University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2008 Independent Internationalism and Nationalistic Pragmatism: The United States and Mexico Relations during the 1920s Rodolfo Villarreal-Rios The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Villarreal-Rios, Rodolfo, "Independent Internationalism and Nationalistic Pragmatism: The United States and Mexico Relations during the 1920s" (2008). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 568. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/568 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONALISM AND NATIONALISTIC PRAGMATISM: THE UNITED STATES AND MÉXICO RELATIONS DURING THE 1920S By Rodolfo Villarreal Ríos M. A. Economics. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.1983 B. A. Economics. Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México. 1979 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History The University of Montana Missoula, MT Autumn 2008 Approved by: Dr. Perry Brown Associate Provost for Graduate Education Dr. Michael S. Mayer, Chair Person Department of History Dr. Joann Pavilack Department of History Dr. María Jose Bustos Fernández Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literature © COPYRIGHT by Rodolfo Villarreal Ríos 2008 All Rights Reserved ii Villarreal Ríos, Rodolfo, M.A., Autumn 2008 History Independent Internationalism and Nationalistic Pragmatism: The United States and México Relations during the 1920s. Chairperson: Michael S. Mayer During the 1920s, relations between the United States and Mexico revealed the extent to which the U.S. actively engaged in foreign affairs and demonstrated the process by which México defined a new era of its international relations while facing a reconstruction in internal politics. Decades ago, William Appleman Williams refuted the stereotype of American isolationism, arguing that the administrations of Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover engaged in diplomacy, even where they conducted diplomacy through public silence and backstage negotiations. Later, Joan Hoff defined American foreign policy as independent internationalism, characterized by an amalgamation of ideological and economic considerations. On the Mexican side, presidents, Obregón, Elías Calles, and Portes Gil, approached diplomacy with a nationalistic pragmatism that recognized the need for new rules governing the participation of foreigners in the economy and in religious matters. Despite their seemingly draconian nature, these new rules left room for negotiations. Three main issues influenced U.S.-Mexican relations. The rights of American oil companies in México were settled in 1923 through the Bucareli Agreements. In 1927, when a new Petroleum law was enacted, American Ambassador Dwight Morrow conducted the negotiations which lead the Mexican Supreme Court to eliminate the provisions that placed time limits on foreign concessions, and the Mexican Congress invalidated the retroactivity of such laws. A second point of contention was the Church-State controversy in México. American Catholics demanded direct U.S. intervention, but Coolidge instructed Morrow to work with representatives of the Catholic Church and the Mexican State to achieve a solution that allowed each to function while respecting the other’s field of influence. The successful conclusion of the religious dispute in Mexico allowed Coolidge to avoid the insertion of a potentially poisonous issue into the 1928 presidential elections. These events demonstrated that the U. S. was anything but isolationist in the 1920s. The religious controversy offered an example of how domestic determinants influenced foreign policy and, at the same time, demonstrated how foreign policy could enter the American domestic political arena. The American intervention in the religious conflict of the 1920s shaped United States-México relations for the rest of the 20th Century. iii Index Introduction 1 Chapter One Historical Background 21 Colonial Years 21 The Independence Movement 22 After the Achievement of Independence 26 The Constitution of 1857, the French, the Church, and President Juárez García 30 Under the Dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz Mori 35 From the Start of the Mexican Revolution in 1910 to the Constitution of 1917 37 Chapter Two Religion and Diplomacy: One Step at a Time 46 Obregón’s Struggle for Diplomatic Recognition 47 Financial Matters: De la Huerta-Lamont Agreement 51 The General Claims Convention or Bucareli Agreements and the Diplomatic Recognition 53 De la Huerta Revolution 57 At the Peak of his Political Power, Obregón Salido Transferred the Presidency to Elías Calles 60 The Oil Became an Issue, Again 62 Religion Something More than Boiling, Erupting 70 The Rules of Diplomacy Defied 76 Chapter Three Religion and Politics in America 82 The Pope and his Soldiers 84 The Debate about Mexico involved not only a Religious but a Political Issue in America 90 1927: Some Calling for a Coup d’état, others Looking for an Understanding 110 A Thoughtful Debate between John A. Ryan and Norman Thomas 115 The Struggle Continued Far Beyond Words 118 iv Chapter Four Religion and the Presidential Elections in America 129 A Preamble of Incoming Events 131 The Marshall Letter 135 The 1928 Presidential Election: for some Religion did not Represent the Main Issue but… 143 Chapter Five The Time of the Radicals Began to End While Reason Emerged 152 A New Era in the US-México Relations 153 With One Problem Solved, Taking Care of the Next 155 Entering into a New Stage 160 The Catholic Radicals Derail the Negotiations 168 Morrow Became the Target 171 Negotiations at a Dead Point…At Least on the Surface 175 At the End Reason Prevailed…Unofficially 181 Conclusion 193 Bibliography 200 v INTRODUCTION During the 1920s, in the aftermath of World War I, leaders around the world looked to rearrange their internal affairs and their approach to diplomacy. In this period, both the United States and México emerged from different kinds of armed conflict - the United States from WWI and México from an internal revolution. During this period, relations between the United States and México revealed the extent to which the U.S. actively engaged in foreign affairs. This refutes not only the old stereotype of American ‘isolationism” in the 1920s, but also exemplifies that American foreign policy during those years was characterized by what the historian Joan Hoff called “independent internationalism.”1 Many years ago, William Appleman Williams pointed out that “Americans have come to think of the 1920s as the nation’s lost weekend in international affairs, as a period when the United States disregarded its world responsibilities by getting inebriated on the home made gin of isolationism”2 Williams, however, argued that the administrations of Presidents Warren Gamaliel Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Clark Hoover actively pursued American economic interests all over the world. In 1971, Joan Hoff also rejected the idea that American foreign policy during the 1920s was isolationist. Hoff used the term “independent internationalism” to define American foreign policy between 1920 and 1933. For Hoff, independent internationalism referred not to a philosophy of foreign policy but to a pragmatic method for conducting foreign affairs. Its 1 Joan Hoff Wilson, American Business and Foreign Policy: 1920-1933 (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1973), x. 2 William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (New York: The World Publishing Co. 1959), 78. 1 implicit assumption was that the United States should cooperate on an international scale when it could not, or did not want, to solve a particular diplomatic problem through unilateral action.3 For México, the 1920s were not only years of reconstruction in internal politics, but also a period in which the country redefined its international relations. Mexican Presidents Álvaro Obregón Salido, Plutarco Elías Calles and Emilio Portes Gil approached diplomacy and internal conflicts with what can be called nationalistic pragmatism. They understood the country was coming out of a civil war and engaged in a process of economic and political reconstruction. The Mexican presidents did not try to ban the participation of foreigners in that process; rather they tried to set new rules. Despite the seemingly draconian nature of these new rules, Mexican leaders left room for negotiation. The Mexican authorities always kept open the channels of communication while searching for a resolution to the disputes that arose from the implementation of their policies. Among the many issues that influenced U.S. relations with México in the 1920s, three were the most significant. One related to the oil rights affecting American companies, another was the domestic armed rebellions in México, and a third was an internal religious conflict, in which the United States government played a key role in finding a solution. In order to provide a framework for relations between México and the United States