United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution
Aftermath of Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916
Date | 1910–1919 |
---|---|
Location |
United States Supported by:
- United Kingdom (1916–1918)
- France (1916–1918)
John J. Pershing
Frank Friday Fletcher
The United States involvement in the
During Díaz's long rule, he implemented policies aimed at modernization and economic development, inviting foreign entrepreneurs to invest in Mexico. The regime passed laws favorable to investors. American business interests invested large amounts of capital, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border, during the decades of Díaz's rule. There was close economic cooperation between the two governments, which was predicated on Diaz's cooperation with US investors. In 1908 Díaz stated he would not run for re-election in 1910; the statement gave rise to politicking of potential candidates. Díaz reversed himself, ran for re-election, and jailed the leading opposition candidate, Francisco I. Madero. Madero escaped Mexico and took refuge in San Antonio, Texas, and called for nullification of the 1910 elections, declared himself as provisional president, and asked for support from the Mexican people. His Plan of San Luis Potosí sparked revolutionary uprisings, particularly in Mexico's north. The U.S. stayed out of the unfolding events until March 6, 1911, when President William Howard Taft mobilized forces on the U.S.-Mexico border. "In effect this was an intervention in Mexican politics, and to Mexicans it meant the United States had condemned Díaz."[6]
After Díaz was forced to resign in 1911 and
Under President Wilson, the United States sent troops to occupy Veracruz, with the dispute defused through a peace conference in Canada. Anti-Huerta forces in the north under Venustiano Carranza and in the south under Emiliano Zapata forced the resignation of Huerta in July 1914. A civil war between Carranza and Zapata broke out in 1915, with the U.S. recognizing Carranza's Constitutionalist faction. The US supplied arms to Carranza's army. Pancho Villa was at first supported by Washington, but he was defeated and lost most of his support. He was angered by the U.S. switch to recognition of his rival. To draw the US into Mexico he attacked the border village of Columbus, New Mexico, killing US citizens in 1916. The U.S. Army under Gen. John J. Pershing pursued him in a punitive mission, known as the Pancho Villa Expedition, but failed to capture him. Carranza demanded the U.S. to withdraw across the border.
Diplomatic relations in the Díaz era
Díaz opened Mexico to foreign investment of Britain, France, Germany, and most especially the United States. Mexico–United States relations during Díaz's presidency were generally strong, although he began to strengthen ties with Great Britain, Germany, and France to offset U.S. power and influence.[7] Mexico was extremely important to U.S. business interests and Taft saw Díaz as key to protecting those investments. Taft met Díaz in person on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1909, an historic event in itself since it was the first trip of a sitting U.S. president to Mexico. It was a way for the U.S. to signal its continuing support of Díaz, despite his advancing age. Taft said: "we have two billions American capital in Mexico that will be greatly endangered if Díaz were to die and his government go to pieces."[8]
Despite the importance of Mexico to U.S. business interests, the U.S. had "a history of incompetent diplomatic representation." According to one scholar, the Taft administration's appointment of Henry Lane Wilson as ambassador "continued the tradition of incompetence."[8]
During the presidency of Porfirio Díaz, documents from the U.S. Consulate in Mexico kept the Secretary of State in Washington, D.C. informed about Mexican affairs. The Secretary of State told President Taft about possible regime change when Díaz was unable to control rebellions in various areas of Mexico. Taft wanted to keep the Díaz government in power to prevent problems with US access to Mexican resources, especially oil.
