A Study of Mexico/Chapter X
The relations of the United States to Mexico naturally group themselves under two heads — political and commercial.
The political relations of the United States with Mexico, whether the people or the Government of the former wish it or not, are going to be intimate and complex in the future. The United States is geographically married to Mexico, and there can be no divorce between the parties. Intercommunication between the two countries, which a few years ago was very difficult, is now comparatively easy, and facilities for the same are rapidly increasing. And with the rapid increase of population in the United States, and with increased facilities for travel, the number of people—restless, adventurous, speculative, or otherwise minded—who are certain to cross the borders into Mexico for all purposes, good and bad, is likely to rapidly increase in the future. An extensive strip of territory within the Mexican frontier is already dominated, to a great extent, for the purposes of contraband trade, by a class of men who acknowledge no allegiance to any government, and whom the Mexican authorities tacitly admit they can not restrain, and who seem to find their greatest profit in smuggling, and their greatest enjoyment in cattle-stealing, gambling, and in fights with the Indians or among themselves. And it is undoubtedly from this rough border population, who no more represent Mexico than the cow-boys of Texas and Colorado represent the people of the United States, that much of the denunciation and complaint about Mexico, its courts and its officials, which finds its way into the columns of American newspapers, originates in the first instance.
An opinion also prevails to a considerable extent, that there is a deliberate scheme—in the nature of a gigantic land-speculation—on the part of a not inconsiderable number of not unimportant people, both Americans and Mexicans, and on both sides of the border, to do all in their power to excite animosity and a war feeling in the United States against Mexico, and revolutionary movements and disturbances in the northern States of Mexico against their central Government. These persons represent land ownership in Northern Mexico, where large tracts of Government land, it is understood, have been secured within recent years by Mexican military and political adventurers, and also by Americans, at nearly nominal prices.[1] So long as this land continues to be a part of Mexico, and subject to uncertainties in respect to government, it will command but a very low price, say from ten to fifty cents per acre. But let the southern boundary of the United States be once changed from the Rio Grande to a line from three to four hundred miles farther south, or to the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico, then this cheap Mexican land will undoubtedly rapidly appreciate in price—Texas lands near the border and inferior in quality commanding from two to four dollars per acre—and thus insure immense fortunes to the speculators and adventurers above mentioned. And out of such a condition of things political complications between the two countries, at no distant day, are almost certain to originate.
Again, in asserting the "Monroe doctrine," the United States virtually assumes a protectorate over Mexico. For, whatever else the Monroe doctrine may embody, it unmistakably says to Mexico: "You shall not change your form of government"; "You shall not enter into any European alliances"; "You shall not make cessions of territory, except as we (the United States) shall approve"; and in return "We will not allow any foreign power, ourselves excepted, to bully, invade, or subjugate you." It may be, and is, replied that the necessity of repelling from the outset any attempt at further aggrandizement of any European power on the North American Continent, with its contingent menace to the maintenance of democratic institutions, sufficiently justifies the assertion of the Monroe doctrine, and is for the good of Mexico as well as of the United States. But, at the same time, if there was any other power on the American Continent which should arrogate to itself the right to dictate to or control the United States, as the United States arrogates to itself the right to dictate to or control Mexico, and had sufficiency of power to make its assumptions respectable, could there be any doubt that the people of the Federal Union would regard such pretensions as a justifiable occasion for hostile protest and defiance?
