September 14, 2025 • 20 mins
This 1854 document, attributed to E. George Squier, is a forceful rebuttal to an anonymous article published in the National Intelligencer concerning relations between Honduras and Guatemala. Squier challenges numerous assertions made by the "retired citizen," particularly regarding the origins of conflict and the actions of Honduras. He defends the conduct of Honduras against accusations of supporting "lawless marauders," presenting evidence that Honduras actively sought to suppress disturbances and maintain neutrality. The author further condemns Guatemala's invasion of Honduran territory, detailing atrocities committed and Guatemala's subsequent bad faith in repudiating a peace convention. Squier also criticises the character and motivations of Guatemalan leaders like Carrera, contrasting them with the integrity of Honduran President Gen. Cabanas, and concludes by defending the American-backed Honduras Interoceanic Railway Company against the anonymous correspondent's criticisms, alleging the opposition stems from anti-American sentiment and European influence.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/quantum-akashic-network--6730906/support.
Thank you for Listening
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/quantum-akashic-network--6730906/support.
Thank you for Listening
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive, where we take your source
material and uncover the hidden stories and vital insights. Today
we're plunging into a truly fascinating historical document, a letter
from Ego Squire Penden, New York, on March twentieth, eighteen
fifty four, sent to the editors of the National Intelligencer.
And this isn't just a dusty old letter. It's a
(00:21):
fiery rebuttal, a passionate defense, and crucially, a highly partisan
window into the intense geopolitical struggles brewing in Central America
back in the mid nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Indeed, what we're looking at today is Squire's direct response
to some anonymous writer, someone he kind of sarcastically calls
a retired citizen right and Swire accuses this person of
while slandering an American association and deliberately misrepresenting the truth
about the really volatile relations between Honduras and Guatemala at
the time. It's quite an extraordinary example of how accusations
(00:52):
and counter accusations were really wielded to shape public perception
during a period of well real instability. And it's important
for us as we dive in, you know, to Remember
we're listening to Squire's side of a very heated argument
here exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So for you, our listener, our mission today is to
unpack Squire's intricate argument, understand the context of his passionate claims,
and critically examine what this historical snapshot reveals, you know,
things about the power dynamics, these accusations of alleged war crimes,
and even the burgeoning American influence in Central America. We'll
be hearing Squire's specific, often pretty strong language as we go,
(01:26):
but like you said, always remember we're analyzing his perspective,
not endorsing it ourselves. Okay, let's unpack this. Squire doesn't
waste any time at all. He immediately jumps right into
the fray, directly refuting the Retired Citizen's portrayal of the conflict.
He asserts that the current tensions between Honduras and Guatemala,
while they aren't stemming from some minor boundary dispute, No,
(01:47):
he says, it's directly from Guatemala's armed invasion of Honduran territory.
It's pretty bold opening salvo.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, a really bold opening, and that's a critical distinction.
Squire wants to establish right from the outset his anonymous opponent,
this tired citizen had apparently claimed that the root cause
was certain lawless marauders recruited and armed in Honduras who'd
made hostile inroads into Guatemala and then sought shelter back in.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Honduras, so blaming Honduras.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Basically, yeah, blaming Honduras for harboring troublemakers.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
And Squire's counter is sharp, totally unequivocal. He dismisses this
as an i quote mere assertion, unsustained by proof and
withal false. In fact, he completely flips the narrative. He
claims that it was actually Guatemalan citizens driven out by
their leader, then Rafael Carrera.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Whom Squire calls their Indian dictator quite the provocative term very.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
He says they were the ones seeking refuge in Honduras
and other neighboring states. Now, Squire does concede that some
refugees might have abused their asylum, maybe trying to incite
opposition back home, but he adamantly states the Honteran government
actively and diligently work to prevent any such thing.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Right and to bolster his case, Squire provides concrete examples,
which is, you know, powerful move. In a public letter
like this, he details how Honduran authorities like a commandant
Jose de Zalaya, actively moved to put down these insurrectionists
or Fascioso's near Copan back in July eighteen fifty two. Okay,
and the Honduran Minister of War, in a letter dated
(03:18):
July twenty seven, eighteen fifty two, explicitly approved these steps.
He stated emphatically that Honduras can never permit the territory
of Honduras to become an asylum for them wherein to
carry on their aggressions against other states. So this isn't
just Squire talking, it's him presenting documentation basically designed to
show Honduras's good faith.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And here's where it gets really interesting, maybe a bit ironic.
