Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Few Countries have so consistently captured the interest of writers as Mexico; and in the writing of their reflections and observations, historians and literary people have accentuated their own opinions of what the religious crisis of 1926-1930 was. The purpose of this article is to present the attitude of the United States government toward that internal conflict in Mexico; and to stress the policy of unofficial intervention that resulted. The period that we have selected is one of explosive relations between church and state. The figures who dominate the Mexican scene are Plutarco Elias Calles who was president of Mexico from 1924 to 1928; and Emilio Portes Gil, who was interim president of Mexico from 1928 to February 4, 1930, and completely under the policy determination of Calles. During this period we have two Secretaries of State who fashioned United States policy: Frank B. Kellogg (1925-1929) and Henry L. Stimson (1929-1933); but the designers of policy in the field were James Rockwell Sheffield (1924-1927) and Dwight W. Morrow (1927-1930).
1 Extreme positions are presented by such writers as Gil, Emilio Portes, The Conflict between the Civil Power and the Clergy (Mexico, 1935)Google Scholar. In his introduction he speaks of “the campaign which we have so intensely and so energetically been carrying on for the purpose of destroying those religious prejudices that have controlled education in Mexico. …” The book, La Iglesia Católica ante La Critica en el Pensamiento y en el Arte, by Guillermo Dellhora N. (Mexico, 1929), was praised in review by such diverse personalities as Upton Sinclair, Ezequiel Padilla (Minister of Public Education in Mexico), Edouard Herriot, E.L. Mencken, Max Eastman, Margaret Sanger, and others, while Joseph G. Satterthwaite of the staff of the State Department advised that it was “a very bitter attack on the Catholic Church and I am sure that the Ambassador (Morrow) will prefer to avoid any further correspondence concerning it. …” From the other side we have Acción Anticatólica en Mejico by Gutiérrez, Cango. Jesús García (Mexico, 1959)Google Scholar, which is conceived and born of emotion. Among recent works in the United States, we have James, Daniel, Mexico and the Americans (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, which impresses one as being knowledgeable in political and economic matters, but hopelessly ill-informed on the religious issue (cf. pp. 230-232). Callahan, James M., in his American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932)Google Scholar, does not critically examine the formation of church-state policy under United States influence.
“ Dwight Morrow and the Church-State Controversy in Mexico,” by Ellis, L. Ethan, HAHR, vol. 38, no. 4 (Nov., 1958)Google Scholar, is a moderate and scholarly article; but I find an inadequate presentation of the Mexican background which is necessary for an appreciation of the church’s recurring dilemmas of action. A published doctoral dissertation by Elizabeth, Sister M. Ann Rice, “The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929,” Wash., D. C., 1959, Catholic Univ. of America Press Google Scholar, presents a vast amount of research material; but I am inclined to disagree with some of the conclusions.
2 Memorandum on the “unofficial action” of Ambassador Morrow in the Mexican religious crisis, as prepared by Mr. Rublee, on Sept. 16, 1930, and sent to Under Secretary of State Joseph P. Cotton. National Archives, Washington, Post Records (designated hereafter: P. R., NAW), 840.4.
3 Love to Montague, Feb. 24, 1917. National Archives, Washington, Diplomatic & Consular Records (designated hereafter: DCR, NAW), 812.404/135.
4 U.S. Consul Silliman (Guadalajara) to Seer. Lansing, July 23, 31 & Aug. 8, 1917. DCR, NAW, 812.404/148, 150. Mr. Silliman described the Archbishop as a member of “an old local family … well-known in the United States, well-educated, widely travelled, young, rich, fine looking, proud,” and “very zealous and militant.”
