Woodrow Wilson – The Pull Of The Land

Prelude to the Cristiada II

October 28, 2022October 28, 2022 Richard Barnes

“The United States cherish very sinister designs toward Mexico and desire that a condition of complete anarchy should supervene.” — Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary (December, 1913)

“I am going to teach [Mexico] to elect good men.” — Woodrow Wilson (November, 1913)

Comparing President Woodrow Wilson’s pious pronouncements about Mexico with his related actions and directives stretches the intellect beyond the breaking point. And it helps one to understand the utter exasperation easily perceived in the dispatches and minutes of foreign diplomats (Belgium, England, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and more) who did their best to mediate between the intransigent American president and his Mexican counterpart, who early on offered to resign with minimal conditions but whose offers were rebuffed by the rigid American. An attitude that would be repeated — with catastrophic results — in Versailles only six years later.

As explained in the prior post, Victoriano Huerta assumed the presidency of Mexico on February 19, 1913, pursuant to a 126-0 vote of Mexico’s congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution. Less than a month later, on March 4, 1913, Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated as president of the United States.

Wilson despised Huerta — as amply substantiated by contemporary minutes and diaries, let alone actions and directives.

A brief quote by one of his allies, Robert Lansing, who would serve as Wilson’s secretary of state from 1915 to 1920, provides us a good summation of Wilson’s attitude and approach to Mexico and Huerta:

“With him it was a matter of conviction formed without weighing evidence and going through the process of rational deduction …. His judgments were always right in his own mind, because he knew they were right …. He knew it and that was the best reason in the world — no other was necessary.”

Mr. Lansing’s diplomatic words can be summed up in one: sanctimoniousness. And that translated into desastre for Mexico and her people.

As noted previously, after Francisco Madero’s rebellion against Porfirio Díaz and the latter’s resignation, Mexico descended rapidly into anarchy, a dreadful contrast from the previous 34 years of peace. Huerta, who had served three presidents, including Madero, eventually worked to depose him to prevent further chaos and bloodletting. Wilson refused to recognize Mexico under Huerta and this refusal was blatantly inconsistent with his actions elsewhere in Latin America.

For example, in February, 1914, when a military junta seized power in Peru, the London Times reported, “President Wilson, if he lives up to his declared policy against unconstitutional government, may be unable to recognize the new regime.” However, Wilson recognized it immediately with not even an inquiry as to the prospects for a future move towards democracy.

He also, with a whoop and a holler, recognized China despite its president having murdered a rival.

Impervious to his hypocrisy, he looked kindly upon Peru and China, both of whose leaders had acquired power without even the semblance of constitutionality, while assiduously seeking the overthrow of his southern neighbor. Just how the former differed from the situation in the latter was known only to the president, other than his cryptic reply to a cabinet official who had asked whether the Chinese regime was really democratic: “…. after years of study he had only one final conviction in government, and that was that the same sort of government was not suitable for all nations.” A statement which channelled Huerta and the Mexican government but which Wilson refused to apply to them.

Clearly the president employed a double standard while refusing to heed advice from those who had worked in or with Mexico for many years and who understood the country and its people.

Throughout 1913 and up to July 15, 1914, when Huerta resigned, President Wilson supported Venustiano Carranza and his loudly self-proclaimed “Constitutionalist” rebellion.

In the first place, his rebellion had nothing “constitutionalist” about it. His uprising arose as soon as he saw that Woodrow Wilson refused to recognize Huerta. He proclaimed his “Plan de Guadalupe” signed by his own collaborators and subordinates. This “Plan” proclaimed him “Primer Jefe” [First Chief].

Carranza, like all Jacobins before and since, understood the need to appropriate language. The Jacobins tossed the term “virtue” around more than you could shake a stick at. And they kept proclaiming it from the rooftops even as the blood of thousands of decapitations flowed like rivers throughout France. Their virtue could not be questioned. After all, they said they personified virtue, no?

Likewise, nowhere in Mexico’s constitution would anyone ever see the title “Primer Jefe” nor would anyone ever discern the creation of a government on the basis of a self-proclamation signed by the proclaimer’s underlings. But the “Constitutionalist” term hit the sweet spot and it was all President Wilson needed.

And even after it became clear to any barely objective observer that Carranza’s movement was utterly despotic and terroristic, and that nothing about it was “constitutional”, the United States, directed by President Wilson, continued to aid the “Carrancistas” with materiel and moral support. Like all dictators or would-be dictators, Carranza’s actions were realized by means of arbitrary “decrees” headlined by the phrase, “In virtue of the extraordinary faculties invested in me….” A phrase nowhere countenanced in Mexico’s constitution which he purported to be defending.

Carranza’s uprising and government of areas he subjected — with United States weapons — was scandalously corrupt, as opposed to “constitutional”. His criminal hordes (there is no other way to describe his men based on their actions; to call them “troops” would be an insult to honorable soldiers everywhere) demolished vast swathes of Mexico’s civilizational patrimony. Fields were laid waste and haciendas were sacked and burned; valuable mines and business establishments were destroyed and buried; women and girls and boys were assaulted, violated, tortured, and murdered.

