Maria Leona Vicario Exchange with Lucas Alaman

The Spanish texts of Vicario’s writings are taken from Gabriela Huerta’s transcription, available at https://ideasfem.wordpress.com/textos/b/b10/

Spanish text of Alaman’s editorial is transcribed by Google Gemini from the original source material in December 2025. AI-related errors in transcription are possible.

Translations by DeepL, with editing by Patrick Frierson in May 2026. AI-related translation errors are possible.

María Leona Vicario, Comunicado y relación de sucesos sobre el allanamiento de su casa, El Federalista Mexicano,[1] 9 de febrero de 1831 [Texto transcrito del impreso original y proporcionado por Gabriela Huerta] :. COMUNICADO. Señores editores del Sol: casa de vdes. febrero 7 de 1831. Muy señores míos: no sé por qué motivo afirman vdes. en su editorial de ayer, que fui yo con escándalo á pedir al gobierno castigase á los señores Merino y Antepara por haber allanado mi casa la noche del 2 del corriente. No es cierto que haya yo ido à pedir tal castigo, ni lo solicitaría, aun cuando los referidos señores hubieran completado su crímen; porque mis ideas y sentimientos no están por pedir venganzas de los agravios que se me hacen. Fui únicamente á informar al E. S. Bustamante de lo ocurrido; para que, como primer magistrado de la república, tomára las providencias que creyera oportunas, á fin de que mi casa no estuviera espuesta á las travesurillas de los señores que contestan las razones con palos, cuyo idioma nos era desconocido; y en caso que S. E. no pudiera salir garante de que esos señores, ú otros de las mismas ideas de ellos, no me continuarían sus visitas, nada amistosas, tomar yo las medidas convenientes para evitarlas. Tampoco es cierto que mi marido me hiciera su apoderada; porque no teniendo frenillo ni pepita en la lengua que le impida defenderse, lo hará mejor que yo cuando le parezca oportuno; y á mi no me gusta defender á quien está en estado de poderlo hacer por sí mismo. Todo esto y la inocencia de los sres. Merino y Antepara quedará aclarado en la relación sencilla de lo ocurrido que había empezado á estender y quería remitirla á VV. para que la pusieran en su periódico, con el objeto de librarme de las malas lenguas, como dicen las viejas; pero mudé de parecer, porque juzgué que era mejor guardar silencio. VV. me han provocado á que lo rompa, y espero me hagan el favor de que, tanto este artículo como la relación que voy á concluir, salgan á luz en su periódico, para que el público se imponga de todo y falle como le parezca justo. Cuanto asiente en mi relación es cierto, y en ella misma aparecen dos testigos intachables, que no dudo estarán prontos á sostener la verdad de lo que digo, siempre que se necesario. De este modo, sres. editores, quiero hacer desaparecer el escándalo, que dicen VV. he dado, al tratar de ponerme en salvo de esas visitas que llaman extraordinarias, ya que en el día no está en uso llamarlos atentados, como se hubieran calificado en otros tiempos, y yo quedaré contentísima de no ser por vds. y por el público tachada de escán[dal]osa, lo que seria muy sensible á quien es de vds. como siempre, sin enojo y con toda sinceridad su afectísima servidora Maria Leona Vicario. Señores editores de… …  Se habla mucho en esta capital de la ocurrencia acaecida en mi casa la noche del 2 del corriente; y como en las diversas relaciones que se hacen de este suceso pueda alterarse alguna de sus circunstancias esenciales, me ha parecido conveniente para satisfacción y desengaño del público, referir yo misma el caso, tal como en realidad pasó. Poco después de las oraciones de la noche, entraron en mi casa dos señores oficiales, para mí enteramente desconocidos; pero que dijeron llamarse Merino y Antepara; fueron recibidos con las atenciones de estilo, á pesar de lo muy sospechosa que me era su visita. Preguntaron por mi marido; y habiéndoles yo contestado: que habia salido, y que no volvería sino hasta las nueve y media ó las diez, se pusieron á hablar de cosas indiferentes: duró más de media hora su conversacion, y en toda ella conservé la tranquilidad natural de mi espíritu, sin haber manifestado, como ellos mismos podrán decirlo, síntoma alguno de inquietud, desconfianza o temor. Después de haber repetido, que el asunto que llevaban era personal con mi marido y que no podían comunicármelo, se retiraron, ofreciendo volver á la hora que yo les habia dicho. Se observó durante la visita, que dos militares, que despues se supo ser capitanes, se habian apoderado de la puerta; y cuando ésta se mandó cerrar por dos sobrinos mios que entraron á poco de haber subido los señores oficiales, se les contestó, que no se podía, porque estaban los gefes arriba. Todo el aparato de la visita me hízo concebir recelos acerca de las intenciones de los señores que me habian favorecido con ella. Un sugeto conocido que entró luego que se fueron, siguió sus pasos, y oyó que se iban gloriando del susto que creyeron me habían dado. Esto me confirmó en la sospecha de que mi casa estaba vendida; y para precaver en lo posible cualquier atentado, determiné ir á informar de todo al señor general Bustamante, no para pedir castigos, como algunos siniestramente han querido persuadir, sino para implorar la protección de la autoridad pública, ó en caso que ésta no pudiese dispensarme, buscar por mi misma mi seguridad. Fuí aquella misma noche á palacio acompañada de los señores D. Juan Goríbar y D. Lorenzo Carrera; mas no habiendo logrado audiencia, sin duda por las muchas ocupaciones de S. E. volví la otro dia. Recibída por el señor Bustamante, le hice una esacta relacion del caso á presencia de los señores que habian hecho el honor de acompañarme. S. E. me escuchó con atencion, y convino enteramente conmigo en todo lo que le espuse acerca de lo que mi marido escribia, en lo cual no estaba enterada, y si en sus escritos cometia errores ó se escedia de los términos regulares, debería ser reprimido por los mismos medios. A todo estuvo anuente S. E. añadiendo en apoyo de su opinión principios muy liberales que todos escuchamos con gusto. Mas apenas se presentó el señor comandante general D. Felipe Codallos, á quien se mandó llamar para providenciar sobre el caso, cuando la escena varió enteramente de aspecto. Luego que empezó á hablar el señor Bustamante, fué interrumpido por dicho señor comandante, quien espuso que estaba impuesto del hecho por el mismo Merino que se lo habia referido. Que el objeto de la visita no habia sido otro, que pedir satisfaccion á nombre de Otero por lo que se habia dicho de él en un tal Federalista, que estaba públicando no sé que cosas contra aquel señor, y otros del gobierno. Que los señores oficiales habian ido como caballeros dando sus nombres, y que los custódios de la puerta que yo creia sargentos, no eran sino capitanes. Que se hacia indispensable contestar á palos á los escritores, y que él no habia de dar otra respuesta, pórque no sabia escribir, y que acostumbrándose en los Estados–Unidos los desafíos, estaba resuelto á dar palizas en vez de razones, y que esto estaba bien hecho. Sorprendida  con las nuevas doctrinas del señor Codallos y del desembarazo con que las esponia á presencia del primer magistrado de una república libre, contesté: que supuesta la confesion del hecho nada tenia yo que hacer en el particular: que todo estaba indicando no solo la connivencia del señor comandante general, sino su positiva aprobación á los insultos premeditados contra mi marido; y en cuanto á la satisfaccion que se iba á pedir en nombre de Otero representé que no me parecia accion muy caballeresca ir cuatro hombres armados contra uno, asaltando las casas, aun que fuese dando sus nombres, pues esto lo que probaba unicamente era que los señores asaltadores no temian ser reprimidos por el gobierno, en cuyo caso debia cosiderarse disuelta la sociedad y restituida à cada una la obligación de defenderse por sí. Añadí que era muy estraño que en nuestro tiempo se hubiesen aparecido unos deshacedores de entuertos desconocidos en los siglos de la caballeria, pues entonces solo se sacaba la espada por los desvalidos ó doncellas, y ahora se nos dejaban, ver señores oficia[les]s que ban á vindicar el honor de Otero á garrotazos cuando este pudo ir solo á pedir la satisfaccion que se le creyese debido en el modo y términos permitidos por nuestras leyes, las cuales prohiben el desafio que las constumbres autorizan en los Estados–Unidos. El sr. comandante Codallos insistió en su liberal principio de escritos á palos. Llamé la atencion del sr. Bustamante sobre la barbariedad del sr. Codallos y este repitiendo siempre su doctrino no solo subvirtió las leyes que nos rigen, sino que comprometió la dignidad del gobierno, haciendole representar en el caso el papel mas humillante y depresivo. Dije por ultimo al sr. Bustamante que no siendo el Sultán de Constantinopla sino gefe de una república libre, no debia permitir que en su presencia se hiciese aquella burla de las leyes por un funcionario como el sr. Codallos. S. E. sin dar una respuesta decisiva, manifestò como que condescendia con las idéas del señor Codallos, pues prorrumpió en estas medias palabras. ¿Qué quiere vd? Insultan tanto……… y recordándole lo que habia dicho antes de la llegada del comandante general, concluí que habian ido á mi casa con las intenciones confesadas y justificadas por el señor Codallos, sino que mi objeto era saber si debia contar con la proteccion de la autoridad pública ò defenderme con independencia de ella como en el estado natural. S. E. contestó que en mi casa podia contar con seguridad pero que no podia responder delo que ocurriese fuera de ella. Es verdad que yo no iba á pedir imposibles, sino á conocer si podia fiar en el gobierno para mi defensa ó si este autorizaba ó toleraba los escesos de los visitadores de nuevo cuño. No ha pasado otra cosa: los testigos estan prontos á confirmar la verdad de mi relacion si se dudáre de ella; y en este caso se añadirán circunstancias que por consideraciones al gobierno, se omiten ahora –Mexico 7 de febrero de 1831. Maria Leona Vicario [1] El Federalista Mexicano, Imprenta del Federalista a cargo de Sabino Ortega, México, tomo 1, miércoles 9 de febrero de 1831, núm. 11, pp. 3-4. El lema del periódico era: “Quid deceat, quid non: quò virtus, quò ferat error/Horat.” Y en su pie de imprenta reportaba: “MEXICO: 1831”. El Federalista Mexicano circuló de enero a abril de 1831. Impreso del Fondo Reservado de la Hemeroteca Nacional: Miscelánea 150, Ciudad de México.	