My last visit to Venezuela was in 2005 during which my cousins took me to visit the massive Las Macaguas Dam in Ciudad Guayana. As we walked the site, we eventually entered, in the “innards” of the structure, a small museum dedicated to the creatures encountered during the years of study and construction of Las Macaguas and also the even greater Guri Dam, the second or third largest in the world — sadly saddled with colossal incompetence resulting in far reaching failures for the entire country.
Corporate media reports, including Wikipedia, blame droughts for these life-threatening failures. However, to put it as diplomatically as possible, droughts did not suddenly show up with Chavez and Maduro. For further reading on the deterioration of Venezuelas electrical grid, refer to my posts on the Cuba-Venezuela nexus, such as here.
As we walked the museum we were awed by the variety and gigantic sizes of the insects on display. Childhood memories flooded back as I recalled seeing many of those or similar specimens live-and-in-color as we tramped about El Pao or fished in the Caroní or Orinoco rivers.
A recent email exchange with George and Richard Scheipe, the sons of a gentleman who taught school in El Pao in the 1950s, brought those memories back. George tells of John Tuohy, one of the “older kids” in El Pao, who had come to visit his brother, Ted Heron, Jr., in Pennsylvania, and had brought a dead giant centipede in his suitcase. The mischievous ones hid the critter in aluminum foil in the backyard and “would torment the local kids, including me, with it.”
These centipedes are the Scolopendra gigantea and are found almost exclusively in South America (but also southern Mexico) with many in Venezuela. They are venomous and their bite can be fatal to small children. In 2014 a 4-year-old in Venezuela died from a bite he incurred when he picked up an empty soda can into which a Scolopendra had hid. In 2015 a 19-year-old man was hospitalized in San Tomé and when he worsened he was taken to a major city for better care. He recovered.
These centipedes can grow as large as 12 inches and are very quick. They are carnivores who feed on any other animal it can overpower and kill, including other arthropods, insects, small birds, lizards, frogs, and snakes. Students have investigated their feeding on bats, something which was not known until relatively recently.
They “climb cave dwellings and hold or manipulate their heavier prey with only a few legs attached to the ceiling.” A study done in southern Mexico discovered that, contrary to earlier belief, bats were killed by these giants pursuant to clever hunting tactics.
It had been believed that the centipedes killed the bats in reaction to being disturbed by the latter when flying in or out of their caves. Careful observation disclosed that the hunters attach themselves to the high walls or ceilings waiting for their prey to fly close, upon which the Scolopendra pounce. “We have observed that, during the trajectory taken by the bats, some perch momentarily. It is during such brief stops that the giant centipede attacks and kills [he who hesitates is lost!].” Also, it is probable that as a bat flies very close to the walls it is also attacked and killed.
I appreciate the recollections of folks who lived in or who have some connection with mid-20th-Century El Pao. Truly we were blessed and had memorable — sometimes frightening — encounters with a unique flora and fauna which so fascinated great explorers such as Alexander Humboldt and others.
[Prelude I and Prelude II documented the historical background of events leading up to the appalling years of the Cristiada in Mexico. The Cristiada did not appear spontaneously; its seeds were sown after the French Revolution, its first sprouts were seen in 1810, the trees took root in 1914 with the Carrancistas and their “constitution”, and the conflagration exploded in the 1920s.
The 20th Century saw several Cristiadas, for example, see The Black Book of Communism which documents the atheistic hatred and intolerance of Christianity and its resultant tens of millions of unspeakable tortures, desolations, and deaths. Mexico suffered this a century before Russia and Eastern Europe and China and sundry lands in between, in many of which the faithful died, as in Mexico, proclaiming “Christ the King!”
As you read the preludes and as you read Mike’s documentation below, surely you can see ourselves, as in a mirror, in places clearly, in places blurrily.
