CARRANZA’S FOREIGN POLICY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL SPIRIT
From the beginning of the Constitutionalist revolution the attitude
of Carranza as the first Chief toward the Foreign Powers, was very
bitterly criticised. His uncompromising stand as regards the European
nations was corroborated by interviews given out to the press.
Several reasons can be given for Carranza’s conduct as well as for
the criticisms. The first one is that Foreign Cabinets, Ministers and
Consuls have been so used to the servile, cowardly and undignified
behavior of Diaz and his Ministers toward Foreign Representatives that
the proud, independent behavior of Carranza and his Ministers was a
shock to European courts.
The foreign policy of the Great Powers towards small and weak nations,
with the exception of the United States, has been as a rule, that of
polite bullies and buccaneers. Great nations committed political acts,
which private individuals would not dare perpetrate. If the average
standard of the individual has been raised, that of the nations in
their international policy, has advanced very little from the times of
the cave dwellers.
Mexico being weak and torn by civil war since the inception of
her independence, has always suffered as much, if not more, from
foreigners, than from her own enemies. The French in the thirties and
sixties, the Americans in the forties, the Spaniards intermittently,
have brought trouble to Mexico. The Mexicans are always suspicious of
the international policy of the European powers.
When Huerta committed murder in the persons of the President and
Vice-President of Mexico, France, England, Germany and Spain rushed
to recognize him, so anxious were they to get in at the trough of
concessions. It was this conscienceless, greedy, sordid behavior which
disgusted Carranza in particular, and Mexicans in general. No action
in the history of the United States has created more sympathy for the
feared Yankees in Mexico and South America, than the refusal of the
recognition of Huerta on moral grounds. Carranza’s refusal to give an
account or to allow Villa to permit an investigation into the murders
of Benton and Bauche, was correct from an international standpoint.
England, who had so hastily recognized the murderer of a Mexican
President and Vice-President, became very indignant at the murder of a
naturalized Britisher who got into trouble through his own fault, and
expected the United States to demand satisfaction for it. Carranza, as
the first Chief, insisted that England should protest to him, as the
representative of the revolution, not to Villa or the United States.
The attitude of England, France, Germany and Spain towards Mexico, was
very arrogant and insulting; their protests to the United States were
quite expressive of their anxiety to have the United States intervene
and police Mexico in the same manner as had been done in Cuba.
The European powers were quite too busy watching their own frontiers to
embark on a foolish expedition like the threatened march and occupation
of Mexico City by the allied powers. The American papers came out time
after time announcing the landing of European marines in Mexico, in
case that the United States should not deem it expedient to protect
their interests. Any one familiar with European politics could have
guessed that the alarmist’s warning came either from the innermost
circles of the American military clique which had been itching for
intervention for the last four years, or from foreign chancellorships
who wanted to frighten the United States into a war with Mexico.
The European powers foreboded a general conflagration at the end of
1914. Some of them felt that the northern republic should do their
police work in Mexico while they would be busy fighting for their own
existence in Europe; others more charitably inclined, hoped that the
United States might easily get into a wasps’ nest, by intervening in
Mexico,--especially as Japan stood on the other side of the Pacific,
as a warning of the brown peril, and as a sympathetic, though selfish
supporter of Mexican integrity. In spite of contrary assertions,
Mexican statesmen and level-headed thinkers dread an American invasion
into their country; be it for the purpose of conquest or an unselfish
police-work.
A military offensive or defensive alliance with Japan is much more
dreaded by the Mexicans than an American intervention. The American
Colossus, as the United States is called, does not represent the
brutal, military, imperialistic methods of the Japanese, but a danger
of elimination by military conquest or absorption by political,
commercial, and financial attrition and suction.
All the Mexican politicians, writers and statesmen fear American
meddling in their internal affairs, and although their admiration for
the United States and its greatness is unbounded, nevertheless, their
patriotism is still greater than their neighborly love. The whole
spirit of South America, south of the Rio Grande, is not Spanish nor
Indian--the spirit is essentially latin and gallic. The mental attitude
of the Zapotec Indian Juarez was neither Iberian nor Aztec, but
essentially of the roman type of the republic.
