Porfirio Díaz

Front matter

BY

RAFAEL DE ZAYAS ENRIQUEZ

D. APPLETON AND COMPANY NEW YORK

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. — Preliminary Reflections ...... 1

II. — ^The Physical and Moral Characteristics op

Chapter I Pkeliminary Reflections

TO judge a public man fairly, we must consider first of all the objects of his ambition, and secondly the means he has used to gain these objects; nor should we lose sight of the resources at his command, the character of his time, and all the surrounding conditions. Although in the maelstrom of politics the means employed may count for little, and only the results be considered, it is a very different matter before the tribunal of history. There everything must be examined with the most relentless and impartial scrutiny; the maxim that the end justifies the means will not pass muster, and only that which is good in purpose, as well as good in result, is deemed worthy.

When in politics the desired end is obtained, whether through the use of reprehensible methods or not, society gladly appropriates the fruits; for the public cannot be expected to renounce its blessings, even if they come from tainted sources. But the historian is obliged to analyze men and deeds, motives and results; and, although he may admire the achievement, he must censure the man and never on any account represent him as worthy of imitation, under pain of being considered an accomplice of evil, without gaining the credit of participation in the advancement of society.

There is in the success of genius, however, a quality which compels universal admiration; perhaps because his brilliancy dazzles his contemporaries and prevents them from seeing his faults. This effect is enhanced by the work of the poet, who, carried away by his own inspiration, makes a god of his hero, presenting him before us endowed with every perfection, without weaknesses or doubts, impeccable, irresistible, the very incarnation of omnipotent will, hallowed by his origin, and deserving blind worship for the sake of his mission. For this reason Plutarch in his celebrated work, entitled " How a Young Man Should Listen to Poetry," says, "As long as a young man admires only that which poets say and do rightly, there will be no ill effects ; but if he admires indiscriminately, his moral standards will insensibly deteriorate." In history, we do not find the material necessary for the formation of accurate estimates of the leaders of humanity, the creators of nations, and the real makers of history, because historians give greater prominence to battles and events than to men, and always follow a preconceived and pretentious philosophy, to which everything is subordinated, whether in the name of Providence or Fate, Evolution or Chance. In so doing, they fail to give due weight to the effect of the personality and genius of individuals; forgetful of the fact that the true study of mankind is man, and that history represents the eternal ebb and flow of the tide of thought and action. History, to be of positive profit, should give an insight into the springs of action of the great leaders of humanity, such as Moses or Christ, Alexander or Caesar, Leo X or Luther, Charles V or Philip II, Frederick the Great or Napoleon, Richelieu or Voltaire, Washington or Benito Juarez. We should have placed before us all the resources and diflQculties surrounding the life of each, the environment which molds from without and the character of the man which modifies the circumstances from within. For every action, no matter what its nature, is the direct result of this double operation of the environment from without and the man from within.

Contrary to the opinion of many noteworthy authors, I attach as much importance to the hero in a history as I should in a dramatic poem; because I believe that history, far from being impersonal, is supreme-

PEELIMINARY REFLECTIONS

ly personal; each epoch takes the character impressed upon it by its greatest figure. For this reason, I think that biography is of the greatest value ; it really furnishes the key to history. It also fills the countless gaps which are always apparent when one studies a period critically and with a desire to understand something more than the sequence of names, dates, and events. But, in order that biography may fulfill this mission, it is necessary that the biographer should proceed with caution, with perfect understanding of causes and effects, and with irreproachable impartiality. This last is a point of honor with any one who devotes himself to a work of this kind. Still he must not exclude enthusiasm, nor, on the other hand, withhold censure when it is deserved.

I believe the old custom of converting one's hero into a demigod is as false and pernicious as that, which many modern authors follow, of undervaluing the subject of their biography to the point of making him commonplace and without distinction. I agree with Oscar Wilde that " cheap editions of great books may be delightful, but cheap editions of great men are absolutely detestable."

Carlyle was right, I think, in saying that to form a just estimate of a man one should consider first his virtues and afterwards his defects. But, admitting, as I am sure we must, that every character is made up of a mixture of both, to present the former all at one time, and the latter, catalogued separately, afterwards, would make the work of little value to the student. For to him the thing of importance is the delineation of the character resulting from the combination of these two elements in a human being. Analysis is therefore necessary, but only on condition that the personality should also be synthetically reconstructed.