Our awakening must be spiritual; a living desire to recognize that man was created in the image of God and his choice remains the same as in the Garden: God or man. The First leads to liberty and life, the latter, to tyranny and death — RMB]
La Cristiada (Viva Cristo Rey!)
This is dedicated to Jesus Perez Mendez, my father in law, from the State of Zacatecas, and my mother in law Maria Luna de Perez from the state of Guanajuato. Both states were in the epicenter of the Cristiada during their early childhoods.
Prologue:
The forces of good and evil collided in Mexico during the 1920’s. Surprisingly this catastrophic event is not part of the country’s memory. Few modern day Mexicans are even aware how this all played out or why [and few Americans are aware as well — RMB]
They also are not aware of the consequences of the “liberal” dictatorships of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).
These liberals exercised power in a cruel and arbitrary way for decades. Aiding this tyranny are the liberal media and their historian cohorts, all of whom have blood on their hands.
Public education in Mexico is run by the government with liberal propaganda taught from K-12 and beyond in the public Universities (that are supposedly autonomous). Even comic books are loaded with left wing heroes [the same is true of Venezuela today — RMB]
Many Mexicans migrated to the US during these decades to escape the oppressive liberalism of Mexico.
The War’s Beginnings
The Cristeros Rebellion was a war of ideologies between the Catholic Church (stable force) and the Mexican Government (unstable liberal force). Wide scale violence (guerrilla warfare) began in 1926 and lasted for three years. The large scale outbreaks were confined to the States of Jalisco, Michoacan, Guanajuato, and southern Zacatecas. Moderate to minor outbreaks were also felt thoughout the Republic. The de facto end of the conflict did not occur until the election of Avila Camacho in 1940 (center right politician) after the disastrous left-wing presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas.
Root Causes of the conflict
Liberalism took root in Mexico during the mid 19th century among the ruling elites including Benito Juarez. In 1857 the Constitiution formally limited the power of the church and in 1859 reform laws separated the church and state. The revised constitution and reform laws proved to placate the liberals while at the same time being ignored by the government, this was particularly the case during the Porfiriato [the years of peace noted by William F Buckley, Sr. in his House testimony in 1919 — RMB].
The 20th Century Revolutionaries
Madero — The first ruler after Diaz was Francisco Madero, who had committed to cleanse the corrupt federal and state governments. The Church gave Madero its cautious support, but held it up, when he refused to acknowledge the church’s unifying influence. The church then ended her support for Madero, which was followed shortly thereafter by Huerta’s seizing power and allegedly having Madero killed [see Prelude I for further discussion and detail — RMB]. Afterwards, the church’s further supported Huerta which enraged the liberal revolutionaries.
Zapata — Stance towards the church was ambiguous. He discribed himself as a conservative catholic, but at the same time would shoot a priest without hesitation. The US liberals lionized Zapata, even making a movie portraying him as a champion of the people, while ignoring that he was a killer and mostly ignorant/illiterate. In spite of all his shortcomings he was a champion for agrarian reform which turned out to be his legacy. The commander of the Southern Army, Zapata was a formidable figure in Mexican history.
Villa — Believed in God, but not religion and was a clerophobe. After his break with Carranza, unsurprisingly, he became a defender of the Church. Villa often times played the US by trying to draw them into Mexican internal conflicts. Villa folklore ignored the fact that he murdered countless asians including walking them off the roof of the highest building in Chihuahua. A cold blooded killer, the commander of the Northern army (the most feared army in Mexico during that time), and a governor who carried out significant land reform in the north.
Carranza — The leader most associated with persecution of the church. His presidential victory in 1917 was the death knell for an independent church. Francisco Mujica speaking to the Constitutional committee in Queretaro signaled the government’s new stance:
“I am a foe of the clergy, because I consider it the most disgraceful and perverse enemy of our people. What has the clergy given…our nation? The most absurd ideas, the greatest contempt for our democratic institutions, the most unrelenting hatred for the very principles of equity, equality, and fraternity taught by the first democrat, Jesus Christ…. What sort of morality, gentlemen, will the clergy teach our children? We have seen it —the greatest corruption.”