María Leona Vicario, Statement and Account of Events Regarding the Raid on Her Home, El Federalista Mexicano,[1] February 9, 1831 [Text transcribed from the original print and provided by Gabriela Huerta]: :. STATEMENT. To Editors of El Sol, February 7, 1831. My dear sirs: I do not know for what reason you assert in your editorial yesterday that it was I who, with a great commotion, went to ask the government to punish Messrs. Merino and Antepara for having raided my home on the night of the 2nd of this month. It is not true that I went to ask for such punishment, nor would I request it, even if the aforementioned gentlemen had committed a crime; for my ideas and feelings do not incline me to seek revenge for the wrongs done to me. I went solely to inform His Excellency Bustamante of what had occurred; so that, as the chief magistrate of the republic, he might take whatever measures he deemed appropriate, to ensure that my home would not be exposed to the mischief of those gentlemen who answer reason with sticks, whose language was unknown to us; and [to inform him] that, in the event that His Excellency could not guarantee that those gentlemen or others of the same mind would not continue their unfriendly visits to me, I would take the necessary measures to prevent them. Nor is it true that my husband made me his representative; for, having neither a bit nor a bridle on his tongue to prevent him from defending himself, he will do so better than I when he deems it appropriate; and I do not like to defend someone who is in a position to do so himself. All of this, along with the innocence of Messrs. Merino and Antepara, will be clarified in the simple account of what happened that I had begun to write and intended to send to you for publication in your newspaper, with the aim of freeing myself from ‘wicked tongues,’ as the old women say; but I changed my mind, because I judged it better to remain silent. You have provoked me into breaking my silence, and I hope you will do me the favor of publishing both this article and the account I am about to conclude in your newspaper, so that the public may take full cognizance of everything and judge as they see fit. Everything stated in my account is true, and it includes two irreproachable witnesses, whom I have no doubt will be ready to uphold the truth of what I say, whenever necessary. In this way, gentlemen editors, I wish to dispel the scandal that you claim I have caused, by seeking to exonerate myself from those visits you call ‘extraordinary,’ since it is no longer customary to call them ‘assaults,’ as they would have been described in other times, and I shall be most pleased not to be branded as scandalous through you and by the public, which would be very painful to one who is, as always, without anger and with all sincerity, your most affectionate servant. Maria Leona Vicario. Editors of… … There is much talk in this capital of the incident that occurred at my home on the night of the 2nd of this month; and since in the various accounts given of this event some of its essential details may be altered, it has seemed to me appropriate, for the public’s satisfaction and to set the record straight, to recount the case myself, just as it actually happened. Shortly after evening prayers, two officers entered my home, men entirely unknown to me; but who said their names were Merino and Antepara. They were received with the customary courtesies, despite how very suspicious their visit seemed to me. They asked for my husband, and when I replied that he had gone out and would not return until half past nine or ten, they began to talk about trivial matters. Their conversation lasted more than half an hour, and throughout it I maintained my natural composure, without having shown—as they themselves can attest—any sign of anxiety, distrust, or fear. After repeating that the matter they had to discuss was personal to my husband and that they could not disclose it to me, they took their leave, promising to return at the time I had told them. It was observed during the visit that two military men, who were later identified as captains, had taken control of the door; and when two of my nephews, who had entered shortly after the officers had gone upstairs, ordered the door to be closed, they were told that it could not be done because the officers were upstairs. The entire spectacle of the visit made me harbor suspicions about the intentions of the gentlemen who had honored me with it. An acquaintance who entered after they left followed in their footsteps and heard them boasting about the fright they believed they had given me. This confirmed my suspicion that my house had been compromised; and to prevent any attack as far as possible, I decided to go and report everything to General Bustamante, not to ask for punishment, as some have maliciously sought to suggest, but to implore the protection of the public authorities, or, in the event that they could not provide it, to seek my own safety. I went to the palace that very night accompanied by Messrs. Juan Goríbar and Lorenzo Carrera; but having failed to obtain an audience, no doubt due to His Excellency’s many duties, I returned the next day. Received by General Bustamante, I gave him a precise account of the matter in the presence of the gentlemen who had done me the honor of accompanying me. His Excellency listened to me attentively and agreed entirely with me on everything I explained regarding what my husband had written—of which I was unaware—and that if in his writings he committed errors or exceeded proper bounds, he should be reprimanded by the same means. His Excellency agreed with everything, adding in support of his opinion very liberal principles that we all listened to with pleasure. But as soon as Commander General Don Felipe Codallos appeared—having been summoned to rule on the case—the scene took on an entirely different aspect. As soon as Mr. Bustamante began to speak, he was interrupted by the said commander, who stated that he had been informed of the matter by Merino himself, who had referred it to him. That the purpose of the visit had been none other than to demand satisfaction on behalf of Otero for what had been said about him in a certain Federalista, which was publishing I know not what against that gentleman and others in the government. That the officers had come as gentlemen, giving their names, and that the guards at the door, whom I had taken for sergeants, were in fact captains. That it was essential to respond with fists to the writers, and that he had no other way to reply, since he could not write, and that since duels were customary in the United States, he was resolved to dish out beatings instead of arguments, and that this was the right thing to do. Surprised by Mr. Codallos’s new doctrines and the ease with which he expounded them in the presence of the chief magistrate of a free republic, I replied: that given the admission of the fact, I had no part to play in the matter; that everything pointed not only to the connivance of the commander-general, but to his positive approval of the premeditated insults against my husband; and as for the satisfaction that was to be demanded in Otero’s name, I argued that it did not seem to me a very chivalrous act for four armed men to go against one, raiding houses, even if they gave their names, for this only proved that the assailants did not fear being punished by the government, in which case society should be considered dissolved and each person restored to the obligation of defending themselves. I added that it was very strange that in our time there had appeared such avengers of wrongs, unknown in the centuries of chivalry, for back then the sword was drawn only for the helpless or maidens, and now we were seeing officials who went to vindicate Otero’s honor with club blows when he could have gone alone to demand the satisfaction he believed was due to him in the manner and terms permitted by our laws, which prohibit the challenge that custom authorizes in the United States. Commander Codallos insisted on his liberal principle of “writing with a stick.” I drew Mr. Bustamante’s attention to Mr. Codallos’ barbarity, and the latter, by constantly repeating his doctrine, not only subverted the laws that govern us, but also compromised the dignity of the government, causing it to play the most humiliating and degrading role in the matter. Finally, I told Mr. Bustamante that, being not the Sultan of Constantinople but the head of a free republic, he should not allow such a mockery of the laws to be carried out in his presence by an official like Mr. Codallos. His Excellency, without giving a decisive answer, seemed to condone Mr. Codallos’s ideas, for he burst out with these half-words: “What do you want? They insult so much…” And reminding him of what he had said before the commander-general’s arrival, I concluded that they had come to my house with the intentions confessed and justified by Mr. Codallos; but my purpose was to know whether I should count on the protection of public authority or defend myself independently of it, as in the state of nature. His Excellency replied that I could count on safety in my home but that he could not vouch for what might happen outside of it. It is true that I was not going to ask for the impossible, but rather to know whether I could rely on the government for my defense or whether it authorized or tolerated the excesses of these newly appointed officials. Nothing else has happened: the witnesses are ready to confirm the truth of my account if it is doubted; and in this case, circumstances will be added that, out of consideration for the government, are now omitted—Mexico, February 7, 1831. Maria Leona Vicario [1] El Federalista Mexicano, Imprenta del Federalista, edited by Sabino Ortega, Mexico, vol. 1, Wednesday, February 9, 1831, no. 11, pp. 3–4. The newspaper’s motto was: “Quid deceat, quid non: quò virtus, quò ferat error/Horat.” And its masthead read: “MEXICO: 1831.”El Federalista Mexicano was published from January to April 1831. Printed from the Reserved Collection of the National Newspaper Library: Miscellany 150, Mexico City.
