in the name of all their reformation, wrote that
it is allowable for the people to wage war against their princes
whenever they are oppressed by them, or their conduct appears
tyrannical.
"The Catholic Church has never changed the doctrines she received
from Jesus Christ and His Apostles. She loves moderation, she
rejoices in good: but she does not resist evil, she overcomes it by
patience. Governments established under the direction of false
religions cannot be satisfied with a moderate policy. With them the
despotism or tyranny of princes, the ferocity of penalties, the rigor of
an inflexible and cruel legislation, are so many necessary evils. But
why has it been given to the Catholic religion only to purge human
governments from such inhumanity? First, on account of the forcible
impression produced by her dogmas; secondly, through the effect of
the grace of Jesus Christ, which renders men docile in doing good,
and energetic in combating evil. Wherever false religion
predominates, and where, in consequence, these two means of aid
are wanting, the government is under the necessity of supplying
them as far as possible by efforts of a severe, harsh, and terror-
inspiring policy, in default of that virtue which ought to exist in
religion to restrain citizens.
"Hence the Catholic religion, by the influence of her dogmas over
human affairs, relieves governments from the necessity of being
harsh. In Japan, where the prevailing religion has no dogmas, and
gives no idea of heaven or hell, laws are made to supply this defect
—laws rendered useful by the cruelty with which they are conceived
and the punctuality with which they are executed. In every society in
which deists, fatalists, and philosophers have promulgated this error,
that our actions are unavoidable, it is impossible to prevent laws
from becoming more terrible and sanguinary than any we have
known among barbarian nations; for in such a society, men, after
the manner of brutes, being urged by palpable motives to do what
they are commanded and omit what they are forbidden, these
motives, with chastisements, must be daily more formidable, in
order to avoid losing from habit the power of making themselves
felt. The Christian religion, which admirably teaches and explains the
dogmas of rational liberty, has no need of an iron rod to govern
mankind. The fear of the pains of hell, whether eternal, to punish
crimes unrepented of, or temporal, to wash away the stains of sins
confessed, relieves judges from the necessity of augmenting
punishments. On the other hand, the hope of gaining heaven, as a
reward for laudable actions, words, and thoughts, induces men to be
just, not only in public but also in the secrecy of the heart. What
laws or penalties would avail governments not possessed of this
dogma of hell and of glory, to make their citizens men of real merit?
Materialists, denying the dogma of a future state, and deists, holding
out to the wicked the flattering security of paradise, place
governments under the painful necessity of arming themselves with
all the instruments of terror, and of always inflicting the most cruel
punishments, to restrain the people from destroying one another.
"Protestants have already come to this point by rejecting the dogma
of the eternity of hell, or, at least, by preserving merely the fear of a
temporary pain. The first reformers, as d'Alembert observes to the
clergy of Geneva, denied the doctrine of purgatory, and retained that
of hell; but the Calvinists, and modern reformers, by their limitation
of the duration of hell, leave only what may be properly termed
purgatory. Is not the dogma of the last judgment, when each one's
secret offences, however small, shall be exposed to the whole world,
of singular efficacy in restraining the thoughts and desires, and all
the perversity of the heart and of the passions? It is evident that this
dogma so far relieves political governments from the painful and
continual vigilance which it would have to exercise over a town in
which the idea of this judgment has perished, together with the
thoughts which it inspires."
§ II.
"There are certain aberrations observable among philosophers,
which lead us to think that these men were possessed of some true
discernment in their lucid moments, or whilst they were in the
Catholic religion. Hence they have said, 'that religion was invented
for a political purpose, to spare sovereigns the necessity of being
just, of making good laws, and of governing well.' This folly, which
stands self-condemned when we come to speak of religion
previously formed, supposes, nevertheless, the truth we are
speaking of. It is evident to every one, even to the philosophers
whose extravagant assertion we have just adduced, that the
Christian religion, by her dogmas, is serviceable to human
governments, and aids in making good citizens, even in this world.