The Constitution of 1917 — Although guaranteeing freedom of religious beliefs, it severely restricted religious practices. Article 24 stated that every religious act must be performed inside the churches which were under the supervision of the government. Article 130 restricted every aspect of religion in Mexico. No longer could priests hear confession, perform marriages; the number and assignments of the clergy were now controlled by the Mexican government; the church was not allowed to own land without the government’s consent [in effect, the Mexican constitution expected religion to remain, in word and deed, in no public place, but only between the two ears of the faithful. Is that not what the left desires in America also? — RMB]
Church leaders did not accept the new Constitution, and began to mobilize support in the US and in Rome.
The Mexican anticlericalism was the work of a small radical minority. Most Mexicans were Catholics and had no desire of seeing religious rituals changed. The Catholic majority response was the only true revolutionary during that period.
Obregon –– Presidency was supposedly to be a period of conciliation which gave way to a strict revolutionary law. However, in 1925 many state legislatures began implementing Article 13 (stripping civilian human rights). Obregon hand-picked his successor, Plutarco Elías Calles.
Calles — The true enemy of the church gained power in 1926 and began attacking the church on two fronts. First the leader of Church opposition, Jose Mora y del Rio was placed on trial; second, Calles immediately implemented Article 130 and Article 3 which prohibited schools operated by the Church. Calles actions prompted the church to suspend all church services until the anticlerical laws had been amended. The church went on strike, which was called by the Archbishop Mora y del Río who was promptly exiled by Calles. They also called for economic boycotts which did not hold because of economic issues throughout Mexico at that time. The 1917 constitution was amended in 2015 with little substantive change.
Calles did not count on popular opposition that resulted from these actions and the war that ensued.
Outcome was predictable: the Church survived despite being called the counter revolutionary. Actually, now the strongest Catholic Church in the world today is in Mexico with their devotion to our lady of Guadalupe and to Christ the King. If you happen to enter a factory throughout Mexico you will see a statue of “The Lady” at the center of the work area.
Carranza was assassinated, Obregon was assassinated by a Cristero, and Calles was exiled to the US [which he passionately hated for the anti-Communist attitudes of her people — RMB] in 1936. The Cristero war took 90,000 lives: 60,000 government, 30,000 Cristeros guerrillas, plus countless civilians. A settlement was finally reached between the Vatican and the government which ended the conflict in 1929.
This war was started by the liberals under the direction of Plutarco Calles against his own people and is not included anywhere in the memories of a nation. It was basically covered up, so much so, that few Mexicans are even aware that this ever happened.
The Vatican conferred sainthood to twenty-three clerical and laymen martyrs at the beginning of the 21st century. A brief accounting of their sacrifices will be listed in the next and final post on the Cristiada.
Plutarco Calles (center) and American Ambassador, Dwight Morrow (right), circa 1928. Morrow negotiated a cease fire to the Cristiada but not before tens of thousands had been killed.
Miguel Pro, Roman Catholic priest, executed in 1927. Although Mexican President Calles fully expected him to recant and had planned to use his recantation for propaganda purposes, Rev. Pro prayed, then stood before his executioners, spreading his arms as a sign of the cross and said his last words, “May God have mercy on you…. Lord, you know that I am innocent. With all my heart I forgive my enemies. Viva Cristo Rey!”
“To understand the Mexican situation it must be understood in the beginning that the present is more or less the normal condition of Mexico; the era of peace during the Díaz regime from 1876 to 1910 was an abnormal period in the [post-colonial] history of that country. All revolutions in Mexico work along conventional lines and the present series of revolutions are in no material sense different from those that beset the country from 1810 to 1876; the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government [emphasis mine].” — William F. Buckley, Sr., testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, December 6, 1919 (7 years before the major outbreak of the Cristiada)
Mike Ashe will soon be posting on the unjustly memory-holed Mexican Cristiada or Cristeros War of the early 20th Century.
