In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

125 Carranza was overthrown and assassinated in 1920. Wilson left office in 1921. Debate over Wilson’s policies has outlasted both men as historians question the U.S. president’s motives. Did he want to protect American business? Was his primary purpose protecting the Monroe Doctrine? Had he attempted to create an international liberal-capitalist order? While such factors as the Monroe Doctrine and protecting American business interests had their place in Wilson’s decision-making process, his primary motive in intervening in the Mexican Revolution was to midwife the birth of a stable constitutional order, one that would establish a covenant between the Mexican people and a new democratic government committed to carrying out reforms, including an orderly land redistribution. Wilson’s deep religious faith, grounded in the covenant theology prevalent in his home Southern Presbyterian Church, became the foundation for his policy toward Mexico. A true child of the manse, Wilson never strayed from the faith of his minister father. Recurring themes resonant in Wilson’s covenant theology can be seen in his Mexican policy. Taken together these six points formed the conceptual structure guiding Wilson’s attempts to understand and deal with the Mexican Revolution: 1. An emphasis on constitutions as the structuring device of a democratic government; 2. The importance of discussion to help government representatives determine the popular will upon which government must be based; 3. The inclusive nature of a covenantial government, including a majority of the people; Conclusion 126 conclusion 4. A concept of mission, specifically, an ordained role for the United States in promoting constitutional democracy; 5. The idea of just war as a legitimate tool of that mission; and 6. A commitment to general nonintervention in another nation’s affairs, which tempered both the sense of mission and the use of just war. Woodrow Wilson’s belief in the importance of constitutionalism formed the cornerstone of his entire policy and, indeed, provided structure for him throughout his life. Wilson devised constitutions to give his life a foundation and safe haven in times of trouble. He wrote and rewrote constitutions when dealing with family troubles during his adolescent years and while adjusting to college. While engaged to be married, he proposed a “love-league” of two with his future wife. Throughout the period in which he dealt with the Mexican Revolution, Wilson consistently emphasized the importance of finding a popularly supported group to form a constitutional government. In his first statement on his Latin American policy, he vowed to support “the orderly processes of just government based upon law, not upon . . . irregular force.” At the same time, Wilson sent a message to Huerta, stating, “We can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests or ambition.” His instructions to his representatives in Mexico, beginning with Hale in 1913, showed his consistent concern for the constitutional legitimacy of Huerta’s government as well as that of his possible successors.1 Wilson consistently sought to judge the status of public opinion in Mexico as a way of measuring the group consensus. Since orderly public discussion was absent during the revolutionary violence, public opinion had to substitute for discussion. Democratic covenants reflected the best judgment of the whole and relied on decisions made by representatives that affected the whole. Only through discussion could people create “a purpose of common good out of all their interests.” As Wilson told his students in a series of lectures on the elements of politics, one of the crucial objects of any political organization was “as an instrument of . . . discussion.”2 The examination and expression of public opinion was both an outgrowth of discussion and was critical to the creation of a governing covenant. A governing covenant was not only a contract but it was also a reflection of the growth of a people. It was not a legal arrangement created in a vacuum. Only through public expression could a government evolve over time from the experiences of the people. Thus, a governing covenant is “the formal symbol of a deep reality of national character” which must represent as much of that national character as possible. As Wilson noted in the second chapter of his textbook The State, “nations are no more capable of borrowing experience than individuals are.”3 As a result, public discussion had to be as inclusive as possible, or leaders would not successfully form an accurate basis for determining the popular will. Wilson [18.116...

Share