Yet they avail themselves of this very point to put forth their insane
malice: but, in reality, and in spite of themselves, they mean to say,
that the dogmas of religion are of such service to governments, and
so efficacious in facilitating a great part of their work, that they
appear to be formed on purpose, and according to the designs of a
magistrate or a political government. We cannot say, on this
account, that religion alone is sufficient to govern men, without any
judicial aid, without the intervention of the laws and of penalties. In
speaking of this efficacy of the dogmas inculcated by religion, we are
not rash and presumptuous; we do not reject as superfluous the
office of law and police. We are told by the Apostle, that for the just
there would have been no need of laws; but there are so many
wicked, who, through their forgetfulness of their destiny and the
terrible judgments of God, live under the exclusive rule of their
passions, that it has been found necessary to make laws and
institute punishments, in order to restrain them. Hence, the Catholic
religion does not reject the wise vigilance of police, nor abrogate its
office; she seconds it, on the contrary, and receives assistance from
it, to the very great advantage of good governments; the people,
through its influence, are ruled better, and with less austerity and
severity."
§ III.
"The second reason which renders the most mild and moderate
governments sufficient in Catholic States is, the assistance which the
grace of the gospel affords for doing good and avoiding evil,—an
assistance imparted by the use of the sacraments, or other means
employed by the Spirit from above. Without this, every law is harsh;
this unction softens every yoke, renders every burden light."
In his third article, Father Zeballos repels the accusation of
despotism with which the enemies of monarchy reproach it. On this
occasion he points out the just limits of royal authority, and
overthrows an argument which some persons have pretended to
found on the Scriptures, for the exaggeration of the prerogatives of
the throne. He expresses himself as follows:
"When the objection, that the sovereign had the power of seizing
the property of every citizen, was made against monarchy, it was
rather an argument against the nature of despotism than against the
form of monarchical government. 'What does it avail,' says Theseus
in Euripides, 'to amass riches for our heirs, to bring up our daughters
with care, if we are to be deprived of the greater portion of these
riches by a tyrant, if our daughters are to serve the most unruly
passions?' You perceive, then clearly, that in pretending to argue
against the office of a monarch, it is a tyrant only that is spoken of.
True, the frequent abuse of power resorted to by kings has caused
these names and forms to be confounded. Others have already
observed that the ancients were scarcely acquainted with the nature
of true monarchy; this was very natural, since they never witnessed
any thing but the abuse of it. This gives me the opportunity of
making a remark upon the circumstance of the Hebrews asking to be
governed by kings. 'Make us a king to judge us, as all nations have,'
said they to the prophet. Samuel saw with grief this levity, which
was about to cause a total revolution in the government appointed
by God. Nevertheless, God commands the prophet to take no notice
of this affront, which was principally offered to the Lord; for they
were abandoning Him, being unwilling that He should rule over them
any longer. 'As they have forsaken Me, and served strange gods, so
do they also unto thee,' and ask for kings like unto those of the
nations. Observe what an intimate connection always exists between
a change of government and a change in religion, especially when
the change is from a true to a false one.
"But what is particularly deserving of notice is, the acquiescence
granted to the people's demand. They wish to be ruled by kings,
exactly as all other nations were. The Lord chastises their spirit of
revolt by leaving them to their desires. He commands Samuel to
comply with their request, but to point out to them, at the same
time, the rights of the king who was to rule over them like unto the
nations, and said: 'This will be the right of the king that shall reign
over you: he will take your sons, and will put them in his chariots,
and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen, to run
before his chariots; and he will appoint them to be his tribunes, and
his centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to
make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also will he take to
make him ointments, and to be his cooks and bakers; and he will
take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best olive-yards, and
give them to his servants. Moreover, he will take the tenth of your
corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give to his eunuchs
and servants. Your servants also, and hand-maids, and your
goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and put
them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his
servants; and you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king
whom you have chosen to yourselves; and the Lord will not hear you
in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king. And the
people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but
there shall be a king over us, and we also will be like all nations.'
(1st Kings, chap. viii., from verse 11 to middle of verse 20
inclusively.)
"Some persons, being determined to extend the power of kings
beyond its limits, draw from these words the formula of royal right.
