"Avoid the Use of the Word Intervention"

Sun Dec 15 22:34:32 PST 2002

"Avoid the Use of the Word Intervention": Wilson and Lansing on the 
U.S. Invasion of Mexico

In 1916, Francisco Villa, leader of the peasant uprisings in northern 
Mexico, raided Columbus, New Mexico, in an attempt to expose Mexican 
government collaboration with the United States [Villa had once been 
considered a friend of Americans, a number of whom had joined his 
army, but the U.S. government had recognized the legitimacy of 
Carranza's government, given it aid, and permitted to transport 
Carranzistas by U.S. rail]. President Woodrow Wilson responded by 
ordering an invasion of Mexico. Five years after the beginning of the 
Mexican Revolution, which was characterized by hope for social change 
as well as death, hunger, and violence, many Mexicans did not welcome 
further involvement by the U.S. In the following correspondence, 
Secretary of State Robert Lansing and President Wilson described the 
need to carefully frame the invasion as a defense of U.S. borders 
rather than interference in the Mexican Revolution. The resulting 
invasion, led by General John Pershing, was a total fiasco. It failed 
to locate Villa and increased anti-U.S. sentiment and Mexican 
nationalist resolve.

-----------------------------------

 From Robert Lansing, with Enclosure

Personal and Confidential:

Washington June 21, 1916.

My dear Mr. President:

As there appears to be an increasing probability that the Mexican 
situation may develop into a state of war I desire to make a 
suggestion for your consideration. It seems to me that we should 
avoid the use of the word "Intervention" and deny that any invasion 
of Mexico is for the sake of intervention.

There are several reasons why this appears to me expedient:

First. We have all along denied any purpose to interfere in the 
internal affairs of Mexico and the St. Louis platform declares 
against it. Intervention conveys the idea of such interference.

Second. Intervention would be humiliating to many Mexicans whose 
pride and sense of national honor would not resent severe terms of 
peace in case of being defeated in a war.

Third. American intervention in Mexico is extremely distasteful to 
all Latin America and might have a very bad effect upon our 
Pan-American program.

Fourth. Intervention, which suggests a definite purpose to "clean up" 
the country, would bind us to certain accomplishments which 
circumstances might make extremely difficult or inadvisable, and, on 
the other hand, it would impose conditions which might be found to be 
serious restraints upon us as the situation develops.

Fifth. Intervention also implies that the war would be made primarily 
in the interest of the Mexican people, while the fact is it would be 
a war forced on us by the Mexican Government, and, if we term it 
intervention, we will have considerable difficulty in explaining why 
we had not intervened before but waited until attacked.

It seems to me that the real attitude is that the de facto Government 
having attacked our forces engaged in a rightful enterprise or 
invaded our borders (as the case may be) we had no recourse but to 
defend ourselves and to do so it has become necessary to prevent 
future attacks by forcing the Mexican Government to perform its 
obligations. That is, it is simply a state of international war 
without purpose on our part other than to end the conditions which 
menace our national peace and the safety of our citizens, and that it 
is not intervention with all that that word implies.

I offer the foregoing suggestion, because I feel that we should have 
constantly in view the attitude we intend to take if worse comes to 
worse, so that we may regulate our present policy and future 
correspondence with Mexico and other American Republics with that 
attitude.

In case this suggestion meets with your approval I further suggest 
that we send to each diplomatic representative of a Latin American 
Republic in Washington a communication stating briefly our attitude 
and denying any intention to intervene. I enclose a draft of such a 
note. If this is to be done at all, it seems to me that it should be 
done at once, otherwise we will lose the chief benefit, namely, a 
right understanding by Latin America at the very outset.

Faithfully yours, Robert Lansing

TLS (SDR, RG 59, 812.00/l8533A, DNA).

Enclosure

****

Sir:

June 21, 1916.

I enclose for your information a copy of this Government's note of 
June 20th to the Secretary of Foreign Relations of the de facto 
Government of Mexico on the subject of the presence of American 
troops in Mexican territory. This communication states clearly the 
critical relations existing between this Government and the de facto 
Government of Mexico and the causes which have led up to the present 
situation.

Should this situation eventuate into hostilities, which this 
Government would deeply regret and will use every honorable effort to 
avoid, I take this opportunity to inform you that this Government 
would have for its object not intervention in Mexican affairs, with 
all the regrettable consequences which might result from such a 
policy, but the defense of American territory from further invasion 
by bands of armed Mexicans, protection of American citizens and 
property along the boundary from outrages committed by such bandits, 
and the prevention of future depredations, by force of arms against 
the marauders infesting this region and against a Government which is 
encouraging and aiding them in their activities. Hostilities, in 
short, would be simply a state of international war without purpose 
on the part of the United States other than to end the conditions 
which menace our national peace and the safety of our citizens.

T MS (SDR, RG 59, 8I2.00/I8533A, DNA).

*****

To Robert Lansing

The White House. 21 June, 1916.

My dear Mr. Secretary,

I agree to all of this. I was myself about to say something to you to 
the same effect, though I had not thought of making an occasion of 
the sending of copies of our note to Mexico to the Latin American 
representatives but had thought to wait until hostilities were 
actually forced upon us. As I write this "extras" of the evening 
paper are being cried on the Avenue which, if true, mean that 
hostilities have begun. At any rate, my doubt upon that point (the 
time for the notification you suggest) is so slight that I beg that 
you will carry out the plan you suggest at once.

Faithfully Yours, W. W.

Source: Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton, 
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981), 275-277.