Bridges, works of art, trains and railroads were destroyed; prisoners of war were tortured and murdered in cold blood; civilians were accused of collaboration with the enemy — the “enemy” being the constituted government of Mexico — and were executed after indescribable torture.

And, foreshadowing the horrors that awaited Mexico, nuns and virgins awaiting consecration to the church were violently gang raped, tortured, and cruelly murdered in butchery, debauchery, and sacrilege totally unknown to any level of Mexican society. The “Carrancista” hatred of the faith had never before been seen at such a level in Mexico. Jean Meyer in his work, La Cristiada, succinctly described the Carrancistas’ modus operandi: “….upon entering a village or populated area, they confiscated the keys of the church … they took the church goblets and emptied the consecrated communion bread to the horse stalls….”

One need not be a Roman Catholic to be horrified at the actions of these vicious gangs.

But he kept being identified — even to this day! — as a defender of the constitution. It is dangerous to cede control of language to the enemies of objective truth. Such need to be called out. Not doing so will end in bewailing our silence.

Regardless, Carranza’s actions were supported by the United States government under Woodrow Wilson. He encouraged his administration to ignore the arms blockade when it came to allowing shipments of military hardware and weaponry to the “constitutionalist” while strictly enforcing the blockade against the government. He also fought against Huerta diplomatically. Seeing the futility of obtaining arms from the United States, Huerta began to buy them from Europe, but Wilson ordered the blockage and later the occupation of Veracruz.

Carranza’s allies included Pancho Villa whose cruelties were often seen across the border by horrified Texans and New Mexicans whose protestations to the president fell on deaf ears.

Veracruz remained occupied till the end of 1913 when the American commanders handed the port over to General Cándido Aguilar, a Carrancista. Later, after Pancho Villa and Carranza had a falling out, Wilson blocked any supplies of armaments to Villa, while instructing his agencies to allow shipments to Carranza’s forces.

These and other actions by a United States president explain William F. Buckley, Sr.’s sworn testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 1919: “… the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government.”

Space obligates me to pass over much more, including Wilson’s daily nefarious interference with the mediation efforts by diplomats from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile to a peace settlement. It got to a point where the three delegations resigned, but were persuaded to return to the table. With hindsight, perhaps they should not have.

One such outrageous interference was to insist on the participation by Carranza, against all the rules of civilized mediation efforts which forbad one of the parties who continued to rape and pillage and murder while “mediation” took place. The South Americans refused to acquiesce to this outrage, to their eternal credit. However, Wilson’s “personal representative”, John Lind, kept Carranza informed daily and, congruent with Carranza’s instructions, made unreasonable demands on the mediators, who were unaware of the daily backchannel Wilson sustained with Carranza.

In sum, the American president willfully ignored the glaring contradictions between the Carrancistas’ pronouncements and their actions and worked assiduously and, regrettably, successfully to bequeath Mexico to the Carrancistas.

The first major action by Carranza was to dispense with the constitution he had been supposedly defending by calling for an assembly to “reform” it by means of proclaiming a new constitution. The assembly was loudly hailed to be one that would express the “popular sovereignty”. Another sleight of hand with the language. “Popular sovereignty” sounded good to post-French-Revolution ears; however, the reality was quite different. To take perhaps the most egregious, not to mention foreboding, example of actions contradicting words, the fourth article of Carranza’s decree calling for the convention stated that such as “had helped with arms or served by means of public employment in the governments hostile to the constitutionalist cause…” were prohibited from participating.

Therefore, the assembly excluded anyone associated with Huerta, Zapata, Villa, or being suspected of having been — a truly elastic condition — in addition anyone who was in the slightest suspected of professing the Christian faith.

Put another way, over 90% of the population was excluded from representation. That’s some “popular sovereignty”!

The constitutional assembly was sectarian to the utmost, composed entirely by Carrancistas named directly by Carranza or by his right hand henchman, Álvaro Obregón, but supposedly “elected” in rigged and manipulated elections. This became very clear when it was obvious that, to this day, we still do not have a bonafide number of delegates to the assembly. The number varied day by day.

The spirit that reigned was totally Jacobin, intransigent, and — at the risk of being repetitive — anti-Christian. One of the deputies, José Natividad Macías, synthesized this spirit very well:

“…there is a deep religious sentiment in this people and the customs of a people are not changed from night to day; in order to ensure this people ceases to be Christian, for a people to stop being Christian, for the sentiment that reigns today to disappear, education is necessary and not just an education of one day or two or three; it is not sufficient to have won the revolution; the Mexican people continue to be ignorant, superstitious, and completely attached to her ancient beliefs and her ancient customs, unless we educate them.”

Using another of the Left’s disarming words, education, the delegate’s expressions sound harmless to anyone reading them a century later. However, such words and sentiments led to the horrendous Cristiada.

And those were the beliefs that characterized an assembly purporting to “represent” the Mexican people. Yeah. Right.

Again, space does not permit an analysis of the constitution this rabble drafted. Suffice it to say, such was never submitted to a referendum and her anti-Christian spirit and text are totally contrary to the “sentiments of the nation”.