Leona Vicario, Carta vindicativa contra los agravios de la prensa del gobierno del general Bustamante, El Federalista Mexicano, 16 de febrero de 1831[1] [Texto transcrito del impreso original y proporcionado por Gabriela Huerta] :. Señores editores de………. Muy señores mios: aunque con la debida moderacion referí el suceso ocurrido en mi casa la noche del 2 del corriente, y la audiencia á que dio lugar, solicitada por mí, del escmo. sr. general Bustamante, no he podido libertarme de las imputaciones que los periódicos del gobierno han creido de su deber prodigarme, sin que para contenerlos haya bastado, ni la consideración de que ofenden á la verdad, conocida ya del público, ni el recuerdo de que fuí provocada á romper el silencio que me proponia guardar en el asunto. Tengo en mi mano los testimonios mas fidedignos de la certeza de mis asertos; pero no quiero empeñar una lucha que juzgo terminada en el juicio de mis compatriotas, que habiéndome sido favorable en todos tiempos, no temo se cambie ahora en mi contra por una ocurrencia que no fui á buscar fuera de mi casa. Sin embargo, para satisfaccion de los señores milítares, cuyo òdio se ha procurado injustamente escitar contra mí, debo esplicar el sentido de una espresion malignamente interpretada por mis calumniadores. Yo no pensé en decir: que preferiría la visita de un lépero á la de un oficial. Cuando por mi educacion no estuviese yo muy distante de proferir tan groseras expresiones, bastaría para que me creyese incapáz de ellas, el aprecio que siempre me han merecido muchos individuos de la benemérita clase militar, que han honrado mi casa con su comunicacion y atento trato. Lo único que manifesté por via de réplica á mi inconsiderado reproche del sr. Codallos fué: que si el uniforme se habia de considerar como una salvaguardia para cometer toda clase de ecsesos, como irreflecsivamente habia dado á entender el sr, comandante general sería menester cerrar las puertas de las casas á todos los individuos que vistiesen el uniforme, y arbitrarias mas bien á los léperos. Esto, ya se vé, que solo pudiera ofender á los señores militares, en el caso de la proposicion del sr. Codallos; pero como la falsedad de un sepuesto tan ofensivo á la distinguida clase militar estaba de manifiesto, resulta, que mas bien que un agravio, fue mi expresión una defensa de los señores oficiales. Los que entre ellos se distinguen por su imparcialidad y buen sentido, me harán la justicia á que creo acreedora, y los que se dejen arrastrar del espíritu de partido, no merecen ningun crédito. Por lo demás, yo perdono á los señores periodistas del gobierno del agravio que me han hecho, pintándome una muger sin educación ni principios, capaz de ofender con expresiones descomedidas al primer gefe de la república que tenia la bondad de escuchar mis quejas, dirijidas, como otras veces he dicho, no á solicitar castigos, según se repite en el fingido estracto de la carta figurada del sr. Codallos, que trae el Registro oficial; sino á obtener una garantia para mi casa, amenazada de atropellamientos é insultos. Muy bien sé lo que me debo á mi misma, y las consideraciones á que era acreedor el sr. Bustamante, para que me propasase en palabras descompuestas, agenas de mi carácter, y de la buena crianza que recibi de mis padres. Nadie me ha conocido deslenguada y atrevida, ni podrá discernir un solo lineamento del original en el injurioso retrato que de mí hace el editor del Registro oficial, convertido en libelista con desdoro de la dignidad del gobierno, en cuyo nombre habla. Ruego á vds, sres. editores, tengan la bondad de insertar este artículo en su periódico, á cuyo favor les vivirá reconocida su atenta servidora que b. ss. mm.- – Maria Leona Vicario. [1] Imprenta del Federalista a cargo de Sabino Ortega, México, tomo 1, miércoles 16 de febrero de 1831, núm. 13, p. 4. Impreso del Fondo Reservado de la Hemeroteca Nacional: Miscelánea 150, Ciudad de México. Available at https://ideasfem.wordpress.com/textos/b/b08/	Leona Vicario, Vindicatory Letter Against the Offenses of General Bustamante’s Government Press, El Federalista Mexicano, February 16, 1831 [1] [Text transcribed from the original print and provided by Gabriela Huerta, translation by DeepL and P. Frierson] :. Dear Editors of………. My dear sirs: although I referred with due restraint to the incident that occurred in my home on the night of the 2nd of this month, and to the hearing it gave rise to—which I requested—with His Excellency General Bustamante, I have not been able to free myself from the accusations that the government newspapers have deemed it their duty to lavish upon me, and neither the consideration that they offend the truth—already known to the public—nor the recollection that I was provoked into breaking the silence I intended to maintain on the matter has been sufficient to restrain them. I have in my possession the most reliable evidence confirming the truth of my assertions; but I do not wish to engage in a struggle that I consider already decided in the judgment of my compatriots, who, having always been favorable toward me, I do not fear will now turn against me because of an incident I did not seek out outside my home. However, to satisfy the military gentlemen, whose hatred has been unjustly stirred up against me, I must explain the meaning of an expression maliciously interpreted by my slanderers. I did not intend to say: that I would prefer the visit of a leper to that of an officer. Even if, due to my upbringing, I were not far from uttering such crude expressions, the esteem in which many members of the distinguished military class have always held me—who have honored my home with their visits and courteous treatment—would suffice to prove me incapable of them. The only thing I stated in response to Mr. Codallos’s thoughtless reproach was: that if the uniform were to be considered a safeguard for committing all manner of excesses, as the commander-general had thoughtlessly implied, it would be necessary to close the doors of our homes to all individuals wearing the uniform, and arbitrarily [open them] instead to the lepers. This, as is evident, could only offend the military officers in the case of Mr. Codallos’s proposal; but since the falsity of such an offensive supposition regarding the distinguished military class was evident, it follows that rather than an insult, my statement was a defense of the officers. Those among them who are distinguished by their impartiality and good sense will do me the justice I believe I deserve, and those who allow themselves to be carried away by party spirit deserve no credit. For the rest, I forgive the government journalists for the insult they have inflicted upon me by portraying me as a woman without education or principles, capable of offending with unrestrained expressions the first head of the republic who was kind enough to listen to my complaints—directed, as I have said on other occasions, not to seek punishment (as is repeated in the fabricated excerpt from Mr. Codallos’s alleged letter, which appears in the Official Register), but to obtain a guarantee for my home, threatened with abuse and insults. I know full well what I owe to myself, and the respect due to Mr. Bustamante, to have allowed myself to use disorderly language, unbecoming of my character and the good upbringing I received from my parents. No one has ever known me to be foul-mouthed or bold, nor will anyone be able to discern a single feature of the original in the slanderous portrait of me painted by the editor of the Official Register, who has turned into a libelist, to the discredit of the dignity of the government in whose name he speaks. I beg you, gentlemen editors, to be so kind as to publish this article in your newspaper, for which your humble servant will be eternally grateful. Yours sincerely, – Maria Leona Vicario. [1] Imprenta del Federalista, edited by Sabino Ortega, Mexico, vol. 1, Wednesday, February 16, 1831, no. 13, p. 4. Printed from the Reserved Collection of the National Newspaper Library: Miscellany 150, Mexico City. Available at https://ideasfem.wordpress.com/textos/b/b08/
Registro Oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, March 14, 1831 (Pages 291-292) MEXICO 14 DE MARZO Ofrecimos ayer contestar lo que el Federalista dice en su número del sábado 12 del corriente, bajo el epígrafe Registro oficial, y comenzarémos por el punto que tiene relacion con la negociacion que supone haber hecho el Sr. Alamán en perjuicio de los intereses nacionales, con las obligaciones de los préstamos contratados en Inglaterra. Dijimos ayer y repetimos ahora, que nos es muy satisfactorio que la cuestion se verse sobre hechos, pues es mucho mas fácil convencer la falsedad de los que se citan, que responder sobre inculpaciones vagas que no admiten la misma precision de razonamiento. La acusacion del Federalista, depurada de todo lo que tiene de declamatorio, y reducida á solo la substancia, se reduce á estas que estando muy bajos los fondos mexicanos en el mercado de Londres, en vez de aprovechar esta circunstancia para amortizar esta parte de la deuda nacional, el Sr. Alamán hizo una negociacion personal y que para ello tuvo entretenido á un sugeto que habia hecho proposiciones ventajosas al contrario, aprovechándose entretanto de la idea que este mismo sugeto habia propuesto. Como que la ventaja de amortizar una deuda cuando se halla á un precio inferior al nominal de las obligaciones es evidente, la cuestion solo puede versarse sobre la posibilidad de esta amortizacion. Hay dos medios únicos de practicarla y son teniendo dinero efectivo, comprar las obligaciones al precio corriente en el mercado, ó procurarse un nuevo contrato sobre términos mas ventajosos que el anterior para subrogarlo á aquel quitando de la circulacion las obligaciones que de él emanaban. En cuanto al primer medio claro está que él se hallaba fuera de toda posibilidad porque la administración anterior (*) compuesta de los amigos y paisanos del Federalista y en lo que él tenia bastante y muy pernicioso influjo, no dejó á la actual ningunas arcas llenas de pesos sino antes bien nuevas y muy urgentes deudas que pagar, y por consiguiente no podia