Discourse on Silver in 19th Century Mexico: Porfiristas Break with their Predecessors
Richard Weiner, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Segundo Congreso Latinoamericano de Historia Económica, 3-5 February 2010, Mexico City
Introduction
This paper briefly surveys economic discourse about Mexican silver over the course of
the 19th century, focusing mostly on Mexican thinkers. The paper is a preliminary rough draft,
and thus the antithesis of a complete study. From the colonial era throughout the entire 19th
century silver was Mexico’s leading export. Accordingly, plans for New Spain’s and
independent Mexico’s development featured exploiting the region’s silver deposits.
Furthermore, and more pertinent to this paper, foreigners and nationals largely identified
Mexico’s riches with its silver. Indeed, the regions famed natural wealth was mostly a
consequence of its precious metals, which had been celebrated since the age of Conquest. The
paper poses a central question: Over the course of the 19th century, how important was silver
deemed for the Mexican economy? Given this broad query and the long time period covered, the
answer provided is general, emphasizing larger trends rather than specifics. The paper’s main
assertion is that the late 19th century marked somewhat of a break with periods that preceded it,
for Porfiristas departed from their predecessors since they minimized the significance of silver.
I. Late Colonial Era through the French Intervention
Let me start with some broad generalizations. During this period silver was deemed very
significant for the Mexican economy. This is not to say that all elites maintained that silver
mining was the most important sector of the Mexican economy. Nevertheless, there was a
1
general consensus that silver played a prominent role, even if there were disagreements about
what that role was and the best way to exploit Mexican silver.
Exploiting New Spain’s silver was a central component of Bourbon Reformers’
economic program, which sought to extract more wealth from Mexico. Reformers such as José
de Gálvez and Rodriguez Gallardo believed that New Spain had extensive deposits of silver and
gold (particularly in Sonora, Sinaloa, and California). While Bourbon Reformers placed great
significance on Mexican silver, they did not stress the precious metal’s importance as much as
their predecessors from the early colonial era, who adhered to mercantilist ideals by identifying
wealth and power entirely with the accumulation of silver and gold. The Bourbon Reformers, in
contrast, also deemed Spanish industrialization necessary to Spain’s economic resurgence. 1
After Independence, Mexican liberals and conservatives both emphasized the importance
of silver, albeit to different degrees and from distinct perspectives. Liberals stressed Mexico’s
vast natural abundance, emphasizing their nation’s huge silver deposits and rich agricultural
lands. This was not a continuation of Spanish mercantilism. Rather, it was informed by
liberalism, particularly the notion of comparative advantage: Mexico could export its precious
metals and agricultural products and import goods it did not have a comparative advantage in,
particularly manufactured products. Some pro-industrialists took a different position, but still
held silver in esteem. For example, Lucas Alamán stressed the need to create Mexican
manufacturing industry, an endeavor he placed much effort into beginning in 1830. He noted
that in contrast to an enclave economy, the silver sector would create linkages with other national
industries and thus be an agent in Mexican development, particularly manufacturing.2 (Industrial
promoter Estében Antuñano, in contrast, minimized the importance of the mining industry.)
1
2
Altable, “Ilustración y utopismo en el Noroeste de Nueva España.”
Covarrubias, “Riqueza.”
2
While both groups recognized the significance of silver, perhaps it was more central in liberals’
discourse. For them, silver and agricultural exports were the basis of Mexican development. In
fact, one of liberals’ critiques of manufacturing was that it took laborers away from Mexico’s
most important sectors: agriculture and mining.
A debate about national policy vis-à-vis silver developed, in which the liberal proponents
of free trade and the industrialists were at odds. Nevertheless, both sides emphasized silver’s
importance. The former championed no restrictions on silver exports, the latter advocated export
restrictions so silver could aid in Mexican national development.3 Some liberals made their case
by attacking mercantilism. Guillermo Prieto’s 1871 economics textbook Lecciones elementales
is a case in point. Prieto cited the historical example of Spain to condemn mercantilism: silver
hoarding had not brought wealth and power to Spain.4 For Prieto, silver was a commodity like
any other. He claimed that Mexico should take advantage of its comparative advantage in the
precious metal just like the US did with its cotton.