The constitution is openly authoritarian (it “bestows” rights, for instance) and “anti-Catholic”; however, I would caution my Protestant brethren to not dismiss the latter wording. In Mexico, as in revolutionary France, “anti-Catholic” must be read as “anti-Christian”, for that is what it is. For example, one of the revolutionary leaders, Tomás Garrido Canabal, named his son, Lenin, because he (Lenin) was an enemy of God. He had a farm with a bull named God, a cow named Mary, and a donkey named Christ. Must one be a Roman Catholic to be appalled by such blasphemy?

The Carrancista constitution went into effect in 1917. Mexico now faced an uncertainty and arbitrariness that persisted well into the latter 20th Century and beyond. But, most horribly, a mere decade later, she would face a Cristiada with untold cruelty and bloodletting occasioned by a radically atheistic president determined to “enforce” with the constitution.

As for Woodrow Wilson, he was re-elected with the slogan, “He kept us out of war!”, meaning war with Mexico.

The only truth in that slogan was that we had not formally or officially declared war on Mexico. However, we plunged that country into a chaos which led to the horrendous bloodletting of the Cristiada. And we ourselves, under Wilson, also went to a war whose aftermath continues with us to this very day.

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), President from 1913 to 1921

Robert Lansing (1864-1928), Secretary of State from 1915 to 1920

One of thousands of decapitations during the French Revolution. They were so “virtuous” that no one dared say otherwise.

Left to right: Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920), Francisco “Pancho” Villa (1878-1923); Francisco Madero (1873-1913); Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919). Each was assassinated.

The Mexican Revolution 1910 – 1920: Part 4 — US Interventions — Mike Ashe

September 6, 2022September 6, 2022 Richard Barnes

[This is the fourth of a 4-part post: Prologue and Beginning; Civil War and Ending; Scorecard; and US Interventions. This part, “US Interventions”, focuses on the major investments US companies and others made in Mexico, especially in the railroads — which are a true marvel — but also in oil. This was an era of remarkable men such as Weetman Dickinson Pearson, 1st Viscount and William F. Buckley, Sr., who, though long gone, have nevertheless left their mark — RMB]

The US Investments in Mexico that needed to be protected during the ten years of revolution

As mentioned earlier, during the Porfirio Diaz presidency there was a great influx of US and British investments in Mexico. US railroad companies had extended their lines to the border prior to Diaz presidency. When Diaz took office the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe extended their lines into Mexico which represented 66% of the system valued at about $650Million. Along the rail routes telegraph lines were erected.

[Porfirio Diaz was truly a visionary for his beloved Mexico. The development of Mexico’s railways owes much to this remarkable man. As Mike put it in earlier post, his body should eventually be returned to Mexico, where he belongs. In the 1870s Mexico was a land of horsemen, pack mules, and cargadores (human burden-bearers) for goods traffic. Diaz was quick to realize the possibilities of railways and he ensured they spread rapidly. Mexico had a stable government for the first time since her independence and disorder did not reappear until his exile. By then railway mileage had increased from 350 to more than 13,000 miles. Significant foreign investment had poured into Mexico — RMB]

US mining companies explored and began mining; one of the most famous Mines was in Cananea, Sonora. The Smelting and mining interest alone were worth more than $250 Million.

As an aside, my grandfather worked in Anaconda’s mine in Cananea for 20 years as the power plant superintendent. My visits to Cananea were very memorable, especially the drive from Naco/Bisbee Arizona to Cananea. At that time the roads were not paved and without bridges so the fun part was crossing the many arroyos in route — some dry, others full of water so we would have to wait until the water receded to pass. The desert was teeming with wildlife but very few people until you arrived in Cananea.

Tracks of land for timber/cattle/sugar/rubber were sold to American Investors; some of these tracks were as large as one million acres. Valued at $80 Million.

Oil discoveries by US and British engineers around Tampico and Tuxpan, Veracuz, followed with its development circa 1905. Valued at about $15 Million at that time the oil business was in its infancy when the Revolution started but managed to grow rapidly to the point that it furnished a large percentage of oil needed by the British Warships during WWI.

As an Aside: Weetman Dickerson Pearson a British Engineer 1^st Viscount Cowdray was a very interesting participant in the Mexican Oil business along with other business adventures in Mexico during that time. Note the size of his castle in Scotland.

[He was one of many remarkable men of that era. He went to Mexico in 1889. Per Encyclopedia Brittanica: “He drained swamps; built railways, power lines, waterworks, and harbors; and acquired much oil-rich land. He began drilling to obtain fuel for his locomotives and, in the first two decades of the 20th century, secured control of the Mexican oil industry. His firm built the Blackwall Tunnel under the Thames River, London, and several railroad tunnels under the East River, New York City; enlarged the Dover harbor; and in 1926 completed a large dam on the Blue Nile in Sudan.” — RMB]

The United States of America’s Interventions In Mexico

There were a lot of behind-the-scenes manipulations by the US government during the revolution with the main event being the invasion of Vera Cruz in 1914.

The primary reason for the intervention was to protect US financial interests in Mexico which were estimated at between $1.5 to $2 billion.