contarse con numerario alguno para esta operacion financiera. [Footnote *] Entiendase que en todo cuanto digamos en este número y en todos los de nuestro periódico, acerca de la administracion de hacienda, hacemos abstraccion de las pocas semanas en que estuvo á su cabeza el Sr. Bocanegra. Este ministro recomendable, no solo se condujo con pureza sino que comenzó á poner órden en el increible despilfarro en que encontró este ramo. Sus esfuerzos sin embargo no pudieron tener todo el efecto deseado, porque no podia obrar con la libertad que era menester á causa del desórden que habia en las demás oficinas fomentado por otras manos. Quedaba solo el segundo medio y es precisamente al que el Federalista se contrae. Este medio es de tal manera conocido por todos los que han dado siquiera el primer paso en materias de crédito público, que solo la crasa ignorancia en ellas del Federalista puede figurarse que fuese un secreto que el Sr. Alamán necesitaba sorprender á alguno para aprovecharse de él. Mas si el medio es muy conocido, ponerlo en planta no es tan fácil como el Federalista cree, pues el primer elemento de la ejecucion es tener un crédito asegurado, el cual no ecsistia todavía en la época de que habla el Federalista, porque habiéndolo destruido él y sus amigos, no era obra tan momentánea el restablecerlo, cualquiera que fuese la confianza que inspiraban los individuos que entraron á componer la nueva administracion. Presentóse para este negocio no un capitalista con quien pudiera tratarse, sino un proyectista aventurero, que proponiendo planes aéreos queria que se le despachase á Inglaterra á buscar con quien hacer el contrato; mas este proyectista habiendo tenido poco antes que dejar la Inglaterra un poco de prisa perseguido por sus acreedores, no podia causar allí sino discrédito al negocio y todo el resultado hubiera sido, que este redentor sin un peso de la deuda mexicana, apenas hubiera llegado á Inglaterra habria sido crucificado por las suyas propias, metiéndolo sus acreedores en la cárcel como lo han querido hacer ya otra vez y no se habrian descuidado en espiar la ocasion de verificarlo, segun la continuacion con que molestan incesantemente á la legacion mexicana en Londres para desigir el pago. ¿Y esto es lo que el Federalista tiene el descaro de llamar un proyecto para capitalizar la deuda de una manera ventajosa á la hacienda pública? No lo estrañemos, porque la vez que el Federalista ha intervenido en este género de negocios, cuando por desgracia de la nacion estaba empleado al lado de uno de los ministros, creyó que sin duda los negocios de hacienda con nadie se trataban mejor que con aventureros: y así es que para vergüenza de la nacion, se contrató un empréstito con un tal Morton Jones, que nadie conocia ni aquí ni en Londres, que resultó ser un bancarrotista sin casa ni hogar, y que las libranzas que giró no hubo no solo quien las pagase, sino ni quien las protestase, lo que fué, á la verdad, muy ignominioso para el crédito de la nacion. En vista de tal proyecto presentado al gobierno, no el Sr. Alamán, sino el Sr. ministro de hacienda á cuyo exámen se puso, lo creyó como en realidad era, absolutamente inadmisible por un gobierno, que no solo se respetase á sí mismo, sino tambien á la nacion que administra, y se procedió á lo único posible que es á fortificar el crédito procurando medios de asegurar el pago de los intereses, contratando con los tenedores de obligaciones la capitalizacion de los réditos vencidos y la reduccion de los corrientes, lo cual se hizo no con manejos ocultos dictados por el interés privado, sino convocando á una junta general y pública á todos los tenedores de las citadas obligaciones, de quienes se obtuvieron las condiciones mas ventajosas que pudieran esperarse, siendo esta una operacion que honra doblemente á la actual administracion, tanto por las ventajas que obtuvo para la nacion, como por la confianza que los interesados manifestaron tener en los individuos que la componen. El Federalista que, como hemos dicho, no sabe una palabra de estas cosas, confunde la capitalizacion de los dividendos vencidos con el precio de las obligaciones, que aunque son cosas que tienen relacion entre sí, son sin embargo dos cosas distintas, y de esta confusion resulta que dice que por haber entretenido el Sr. Alamán al autor de la propuesta hizo su negocio particular, subiendo las acciones desde 19 ó 20 á 41. El negocio de la capitalizacion, aunque propuesto á los tenedores de obligaciones desde principios del año anterior, no vino á verificarse hasta fines del mismo en virtud de la ley que dió el congreso en junio ó julio: esta ley se discutió públicamente, asistió á la discusion el Federalista, y por qué en ella no expuso que habia proyecto mucho mas [292] útil que el que estaba á discusion, que el Sr. Alamán habia sofocado por interés propio? El congreso entonces habria calificado cual era el mejor, y el interés del ministro habria sido echado por tierra. Este silencio del Federalista lo hace por lo menos tan criminal como él al ministro, y podria hacer creer al público que este le daba alguna parte de sus ganancias para hacerlo callar, pues en el mismo público se sospecha que el Federalista no deja de comprender á veces la fuerza de este género de argumentos. En cuanto á la capitalizacion de dividendos atrazados parece demostrado que no pudo hacerse otra cosa que lo que se hizo, y dirémos, mas, que hubiera sido imposible hacer otro tanto sino por la confianza que inspira la actual administracion. En años pasados se trató de hacer igual operacion el proyectista citado estaba en Londres, pudo haber planteado entonces su proyecto y nada se consiguió á pesar de una ley que prevenia se hiciese esta capitalización. La respetable casa de Baring hermanos que ha dirigido hoy el negocio, fué solicitada por las administraciones anteriores á que lo hiciese y se rebusó: y ¿puede dudar todavia el Federalista que el crédito personal de la actual administracion, haya contribuido poderosamente á los benéficos resultados que se han obtenido? Pero los créditos subieron y en esta obtuvo el Sr. Alamán una gran utilidad que pudo haber redundado en beneficio de la nacion. Sabemos positivamente que no ha habido tal utilidad, y que el Sr. Alamán no ha hecho semejante especulacion. Pues bien, el daño no está hecho mas que en parte: esos créditos mexicanos en Londres cuyo valor legítimo es cierto que causan 5 ó 6 por ciento de interés, que valian á 10 ó 20 gracias al buen crédito que el Federalista y comparsa patriotera habian logrado á la nacion, no valen todavia mas que 40. Aun con esto, los empresarios tienen una ganancia de 60 por 100 comprándolos al precio actual, y esa ganancia es segura con tal que el Federalista y compañía no vuelvan á echarlo todo á perder, de lo cual esperamos que la nacion se guarde muy bien porque no les dará la ocasion de hacerlo. ¿Qué hacemos pues? Diez y seis millones de pesos bastan para comprar los cuarenta de la deuda estrangera. ¿Y á qué nos detenemos? ¡Qué desgracia! En que no hay esos diez y seis millones ni capitalista que los ofrezca hasta ahora. ¿Y qué ¿por eso se detendria el gobierno para comprarlos cuando valian menos? Ciertamente, pues todo el mundo convendrá en que no pudo hacerse. Pero tenemos mas: los créditos interiores se venden no á 19 ó 20 por 100 sino á 8 ó 9 por 100 y á este precio los han comprado todos los que han hecho negocios con el gobierno anterior, dando este papel por todo su valor. Este hecho puede ignorarlo el Federalista por que para él esos créditos que solo valen 8 ó 9 por 100 han valido 100 pagandaselo en casas y haciendas de toda preferencia, merced á cierto heroísmo romanesco que el que sepa algo del influjo de las pasiones sobre todo en el bello sexso, aunque no haya leido á Madama de Stael podrá atribuir á otro principio menos patriótico, pero puede preguntarlo al proyectista del gran plan de la deuda mexicana en Londres que le dará razon. No es culpable el Sr. Alamán de que con ocho millones de pesos no quedó amortizada de un golpe la deuda nacional? Pues el caso es el mismo, porque ni hay esos ocho millones, ni quien los preste hasta ahora. Pero esta maldad no es sola del Sr. Alamán; es de todos los ministros de todas las cortes de Europa á pesar de que se han hecho tantas revoluciones para quitar los malos y poner los buenos. En Francia bajaron sus fondos en pocos dias mas de 20 por 100, en todas las potencias del continente aun mas, y en Inglaterra no poco, ¡Pícaros ministros! que han podido hacerle á la Francia el beneficio de rescatar su deuda, con una utilidad de la nacion que no habría bajado de doscientos millones de pesos. Pero si no tenian el dinero necesario ¿qué habian de hacer? contratarlo con un empresario, y si no lo habia? fiarse en algun aventurero que no faltan en aquel pais, pero creyeron que debian á su propio honor y al de su nacion no tratar con semejante jente y creyeron bien. Pues si el gobierno no pudo hacer esta amortizacion de deuda, ¿seria culpable el ministro que invirtiese sus propios fondos en comprar créditos cuando están bajos porque previese que habian de subir? Creemos que no. Sin embargo, sabemos positivamente que el Sr. Alamán no ha entrado en la especulacion de que se le inculpa, y sabemos mas, que no se han hecho grandes especulaciones en ese ramo y que la mayor parte de la deuda mexicana se halla reducida á pocas manos de capitalistas de Holanda y Alemania que no entran en el juego de fondos de la bolsa de Londres. Hay una razon de propio interés que probaría que ningun capitalista de esta ciudad ha podido entrar en ese género de especulaciones. Al mismo tiempo que se trató del restablecimiento del crédito nacional, se autorizó al gobierno para tomar á préstamo dinero sobre las aduanas marítimas hasta con 3 por 100 al mes: ¿y quien sería el loco que fuese á invertir sus fondos á dos mil leguas de distancia en un negocio tan incierto como el juego de la bolsa de Londres, cuando sin salir de su casa, por su propia mano, sin correr riesgo alguno, podia ganar 36 ó 40 por 100 en un año? Siempre que se nos citen hechos en el Federalista, contestarémos con la misma claridad que ahora, y esperamos los que ofrece rectificar sobre el manejo del banco de avio, para confundir su mordacidad. En lo demás que parecen hechos y no son mas que calumnias, nos contentaremos con decirle, que el Sr. Alamán no inició la declaracion de poner fuera de la ley al Sr. Iturbide, ni circuló esta declaracion, ni menos dió instrucciones para su cumplimiento. Que no ha hablado en toda su vida mas que dos veces con Piccaluga, la una en la portería de su secretaría delante de muchas personas, cuando aquel fué á pedir su pasaporte, y faltándolo documentos para podérselo expedir: otra vez lo encontró en el corredor de palacio, donde aquel le avisó que ya los tenia, y entonces le dije que ocurriese por él; ocasiones por cierto poco oportunas para tratar de asesinatos. Lo demás que se dice es un embustero: no cabe medio entre estos estremos. Esto último es lo cierto, y el Sr. Alamán limitado á su propio despacho, hace en los negocios que le pertenecen el bien que puede. El y los demás miembros de la administracion estan muy prontos á contestar de cualquiera manera sobre cualquier hecho que se les cite, y nosotros lo harémos tambien en cuanto tengamos conocimiento; pero no contestaremos sino sobre hechos y en todo lo demás tratando las calumnias con el mismo desprecio que merecen el papel que las contiene, y la pluma de donde proceden, nos dedicarémos á mas útiles trabajos.	