how could we set up any kind of a government until after a war of conquest?
Having set up our stable government, by what means would we maintain it except the continuous application of the same measures by which we had set it up?
The government that we would set up in Mexico, whether administered by Mexicans or by Americans, would, naturally, be a government designed to suit ourselves—that is, to suit the political and military leaders who would have "the job" in hand, and especially the financial interests which furnished the motive for the enterprise. The theory that we could at once withdraw is based on the assumption that this kind of a government would also suit the Mexicans. If the Mexicans wanted that kind of a government, it is probable that they would have already established it themselves—and the present friction would not exist.
As has been seen, one of the stock assertions of the intervention propaganda is that the Mexicans do not want the government that they have at present. The more the propaganda is examined the more vital this proposition is found to be in the interventionist scheme, so many others hinge upon it. If this proposition falls, a very large part of the interventionist structure goes into a state of collapse.
A conclusive answer to it is found in the history of the rise to power of the present government and its perpetuation. The Carranza party attained its dominating position not suddenly and by a military coup, but slowly, superseding a government which had come into possession of the military and financial resources of the country. It survived plots and counter-plots, personal revolts and counter-revolutions heavily backed by money and influence beyond the border. It rose triumphant in spite of the persistent enmity of influential foreigners, and the unfriendly meddling of foreign governments.
Carranza personally was never a military hero nor a brilliant orator; he is advanced in years; he wears whiskers; he was connected with the old regime. These circumstances would invalidate any theory that the present government achieved success on the personality of its leader. Why, then, did it succeed over Huerta, Villa, Felix Diaz, Zapata, and all the rest?
The interventionist reply is that Carranza owes his tenure to the favor of Wilson. This is one of the commonest of the
17
