No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Historians treating the American-Mexican diplomatic crisis during the Hayes administration have tended to regard it as a political and military affair, involving such points of controversy as the American recognition of Porfirio Díaz, the Mexican inability to keep order on the frontier, invasions of Mexico by American troops to punish marauding Indians, and, behind and above all, Mexican fears of American territorial ambitions. No one will deny that these dramatic circumstances deserve attention, but some writers have largely ignored the economic side of the question. Under cover of the rifle fire along the border and the excited buzzing in the government offices American business promoters, long anxious to take part in the development of Mexican resources, finally obtained the terms which would make this development possible. In September, 1880, after three years of controversy and war scares had almost extinguished American hopes, the Mexican government granted generous concessions for the building of the Mexican Central and the Mexican National Railroads and, in so doing, opened the way for an inrush of American capital.
This article is based to a considerable degree on a paper read at a session of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association convention in May, 1957.
1 The most detailed treatment of the border problem is Gregg, Robert D., The Influence of Border Troubles on Relations between the United States and Mexico, 1867–1910. The Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series LV, No. 3 (Baltimore, 1937).Google Scholar Shorter accounts of Hayes’ Mexican policy are found in Rippy, J. Fred, The United States and Mexico (New York, 1926), Chap. XVII,Google Scholar and Callahan, James Morton, American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932), Chaps. XI, XIII.Google Scholar A vigorous Mexican account, marred by anti-American bias, is Valadés, José C., El porfirismo, historia de un régimen. El nacimiento, 1816–1884 (México, 1941), Chaps. VIII-IX.Google Scholar A more recent and scholarly Mexican account is Villegas, Daniel Cosío, Estados Unidos contra Porfirio Díaz (México, 1956),Google Scholar passim.
2 Callahan, , American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations, pp. 347–348.Google Scholar
3 A summary of the factors which encouraged American investment in Mexico during the 1870’s is Pletcher, David M., “México, campo de inversiones norteamericanas, 1867–1880,” Historia mexicana, 2 (April-June, 1953), 564–574.Google Scholar For a general account of these early promoters see Knapp, Frank A. Jr., “Precursors of American Investment in Mexican Railroads,” The Pacific Historical Review, 21 (February, 1952), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A more detailed account of one of them is Pletcher, David M., “General William S. Rosecrans and the Mexican Transcontinental Railroad Project,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 38 (March, 1952), 657–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Villegas, Daniel Cosío has also described early projects to 1876 in his Historia moderna de México (6 vols.; México, 1955– ), II, 527–742.Google Scholar
4 John W. Foster to William M. Evarts, Mexico City, April 28, 1877. Unofficial and confidential. Despatches from Mexico, LIX. United States, Records of the Department of State, National Archives. (Hereafter cited as State Department, Despatches, Mexico.) See also Villegas, Cosío, Estados Unidos contra Díaz, pp. 49–51.Google Scholar
5 Rippy, , United States and Mexico, p. 297.Google Scholar
6 The diplomatic exchanges between Foster and Vallara are most thoroughly covered in Cosío Villegas, Estados Unidos contra Díaz, Chaps. VI-X. Foster's private opinion concerning recognition is clearly expressed in his confidential despatch of April 28, 1877, cited above. See also a private letter from Foster to Evarts, December 14, 1877. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXI.
7 Chicago Tribune, July 5, 1877, p. 3.
8 Valadés, , El porfirismo. Nacimiento, pp. 299–301 ff.Google Scholar
9 Ibid. The Two Republics (Mexico City newspaper), April 6, 1878, p. 6; September 14, p. 2. For an account of a similar appearance in Boston see Boston, Herald, March 17, 1878, p. 2.Google Scholar
10 During the latter part of 1877 rumors about these agents leaked out in Mexico, but the Díaz government categorically denied them. Neither Pritchard nor Lester co-operated with Zamacona in the United States. In fact, Lester called him a skunk and deliberately avoided mentioning him in his book. Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, September 5, 1878. No. 775, confidential, with enclosures. Foster to F. W. Seward, Mexico City, September 9. Personal. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXIII.
11 Ibid. Lester, Charles Edwards, The Mexican Republic. An Historic Study (New York, 1878), pp. 3, 77, 97–98,Google Scholar et passim.
12 New York Herald, September 25, 1878, p. 4. New York World, October 10; November 9, 29, 1878.
13 Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, September 5, 1878. No. 775, confidential. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXIII.
14 Callahan, , American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations, pp. 484–485.Google Scholar
15 Villegas, Cosío, Estados Unidos contra Díaz, pp. 250–252.Google Scholar
16 For samples of this journalism see United States, State Department, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, 1861– ), 1878, pp. 553–555. (Hereafter cited as United States, Foreign Relations.) See also Foster, John W., Diplomatic Memoirs (2 vols.; Boston, 1909), I, 104.Google Scholar
17 Powell, Fred Wilbur, The Railroads of Mexico (Boston, 1921), p. 110.Google Scholar The text of Díaz’s proclamation on foreign concessions may be found in United States, Foreign Relations, 1877, pp. 386–387.