Squire points out that Guatemala's own official paper dated September eleventh,
eighteen fifty two, actually commended Honduras, commanded them for what
for its prompt and efficacious suppression of the faciosos, and
praised its justice and rectitude. Wow, it's a damning detail
for Squire's opponent, isn't It seems to completely undermine their
(03:57):
initial claim.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Absolutely, it's a very strategic revelation. Squire is essentially saying, look,
you yourselves praise Honduras for putting down these very groups
you now claim they support it. It definitely suggests a
level of duplicity or at least a really stark change
and narrative from Guatemala's side, which you know, Squire exploits
to full effect to establish the credibility of Honduras and
(04:19):
while by extension his own argument.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Okay, so despite this official commendation, Squire claims Guatemala turned
on Honduras and with startling speed, less than a month
after apparently praising Honduras, a Guatemalan commandant named Solaris, leading
a force of five hundred men, didn't just cross the border. No,
he penetrated to the town of Copan. This wasn't some
minor skirmish. Squire presents it as a deep incursion.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And the account of this invasion while s Squire relates
it's quite stark, clearly intended to shock his readers. He
alleges that Solaris's path was marked by ray, peen and slaughter,
detailing robbed aciendas.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Those are the largest states, right.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Exactly large estates or plantations. He mentions violated women and
wantonly shot citizens. Squire goes further stating, and I quote
him again, no band of savages could have behaved with
greater cruelty and barbarity. Now, it's really crucial to note
here that Squire uses this kind of deeply biased, often
derogatory language. It underscores his perception of Carrera and his regime.
(05:21):
This language reflects the widespread racial and cultural prejudices of
the nineteenth century. It's part of the historical record we're analyzing.
Not an endorsement, but it certainly conveys the emotional intensity
and the rhetorical strategies of the period.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Oh, absolutely, you can feel the outraged Squire wants to convey.
He says. The Honduran government sent a very strong diplomatic
note to Guatemala on January second, eighteen fifty three, demanding
the invasion be disavowed, the officer reprimanded, and damage is paid.
Makes sense, but but Guatemala's response was far from conciliatory.
Skyer calls it a curtain offensive note. It actually turned
(05:57):
the tables, accusing Honduran authorities of being in all of them.
The designs of the very faciosos they had just suppressed, ye,
the ones they'd been commended for suppressing.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Wow, Okay, so that immediately led to a serious diplomatics excalation.
I assume, Squire mentions correspondence between the two nations became excited,
which is, you know, a diplomatic way of saying, increasingly hostile.
And Guatemala's dictator Correra began raising troops near the frontier.
Big escalation. Yet despite the significant increase intension, this preparation
(06:27):
for conflict. It's worth noting Squire emphasizes this that Honduras's President,
General Cabanas actually managed to prevent an open declaration of
war in April eighteen fifty three. Squire really emphasizes this point,
showcasing Cabanius's leadership as one of restraint, maybe a genuine
desire for peace amidst all this provocation, a direct contrast
(06:49):
to Carrera's perceived aggression.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
So, okay, despite the mounting tension, there was an attempt
at peace then, Yes, exact commissioners from both sides met
Nsquipolis on April nineteen, eighteen fifty three, and they actually
signed a convention and this document wasn't vague. It laid
out really clear terms. Guatemala would indemnify the victims.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Of the invasion, meaning pay damages.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Right, pay damages. They'd liberate and he captured Honduran citizens,
and both sides would respect each other's territory, resolve future
issues peacefully. And Honduras, for its part, would agree to
concentrate the Guatemalan refugees, sort of move them away from
the border to prevent more incidents. Seemed like a genuine
path forward.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
It really was a critical moment. This convention a potential
off ramp from this escalating conflict, and Squire highlights that
Honduras immediately ratified the treaty April twenty third, signaling its commitment. Okay,
but then, and this is key to Squire's argument, Guatemala
refused its ratification. Refused after sign refused, and Squider takes
particular aim at his anonymous opponent, the retired citizen, for
(07:48):
apparently trying to blame Honduras for the failure of this convention.
He labels that accusation utter falsehood and dishonesty. For Squire,
Guatemala's refusal to ratify was a clear act of bad faith.
Made any further peace impossible in his view, So after.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
This diplomatic breakdown, the Honduran legislature authorized its executive to
declare war makes sense, and in July, General Cobina's advance
into Guatemala, occupying towns like Chiki Mulla as Kippola's and Zakappa. Now,
Squire makes a point of describing Kabina's conduct during this
advance as one of moderation.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Moderation how so, he notes.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
No excesses, scrupulous payment for necessities. He's clearly trying to
paint Kabina's as this principled leader, you know, in stark
contrast to the Guatemalan leaders he's been criticizing.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Right and Squire also directly challenges another claim from the
retired citizen, this idea that Cabanus's advance was just a
pretext for Guatemala's earlier invasion. Squire dismisses this completely. He
emphasizes that Cabanas's actions were a legitimate reprisal for what
he calls the outrage on Honduras and the bad faith
of Guatemala in rejecting that treaty. That framing is really key.