A blind pretension, and reflecting little honor on legitimate monarchs
such as the Catholic sovereigns. Unless a person wishes knowingly
to deceive himself on this portion of the Scripture, or is blind, he
may see by the context, and by comparing this passage with others,
that it is not legitimate right that is here meant, but de facto right. I
mean to say, that the Holy Spirit does not explain what just
monarchs ought to do; but what had been done, and was still done,
by the kings of Pagan nations, mere tyrants, and commonly so
called. Observe, that the people demanded nothing but to be placed
on an equality with the Pagan nations in a political point of view.
They had not the prudence to demand a king such as he ought to
be, but such as was common in those days; and this was what God
granted them. If God, as the prophet observes, has sometimes given
the people kings in His wrath, what people were more deserving of
this than those who had abandoned God himself, and refused to be
ruled by Him? Indeed, God did chastise His people severely by
granting them their foolish demand. He did give them a king, but a
king who was to exercise what, according to the perverse custom of
the times, formed the royal right described in the sacred text just
quoted.
"What man in our days, conversant with what has been written upon
the different natures of governments, upon their abuse, and without
even understanding what is said in the Scriptures, could imagine
that the text of Samuel contains the legitimate form of royalty or of
monarchy? Does this power impart the right of seizing the property
of the subjects, their lands, their riches, their sons and daughters,
and even their natural liberty? Is this the model of a monarchy, or of
the most tyrannical despotism? To dispel every illusion on this point,
we need only compare with what we have just read the 21st chap.
of the third Book of Kings, in which the history of Naboth, an
inhabitant of Jezrael, is narrated. Achab, the king of Israel, wished to
enlarge the palace, or pleasure-house which he possessed in that
town. A vineyard of Naboth's, near the palace, came within the plan
of the gardens that were to be added. The king did not seize it at
once, of his own authority, but asked the proprietor to let him have
it on the honest condition of paying him the price at which he should
value it, or giving him a better in another place. Naboth would not
consent to this, because it was the inheritance of his ancestors. The
king, not being accustomed to meet with a refusal, threw himself
upon his couch oppressed with grief; the queen, Jezabel, came, and
told him to calm his agitation: 'Thy authority is great indeed,' said
she to him; Grandis authoritatis es: she promises to put him in
possession of the vineyard. This abominable woman wrote to the
judges of Jezrael to commence an action against Naboth for a
calumny, to be proved against him by two suborned witnesses; and
she demanded that he should be condemned to death. The queen
was obeyed; Naboth was stoned to death. All this was necessary
that the vineyard might enter into the royal treasury, and that,
watered by the blood of the proprietor, it might produce flowers for
the palace of these princes. But, in reality, it produced none, neither
for the king nor for the queen; it furnished them with nothing but
briars and mortal poisons. Elias presents himself before Achab when
he was going to take possession of Naboth's vineyard; he announces
to him that he, and all his house, even to the dog that approacheth
the wall, shall be erased from the face of the earth.
"You look upon royal right as explained to the people by Samuel as
legitimate; tell me, then why Achab and Jezabel are so severely
punished for taking the vineyard and the life of Naboth, since the
king had a right to take from his subjects their most valuable
vineyards and olive trees, according to the declaration of the
prophet. If Achab possesses this right after he is established the king
of the people of God, whence comes it that he, so violent a prince,
should entreat Naboth with so much civility? And why is it necessary
to accuse Naboth of some calumny? His resistance to the king's
right, by refusing to accept the just value of what was suitable to the
enlargement of the palace and gardens, would have been a
sufficient motive for instituting an action against him. We find,
however, that Naboth committed no injustice against the king by
refusing to sell his patrimony, not even in the estimation of the
queen, who boasted of her husband's great authority. This great
authority, which Jezabel admitted in the king, was neither more nor
less than the royal right spoken of by Samuel to the people; it was,
as I have said, a de facto right to take and seize upon every thing by
mere force, as Montesquieu says of the tyrant.
