6. Abraham Gonzalez and Pascual Orozco Madero in touring car entering Mexico City after the fall of Diaz
Better armed and prepared and believing in something much larger than any of the other armed insurrectionists, the zapatista Army of the
South’s aims were summed up in its simple slogan (“Land and liberty,” Tierra y liberdad), and in its action: as soon as the army had seized a
hacienda by either driving off or killing the hacendado and his people, they began to divide up its lands then and there into farms for the landless
peasants of Morelos to begin farming.
Diaz, too old, to take the field and actually lead a military force, and without enough military strength to take on what was coming at him from
literally every direction on the compass, was ultimately forced to flee the country with his wife and daughter in tow. Taking ship from Veracruz,
with a crowd of reporters having caught the word at the last minute that the president of Mexico was going into exile in France, they asked him
for any last words as he made his way up the gangplank and onto the ship. Turning to them, Diaz said, “They have released the wild horses from
the corral – now, who among THEM will be strong enough to put them back?” Almost as if to say – I was the strong man for so many years, and I
kept Mexico under control – can any of these new men do the job that I did for so many, many years? Can any of THEM keep the peace?
9. THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION, 1910-1920
There is a lot of debate amongst historians about when, exactly, the Mexican
Revolution began. When Madero first challenged Diaz? Madero’s arrest? When he
issued the Plan of San Lusi Potosi? The armed uprising against Diaz? When Madero
assumed the presidency in 1911? When he was assassinated, along with his vice-
president Jose Maria Pino Suarez, by Victoriano Huerta in early 1913, which was the
precipitating event that led to the half-dozen years of almost endless armed conflict
between competing warlords for control of the government? It’s hard to say, and we
do not have the time, and I do not have the inclination, to go into the long, and
endlessly fascinating telenovela that is the story of the Revolution. So let’s just run
through a few things that need to be covered for the purposes of understanding
some things for future issues relative to Mexican American history.
Madero was not particularly well prepared to be president of Mexico, because he did
not really understand what the country needed, and was not trained, nor educated,
to lead, nor to govern – he was an intellectual, best suited to quiet research in an
isolated, quiet room. Unfortunately, events would overtake him, because now he
was in charge of a system and a government created by, and run by, men loyal to,
and made by, Porfirio Diaz, and before too very long the corruption of that system
made itself evident, and led to the tragic executions of Madero and Suarez at the
hands of one of Mexico’s leading military men, this Huerta you see to the right, who
thought to seize power for himself. That this entire action unfolded with the full
knowledge of the American ambassador to Mexico (but without the knowledge of
the ambassador’s boss, President Woodrow Wilson, it should be noted), Henry Lane
Wilson, by way of what has come to be known as the “Plot of the Embassy” is an
unpardonable blot on the record of the United States, but there you have it – it is
what it is. Madero and Suarez were executed, gangster-style, shot in the backs of
Victoriano Huerta
53. American identity was created, with easily recognizable personality traits that people the world over thought of as
“American” – a belief in democracy; a propensity for sudden action and violence; an insistence on fair play and
equality; a casual attitude toward social proprieties. At the same that this new personality was developing over
several generations of westward expansion, each new frontier line became a challenge that Americans took up –
crossing mountain ranges, bridging rivers, conquering and expanding into regions that were controlled by hostile
Native American peoples – these were all tests of the strength, fortitude, and intelligence of the Americans that
challenged these frontiers. Turner argued that from the early 1600s into the late 1800s, there had always been
some western frontier that fired the imagination and drive of Americans, that stood before them and said, “Go
ahead – I DARE you!” These
challenges, according to Turner,
were part of what had made us
great up to that point. But, the
1890 census report revealed
something that was one of the
major points in Turner’s “frontier
thesis”: according to the census,
there was no frontier left in the
United States. No mighty river
or mountain to conquer, no
region to expand into – from
east coast to west, and from
northern border to southern,
Americans had, if not filled up
the entire country, populated it
to such a degree that there was
no part of the United States that
could anymore be termed
unknown and unconquered – no
frontier, all gone bye-bye.