If biography is a sea filled with reefs, when its subject is a man who from the beginning of his career has followed a single course, consecrated to science or art, or has distinguished himself only as a soldier or as a statesman, how much greater is the difficulty, when the subject of one's study unites to an exceptional degree, as in the case of Porfirio Diaz, the traits of both the soldier and the statesman; figuring in the history of his country as a great military genius, who is at the same time and most of all honored as the statesman who brought peace and progress to his people. In such a case, it is most difficult to decide which side of his character is most worthy of the admiration and appreciation of his fellow citizens and of the world. And the admiration is so much the more justified, when we realize that diametrically opposed, if not mutually exclusive, qualities are necessary to create a military genius of the first order and a statesman of sufficient power to modify the national character and establish peace from the very elements which he had previously used for carrying on war.

History furnishes examples of great war- 2 7 riors, who were also great statesmen; we must notice, too, that not one of these ever made any attempt to bring about peace, or had any idea of laying aside the sword, with which he had cut his way to power and renown. Proof of this assertion will be found in the cases of Julius Caesar and Napoleon, in both of whom we see united the great qualities above mentioned. Caesar, who was assassinated when at the height of his power and glory, was at that very moment planning a great expedition against the Parthians, counting upon their defeat in order to return through Scythia and Germania, and thus extend the limits of his empire to the shores of the ocean. Napoleon fell in the struggle, and died a prisoner. " My power will fall," he declared, " unless I maintain it by new victories. Conquest has made me what I am and conquest must sustain me." Such was his profession of faith. Washington was a great statesman and a mediocre general. Grant was a great general and a mediocre statesman. But in Porfirio Diaz we find both qualities developed to the highest degree.

In the first part of his career, we see the soldier, subordinating everything to the art of war, his life devoted exclusively to the triumph, through arms, of those political principles which he had espoused, and to the maintenance of national existence in the face of the French invasion. He was the most successful and renowned upholder of his country's cause on the field of battle. In the second part of his career, when he had reached the presidency, we find the statesman studying the great problems of peace and handling them with consummate skill, eliminating all seeds of discord, restraining unwholesome passions and dangerous impatience, and banishing war, which at that time seemed the natural condition of Mexico.

I believe that this apparent contradiction in his career has its logical explanation. For, although Porfirio Diaz had from the first warlike instincts, a very natural thing in one who was born and brought up in the midst of constant political and foreign wars, his education fitted him for a civil career, that of a lawyer ; furthermore, in his preparation for college, he acquired the rudiments of science, which time and experience matured into that practical statesmanship which has transformed Mexico. Thus we see that he was well fitted by nature, and well prepared by study, for the double role which he was destined to play.

Although Porfirio Diaz entered the career of arms unexpectedly, he was not a halftrained soldier ; he had studied the science of war practically, in the field, and was promoted grade by grade in rapid succession, but without any favoritism. He became general of a division at the point of the sword; through war he also gained reputation and popularity, and with his sword, his reputation, and his popularity, he won the Presidency of the Republic.

Once in that position, he turned his back 10 upon the past, and concentrated all his power upon the study of the present and the molding of the future. His motto as a soldier was, " Small resources and great effectiveness " ; his motto as a statesman was, " Little politics and much administration."

As a military chieftain, on the eve of battle, he thought less about what he would do after gaining the victory than of what he would do in case of defeat. As chief executive, on the other hand, he followed exactly the opposite principle ; he always made up his mind what he would do after he had obtained the victory. This seems logical, because, in a system that was almost entirely administrative, the part played by chance, which corresponds to politics, is almost a negligible quantity.

In waging war, he adopted the principle of continually engaging the enemy, without giving him respite or repose; and no matter what might be the odds against him, he neutralized them by skill and strategy. 11

In order to insure tranquillity, he followed the system of making those who wished to disturb the peace powerless and those who had the power to do so his friends.

But that which is sufficient to bring about mechanical peace is not sufficient to establish organic peace; and the most serious charge made against President Diaz is that he did not realize this in time ; or that, if he did realize it, he made no effort to change his method of procedure. It has been said by way of explanation that the indefinite prolongation of his power has weakened his judgment, and converted into personal ambition the patriotism, of which he had given such striking proofs during the period of his heroic struggles and during the first three periods of his tenure of office. These critics further assert that, his only object being to govern as long as he lives, he has subordinated all his knowledge and experience to this ambition, and has l^ermitted his admirable policy of national education to degenerate into what has been 12

PRELIMINAEY EEFLECTIONS

called "a policy of conciliation" : compromise with all parties, in the attempt to convert into accomplices both friends and enemies.

