Previous, Next, Numerical Index, Chronological Index.
For All Nails # 73:  Academic Discourse

			Department of History
			University of Mexico City
			Mexico City, C.D., USM
			13 November 1973
Prof. John Pez
Department of History
St. George's College [1]
Newport, R.I., NC, CNA

Dear Prof. Pez,

   I am an historian of modern Mexican history,
currently engaged in writing a short review of a book
on historical Mexican foreign policy.  In the course
of my research I came upon a reference (in Allison's
_Paper Tiger: The Military of the CNA_) to your theory
of four historical threads in _CNA_ foreign policy:
the four combinations of indifference to or close ties
with the United Kingdom, and indifference or hostility
to Mexico.  Thus the current government is pro-Britain
and welcomes _rapprochement_ with Mexico, the Liberal
opposition is indifferent to Britain and anti-Mexico, and
the PJP is indifferent to both.  Oddly, no current political
party espouses the pro-Britain, anti-Mexico Global War
policy, though this can be seen in some of the youth
movements and in the professional military.

I would like to refer to your perspicacious theory in
my upcoming review.  Dame Brooke refers to it only as
a "personal communication" -- does it appear in published
form?  I am sure the rest of the work in which it appears
would be very enlightening.  Also, do I have the details
of your name and affiliation correctly?

Best regards,
Frank Dana
James Marshall Professor [2]

P.S. If you'll forgive my curiosity, what is the ethnic origin
of your surname?  If you were a Mexican, I would conjecture that
your name was shortened, perhaps from an Italian original, during
the immigration process.  But I know this phenomenon was much less
common during the period of greatest immigration to the CNA.  Might
your name be Bohemian?  Best regards, from the grandson of one Mike
Dana, born Mlatko Danilevic in Croatia [3].


                            Webster University [4]
                            Newark, Del., N.C., CNA
                            25 November 1973

Prof. Frank Dana
University of Mexico City
Mexico City, C.D., USM

Dear Prof. Dana,

Please forgive the lateness of this letter.  I recently accepted a position 
at Webster University, and it takes some time for my mail to catch up with me.

Regarding my "four threads" interpretation of CNA diplomatic history, feel 
free to quote it in your review.  My communication with Dame Brooke took 
place some years ago, and I have since published the theory in the _Journal 
of North American History_ LX (April, 1973) pp. 298-312 under the title "The 
Two Axes of CNA Foreign Policy."

As for my surname, I've been told that Pez is Basque in origin [5].  My 
grandfather's family came from the Vizcaya province of Spain, smallholders 
who left during Suarez's 'reforms' and settled in central Pennsylvania.

If I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to ask.

Best regards,

John Dickinson Pez


From Russell M. Walters, _The British Roots of Mexican Bellicosity_
(Amherst: Shays University Press, 1974), pp. 345-349.

(Editor's Note:  The following critique of the present monograph was
solicited from Prof. Frank Dana of the University of Mexico City, under
the terms of the 1965 agreement between the Mexican and North American
Historical Associations [6].  By tradition, it appears unedited and Prof.
Walters has not read it before this volume goes to press.)

The agreement under which Mexican historians formally comment on scholarly
books written by North Americans, and _vice versa_, has never been more
important than in the present instance.  Harvard University's Russell 
Walters has written a serious and important book.  For the most part,
he reports the historical facts of Mexican foreign policy carefully and 
accurately, and his writing is clear and engaging throughout.  But I believe
that his central conclusion is profoundly wrong, and what is more, profoundly
dangerous to the prospects of reconciliation between our two great nations.

Let me begin, however, with a point on which Professor Walters and I are
in emphatic agreement.  There is a conventional view of Mexico widespread
in the CNA, of a society where Spanish-speaking comic-opera generals rule
over a mass of _indigena_ peasants and _peons_, forming them into vast 
armies to threaten the world.  Walters rightly opposes this view, and gives
a useful analysis of its history.  English society since the Armada has held
a deep suspicion and aversion to Spanish civilization, including the "Black
Legend" of widespread Spanish atrocities against the native peoples.  Both
sides of the North American Rebellion shared this fear of and contempt for
the Spanish.  Walters indicates how North American fear of and condescension
for _indigenas_, rooted in the sorry history of the CNA's relations with its
native peoples, merged with her view of the Spanish to make a caricature of
militaristic cruelty.  

