by Paul R. Spitzzeri
On this Mexican Independence Day, following last year’s post regarding the commemoration of it in 1855 by the newly-launched Los Angeles Spanish-language newspaper, El Clamor Público, we return to look at how the day was celebrated (and this seems more relevant than ever) in the Angel City in succeeding years.
In 1856, there were no recorded events, but the young publisher of El Clamor, the remarkable Francisco P. Ramirez, took the opportunity to editorialize about the holiday in the context of events a decade prior as well as the upcoming presidential election, the first in which the new Republican Party offered a candidate.
In the paper’s 27 September edition, Ramirez observed that “the glorious deeds of the heroes of independence are too well known” for detailed analysis of how the decade-long revolution from 1810 to 1821 occurred. He, however, added that “these are facts that every true Mexican, who respects himself and values the honor of the country that gave him life, should feel a holy love of country burning within his heart when he remembers the day when our ancestors offered their blood for the holy cause of liberty!”
The youthful publisher then observed that,
We find it appropriate to state here that a memorable event has taken place in México in recent years, which has changed the political aspect of the country. We mean that, launched into a war [after the American invasion of 1846) to uphold its honor as an independent nation, it could not emerge from that situation without losing a portion of its territory—one of its most beautiful portions—where we now find ourselves. Most of us are firmly established here with our families and properties, and we are part of the government that acquired it. The population of Spanish descent in this country is quite considerable, and due to their lack of understanding of the laws and customs imposed upon them by the sudden change from one government to another, they have been victims of the most atrocious injustices a thousand times over. But this has happened while this government has been under the domination of the party that calls itself Democratic. It was once a noble party, but now all that remains of it is its name.
Ramirez summarized the past decade succinctly and powerfully and it is interesting to read how he attributed “atrocious injustices” visited upon Californios and Mexicans as because of imposition of an unfamiliar set of customs and laws. He insisted, however, that this was only because of the Democratic Party’s control of regional and state politics and that this would change with new G.O.P.
The journalist then exclaimed, “Mexicans! The time has come to show the entire world that we are worthy of the land where we first saw the light. More than anyone else, we have certain indisputable rights in the nation in which we now live.” With end of the Mexican-American War and the creation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, he continued, those Latinos who automatically became American citizens were given “broad privileges to freely enjoy our lives and property.”
This latter, however, was conditioned on the exclusion by the American Congress of Article Ten of the treaty, respecting the land grants made under México and Spain. This led to the passage of a land claims act in March 1851 that, through interminable court proceedings and the costs of those and required surveys, amid a lack of understanding of American law, led to an average period of adjudication pushing two decades, Still, Ramirez continued, “we are true citizens, and as such, it is our duty to take an active part in public affairs. It is necessary that we unite among ourselves to elect good magistrates to govern us.”
Reflecting on his fifteen months operating the newspaper, the publisher then concluded,
We have always sought to defend the interests of the Spanish people at all costs, and we have always withdrawn as much as possible from political discussions. But in this struggle, we have not lost the opportunity to remain as spectators in the ruin of our compatriots. This presidential question will decide our fate forever.
In the election, though, Frémont won just 11 of the states to Democrat James Buchanan’s 19, while former President Millard Fillmore, running under the banner of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic “Know Nothings” won only Maryland, though he captured more than a fifth of the popular votes, while Frémont garnered a third and Buchanan won 45%.
The 19 September 1857 edition of the Los Angeles Star, the other newspaper in town, reported on the celebration, notably remarking that Spanish colonial domination for three centuries was of a level of despotism that it was “so interwoven with [México’s] very existence, that its evils have become innate, and from which the social and political condition of Spanish America will long continue to suffer.”
The paper commented,
In the morning, a Mexican national salute was fired on the Plaza. During the day, the national pastime of bull fighting was religiously observed. The day closed by a ball given at the house of D[on] Francisco Jabiel [Javier] Alvarado, where the dark-eyed señoritas of Castilian ancestry, with that inbred grace for which they are preeminently worthy of admiration, displayed that ease and fascination in which they excel, through the giddy mazes of the “valse [waltz],” or the artistic quadrille, till a late hour. The Spanish Americans have a most lively recollection of the day which dawned upon the overthrow of Spanish power upon this continent, and that idea is usually prominent in Mexican views of their independence.
Because nothing could be located regarding Mexican Independence Day in 1858 and the reference was short in the El Clamor of 17 September 1859, three months before the paper was shuttered, one wonders if it was the increasing distance from the Mexican period, as well the gradually diminishing economy following the end of the Gold Rush and then the Depression of 1857, that led to this situation.
