Charles Allen Smart, a free-lance editor and writer who spends a good deal of his time in Mexico, has done extensive research in the manuscript sources, published memoirs and documents, and secondary accounts for this biography of Juárez. For the early life the author relies heavily on his hero’s Notes for My Children; in point of fact, the entire text of the Notes is translated and appears scattered throughout the text. Smart clearly demonstrates his ability with words as he takes the reader on a marvelous trip through the areas of Oaxaca which Juárez knew as a child. For this period and until the stage is set for Juárez’ entry on the national scene, Smart presents a full life and times of his subject.
But when he gets to the middle-1850’s Smart adopts the pattern of Juárez’ previous biographers: Juárez becomes the protagonist who moves to the center of the stage and dominates the play. Not only does he dominate all the other characters; he dominates the setting as well. The remainder of the book is concerned chiefly with Juárez as a leader in the War of the Reform and in the fight against the French and Maximilian. Only twenty-five pages are devoted to Juárez as president in times of peace. While this emphasis on Juárez as a successful revolutionist and war leader allows Smart to show Juárez at his best, it also demonstrates that Smart himself lacks a historical approach. It is true that from 1867 to 1872 Mexico was nominally at peace and therefore comparatively dull historically in relation to the previous decade, yet these years constituted in fact one-third of the entire time Juárez controlled Mexico.
In addition to the lack of temporal balance, the author also suffers from what seems to be almost an occupational disease for biographers: hero worship. The Mexican president is a hero sans peur et sans reproche. There are no subtle distinctions, no shades of grey; he is the good guy, and those who differed with him or opposed him are the bad guys. With this thesis it is easy to explain away rather than to explain why so many liberals broke with Juárez in the years from 1861 to 1863 and again after 1867. By overplaying Juárez’ role Smart does not make clear to the reader why the Constitution of 1857 was so important. From his account it is difficult at times to understand what the liberals were fighting for and why such stalwarts as Díaz, Lerdo, and Ramírez, to name but a few, either broke with Juárez or constantly disagreed with him. These men turned against him because, in brief, his actions were not in accordance with the constitution. But if one is not aware of the tremendous importance the liberals assigned to constitutionality, he may well accept Smart’s interpretation.
Without a doubt Juárez was one of the great men of the nineteenth century, and he therefore deserves a biographer who will treat him as a human being who suffers no loss of dignity for sharing the human failing to err. In short, this very well-written, well-researched work can be assigned to students as the best available pro-Juárez interpretation.