The U.S. and President Madero, 1911–1913
President Taft's Ambassador to Mexico Henry Lane Wilson was a key player in the overthrow of the President of Mexico, Francisco I. Madero. From the start of Madero's presidency, Ambassador Wilson was opposed to Madero and actively sought U.S. intervention in Mexico. Wilson controlled information and disinformation that he sent to the U.S. Department of State, so that the government did not have a clear understanding of the situation. Wilson stirred up trouble in the capital by feeding disinformation to local newspapers, and then when Madero reacted by censoring them, they played the victim of an unreasonable president. Madero came to office by a free and fair election after revolutionary forces made then President Porfirio Díaz's position untenable. A treaty was signed between rebels and representatives of Díaz in May 1911. Its provisions were that Díaz resign and go into exile, an interim government installed, and new elections called for November 1911. Madero acted against advice of his rebel supporters and dissolved their forces. He retained the Federal Army, which had just been defeated.[citation needed]
Madero was only in office a month when General Bernardo Reyes, a close advisor to President Díaz but then dropped from patronage, rebelled. Reyes had been across the U.S. border in Texas, came to Mexico calling on the people to rise against Madero. His rebellion was a complete failure. Madero had just been elected with a huge popular vote. For the moment the U.S. was optimistic that Madero's regime should be supported. Reyes bowed to the evidence that his rebellion was a failure and was arrested and imprisoned.[9]
Once office, Madero did not fulfill promises of his Plan of San Luis Potosí concerning land reform, resulting in a peasant rebellion in Morelos led by Emiliano Zapata, a former rebel supporter. For the U.S., this rebellion had little importance, since there were not U.S. investments there, but Madero's seeming inability to put down the rebellion cast doubt on his leadership.
A serious insurrection against Madero was led by Pascual Orozco, who had helped achieve victory for rebels in the north. Orozco was disappointed that he was marginalized once Madero was installed in the presidency and did not move on land reform. He rebelled in the north and posed a greater challenge to Madero. His rebellion was financed by large U.S. businesses as well as Mexicans seeking to destabilized Madero's regime, but the U.S. government seems to have aided or impeded Orozco's uprising.[clarification needed] It was suppressed by the Mexican Federal [10]
General
Madero was perceived unable to achieve order and stability that the U.S. government and businesses required. Wilson made it clear that he wanted Madero replaced and a candidate more amendable to the U.S. installed in the presidency. General Bernardo Reyes also sought regime change. Both men were imprisoned by Madero, but not executed and went on to lead a coup d'etat with support of the U.S. Ambassador. Given activist U.S. interventions in Latin American internal affairs for decades, it was not out of the question that the U.S. would intervene in Mexico in this unsettled period. When that did not happen, the ambassador played a decisive role in undermining the Mexican public's and international diplomatic corps' as well as business interests' perception of the Madero's regime's ability to keep order. From January 1913, a coup against Madero seemed inevitable, supported by the U.S. The plot by Díaz and Reyes against Madero was sprung in February 1913 in a coup d'état during a period now known as the Ten Tragic Days (la decena trágica). which overthrew Madero. Wilson brought Félix Díaz and the head of the Mexican Federal Army, General Victoriano Huerta, who had ostensibly been a defender of the president but now in opposition to him. A signed agreement signed on 19 February, the Pact of the Embassy, laid out a power-sharing agreement between the two Mexican generals, with the explicit support of the U.S. ambassador. U.S. President William Howard Taft, who had appointed Wilson in 1909 as ambassador to Mexico, was a lame duck president, having lost the election to Woodrow Wilson. The new president would be inaugurated on March 4, 1913. In the final days of his presidency, President Madero, at long last and too late realized the tenuousness of his hold on power. He appealed to President-elect Wilson to intervene on his behalf, but to no avail, since Wilson was not yet in office. Ambassador Wilson had secured the support of the foreign diplomatic corps in Mexico, especially the British, German, and French envoys, for the coup and lobbied for U.S. recognition of the new head of state, General Huerta.