18 Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, May 29, 1878. No. 712. Ibid., 1878, pp. 550–552.
l9 Foster also minimized the importance of this outburst in his report to the State Department. Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, September 21, 1878. No. 787. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXIV. See also Foster, , Diplomatic Memoirs, 1, 101–103.Google Scholar New York World, October 5, 9, 1878. New York Herald, October 9, 1878. Another episode which certainly colored Foster’s thinking about Mexican conditions at this time was the robbery and murder of Walter Henry, an American who was engaged in transporting merchandise by oxcart in northern Mexico. The customs authorities were thought to be implicated. Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, September 11, 14, 1878. Nos. 505, 509, with enclosures. United States, Foreign Relations, 1878, pp. 603–608.
20 Chicago Tribune, September 3–8, 1878, passim.
21 Foster to Carlisle Mason, Mexico City, October 9, 1878. United States, Foreign Relations, 1878, pp. 637–654. This letter was later printed separately in a pamphlet. In later years Foster admitted that Díaz had upset some of his predictions, but when he wrote the letter it was a reasonably accurate description of Mexican conditions, and three years later his successor sent home a very similar report to the State Department. See Philip H. Morgan to James G. Blaine, Mexico City, August 13, 1881. No. 254, confidential. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXXIII.
22 Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1879, p. 9.
23 Foster to Evarts, April 28, 1879. No. 938. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXVII. Opinions of Consuls of the United States in Mexico on Minister Foster’s Letter on “Trade with Mexico” Addressed to the Manufacturers’ Association of Chicago [no publication place, 1879], passim.
24 Chicago Tribune, November 22, 1878, pp. 4, 5; November 23, p. 8. The New York Sun denounced Foster, , saying: “His effort is plainly to tempt invasion of Mexico, and to urge a policy certain to result in war, the addition of a hundred or more millions to our public debt, and the enrichment of a ring of speculators and jobbers, whose headquarters are in Washington.” New York Sun, January 20, 1879, p. 2.Google Scholar This outburst was consistent with the Sun’s views on Hayes’ policies in general.
25 Chicago Tribune, November 25, 1878, p. 5.
26 México, Secretaría de hacienda, Exposición de la secretaria de hacienda de los Estados-Unidos Mexicanos, de 15 de enero de 1879 sobre la condición actual de México, y el aumento del comercio con los Estados-Unidos, rectificando el informe dirigido por el Honorable John W. Foster, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de los Estados-Unidos en México, el 9 de octubre de 1818 al Sr. Carlile [sic] Mason, presidente de la asociación de manufactureros de la ciudad de Chicago en el estado de Illinois de los Estados Unidos de América (México, 1879). Page numbers will refer to the English edition (New York, 1880).
27 Ibid., pp. 20–23.
28 Ibid., pp. 23–32.
29 Ibid., pp. 35–38.
30 Ibid., pp. 102–105, 112–128, 154–176.
31 Ibid., pp. 208–211, 228–232, 234–235, 301–305, et passim. Romero also argued that past revolutions had been set in motion for definite objectives, now largely achieved. Ibid., pp. 211–212.
32 Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, December 16, 1878. No. 855. United States, Foreign Relations, 1879, pp. 764–770.
33 Chicago Tribune, February 16, 1879, p. 11; February 20, p. 7. Foster reported that the whole expedition was a sham, led by “an irresponsible adventurer” and “a broken-down, bankrupt merchant” who had induced Zamacona to write glowing accounts of its importance. The chairman of the group secretly telegraphed to President Hayes, urging repeal of the border-crossing order, whereupon the majority of the group, honest businessmen, protested and proposed to send a contrary message to the president. Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, February 8, 1879. Confidential. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, XLVI.
34 The history of the Sonora Railway project is given in detail in Pletcher, David M., “The Development of Railroads in Sonora,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, 1 (March, 1948), 9–20.Google Scholar For evidence of some of the remaining Mexican hostility to American railroad projects see Foster to Evarts, Mexico City, August 16, December 24, 1879. Nos. 1014, 1075, with enclosures. United States, Foreign Relations, 1879, pp. 826–833; 1880, pp. 719–722.
35 Rivera, Antonio G., Reminiscencias (Los Angeles, 1915),Google Scholar Appendix, as quoted in Valadés, , El porfirismo. Nacimiento, pp. 317–319.Google Scholar Correspondence between Grant and the Romero group is reprinted in the New York Tribune, April 2, 1880, p. 5.
36 Powell, , Railroads of Mexico, p. 127.Google Scholar Morgan to Evarts, Mexico City, June 7, 1880. No. 26. State Department, Despatches, Mexico, LXX.
37 Powell, , Railroads of Mexico, pp. 127–128, 133.Google Scholar
38 Romero, Matías, Informe al gobernador del estado de Oaxaca respecto de la compañía quo organizó para construir el ferrocarril de Oaxaca y del traspaso que le hizo la concesión de 25 de agosto de 1880 (México, 1881), pp. 40–52 Google Scholar et passim. For a brief general account of Grant’s Mexican project see Hardy, Osgood, “Ulysses S. Grant, President of the Mexican Southern Railroad,” The Pacific Historical Review, 24 (May, 1955), 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Foster, , Diplomatic Memoirs, 1, 110–111.Google Scholar