Prieto’s textbook also highlighted the significance of silver in Mexican discourse by
contrasting the precious metal with other minerals. Prieto explained that his account of minerals
focused almost exclusively on silver since Mexicans had written very little about any other
minerals.5 In this case, discourse reflected the Mexican reality. Before the Porfiriato Mexican
mineral exploitation focused almost entirely on precious metals.
Foreigners, too, stressed the importance of Mexican silver. The most in-depth and
influential account was Humboldt’s independence-era work (Political Essay on the Kingdom of
New Spain), which foreigners and nationals cited as proof of Mexico’s impressive wealth in
3
Ibid.
Prieto, Lecciones elementales, 301.
5
Ibid., 161.
4
3
silver. This was somewhat ironic since Humboldt actually argued against conventional wisdom
which maintained Mexico’s wealth was rooted in silver. Part of his critique might be termed anticolonial. Humboldt noted that silver benefitted Spain, not Mexico. Humboldt argued that it
would be more beneficial for Mexican development to exploit a range of other minerals.
Humboldt’s critique also stemmed from his adherence to Physiocratic ideals, which emphasized
agriculture as the basis of wealth. Despite these critiques, Humboldt wrote extensively about
Mexican silver (it was the most detailed section of his lengthy study). Furthermore, he
emphasized the importance of silver to Mexican development. Humboldt’s analysis showed that
silver was the antithesis of what scholars today term an “enclave.” To the contrary, silver was a
motor force in regional development since it created linkages with other branches of the
economy. Humboldt also noted that silver exports allowed Mexico to import goods.6 British
financiers, inspired by Humboldt’s Political Essay, which documented Mexico’s extensive silver
wealth, invested in Mexico’s mining sector in the 1820s, just after the nation gained its
independence.7 Americans, too, had a great interest in Mexico’s silver. Some American
promoters of the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War stressed northern
Mexico’s vast mineral wealth. Similarly, tales of Sonora’s legendary silver circulated in France
before the French Intervention. Creating a Second Empire in Mexico was France’s way to solve
its silver-shortage dilemma.8
II. Porfirian Mexico
Weiner, “Redefining Mexico’s Riches.”
Miranda, Humboldt y México.
8
Black, Mexican Silver.
6
7
4
Ideological and material factors engendered Porfiristas’ reassessment of the economic
significance of Mexican silver. Let me start with ideological factors that contributed to
Porfiristas’ critique of silver. By the 1890s the debate between free traders and protectionists had
largely expired. While Porfirian Mexico is rightly termed an “export economy,” the era was also
marked by a strong government promotion of industrialization, as studies by Haber, Beatty, and
others have demonstrated. This dual approach reflected the ideology of the era. While primary
product exports were deemed important, so was Mexican industrialization. Eschewing
comparative advantage and the international division of labor, Porfiristas deemed manufacturing
essential to national power. Britain and the USA were cases in point.
In this age of industrialization silver was knocked off its pedestal. Coal became the
mineral of choice. Justo Sierra explicitly made this point in the mid 1890s: “!Ah! si fuéramos un
bloque de carbon y fierro como Inglaterra, si pudieramos cambiar nuestra plata por el oro negro
de las cuencas hulleras inglesas o pensylvánicas! Pero no podemos.”9 Sierra made similar
complaints about the need for “combustibles” on other occasions.10 In the 1920s José
Vasconcelos made a similar assertion, contending that Mexico remained stuck in the silver era
when the age of coal had dawned.11
Gilberto Crespo y Martínez’s historical study of Mexican mining also validated coal and
other industrial minerals, and noted that this focus was a shift in attitude. He contended that after
independence Mexicans fixated on precious metals. Crespo maintained that the focus on precious
metals in independent Mexico departed from Humboldt’s prescriptions since the renowned
German had stressed the importance of exploiting a variety of industrial minerals. Crespo
9
Sierra, “Problemas sociologicos de México,” 203.
10
11
Sierra, México social y político, 19.
José Vasconcelos, “The Latin American Basis of Mexican Civilization.”