The other issue was Huerta’s assassination of Madero, the duly elected president in whom the US government was heavily vested. One must also understand that at the time, Huerta only controlled a small portion of the Mexican republic, mainly Mexico City. Wilson’s refusal to acknowledge his administration as legitimate created the atmosphere for conflict which Wilson acted upon as a pretext for intervention after some minor incidents in the port of Tampico.

The US lost the PR war first by indiscriminately shelling the port of Veracruz resulting in loss of civilian life, and, second, the battle of Chapultepec Castle. The battle was memorialized by both sides including:

Los Niños Héroes — Five military cadets refused to retreat, defending the castle to their deaths including one that jumped from the castle with the Mexican Flag wrapped around his body so that the Americans could not capture it.

Saint Patrick Battalion — Thirty US army deserters who fought on the Mexican side were executed at the exact time the US flag was raised over the castle.

US Marines Hymn — The famed line “From the halls of Montezuma” in honor of the 90% of the officers’ corps who were killed during the battle).

Marines Blood Stripe — Scarlet red stripe on Marines dress trousers worn by all US Marines remembering those who died at Chapultepec.

Huerta left the country after the taking Mexico City; US forces left Mexico after 6 months.

One of the highlights for the US intervention was the use of amphibious landing equipment on the Veracruz beaches. The exercise was a laughable failure but it led to perfecting the exercise during WWII.

The second intervention was a punitive action resulting from Pancho Villa’s raid on the border town of Columbus New Mexico in 1916. There was also an attack by Villa on a train Near Santa Isabel, Chihuahua, that killed several ASARCO employees (a US mining company) and fifteen from American Smelting and Refining company. A lone survivor was able to recount the incident. General Pershing led the expedition with 5,000 troops to capture or kill Pancho Villa.

The military failed in its objective to capture Villa and was another PR failure of the inept Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s restriction on Pershing made it impossible to meet the initial objectives, the incursion only lasted 8 months. It was a humiliating defeat for great General Pershing who was embittered by Wilson’s duplicity.

The real story behind all this was that Villa was once friendly to the US even visiting Pershing in Fort Bliss, El Paso Texas. Wilson (once again the meddler) in late 1915 felt that supporting Venustiano Carranza was the best way to stabilize the Mexican military chaos and withdrew support for Villa. Villa felt betrayed by the US when the US stopped arms sales to his army.

[There are two fascinating accounts narrated by the late Reid Buckley, youngest of the William F. Buckley, Sr. clan, about his father’s encounters with Villa. The first was when Villa held up a train and, pointing his pistol at the hapless conductor’s skull, cocked the hammer, demanding he tell his men where the gold was hid. Buckley had hid the gold in cuspidors but the conductor had no knowledge of this. As the conductor begged Villa to believe him, that he knew nothing, Villa’s men burst from the men’s room, “We have found the gold!”. But Villa raised his pistol, again cocking the hammer, “I will kill you anyway.” At this Buckley called out in a loud voice, in Spanish, “Do not hurt that man. I hid the gold. He knew nothing about it.”

[It is a fascinating account, at the end of which, Villa said to Buckley, “And you, Guillermo Buckley, come see me at a better time. I respect courage.”

[The second was no less dramatic but space does not permit. Reid Buckley affirmed that the Mexican frontier shaped his father’s creed. A high compliment indeed. For more, see An American Family: The Buckleys by Reid Buckley — RMB]

Wilson’s meddling resulted in Mexico non-support of the US during WWI. They instead remained neutral during the war.

Obviously not a fan of Woodrow.

[Neither am I – RMB]

Cananea in Sonora, Mexico: one of the world’s largest open-pit copper mines opened in 1899

Railway Station, Nogales, Arizona, bordering Mexico, circa 1920

The Culiacan River Bridge, built by Southern Pacific Railroad of Mexico (US subsidiary), on the west coast of Mexico. The railways were constructed chiefly by American and British enterprise, but are now owned mostly by Mexican companies.

Weetman Dickinson Pearson, 1st Viscount Cowdray (1856 – 1927)

Dunecht House, a residence in Scotland of 1st Viscount Cowdray and the place of his death in 1927

William F. Buckley, Sr. (1881 – 1958), nicknamed “Blue Eyes” by Pancho Villa

The Mexican Revolution 1910 – 1920

August 26, 2022August 26, 2022 Richard Barnes

[This is the second of a 4-part post: Prologue and Beginning; Civil War and Ending; Scorecard; US Interventions. The reader will recognize several names from movies, novels, or other sources, but Mike manages to put them in at least a general context which enhances our understanding and, if interested, encourages further study. Regardless of the level of interest, Americans are well-advised to be more cognizant of the major events of our neighbor to the south — RMB]

Civil War and Ending — Mike Ashe

The Civil War Breaks Out

Francisco Madero was assassinated by the commander of Los Federales (federal troops) Victoriano Huerta in 1913. Huerta assumed power and dissolved the congress. At the same time, Jose Venustiano Carranza (a shrewd Politician) issued the Plan de Guadalupe to oust Huerta. His plan called for agrarian reform (unlike Zapata’s Plan de Ayala which was specific to the state of Morelos) and created communally held village lands called “ejidos” for all of Mexico. At the same time, he became the leader of the Northern Coalition (Alvaro Obregón and Pancho Villa).