5 DCR, NAW, 812-404/167-169.
6 Silliman to Secretary of State, Feb. 13, Aug. 1, Oct. 12, 1918. DCR, NAW, 812.404/171, 177, 187, 208.
7 Burke (N. Y.) to J.R. Tumulty, DCR, NAW, 812.404/218.
8 George T. Summerlin (U. S. Embassy in, Mexico) to Secr. of State, Feb. 3, 1923. DCR, NAW, 812.404/238.
9 In February, 1915, General Obregón had demanded a half a million pesos from the Catholic clergy, requiring the priests to appear at the National Palace. The Brazilian Minister, Cardoso de Oliveira and many others represented the cause of 180 priests who had been imprisoned by General Obregón; the Minister asked the United States to speak to Carranza. Secretary of State W.J. Bryan replied that representation had been made, and spoke of Obregón’s act as “a most inexcusable exercise of arbitrary power.” He also instructed the United States consul at Vera Cruz to see Pres. Carranza at once, in order to prevent the arrest of American priests and to get “assurance of protection for foreign priests.” Feb. 17, 19, 20, 1915. DCR, NAW, 812.404/61, 63, 64, 65.
10 Ambassador Sheffield to Secretary Hughes, Feb. 24, 1925. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 367; and 812.404/256, 257, DCR, NAW.
11 Kellogg to Sheffield, March 25, 1925. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 265.
12 Burke to Franklin Mott Gunther (Chief of Mexican Division, State Dept.), Nov. 7, 1925. DCR, NAW, 812.404/271.
13 Sheffield to Kellogg, Feb. 15, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/275, 276. The Ambassador had, on Feb. 5, 1926, forwarded information from El Universal, quoting Archbishop José Mora y Del Rio of Mexico City: “The protest which the Mexican Prelates formulate against the Constitution of 1917 in the articles which are opposed to liberty and to religious dogmas is firmly maintained. … We Catholics, the Episcopate and the Clergy, do not recognize and shall fight articles 3, 5, 27 and 130 of the Constitution. …” PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 1757.
14 Bartley F. Yost (consul, Torreon) to Seer., Feb. 18, 1926. Wm. W. Early (consul, S.L. Potosí) to Consul General Weddell, Feb. 18, 1926. Dudley G. Dwyre (consul, Guadalajara), Feb. 18, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 237, 395.
15 Jas. J. Whitfield (Monterrey) to Seer., Feb. 19, 1926. Thomas McEnelly (Chihuahua) to Seer., Feb. 19, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 10.
16 John Q. Wood (Veracruz) to Consul Gen. Weddell, Feb. 24, 1926. Don S. Haven (Aguascalientes) to Ambassador Sheffield, Feb. 24, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
17 Taylor to Weddell, Feb. 25, 1926. W. P. Blocker (consul, Mazatlán), March 1, 1926, to Sheffield. E. W. Eaton (consul, Manzanillo), Mar. 3, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
18 Sheffield to Kellogg, Mar. 2, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/320. The Mexican diplomat is reported to have suggested that the Embassy advise religious workers who are threatened with expulsion that they take up their cases with the Government and there is no need for alarm. He said that “the Methodists in particular had nothing to fear as Saenz is of that faith.”
19 Sheffield to Saenz, Mar. 8, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4; also, 812.404/360. This message was phrased on the basis of a State Department instruction. Its use of “good offices ” was not regarded as “formal intervention,” but as an “unofficial personal recommendation.” The reply of the Foreign Minister Saenz, Mar. 15, 1926, was blunt and stressed the fact that the religious matter was a purely domestic matter; and that it did not concern the United States to involve itself in the development of Mexico’s political life. PR, NAW, 840.4.
20 Dudley G. Dwyre (Guadalajara), Mar. 8, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/353.
21 Consul Charles A. Bay (Tampico), Mar. 12, 1926, to Seer., DCR, NAW, 812.404/381. Consul W.P. Blocker (Mazatlan), Mar. 9, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/374.
22 Sheffield to Weddell, Mar. 11, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
23 Bishop’s Committee to Pres. Coolidge, Apr. 15, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4. Memo of Interview of Burke, Lyons, & Seer, of State, April 21, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
24 Sheffield’s Memo, Mar. 8, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4. Bishop Caruana was accompanied by Father McGowan who was hoping to do “welfare work among the laboring classes.” In his naiveté McGowan was going to make contact with Labor Minister Morones.
25 Sheffield to Kellogg, Apr. 28, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 205. Kellogg to Sheffield, Apr. 30, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 155. Sheffield to Kellogg, May 12, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 224.
26 Sheffield to Kellogg, May 17, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
27 Harry L. Walsh to Seer., May 18, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4. Issue of El Pais, May 18, 1926.
