Chapter XXI: President Wilson’s Mexican Policy

The attitude of President Wilson towards the Huerta régime was attacked not only in the European press but likewise in the American newspapers. The French, German, English and Spanish daily and weekly papers sneered at what they dubbed the moral policy of a puritan school teacher.

The American papers were divided in their opinion; the Republican organs laughed at the reversal of their beloved “dollar diplomacy,” and many so-called Democratic papers attempted to uphold the blustering “big stick” policy. With the exception of the labor and socialistic press there was a great deal of doubt and misgivings expressed as to the outcome of the new diplomacy.

Even the average American, who is always on the side of justice and fair play, was rather taken back by this radical departure in American and foreign relations. For American diplomacy, although usually equitable, always took into consideration the interests of the Americans in a foreign country first and last, even if they clashed with the fundamental rights of the natives.

In the case of American interests in Mexico, it was long suspected they had been playing politics and throwing their all powerful influence in favor of the government which could give them the best advantages in a business way, which were in opposite relation to the liberal principles and the welfare of the majority of the Mexicans.

The great corporations have always received extraordinary favors from dishonest governments. The mining and oil syndicates, the railroad and land concessionaires, acquired great privileges and gave very little in return for them. For example, an American oil company in Mexico made as high as 450 per cent. profit on its original investment and doubled the selling price of oil and gasoline. As soon as an English company invaded the field they fought each other for a while, then realizing that it was an expensive affair which redounded to the benefit of the Mexican consumer, they came to an agreement by dividing the territory among themselves and right away the price of oil and gasoline went up again.

Scores of cases can be cited to prove that all the advantages are in favor of foreign investors. The salaries of the Mexican workingman or peons are not raised, but the prices of commodities are never lowered. The great Orizaba cotton mills, all the factories, the great mining corporations have always paid the lowest salaries. Whenever there was a strike for higher wages or for better conditions, the Diaz and Huerta régimes always protected the foreigners and at the slightest pretext massacred the strikers. In the rare cases when the government was fair to the strikers, as happened under Madero and Carranza, then the foreign investors protested to their governments that their interests were in danger of destruction.

With the Mexican laborer and peons it has become a conviction that foreign interests are always on the side of dictators as against the Mexican people. In Central and South America the new democratic policy was watched with keen interest; the Latin Americans shrewdly guessed that the attitude of the Democratic administration would be a test stone of their relations with the State Department.

So much had been written about the famous Monroe Doctrine by successive American statesmen that the original meaning of this doctrine had been entirely lost to view.

The original Monroe doctrine was uttered as a warning to the Holy Alliance in its well known designs to attempt the reconquest of the provinces lost by Spain.

The Monroe doctrine was never meant to be an excuse to collect debts for American or foreigners or a pretext to police unruly republics.

With the exception of some Central American States there has never been a case in a hundred years when South America and Mexico could not cope successfully against foreign invaders.

As far back as 1806-07 England attempted to conquer Argentina and Uruguay when they were still under Spanish rule. The Spaniards and the natives fought very bravely and repelled the invaders, who had already occupied Buenos-Ayres. The native South Americans did not intend to exchange masters and soon afterwards they overthrew the Spaniards.

In the early forties France fought the Argentinian dictator Rozas, but after a two years’ war she was defeated. Later, in 1845, France and England pretended that Rozas should open the interior rivers to international navigation. Buenos-Ayres was blockaded and the war lasted for five years; but England and France were defeated.

Brazil and Argentina tried to conquer the little republic of Paraguay. The war lasted five years (1865-70). The result was that forty-five per cent. of the male population was killed in battle, but Paraguay was not conquered.

The Latin American republics feel that they can take care of themselves, and their nationality against their neighbors as well as against Europe. No matter what the ambitions, intentions or plans of conquests of certain European powers may be they know fully well that there is not the slightest chance for a permanent occupation by European armies, and that any conquest by any Asiatic or European nation is an absurd dream.

It is understood that the Monroe doctrine was once a very useful moral protection, but it did not prevent attacks and occupation of South American territory by Spain, France and England. The only reason which interfered with the territorial designs of European powers was not the help of the United States, when it was most needed, but the heroic resistance of the Latin American nations themselves. The fear is rampant that the Monroe doctrine might be used as a pretext for aggression by the United States.

Latin Americans follow this line of argument; the great American corporations can invest a great deal of money in South America. They can very easily send agents to foment revolutions which necessarily would destroy American property and then a pretext would be found for American intervention, as happened in Nicaragua.