However, events do not simply “occur” by spontaneous generation or by a sudden explosion of sentiment or rebellion. There are leaders and, more importantly, philosophies that have taken root or to which key elements of society have submitted, which in turn can lead a culture or civilization to heights of achievement or depths of torment and depravity.
To better grasp the immensity and the nature of the calamity which befell Mexico and, by extension, the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is worthwhile — and necessary — to take a moment to review what went before.
1810 — We begin with a brief allusion to 1810, which is the date usually associated with the initiation of Mexico’s independence from Spain. Invariably, historians generalize with comments such as, “revolt against a large reserve of resentment” or “the pressure cooker finally exploded” and more such terminology. This is found in scholarly as well as popular, Wikipedia type essays.
However, the first thing one must notice about the date, 1810, is that it is barely two decades after the storming of the Bastille and the ensuing French Revolution, which Lenin, a century later, criticized because the Jacobins stopped the terror, something he (Lenin) was determined not to do. And his disciple, Stalin, agreed and fully proved his devotion to Lenin’s counsel. Even after tens of millions of deaths later, large swathes of American colleges and elites indulge their love affair with the French Revolution and its Communist progeny.
Clarence B. Carson wrote, “What particularly intrigued revolutionary socialists, Karl Marx among them, about the French Revolution was the drastic changes it made in the lives and ways of a people. It demonstrated, at least for them, in embryo form, the potentialities for changing man and men in society by revolution…. In sum to … totally reconstruct society.”
With that background, let us briefly consider what happened in 1810 when “Father Hidalgo” allegedly shouted his call for independence from Spain. “During the siege of Guanajuato, his followers captured the city granary in which nearly five hundred Spaniards and criollos [descendants of Spaniards] had taken refuge, many of them women and children. The massacre that followed shocked [all] throughout Mexico….” This event, and others like it, identify the atrocities in Mexico with those in France and with the rest of South America and the Caribbean, as witness Haiti and Venezuela.
In other words, Mexico and Hidalgo were no different than Venezuela and Bolivar and the denouement of each is unsurprisingly similar: massacres, rapes of women, girls, and boys, cold blooded murders of prisoners, invalids, hospital patients, and other defenseless men and women, blighted fields, mines and manufactures burned and buried, homes and offices delivered to pillage, and much more.
In my childhood and youth I invariably heard comments expressing alarm or marvel at the alleged Spanish propensity for cruelty and pillage as seen in the Spanish colonies’ 19th century revolutions. Well, in the first place, a propensity to evil is in all men; however, more importantly, what those comments alluded to were acts that were totally alien to the Spanish colonies. To see such acts in Europe, one would have to visit revolutionary France, not Spain. It is truly a wonder how France and its nefarious, hateful Jacobin ideology gets a free pass.
Just as it can be mystifying to contemplate today’s college professors and their benighted students’ dangerous infatuation with modern Jacobinism, including an overriding hatred of Christianity.
This explains Mr. Buckley’s comments on Mexican revolutions from 1810 to 1876 quoted above.
1876 – 1911 — This was the “Porfiriato” the rule of Porfirio Díaz. As alluded to in Mr. Buckley’s testimony (see quote above), this was a time of post-colonial peace and order not seen before or since.
The Cristero period, which officially began in 1926 under the Plutarco Calles administration, was actually sown in 1911 with the Francisco Madero administration. Madero was opposed to Christianity, or at least any ecclesiastical manifestation of it. He was deposed and allegedly murdered in 1913.
But we must briefly consider how Francisco Madero became president of Mexico.
Madero had launched a revolution from San Antonio, Texas, declaring himself president in November, 1910. Men such as Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco rallied to him in northern Mexico, creating and fomenting turmoil and mayhem, which eventually culminated in the resignation of Porfirio Díaz in May, 1911, who sincerely wished to avoid further bloodshed.