In fact, as Walters thoroughly establishes, the Mexican civilization is at
heart as rooted as the North American in the English traditions of the 
common law, the Magna Carta's compact between governor and governed, and
(dare I say it?) the Rights of Man.  Why then, Walters asks, is Mexico a
fundamentally bellicose society?

Before considering his answer to this question, however, we should consider
the soundness of its unexamined premise.  Is Mexico in fact fundamentally 
more bellicose than other nations?  Mexico in its history has engaged in
four major wars.  In the Rocky Mountain, Hundred Day, and Global Wars its
posture was clearly defensive as its territory or that of its allies was
directly attacked.  The same is arguably true of the Great Northern War,
except that the Russian attack upon California was to a large extent a
fabrication of Kramer Associates and President Hermion was duped into a
conflict that he never sought.

What of the period of the USM's greatest territorial expansion in the late
nineteenth century?  The collapse of the Russian monarchy and the chronic
instability of northern South America created a vacuum into which some more
vigorous power was bound to move.  In the case of Guatemala, New Granada,
Alaska, Hawaii, and Siberia that power was the USM, acting in large part to
safeguard its own security by expanding the circle of free and democratic
nations on the shores of the Pacific.  Was this truly "bellicosity" or 
"imperialism"?  Was it "imperialist" of President Calles to offer these
nations the free choice of membership in the USM or independence?  Today
it is hard to imagine Alaska and Hawaii as other than what they are -- free
and prosperous Mexican states.  And how would the three nations that chose 
independence evaluate their short period of Mexican supervision?  The 
unhappy people of Siberia would surely prefer alliance with Mexico to 
their current domination by Japan, after the sacrifice of so many Siberians 
and Mexicans to that end in the Global War.  The recent troubles in New 
Granada must not blind us to the decades of relative peace and prosperity 
in that country, the largest and richest in South America.  The case of 
Guatemala is more ambiguous, but on the balance it too has benefited from 
its association with the USM.

Since the end of overt hostilities in 1950 Mexico has been preoccupied 
with freeing itself from the covert domination of a predatory business
enterprise.  On the foreign stage it has been largely concerned with 
creating a system of binding international agreements to create a more
peaceful postwar world, most notably in the Mercator initiatives of the
mid-1960's.  At the same time the Confederation of North America has 
menaced Mexican cities with atomic bombs, turned a blind eye to the
infiltration of Mexico by terrorist "irregulars", and finally mounted
a massive though unsuccessful invasion of a small neutral state.  Does
this make the CNA a fundamentally bellicose nation?

I do not believe that it does.  The most important fact about both the CNA
and the USM is that they are both democratic societies where the populace
enjoys a high degree of personal freedom, both socially and economically.
(We would call it "liberty" in the USM, but I recognize that this word has
negative connotations in North America even after nearly two centuries.)
This is true even for the unrepresented inhabitants of Quebec and Nova
Scotia, as these dependencies are in voluntary association with the CNA in
sharp contrast to the satrapies of the various Old World powers.  In fact
I reject the entire notion of characterizing entire nations as "peaceful"
or "warlike".  As I will argue below, a more nuanced evaluation of historical
patterns in the foreign policy of each nation allows much deeper insight 
into the past, present, and future.

"Bellicose" or not, is Mexico a "militaristic" nation?  It is true that
most Mexican leaders are former military officers, an unsurprising fact
in a nation with universal military service.  It is true that many functions
of the government are administratively under the War Department, a relic
of the extraordinary measures taken by Secretary Mercator in 1950-65 to
overcome Kramer Associates penetration of the traditional executive and
legislative branches.  But does the term "militaristic" fit the only major
power (save Kramer/Taiwan) that lacks a hereditary privileged class closely
integrated with the military?  German _junkers_, Scandinavian _friherrer_,
Japanese _samurai_, and Australian and British knights and lords each 
form the backbone of their nation's officer class, and _vice versa_, 
with the same men occupying the summits of both the social and military 
pyramids.  The situation in the CNA is somewhat different, with the 
titled military elite largely separate from the Kramer-like business 
elite that dominates the political process.  But none of these countries 
has a military establishment that grows organically _from_ the society 
rather than being imposed upon it.  The soldiers of the USM are Cincinnatti, 
ready to return to the plow when their term or the current crisis expires, 
rather than Caesars bringing their legions into the political arena.  
Militarism should be made of sterner stuff.