U.S. and the Huerta regime, 1913–1914
Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated president in March 1913, but the coup d'état in Mexico was an established fact, with the democratically elected president Madero murdered and his family in exile. President Wilson did not recognize the Huerta as the legitimate head of the Mexican government, and from March to October 1913, Wilson pressured Huerta to resign. Wilson urged the European powers to refrain from recognizing Huerta's government. Huerta announced elections with himself as a candidate. In August 1913, Wilson imposed an arms embargo on Huerta's regime, reversing his previous easy access to arms. In late August Huerta withdrew his name from consideration as a presidential candidate, and his foreign minister Federico Gamboa stood for election. The U.S. was enthusiastic about Gamboa's candidacy and supported the new regime, but not Huerta himself. The U.S. pressured revolutionary opponents, including the newly emerged anti-Huerta leader Venustiano Carranza, to sign on to support a potential new Gamboa government. Carranza refused.[13]
A series of rebellions broke out in Mexico against Huerta's regime, especially in the North (Sonora, Chihuahua, and Coahuila), where the U.S. allowed arms sales to the revolutionaries. Fighting continued in Morelos under Emiliano Zapata, but the conflict there was a regional one with no U.S. involvement. Unlike the brief rebellions that helped bring Madero to power in 1910–1911, Mexico descended into civil war, with the U.S. backing revolutionary factions in the north. The involvement of the U.S. in larger conflicts with its diplomatic and economic rivals in Mexico, particularly Great Britain and Germany, meant that foreign powers affected the way the Mexican situation played out, even if they did not intervene militarily.[7]
When U.S. agents discovered that the German merchant ship, the Ypiranga, was carrying arms to Huerta's regime, President Wilson ordered troops to the port of Veracruz to stop the ship from docking. The U.S. did not declare war on Mexico but the U.S. troops carried out a skirmish against Huerta's forces in Veracruz. The Ypiranga managed to dock at another port, which infuriated Wilson.
On April 9, 1914, Mexican officials in the port of
U.S. and the warring revolutionary factions, 1914-1915
With the resignation and exile of Huerta, the revolutionary factions had no common enemy. The initially sought to work out a post-Huerta agreement, but it devolved into a civil war of the winners. The U.S. continued to seek influence over the outcome of events in Mexico, but it was unclear how it would do so.
1916–1917
An increasing number of border incidents early in 1916 culminated in an
Germany was a rival of the U.S. for influence in Mexico. As World War I raged in Europe, Germany was concerned that the U.S. would enter on the side of the British and French. Germany sought to tie down U.S. troops by fomenting war between the U.S. and Mexico. Germany sent a telegram in code outlining a plan to aid Mexico in such a conflict and Mexico's reward would be to regain land lost to the U.S. in the
The Constitutionalists who had won power in 1915-16 drafted a new
1918–1919
Minor clashes with Mexican irregulars, as well as Mexican Federales, continued to disturb the U.S.-Mexican border from 1917 to 1919. Although the Zimmermann Telegram affair of January 1917 did not lead to a direct U.S. intervention, it took place against the backdrop of the Constitutional Convention and exacerbated tensions between the USA and Mexico. Military engagements took place near Buenavista, Sonora, on 1 December 1917; in San Bernardino Canyon, Chihuahua, on 26 December 1917; near La Grulla, Texas, on 9 January 1918; at Pilares, Mexico, about 28 March 1918; at the town of Nogales on the Sonora–Arizona border on 27 August 1918; and near El Paso, Texas, on 16 June 1919.
Foreign mercenaries in Mexico
Many adventurers, ideologues and
Later, during the revolt against the coup d'état of Victoriano Huerta, many of the same foreigners and others were recruited and enlisted by Pancho Villa and his División del Norte. Villa recruited Americans, Canadians and other foreigners of all ranks from simple infantrymen on up, but the most highly prized and best paid were machine gun experts such as Sam Dreben, artillery experts such as Ivor Thord-Gray, and doctors for Villa's celebrated Servicio sanitario medic and mobile hospital corps. There is little doubt that Villa's Mexican equivalent of the French Foreign Legion (known as the "Legion of Honor") was an important factor in Villa's successes against Huerta's Federal Army.
U.S. military decorations
The U.S. military awarded the Mexican Service Medal to its troops for service in Mexico. The streamer is yellow with a blue center stripe and a narrow green stripe on each edge. The green and yellow recalls the Aztec standard carried at the Battle of Otumba in 1520, which carried a gold sun surrounded by the green plumes of the quetzal. The blue color alludes to the United States Army and refers to the Rio Grande separating Mexico from the United States.[citation needed]
See also
Gallery
-
Mexico's fruitless pursuit of progress, where "lots of energy [is] expended but [there is]…no discernible forward progress."[15] It suggests that until Mexico willingly forgoes violence (the pistol) and anarchy (the torch), they will remain stagnant. (San Francisco Examiner 1913)
-
The United States are ever watchful over the presumed chaos in Mexico[16] (Chicago Tribune 1913)
References
- ^ Friedrich Katz, The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1981, p. 563.
- ^ "US Involvement in the Mexican Revolution".