[One of the effects of the violent civil war that broke out in Mexico was the thousands of refugees fleeing north across the border. This was a major issue when Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913 — RMB]

In 1914 Woodrow Wilson sent Marines to Vera Cruz and before entering the port city bombarded it — resulting in great numbers of civilian deaths, as well as that of young naval academy cadets, to support the revolutionaries. This tipped the scale and led to victories by revolutionary troops and Huerta resigned and left the country. The US exited Mexico City leaving behind valuable military hardware for Carranza whom Wilson supported.

[Madero’s “liberal” philosophy was to upend the social order in Mexico by destroying the landed aristocracy and the Roman Catholic church, thereby sowing the seeds which eventuated in the terrible Cristeros War a decade after his death. His politics bore constitutional fruit in 1916 (see below). After his assassination, Wilson refused to recognize Huerta’s government and relations deteriorated between Mexico and the United States, especially after Veracruz — RMB]

Political infighting and shifting alliances/coalitions between Obregon, Villa, Zapata, and Carranza led to the Convention of the revolutionary generals in Aguascalientes (north of Mexico City). The convention was a failure resulting in more civil war.

Villa and Zapata appealed to the peasant population but not to the urban workers. Carranza used this and his strong stance against the US occupation of Vera Cruz and Mexico City to political advantage.

His armies also held strategic positions such as the Ports of Vera Cruz, Port of Tampico, Mexico City, and the oil fields. Carranza defeated the northern armies and the Zapatistas in 1915.

Once an ally of the unions, he feared their continued strength worrying about the survival of capitalism with the number of labor strikes increasing. He first tried to negotiate with the workers but a series of general strikes forced him to use his troops to suppress their movement. In 1916 the Constitutional army along with foreign investors forcibly disbanded the Casa de Obrero Mundial and defeated the working-class revolution.

Obregon became Carranza’s minister of war.

During the presidency of Porfirio Diaz, foreign mining companies received generous concessions; however, Carranza issued a decree to return the wealth of oil and coal to the Mexican people, raised taxes, and removed the diplomatic recourse for mining companies. These policies were opposed by the US, but she did recognize Carranza as president.

[The stated purpose of Carranza’s nationalizations was indeed to bequeath Mexico’s natural wealth to her people. However, the fruits of these policies are still evanescent to this day, when wealth is unevenly distributed, much as it was at the end of Porfirio Diaz’s rule — RMB]

In 1916 a constitutional convention was held in Queretaro with 85 conservatives and 132 radicals. The radicals promoted widespread labor reform and Articles 3 and 130 were strongly anticlerical; the Roman Catholic Church was denied recognition as a legal entity, priests were denied rights and subject to public registration; religious education was forbidden, public religious ritual outside the church were forbidden, and all churches were property of the nation. The position of Vice President was eliminated, and Carranza became president in 1917.

[In March 1916, Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico, killing 20 Americans. Despite the demands of outraged senators, Wilson did not declare war on Mexico, although he did order Brigadier General John J. Pershing deep into Mexico in a fruitless mission to capture Villa. Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war”, meaning war with Mexico, and, by implication, the then raging Great War, which we nevertheless entered in 1917 — RMB]

Fighting continued against Carranza including Emiliano Zapata in the Morelos mountains, Porfirio Diaz supporters active in Vera Cruz, and Pancho Villa active in Chihuahua. Obregon retired to his ranch in Sonora and Carranza ordered the assassination of Zapata in 1919.

Carranza remained neutral during World War I mainly due to anti-American sentiment resulting from interventions and invasions. This was a smart move by Carranza keeping German Companies operating and selling oil to the British to fuel their warships against the Germans.

In 1920 Carranza decided against running for president again but failed to promote Alvaro Obregon as his successor. Obregon and his allies, Sonora generals (Plutarco Calles and Adolfo de la Huerta), issued the Plan de Agua Prieta. It repudiated the Carranza government and renewed the Revolution.

Ending of the Revolution

A Carranza assassination attempt failed which prompted Obregon to bring his army to Mexico City. Carranza fled to Vera Cruz where he was assassinated on May 21, 1920. The telegram ordering his death was from Colonel Lazaro Cardenas, a future president of Mexico.

There were 30,000 mourners at his funeral cortege. He was buried among ordinary Mexicans in a third-class section of the cemetery. His heart was kept by the family and later reunited with his body in 1942 at the Monument to the Revolution.

Carranza’s death marked the end of the Mexican Revolution.

Cartoon published in the United States in 1920 when Carranza was ousted. Unfortunately many Americans, reflecting Woodrow Wilson’s antagonisms (to put it charitably), viewed the unfortunate revolutionary fervors in Mexico as simply that of a people who did not know how to govern themselves, thereby obviating centuries of self-rule under Spain and obscuring the philosophical realities, which were actually French Revolutionary dogmas. The very same dogmas which today threaten the United States.