As I mentioned above, a single-axis view of the foreign policy of a great
power is fundamentally misleading.  Professor John D. Pez, now of Webster
University, outlined a more nuanced framework for evaluating such policy
in an excellent recent article in the April 1973 _Journal of North American
History_.  The CNA has always been faced with two great issues: her relation
to her mother country and to her great neighbor.  Considering a divalent
variable for each of these two factors, as in a logic machine, we arrive at
four possible CNA foreign policies:

  -- Indifferent to Britain, hostile to Mexico: The current policy of
     the Liberal Party,

  -- Indifferent to Britain, more open to Mexico: The current policy of 
     the Peace and Justice Party,

  -- Close ties to Britain, hostile to Mexico: The Liberal policy before
     and the national policy during the Global War, propounded in today's
     CNA only by radical youth groups and the professional military, and

  -- Close ties to Britain, more open to Mexico: The current policy of the
     ruling People's Coalition.

Professor Walters in his newspaper column in the _New York Herald_ has 
actually oscillated between the first and third policies, first advocating
a strong response to German influence in Boricua in defense of Britain,
and then criticizing the strong response actually attempted as unwisely
conflating British interests with the CNA's own.  But perhaps it is unfair
to hold ephemeral writing to the higher standards of scholarship [7].

Can we develop a similar theory for USM policy?  I have made a modest first
attempt, similarly based on two divalent choices.  Should the USM look
inward to its own problems or outward to the rest of the world?  And should
it pursue its goals primarily by military or by other means?  In roughly
chronological order, Mexico has taken each of the four possible approaches
in turn:

  -- Andrew Jackson's main task was to consolidate the new nation, 
     cementing the control of the central English-derived _regime_ 
     over a diverse population.  His means were perforce military,
     as were those of his immediate successors in repelling the CNA
     threat in the Rocky Mountain War.  I will call the inward-military
     thread _Jacksonismo_.

  -- Owen Kincaid and the other Kramer-influenced Presidents sought to
     make Mexico a player on the world stage by economic means.  Thus
     we could call the outward-nonmilitary thread _Kincaidismo_.  But
     there is another outward-nonmilitary school of thought that has 
     always been present, though never dominant, in USM policy.  This is
     _Jeffersonismo_, a world ideology that in its Mexican version argues
     that the USM must promote the values of rural self-reliance and 
     direct government by the people through the "natural aristocracy" [8],
     aiding _authentic_ popular movements economically wherever possible 
     and serving as an example to them.  (The only self-described 
     "Jeffersonista" movement in power in the world today is in Boricua.
     Mexican Jeffersonistas in general rightly deplore this regime's 
     abandonment of the rule of law and its restrictions on freedom of 
     expression and association.) 

  -- Benito Hermion took up the task of expanding the sphere of Mexican
     influence by direct military means when the Great Northern War was
     thrust upon him.  This outward-military thread, which I will call
     _Hermionismo_, has always been tempered by pragmatism and a sense
     of the limits of military power.

  -- Finally, under the direct leadership or mentorship of Vincent 
     Mercator, the USM has looked inward and seen a grave threat to its
     security in the pervasive influence of a single amoral enterprise,
     Kramer Associates.  The inward-nonmilitary philosophy of 
     _Mercatorismo_ has been the challenge to Kramer dominance through 
     the purging of Kramer influences in the government and economy.  In
     foreign policy Mercatorismo has meant a reliance on international
     agreements, such as the La Paloma Declaration or the Atomic-Free
     Caribbean Agreement, to ensure Mexico's security [9].

This framework allows us to see that the current USM President and 
Secretary of War, despite their superficial differences, are both
Mercatoristas at heart.  For example, they agreed in replacing the
more Jeffersonista Secretary of State Denison with Senator del Rey
last spring.  Mexico now stands with its arms stretched towards North
America, offering reconciliation and trade that can benefit both countries.