- ^ "Foreign affairs - William Howard Taft - policy, war, domestic".
- ^ a b "American President: William Howard Taft: Foreign Affairs". Archived from the original on 2015-05-26. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
- ^ Knight, Alan. "The U.S. and the Mexican Peasantry, c. 1880–1940" in Daniel Nugent, ed. Rural Revolt in Mexico and U.S. Intervention. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego 1988, p. 31.
- ^ Womack, John. "The Mexican Revolution" in Mexico Since Independence, ed. Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991, p. 131.
- ^ a b Katz, The Secret War in Mexico.
- ^ a b Schoultz, Beneath the United States, p. 238.
- ^ Katz, Friedrich, The Secret War in Mexico, 44-45
- ^ Katz, The Secret War, 45.
- ^ quoted in Katz, The Secret War in Mexico, 49
- ^ quoted in Katz, The Secret War in Mexico, 49.
- ^ Katz, The Secret War in Mexico, pp. 167-69.
- ^ "Mexican Revolution: Occupation of Veracruz". Archived from the original on 2011-09-27. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
- ^ Anderson, Mark. C. "What's to Be Done With 'Em? Images of Mexican Cultural Backwardness, Racial Limitations and Moral Decrepitude in the United States Press 1913–1915", Mexican Studies, Winter Vol. 14, No. 1 (1998):30-31.
- ^ Anderson, Mark. C. "What's to Be Done With 'Em? Images of Mexican Cultural Backwardness, Racial Limitations and Moral Decrepitude in the United States Press 1913–1915", Mexican Studies, Winter Vol. 14, No. 1 (1998):40-41.
Further reading
- Anderson, Mark. C. “What’s to Be Done With ‘Em? Images of Mexican Cultural Backwardness, Racial Limitations and Moral Decrepitude in the United States Press 1913–1915”, Mexican Studies, Winter Vol. 14, No. 1 (1998): 23-70.
- Blaisdell, Lowell L. “Henry Lane Wilson and the Overthrow of Madero.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 43#2 (1962), pp. 126–35, online
- Boghardt, Thomas. The Zimmermann telegram: intelligence, diplomacy, and America's entry into World War I (Naval Institute Press, 2012).
- Britton, John. A. Revolution and Ideology: Images of the Mexican Revolution in the United States. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky (1995)
- Coerver, Don M., and Linda Biesele Hall. Texas and the Mexican Revolution: a study in state and national border policy, 1910-1920 (Trinity University Press, 1984).
- Hall, Linda B., and Don M. Coerver. "Woodrow Wilson, Public Opinion, and the Punitive Expedition: A Re-Assessment." New Mexico Historical Review 72.2 (1997): 4+ online.
- Hall, Linda B., and Don M. Coerver. "Oil and the Mexican Revolution: The Southwestern Connection." The Americas 41.2 (1984): 229-244.
- Hall, Linda B., and Don M. Coerver. Revolution on the Border: The United States and Mexico, 1910-1920 (U of New Mexico Press, 1988).
- Hart, John Mason. Empire and Revolution: The Americans in Mexico Since the Civil War. Berkeley: University of California Press 2002.
- Katz, Friedrich. The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1981. online
- Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution. (2 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.
- Link, Arthur S. Woodrow Wilson and the progressive era, 1910-1917 (1954) pp 107–144 online
- Nugent, Daniel, ed. Rural Revolt in Mexico and U.S. Intervention. LaJolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego 1988.
- Quirk, Robert E. An affair of honor : Woodrow Wilson and the occupation of Veracruz (1967) online
- Schmitt, Karl M. Mexico and the United States, 1821-1973: Conflict and coexistence (John Wiley & Sons, 1974).
- Womack, John. "The Mexican Revolution" in Mexico Since Independence, ed. Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991.
Primary sources
- Wilson, Henry Lane. “Errors with Reference to Mexico and Events That Have Occurred There.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 54, (1914), pp. 148–61, online.
- Wilson, Henry Lane. “How to Restore Peace in Mexico.” Journal of International Relations 11#2 (1920), pp. 181–89, online.
External links
- Soldiers of Fortune in the Mexican Revolution Archived 2014-01-09 at the Wayback Machine