(08:54):
Squire wants his audience the readers of the Intelligencer to
see Honduras's actions as justified self defense, not unprovoked aggression.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The narrative then takes an even darker turn with the
account of Santa Rosa. After some skirmishes, Cabinas was supposed
to fall back, and then Guatemal enforces under a General
Garcia grenades entered Santa Rosa on July nineteenth. Squire notes
that the inhabitants had actually fled, clearly fearing, as he
puts it, the brutal character of the invaders of Copan.
(09:23):
He's drawing a direct line between the previous alleged atrocities
and what they expected now.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yeah, and this is where Squire's eyewitness testimony becomes particularly powerful,
or at least he presents it that way. He claims
he was in Santa Rosa both before and after the occupation,
which gives him, in his view, unique credibility. He vividly
describes an indiscriminate pillage and wanton destruction that apparently lasted
for three days. Property stolen mirrors and lamps, broken furniture,
(09:50):
burned tobacco a key product right in the streets, even
churches sacred spaces. He claims were violated, their ornaments taken.
He recounts cattle being slaughtered inside houses, their entrails just
left there to rot. It's a truly graphic, horrifying picture,
clearly designed to invoke outrage in his readers.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
And he points out these robberies weren't just against Honduran
natas either. He highlights that the property of a French
merchant was appropriated and his French flag was torn down
and trampled.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Trampling a foreign flag. That's a significant detail exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
And Squire adds that the French consul general later characterized
Grenades's conduct using really strong words Ladrone's thieves disgraceful to
the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Wow. Having a foreign diplomat used language like that really
underscores the alleged severity, suggests an international dimension to these actions.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Then there's the affair of ol Moa, another incident Square
uses to hammer home this point about Guatemalan a perfidy
o Moa.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
That's the coastal for it, right, strategically important, that's the one.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
It's surrendered to Guatemalan forces on August twenty fourth, eighteen
fifty three, specifically to avoid more conflict bloodshed, and the
terms of capitulation were explicitly clear. The Guatemalans would evacuate
within three to four days, and crucially, they would leave
the force armament its heavy guns and mortars in the
care of the US consul.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Okay seems clear enough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
But claims Guatemala brazenly violated these terms. He alleges the
immediately started to carry off the heavy brass guns and mortars.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Seriously, even with the US console involved.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Apparently they only stopped when the American consul strongly intervened.
So once again, Squire directly challenges the retired citizens claim
that Guatemala violated no faith at Omoa. He presents this
as just another undeniable example of their untrustworthiness, their disregard
for diplomatic agreements.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
What's fascinating here, though, is how Squire then broadens his
argument out. He starts connecting Guatemala's specific actions to what
he sees as a much wider anti American and kind
of pro European agenda. He claims, for instance, that British
flagged vessels were involved in the attack on Amoa, supplied
from Belize, which was British Honduras. Then British involvement, that's
his claim. He even says incendiary documents from Guatemala were
(12:05):
intercepted addressed to the British consul in Monduras. So the
implication is that this wasn't just a regional squabble, but
maybe part of a larger geopolitical chess game, you know,
European powers like Britain potentially backing Guatemala against perceived American influence.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
He also dives into the internal political landscape of the region.
He quotes an English author, mister Crowe, to differentiate what
he calls the liberal party from the servile party.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Okay, liberals versus serviles. What's the distinction? According to Squire
and crow Well.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
The Liberals, Squire explains, were composed of the educated, elite, merchants,
intelligent artisans credited with honorable achievements progress. The servioll Party,
on the other hand, he describes as the aristocratic oligarchy,
including priests, who he basically blames for internal disorders, civil wars, conservative, maybe.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Reactionary, and he aligns Honduras with the liberals, Guatemala with
the serviles exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
He aligns Honduras with these progressive liberals and Guatemala firmly
with the conservative Serviles. This framing is absolutely critical for
his argument, painting Honduras as the good guys in a
larger ideological struggle.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right, and this ideological battle Squire described as really fascinating.