"Do not therefore, mention this passage, nor any other of the
Scriptures, to justify the idea of a government so ill-conceived. The
doctrine of the Catholic religion is attached to legitimate monarchy,
with its suitable characteristics, and in accordance with the qualities
which modern publicists recognise, viz. as a paternal and sovereign
power, but conformable to the fundamental laws of the state. Within
limits so suitable, nothing can be more regular than this power, the
most extensive of all temporal powers, and that which is most
favored and supported by the Catholic Church."
Such is the horrible despotism taught by these men so basely
calumniated! Happy the people who are ruled by a prince whose
government is regulated by these doctrines!
 Note 31, p. 330.
The importance of the matter treated of in this part of my work
obliges me to insert here, at some length, passages proving the
truth of what I have advanced. I did not think it advisable to give a
translation of the Latin passages, that I might avoid augmenting
excessively the number of pages; besides, among the persons who
may wish to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the
subject, and who will consequently take an interest in consulting the
original texts, there are few ignorant of the Latin language.
Observe how St. Thomas expresses himself on royal power, and with
what solid and generous doctrine he points out its duties in the third
book, chap. 11, of his treatise De Regimine Principum.

DIVUS THOMAS.
"De Regimine Principum, liber iii. caput XI.
"Hic Sanctus Doctor declarat de dominio regali, in quo consistit, et in
quo differt a politico, et quo modo distinguitur diversimodo
secundum diversas rationes.
"Nunc autem ad regale dominium est procedendum, ubi est
distinguendum de ipso secundum diversas regiones, et prout a
diversis varie invenitur traditum. Et primo quidem, in Sacra Scriptura
aliter leges regalis dominii traduntur in Deuteronomio per Moysen,
aliter in 1 Regum per Samuelem prophetam, uterque tamen in
persona Dei differenter ordinat regem ad utilitatem subditorum,
quod est proprium regum, ut Philosophus tradit in 8 ethic. Cum,
inquit, constitutus fuerit rex, non multiplicabit sibi equos, nec
reducet populum in Ægyptum, equitatus numero sublevatus, non
habebit uxores plurimas, quæ alliciant animam ejus, neque argenti,
aut auri immensa pondera: quod quidem qualiter habet intelligi,
supra traditur in hoc lib. describetque sibi Deuteronomium legis
hujus, et habebit secum, legetque illud omnibus diebus vitæ suæ, ut
discat timere dominum Deum suum, et custodire verba ejus et
cæremonias, et ut videlicet possit populum dirigere secundum legem
divinam, unde et rex Salomon in principio sui regiminis hanc
sapientiam a Deo petivit, ad directionem sui regiminis pro utilitate
subditorum, sicut scribitur in 3 lib. Regum. Subdit vero dictus Moyses
in eodem lib. Nec elevetur cor ejus in superfluum super fratres suos,
neque declinet in partem dexteram, vel sinistram, ut longo tempore
regat ipse et filius ejus super Israel. Sed in primo Regum, traduntur
leges regni, magis ad utilitatem Regis, ut supra patuit in lib. 2 hujus
operis, ubi ponuntur verba omnino pertinentia ad conditionem
servilem, et tamen Samuel leges quas tradit cum sint penitus
despoticæ dicit esse regales. Philosophus autem in 8 ethic. magis
concordat cum primis legibus. Tria enim ponit de rege in eo. 4,
videlicet, quod ille legitimus est rex qui principaliter bonum
subditorum intendit. Item, ille rex est, qui curam subditorum habet,
ut bene operentur quemadmodum pastor ovium. Ex quibus omnibus
manifestum est, quod juxta istum, modum despoticum multum
differat a regali, ut idem Philosophus videtur dicere in 1 politic. Item,
quod regnum non est propter regem, sed rex propter regnum, quia
ad hoc Deus providit de eis, ut regnum regant et gubernent, et
unumquemque in suo jure conservent: et hic est finis regiminis,
quod si ad aliud faciunt in seipsos commodum retorquendo, non
sunt reges sed tyranni. Contra quos dicit Dominus in Ezech. Væ
pastoribus Israel, qui pascunt semetipsos. Nonne greges pascuntur a
pastoribus? Lac comedebatis, et lanis operiebamini, et quod crassum
erat occidebatis: gregem autem meum non pascebatis: quod
infirmum fuit, non consolidastis, et quod ægrotum non sanastis,
quod confractum non alligastis, quod abjectum non reduxistis, et
quod perierat non quæsistis; sed cum austeritate imperabatis eis et
cum potentia. In quibus verbis nobis sufficienter forma regiminis
traditur redarguendo contrarium. Amplius autem regnum ex
hominibus constituitur, sicut domus ex parietibus, et corpus
humanum ex membris, ut Philos. dicit in 3 politic. Finis ergo regis
est, ut regimen prosperetur, quod homines conserventur per regem.