The reality of the Mexican Revolution was not cartoonish at all

Victoriano Huerta (1854-1916, died in jail in El Paso, Texas)

General Pancho Villa (1878-1923 — assassinated). Northern Alliance, or the Army of the North

Pancho Villa and General John J. Pershing, Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas, 1914

The charismatic Emiliano Zapata, General of the Southern Army in Morelos (1879-1919, assassinated)

President Jose Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920, assassinated)

Alvaro Obregon, General of the North and President of Mexico (1880-1928, assassinated)

Teresa Carreño

March 13, 2020March 13, 2020 Richard Barnes

Teresa Carreño is a well-known name in Venezuela. However, other than associating the name with arts and culture, few know much about her.

Born in Venezuela, she played piano for European and American eminences and twice in the White House: once for Abraham Lincoln and the next time for Woodrow Wilson.

In prior posts, including the recent series on ranchitos, you will have noticed the many terrible wars and rebellions in 19th-century Venezuela. This had undeniable effect on Venezuelan society. Perhaps the story of one young girl and her eventual triumphs and failures will help put “flesh and blood” on aspects of such effect.

This post is a translation of a biographical sketch first published by the BBC a few years ago:

Teresa Carreño was barely 9 years old when, in the fall of 1863, she was invited to play the piano for then-president Abraham Lincoln.

The Venezuelan pianist returned to the White House in the winter of 1916 to offer a Christmas recital in honor of President Woodrow Wilson.

Between the first and the second concert 53 years had passed.

In that period, Carreño developed a successful musical career as performer, composer, and singer, which led her to make numerous international tours and to meet or collaborate with maestros such as Gustav Mahler, under whose direction she played with the New York Philharmonic Society.

A child prodigy, her professional trajectory took international flight, driven by wars and exile.

“Girl Genius”

Born in Caracas in 1853, in the bosom of a musical family — her grandfather was a well-known composer of sacred music –, Carreño gave evidence of great artistic sensibility from a very early age.

This caused her father, Manuel Antonio Carreño, to begin piano lessons and to assign complex exercises which permitted her to develop her abilities.

By 1861, little Teresa was considered to be a “girl genius” and had composed numerous short pieces for the piano, including eight waltzes, three dances, and two polkas.

However, the deterioration of the political situation in her native Venezuela — where her father was minister of the Treasury of a government facing a civil war — drove her family into exile in the United States in 1862, where another civil war was raging.

That very same year, at 8 years old, the young pianist debuted in New York City, where she was hailed by the public as a “musical phenomenon.”

“She deserves to be classified, not as a girl wonder, who at the age of 8 years has mastered all the technical difficulties of the piano, but as an artist with a first level sensibility,” wrote the musical critic of The New York Times.

Her talent greatly impressed the American composer, Louis Moreau Gottschalk, who in that time was considered one of the best pianists in the New World, and who became — for a brief time — the girl’s first professor in New York.

After her successful performances in the Big Apple, Carreño initiated her first tour in the United States, including the private concert she offered to President Lincoln in the White House, in which she played several compositions by Gottschalk as well as one of the president’s favorite songs, “Listen to the Mocking Bird.”

Teachers, Friends, and Influences

Her stay in New York does not last long. In 1866, the family traveled to the other side of the Atlantic and settled in Paris, where Carreño performed her European debut.

During her first weeks in the City of Light, the young lady [12 years old] met musicians such as Gioachino Rossini, creator of universal operas such as The Barber of Seville, and the Hungarian composer, Franz Liszt, who offered to give her musical lessons, which she declined.

She did study with Georges Mathias, who had studied under Frédéric Chopin and whose lessons served to make the Polish composer Carreño’s favorite.

During a tour of London, the Venezuelan pianist met Anton Rubinstein, ex-tutor of Tchaikovsky, who became friend as well as an important musical influence to her.

But the artistic career of the Venezuelan in Europe also took other paths.

Carreño was blessed with a beautiful mezzosoprano voice which was discovered by Rossini, who gave her singing lessons which became useful in exploiting another facet of her musical talent: operatic interpretation.

In 1872, in Edinburg on a concert tour, a soprano who was to interpret the role of the queen of Navarra in the opera, The Huguenots, fell ill and Carreño, who had never sung in public, substituted for her.

“In four days she learned the difficult role and performed in the opera with great success,” wrote The New York Times critic in 1916.

Shortly after that episode, Carreño returned to live in the United States, where she continued to perform for several years as singer in roles such as Zerlina in Don Giovanni.

Personal Difficulties

During her first stay in Europe, in 1873, Carreño married the violinist, Emile Sauret, which whom she had a daughter, Emilita, whom the couple left in the care of a German friend in order to continue touring to meet their professional commitments.

Then, a series of problems hit the pianist: the tour failed, she suffered the loss of a second pregnancy, her marriage with Sauret ended in divorce, and her father died in France, which left her in a difficult financial situation prohibiting her from providing for the care of Emilita, who ended up being adopted by the family of her German friend.

She returned to the United States, where she met the Italian baritone, Giovanni Tagliapietra, whom she married in 1876. The couple had three children, but the marriage also ended in divorce in 1889.