To my way of thinking, there is a different explanation, as I shall show at the proper time. For the present, I shall simply say that, in general, the foregoing explanation wonld conform perfectly with human nature. When it is apparent that a system is producing the desired results, few men dare to introduce modifications, either because they are restrained by the conservatism, which all who govern long acquire, or for fear that any innovation may bring about a catastrophe. But, even if we admit that the above explanation is the only logical one and maintain that the charge is justified by the facts, the fault would lie more with the people than with President Diaz ; for, if it be true that he has been oblivious of the public, it is equally true that the public has been oblivious of itself.

It is said that at this point in his career 13 the last and final evolution of President Diaz began, namely, his conversion into a tyrant; but those who say this fail to take into account the scientific axiom that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, either in the natural or the political world. A tyranny can be only the logical result of a combination of contributing elements, such as the preponderating will of an all-powerful ruler and the tacit consent of a public, whose character has been gradually weakened, until its weakness has degenerated into cowardice.

If President Diaz has been a tyrant, his tyranny has been less the work of the governor than that of the governed. It was for their own security that the people of Mexico concurred with foreign nations in making his tenure of office permanent.

We have all helped to bring about this peculiar situation, first by considering President Diaz a useful instrument, then a necessity, and, finally, a Providential Being. Have we not all shamelessly, and without excuses, pro- 14 claimed him as unique in history, turning gratitude into fanaticism, praise into adoration, and even tried to convince General Diaz himself of the truth of these extravagances I There never was a man with sufficient strength of character or modesty to resist for thirty years the skillful flattery, which all, through self-interest, have heaped upon him. Lack of virility in a people fosters presumption in its rulers.

Some one has said, " Happy the nation that has no history ! " I say, " Unhappy the nation that is not making history ! " Because, as soon as public interest in politics ends, slavery begins.

In General Diaz we see two men, one a real individual, forceful and self-made; the other created by the imagination, a figure reared by our own flattery and lying, and by the money-seeking foreign writers, who know neither what Mexico was nor is. These last have been courteously received by the Pres- 15 ident and by the officials of the country. They have been paid good money for bad information. They have spread broadcast false impressions about Mexico ! The list of writers is long: from Hurbert Howe Bancroft, the American historian, to Mrs. Alec Tweedy, an English writer.

The first to discountenance such exaggerations was General Diaz himself, who well understood that publications of this kind would in the long run do harm. I think it is now high time to destroy the misconceptions, to correct the mistakes, and to represent General Diaz as he is, in his full stature of a man, with human passions, and human actions; a remarkable character, very remarkable, extraordinary, if you are of my opinion, but not superhuman, nor infallible.

I have admired him, followed him, and served him. I believe I know him as thoroughly and intimately as it is given one man to know another, and I appreciate him at his full value.

PEELIMINARY REFLECTIONS

In this work, the reader will find a lively account of General Diaz, written with scrupulous fidelity to the facts, and without misrepresentations of any kind. My work is neither the work of a partisan, nor that of an enemy, but the frank and loyal statement of a witness before the Tribunal of History; a kind of deposition " ad perpetuum," which I wish to bequeath to posterity before death claims me. I do not say " surprises me," because death could not now surprise me, as I have been for some time prepared for its summons.

Chapter II The Physical And Moral Characteristics Of President Diaz

ETHNICALLY, Porfirio Diaz is a product of the mingling of the two principal races which inhabit Mexico. In his veins there courses the mixed blood of the Spaniard and the Indian, as is the case with all the men who have distinguished themselves in any career whatsoever in Mexico; his character is a combination of the reflectiveness of the " Misteca " and the tenacity of the Asturian.

Men considered eminently practical are usually hands without brains, and men called idealists are apt to be brains without hands. But Diaz, properly speaking, does not belong to either of these two classes; for in him these qualities are so evenly balanced that they offset one another. Furthermore, natu- 18 ral ingenuity and acquired intellectual power make up his character in almost equal proportions. He is a man of definite aims, rather than an idealist; a man of action, rather than a practical man; and he might well say with Napoleon, " My iron hand was not placed at the end of my arm, but connected directly with my brain."

Diaz first conceives a purpose, then reflects upon the means of accomplishing it, carefully estimates its magnitude and considers the obstacles in its way, and finally gathers his forces to win the victory. He never measures the power of his personality; he has blind faith in himself, knowing that there always remain in reserve ideas and resources with which to meet the unexpected. He does not trust in his star, as Napoleon did ; he has no superstitions, as Caesar had; he never leaves anything to chance. Being an inflexible logician, a mathematical calculator, he expects everything to turn out according to his deductions and calculations. That is to 19 say, he has absolute confidence in his own genius.