(I don’t know where the blue-ish tint on this map came from, sorry!)
54. This knowledge prompted Turner to ask: If having a frontier is what made us who we are, and helped to make us
great – what will become of America now that the frontier is gone? Will we become complacent, lazy, degenerate?
Will we lose the special American “mojo that made us go-go” -- ? (to quote an old blues song) Turner did not
commit himself one way or another – he had no answers, just questions that established an argument.
No one had answers, not really – but they did have opinions, and many of the people who read the Journal of
American History, where the paper was soon published, shared the opinion that the country was going to be in
deep trouble if some substitute for the American frontier was not discovered, some new challenge, some new goal.
Many of those people were powerful businessmen, congressmen, military leaders, people with names like Alfred
Mahan, Henry Cabot Lodge, William McKinley, and…Theodore Roosevelt. These men knew one another, talked,
had lunch, exchanged letters, and agreed that Turner’s argument was sound, and in believing this, they all firmed
up their collective belief in the aforementioned Seward/Strong/Mahan axis of logic, which is to say, that the United
States had to seek overseas possessions...territories...colonies.
In addition to what has already been discussed,
the issue of domestic productivity was also of
concern for these would-be empire builders.
The Civil War had kicked American industry into
overdrive, and with each year that went by
production only increased, and dramatically.
Two examples should suffice as proof: in 1860,
13 tons of steel were smelted and by 1900, the
annual total was 11,000 tons; with petroleum,
1859 had seen 2,000 barrels extracted, and by
1900 the number had risen to 63,000. Cotton,
tobacco, rice; hogs, cattle, chickens; timber,
coal, tin – in every possible way the harvesting
of resources was growing, leading inevitably to
a terrific acceleration in American production,
but along with this growth came problems,
primary among them: who was going to buy all
56. Imperialism – the extension of control by a nation
over the territories, inhabitants, and resources of
areas outside of the nation’s boundaries.
A serious font for a serious topic.
So an empire is what you become once you placed other people’s lands under your own
government, thereby also controlling them and their natural resources.
The United States had done a lot of growing during the 1800s. In 1800, we had only been an
independent nation for 17 years, not long away from the nest of imperial England.
But since then we had gone from 13 states to nearly 50; spread 2500 miles west across North
America; fought a second war against the British; defeated dozens of Indian nations in war, not
to mention beaten Mexico in an un-just war and then stolen half of her territory; fought the
Civil War amongst ourselves, to that point the most destructive war in human history; and
recovered from that war to become bigger, stronger, and more productive than ever, in a
success story unlike any other in the history of the world.
But for many American power brokers (those business/government/military men mentioned
earlier), none of this was ever going to REALLY matter unless we could also show that we could
get our hands on the same things that gave so much GLOIRE to the other guys in the
Most Powerful Nations In The World club, and those things were – you guessed it – colonies.
66. THE PANAMA CANAL, 1903
At this time the United States constructed the Panama Canal, and this is something that should take up at least a few minutes of our
time. The notion of a canal through some part of Central America to provide quicker access from the Atlantic to the Pacific had occupied
the thinking of the Spanish Empire since the 1540s, but all of their ideas were so ill-conceived and thus enormously costly that they never
got off the ground. In the 1880s, the French, having failed to complete the Suez Canal and sold out to the British, received permission from
the Colombian government to construct a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and they worked on it for about a dozen years, slowly but
surely failing (again) (the French…) and along came the British with a smile, ready to buy them out (again), just as happy as they could be to
sink their teeth into yet another unbelievably lucrative canal project, but — hold everything! The United States expressed serious interest
in taking over the project, and since it was
in our part of the world, the British were
not terribly keen over the idea of irritating
us; also, knowing that with German power
on the rise on the continent (World War I
was coming, and they could kind of sense
it), they thought it might be better in the
next decade or two to have the U.S. feeling
good toward them, so...they bowed out of
the arrangement, and left it up to us to
arrange matters with the Colombians as we
saw fit.