Every right, however, carries with it and involves a duty; and the assertion of the Monroe doctrine by the United States carries with it an obligation of duty in respect to Mexico. What is that duty? Manifestly the duty which the strong owes to the weak. Not an offensive protectorate or meddlesome interference, but a kindly feeling and policy; manifesting itself in acts that will tend to promote the prosperity of our neighbor, and bring her willingly in accord with our own interests and wishes. Has that kindly feeling ever been manifested? To answer this question intelligently, one needs but to get a position outside of ourselves—more especially anywhere among the other people and states of the American Continent, north or south of our boundaries—when a little inquiry will satisfy, that the United States is regarded very much in the light of a great, overgrown, immensely powerful "bully," from whom no favor and scant justice are to be expected under any circumstances; and who would never hesitate, if interest or selfish indifference prompted, to remorselessly trample down—in the old Anglo-Saxon spirit (and as it always has)—any weaker or inferior race, Mexicans, Indians, or Chinese, the poor fishermen of Newfoundland, or again the negro, if political sentiment in respect to the latter was not running for the time being in another direction. And it is safe to say that to-day there is not a nation or people on the face of the globe, which is brought in intimate contact with us, but fears and hates us; and that, apart from a conservation of the principle of free government, which the United States is believed to typify, would not be glad if the power of the Federal Government were by some contingency to be impaired or destroyed. Is it not time, therefore, that some steps should be taken to induce a different and a better state of feeling? But, apart from any moral or ethical view of the situation, an exceptional, kindly treatment of Mexico ought to be a permanent national policy on the part of the United States, for reasons purely of self-interest, apart from any other motives. What Mexico most needs and what she has never had, unless the present Administration be an exception, is a stable, good government. Without such a government the large interests which citizens of the United States are acquiring in Mexico are sure to be imperiled. Some eighty million dollars of American capital are understood to be already represented in Mexican railway-constructions; and other large investments have undoubtedly been made in mining and "ranching" in the country.[2] Now, if history is to repeat itself, and there are to be further domestic revolutions and intestine strife in Mexico, and these American property interests or their owners are, as a consequence, to be arbitrarily or unjustly treated—i. e., in the way of confiscations, or forced contributions—resistance will follow; claims for damages will be created and pressed; national intervention will be sought for, and, in the present temper of the American people, will probably be granted—with a possible sequence of war and annexation. Certainly the last thing which the United States would be likely to tolerate would be political chaos, with involved American interests, across its southern border. If it be said that there is no danger of this, it should be remembered that the present President of Mexico came to his office for the first time in 1876, through successful rebellion against the regularly elected authorities; during which period the "Vera Cruz Railroad" was destroyed at different points by the revolutionists, and all travel throughout the country greatly interrupted and made dangerous; and also that during recent years there have been constantly incipient rebellions against the central authorities.
But good government in Mexico is a matter not easy of attainment There can be no good government in any country without good finance, and the finances of Mexico are always in an embarrassed condition; and this almost necessarily for a variety of reasons. In the first place, as already pointed out, the extreme poverty of the masses, the absence of accumulated wealth, the sluggishness of all societary movements, the practical exemption of land from taxation, and the adoption of a method of taxation that blights the harvest that it is desired to gather, all render the collection of an adequate annual revenue very difficult. Owing to the semi-civilized condition of its people, Mexico is necessarily obliged to support an army nearly double that of the United States (45,323 rank and file in 1883), to maintain anything like a permanent government; and the expenditure which this military establishment entails absorbs more than one third part of the total revenue of the state, as compared with a present direct military expenditure on the part of the United States, of not more than one tenth of its annual receipts.[3]
In a certain sense this large expenditure on the part of Mexico is for the direct benefit of the United States; for, if Mexico did not maintain reasonable peace and order throughout its great territory, the United States, having regard simply to its own peace and interests, would have to do it through military rule, on certainly so much of Mexico as is contiguous to the Federal dominions. There can be no doubt, further, that there is a powerful party in Mexico—the old social leaders, and what considers itself the best society of the country—embracing the Church, the notables, and persons of wealth and ancient lineage allied with Spain—which is not at all in sympathy with the younger and progressive element of the nation, and sullenly opposes the introduction of railroads, and dislikes the United States. And this party would, if it could, dominate the policy of the country in all political and commercial questions. In proof and illustration of this, note the following extract from a recent article in the "Voz de Méjico" ("Voice of Mexico"), an able Catholic daily published in the city of Mexico, against the policy of admitting American capitalists into the republic:
"We combat," it says, "the policy of liberalism, which, greedy of material prosperity, and dazzled by the brilliancy of North American progress, opens freely the doors of our frontier to the capital of our neighbors. We do not oppose material progress, but we rather desire that it should come by natural steps, in proportion as the peace and public guarantees re-establish confidence and encourage the development of the country's own resources. Without foreign capital and without foreign labor, nothing or very little shall we be able to do, but we ought to refrain from calling in our neighbors, whose tendencies toward absorption are well known, in order that they shall decorate luxuriously our house and then install themselves in it definitely, relegating to us the departments of servitude. Prudent patriotism and good sense advise, therefore, that the co-operation of the Americans be dispensed with, although it be at the cost of material progress."