He asserts the servile party dominant in Guatemala vehemently opposed
the idea of a unified Republic of Central America, and
instead they sought union with the projected Empire of Santa Ana.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Santa Anna, the Mexican General, the.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Very same prominent, often controversial figure. Squire claims the official
papers in Guatemala were just teeming with articles denouncing the
United States, its institutions, its policies, portraying the Anglo Saxon race,
his words as driven by unrestrained ambition and predicting this
inevitable conflict between American and Spanish stocks. It's important to
(13:52):
understand this language within the context of that era's racialized
geopolitical thinking. Cultural ethnic origins were often used to explain
national destinies and conflicts.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
And then we get to the leaders themselves. Squire's descriptions
become particularly vivid and frankly brutal. He paints a picture
of Guatemala's leaders. Through the words of another English author,
mister Dunlap, Rafael Carrera, Guatemala's Indian dictator, is described in
really stark terms a dark colored and extremely ill looking mestizo.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
A common term then for mixed European and Indigenous descent, right.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Described as once being a pig jitter. Dunlap recounts how
Carrera rose to power by manipulating indigenous populations during a
Calera outbreak, and later defeated General Francisco Morizon, a key
Liberal figure, to become supreme dictator.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Morzon yeah, former president of the Federal Republic of Central
America big deal, and.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Dunlap states Carreerra amassed a fortune through extortions and confiscations
and was indecently immoral. I mean this is a scathing
character assassination designed to completely discredit Carrera.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Absolutely, and his second in command, Guardiola, is described as
even more monstrous if you can believe it. Dunlop calls
him a dark colored mestizo with a fiendish temper, prone
to intoxication, ordering people's shot for just trifling expressions good grief.
His brutality was apparently such that the mere mention of
his name would send inhabitants fleeing. These aren't just observations,
(15:17):
there are rhetorical weapons to paint the Guatemalan leadership as barbaric, illegitimate.
And then, in stark contrast, Squire heaps praise on Honduran
President General Cabinis, calls him a man of honorable character,
unstained with blood. He even calls him the ablest, purest,
and most unselfish man Central America had produced. The juxtaposition
is deliberate, incredibly powerful, designed to rally sympathy for Honduras.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
This brings us neatly to another central point of Squire's defense,
this Honduras inter Oceanic Railway Company. Squire claims this company
was yet another target of the retired citizen's personal spite.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Ah the railway always a big deal in that era.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Huge. Squire defends the company fiercely, says it's composed of
American citizens of the highest standing, working on a laudable
and legitimate enterprise. Their goal to create a short and
easy route between the seas. The dream of an inter
oceanic route.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yeah, the strategic importance of that, you really can't overstate it,
especially mid nineteenth century post California Gold Rush, a fast
route through Central America. Was this grand vision immense economic
strategic benefits, basically a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And Squire states very clearly that Guatemala opposed the company
precisely because it was American.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Because it would solidify American influence.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
That's his argument, it would confirm and solidify American influence
in Honduras. He even suggests Guatemala rejected peace overtures from
Honduras partly in the hope of interrupting the construction of the.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Road, so seeing the railway itself as a threat to
their own regional power, a symbol of growing American presence.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And what about those accusations of arm shipments the retired
citizen apparently brought up.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How does Squire handle that?
Speaker 1 (16:59):
He readily admits says Honduras purchased arms in the United States,
describing it as a straightforward commercial, one, perfectly normal transaction.
He proudly states the Honda's railroad company had enough faith
in Honduras to actually guarantee the.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Payment, okay, so linking the railway company directly to arming Honduras.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yes, And then he contrasts this with Guatemala, which he
claims notoriously purchased in Blize, implying this sort of covert,
maybe less legitimate source of arms through British channels.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Right, connecting it back to that idea of British influence exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
He dismisses Guatemalan protests about the arms, calling Carrera's military
actions Indian forays made without notice and without other authority
than his own caprice in true Savage.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Style, really strong language.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Again, very strong. He refuses to call them wars in
any sense recognized amongst Christian nations. Again it Squire's own
highly problematic language by today's standards, designed to belittle Carrera's
authority and military actions, casting them as primitive, illegitimate in
the eyes of Western powers.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
So, if we try to connect all these threads, what
Squire's letter reveals is really far more than just some
border dispute. It suggests that behind the immediate conflict between
Hunters and Guatemala, there were these much larger currents of
international influence swirling.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Around like British interests.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, British interests may be trying to maintain a foothold
American expansionist ambitions tied to huge infrastructure projects like this railway,
and this deeply entrenched clash of ideologies liberal versus servile
between different political factions within Central America itself.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
So the railway project becomes a focal.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Point, exactly in Squire's telling. It became a flashpoint for
these competing visions for the region's future, a microcosm of
the power struggles defining that whole era.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Wow, what a deep dive into the eighteen fifties. Squire's
letter really isn't just a historical document, is it. It's
a powerful testament to how information, accusations, personal agendas, how
they can all be wielded to shape the narrative of conflict.
From those shocking claims of atrocities in Santa Rosa to
the intense political machinations surrounding it transists me in Railway.
(19:09):
This letter gives such a vivid, if undeniably one sided
account of a really volatile and transformative period in Central
American history.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Indeed, and it raises, I think an important question for
all of us as we look at historical accounts, especially
ones written as direct rebuttals full of passion like this one,
how do you sift through that passion, through the accusations,
the often biased language. How do you try to understand
the underlying truths, or at least the various perspectives that
(19:38):
might have existed, the role of foreign interests, the clash
of political ideologies, the sheer brutality described here it offers
such a complex tapestry of the past reminds us history
is rarely as simple as just one person's account.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Absolutely, it's never simple. So thinking about Squire's passionate defense,
what really stands out to you? And maybe more broadly,
how do you think I think these kinds of historical
tensions were huge infrastructure projects and international influence put a
massive role in regional conflicts. How do those echoes maybe
resonate in current geopolitical dynamics we see around the world today?