There is a very short step from temporary to permanent occupation, tending to create a very dangerous precedent in favor of American occupation in any country where there is a great deal of invested American capital.

The thought was expressed by a great many South American statesmen that President Wilson’s Mexican policy would be a good illustration of the future policy towards South America. At the beginning the expressions of neutrality and non-intervention in the internal affairs of Mexico were considered rather suspiciously.

Had the President of the United States declared war on Mexico and sent troops to Mexico City on any pretext whatsoever, the Latin American nations would have closed their doors to American capital, commerce, and would have boycotted American goods. The thought would have always been present that the Americans would always use their interests as a wedge for interference in their national affairs.

The entrance of Argentina, Brazil and Chile in a solution of the Mexican-American incident at Tampico was a characteristic move exemplifying the new trend of thought on statesmanship in Washington.

Under a republican administration, England, France and Germany would have been asked to settle the question with the United States instead of the A B C powers. Without fear of contradiction it can be stated that Argentina, Brazil and Chile’s entrance into Pan American affairs with the co-operation of the United States proves that the State Department has finally learned the A B C of Pan American statesmanship. Likewise, that the Monroe doctrine can only reach its highest efficiency in co-operation with the whole of America from Patagonia to Canada.

When the Americans create a Pan American doctrine, then there is no doubt that Europe will not dare to challenge it.

At present a challenge to the Monroe doctrine is in reality a challenge to the American navy. With a new Pan American doctrine the challenge would include all Latin American countries, with the United States and Canada in an offensive and defensive alliance against one or more European powers. At present it appears as if the defence of the territorial integrity of all America was shouldered upon the United States alone. The Latin Americans feel that they should have a share of this responsibility, for they believe themselves capable and ready to do so.

There was a great deal of excitement and indignation in South America when the American marines landed in Vera Cruz. Huerta was not made more popular by this incident, but the national instinct of preservation of the Latin races made them unconsciously understand that the landing of American blue jackets was only a wedge to achieve American occupation and that as long as Vera Cruz was occupied, it was only a question of time until American soldiers would march to Mexico City.

When Roosevelt was in South America he was fêted and banqueted by the most prominent men in the A B C republics. They were too polite to inform him what they thought of his speeches on the Monroe doctrine. The articles and editorials commenting Roosevelt’s theories were very plain if courteous: that either Mr. Roosevelt had forgotten the original meaning of the Monroe doctrine or that he was deceiving himself into an imperialistic meaning of the doctrine.

The Latin Americans and Mexico hope fervently that the unselfish, humanitarian and democratic diplomacy of President Wilson will bear the brunt of the tremendous influences that are brought to bear upon it.

It is a well known platitude that certain American mining, railroad and oil interests are subterraneously working against this idealistic policy; that the War Department has been itching for a war of conquest or police work in Mexico. An officer of the United States army in an expansive moment volunteered the information that intervention in Mexico would mean an increase from 80 to 350,000 men in the American army and make it possible to organize it more in proportion with its population. That there being always a danger of a war with Japan, and the United States not being ready for it, a war with Mexico would prepare the army for that eventuality.

President Wilson has more admirers in Mexico and South America than any other President or statesman in the whole history of the United States has ever had, not even excepting the martyr President Lincoln, or Washington.

The popular thought has been deeply imbedded with the conviction that if the dictator Huerta could not exasperate and inveigle President Wilson into a war with Mexico, that no power for evil can achieve the purpose in the future.

Far seeing Mexicans did not expect a prompt solution of the vital problems after the elimination of Huerta. The dictator was only the greatest impedimenta to a realization of liberal ideals; once Huerta eliminated the work was a little less arduous, but still of tremendous purport.

The participation of England, France and Germany in a struggle for life in Europe has luckily relieved Mexico of three great mischief makers. The great and sombre powers which have kept Mexico in a turmoil for a hundred years are still at work: the clericals, the landowners and the militarists; in the last twenty years the American interests have been added to the list.

A Mexican thinker concreted the thought thus: “The great powers for evil in Mexico are: The Church, the Latifundiæ and the Trusts; their great victims will be President Wilson, Carranza and the Mexican people.”

REFLECTIONS

In the beginning of the revolution against Diaz, as public opinion seemed to be favorable to what was called “The Great Constructive Work of Diaz,” there was a vague and superficial impression that the United States should repeat the policy which had been inaugurated toward Cuba; a sort of political tutelage which left the independence of the island in the hands of the natives.