Official Register of the Government of the United Mexican States, March 14, 1831 (Pages 291-292) [written anonymously by Lucas Alaman] MEXICO, MARCH 14. Yesterday we offered to respond to what El Federalista states in its issue of Saturday, the 12th of this month, under the heading “Official Record,” and we shall begin with the point relating to the negotiation that Mr. Alamán is alleged to have conducted to the detriment of national interests, concerning the obligations of the loans contracted in England. We said yesterday and repeat now that we are very pleased that the matter is being viewed in terms of facts, for it is much easier to demonstrate the falsity of those cited than to respond to vague accusations that do not admit the same precision of reasoning. The Federalist’s accusation, stripped of all its rhetorical flourishes and reduced to its bare substance, boils down to this: that while Mexican funds were at a very low point in the London market, instead of taking advantage of this circumstance to pay off this portion of the national debt, Mr. Alamán entered into a personal transaction and, to that end, kept a certain individual at bay who had made advantageous proposals to the other party, while at the same time taking advantage of the very idea that this same individual had proposed. Since the advantage of repaying a debt when it is trading at a price below the face value of the bonds is evident, the question can only concern the possibility of such repayment. There are only two ways to carry it out: either by having cash on hand to purchase the bonds at the current market price, or by securing a new contract on terms more advantageous than the previous one to replace it, thereby removing from circulation the bonds that stemmed from it. As for the first method, it is clear that it was entirely out of the question because the previous administration (*), composed of the Federalist’s friends and countrymen—over whom he had considerable and very pernicious influence—left the current administration not with coffers full of pesos but rather with new and very urgent debts to pay; consequently, no cash could be counted on for this financial operation. [Footnote *] It should be understood that in everything we say in this issue and in all issues of our newspaper regarding the administration of the treasury, we are excluding the few weeks during which Mr. Bocanegra was at its head. This commendable minister not only conducted himself with integrity but also began to bring order to the incredible waste he found in this department. His efforts, however, could not have the full desired effect, because he could not act with the freedom that was necessary due to the disorder in the other offices fomented by other hands. Only the second means remained, and it is precisely to this that the Federalist refers. This method is so well known to all who have taken even the first step in matters of public credit that only the Federalist’s crass ignorance in these matters could imagine it was a secret that Mr. Alamán needed to surprise someone with in order to take advantage of it. But while the method is well known, putting it into practice is not as easy as the Federalist believes, for the first element of its execution is to have a secure credit, which did not yet exist at the time the Federalist speaks of, because once he and he friends destroyed it, restoring it was not a task to be accomplished in a moment, whatever confidence might be inspired by the individuals who came to form the new administration. He who presented himself for this affair was not a capitalist with whom one could deal, but an adventurous schemer who, proposing airy plans, wanted to be sent to England to find someone with whom to make the contract. This schemer, however, having had to leave England rather hastily shortly before, pursued by his creditors, could cause nothing but discredit to the business there, and the whole result would have been that this redeemer of the Mexican debt, without a single peso to his name, would have been crucified by his own people as soon as he arrived in England, with his creditors throwing him in jail, as they have already tried to do once before. And they would not have failed to watch for an opportunity to do so, given the persistence with which they incessantly harass the Mexican legation in London to demand payment. And is this what the Federalist has the audacity to call a plan to capitalize the debt in a manner advantageous to the public treasury? Let us not be surprised, for whenever the Federalist has intervened in this sort of business—when, to the nation’s misfortune, it was employed on the side of one of the ministers—it believed without a doubt that the treasury’s affairs were best handled with adventurers: and so, to the nation’s shame, a loan was contracted with a certain Morton Jones, whom no one knew either here or in London, who turned out to be a bankrupt man without a home or a place to live, and whose promissory notes not only had no one to pay them, but not even anyone to protest them, which was, in truth, very ignominious for the nation’s credit. In view of such a project presented to the government, it was not Mr. Alamán, but the Minister of Finance, to whom it was submitted for review, who deemed it—as it in fact was—absolutely inadmissible for a government that respected not only itself but also the nation it administers, and the only possible course of action was taken, which is to strengthen the credit by seeking means to ensure the payment of interest, negotiating with the bondholders the capitalization of past-due interest and the reduction of current interest, which was done not through secret maneuvers dictated by private interest, but by convening a general and public meeting of all the holders of the aforementioned bonds, from whom the most advantageous terms that could be hoped for were obtained, this being an operation that doubly honors the current administration, both for the advantages it secured for the nation and for the confidence that the interested parties expressed in the individuals who comprise it. The Federalist, which, as we have said, knows nothing of these matters, confuses the capitalization of accrued dividends with the price of the bonds—lthough these are related matters, they are nevertheless two distinct things—and from this confusion it concludes that because Mr. Alamán delayed the author of the proposal, he conducted his own private business, driving the shares up from 19 or 20 to 41. The capitalization deal, although proposed to bondholders since the beginning of the previous year, did not come to pass until the end of that year by virtue of the law passed by Congress in June or July: this law was debated publicly; the Federalist attended the debate, so why did it not state there that there was a much more [292] useful proposal than the one under discussion, which Mr. Alamán had stifled out of self-interest? Congress would then have determined which was the better option, and the minister’s interest would have been thwarted. This silence on the part of the Federalist makes it at least as culpable as the minister, and could lead the public to believe that the minister was giving it a share of his profits to keep it quiet, since the public itself suspects that the Federalist is not without understanding, at times, the power of this kind of argument. As for the capitalization of overdue dividends, it seems clear that nothing else could have been done but what was done, and we will say, moreover, that it would have been impossible to do so were it not for the confidence inspired by the current administration. In past years, an attempt was made to carry out the same operation; the aforementioned proposer was in London at the time, could have presented his proposal then, and nothing was achieved despite a law that provided for this capitalization. The reputable firm of Baring Brothers, which has managed the business today, was asked by previous administrations to do so and refused; and can the Federalist still doubt that the personal credit of the current administration has contributed powerfully to the beneficial results that have been obtained? But the credits rose, and in this Mr. Alamán obtained a large profit that could have benefited the nation. We know for certain that no such profit was made, and that Mr. Alamán did not engage in such speculation. Well then, the damage is only partial: those Mexican credits in London, whose legitimate value certainly yields 5 or 6 percent interest—and which were worth 10 or 20 thanks to the good credit that the Federalist and his patriotic entourage had secured for the nation—are still worth no more than 40. Even so, investors stand to make a 60 percent profit by buying them at the current price, and that profit is guaranteed