The Valkyrie of the Piano

Towards the end of 1889, Carreño returned to the Old Continent to settle in Berlin.

There, that same year, she married the pianist and composer Eugen D’Albert, with whom she had two daughters in a marriage that lasted only three years.

In Europe, Carreño toured several times through Germany, Russia, and other European countries and met the Norwegian Composer, Edward Grieg, and she becomes a proponent of his works.

In Germany, she is named “The Valkyrie of the Piano” and “the lion of the keyboard,” because of her strong, impetuous style interpreting compositions.

This was one of the characteristics for which she was known since childhood, when the critics reported that the strength with which she played the piano was like that of an adult male.

“It is difficult to adequately express what all musicians sensed in the presence of this great woman who looked like a queen among the pianists and played like a goddess,” wrote Henry Woods, director and founder of the London Summer Concerts which are now known last the BBC Proms.

“Her masculine vigor in tone and touch and her marvelous precision in execution excite the world,” he added.

With the passing of the year, however, Carreño began playing with a different type of energy.

After her death, a critic writing for The New York Times highlighted how the Venezuelan pianist had changed throughout the course of her career.

“I remember her as young, and, now, after all these years, it was a pleasure to sit and hear her play again,” he wrote.

“When I heard her recently, it seemed to me that the woman with the kind face and the gray hair played in a way that was much more artistic than how she had played when she was a young woman with a more passionate mood,” he added.

Carreño fell ill in Cuba, when she was about to initiate a tour through South America in March, 1917. She died in June of that year in her apartment in Manhattan, where she lived with her fourth husband, Arturo Tagliapietra, the brother of her second husband, Giovanni Tagliapietra.

Her last concerts in the United States were in Carnegie Hall, where between 1897 and 1916 she gave 32 performances, according to research done by the historian, Anna E. Kijas, of Tufts University (Massachusetts), creator of Documenting Teresa Carreño, a digital project which gathered numerous materials and primary sources about this Venezuelan.

Throughout her career, Carreño offered over 5,000 concerts and composed over 70 original musical pieces.

And, in all those years, she returned to Venezuela only twice. The first time, in 1885, for a recital tour. The second, in 1887, when she had planned to direct an opera company, which ended in failure.

She was cremated and, in 1938, her ashes were sent to Caracas, where they now rest in the National Pantheon.

Since the beginning of the 1980’s, Venezuela’s most modern theater bears her name.

Teresa Carreño in the United States. Initially after exile, she helped support her family with her concerts.

Promoted in The United States as “The Child Pianist”.

Teatro Teresa Carreño, Caracas, Venezuela.

Link to the original article.
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-51451987

Simón Bolivar II

May 4, 2019May 4, 2019 Richard Barnes

This post complements the prior, doing so in the form of excerpts of a dialogue between an ex-patriate employee of an American company and a young Venezuelan who, having pursued higher education in Caracas, had returned to the interior with something to say. The conversation took place in the mid-1950’s on a street in a town on the shores of the Orinoco River during a hot period of the Cold War.

The trigger was an altercation where an older, American executive had been attacked by a mob. Adam had intervened by flooring the leader. He then escorted the elderly man to a company truck and came back to talk with Enrique, who had remained after the group had dispersed.

Any names are fictitious, including any states of origin.

“But, Sr. Adam, you are ignoring America’s malevolence towards Latin America as a whole. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson thought we were about a scale or two lower than the Araguato [Howling Monkey]. They insisted on telling us how to live and govern ourselves. As if we were ignorant beasts, recently arrived from the stone age. They never acknowledged that we had a thriving civilization for centuries before your Pilgrims arrived up north!”

“I have never denied our faults, Enrique. And you must remember that the American people come from 48 sovereign states. We do not necessarily agree with the Roosevelts and Wilsons in Washington. Lord knows I don’t. I am first an Illinois man; then, an American. Anyway, since you know your history, you will remember that the American people rejected Wilson’s utopian designs on us and on the rest of the world.”

“No great comfort to us, Sr. Adam.”

“Many Americans have a genuine affinity for Latin America, you surely know that. Wilson and Roosevelt may presume to tell Latin Americans how to live and how to govern themselves, but many Americans do not agree with them on that. I would have thought you knew that too. When we pave roads and build schools, churches, swimming pools, clubs, baseball fields, bowling alleys, and who knows what else, do you see us telling you how to live? No, you do not. When you see us distributing food and offering excursions to historic sites, do you see us propagandizing for the United States government? No, you don’t see us doing that either.

“And yet, we hear radicalized teachers and professors, and, sad to say, even priests, maintain a constant drumbeat of propaganda designed to blacken the United States.”

“But, I guess I shouldn’t feel like the Lone Ranger, should I, Enrique? You not only dislike Americans, you also dislike Spain, don’t you? And the irony of this hatred is that the American elite and his English cousins had a hand in spreading the worldwide anti-Spain propaganda. Something for which I am not proud at all. And yet, you also believe the black propaganda, even though we Americans had a hand in spreading it.”