5
maintained Humboldt’s plea fell on deaf ears, for all that Mexicans were interested in was
silver.12
Other commentators, too, maintained that coal was the most important natural resource.
José Cuellar’s 1879 pamphlet—El hierro y el carbon—addressed to “México y á los pueblos
Hispano-Americanos” asserted that iron and coal were the most valuable natural resources: “El
hierro y el carbon, alma y vida de la civilizacion moderna y tesoro del por venir, asumen hoy
una importancia tal, que deja atrás la de todas las demas productos de la naturaleza.”13 Similarly,
Francico Bulnes, one of the leading intellectuals in Porfirian Mexico, made a hierarchy of
nations based on their degree of coal consumption. Nations that consumed the most—the USA
and Great Britain—were on the top.14
From this industrial mineral yardstick, Mexico’s natural resources didn’t measure up. The
numerous complaints about Mexico’s limited coal reserves reveal the great value Porfiristas
placed on the industrial mineral. Not only did Porfirian economist Carlos Díaz Dufoo complain
about limited coal reserves in Mexico, but also the location of this “black gold.” Since it was
distant from centers of production it was exported to the USA rather than utilized in Mexican
industry. Nor did Mexico’s minerals escape Sierra’s critique. He complained about the “falta . . .
de combustible” and asserted that between Tehuantepec and the 32nd parallel Mexico had “vasto
mineral de tercen orden, abundante en metales pobres.”15 He went on to complain that “la
carestía de la material prima” impeded the growth of Mexican “pequña industria.”16 Matters
were even worse, asserted Sierra, since Mexico’s forests had been depleted. Given this
Crespo, “La evolución minera,” 76.
José Cuellar, El hierro y el carbon, 3.
14
Bulnes, El porvenir de las naciones latinoamericanas, 170.
15
Sierra, México social y político, 19.
16
Ibid., 23.
12
13
6
assessment of Mexico’s industrial natural resources it is unsurprising that Sierra put his hope in
the future. He maintained that Mexico’s mountainous topography and waterfalls would bode
well with the newly developed energy, electricity: “hay que esperar en los maravillosos motores
eléctricos del siglo entrante que permitirán nuestra restauración forestall.”17
But this minimization of silver’s significance was not only a consequence of the premium
that Sierra, Díaz Dufoo, and others placed on industrial resources and the industrial model.
Mexicans’ slight of silver also stemmed from the precious metal’s declining international value,
which began in the early 1870s. Sierra, for example, when assessing Mexico’s wealth, noted
silver’s declining international value. Crespo maintained that silver’s decline was a factor that
inspired Mexicans to take greater interest in exploiting other minerals. Díaz Dufoo made the
same assertion, and suggested that silver’s decline inspired an examination of and a new critical
attitude about Mexico’s natural resource wealth: 1886 “fué la primera vez que se emprendió un
estudio científico acerca de los elementos constitutivos de la producción nacional; fué también la
primera vez en que se puso á la discussion la riqueza de la República.”18
Perhaps Díaz Dufoo specified 1886, in part, because a government study about the silver
crisis appeared that year. The introduction to the 1886 government study argued that nothing
could be done to stop silver’s decline. The report maintained that Mexico’s main export should
shift from silver to agricultural goods.19 Crespo concurred, contending that silver’s decline
sparked greater interest in agriculture. This assertion was not unique to the authors of México: su
evolución social. To the contrary, it was a refrain in the national press. Despite the fact that silver
17
Sierra, “Problemas sociologicos de México,” 203.
Díaz Dufoo, “La evolución industrial,” 150.
La crisis monetaria: Estudios sobre la crisis mercantile y la depreciación de la plata (Mexico City: Secretaría de
Fomento, 1886), 9-13, 252-3.
18
19
7
continued to be Mexico’s top export during the Porfiriato, there was a general consensus that
agricultural goods needed to eclipse the precious metal as Mexico’s main export.
Conclusion
The Porfiriato marked a break with the past in terms of national discourse about the
economic significance of Mexican silver. Let me qualify and elaborate on this assertion.
