So nothing here is exactly false, but it perhaps is a little…. Stilted? Incomplete?
Most all accounts say Maximilian did care about the well being of the people of Mexico.
There is ALOT to take in when it comes to the history of Mexico- the Spanish took over, the French, and the nation bounced back and forth with the Spanish and French coming back into power after losing it at various points and at other times Mexican independence factions or militants having control of past or all of the country. So after Mexico fought for independence and establishing a republic- the French installed Maximilian as emperor (he did turn down the job the first two times someone asked) and installed another monarchy. Having a foreign monarch tied to a foreign crown rule as monarch often isn’t appreciated by people who want democracy or independence- even if they want the best for you.
It’s worth noting that many of the policies to help like returning land to Mexicans were proposals that the Liberal faction of the independence government had suggested as part of their agenda anyway.
It’s also worth noting that the wealth disparity and poor state of many citizens that needed repair were the direct effects of the near constant foreign manipulations and exploitations of colonial powers in Europe and of the United States who at various times supported Mexico when its fight against the Europeans would be to US advantage and at other times fought or harmed Mexico to either prevent European nations from gaining a foothold in Mexico or when the U.S. could gain by exploiting Mexico or taking from it.
Amongst that interference, colonial powers had of course consolidated most of the power, land. And wealth in the hands of Europeans, and that wealth disparity tended to favor Europeans. So while I wouldn’t question the sincerity of Maximilian I’s intent- he was effectively trying to solve a problem he was a contributor to or participant in. Of course that’s oversimplifying things too- Factions within Mexico and individuals had their own agendas and ambitions and through the period many natives contributed to wealth disparity and instabilities or other problems of the time. This also completely ignores the role of the Catholic Church in all this- it’s own subject I’ll leave alone.
It also ignores the desires for independence of groups within the territory of Mexico which didn’t want to be part of it- several of which would eventually form countries and split off and be recognized as independent and distinct nations. There is truth that he tried to “end the war peacefully,” he had told the major opposition they would be pardoned for crimes and even made officials within the government if they bowed to the crown. So as much as offering total surrender and submission is trying to end a war peacefully- and keeping in mind that war was caused by the invasion of Mexico by a foreign power that installed a foreign crown and attempted to subvert control from the existing republic… I mean… context right?
Of course Maximilian wasn’t the one who started the war or instigated the invasion- he was just a guy with the right factors to be considered a viable emperor by the invading power. He was anecdotally far from the “worst” person to have ever presided in authority over all or part of the country, and he did produce some positive things and make some good faith efforts to be a decent monarch. So I want to be clear that I am not vilifying the guy- but I’m also not defending his rule.
There are lots of arguments that can be made in cases like this- as to what life in Mexico would be like today or then if foreign powers hadn’t conquered and invaded the country and brought their ideas and laws and culture and changed the fundamental social fabric and history and culture etc. Many take a stance in colonialism that things turned out “better,” or could have turned out “worse,” and that is a complex and sensitive subject with no definitive way to prove what could have happened if things were different. That said- at the end of the day Mexico was invaded by foreign powers and had their politics and nation meddled with by foreign powers for foreign interests.
The only conclusion I can draw or really even support is that what happened is basically that a foreign power invaded and an uprising supported overwhelmingly by the people helped reduce foreign influence in their affairs. There is a philosophical argument of the “guilted cage” and there isn’t really a right answer: is it better to live relatively comfortably and prosperously but be denied self determination, or to be largely in control of your own destiny but deal with hardships and troubles that come with that? Each person has to decide for themselves, or a group must decide by majority or consensus. No matter what we do not everyone will be happy with the results.
Another point of philosophy here is that of the “noble dictator.” No known form of government is as effective and capable of brining justice and happiness than a single person with total control- provided that person has the strength, wisdom, and care for their people to do well by them. Systems like this are amazing when they work. The problem we see throughout history however is that they are usually the worst form of government if the person in power is terrible. Wether another cause or simply because everyone dies- all leaders one day get replaced. Through history we see great leaders replaced by terrible ones and we usually see a single bad egg undo generations of good work and create the stage for generations of problems after they are gone. Systems of government relying too much on a single benevolent leader don’t work out. Where that leader serves at the pleasure of a foreign power, things are even more precarious.