Francisco Madero was elected president in October, 1911, hailed as the “apostle of democracy”. However, discontent with his administration set in almost immediately and rebel factions erupted throughout Mexico. For example, Zapata rebelled against Madero in November, 1911, barely a month after the elections.
Similar to like men in politics today, Madero was an aristocrat, having been schooled by private tutors in Paris and in the United States. He had little in common with the peon classes that he waxed lyrical about. He had promised everything to everyone and therefore pleased no one.
More worrisome, disorder and lawlessness were such that the Mexican ambassador to the United States resigned in December, 1912, saying, “I lied to the American government for ten months telling them that the Mexican revolution would be over in six weeks…. The truth is that the situation is desperate.”
General Victoriano Huerta was a soldier and natural leader. His drinking was legendary — think Ulysses S. Grant. One example of his fearlessness occurred in Cuernavaca. He was in a hotel when a group passed in the street shouting, “Death to Huerta!” The General “heard the cry, got up, and walked to the door — alone, ‘Here is Huerta,’ he said. ‘Who wants him?'”
General Huerta had been a loyal and dedicated soldier, having fought under three presidents: Porfirio Díaz, Francisco de la Barra (interim president between Díaz and Madero), and Francisco Madero. In over 40 years of service, he had applied for only two leaves.
After putting down multiple rebellions against Madero, General Huerta was once again called upon to defeat yet another insurrection in Mexico City, in February, 1913. It was during this event that he decided to work to depose President Madero. He saw that lawlessness persisted in Mexico and lives and properties of citizens as well as foreigners were continually in danger. The fighting in Mexico City was frightful but is beyond the scope of this post.
Suffice it to say that the government forces were defeated after much property damage and human carnage. Americans as well as diplomats from other nations flocked to the American embassy for shelter. The ambassador demanded that all combatants respect American rights. The patience of the ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson (no relation to Woodrow Wilson, who was to be inaugurated as president in March, 1913) was exhausted and he worked to seek a permanent solution that would protect American and foreign interests and people in Mexico, believing that would also protect the Mexican people.
“This situation is intolerable … I am going to bring order,” declared the ambassador, who then worked with British, Spanish, and German ministers, whose countries had the largest colonies in Mexico City. In addition, twenty-five Mexican senators urged President Madero to resign. Madero rebuffed all approaches.
Concurrently, General Huerta was completing his preparations for a coup which took place February 18, 1913. At 5:10 P. M., the cathedral bells sounded and a large crowd assembled. The people “wildly cheered” Huerta and a general air of celebration prevailed. American newspapers reported that President Taft and his cabinet showed “great relief”.
There were many delicate negotiations between the factions which are beyond the scope of this post. In sum, negotiations were concluded but General Huerta refused to declare himself president. He wished to follow constitutional norms. While Madero was prisoner, he was technically still the president, since he had not resigned.
Huerta, although “in de facto control, cooperated with Congress and the Foreign Minister to secure legal title to the presidency.” He requested Congress to convene and expressed a desire to “place himself in accord with the National Representation” to “find a legal solution” to the crisis.
On February 19 Francisco Madero signed his resignation, which was submitted to the Congress later that morning. The Congress, which had a Maderista majority, accepted the resignation by an overwhelming vote and at 11:15 A. M. the Congress confirmed Huerta as constitutional president by a vote of 126-0.
Thus Huerta assumed the presidency not at the time of the coup, but upon the resignation of Madero and the vote of the Congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution at the time.
Turmoil still persisted as several factions refused to recognize Huerta or even the Congress. Added to the tensions were rumors of Madero’s ambitions to foment yet another revolution akin to his actions against Porfirio Díaz in 1910.