67. So a treaty was hammered out whereby Colombia would be paid $10 million up front,
with a $250,000 annual lease for a strip of land six miles wide — this would be the canal
zone across Panama, and Colombia agreed to the deal, the U.S. Senate ratified it, but then
the Colombian Senate backed out at the last minute when they decided they could hold
the United States hostage for more money.
This is where it gets interesting. Roosevelt was outraged at what he saw as lowdown
double-dealing and an ungentlemanly way of doing business on the part of Colombia. It
transpired that within the province of Panama that there were separatist groups who had
long harbored a desire to rebel from Colombia and declare independence — Panama had
always been the part of Colombia that was ignored, forgotten, the “pan handle” that stuck
off to one side of the country proper, never really invested in, or cared about, and in
Panama there were several generations of resentment that had built up over this —
Roosevelt sent in American agents who told the prospective rebels, “If you rebel, we will
support you!” and so in November, 1903, these Panamanian “rebels" declared
independence, U.S. warships blocked Colombian ships from moving in to do anything
about it, and a new nation was born named — you guessed it! — PANAMA, and the first
order of business was for the U.S. to recognize Panama’s existence as a sovereign nation;
then for that new nation to grant the United States, her new benefactor, a 99-year lease
on the canal zone, in return for which the U.S. would build the canal, and protect it (and
not coincidentally protect Panama from any aggression by Colombia. The original
financial arrangement with Colombia was agreed to by Panama, and the U.S. bought all
of the French equipment that was there at the dig, as well as the French railway infrastructure that had been laid to accommodate the building project.
The Panama Canal was seen by Theodore Roosevelt and those of a like mind as essential to the long-term geopolitical strategic interests of the United
States. Forget about the interests of fast and efficient trade connections from Atlantic to Pacific — what about in time of war if we were fighting a two-
ocean war? This may have seemed like crazy talk in 1903…but it sure made sense several decades later during World War II — at that time the Canal
was absolutely invaluable. So — how do you see? Imperialist aggression? A stronger nation simply doing what had to be done to take care of its long
term interests and security? Combination of the two?
68. A colossal Theodore Roosevelt, in his Rough Riders outfit, digs his way through the Isthmus of
Panama as a representative of the Colombian government waves a flag to the left, anxious for a new
treaty with the United States This is after the Colombian government had broken off negotiations,
hoping for a better deal with the U.S., in terms of both cash and length of lease, which angered
Roosevelt, who referred to the Colombians as “double-dealers.” It's no coincidence that the earth
being flung aside is burying Bogota, the capital of Colombia. Clustered at Roosevelt's heels are the
ships of many nations, eager to take advantage of the convenience of the canal.
70. But in spite of these positive developments, Acuna sees them as nothing more than the necessary steps to bringing colonies in step with the
metropole so as to maximize efficiency and profitability, because regardless, the Southwest is still an economic colony of the East, due to:
• The absentee ownership of land – too much acreage is owned and controlled by large landowners and corporations from the East
• Very little manufacturing – essentially all real industrial power and decision-making is located in the East
• The corporate and federal powers of the East controlled taxes, interest rates, freight prices, and the prices of farm products
• Further, this lack of development limited the ability of the region to employ agricultural workers in the off-season
So there are two questions to be considered – WERE the territories of the Southwest internal colonies of the eastern United States, or was it
nothing more than bad luck that they were relatively resource-poor regions and geographically undesirable for settlement, and thus the last
areas of the country to be settled? After all, Texas and California were also territories taken from Mexico, chock full of Mexicanos and Indians,
but they did not suffer the same fate – movements for statehood geminate from within territories, and these movements did not always have
tremendous momentum within these territories. Let’s quickly look at New Mexico. Yes, there was resistance within Congress in the late 19th
century due to the adult population of New Mexico being largely illiterate, Hispano, and Catholic (the country was predominantly Protestant,
not to mention Congress); but on the other hand, New Mexico’s citizens could not agree upon a constitution (on one occasion the constitution
failed passage by one vote). There was also a failed attempt between New Mexico and Arizona to unite into one state to be called
“Montezuma” which wasted some years of time and effort. Similarly, since the early 1800s, similar criticisms, without the phrase “internal
colonialism” having been coined yet, were leveled at the North relative to the status of the South prior to, and even after the Civil War – the
industrialized North was seen as treating the agrarian South as a sort of agrarian fiefdom, largely populated by poor, illiterate whites and
(largely enslaved) blacks. But all of that has been left behind. I think all of this comes down to a matter of interpretation – there can be no
definitive answer to the question. And let’s not even get into the overly generalized statement that All Chicanos (nationwide) are a “colonized
people,” no matter where they live, what they might be doing for a living, how successful they might be - ? Seems a bit much.