The intellectual radicalism of the liberals, Gomez Farias, Melchior
Ocampo, Leandro del Valle, was of the same pattern as that of the
French revolutionary Jacobins--the clearest, most advanced and
progressive ideas in politics have been absorbed from Gallic and Latin
sources. The French revolution, the Napoleonic epos, are the text
books of the liberals and the ambitious politicians. Roman and French
history was admired and unconsciously imitated. The one for the civic
virtues, courage and greatness of its citizens,--the other for the
daring, patriotism and intellectual clearness of its most prominent men.
Spanish history and philosophy is a closed book to Mexican
thinkers--for Spanish thought was always in the rear guard of
intellectual Europe. The Spanish spirit is found in reactionary types,
like Lucas Alaman,--the Don Quixotic characteristic in a Lopez de
Santa Ana,--the Castilian cruelty in a Miguel Marquez. As a Mexican
writer once said: “Spain has brought us only priests, money-lenders,
bull-fighters and dancers.”
Americans were astonished at the outburst of hatred made manifest in
the persecution of Spanish priests in Mexico, and Spaniards in general,
especially in the State of Morelos, by Zapata, and the deportation of
Spaniards in Chihuahua by Villa. They do not know that the Spaniards
have always been on the side of the dictators, the oppressors, never
with the liberators, and that the active co-operation of Spaniards
in politics has outlawed them. After the assassination of Madero and
Suarez, the Spaniards in Vera Cruz gave a banquet in honor of the
tragedy. The Mexicans are not likely to forget this incident. The
Mexicans of the middle class and the Indians despise the Spaniards. On
the other hand, they do not dislike the Americans, but they dread the
proximity of the Colossus, and the constant threats of American armed
invasion.
The American public was shocked by the reported cruelties of the
revolutionists in Durango, and other captured cities. Many reports
were exaggerated, but the Durango stories were utterly false. Several
Americans who came to New York after the capture of Durango declared
that they had witnessed the entry of the Constitutionalist soldiers,
and their behavior in Durango, and could vouch for the inaccuracy of
the news--not only in the general outline, but in all its details.
The American public, as well as the editors in the American press, did
not suspect then that Huerta had press agents in New York, who made
it a point of disseminating false reports about the revolutionists,
so as to discredit the movement and pave the way for recognition
of Huerta. Governor Hunt, of Arizona, wrote a letter to the first
Chief, protesting against the alleged cruelties. Venustiano Carranza
answered, and the following letter is quoted as a fair example of the
attitude of the Chief and the Mexican revolutionists on the question of
retaliations and shooting of prisoners.
HERMOSILLO, November 27th, 1913.
GOVERNOR GEORGE W. P. HUNT,
Phoenix, Arizona.
_Esteemed Sir and Friend_:
I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of your interesting letter of
the 17th inst., written on account of the occupation of Ciudad Juarez
by the Constitutional forces under the immediate command of General
Francisco Villa,--and to manifest to you my gratitude for the kind
phrases which you express in same, regarding myself.
Recognizing with pleasure in the spirit of frank friendship which
animated your letter, the personal sympathy of yourself and of the
people of the United States for the struggle of civilization and
justice, which we are sustaining, I can only lament that a not
entirely perfect knowledge of the peculiar conditions of the Mexican
problems may be propitious in certain cases (and in spite of that
excellent disposition) to a bad intelligence of some of our acts.