Et hinc habet commune bonum cujuslibet principatus
participationem divinæ bonitatis: unde bonum commune dicitur a
Philosopho in 1 ethic. esse quod omnia appetunt, et esse bonum
divinum, ut sicut Deus qui est rex regum, et dominus dominantium,
cujus virtute principes imperant, ut probatum est supra, nos regit et
gubernat non propter seipsum, sed propter nostram salutem: ita et
reges faciant et alii dominatores in orbe."

Note 32, p. 336.

I have noticed the opinion of D. Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra,
with respect to the obedience due to de facto governments. I have
remarked, that this writer's principles, besides being false, are
opposed to the rights of the people. The Archbishop of Palmyra
appears to have been at a loss to discover a maxim to which it is
possible to conform under all circumstances that may occur, and
which do occur but too often. He dreaded the obscurity and
confusion of ideas when the legitimacy of a given case was to be
defined; he wished to remedy an evil, but he appears to have
aggravated it to an extraordinary degree. Observe how he sets forth
his opinion in his work entitled Idea of the Church Militant, chap. iii.
art. 2:
"The more I reflect," says he, "on the difficulties I have just pointed
out, the more I am convinced that it is impossible to resolve them,
even those which are ancient, with any degree of certainty; and it is
equally impossible to derive any light from them to aid us in
resolving those which are formed at the present day by the struggle
between the prevailing spirit of insubordination in opposition to the
judgment and will of the governor, and the contrary effort made to
limit more and more the liberty of those who obey. Starting from the
divers points and notions that I have laid down relative to the
supreme power in all really civil societies, it appears to me, that,
instead of losing time in mere speculative discussions, it will be more
useful to propose a practical, just, and opportune maxim for the
preservation of public tranquillity, especially in Christian kingdoms
and states, and for affording the means of re-establishing it when it
has been troubled or destroyed.
"The Maxim.—No one can doubt the legitimacy of the obligation of
every member of any civil society whatever to obey the government
which is de facto and unquestionably established. I say
'unquestionably established,' because there is here no question of a
mere invasion or temporary occupation in time of war. From this
maxim follow two consequences: 1st, to take part in insurrections,
or assemblages of people, addressing themselves to the constituted
authorities with a view to compel them to grant what they consider
unjust, is always an act contrary to right reason; always unlawful,
condemned by the natural law and by the Gospel. 2dly, individual
members of society, who combine together and take up arms, in
small or large numbers, for the purpose of attacking the established
government by physical force, are always guilty of rebellion, a crime
strongly opposed to the spirit of our divine religion."
I will not here repeat what I have already said on the unsoundness,
the inconveniences, and the dangers of such a doctrine, but merely
add, that with respect to governments only established de facto, to
grant them the right of commanding and exacting obedience
involves a contradiction. To say that a de facto government is bound,
whilst it does exist, to protect justice, to avoid crimes, to prevent the
dissolution of society, is merely to maintain truths universally
admitted, and denied by no one; but to add, that it is unlawful, and
contrary to our holy religion, to combine together and raise forces
for the overthrow of a de facto government, is a doctrine which
Catholic theologians have never professed, which true philosophy
has never admitted, and which no nation has ever observed.

Note 33, p. 343.

I insert here certain remarkable passages from St. Thomas and
Suarez, in which these authors explain the opinions to which I have
alluded in the text, respecting the differences which may arise
between governors and the governed. I refer to what I have already
pointed out in another place; we are not about to examine so much
whether such or such doctrines are true, as to discover what were
the doctrines at the time we are speaking of, and what opinion the
most distinguished doctors formed on the delicate questions of
which we are treating.