The other questions is – was there any real resistance on the part of Mexicanos to this economic control? In fact, there was. There were
dozens of strikes from the 1880s through the 1920s that were mainly, or wholly, the work of Mexicano workers, yet you have source after
source reporting nothing of the sort. For example, the 1907 California Fruit Grower’s Guide: “Mexicans are plentiful, generally peaceable, and
satisfied with very low social conditions.” And: “The Mexican is a quiet, inoffensive necessity in that he performs the big majority of our rough
work in agriculture, building, and street labor. They have no effect on the American standard of living because they are not much more than a
group of fairly intelligent collie dogs.”
72. WORLD WAR I, THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION, IMMIGRATION, AND COMMUNISM – FUN, HUH?
The violence of the Mexican Revolution led to increased levels of Mexican immigration into the US, and consequently intensified
discrimination against Mexicans in the Southwest, and all this at a time when events associated with World War I were also alarming
Americans about their shared border with Mexico, as well as concerns over communist subversion.
The fear of Mexican violence in the Southwest – in November of 1913 the LAPD assigned police officers to investigate a subversive plot of
communists and cholos (slang term of the time for lower class Mexican). The Los Angeles Times claimed that at least 10% of the city’s
35,000 Mexicans were known villista rebels (this was later proven to be based on no credible source of information). This hysteria coincided
with the next year’s outbreak of war in Europe and big business’ demand for more Mexican labor; when more workers arrived, the largely
Anglo public reacted with anger. The Justice Dept suspected German agents in the city of recruiting Mexicans as spies and saboteurs, and
over the next three years the police ignored any sort of anti-Mexican violence or discrimination, on the pretext that Mexicans were pro-
German and so deserved whatever ill treatment they received.
In 1915 the Plan de San Diego was discovered on the person of Basilio Ramos, a supporter of General Victoriano Huerta. The Plan’s origins
remain unknown to this day, but it called for a general uprising in the Southwest on the part of all minorities, and involved the killing of all
Anglo males over the age of sixteen, as well as the creation of a Mexicano state in the Southwest…REALLY? HOW??? If this sounds totally
incredible, that may be because there has been some speculation that this was nothing more than a scheme of Venustiano Carranza’s to
discredit Huerta in the eyes of the United States government.
At any rate, the Plan’s discovery falls right into the midst of a state of general anxiety in the Southwest – much violence along the border,
and labor unrest in the copper mines. Over the course of twelve months from 1915 into 1916 there were over thirty revolutionary raids
from Mexico into the US, with appr. 300 Mexicans and 21 Anglos killed, and all of this culminating in Pancho Villa’s raid on Columbus, New
Mexico in March of 1916. The federal government believed all of this to be instigated by German provocateurs, and by early 1917 there
were 35,000 U.S. soldiers on the border to monitor the situation. And that’s when the Zimmermann Telegram arrives in the hands of
President Woodrow Wilson.