provided the Federalist and his cronies do not ruin everything again—a fate from which we hope the nation will guard itself very well by not giving them the opportunity to do so. What, then, shall we do? Sixteen million pesos are enough to buy the forty million in foreign debt. And why are we hesitating? What a misfortune! Because there are no such sixteen million pesos, nor any capitalist willing to offer them as of yet. And what—would the government have hesitated to buy them when they were worth less? Certainly not, for everyone will agree that it could not have been done. But there is more: domestic bonds are selling not at 19 or 20 percent but at 8 or 9 percent, and at this price they have been bought by all those who did business with the previous government, who paid full value for these securities. The Federalist may ignore this fact because, for it, those bonds that are worth only 8 or 9 percent have been worth 100 percent, paid for in houses and estates of the highest quality, thanks to a certain Romanesque heroism that anyone who knows anything about the influence of passions—especially on the fair sex—even if they have not read Madame de Staël, might attribute to a less patriotic principle, but he may ask the architect of the grand plan for the Mexican debt in London, who will agree with him. Is Mr. Alamán to blame that the national debt was not paid off in one fell swoop with eight million pesos? Well, the situation is the same, because neither are those eight million pesos available, nor is there anyone to lend them as of yet. But this wickedness is not Mr. Alamán’s alone; it belongs to all the ministers of all the courts of Europe, despite the fact that so many revolutions have been carried out to remove the bad ones and install the good ones. In France, their funds fell by more than 20 percent in just a few days; in all the powers of the continent even more so; and in England, by no small amount. Wicked ministers! They could have done France the favor of redeeming its debt, yielding a profit for the nation that would not have been less than two hundred million pesos. But if they did not have the necessary money, what were they to do? Borrow it from a financier, and if there was none? Rely on some speculator, of whom there is no shortage in that country, but they believed they owed it to their own honor and that of their nation not to deal with such people, and they were right to believe so. For if the government could not make this debt repayment, would the minister be at fault for investing his own funds in buying bonds when they were low because he foresaw that they would rise? We believe not. However, we know for certain that Mr. Alamán has not engaged in the speculation of which he is accused, and we know further that no major speculations have taken place in that sector, and that the bulk of the Mexican debt is now concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists from Holland and Germany who do not participate in the London stock market. There is a self-interest that would prove that no capitalist in this city has been able to engage in that kind of speculation. At the same time that the restoration of national credit was being addressed, the government was authorized to borrow money against maritime customs duties at up to 3 percent per month: and who would be the fool to invest his funds two thousand leagues away in a venture as uncertain as the London stock market, when, without leaving his home, with his own hands, without running any risk, he could earn 36 or 40 percent in a year? Whenever facts are cited to us in The Federalist, we will respond with the same clarity as now, and we await those it offers to rectify regarding the management of the Avio Bank, to confound its vitriol. As for the rest, which appear to be facts but are nothing more than slander, we shall content ourselves with telling you that Mr. Alamán did not initiate the declaration to outlaw Mr. Iturbide, nor did he circulate this declaration, much less give instructions for its enforcement. That he has spoken to Piccaluga no more than twice in his entire life, once at the reception desk of his office in front of many people, when the latter came to request his passport, and lacking the necessary documents to issue it; another time he encountered him in the palace corridor, where the latter informed him that he now had them, and then I told him to come and get it; occasions certainly ill-suited for discussing murders. Everything else that is said is a lie: there is no middle ground between these extremes. This last point is the truth, and Mr. Alamán, confined to his own office, does the best he can in the matters that concern him. He and the other members of the administration are very ready to respond in any way to any fact cited against them, and we will do so as well as soon as we become aware of it; but we will respond only regarding facts, and in all other matters, treating the slanders with the same contempt deserved by the paper on which they are written and the pen from which they proceed, we will devote ourselves to more useful work.
Leona Vicario, Carta vindicativa de su participación en la Independencia contra las injurias de Lucas Alamán, El Federalista Mexicano, 2 de abril de 1831 [1] [Texto transcrito del impreso original y proporcionado por Gabriela Huerta] :. Señores editores del Federalista: Aunque estaba resuelto á no contestar las groseras personalidades conque últimamente se ha servido injuriarme d. Lucas Alamán, creyendo que son mios los artículos en que se habla de las negociaciones de bonos, hechas, segun se dice por S: E. algunos amigos del órden persuadidos de que este no puede conservarse si no se reprime y confunde á los calumniadores, me han decidido á tomar la pluma para poner en toda su luz, el espíritu que anima al sr Alamán en esas detracciones infámes, que deshonran mas á sus autores, que á los que estos hacen objeto y blanco de ellas. El sr. Alamán no se cansa de repetir, que tuve un grande influjo en la administración del sr. Guerrero: que dividí con este los despojos de la nacion: que robé el parian, y causé cuanto mal se obró entonces. Pero ha sido tal desgracia de S. E. en estos ataques ridículos, que mientras mas se ha empeñado en repetirlos, mas se han reido de él cuantos presenciaron los hechos. La nacion toda pudo ser testigo, por el puesto en que me hallaba, de que reprobé positivamente los desórdenes de la Acordada, y que mis opiniones poco favorables á las miras del partido que entónces dominaba, me tuvieron alejado de él, sufriendo mucha odiosidad y censura por la firmeza conque siempre me opuse á lo que me parecia justo y conforme al verdadero interés de la nacion. Si no obstante esta notoriedad, desea el sr. Alamán una prueba mas concluyente, yo se la daré ofreciendo mi cabeza, que es el regalo mas lisonjero que en el dia pueda hacerse á S. E. siempre que presente un solo dato de haber yo saludado una vez siquiera al sr. Guerrero en el tiempo de su mando, ó que sin sacar la cara haya yo tenido parte en las vergonzosas negociaciones que se hicieron entónces. Ademas de la evidente calumnia que envuelve este encargo por ser sabido de todos que ni directa ni indirectamente influí en la administracion del sr. Guerrero, se nota el mucho arrojo del sr. Alamán en imputarme complicidad en despilfarros de que el supo aprovecharse. No satisfecho aun el ministro de relaciones con achacarme vicios de que antes de la publicacion del Federalista me consideraba ecsento, según puede colegirse del antecedente oficio, ha llevado su rabioso encono hasta el punto de arrebatar en el desenfreno de sus calumnias á la persona que mas á cubierto de ellas, no habia dado á S. E. ni aun el mas ligero pretesto para hacerla blanco de sus iras. ¿Qué parte ha tenido en la publicacion del Federalista doña Maria Leona Vicario? Pues el sr. Alamán, sin reflexionar el peligro á que se esponia en la opinion pública, ultrajando este nombre respetable, que adorna los fastos de nuestra gloriosa revolucion, ha tenido el arrojo de querer cubrirle de oprobio, dando asi motivo para que se confirme el concepto de que S. E. mira con ódio á todos los que contribuyeron á nuestra independencia, sin perdonar á las personas que por su secso, por su nacimiento, por su fortuna y otras circunstancias particulares, contrajeron mayor mérito sirviendo generosamente á la patria, cuando el sr. Alamán no hizo en su obsequio el mas pequeño sacrificio, pues todos saben que no se apareció entre nosotros, sino hasta muy entrado el año d 23, en circunstancias en que todo estaba concluido, y S. E. solo vino á coger el fruto de los esfuerzos y sacrificios de los patriotas entre los cuales no sonó nunca el nombre del sr. Alamán. ¿Y este hombre se atreve á poner sus inmundos labios sobre la opinion de la mas esclarecida patriota? La nacion responderá por mì á este ultraje: responderá mas especialmente el benemérito estado que ha creido honrarse, dando á su insigne capital el nombre de Leona Vicario: responderá la posteridad, á la cual pasará ileso este glorioso nombre, cuando el del sr. Alamán, si acaso llega hasta allá, ocupará apenas un oscuro lugar entre los agentes subalternos de la tiranía. Y al cabo, ¿cuáles son las inculpaciones que hace este famoso calumniador á la patriota de quien se trata? La carta que ésta escribió á su agresor, satisfará completamente esta pregunta: advirtiendose, que aunque en contestación aseguró el sr. Alamán no ser editor del Registro, está desmentido este hecho, no solo por la circunstancia de que aun los menos perspicaces conocen su estílo, afectadamente estrangero, sino también por la notoriedad de que ecsisten en la imprenta los originales de sus libelos infamatorios escritos todos de su puño y letra. ¿Ni quien ha de creer al sr. Alamán, cuya propension á la mentira, está ya tan solemnemente acreditada? La carta dice asi: Casa de V. marzo 26 de 1831.