Something to think about. We invite you to consider that
(20:14):
provocative thought as you continue your own deep dives into
the world around you.
Welcome to the deep dive, where we take your source
material and uncover the hidden stories and vital insights. Today
we're plunging into a truly fascinating historical document, a letter
from Ego Squire Penden, New York, on March twentieth, eighteen
fifty four, sent to the editors of the National Intelligencer.
And this isn't just a dusty old letter. It's a
(00:21):
fiery rebuttal, a passionate defense, and crucially, a highly partisan
window into the intense geopolitical struggles brewing in Central America
back in the mid nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Indeed, what we're looking at today is Squire's direct response
to some anonymous writer, someone he kind of sarcastically calls
a retired citizen right and Swire accuses this person of
while slandering an American association and deliberately misrepresenting the truth
about the really volatile relations between Honduras and Guatemala at
the time. It's quite an extraordinary example of how accusations
(00:52):
and counter accusations were really wielded to shape public perception
during a period of well real instability. And it's important
for us as we dive in, you know, to Remember
we're listening to Squire's side of a very heated argument
here exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So for you, our listener, our mission today is to
unpack Squire's intricate argument, understand the context of his passionate claims,
and critically examine what this historical snapshot reveals, you know,
things about the power dynamics, these accusations of alleged war crimes,
and even the burgeoning American influence in Central America. We'll
be hearing Squire's specific, often pretty strong language as we go,
(01:26):
but like you said, always remember we're analyzing his perspective,
not endorsing it ourselves. Okay, let's unpack this. Squire doesn't
waste any time at all. He immediately jumps right into
the fray, directly refuting the Retired Citizen's portrayal of the conflict.
He asserts that the current tensions between Honduras and Guatemala,
while they aren't stemming from some minor boundary dispute, No,
(01:47):
he says, it's directly from Guatemala's armed invasion of Honduran territory.
It's pretty bold opening salvo.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, a really bold opening, and that's a critical distinction.
Squire wants to establish right from the outset his anonymous opponent,
this tired citizen had apparently claimed that the root cause
was certain lawless marauders recruited and armed in Honduras who'd
made hostile inroads into Guatemala and then sought shelter back in.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Honduras, so blaming Honduras.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Basically, yeah, blaming Honduras for harboring troublemakers.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
And Squire's counter is sharp, totally unequivocal. He dismisses this
as an i quote mere assertion, unsustained by proof and
withal false. In fact, he completely flips the narrative. He
claims that it was actually Guatemalan citizens driven out by
their leader, then Rafael Carrera.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Whom Squire calls their Indian dictator quite the provocative term very.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
He says they were the ones seeking refuge in Honduras
and other neighboring states. Now, Squire does concede that some
refugees might have abused their asylum, maybe trying to incite
opposition back home, but he adamantly states the Honteran government
actively and diligently work to prevent any such thing.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Right and to bolster his case, Squire provides concrete examples,
which is, you know, powerful move. In a public letter
like this, he details how Honduran authorities like a commandant
Jose de Zalaya, actively moved to put down these insurrectionists
or Fascioso's near Copan back in July eighteen fifty two. Okay,
and the Honduran Minister of War, in a letter dated
(03:18):
July twenty seven, eighteen fifty two, explicitly approved these steps.
He stated emphatically that Honduras can never permit the territory
of Honduras to become an asylum for them wherein to
carry on their aggressions against other states. So this isn't
just Squire talking, it's him presenting documentation basically designed to
show Honduras's good faith.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And here's where it gets really interesting, maybe a bit ironic.
Squire points out that Guatemala's own official paper dated September eleventh,
eighteen fifty two, actually commended Honduras, commanded them for what
for its prompt and efficacious suppression of the faciosos, and
praised its justice and rectitude. Wow, it's a damning detail
for Squire's opponent, isn't It seems to completely undermine their
(03:57):
initial claim.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Absolutely, it's a very strategic revelation. Squire is essentially saying, look,
you yourselves praise Honduras for putting down these very groups
you now claim they support it. It definitely suggests a
level of duplicity or at least a really stark change
and narrative from Guatemala's side, which you know, Squire exploits
to full effect to establish the credibility of Honduras and
(04:19):
while by extension his own argument.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Okay, so despite this official commendation, Squire claims Guatemala turned
on Honduras and with startling speed, less than a month
after apparently praising Honduras, a Guatemalan commandant named Solaris, leading
a force of five hundred men, didn't just cross the border. No,
he penetrated to the town of Copan. This wasn't some
minor skirmish. Squire presents it as a deep incursion.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And the account of this invasion while s Squire relates
it's quite stark, clearly intended to shock his readers. He
alleges that Solaris's path was marked by ray, peen and slaughter,
detailing robbed aciendas.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Those are the largest states, right.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Exactly large estates or plantations. He mentions violated women and
wantonly shot citizens. Squire goes further stating, and I quote
him again, no band of savages could have behaved with
greater cruelty and barbarity. Now, it's really crucial to note
here that Squire uses this kind of deeply biased, often
derogatory language. It underscores his perception of Carrera and his regime.