This is probably due to the fact that the criminal acts with which
the struggle was initiated, and the cruel proceedings employed to
sustain it, have been forgotten. When Mexico had realized the highest
democratic prerogative to elect its mandataries, and we had the right
to expect in the midst of peace and tranquillity, the periodical
renovation of the public powers, for the expression of the national
will only, the most corrupt balance of the conquered classes have
tried to destroy our political institutions for all time and by
violence or force only have they disposed of the life, the rights and
interests of our countrymen. They have perpetrated bloody executions
without subjection to any law; they assassinate the Constitutionalists
who fall wounded, battling with arms for the liberty of the
people,--and deputies and senators who defend our democratic
institutions by word, they drag peaceful men and even children from
their homes, obliging them to take up arms against us, and instil
terror throughout, burning entire towns. It has been crimes of this
nature which have made the cause that I represent, constitute not only
a corrective political revolution but also that it should have the
character of an act of peace, and severe justice which will chastise
the guilty, and provide for the salvation of the Mexican family.
To fill these purposes, within the spirit of our Constitution, without
any sentiment of passion, but meditating with reflection up to what
point clemency and magnanimity can arrive, before an imperious duty
of justice and the high necessity of assuring peace and the future of
the nation, I have determined that the law of Juarez of January 25th,
1862, which defines and chastises crimes against the public peace,
shall be put into force.
With strict subjection to that pre-existent law, the Huerta officials
were tried and executed, among whom were some who had been apprehended
in Torreon by the same General Villa who, in addition to pardoning
them, then acceded to the fact that they should become incorporated
in our forces, in which they tried later, but in vain, to make the
men whose command was entrusted to them, desert--they finally running
away, in order to relapse into their crimes.
It is true that the principles established in international wars agree
to give pardon and immunity to the prisoners, but in civil struggles
the most civilized nations in all epochs have employed proceedings
still more rigorous and bloody than those which we have been obliged
to adopt. In the case of executions of officials in Ciudad Juarez, the
chastisement according to the law, of delinquents against peace and
public security must be viewed, as a just punishment, rather than a
cruelty to prisoners of war.
The Mexican people, exhausted in the first phase of this civil war,
headed by Francisco I. Madero, all their clemency and all their
pardon, experiencing as only fruits of this magnanimity, tyranny in
the interior and the loss of prestige in the exterior. To-day it
wishes to assure the operation of its institutions and re-establish
peace for all time, by means of a definite and official guarantee of a
national organism.
The events of Ciudad Juarez have been very far from revesting
the individual importance which the intemperance of our enemies
have wished to give it, in the same manner as was calumnious the
statement published by them, that in Durango more than forty women
and young girls committed suicide, for fear of the excesses of the
Constitutionalists, as I could personally verify that in Durango, as
in all parts, our forces have been disciplined and respectable, giving
guarantees to the towns which have fallen into their power.
Before concluding, it gives me great satisfaction to advise you that
I am animated by the same sentiments of humanity that you possess,
and that if I have placed the law of Juarez in force, in respect to
an exigency of national sentiment, of justice, of public convenience,
and the necessity of bringing peace to my country,--I have at the same
time tried to have this law applied to unscrupulous enemies within the
limits of the most absolute necessity, always authorizing pardon and
immunity to the unconscious ones.
I hope the preceding declarations will be sufficient to establish
the attitude of the well understood justice and humanity of the
Constitutionalists, in order not to detract the personal sympathy and
favorable opinion of the North American people from our cause, and you
may be sure that I shall take into consideration your noble ideas, in
order to recommend greater clemency toward our enemies, always within
the respect of the law.
Assuring you of my highest estimation and respect, and asking that you
will consider me an affectionate and sincere friend, I remain,
(Signed)
V. CARRANZA.
It would be too much to have asked of the revolutionists to pardon
and release the federal officers captured by them. The experiment was
tried, and every time they repeated their treacheries, cruelties and
infamies. They were trained in the school of Diaz and Huerta--with
few exceptions they were men without conscience, honor or patriotism.
They represented militarism in its lowest, most despicable and sordid
form. A federal officer who had been fighting in Morelos against Zapata
was interviewed on his arrival in New York. He asserted candidly that
the only manner to eradicate the land problem in Morelos consisted
in killing the whole male population of the State and that any other
solution was Utopian.