On February 22, 1913, after 10 P. M. Francisco Madero and the former vice president, José María Pino Suárez, were shot as they were being transferred from the presidential palace to the penitentiary. There were several “versions” purporting to explain the assassinations, including that relatives of persons killed on orders of Madero’s government attacked the convoy transporting the prisoners. However, there is general agreement that, at the least, President Huerta should have taken more serious precautions to protect Madero. Of course, the most accepted version is that Huerta’s cabinet, including Huerta, ordered the shooting.
Whatever the truth, the fact of repercussions became clear upon the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson, whose actions led directly to the Cristiada.
(To be continued)
Expected to be released in March, 2023. Pictured: William F. Buckley Sr. (1881-1958) Francisco Madero (1873-1913) Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson (1857-1932) Victoriano Huerta (1854-1916)
This year (2022), between January and July, the Organization of American States (OAS) estimates that more than 45,000 Venezuelans have crossed the Darien Gap. As opposed to immigrants from other countries (Haiti, Uzbekistan, Central American nations, and more) the US Department of State has imposed visa requirements on Venezuelans that are practically impossible for most to meet. We have also pressured other countries in Central America to do likewise, the latest one to fall in line being Costa Rica. In March, as reported by The Washington Examiner, Mexico “has successfully put a stop to the trend of Venezuelans flying into its airports and then [going] to the United States after more than 100,000 were stopped at the border since last summer.”
What this means is that Venezuelans who survive the jungles, seas, and rivers just to get to the Darien Gap where they then cross a trackless wall of jungle 70 miles wide, are under the added pressures of bureaucracies who are determined to keep them from arriving and entering the United States.
Over 6.8 MILLION Venezuelans have emigrated from the Socialist Paradise, most finding refuge in Colombia, Peru, and Chile. But hundreds of thousands have headed elsewhere, including the United States, despite the almost insurmountable odds. The number of Venezuelan refugees exceed their Syrian and Ukrainian counterparts who are fleeing the devastation of wars in their homelands.
Venezuelans are fleeing another type of war: a war against man in the image of God. That is a war that never ends ends well: over 150 million deaths by Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Castro, and more in the 20th Century alone [see The Black Book of Communism]. (And that is in addition to the millions of deaths in the two world wars and all the hot wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and more.)
And so they, and others, seek to shorten their crossing of the Darien Gap by getting to Necocli on the eastern Colombian shores of the Gulf of Uraba. There they seek and pay unknown coyotes to cross the gulf to Acandi, on the western shores of the gulf. And there they either acquire the services of “guides” or other coyotes to cross the Gap, or just strike out on their own into the forbidding jungles.
It is a most frightfully hazardous crossing whose fatalities can only be guessed at. Besides treacherous rapids and muddy mountain sides and cliffs the refugees are easy prey to criminal gangs and cartels as well as poisonous snakes and other beasts. It is estimated that nine Venezuelans per hour cross the Gap, with at least 15 Venezuelans reported to have died trying to cross, in 2022 alone. Despite widespread reports of women and children being victims of rape and murder, they keep trying. Many have not lived to tell the tale.
Following are some of the tales of horror:
In January of this year, “María” [true name withheld] and other women, including a 13-year-old girl, were raped by seven men who then yelled, “Run, go! Else we will shoot you in the back!”
“María” and her companions did make it to Panama. The following bullets tell of just a few who did not.
Marine Carolina Castellano Suárez, 26 years old, was with her husband and minor son when she was swept away by the currents of a swift river. She was killed when her head struck a rock.
In March, Andreína Chiquinquirá Acosta who journeyed with her young son, fell utterly exhausted and died despite the efforts of her fellow refugees to revive her.
Merimar Paola Gómez Díaz successfully crossed the Darien Gap after walking for thirteen days, but was felled by cardiac arrest upon arriving at Bajo Chiquito in Panama. She was with her husband, three children, and mother.