Subsequent events have revealed to the Americans that although the Mexicans were still groping for a Constitution more in keeping with their racial characteristics, that they had had, in opposition to Cuba, which gained its independence from Spain in 1908, a national history for one hundred years, with great national heroes, martyrs and political ideals which could not be infringed and trespassed upon by an uncalled for intervention in their internal affairs.

Thoughtful and well-informed statesmen and politicians have come to the conclusion that a political tutelage as in Cuba will never be tolerated in Mexico, any more than military aggression for the sake of conquest, or under the hypocritical name of peace.

The average American knows that a Mexican war would be a war without heroes or glory for American arms.

The Mexicans are intensely grateful to President Wilson for insisting on keeping hands off in Mexico. The internal struggle of the liberals fighting against the reactionary powers in Mexico must be settled by the Mexicans themselves, or it will have to be settled all over again.

* * * * *

The impression of a great many Americans is that Mexico is going towards political disruption, that is to say, a secession into three entities: the North, the Centre and the South.

Northern secession is encouraged by the great mining, oil, railroad, and land interests in the United States and by the reactionaries in Mexico. Southern secession is not only encouraged, but fomented, by the ambitious and able dictator of Guatemala.

The northern republic would comprise the border states, as well as Lower California, which, even if independent, would be more friendly to the United States than a united Mexico. That is the conviction of those interested in a Northern secession.

A Southern republic would mean the absorption of the States of Yucatan, Campeche, Tabasco, Chiapas, and the Territory of Quintana Roo, under the leadership and hegemony of Guatemala.

Working towards that end, and in co-operation with the Guatemalan dictator, is a gentleman in the State Department, who was once U. S. representative in Guatemala.

American interests are allied with the Mexican interests, whereas, the American radicals, socialists and the labor party are in sympathy with the Mexican liberals. The American and Mexican capitalists are opposed to the American and Mexican middle class and proletariat.

* * * * *

The same class trouble is going on in the Church in Mexico. The native Mexican clergy is opposed to the high or foreign clergy. All the oppressions, cruelties, and treacheries in the fight of the clericals against the liberals have emanated from the foreign or high clergy, which used the military element for that purpose. The unselfish, libertarian struggle on the other hand, was always actively assisted by the native priests; by men like Morelos and Hidalgo. The poor Mexican priest, or better said, the low Mexican clergy, is first a Mexican, and if that agrees with his belief, he will be a good Catholic; but if his faith is pitted against the welfare of his country, then he will invariably prefer to be a good Mexican and a poor Catholic, to being a poor Mexican and an obedient Catholic.

The higher clergy in the United States, by attacking the liberal policies in Mexico, and waging an active campaign against the Mexican revolutionists, is placing itself in direct opposition to the lower Mexican clergy.

* * * * *

From the Mexican point of view, three principles have been laid down to face and combat American aggression, or absorption. The elimination of predatory American capital, the curtailment of American immigration schemes, and the advancement of European immigration. American methods, on the other hand, will be encouraged in all the active expressions of life, such as business organizations, farming and school methods.

* * * * *

There is no doubt that ten years of a complete and practical rural school system in Mexico will change the whole social and political character of the republic. The advancement of woman in life will also gain a decided advantage for the Mexican, for no nation can be greater or better than its women.

* * * * *

Oriental immigration cannot be encouraged, as being dangerous to the best interests of Mexico, not because of the inferiority of the Orientals, but because of their superiority, which would tend to segregate them into colonies.

* * * * *

A Mexican engineer suggested a plan to cut a canal in Lower California, from Enseñada to the Rio Colorado, a distance of ninety miles. By this method Lower California would be made into an island, and the passage of ships from the Pacific Ocean at Enseñada, through the Canal into the Gulf of California would double the importance, commercially and politically, of the States of Sonora, Sinaloa and the Eastern side of Lower California. Irrigation, and later immigration, in Lower California, would change the barren island into a garden.

* * * * *

The Mexican revolutionists are socialists without knowing it; their actions in the economical and political field have proven it; the Marxian theorists in Europe showed by their attitude in the war, that they were not socialists, but political trimmers.

* * * * *

The French revolution is being repeated in Mexico. Bare feet are pattering up on one side of the stairway, while patent leathers are descending on the opposite side.

* * * * *

The Mexican problem is like a sand-bar in the path of the American Ship of State.