It may also be affirmed with truth that the Mexican people generally dislike the United States and its people more than any other foreign country and people. And why should they not? They never have experienced anything of kindness or favors from the United States; and they do not forget that she has taken from them, unjustly as they think, full half of their original territory.[4] On the other hand, the present Government of Mexico seems to be cultivating and encouraging every effort that may serve to strengthen society against the possibility of any conservative reaction.
Thus, for example, the attitude of the Government toward the various Protestant sects, which are earnestly striving to gain a foothold in Mexico and extend their special theological views among its people, is well illustrated by the following answer which was returned some time since by the Governor of one of the important States of Mexico to a Protestant clergyman, who had made application for military protection for his church against a threatened mob:
"Sir, I willingly give you the desired protection, as it is my duty to see that the laws are respected; and, while I feel no interest whatever in your religious forms or opinions, we are all interested in encouraging the organization of a body of clergy strong enough to keep the old Church in check."
Whether the Catholic Church will accommodate itself to the new order of things, and be content to live peaceably side by side with civil liberty and full religious toleration, or whether, smarting under a sense of injustice at its spoliation, and restless under the heavy hand of an antagonistic government, it waits its opportunity to array itself against the powers that be, is yet to be determined. Ex-Consul Strother, who has already been often quoted as an authority, thus graphically exhibits the respective attitudes of the former and still great ecclesiastical power and its acknowledged antagonist, the Government: "They may be illustrated," he says, "by a glance at the Grand Plaza of the city, across an angle of which the palace of the liberal Government and the old cathedral stand looking askance at each other. On the one hand, at the guard-mounting, the serried lines of bayonets and the rolling drums appear as a daily reiterated menace and warning. On the other, we might naturally expect to hear from the cathedral towers a responsive peal of indignant test and sullen defiance. Yet we remember that it is not the clergy, but the Government, which holds the bell-ropes."
It will not, furthermore, be disputed that under the liberal policy which Juarez adopted after the overthrow of the empire, and which the present President has especially carried out, more has been done for the regeneration and progress of Mexico than in almost all former years. Not only has freedom for religious belief and worship been secured, but a system of common schools has been established; the higher branches of education fostered; brigandage in a great degree suppressed; an extensive railroad and telegraph system constructed; postage reduced and post-office facilities extended; the civil and military law codes revised and reformed; the payment of interest upon the national debt in part renewed; and general peace, at home and abroad, maintained—and all this under difficulties which, when viewed abstractly and collectively by a foreign observer, seem to be appalling and insurmountable.
Now, why should not the United States, which heretofore has been so prompt to sympathize with and even give material aid to the people of every Old World nationality struggling for freedom and against oppression—to Poland, Greece, Hungary, and Ireland—be equally ready to sympathize with and help the progressive party of Mexico—our neighbor—in the efforts they are unquestionably making to put their country in accord with the demands of a larger civilization?
But, assuming the general concurrence, on the part of the people of the United States, in the proposition that an exceptionally kindly treatment of Mexico ought to be a permanent policy of their Government, such a proposition, even if proclaimed in a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, would be little other than an expression of sentiment, unless accompanied by practical action. But, through what measures, having this definite end in view, it may be asked, can practical action, not repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution or the precedents and traditions of the Government of the United States, be instituted? And, in answer, the following points are submitted for consideration:
First. That the Government and people of the United States should do all that can be reasonably asked of them to dispel the idea or suspicion, that now prevails throughout Mexico and all Central America, that the North Americans desire and intend, at no distant day, to take possession of all these countries, and destroy their present nationality. So long as this suspicion exists, the influence of the United States in Mexico and Central America will be based to a great degree on apprehension rather than liking. A return of the cannon and flag captured by the armies of the United States in the War of 1847, as heretofore proposed, would undoubtedly greatly contribute to dispel this feeling; but, apart from this, would it not be well for those who are especially anxious to send the gospel to the heathen, to consider whether it conduces to a higher life and civilization, for two neighboring nations to live on a basis which, if made applicable to individual members of the same community, would be regarded as akin to barbarism?[5]