From the race commingling already mentioned, he has inherited neither the fatalism of the Indian, nor the superstition of the Latin; or, if these factors have entered into his make-up, they have neutralized each other so perfectly that they have disappeared.

As a soldier, we see him always working with the certainty and the inexhaustible energy of the forces of nature. As a statesman, we see him acting with the firmness of profound conviction and with the precision of a mathematical formula. His self-command is so perfect that he always succeeds in whatever he undertakes, whether the task is that of cutting his way through the armed ranks of an enemy or through political vicissitudes and obstructions. In military history, he appears as a thunderbolt in attack, as a rock in defense. But anyone who studies this biography deeply and becomes intimately acquainted with its hero will be convinced that 20 even those actions which seem most violent and hasty, such as the assault of Puebla on April 2, 1867, were never actuated by a sudden inspiration, but were the result of cold calculation. One can see also that, if his conception of defense was that of a rock for stability, it in no way implied inactivity; for whenever he found himself in the mountains, pursued and surrounded by enemies, or shut up within the walls of a fortification, he always tried to assume the offensive.

As a ruler we find in him traces of audacity identical with those which are conspicuous in his military career; audacity in execution, never in resolution ; for his plans are always made with calm reflection. For instance, at the commencement of his second term of office as President, in December, 1884, he was confronted by an empty treasury, a country with all its resources mortgaged, and a people overwhelmed with debt. In this situation, which would have disheartened a man of the utmost courage, Porfirio Diaz remained im- 21 perturbable yet daring; for be promulgated the edicts of June 22, 1885, which placed all the creditors of the state on an equal footing, temporarily suspended the payment of debts, reduced the salaries of public officials and employees, and converted the claims against the treasury into notes at six per cent, a rate which represented a just compensation in view of the arrangement to defer payment.

I do not find in Porfirio Diaz, either as a general or as a statesman, that fiery rashness or ill-considered bravery which has been attributed to him. Indeed, such qualities appear to me serious defects, rather than virtues, in a general or a statesman; for a good soldier does nothing by chance, and a good statesman knows that rashness hardly ever results favorably. But what is more to the point, it is strictly in accordance with the facts to consider Porfirio Diaz a man of prudence in council and courage in action. His prudence is not to be mistaken for mere com- 22 mon sense, which makes men choose the safest means in order to keep out of danger ; nor yet that which in reality is nothing more than the instinct of self-preservation; nor even that of the higher order, which employs the means most effective for achieving the desired results. His prudence is of the highest type, that which distinguishes the true hero, impelling him to follow resolutely the promptings of his own nature, accepting its advantages and disadvantages, conveniences and inconveniences, and always remaining true to his own individuality. In fact, the chief secret of Porfirio Diaz's success is that he has never falsified his own nature.

There are many points of similarity between Diaz and Napoleon, but one must, of course, always bear in mind the difference in period and in general conditions. Porfirio Diaz has a profound contempt for men in general, although he has always tried to hide it. And, after all, could there be anything more natural for a man in his position, 3 23 who has constantly before his eyes all the wretchedness of human nature: perfidious envy, mean-spirited calumny, abject flattery, groundless pretensions, barefaced ambitions, infamous hypocrisy, and who is obliged to contend against all these passions, and against that horde of wonder-workers who, whether they wear frock coats or uniforms or the Sunday best of the middle class, are all animated by a common self-interest. Anyone who sees all this will, I repeat, almost of necessity feel a profound disgust for the human race. This helps us to understand the skepticism of Richelieu, Cromwell, Charles V, Philip II, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon. For Diaz, as for these other great figures in history, men are simply factors in an equation, to be added or subtracted with the same indifference to secondary considerations that a mathematician would feel. But if the factor eliminated has the power to become a dangerous enemy in the event of his falling into abject despera- 24 tion, the statesman must keep him at a certain level without permitting him to rise too high or fall too low, until death removes the man altogether.

Death has been a most powerful ally of General Diaz. Every man who has crossed his path or had the power to oppose him, has fallen by death. I do not now refer to those whom he has had shot as revolutionists, but to all those others : Juarez, Corona, Pacheco, Dublan, Romero, Rubio, etc., whether enemies or dangerous friends. This does not mean that I suspect General Diaz of having aided in the disappearance of those men ; for I am not capable of making such cowardly insinuations, and calumny is the last thing I wish to be guilty of. Death has come of its own accord, as an intelligent and opportune ally; that is all. Napoleon was less scrupulous ; he aided death.