—Muy Sr. mio de toda mi atencion: en el Registro Oficial de 14 de este, contestando V. á los Federalistas, me lleva a encuentro sin saber por qué, tachando mis servicios á la pátria de heroismo romanesco, y dando á entender muy claramente, que mi decision por ella, solo fue efecto del amor. Esta impostura la he desmentido ya otra vez, y la persona que la inventó, se desdijo publicamente de ella, y V. es regular que no lo haya ignorado; mas por sí se le hubiese olvidado, remito á V. un ejemplar de mi vindicación que en aquel tiempo se imprimió, en donde se hallan reunidos varios documentos que son intachables y que desmienten dicha impostura. No imagine V. que el empeño que me he tenido en patentizar al público que los servicios que hice á la pátria, no tuvieron mas objeto que el verla libre de su antiguo yugo, lleva la mira de grangearme el título y lauro de heroína. No: mi amor propio no me ha cegado nunca hasta el estremo de creer que unos servicios tan comunes y cortos como los mios, puedan merecer los elógios gloriosos que están reservados para las acciones grandes y extraordinarias. Mi objeto en querer desmentir la impostura de que mi patriotismo tuvo por origen el amor, no es otro que el justo deseo de que mi memoria no pase á mis nietos con la fea nota de haber yo sido una atronada que abandoné mi casa por seguir á un amante. Me parece inutil detenerme en probar á V. lo contrario, pues además de que en mi vindicación hay suficientes pruebas, todo México supo que mi fuga fué de una prision, y que esta no la originó el amor, sino el haberme apresado á un correo que mandaba yo á los antiguos patriotas. En la correspondencia interceptada, no apareció ninguna carta amatoria, y el mismo empeño que tuvo el gobierno español para que yo descubriera á los individuos que escribian con nombres fingidos, prueba bastantemente que mi prision se originó por un servicio que presté á mi patria. Si el amor cree V. que fué el móvil de mis acciones, ¿qué coneccion pudo haber tenido éste con la firmeza que manifesté, ocultando, como debia, los nombres de los individuos que escribian por mi conducto, siéndo asi que ninguno de ellos era mi amante? Confiese V. sr. Alamán, que no solo el amor es el móvil de las acciones de las mugeres: que ellas son capaces de todos los entusiasmos, y que los deseos de la gloria y de la libertad de la pátria, no les son unos sentimientos estraños; antes bien suele obrar en ellas con mas vigor, como que siempre los sacrificios de las mugeres, sea el que fuere el objeto ó causa por quien los hacen, son mas desinteresados, y parece que no buscan mas recompensa de ellos, que la de que sean aceptados. Si M. Stael atribuye algunas acciones de patriotismo en las mugeres á la pasion amorosa, esto no probará jamás que sean incapaces de ser patriotas, cuando el amor no las estimula á que lo sean. Por lo que á mi toca, se decir, que mis acciones y opiniones han sido siempre muy libres, nadie ha influido absolutamente en ellas, y en este punto he obrado siempre con total independencia, y sin atender à las opiniones que han tenido las personas que he estimado. Me persuado que así serán todas las mugeres, exceptuando á las muy estúpidas, ó á las que por efecto de su educación hayan contraido un habito servil. De ambas clases tambien hay muchisimos hombres. Aseguro á V sr. Alamán, que me es sumamente sensible, que un paisano mio, como lo es V. se empeñe en que aparezca manchada la reputacion de una compatriota suya, que fué la única mexicana acomodada que tomó una parte en la emancipación de la pátria. En todas las naciones del mundo, ha sido apreciado el patriotismo de las mugeres: ¿por qué, pues, mis paisanos aunque no sean todos, han querido ridiculizarlo como si fuera un sentimiento impropio en ellas? ¿Qué tiene de estraño ni de ridículo el que una muger ame á su patria, y le preste los servicios que pueda para que á estos se les dé, por burla, el título de heroismo romanesco? Si ha obrado V. con injusticia atribuyendo mi desicion por la pátria á la pasion del amor, no ha sido menor la de creer que traté de sacar ventaja de la nacion en recibir fincas por mi capital. Debe V. estar entendido, Sr. Alamán, que pedí fincas por que el congreso constituyente, á virtud de una solicitud mía para que se quitara al consulado de Veracruz toda intervención en el peage por que no pagaba reditos contestó: que el dinero del peage lo tomaba el gobierno para cubrir algunas urgencias y que yo podía pedir otra cosa con que indemnizarme, porque en mucho tiempo no podria arreglarse los pagos de reditos. ¿Que otra cosa, que no fueran fincas, podia yo haber pedido? ¿ó cree V. que hubiera sido justo, que careciera enteramente de mi dinero al mismo tiempo que tal vez servia para pagar sueldos á los que habian sido enemigos de la pátria? Las fincas, de que se cree que saque ventajas, no habia habido quien las quisiese comprar con la rebaja de una tercera parte de su valor y yo las tomé por el todo: la casa en que vivo tenia los mas de los techos apolillados y me costó mucho repararla. De todas las fincas incluyendo en ellas el capital que reconocia la hacienda de Ocotepec, que tambien se me adjudicó, solo sacaba la nacion el año 1000 pues que, como V. vé es el redito de 30 000 y con eso se me pagaron 112 000. Si V. reputa esto por una gran ventaja, no la reputó por tal aquel congreso, quien confesó que mi propuesta habia sido ventajosa á la nacion. Me parece que he desvanecido bastantemente las calumnias del Registro. Espero que mis razones convenzan á V. y que mande insertar esta misma carta en el referido periodico; para que yo quede vindicada y V. de una prueba de ser justo é imparcial: lo que además le merecerá la eterna gratitud de su atenta y s. s. q. s. m. b.- María Leona Vicario. Del contenido de esta carta, y de lo dicho anteriormente se infiere, que es una impostura cuanto ha avanzado el sr. Alamán sobre haber yo influido en la administración del sr. Guerrero: que S. E. y no yo, fue el que aprovechó entónces los intereses de la hacienda pública: que en su concepto, antes del Federalista, era yo irreprensible en mi conducta privada, y que hasta que empezó á publicarse este periódico, no se me conocieron los vicios que me imputa; y finalmente, que todo lo que ha inventado para deslucir el mérito patriótico de mi muger, no tiene mas fundamento que la ojeriza de S. E. á los antiguos patriotas. Suplico á VV. señores editores, tengan la bondad de publicar este artículo, recibiendo la espresion de los sentimientos con que soy afectisimo servidor que b. s. m –Andrés Quintana Roo. [1] Imprenta del Federalista a cargo de Sabino Ortega, México, tomo 1, sábado 2 de abril de 1831, núm. 26, pp. 1-4. Impreso del Fondo Reservado de la Hemeroteca Nacional: Miscelánea 150, Ciudad de México. La primera parte de esta carta, comunicado o artículo de El Federalista Mexicano fue redactada por su marido, Andrés Quintana Roo, independista y liberal con quien Leona Vicario se casó por compartir ideales políticos. Asimismo, Quintana Roo defiende la dignidad humana de su esposa, como activista política por convicción propia y periodista reconocida, al ser atacada por el conservador Lucas Alamán en su condición de “mujer de”, una mujer o novia movida por un “heroismo romanesco” o una “pasión amorosa”. Quintana Roo transcribe el documento en el que Leona Vicario se había defendido sola de semejantes acusaciones, apelando y criticando hasta las opiniones, muy respetadas en ese entonces, de la historiadora francesa Germaine de Staël al respecto. Se trata de un caso único entre los liberales latinoamericanos del siglo XIX, en la etapa posterior al movimiento armado de Independencia, de respeto mutuo por la persona y los ideales y comportamientos de los dos miembros de una pareja. Available at https://ideasfem.wordpress.com/textos/b/b10/	Leona Vicario, Vindicatory Letter Regarding Her Participation in the War of Independence Against the Insults of Lucas Alamán, El Federalista Mexicano, April 2, 1831 [1] [Text transcribed from the original print and provided by Gabriela Huerta] :. To the editors of The Federalista: Although I was resolved not to respond to the crude personal attacks with which Mr. Lucas Alamán has recently chosen to slander me, believing that the articles discussing the bond negotiations—carried out, as it is said, by His Excellency, some friends of order, convinced that it cannot be preserved unless the slanderers are repressed and confounded, have persuaded me to take up the pen to shed full light on the spirit that animates Mr. Alamán in these infamous defamations, which dishonor their authors more than those whom they target. Mr. Alamán never tires of repeating that I had great influence in Mr. Guerrero’s administration, that I shared with him the spoils of the nation, that I plundered the treasury, and [that I] caused all the evil that was wrought at that time. But His Excellency’s misfortune in these ridiculous attacks has been such that the more he has insisted on repeating them, the more those who witnessed the events have laughed at him. The entire nation could bear witness, given the position I held, that I actively condemned the disorders of the Acordada, and that my views, which were unfavorable to the aims of the party then in power, kept me at a distance from it, causing me to suffer much hatred and censure for the firmness with which I always opposed what seemed to me just and in accordance with the true interests of the nation. If, despite this well-known fact, Mr. Alamán desires more conclusive proof, I will provide it by offering my head—which is the most flattering gift that could be made to His Excellency today—provided he presents a single piece of evidence that I ever once greeted Mr. Guerrero during his term in office, or that, without showing my face, I took part in the shameful negotiations that took place at that time. In addition to the obvious slander involved in this accusation—since it is known to all that I had no influence, either directly or indirectly, on Mr. Guerrero’s administration—one notes Mr. Alamán’s great audacity in accusing me of complicity in the squandering of funds from which he himself profited. Not yet satisfied with accusing me of vices from which he had previously absolved me prior to the publication of El Federalista, as can be inferred from the preceding letter, he has taken his rabid rancor to the point of, in the frenzy of his slanders, attacking the very person who, having