“Now, there’s an area where you could work to dispel bad history and where you could, rightly, accuse Americans of spreading falsehoods. All this we readily admit and stipulate. And, I’ll go even further: The United States are reaping the whirlwind as France now takes the lead in blackening our own reputation. We don’t like the lies being said of us; but, sadly, we spread many lies about Spain. So, you would be justified in saying to us, ‘As you brew, so shall you bake.’ All this I readily grant to you, Enrique.”

“But none of it justifies your actions and your attitudes towards me and towards my countrymen.”

“It is not that I dislike Spain, Sr. Adam. It is that I admire French philosophy and culture and literature, which is far superior to both Spain’s and America’s.”

“Well, I’m not so sure about that, Enrique. I think you would agree that Don Quixote, written about a century before either Voltaire or Rousseau, is a masterpiece. And it is far more rooted in reality than anything those two twits ever said or wrote. I will not even pretend to appreciate those two hypocrites. Rousseau left, what? 4, or was it 5 children in foundling homes because he refused to care for his own. And yet he insisted on telling the rest of us how to live! Oh! Wait! Isn’t that what you fault the Americans for?”

“I’ve always been impressed with your knowledge, Sr. Adam….”

“Stop the flattery, Enrique; I don’t like it at all.”

“My apologies,” this with extended vowels, highlighting that skin-crawling sarcasm, which Adam ignored.

“And if Rousseau was evil, Sartre is the devil incarnate. And yet you admire them, Enrique. Don’t you? You admire them because Paris is your Mecca, not Madrid. And Paris is no friend of the United States; certainly not in her existentialist literature and attitudes which are antithetical to the American traditional view of history and purposefulness and belief in a Creator Who rules and providentially cares….”

“Are you saying the Libertador was evil for preferring France to Spain, Sr. Adam?” Enrique impatiently interrupted. “As you know, Simón Bolivar was actually expelled from Madrid. So, yes, our founding owes much to France, especially 19^thcentury Paris where Bolivar lived and imbibed the spirit of liberty. “

“It was in France, Sr. Adam, where the Libertador absorbed the revolutionary spirit which would come to free our lands from Spanish oppression. It was in France where he gained the courage to cast everything aside for the sake of liberty from Spain and from any oppressor. So, respectfully, if you expect me to apologize for my preference for French literature and philosophy over Spanish obscurantism and American superficiality, you will be disappointed, Señor Adam.”

“Enrique, I do not expect you to apologize for what is the foundation of your hatred for America and also, by the way, for thousands of Venezuelans who disagree with your attitude and predilections against us.”

“Of course, I fully understand that the revolutionaries of France and South America, despite being physically separated by a vast ocean, nevertheless shared the same ideals: ‘utter, blind faith in a political ideal over an ancient regime; the belief that the past was to be buried, not honored; an unquestioning assurance that the world was being transformed and that process of transformation was opening new paths to new men, new ideas, new ambitions.’ In other words, man was being born again; however, not from above.”

“But, I wonder if you’ve ever paused to consider another thing the French Revolution and South Americans had in common: incredible bloodshed and heinous tortures. Venezuela alone lost over one third of her population. One third!”

“And it was in Venezuela where one of the bloodiest racial wars of all time took place. A little while ago you were criticizing my country for its supposed despising of “lower” classes, and this despite our private and public philanthropic work to all classes of peoples around the world. But have you ever paused to consider the blood that was spilt in Venezuela, much of it on the basis of class and race?”

“And as for the Libertador, you’ll forgive me for not being an uncritical fanatic. I agree he was a heroic figure. Surely the great treks across the Andes Mountains and through much of South America will, for ages, grace the annals of history. But he also needlessly spilled much blood.”

“You must also know he was a great admirer of Napoleon. He was in Paris when Napoleon was crowned; but he refused to attend because he felt Napoleon — whom he had adored up to that moment — had betrayed the revolutionary spirit. But Bolivar blithely, and ominously for Venezuela, ignored Napoleon’s rationale: the tendency of a people who cannot govern themselves is sanguinary anarchy; therefore, a king is necessary. Mr. Bolivar did not even pause to ponder why Napoleon allowed himself to be crowned.

“But you are right, in its terrible 19^thcentury Revolution, Venezuela was closer to France, philosophically, than to Spain. I would not consider that a compliment. But it is true.”

Enrique did not have any desire to continue the faux Socratic dialogue. “Sr. Adam, I am not interested in your opinions about the great Libertador. To you, everything is either black or white. A cut and dry sort of thing! You come to another country and expect us to behave or to believe as you do in North America. We have a different culture; a different history. You would be wise if you recognized that!”

Adam turned, “I agree that our cultures have differences. However, you must agree, in turn, that some things are universal: murder is bad; cowardice is bad; disrespect to elders is bad; attacking an older, defenseless man is bad! Do not be such a fool as to hide behind the ‘class’ or ‘culture’ fig leaf to justify the unjustifiable. You should be ashamed of yourself, Enrique. Good-bye.”

Enrique stood, as if rooted in the dirt street, one of three running through the center of the town.

He looked at Adam’s back, suppressing the urge to assault him.

“One day, it will be you lying in the dirt, eating your own blood and vomit,” he hissed, thinking Adam could not hear him.