Napoleon said that he had " made his generals of common clay." Porfirio Diaz may well say that he has done the same in the case 25

POKFIRIO DIAZ

of practically all his satellites. For with the exception of Don Matias Romero, and of Don Ignacio Mariscal, the President has never utilized the services or the talents of any man who had reached eminence before the Diaz regime. All those who have figured in high positions since 1878 owe everything to him; therefore it may well be said of President Diaz, as it was of the great Corsican, that he knows the capacity and the quality of every one of the men whom he manipulates.

Diaz has always had an exalted opinion of the press, not because of its usefulness to the public, but because of the injury which it might do to his plans. Not daring to destroy it directly, he subjugated it. Following the maxim that the press can only be combated by the press, he started partisan papers and aided them generously, in order to make independent competition impossible. Napoleon said that if he had granted liberty to the press, his power would not have lasted three 26 days. President Diaz was of the same opinion, and for that reason armed himself with the printing law, which fetters all those who write or print. This he did in good faith ; for in order to carry out his plans, it was necessary that neither his aims nor his methods should be discussed. It was also necessary to avoid opposition, which is always passionate with us, and leads to the revolutionary impulse. This it was General Diaz's purpose to kill once and for all.

Another aphorism of Napoleon is that a great reputation makes a great noise, and that the greater the noise, the farther off it will be heard ; on the other hand, laws, institutions, monuments, even nations, come to an end, while the noise continues reverberating down through the ages. Porfirio Diaz thought the same, but with this difference: what in Napoleon^s case was simply a question of vanity, with Diaz was a political creed. At first his natural modesty made him shun notoriety, but when he understood how use- 27 ful it was, he accepted it and perpetuated it, not in order to satisfy his own vanity, but that of his countrymen ; for he found that it helped to keep them united to him through their national pride. It also had the effect of making it seem necessary that he should continue in power. Nevertheless, I repeat that President Diaz hates exaggeration and dislikes a Wagnerian blast of trumpets.

Napoleon was jealous of his best generals, and some people say that Porfirio Diaz also was jealous of those who were prominent in serving their country during the time of the French invasion. To prove the charge, they cite Escobedo and Corona, who, they say, never enjoyed the favor of President Diaz. I think that those who hold this opinion are mistaken. In the first place, Diaz is unquestionably far superior in military genius to the two captains just mentioned ; there never was any danger of their eclipsing him. In the second place, Escobedo was a political enemy of President Diaz, and Corona was 28 never truly one of his party. Finally, the President did honor both of these men, and, if he did not elevate them to the highest positions, it was, as I have already said, because he never used any men except those whom he himself had molded and raised to office. With Corona, furthermore, there was a peculiar circumstance: he figured as one of the possible successors of President Diaz. Corona himself expected this honor, and not without reason, for he had already been made governor of the powerful State of Jalisco. This post he held until he came to a tragic death at the hands of a crazy fanatic, who committed suicide immediately afterwards. The family of General Corona enjoyed and still enjoys the firm protection of President Diaz.

As a diplomat, President Diaz stands in the highest rank. Some writers have maintained that he belongs to the school of Machiavelli, amended and brought up to date by Napoleon; that he is not afraid of either truth or 29 falsehood, but uses both as circumstances require. The above assertion is another grave error. President Diaz is original in diplomacy as in everything else. His diplomacy is his own ; no one so well knows how to steer between Scylla and Charybdis, without allowing either to so much as suspect which course he has made up his mind to follow. He can give out a false scent without falsehood ; just as an expert swordsman tells no lies when he makes a feint with his blade. Certain it is that when he concedes anything, he does it on the same principle as the fisherman, who risks his worthless bait in order to catch a fish.

Pope Leo XIII, who was reputed a most skillful diplomat, tried to make a concordat with President Diaz, and sent as his agent Monsignor Seraffini, an exceptionally gifted man for the undertaking. After many visits and frequent conferences with the President, the Italian diplomat acknowledged himself outgeneraled. In conversation with a friend 30 of mine, who had become intimate with Monsignor Seraffini, the latter confessed that he had never encountered such a man as President Diaz. When he thought he had him cornered, with no way of escape except that of a direct answer, Diaz slipped through his fingers with the agility of an eel. In spite of skillful cross-questioning, Seraffini failed to discover what the President thought regarding the concordat. He never succeeded in eliciting any kind of a promise, a " Perhaps," a " We will see," or even a refusal.