Any serious study of the American revolution or many others will reveal that the history often taught by the victorious rebels tends to embellish the sins of their former masters. The classic narrative that England was so horrible to the colonies and even the accusations of taxation are inflated. Some guys saw their chance to be in control of their own country and make it how they wanted and be rich and powerful. They probably had some noble intentions too and at the end of they day they did realize that being a colony usually sucks- especially when you posses the means to be self sufficient. You can’t control the politics of people thousands of miles away and until very recently being involved or informed or even able to speak up for yourself across those distances was basically impossible. People control your life who don’t even know what your life is like or live on the same continent. They make decisions based on what is best for them even if that isn’t best for you.
So it generally sucks to be a colony. Mexico didn’t want to be a colony for many of the same reasons America or so many other places didn’t- and for many reasons unique to their circumstances. The benevolent invader is still an invader.
As for the execution of Maximilian- that isn’t cut and dry either.
Showing again to his credit and to the fact that he probably wasn’t such a bad guy- or at the very least was generally good to the people- after taking the country back Juárez respected Maximilian on a personal level. His execution was largely political. Tens of thousand of Mexicans had died under Maximilians reign and Juárez knew that demanded blood- even if the people could somehow be ok with letting Maximilian off- Juárez knew from history and experience that capitulating to European requests to commute Maximilians sentence and return him would likely show weakness where as an execution would serve to send a message to stop messing in the affairs of Mexico…
.. that Mexico was an independent nation and wouldn’t settle for any more of the meddling of the last centuries.
So Maximilian was killed by firing squad- unless you believe the conspiracy theories that he was actually spared and lived the remainder of his life under an alias in Central America.
Whatever the case the man known as Maximilian I was executed and he still has statues and fountains and reminders in Mexico to this day. There are people who advocate a return to an empire for the country, and the anniversary of Maximilian’s death is observed by them as well as some others too.
Was he a hero? A villain? Like most powerful people in history he’s probably both. All people have their goods and bads but people who do big things usually end up making people both very happy and very angry so they end up seen as saints and devils more than the milder feelings people tend to have towards those who didn’t have to make such big decisions or have as far a reach in life.
I didn’t come here to tear down the man or the meme or his life and deeds- only to say that in reality the top panel and bottom panel are both largely true- and the “Truth” with a capital “T” is maybe both panels or neither.
Most all accounts say Maximilian did care about the well being of the people of Mexico.
There is ALOT to take in when it comes to the history of Mexico- the Spanish took over, the French, and the nation bounced back and forth with the Spanish and French coming back into power after losing it at various points and at other times Mexican independence factions or militants having control of past or all of the country. So after Mexico fought for independence and establishing a republic- the French installed Maximilian as emperor (he did turn down the job the first two times someone asked) and installed another monarchy. Having a foreign monarch tied to a foreign crown rule as monarch often isn’t appreciated by people who want democracy or independence- even if they want the best for you.
It’s also worth noting that the wealth disparity and poor state of many citizens that needed repair were the direct effects of the near constant foreign manipulations and exploitations of colonial powers in Europe and of the United States who at various times supported Mexico when its fight against the Europeans would be to US advantage and at other times fought or harmed Mexico to either prevent European nations from gaining a foothold in Mexico or when the U.S. could gain by exploiting Mexico or taking from it.
As for the execution of Maximilian- that isn’t cut and dry either.
Showing again to his credit and to the fact that he probably wasn’t such a bad guy- or at the very least was generally good to the people- after taking the country back Juárez respected Maximilian on a personal level. His execution was largely political. Tens of thousand of Mexicans had died under Maximilians reign and Juárez knew that demanded blood- even if the people could somehow be ok with letting Maximilian off- Juárez knew from history and experience that capitulating to European requests to commute Maximilians sentence and return him would likely show weakness where as an execution would serve to send a message to stop messing in the affairs of Mexico…
So Maximilian was killed by firing squad- unless you believe the conspiracy theories that he was actually spared and lived the remainder of his life under an alias in Central America.
Whatever the case the man known as Maximilian I was executed and he still has statues and fountains and reminders in Mexico to this day. There are people who advocate a return to an empire for the country, and the anniversary of Maximilian’s death is observed by them as well as some others too.
Was he a hero? A villain? Like most powerful people in history he’s probably both. All people have their goods and bads but people who do big things usually end up making people both very happy and very angry so they end up seen as saints and devils more than the milder feelings people tend to have towards those who didn’t have to make such big decisions or have as far a reach in life.