Second. The public debt of Mexico, which is recognized as valid, has been variously estimated. According to the report of the Mexican Secretary of Finance in 1879, the foreign debt of Mexico—exclusive of the enormous liabilities (some £40,000,000) contracted under the empire of Maximilian, and which Mexico (very properly) does not recognize—amounted at that date to $81,632,560: and, in addition to this, there is a reported internal debt of some $40,000,000. At the present time (1886) the aggregate national debt of Mexico has been reported as amounting to $122,891,000, and $7,891,000 arrears of interest. The obligations which this debt entails constitute a serious embarrassment to the Government, and a heavy burden upon the resources of the country. Numerous attempts have been made to fund it, with adequate provision for the payment of interest—the payment of the principal being regarded as hopeless—a scheme by President Gonzales in 1884 for a new conversion, by the issue of bonds to the amount of $86,000,000, having well-nigh occasioned a revolution; not that Mexico wanted to repudiate, but because the whole measure was believed to be tainted with fraud. During the present year (1886) however, the Mexican Government has resumed payment, in part, of the interest on the English bonded indebtedness—in pursuance of an act of Congress in 1885, which authorized the consolidation of the entire national debt without consultation with the creditors. But so long as the debt of Mexico is not arranged to the satisfaction of its holders, and the originally stipulated interest thereon is not regularly paid, the republic can expect but little credit, no sound finance, no full material development, and no thoroughly sound government. And, imperative as is the problem, there seems but little present chance for Mexico to solve it. The United States could, however, easily accomplish it. With its interest temporarily guaranteed by it (i. e., for a time sufficient to allow of a fuller development of the trade and commerce of the country) the Mexican debt could undoubtedly be funded at from two to two and a half per cent interest, involving an annual charge, say, from $1,800,000 to $2,225,000—less than what is almost annually wasted on river and harbor improvements that subserve only private interests; and not much more than the four leading railroads of the North-west have this year (1886) decided to add to their annual interest charges, for the purpose of extended constructions over territory that can at present return but little remunerative business. Is this a sum too great for the American people to pay, if it will help to give good government to a contiguous territory nearly as large as all of the United States east of the Mississippi?
Buying nearly six tenths, and selling nearly one half of all that Mexico sells and buys external to itself, is not such a commerce worth fostering by the expenditure of such a sum?—especially in view of the fact that a bill was introduced at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress which proposed, as an act of sound public policy, to tax the people of the United States to the extent of some fifteen million dollars per annum, for the purpose of fostering only one department of the industry of the country—namely, that of manufacturing tin-plate.
That such a proposition is likely to be scouted, in the first instance, by the American public, is to be anticipated. "Have we not debts enough of our own to pay," it may be asked, "without looking after those of other people?" But let us reason a little. Can it be doubted that, after the termination of our late civil war, the United States would have practically enforced against the Maximilian government, had it been necessary, that phase of the Monroe doctrine which affirms that European political jurisdiction shall not be enlarged on this continent? Fortunately, . Mexico was able, out of its patriotism and sacrifice, to protect itself against the encroachment of foreign powers, and thus saved the United States from a conflict that would have permanently increased the burden of its debt by many times two million dollars.
Again, the demands of the world's commerce, for the establishment of speedy and cheap methods of transit across the narrow belt of Southern Mexico and Central America which separates the two oceans, are being recognized; and new routes supplying such conditions, at no distant day, are certain to be established. European sovereignty over them is, however, repugnant to the sentiment of the United States, and, if attempted, will probably be contested; and this, in turn, if anything more than words of protest are to be used, means formidable military and naval demonstrations and large expenditures. The people of the United States might, however, well hesitate before embarking in such an enterprise, in view of the fact that the foe which their forces would have to especially encounter and most dread, would be one against which neither courage nor skill would avail; for over all the low, tropical regions of Central America, where the routes for interoceanic transit have got to be constructed, the climate for unacclimated persons is most deadly—in proof of which the current mortality of Vera Cruz, San Blas, and the line of the Panama Canal may be cited; as well as the horrible historical experience of the forces which the North American colonies sent in 1741 to co-operate with Admiral Vernon's expedition to Carthagena and the coasts of "Darien" (Panama). But Mexico is a nation of soldiers; and, if proper kindly relations were to be established between the two countries, the United States could confidently rely on, or employ, the well-acclimated troops of the former to guard any transit routes from foreign appropriation and control; even if a desire on the part of the people of Mexico and Central America to preserve the integrity of their own territories was not sufficient to prompt them to defensive action. But kindly relations, between nations, are not to be established in a day and under the pressure of a one-sided necessity; and nations, as well as men, "gain doubly when they make foes friends."
