OCR Text |
Show ·DISSERT. VII. ' .. , l ! .I • ... J · [ , .p6 ] J ' 'I r ,. , , . . D I S. S E. R T ·A T I 0 N ·VII .. 'Of the Boundaries aiid Population of the Kingdoms of Anahuac .• T HE miftakes of many Spanflh authors cpncerning the bounda ~ · ries of the Mexican empire., and ,the f(i)rpantic notions of M. de Paw, and other foreign authors, refpeCl:ing the population of thofe countries, have compelled us to engage in this Dillertation to afcertain the truth ; which we lhall do .as briefly as poffible. ... E c T. 1. Of the Boundaries of the Kingdonu of Anahuac. SOLIS, following feveral i1I-inforrned Spanifh authors, affirms that ·the Mexican empire extended from the iil:hmus of Panama to the cape of Mcndocina in California; Touron, a French Dominican, defirous, in his General Hifl:ory of America, of enlarging thofe bounda. ries, fays, that all the difcovered countries in North America were fubject to the king of Mexico; that the extent of that empire, from .eaft to we!l:, was soo leagues, and from north to fouth zoo, or 250 leagues: that its boundaries were on the north, the Atlantic ocean; iw the we!l:, the gulf of Anian; in the fouth, the Pacific Ocean ; and in the eafl:, the ifl:hmus of Panama ; but befides the geographical errors of this defcription, there is a]fo a contradiftiun in it ; becaufe, if it ever were true, that that empire extended from the ifthmus of Panama to the gulf <Yr ftrait of Anian, the extent of it would not be .only soo, but 1ooo leagues, as it would not comprehend lefs than so degrees4 The origin of thi·s en·or is, that thofe authors were perfuadcd that there was no other fovereign in Anahuac, but that of Mexico : that the kings of .Acolhuacan and Tlacopaa were his fubjects, and that the Michuacanefe and Tlafcalt~ns, alfo depending on that crown, had lat-terly H I S T 0 R Y 0 F M E X I C 0. :tet~ly ·rcbellecl. But none of thofe fi:ates ever belonged to the kingdom of Mexico. This appe~rs .evident from the teftirhGny,.~f all thp lndian hi!l:orians., and all the Span.i.fh write&s who reof!ived their in,.. formation from them; namely, Motolinia, Sahagur,l, and Torquema.da. The kin.g of Acolhuacan had nl ways been the ally of Mexico, from ,the year 1424, ·bu.t was never the .fubjeCl:. It is true, that when ,the Spaniards arrived there, the rking Cacatna·~~in appeared ~o depend •On his uncle Monte£uma; becaufe, on account of the rebellious fpirit .of his brother lxtlilxochitl he required the protection of the Mexicans. The Spaniards · afterw~rdS" faw Cacamatzin come as ambaifador from the king of Mexico., and for.ve. him likewife .in Gther capacities. Th.ey faw l1im alfo .led prifoner ~o Mexico, by order of 1\;lontezama. All th1s renders the· errors .of ·the 'S.paniar.ds, .in great -~eafure, v.~ry. e~c.~fable; . but it is certain, that thofe demonftrations . qf fet'VIices towards Montezuma. were not thofe of a v~ffa.L.to his ~ king, but thofe of a nephew to his .un.cle; and .that Morit~~uma, in ordering him to be taken to pleafe the Spaniards, arrogated to himfel~ ~n authority. whicQ. did not belong t<> ·him, and ·did that king a heavy mJury, of wh1ch he afterwards repented. As to the king of Tlacopan, it is true, that he was created~ fove:e~gn by the king of. Mexico, but he had abfol u te and fu pre me dommton ·o0ver his ftates, on :the fingle condition of being the perpetual ally of the Mexicans, and Qf giving them affiftance with his troo?s whenever it was neceifary. The.Jk.ing 0f Michuacan, .and the rep~bhc of Tlafcala, .were always rivals and profefied enemies of the Mex1cans, .and there is no memory that either the one or the other was ever fubJeCl: to the .crown of Mexico. 1 • .. The fame thing might be faid .of many other countn:s wh10h :he Spanilh hifi:orians · ·believed to be provinces of the Mextcan emp~re.J How.was it poffible that a natio~, which was reduced to a fingle ctty, under the dominion of the Tepanecas, tbould, in lefs than a. century, fubdue fo many people as were betWOOil tne ill:hmus of Panama and ·California ? What, the Mexicans really did, tho~gh far .-lefs than the above mentioned aufhors report, was trllly· furpnfing, and would nG>t be credible, if the rapidity of thei'r conquefi:s had not been ~onn~ne by inconteftible proof. Neither in the narratives of the Ind1an. htfl9- ·rians, nor in the enumeration of the ftates co~1quere~ by. the \t11,11.g~ Pi V II H h h Me~co, GL. • 41~ DfSS,E.RT. VII. ~ |