But North America will not accept this welcoming embrace if it follows
the implications of Professor Walters' conclusions.  If Mexico's heritage
of British border violence makes it fundamentally bellicose and militaristic,
as Walters finally argues, preparation for war is the only rational choice
for the CNA.  After all, one does not reason with a hydrophobic dog, one
shoots him.  And with at least a temporary advantage in atomic weaponry,
the CNA may have the means to do this.

However, a good alienist judges his patient not by abstract theories, but
by concrete behavior.  Mexico is now a peaceful nation, and has been at 
peace now for over two decades.  Though prudently prepared for any conflict,
it has worked steadfastly for reconciliation between nations.  The present
government of the CNA has made welcome moves toward joining in that 
reconciliation.  The blood of Scottish border reavers, and the blood of
pious pilgrims, runs in the veins of both countries.  We in Mexico appeal
to our cousins in North America to work with us to build a peaceful 
continent and a peaceful world.

13 December 1973		Frank Dana
				James Marshall Professor
				University of Mexico City


 [1] In the FANTL the established Church of North America (Anglican)
     was much stronger than OTL's Episcopalians, especially in the 
     original colonies.  (In Massachusetts, it included the school of
     liberal intellectual Protestantism that became Unitarianism in OTL.)

     St. George's College in Newport is one of several fine CoNA-run 
     undergraduate colleges in the NC and SC.  (Another is St. Thomas More 
     College in Massachusetts, on the site of OTL's Amherst College.) 
     Many of these colleges boast world-renowned scholars, especially
     in the humanities.  SGC is on the site of OTL's St. George's,
     a private high school (and site of one of my varsity wrestling matches
     when I was at Roxbury Latin).  Patriot Newport suffered greatly after
     the Rebellion but in the last century has grown into a pleasant college
     and resort city.  It has absorbed neighboring Middletown RI, following
     the general CNA trend of larger-area cities.

 [2] I had thought that Dana's chair was named after the John Marshall
     (b. 1755) who was Chief Justice OTL and  a likely Walker in the FANTL,
     but Sobel has "James Marshall" so this would seem to be someone else.
     In OTL James Wilson Marshall (1810-1885) was the man who first found
     gold at Sutter's Mill, though he never struck it rich himself.

 [3] Mexicans in general are highly assimilated and have little interest
     in their European roots, but Dana is after all a professional 

 [4] Like its OTL counterpart in Newark, Webster was originally named
     Delaware College.  However, its name was changed to honor Northern
     Confederation Governor Daniel Webster following his assassination
     in 1840.  As Sobel notes, Webster has become one of the premier
     institutions of higher learning in the CNA.  (Note by Johnny Pez)

 [5] The OTL Johnny Pez reports that he is a mix of Polish, Lithuanian, 
     German and Scots-Irish.  For what it's worth, I'm English (part
     old Maine, part 19th-century immigrant), Scots-Irish, and Lithuanian.

 [6] Of course the same Frank Dana wrote a similar critique of Sobel's
     _For Want of a Nail_, included as pages 406-409 in that volume.

 [7] Noel (#59) based Russell M. Walters in part on OTL historian Walter
     Russell Mead, author of _Special Providence: American Foreign
     Policy and How It Changed the World_.  Mead has his own four-part
     framework of USA foreign policy, but Clinton-era diplomat James
     P. Rubin 
     in the 18 March 2002 issue of _The New Republic_ 
     that Mead was similarly inconsistent in his own op-ed pieces.
 [8] Thomas Jefferson wrote in OTL that in any society natural leaders
     would emerge and be recognized by their peers.  In contemporary
     Boricua, at least, this identification and recognition of natural
     leaders is closely supervised by Liberty Guards.  We have yet to 
     see any of the other Jeffersonist insurgencies around the world --
     the one in Vietnam is engaged militarily with the Australians.
     [Note added later: We have since learned in FAN #96a about a soi-disant
     "Jeffersonist" white-run government in Hayti in the 1960's.]

 [9] Dana seems unaware of (or conceivably is dissembling about) the recent
     increase of covert USM military aid to New Granada.  As with Walters'
     own writings, there is room for disagreement with most or all of Dana's
     conclusions here.
Dave MB (with thanks to Johnny Pez)