When the American marines landed in Vera Cruz, the news caused a
sensation in Mexico. A gentleman who was present at the headquarters of
Carranza describes the excitement of all the Mexican civilians as well
as the soldiers in the camp. Without a doubt it was the most critical
moment of the revolution; everybody was discussing the news and the
agitation was intense. The only calm and cool person was Carranza; he
was sitting immobile and silent, looking straight ahead, without seeing
anybody or paying attention to the noise, bustle, gesticulations and
the shouts of the people.
He was thinking very hard and the only gesture which gave a clue to
his agitation was a slow movement of the hand, stroking his beard in a
mechanical fashion. When the Carranza protest was published there was
like an universal sigh of relief after a tense situation.
The Mexicans felt that Carranza had embodied in his protest their
outraged sense of national dignity and pride.
The protest was a safety valve which prevented a dangerous national
explosion. Huerta, who had cunningly contrived to bring about American
intervention, worked feverishly to use this patriotic wave, and to
attract it under his guidance in a foreign war, which would save him
and his army from annihilation.
In the United States many persons were disgusted at what they called
the ingratitude of Carranza. They forgot to enquire if Carranza had
asked for intervention, and that an unbidden gift is an unwelcome
gift. They should have demanded the thanks of Huerta instead.
Subsequent events have proven the assertion of Mexican observers that
the occupation of Vera Cruz by the Americans, instead of helping the
revolution, assisted in keeping Huerta several months longer in power.
Vera Cruz could easily have been captured by the revolutionists, and
Huerta would have hastened to flee by the way of Puerto Mexico. The
occupation of Vera Cruz by the Americans prevented the revolutionists
from attacking the railroad connecting Mexico City with Puerto
Mexico,--as Vera Cruz had to be used as a base. If the occupation of
Vera Cruz was achieved to prevent the cargo of war material of the
Ypiranga from reaching Huerta, then it failed in the purpose. It did
not accelerate the resignation of the dictator, nor did it calm the
Mexican troubled waters.
If, as it is claimed, the occupation of Vera Cruz was the climax or
punishment for a series of insults to Americans, and the upholding of
national honor, would it not have been more in keeping with military
traditions to capture or sink Mexican gunboats in the Atlantic and
Pacific without attempting to land marines in any port, and to blockade
both coasts of Mexico?
The A B C Peace Commission would have arrived at Niagara Falls by the
same road and achieved the same results. The meddling in Mexico would
not have cost the American tax payers five million dollars. The most
charitable description of the incident is that it was a hasty and
costly blunder of the Navy Department.
Let us put ourselves in the place of the Mexicans themselves. The
touchiness of their national pride and their dignity is well known, as
well as that their patriotism and love of country is as great as that
of the greatest nation. Why criticise a characteristic of a weak nation
which is considered a virtue in a strong one?
Consider for instance the question as applied to the United States.
If during the Civil War British marines had landed and occupied New
Orleans for some reason or other, what would have happened? Would the
northerners have protested against British intervention, or acclaimed
it? Would not the northerners as well as the southerners have fought
British occupation?
If it is a question of the Monroe Doctrine, we beg to differ--the
Monroe Doctrine, to reach its highest value as a political tenet,
should work both ways,--in the interests of the United States as well
as Central and South America. If the Monroe Doctrine is expedient,
in the case of the United States, it should be acceptable to Latin
America. Latin America rebels against a one-sided view of the Monroe
Doctrine.
When Villa gave out his interview on the occupation of Vera Cruz,
he was evidently inspired by his American adviser and Mephisto. He
was giving out the American side of the question,--not the Mexican.
Unconsciously Villa acted as Porfirio Diaz or any other Cientificos
would have done, if they had been in his place. Carranza represents the
Mexican people, although Carranza has never been anything but a friend
and admirer of the United States. It must be considered that no true
friendship can exist without self-respect on Mexico’s side and mutual
respect on both sides.
The occupation of Vera Cruz has been a source of irritation for the
Mexican and American, and a constant element of danger. It was a
mistake which turned into a costly blunder.