In April Giovanni Prado died of a heart attack in the Darien jungles. His body was at a three hour distance from the nearest village; his daughter begged for help to recover his remains.
In June, Wilmer Monterola died in the Darien jungle after languishing there for 15 days with a broken leg, unable to move.
Anhelo José Montilla Godoy, 26, died on June 9, having reached refuge in San Vicente, Panama, but suffering cardiac arrest shortly thereafter.
In July, Luz Asleidys Steile Arguelles and her minor daughter, Lusied Antonella Chirinos Steile drowned in rapids as they sought to cross. Their relatives confirmed the deaths upon viewing a video of the bodies.
Freddy Alejandro Lira died of exhaustion in the Darien Gap in July: a reporter shared a video of Mr. Lira seated on the jungle ground in critical condition shortly before his death.
Luis Leonardo Cardozo Montilla, 34, was seeking to go to Utah where he had relatives. He did not make it across the Gap; he died in July.
José Gerardo Díaz died in July after being struck by a poisonous snake.
Daniel Rodríguez, after fruitlessly seeking to come legally to see his son, finally decided to come through the jungles. He was felled by a cardiac arrest in July as he sought to make it through the Darien jungles.
“Gabriel” [name withheld to protect friends and family still in Venezuela] who traversed the journey with his wife, two young children, and a cousin, did make it. He had gathered $8,000 over many months and by the time they arrived at the Rio Bravo, which they crossed illegally, they had used every penny. They turned themselves in and are now in Texas with legal status, working hard, and grateful to Americans. “I do not recommend crossing the Darien; it is a hell on earth. But I have no regrets. I am here and my wife and children are with me. I could never leave them behind. You leave with what is necessary and by the time you arrive, you have nothing. But you have your life.”
An educated guess for this state of affairs where the world’s migrants are incentivized to come in illegally, but not Venezuelans, is that Venezuelans know what Socialism — with or without a human face — actually does to a country and its people. We can’t have that, can we.
This state of affairs has discouraged my compratiotas, but it has not deterred them.
Location of Darien Gap Darien Gap Refugees in the Darien Gap Fifteen migrants who did not make it through the gap are buried in Guayabilla Cemetery in Agua Fría, Panama. On the white body bags were handwritten clues: “Unknown in Bajo Grande”, “Unknown in Turquesa River”, “Unknown #3 Minor”, and more. Venezuelan mother and daughter, reported missing for weeks. Later confirmed dead by drowning in the Darien Gap. Haitian husband and pregnant wife. After a harrowing crossing, they seriously considered staying in Panama. I do not know their final decision.
[I had the privilege of traveling a number of times to Mexico on business, and look back to my visits there with fondness and respect. Mike’s posts have served to cause me to think on Mexico and the major shadow she casts — for good or ill — over most of Latin America’s history, including Venezuela. Thank you, Mike — RMB]
The Porfiriato (1876-1911)
Prelude and setting the stage
To properly set the stage for the Porfiriato, it is necessary to understand that Mexican politics was at times a blood sport. Persecution of liberals like Diaz and Juarez by the conservative leader Santa Anna forced Diaz into the mountains of Oaxaca and becoming an insurgent there, until Santa Anna was exiled to Cuba in 1855. Juarez, more a statesman than a warrior, fled to northern Mexico and New Orleans during this civil war.
Prior to Diaz, the government instability was very much the norm during the 19th century especially at the presidential level. It was so bad that at times there were three presidents in office at the same time. The first president, Guadalupe Victoria, lasted five years in office but most of his successors’ (mostly army generals) terms were one or two years. The treasury was emptied out periodically most likely due to corruption at the top. Santa Anna was a colorful president but not a successful one. Juarez was the most consequential president before Diaz with a long list of accomplishments.
Diaz and Juarez were both from Oaxaca and both raised in poverty. Both studied for the priesthood and were friends even though their politics were at times in opposition. Diaz joined the army at the start of the Mexican-American war (1846-48) at age 15. He, like Juarez, studied law and rose to command the army during Juarez’s time in office.