been most shielded from them, had not given His Excellency even the slightest pretext to make her the target of his wrath. What part did Doña María Leona Vicario play in the publication of El Federalista? For Mr. Alamán, without reflecting on the danger to which he exposed himself in the eyes of public opinion, by insulting this respectable name, which adorns the splendor of our glorious revolution, has had the audacity to seek to cover her with disgrace, thereby giving cause to confirm the notion that His Excellency regards with hatred all those who contributed to our independence, without sparing those who, by virtue of their sex, birth, fortune, and other particular circumstances, earned greater merit by generously serving the fatherland, while Mr. Alamán did not make the slightest sacrifice in his service, for everyone knows that he did not appear among us until well into the year 1823, at a time when everything was already concluded, and His Excellency came only to reap the fruits of the efforts and sacrifices of the patriots, among whom the name of Mr. Alamán was never heard. And this man dares to set his filthy lips upon the opinion of the most enlightened patriot? The nation will answer for me to this outrage. Most especially, the meritorious state that has deemed it an honor to name its illustrious capital Leona Vicario will answer. Posterity will answer, to whom this glorious name will pass unscathed, while that of Mr. Alamán, if it ever reaches that point, will occupy merely an obscure place among the subordinate agents of tyranny. And in the end, what are the accusations that this famous slanderer levels against the patriot in question? The letter she wrote to her aggressor will fully answer this question: noting that, although in his reply Mr. Alamán claimed not to be the editor of the Registro, this fact is refuted, not only because even the least perceptive recognize his affectedly foreign style, but also because it is well known that the originals of his defamatory libels, all written in his own hand, exist in the printer’s office. Who, indeed, is to believe Mr. Alamán, whose propensity for lying is already so solemnly established? The letter reads as follows: V[icario] Residence, March 26, 1831.—My dear Sir, with all due respect: in the Official Register of the 14th of this month, in your reply to the Federalists, you take issue with me without my knowing why, dismissing my service to the fatherland as Romanesque heroism, and very clearly making to be understood that my commitment to it was solely the result of love. I have already refuted this falsehood once before, and the person who invented it publicly recanted it, and you surely cannot have been unaware of this; but in case you should have forgotten, I am sending you a copy of my vindication that was printed at that time, in which various documents are gathered that are beyond reproach and that refute said falsehood. Do not imagine that my determination to make it clear to the public that the services I rendered to the fatherland had no other purpose than to see it free from its former yoke is aimed at securing for myself the title and laurels of a heroine. No: my self-esteem has never blinded me to the point of believing that services as ordinary and brief as mine could deserve the glorious praise reserved for great and extraordinary deeds. My aim in seeking to refute the falsehood that my patriotism was motivated by love is none other than the just desire that my memory not be passed down to my grandchildren with the shameful stain of having been a woman who abandoned her home to follow a lover. It seems pointless to me to dwell on proving the contrary to you, for besides the fact that there is sufficient evidence in my defense, all of Mexico knew that my escape was from a prison, and that this was not caused by love, but by my having been seized while on a courier mission I had sent to the old patriots. No love letters appeared in the intercepted correspondence, and the very effort the Spanish government made to have me reveal the individuals who wrote under false names sufficiently proves that my imprisonment was caused by a service I rendered to my country. If you believe that love was the motive for my actions, what connection could this have had with the steadfastness I displayed, concealing, as I ought to, the names of the individuals who wrote through me, given that none of them was my lover? Admit, Mr. Alamán, that love is not the sole motive for women’s actions: that they are capable of all forms of passion, and that the desire for glory and the freedom of the fatherland are not foreign sentiments to them; rather, they often act with greater vigor, since women’s sacrifices—whatever the object or cause for which they are made—are always more selfless, and it seems they seek no greater reward for them than that they be accepted. If Madame Staël attributes some acts of patriotism in women to amorous passion, this will never prove that they are incapable of being patriots when love does not spur them on to be so. As for myself, that is to say, my actions and opinions have always been very free; no one has influenced them in the least, and on this point I have always acted with complete independence, without heeding the opinions of those I have held in high esteem. I am convinced that all women are the same, except for the very stupid ones, or those who, as a result of their upbringing, have acquired a servile disposition. There are also very many men of both kinds. I assure you, Mr. Alamán, that it pains me deeply that a countryman of mine, as you are, should insist on tarnishing the reputation of a compatriot of yours, who was the only well-to-do Mexican woman to take part in the emancipation of the homeland. In every nation in the world, women’s patriotism has been valued: why, then, have my countrymen—though not all of them—sought to ridicule it as if it were an inappropriate sentiment for them? What is so strange or ridiculous about a woman loving her country and rendering whatever service she can, only to have these actions mockingly labeled as “romanesque heroism”? If you have acted unjustly by attributing my devotion to the country to the passion of love, no less unjust was your belief that I sought to take advantage of the nation by receiving estates in exchange for my capital. You must understand, Mr. Alamán, that I requested estates because the Constituent Congress, in response to a request of mine to remove the Consulate of Veracruz from any involvement in the toll—since it was not paying dividends—replied: that the government was taking the toll money to cover certain emergencies and that I could ask for something else to compensate me, since the payment of revenues could not be settled for a long time. What else, other than estates, could I have asked for? Or do you think it would have been fair for me to be entirely deprived of my money at the same time that it might have been used to pay the salaries of those who had been enemies of the fatherland? The estates, from which you believe I derived benefits, no one had wanted to buy even at a discount of one-third of their value, and I took them for the full price: the house in which I live had most of its roofs eaten away by termites, and it cost me a great deal to repair it. From all the estates, including the capital recognized by the Ocotepec estate—which was also awarded to me—the nation derived only 1,000 a year, since, as you see, the income is 30,000, and with that I was paid 112,000. If you consider this a great advantage, that Congress did not consider it as such, having acknowledged that my proposal had been advantageous to the nation. It seems to me that I have sufficiently dispelled the slanders of the Registry. I hope that my reasons will convince you and that you will order this very letter to be published in the aforementioned newspaper; so that I may be vindicated and you may demonstrate that you are just and impartial: which will also earn you the eternal gratitude of your devoted and most humble servant, María Leona Vicario. From the content of this letter, and from what has been said previously, it follows that everything Mr. Alamán has alleged regarding my having influenced Mr. Guerrero’s administration is a fabrication; that His Excellency, and not I, was the one who at that time served the interests of the public treasury; that in his view, prior to the Federalista, I was irreproachable in my private conduct, and that until this newspaper began publication, the vices he attributes to me were not known to me; and finally, that everything he has invented to discredit the patriotic merit of my wife has no basis other than His Excellency’s animosity toward the old patriots. I beg you, gentlemen editors, to be so kind as to publish this article, and to accept the expression of the sentiments with which I remain your most affectionate servant, who b. s. m –Andrés Quintana Roo. [1] Imprenta del Federalista, edited by Sabino Ortega, Mexico, vol. 1, Saturday, April 2, 1831, no. 26, pp. 1-4. Printed from the Reserved Collection of the National Newspaper Library: Miscellany 150, Mexico City. The first part of this letter, communiqué, or article from El Federalista Mexicano was written by her husband, Andrés Quintana Roo, an independence activist and liberal whom Leona Vicario married because they shared political ideals. Quintana Roo also defends his wife's human dignity as a political activist by conviction and a renowned journalist when she is attacked by the conservative Lucas Alamán in her capacity as a “woman of,” a woman or girlfriend moved by “roman[t]ic heroism” or “amorous passion.” Quintana Roo transcribed the document in which Leona Vicario had defended herself against such accusations, appealing and criticizing even the opinions of the French historian Germaine de Staël, who was highly respected at the time. This is a unique case among 19th-century Latin American liberals, in the period following the armed independence movement, of mutual respect for the person and the ideals and behaviors of both members of a couple. Available at https://ideasfem.wordpress.com/textos/b/b10/