What Ramirez’ paper reported, in English, as it sometimes did as it likely tried to increase its reach, was that “yesterday was the Anniversary of Mexican Independence, when [Rev. Miguel] Hidalgo [in 1810] in the City of Dolores, raised the cry of “Liberty and Independence!” It may be telling that the publisher did not attend, but wrote “we understand that a ball was given last night at the Mesa in honor of this event, which was duly attended by those in whose blood there still courses a love for the Independence days of their forefathers.”
The area known as “La Mesa,” in modern Vernon, southeast of town, was, significantly, where the final battle of the Mexican-American War in California was fought on 9 January 1847. The following day, William Workman helped bring out the white flag of truce as American forces march up Alameda Street and entered the pueblo to take possession, after losing it following its capture the preceding summer.
The next three Septembers of 1860-1862 brought no mention of any celebrations of the holiday, this including the first two years of the Civil War. Perhaps the Star, being Democratic and virulently pro-Confederate in its reporting, chose not to cover Mexican Independence Day for a reason, though another factor likely was the French invasion of México that took place early in 1862, taking advantage of America’s civil war to do so. On 5 May, fierce resistance by Mexican defenders of the city of Puebla created another holiday, Cinco de Mayo, which, however, is celebrated here largely out ignorance as to what actually transpired. In June 1863, however, the French seized Mexico City and installed a government under Austrian archduke Maximilian, who was proclaimed emperor and crowned in June 1864.
It seems very likely that this is what inspired a return in Los Angeles to celebrating Mexican Independence Day three months later, though the News erred in stating that the day was on the 15th. In any case, after observing the “the first decisive blow to the crown and power of Spain” that was the revolution and the creation of a democratic republic in 1821, the paper remarked, with a pointed reminder about the Union government:
The day was celebrated here by the native Californians and those of Mexican birth, with great spirit, showing renewed and increased fidelity to a free and independent form of Constitutional Government. There was an assemblage of over one thousand persons present. On the evening of the 16th they were addressed by F.P. Ramirez [formerly of El Clamor Público and who lived in San Francisco for a few years before returning to Los Angeles, where he ran against and narrowly lost to the Star‘s Henry Hamilton for a state senate seat in that fall’s election], F[rancisco] Ybarra, and others. Mr. Ramirez also made an address in English. Everything was conducted with propriety; the greatest respect for the Government of their adoption was shown, and heartfelt sentiment on behalf of the Union flowed freely from every breast.
The 1864 celebration was also covered by the News and its issue of 17 September was somewhat brief, recording that “in the afternoon a large audience assembled at the Los Angeles Garden, where speeches were delivered in the English and Spanish languages, and patriotic tunes discoursed by the fine [Army] band from Drum Barracks.”
It is significant that there was a Union presence at Wilmington, where the “Port Admiral” Phineas Banning secured government contracts and where Camp Drum, as it was also known, was situated, because of the very vocal level of support for the Confederates by a majority of the American residents of greater Los Angeles.
As for Los Angeles Garden, it opened in June 1860 under the management of three proprietors at the Pryor vineyard “on the Wolfskill road,” known soon as San Pedro Street and south of Aliso Street in what is now Little Tokyo. It appears that this was the same place where Danish native Henry Soernsen opened the Tivoli Garden, likely an homage to a famous like-named pleasure garden and amusement park, opened in 1843 and still operating in Copenhagen.
The celebration continued in the evening with the News remarking, once again referring to the Union cause, but also apparently advocating for a combined México and the United States after the French were evicted from the former, that,
Last evening a vast concourse assembled in front of the Lafayette Hotel [on the west side of Main Street south of the Plaza at Aliso Street and which later became the St. Elmo], and were entertained by various speakers until a late hour. Good Union sentiments were uttered and warmly responded to by the assemblage. The hope of the Republic of Mexico is the Union of the Republic of North America.
The Civil War came to an end seven months later and there were no located mentions of the 1865 Mexican Independence Day, though that might well be due to the fact that the campaign against the French continued as Maximilian’s inherently fragile empire weakened. With the war over in the United States, officials in Washington refused to commit forces to help the Mexican resistance, though some volunteers headed south, while a $30 million dollar loan was arranged for deposed president Benito Juárez.
In October 1865, Maximilian issued a harsh decree regarding the court martial and execution of anyone found to be collaborating with the resistance, which further eroded support for him. French Emperor Napoleon III, whose regime instituted the Mexico debacle, announced at the start if 1866 that he was going to withdraw from the country. Matters worsened during that year, including Maxmilian’s leaving Mexico City and considering abdication toward the end of the year. He was, however, persuaded by ministers to remain and fight, but he was defeated and then executed in June 1867. A new Mexican independence was at hand.
So, we’ll pause here and look to return for Mexican Independence Day 2026 and look at further celebrations of the holiday in Los Angeles from 1866 forward.