(05:21):
This language reflects the widespread racial and cultural prejudices of
the nineteenth century. It's part of the historical record we're analyzing.
Not an endorsement, but it certainly conveys the emotional intensity
and the rhetorical strategies of the period.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Oh, absolutely, you can feel the outraged Squire wants to convey.
He says. The Honduran government sent a very strong diplomatic
note to Guatemala on January second, eighteen fifty three, demanding
the invasion be disavowed, the officer reprimanded, and damage is paid.
Makes sense, but but Guatemala's response was far from conciliatory.
Skyer calls it a curtain offensive note. It actually turned
(05:57):
the tables, accusing Honduran authorities of being in all of them.
The designs of the very faciosos they had just suppressed, ye,
the ones they'd been commended for suppressing.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Wow, Okay, so that immediately led to a serious diplomatics excalation.
I assume, Squire mentions correspondence between the two nations became excited,
which is, you know, a diplomatic way of saying, increasingly hostile.
And Guatemala's dictator Correra began raising troops near the frontier.
Big escalation. Yet despite the significant increase intension, this preparation
(06:27):
for conflict. It's worth noting Squire emphasizes this that Honduras's President,
General Cabanas actually managed to prevent an open declaration of
war in April eighteen fifty three. Squire really emphasizes this point,
showcasing Cabanius's leadership as one of restraint, maybe a genuine
desire for peace amidst all this provocation, a direct contrast
(06:49):
to Carrera's perceived aggression.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
So, okay, despite the mounting tension, there was an attempt
at peace then, Yes, exact commissioners from both sides met
Nsquipolis on April nineteen, eighteen fifty three, and they actually
signed a convention and this document wasn't vague. It laid
out really clear terms. Guatemala would indemnify the victims.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Of the invasion, meaning pay damages.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Right, pay damages. They'd liberate and he captured Honduran citizens,
and both sides would respect each other's territory, resolve future
issues peacefully. And Honduras, for its part, would agree to
concentrate the Guatemalan refugees, sort of move them away from
the border to prevent more incidents. Seemed like a genuine
path forward.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
It really was a critical moment. This convention a potential
off ramp from this escalating conflict, and Squire highlights that
Honduras immediately ratified the treaty April twenty third, signaling its commitment. Okay,
but then, and this is key to Squire's argument, Guatemala
refused its ratification. Refused after sign refused, and Squider takes
particular aim at his anonymous opponent, the retired citizen, for
(07:48):
apparently trying to blame Honduras for the failure of this convention.
He labels that accusation utter falsehood and dishonesty. For Squire,
Guatemala's refusal to ratify was a clear act of bad faith.
Made any further peace impossible in his view, So after.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
This diplomatic breakdown, the Honduran legislature authorized its executive to
declare war makes sense, and in July, General Cobina's advance
into Guatemala, occupying towns like Chiki Mulla as Kippola's and Zakappa. Now,
Squire makes a point of describing Kabina's conduct during this
advance as one of moderation.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Moderation how so, he notes.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
No excesses, scrupulous payment for necessities. He's clearly trying to
paint Kabina's as this principled leader, you know, in stark
contrast to the Guatemalan leaders he's been criticizing.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Right and Squire also directly challenges another claim from the
retired citizen, this idea that Cabanus's advance was just a
pretext for Guatemala's earlier invasion. Squire dismisses this completely. He
emphasizes that Cabanas's actions were a legitimate reprisal for what
he calls the outrage on Honduras and the bad faith
of Guatemala in rejecting that treaty. That framing is really key.
(08:54):
Squire wants his audience the readers of the Intelligencer to
see Honduras's actions as justified self defense, not unprovoked aggression.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The narrative then takes an even darker turn with the
account of Santa Rosa. After some skirmishes, Cabinas was supposed
to fall back, and then Guatemal enforces under a General
Garcia grenades entered Santa Rosa on July nineteenth. Squire notes
that the inhabitants had actually fled, clearly fearing, as he
puts it, the brutal character of the invaders of Copan.