Diaz had a brilliant military career including defeating the French on May 5, 1862. After defeating the French again in Puebla (1867) he resigned his commission and started his political career by condemning Juarez’s presidency. In 1870 he ran for president against Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada. Juarez won the election and Diaz called it a rigged election and called for a revolution which was later squelched by Juarez’s forces in 1872 just prior to Juarez’s death in that year. Lerdo assumed the presidency until 1876 when General Diaz defeated Lerdo’s forces at the Battle of Tecoac and occupied Mexico City. Lerdo was exiled in New York and Diaz became an interim president until his election in 1877.
The Porfiriato — First Term
His first order of business was to obtain US recognition of his presidency. Two stumbling blocks to recognition were 1) to stop Apache Raids from Mexico into the US, 2) resolving debt of $300,000 from the Lerdo Government. Diaz agreed to both and the presidency was recognized with a trip from US President Ulysses Grant to Mexico City.
The second order of business was to end armed conflict. This was achieved through the Paz Porfiriana. As a rigid liberal ideology, Díaz made peace with his opposition by supporting their rights to exist and financial incentives in support of their cause. It worked and there was relative peace for the first time in the Republic of Mexico.
The Porfiriato — Second Term
After his first term Diaz stepped down as president and his ardent supporter Manuel Gonzalez took over with Diaz in the background. Diaz took the time to forge greater relationships with US investors and politicians like Grant.
Manuel Gonzalez proved to be an inept and corrupt politician and was replaced by Diaz who amended the constitution to allow him to serve for another 26 years.
The Porfiriato — Subsequent terms lasting 26 years.
Those 26 years of authoritarian style produced a peaceful period which attracted foreign investments by selling Mexican influence for North American investments. The creation of an industrial infrastructure brought Mexico into the 20th century.
Mining and oil exploration was accelerated during this period. Railroads were built along with schools, and most needed infrastructure. Mexico was at that time considered an economic power along with Britain, Germany, and England.
The political facts are undisputed: he grabbed power by force when he lost a corrupt election, ran on a platform of no reelection. He then ran for reelection and kept power through corrupt elections.
After declaring himself the winner of an eighth term as president, the country had had enough, triggering the Mexican Revolution with Francisco Madero as its president.
[Francisco Madero had opposed him and been jailed for his trouble. He escaped from jail and fled to the United States from whence he orchestrated the Mexican Revolution. His strength was in the north of Mexico where he recruited Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco as revolutionary leaders. Villa and Orozco soon demonstrated they would not submit to Madero, which caused no end of headaches. Díaz resigned soon after — RMB].
Diaz was exiled to Paris and died 4 years later.
Many Mexicans call him a dictator; however, others, and there are many, consider Porfirio Diaz’s legacy as one that brought Mexico into the Industrial Age. The Revolutionary Propagandist had and continues to exaggerate Diaz shortcomings while ignoring his vast and consequential achievements. It’s time to bring his mortal remains to a resting place in Oaxaca where he belongs.
[I am happy to join Mike in this minority opinion. Diaz was a great man who, like all men, had his flaws. However, a hard look at his achievements for his country will demonstrate the vast progress made, along with the relative peace — both internal as well as international. He once exclaimed, “Poor Mexico! So far from God, so close to the United States!”. He thus expressed, in an incredibly concise nutshell, a major reality for our neighbors to the south. Nevertheless, under his administration, Mexico was on the gold standard and the Mexican peso was one of the world’s soundest currencies. He paid off Mexico’s creditors and balanced the budget for the first time in Mexico history — RMB]
Guadalupe Victoria, first president of the United Mexican States (1786-1843) Porfirio Díaz (1830-1915) With his wife, Doña Carmen, in exile in Paris, shortly before his death. His wife survived him for several decades, dying in 1944.
