First World War Centennial

CHAPTER V

MEXICO

After the general peace ending the present Great War the American Gov­ernment will be compelled to pay closer attention to the disturbed state of Mex­ico. The great increase of America's national debt, her increased taxation, and the artificial limitations placed on her ability to cope with either England or Germany in world commerce will com­pel America to promote better condi­tions of trade and intercourse on her own continent. To this end Mexico must be pacified and the Government made more stable. Stability and security are press­ing needs not only of the property classes in Mexico, but of the Mexican la­borers as well. Without prosperity in Mexico, humanitarians should clearly understand, the condition of its lower classes cannot be ameliorated. More­over, the safety and the freedom of Americans' trade is directly involved in the Mexican problem. After the gen­eral peace the American Government will not long be suffered to continue a policy of inaction and indifference to the internal conditions of Mexico.

Other and more peremptory motives will ultimately lead America to a re­vision of its policy of inaction. No scheme of defensive warfare which omits a reference to Mexico can be com­plete for the United States of America. The northern boundary of Mexico, as fixed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hi­dalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Treaty of 1853, extends along the southern fron­tier of the United States for nearly 2000 miles. The occupation of Mexico by a European or Asiatic power of the first rank at war with the United States doubtless would and should be pre­vented. At the first sign of such a pos­sibility the seaports of Mexico would be a subject of serious consideration by the military authorities of the United States. That Mexican ports should not offer a harbor for the enemy would be a mat­ter of as much concern in Washington as that the harbors of the Chesapeake or of San Diego and San Francisco Bay should not offer them a safe landing. If Mexico were then neutralized, the neutrality of Mexico would inevitably be subordinated to considerations in­volving the safety and the integrity of a great and populous nation. America has a high and commendable moral con­ception of the effect of a country's neu­tralization, but in the last resort it can­not deliberately permit itself to be de­stroyed. The world would not expect that America would allow itself to be overrun from Mexico.

It is not only the military significance of Mexico which makes it of serious im­portance to the United States, but its trade, and the unlimited possibilities of its greater development under a stable Government. Properly governed, Mexi­can commerce with its nearest neighbor, the United States, would be of incalcu­lable value not only to the Mexicans themselves, but to America. The fertile areas, the valuable mines, and the un­limited resources of Mexico would, if properly developed under a competent and orderly Government, add prodi­giously to the riches and the foreign trade of the United States. The config­uration of Mexico in reference to the United States makes it certain that Mex­ico and the United States are destined to some closer commercial association and some defensive alliance. Had the moun­tain chains of North America run east and west instead of north and south, the future history of the countries, now un­der separate and distinct governments, would be very different from what it is destined to be. The configuration of the territory of a nation with reference to that of bordering nations is a most im­portant factor in both its economic and its political development. We have only to glance at the histories of Greece and Italy to be convinced of the truth of this statement.

The history of Mexico since its escape from Spanish domination in 1821 shows a lamentable defect in the capacity of Mexicans for self-government. Since its virtual independence of Spain, with the exception of the regime of Porfirio Diaz from 1884 to 1911, the history of Mexico is a tale of almost continuous warfare, in which Maximilian's empire is a mere episode. During all this long period life and property have been insecure, and the misgovernment such as no neighboring power of the first rank other than the United States would have suffered to endure so long in any country contigu­ous to it. Instead of receiving commen­dation for its toleration of Mexico's mis­government, the Government of the United States has been censured by all the older political communities of Eu­rope. That the Washington Govern­ment is largely responsible for the dis­order of Mexico is believed in Europe. The Monroe Doctrine prevents any for­eign nation taking the place of Spain in Mexico, and it morally obligates the United States to do that which it will not permit any foreign Government to do. Unless something is soon done by-America to set the Mexican house in or­der, it is reasonably sure that some sort of foreign intervention will be suggested at no distant time after the general peace. European activities in this hem­isphere will not subside with the general peace. They can be regulated only by the prompt action of America in the in­terest of tranquillity in Mexico.

It is within the power of the Washing­ton Government to bring about a better state of things in Mexico. Nor need the exercise of this power imperil the inde­pendence of Mexico. This would be de­plored in America. The hegemony of the United States in North America can, if desired, be asserted as effectually in Mexico as in Cuba, and with as favorable results. It is the conviction of any real necessity for action which has been lack­ing at Washington, and it is the want of conviction which is receiving the censure of the rest of the world. The Govern­ment at Washington is constituted for the purpose of promoting the safety and the highest development of the United States. The Government cannot always wait for popular mandates concerning every detail of its foreign policies. The people expect their Government to gov­ern and they have a right to expect that it will govern well. As yet the great mass of Americans have not seen fit to intrude their opinions on the Mexican question; but this state of things is un­likely to last.