(09:23):
He's drawing a direct line between the previous alleged atrocities
and what they expected now.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yeah, and this is where Squire's eyewitness testimony becomes particularly powerful,
or at least he presents it that way. He claims
he was in Santa Rosa both before and after the occupation,
which gives him, in his view, unique credibility. He vividly
describes an indiscriminate pillage and wanton destruction that apparently lasted
for three days. Property stolen mirrors and lamps, broken furniture,
(09:50):
burned tobacco a key product right in the streets, even
churches sacred spaces. He claims were violated, their ornaments taken.
He recounts cattle being slaughtered inside houses, their entrails just
left there to rot. It's a truly graphic, horrifying picture,
clearly designed to invoke outrage in his readers.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
And he points out these robberies weren't just against Honduran
natas either. He highlights that the property of a French
merchant was appropriated and his French flag was torn down
and trampled.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Trampling a foreign flag. That's a significant detail exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
And Squire adds that the French consul general later characterized
Grenades's conduct using really strong words Ladrone's thieves disgraceful to
the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Wow. Having a foreign diplomat used language like that really
underscores the alleged severity, suggests an international dimension to these actions.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Then there's the affair of ol Moa, another incident Square
uses to hammer home this point about Guatemalan a perfidy
o Moa.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
That's the coastal for it, right, strategically important, that's the one.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
It's surrendered to Guatemalan forces on August twenty fourth, eighteen
fifty three, specifically to avoid more conflict bloodshed, and the
terms of capitulation were explicitly clear. The Guatemalans would evacuate
within three to four days, and crucially, they would leave
the force armament its heavy guns and mortars in the
care of the US consul.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Okay seems clear enough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
But claims Guatemala brazenly violated these terms. He alleges the
immediately started to carry off the heavy brass guns and mortars.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Seriously, even with the US console involved.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Apparently they only stopped when the American consul strongly intervened.
So once again, Squire directly challenges the retired citizens claim
that Guatemala violated no faith at Omoa. He presents this
as just another undeniable example of their untrustworthiness, their disregard
for diplomatic agreements.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
What's fascinating here, though, is how Squire then broadens his
argument out. He starts connecting Guatemala's specific actions to what
he sees as a much wider anti American and kind
of pro European agenda. He claims, for instance, that British
flagged vessels were involved in the attack on Amoa, supplied
from Belize, which was British Honduras. Then British involvement, that's
his claim. He even says incendiary documents from Guatemala were
(12:05):
intercepted addressed to the British consul in Monduras. So the
implication is that this wasn't just a regional squabble, but
maybe part of a larger geopolitical chess game, you know,
European powers like Britain potentially backing Guatemala against perceived American influence.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
He also dives into the internal political landscape of the region.
He quotes an English author, mister Crowe, to differentiate what
he calls the liberal party from the servile party.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Okay, liberals versus serviles. What's the distinction? According to Squire
and crow Well.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
The Liberals, Squire explains, were composed of the educated, elite, merchants,
intelligent artisans credited with honorable achievements progress. The servioll Party,
on the other hand, he describes as the aristocratic oligarchy,
including priests, who he basically blames for internal disorders, civil wars, conservative, maybe.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Reactionary, and he aligns Honduras with the liberals, Guatemala with
the serviles exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
He aligns Honduras with these progressive liberals and Guatemala firmly
with the conservative Serviles. This framing is absolutely critical for
his argument, painting Honduras as the good guys in a
larger ideological struggle.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right, and this ideological battle Squire described as really fascinating.
He asserts the servile party dominant in Guatemala vehemently opposed
the idea of a unified Republic of Central America, and
instead they sought union with the projected Empire of Santa Ana.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Santa Anna, the Mexican General, the.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Very same prominent, often controversial figure. Squire claims the official
papers in Guatemala were just teeming with articles denouncing the
United States, its institutions, its policies, portraying the Anglo Saxon race,
his words as driven by unrestrained ambition and predicting this
inevitable conflict between American and Spanish stocks. It's important to
(13:52):
understand this language within the context of that era's racialized
geopolitical thinking. Cultural ethnic origins were often used to explain
national destinies and conflicts.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
And then we get to the leaders themselves. Squire's descriptions
become particularly vivid and frankly brutal. He paints a picture
of Guatemala's leaders. Through the words of another English author,
mister Dunlap, Rafael Carrera, Guatemala's Indian dictator, is described in
really stark terms a dark colored and extremely ill looking mestizo.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
A common term then for mixed European and Indigenous descent, right.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Described as once being a pig jitter. Dunlap recounts how
Carrera rose to power by manipulating indigenous populations during a
Calera outbreak, and later defeated General Francisco Morizon, a key
Liberal figure, to become supreme dictator.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Morzon yeah, former president of the Federal Republic of Central
America big deal, and.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Dunlap states Carreerra amassed a fortune through extortions and confiscations
and was indecently immoral. I mean this is a scathing
character assassination designed to completely discredit Carrera.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Absolutely, and his second in command, Guardiola, is described as
even more monstrous if you can believe it. Dunlop calls
him a dark colored mestizo with a fiendish temper, prone
to intoxication, ordering people's shot for just trifling expressions good grief.