Porfiristas, like their predecessors, deemed silver very important to the Mexican economy. So
the Porfirian “break” was not a rejection of silver. Furthermore, as we have seen, there were
criticisms of silver before the Porfirian period. So Porfiristas’ criticisms were not entirely new.
Nevertheless, the Porfirian silver discourse had some novelties. While their predecessors did
critique silver at times, Porfriristas’ critique was more sustained. In fact, Porfiristas’ discourse
was more of a “reappraisal” than a critique. Indeed, there was an ongoing national discussion
about the silver crisis during the Porfiriato. And there was something of a consensus that silver
was not the economic engine it had once been. So, Porfiristas’ reappraisal devalued the
importance of the precious metal to a greater degree than ever before.
As noted, Porfiristas’ ideas about silver’s declining importance did, to a degree, coincide
with material developments. The Porfiriato marked a break with the past since during the era
Mexico began exploiting and exporting other minerals. Silver’s declining international value,
increased demand for industrial minerals, and new technologies in the extractive industries all
contributed to this development. Nevertheless, silver remained Mexico’s leading export
throughout the entire Porfiriato (and was still the leading export for a few years after the
Porfirian era ended). Consequently, Porfiristas’ critique of silver—expressed in the Porfirian
industrial discourse that disparaged silver, and also articulated in the Porfirian “silver crisis”
8
discourse that maintained that agriculture needed to replace silver as Mexico’s leading export—
when measured against material realities, was perhaps a bit overstated.
Works Cited
Altable, Francisco. “Ilustración y utopismo en el noroeste de Nueva España,” Congreso: Riqueza
metálica, población y formas de desarrollo: ideas y debate económico en torno al mito de la
riqueza de México, 1750-1900, UNAM, Mexico City, January 2007.
Beatty, Edward. Institutions and Investment: the Political Basis of Industrialization in Mexico
before 1911. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2001.
Black, Shirley. Napoleon III and Mexican Silver. Colorado: Ferrell, 2000.
Bulnes, Francisco. El porvenir de las naciones latinoamericanas ante las recientes conquistas de
Europa y Norteamerica. Mexico City: Mariano Nava, 1899.
Covarrubias, José Enrique. “Riqueza, Ilustración y población en el pensamiento mexicano, 18211847,” Congreso: Riqueza metálica, población y formas de desarrollo: ideas y debate económico
en torno al mito de la riqueza de México, 1750-1900, UNAM, Mexico City, January 2007.
Crespo y Martínez, Gilberto. “La evolución minera,” In México, su evolución social, vol. II, ed.
Justo Sierra. Mexico City: J. Ballescá y compañía, 1901.
Cuellar, José. El hierro y el carbon. St. Louis: Comercail del Valle, 1879.
Díaz Dufoo, Carlos. “la evolución industial.” In México, su evolución social, vol. II, ed.
Justo Sierra, 99-158. Mexico City: J. Ballescá y compañía, 1901.
La crisis monetaria: Estudios sobre la crisis mercantile y la depreciación de la plata. Mexico
City: Secretaría de Fomento, 1886.
Humboldt, Alejandro de. Ensayo político sobre el reino de la Nueva España. 1822. 6th ed.,
Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 2002.
Miranda, José. Humboldt y México. Mexico City: UNAM, 1995.
Sierra, Justo. México social y político. 1889. Reprint, Mexico City: DGPMBP, 1960.
______. “Problemas sociologicos de México: Discurso en la clausura de los concursos
científicos, el 18 de agosto de 1895,” Justo Sierra, Obras completas V . Mexico City: UNAM,
1948), 203.
Vasconcelos, José. “The Latin American Basis of Mexican Civilization,” Aspects of Mexican
Civilization, Manuel Gamio and José Vasconcelos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926,
3-102.
9
Weiner, Richard. Race, Nation, and Market: Economic Culture in Porfirian Mexico. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 2004.
______.“Redefining Mexico’s Riches: Representations of Wealth in Alexander von Humboldt’s
Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain.” In Humboldt y otros viajeros científicos en
América Latina, edited by Lourdes de Ita Rubio and Sánchez Díaz, pp. 157-170. Morelia:
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 2006.
10