Ignoring the defects of the Spanish administration of three centuries, it must be conceded that the great and in­teresting cities of Mexico were founded under Spanish rule. The admirable ar­chitecture of Mexico, which bids fair to be influential in the future of Califor­nia from San Diego to San Francisco, is also due to Spain. Any permanent ex­cellence in the laws of Mexico is derived from Spain.

It has been lately remarked in an in­fluential American journal that the population of Mexico, like that of other countries, is composed of three classes, "upper, middle, and low" ("Tragic Story of Martyred Mexico"). Under Spain the upper class of Mexicans was perhaps more highly refined than that of any other part of North America. He who would have a correct idea of high society in Mexico a century since must turn to the pages of Mine. Calderon de la Barca, the wife of the first Spanish minister accredited to Mexico after its independence ("Life in Mexico"). It is a document of no little value, published at the instance of the historian Prescott. At the present day the general refine­ment of the upper class of Mexico re­mains quite equal to that of the more in­telligent classes of the United States. This fact Americans are apt to ignore. Few Americans who adventure into Mex­ico come to know the inner life of the Mexicans.

It is the orderly upper class of Mexico who would most welcome the security which the United States is alone able to afford to Mexico. That the life of the lower classes of Mexicans, the Indians and the mestizos, could be ameliorated by the friendly and proper intervention of the United States there can be no question. That the present state of things in Mexico will be allowed by America to continue indefinitely it is counter to the course of history to sup­pose. It is the duty of the Government of the United States to undertake the pacification and reorganization of Mex­ico very soon after the general peace, and to see to it that there is set up in that unfortunate and superlatively beautiful country, close to the United States, a Government worthy of its potentialities. It is only in this way that the United States can fulfil on this continent its natural responsibilities and its high des­tiny. When it is the national will that peace and security shall be brought about in Mexico by Washington, it can be ac­complished with no impairment of Mexi­can independence. This the history of American intervention in Cuba dem­onstrates. That intelligent Americans would deplore the loss of independence by Mexico is certain. Only a few Amer­ican adventurers desire its annexation by the United States. The intelligent classes of America recognize clearly the natural limitations imposed by their form of government, and it is the intel­ligent classes of all countries who in the end frame its policies. The continua­tion of an independent, but a more or­derly and safer, Mexico is the only wish of the people of the United States at the present time.

Under the auspices of a patriotic and eminent American, Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, a brief, but powerful, picture of the degraded political conditions long prevailing in Mexico has very lately been given to the world. The sketch of the revolutionary governments since the expulsion of Spain is concise and ac­curate. The rapine, the murderous con­duct, and the general disorder and insecurity of the Mexico of a century past are there given with substantial ac­curacy and without exaggeration. It makes a sorry picture.

Constant revolutions in Mexico mean that there can be no stability either in public or private affairs. The insecu­rity of the property of American nation­als in Mexico the American Government has the power to ignore; but no great Government can persistently neglect such interests without condemnation in the end. Action will follow the more spirited condemnation that must soon exhibit itself after the general peace. In view of the established foreign policy of America, formulated in the Monroe Doctrine, it is not safe for America to continue to ignore the Mexican depreda­tions committed against foreign subjects and citizens. America must either act in Mexico or allow other nations to in­tervene. There is no third choice left to her. That America will patiently suffer foreign intervention in Mexico would be counter to her history. Therefore it is reasonably certain that the Mexican problem will be taken up by Washing­ton soon after the next general peace.

The inconvenience suffered by Amer­ican citizens, the perils of their com­mercial intercourse, the jeopardy of American and foreign capital invested in Mexico, make it unwise and impolitic for the Washington Government to con­tinue a policy of inaction and indiffer­ence to Mexico. It would seem almost unbelievable that for years past no re­turn transportation can be purchased between the commercial capitals of America and Mexico. There is at a time of peace between the United States and Mexico no certainty that an American landed at Vera Cruz or Laredo will be allowed to reach Mexico City or to return from there. What other Government besides the American would so patiently endure such a condition of things for so long a period?

Now that ententes between America and other powers are in order, it would seem that a better entente between Mex­ico and the United States, the most de­sirable of all ententes for America, will not be much longer delayed. The con­struction of the Panama Canal makes it expedient and even imperative for the safety of the rapidly increasing popula­tion and wealth of the United States that the future joint foreign policy of the United States and Mexico should be defi­nitive and uniform. The protection of the Panama Canal against foreign ag­gression makes it equally imperative that America should come to a speedy understanding whereby American troops and munitions may be forwarded by land routes to Panama. Only in this way can American liberty be effectually safe­guarded against the inevitable foreign aggressions which time in the ordinary course of events will surely develop. After the episode of Maximilian, Ameri­cans have no further justification for believing that never again will Mexico be the subject of foreign attempts at her regeneration or even her domination. All history is one long record of more repetitions whenever similar conditions again develop.