His brutality was apparently such that the mere mention of
his name would send inhabitants fleeing. These aren't just observations,
(15:17):
there are rhetorical weapons to paint the Guatemalan leadership as barbaric, illegitimate.
And then, in stark contrast, Squire heaps praise on Honduran
President General Cabinis, calls him a man of honorable character,
unstained with blood. He even calls him the ablest, purest,
and most unselfish man Central America had produced. The juxtaposition
is deliberate, incredibly powerful, designed to rally sympathy for Honduras.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
This brings us neatly to another central point of Squire's defense,
this Honduras inter Oceanic Railway Company. Squire claims this company
was yet another target of the retired citizen's personal spite.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Ah the railway always a big deal in that era.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Huge. Squire defends the company fiercely, says it's composed of
American citizens of the highest standing, working on a laudable
and legitimate enterprise. Their goal to create a short and
easy route between the seas. The dream of an inter
oceanic route.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yeah, the strategic importance of that, you really can't overstate it,
especially mid nineteenth century post California Gold Rush, a fast
route through Central America. Was this grand vision immense economic
strategic benefits, basically a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And Squire states very clearly that Guatemala opposed the company
precisely because it was American.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Because it would solidify American influence.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
That's his argument, it would confirm and solidify American influence
in Honduras. He even suggests Guatemala rejected peace overtures from
Honduras partly in the hope of interrupting the construction of the.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Road, so seeing the railway itself as a threat to
their own regional power, a symbol of growing American presence.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And what about those accusations of arm shipments the retired
citizen apparently brought up.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How does Squire handle that?
Speaker 1 (16:59):
He readily admits says Honduras purchased arms in the United States,
describing it as a straightforward commercial, one, perfectly normal transaction.
He proudly states the Honda's railroad company had enough faith
in Honduras to actually guarantee the.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Payment, okay, so linking the railway company directly to arming Honduras.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yes, And then he contrasts this with Guatemala, which he
claims notoriously purchased in Blize, implying this sort of covert,
maybe less legitimate source of arms through British channels.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Right, connecting it back to that idea of British influence exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
He dismisses Guatemalan protests about the arms, calling Carrera's military
actions Indian forays made without notice and without other authority
than his own caprice in true Savage.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Style, really strong language.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Again, very strong. He refuses to call them wars in
any sense recognized amongst Christian nations. Again it Squire's own
highly problematic language by today's standards, designed to belittle Carrera's
authority and military actions, casting them as primitive, illegitimate in
the eyes of Western powers.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
So, if we try to connect all these threads, what
Squire's letter reveals is really far more than just some
border dispute. It suggests that behind the immediate conflict between
Hunters and Guatemala, there were these much larger currents of
international influence swirling.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Around like British interests.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, British interests may be trying to maintain a foothold
American expansionist ambitions tied to huge infrastructure projects like this railway,
and this deeply entrenched clash of ideologies liberal versus servile
between different political factions within Central America itself.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
So the railway project becomes a focal.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Point, exactly in Squire's telling. It became a flashpoint for
these competing visions for the region's future, a microcosm of
the power struggles defining that whole era.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Wow, what a deep dive into the eighteen fifties. Squire's
letter really isn't just a historical document, is it. It's
a powerful testament to how information, accusations, personal agendas, how
they can all be wielded to shape the narrative of conflict.
From those shocking claims of atrocities in Santa Rosa to
the intense political machinations surrounding it transists me in Railway.
(19:09):
This letter gives such a vivid, if undeniably one sided
account of a really volatile and transformative period in Central
American history.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Indeed, and it raises, I think an important question for
all of us as we look at historical accounts, especially
ones written as direct rebuttals full of passion like this one,
how do you sift through that passion, through the accusations,
the often biased language. How do you try to understand
the underlying truths, or at least the various perspectives that
(19:38):
might have existed, the role of foreign interests, the clash
of political ideologies, the sheer brutality described here it offers
such a complex tapestry of the past reminds us history
is rarely as simple as just one person's account.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Absolutely, it's never simple. So thinking about Squire's passionate defense,
what really stands out to you? And maybe more broadly,
how do you think I think these kinds of historical
tensions were huge infrastructure projects and international influence put a
massive role in regional conflicts. How do those echoes maybe
resonate in current geopolitical dynamics we see around the world today?
Something to think about. We invite you to consider that
(20:14):
provocative thought as you continue your own deep dives into
the world around you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.