D. THOMAS.

(2. 2. Q. 42. art. 2o ad tertium.—Utrum seditio sit semper peccatum

mortale?)
3. Arg. Laudantur qui multitudinem a potestate tyrannica liberant,
sed hoc non de facili potest fieri sine aliqua dissensione multitudinis,
dum una pars multitudinis nititur retinere tyrannum, alia vero nititur
eum abjicere, ergo seditio potest fieri sine peccato.
Ad tertium dicendum; quod regimen tyrannicum non est justum quia
non ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum regentis
ut patet per Philosophum; et ideo perturbatio hujus regiminis non
habet rationem seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate
perturbatur tyranni regimen, quod multitudo subjecta majus
detrimentum patitur ex perturbatione consequenti quam ex tyranni
regimine; magis autem tyrannus seditiosus est, qui in populo sibi
subjecto discordias et seditiones nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit; hoc
enim tyrannicum est, cum sit ordinatum ad bonum proprium
præsidentis cum multitudinis nocumento.
Cardinalis Cayetanus in hunc textum. "Quis sit autem modus
ordinatus perturbandi tyrannum et qualem tyrannum, puta
secundum regimen tantum, vel secundum regimen et titulum, non
est præsentis intentionis: sat est nunc, quod utrumque tyrannum
licet ordinate perturbare absque seditione quandoque; illum ut bono
reipublicæ vacet, istum ut expellatur."
LIB. I.
De Regimine Principum. (Cap. x.)
Quod rex et princeps studere debet ad bonum regimen propter
bonum sui ipsius, et utile quod inde sequitur, cujus contrarium
 sequitur regimen tyrannicum.
Tyrannorum vero dominium diuturnum esse non potest, cum sit
multitudini odiosum. Non potest enim diu conservari, quod votis
multorum repugnat. Vix enim a quoquam præsens vita transigitur
quin aliquas adversitates patiatur. Adversitatis autem tempore
occasio deesse non potest contra tyrannum insurgendi; et ubi adsit
occasio, non deerit ex multis vel unus qui occasione non utatur.
Insurgentem autem populus votive prosequitur: nec de facili carebit
effectu, quod cum favore multitudinis attentatur. Vix ergo potest
contingere, quod tyranni dominium protendatur in longum. Hoc
etiam manifeste patet, si quis consideret unde tyranni dominium
conservatur. Non n. conservatur amore, cum parva, vel nulla sit
amicitia subjectæ multitudinis ad tyrannum ut ex præhabitis patet:
de subditorum autem fide tyrannis confidendum non est. Non n.
invenitur tanta virtus in multis, ut fidelitatis virtute reprimantur, ne
indebitæ servitutis jugum, si possint, excutiant. Fortassis autem nec
fidelitati contrarium reputabitur secundum opinionem multorum, si
tyrannicæ nequitiæ qualitercumque obvietur. Restat ergo ut solo
timore tyranni regimen sustentetur; unde et timeri se a subditis tota
intentione procurant. Timor autem est debile fundamentum. Nam qui
timore subduntur, si occurrat occasio qua possint impunitatem
sperare, contra præsidentes insurgunt eo ardentius, quo magis
contra voluntatem ex solo timore cohibebantur. Sicut si aqua per
violentiam includatur, cum aditum invenerit, impetuosius fluit. Sed
nec ipse timor caret periculo, cum ex nimio timore plerique in
desperationem inciderint. Salutis autem desperatio audacter ad
quælibet attentanda præcipitat. Non potest igitur tyranni dominium
esse diuturnum. Hoc etiam non minus exemplis, quam rationibus
apparet.
LIB. I. CAP. VI.
Conclusio; quod regimen unius simpliciter sit optimum; ostendit
qualiter multitudo se debet habere circa ipsum, quia auferenda
est ei occasio ne tyrannizet, ei quod etiam in hoc est tolerandus
propter majus malum vitandum.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookmass.com