Third. The commercial relations between the United States and Mexico, now complicated and restricted by mutual antagonistic tariff legislation, might easily be so readjusted and broadened as to secure continued peace and amity between the people of the two nations, and greatly extend the volume and the profits of their international commerce. And to the present condition and possibilities in detail, of this commerce, attention is next invited.
- ↑ By an executive decree, in November, 1882, the prices of public lands, subject to location in the northern States of Mexico, were fixed as follows: In Chihuahua, equivalent to seven cents per acre; Coahuila, five cents; San Luis Potosi, eighteen cents; Durango, nine cents; Zacatecas, thirty-six cents; Sonora, nine cents; Tamaulipas, seven cents. In the original publication the price was stated in Mexican currency, and the unit of land measure was the hectare, 2.47 acres. Payments, it is also understood, were allowed to favored individuals to be made at these low rates, in depreciated Mexican securities. These rates were to remain in force until 1885.
- ↑ According to the "Mexican Financier," the amount of American capital at present (1886) invested in Mexico is about $125,000,000; and the amount of similarly invested British capital not far from $200,000,000, distributed approximately as follows:
Railways $56,500,000 Public debt 56,000,000 Banks and companies 20,000,000 Haciendas and cattle 50,000,000 House property 5,200,000 Total $187,700,000 - ↑ The maximum military force of the United States allowed under existing laws is 2,155 commissioned officers and 25,000 enlisted men. The estimated cost of the military establishment of the United States for the current fiscal year, 1886-'87, exclusive of expenditures for public works, is $25,680,495.
- ↑ The following extract from "The Two Republics," a daily journal published in the city of Mexico, under date of June 16, 1886, illustrates the discussion of this matter from the liberal point of view: "If the professed hatred of foreigners on general principles is a sentiment which has disappeared almost entirely among the intelligent classes of the country, there still exists to-day another feeling which also disguises itself under the mask of patriotism and which is strongest among some of the most intelligent people of the republic. This feeling is no other than that of fear. And not fear of foreigners in general, least of all of Europeans (for fiasco of the French intervention has done much to allay the fears entertained formerly in this country of European powers), but fear only of our Northern neighbors, and, associated with it, opposition to everything identified with American interests. A certain political party in Mexico especially distinguishes itself by the fear with which the Yankee inspires it. The conservative press, as one of the arms of the opposition to liberal governments, writes daily the most bitter criticisms against them, for having opened the ports of the country to the enterprise and the capital of the Americans. If one were to credit this press, the present President and his immediate successor should be convicted of high-treason, on account of the policy they have observed toward railroads. "There is nothing to justify this fear, for which there is absolutely no reason. On the other hand our daily experience is demonstrating the contrary. . . . "It is a well-established fact that neither the Mexican nor the European merchant has anything to fear from his American rival, and our own national experience proves conclusively that this fear of the Yankee is nothing but a bugbear, a groundless prejudice, which greatly injures the material development of this country. This fear serves no other purpose than to keep large capitals from our soil, which employed in Mexican enterprises would give an impulse and new life to agriculture, to mining, and to a multitude of industries which could be developed in our country, and, besides being irreconcilable to our national pride, also make us appear in the eyes of our next neighbors as a cowardly people which doubts its own vitality, the manliness of its sons, and which seeks safety in the recourse of all weaklings against danger, namely, in flight, instead of fighting danger bravely; and in this flight we greatly damage our economic interests, besides obstructing the development of the country. "Even commerce, to which so much fear regarding our neighbors is attributed, should only see a reason for congratulation if American capital comes to this country to impart life and activity to our market, which is almost stagnant for lack of circulation of money. And if, notwithstanding the lessons of the past, the pessimists should be right, and the American enterprise were not entirely free from danger to us, why in the world have we not confidence enough in ourselves to face such danger, instead of running away from it? To close the door to the elements of natural progress, which might offer themselves, only for a feeling of fear which is as unfounded as it is needless, and almost childish, would be the same as if a man should abstain from food, for fear of producing an indigestion."
- ↑ In 1878, Hon. John T. Morgan, United States Senator from Alabama, recognizing the importance of this matter, and after thus expressing himself in a speech—"Mexico is not destitute of a cause to look with jealous eye upon the people of the United States, while we on our part have the greatest reasons for treating her with a generous and magnanimous spirit"—proposed "that the United States should solemnly covenant not to change the present limits of Mexico, nor to consent to their being changed by any other nation." The proposition, however, did not attract any attention, or lead to any official action.