28 Caruana to Kellogg, June 4, 1926. This letter was published in the N. Y. Times, June 15, 1926. It renewed his insistence that he had legally entered Mexico. Sheffield to Kellogg, July 20, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4.
29 Sheffield to Kellogg, Apr. 30, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 2151. The table of abuses are: priests are not granted rights of the professional character; priests must be Mexican by birth; the number of priests is limited; religious vows and orders are prohibited; marriage is exclusively civil; public cult must be confined to the churches, and this is subject to civil intervention. Teaching in the schools must be laicist. Churches are declared the property of the government (nation). The Pastoral Letter then charges the Calles Government with persecution of clergy, to such violent extremes as in Tabasco. It speaks of religious women expelled with the children from schools, from orphanages, and the homes of the aged. Catholic citizens are said to be denied the right of petition. Catholics are denied the formation of worker and farmer organizations.
30 El Universal, PR, NAW, 840.4.
31 Gunther Memo for Seer. Kellogg, May 1, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/462.
32 Sheffield to Kellogg, May 7, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/448.
33 Kellogg to Sheffield, July 19, 1926, DCR, NAW, 812.404/509. Sheffield to Kellogg, July 22, 1926. 812.404/524. Sheffield concluded: “I am not surprised that the question has been raised in the United States of continued recognition of a government capable of promulgating a penal statute of the character under discussion. Kept in power by the aid of the United States, we have at least some moral responsibility for men in government in Mexico whose official existence depends in large part on our friendly acquiescence and support.”
34 Sheffield to Kellogg, PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 2556.
35 W. O. Jenkins (Puebla) to Weddell, July 31, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4. Reports from Guadalajara, Torreón, and Mexico City, Aug. 2, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/546-547, 555.
36 Sheffield to Kellogg, July 30, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/543. Also, Aug. 11, 1926, PR, NAW, 840.4. A later despatch stated that the British colony opposed the attitude of the British Minister, recalling the religious freedom clause of the British-Mexican Treaty of 1888. Aug. 3, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/556.
37 Arthur Bliss Lane (1st. Seer., Mexico) to Kellogg, Aug. 25, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 361. Also, Dudley G. Dwyre (consul, Guadalajara), Aug. 28, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/631. The consul reported that two letters—one signed by 250 teachers, and the other by 150—said that they could not relinquish their religious beliefs.
38 Morrow Memorandum, prepared by his secretary Mr. Rublee, and sent to the Under Secretary of State (J. P. Cotton), Sept. 16, 1930. PR, NAW, 840.4.
39 H.F. Arthur Schoenfeld to Kellogg, Oct. 16, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 2997. Also, Diario de los debates de la Cámara de Diputados, xxxii legisl. (1926), vol. I, no. 23.
40 Bishop Frank W. Creighton (Mexico), Oct. 29, 1926 to Schoenfeld, PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 2997. Another clergyman (Watson) stated that “the Roman Church has lost out completely with the working classes. … The CROM rules with an iron hand and punishes without mercy. From several sources I heard about the Panadero who during a strike made bread for his own family and for which he was clubbed to death.”
41 Kellogg to Coolidge, Aug. 26, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/638, 626. Archbishop E. J. Hanna (San Francisco) wrote to Secretary Kellogg, Nov. 18, 1926, charging the Mexican Ambassador, and Mexican consuls in the United States of abusing their diplomatic immunities by vilifying the Catholic Church, 812. 404/709.
42 David J. D. Myers (Durango) to Seer., Sept. 8, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/645.
43 Doyle C. McDonough (consul, Guadalajara) to Seer., Nov. 17, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812. 404/708.
44 Sheffield to Kellogg, Dec. 10, 1926. PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 3365.
45 Sheffield to Kellogg, Dec. 27, 1926. DCR, NAW, 812.404/734.
46 Apost. Del. to Kellogg, Jan. 10, 1927. DCR, NAW, 812.404/737.
47 Sheffield to Kellogg, Jan. 18, 1927. DCR, NAW, 812.404/747, 775 (Apr. 22, 1927). Dwyre (Guadalajara) to Kellogg, Feb. 3, 1927.812.404/755. The British Minister (Ovey) stated to Sheffield that the Mexican Government was interpreting Article 130 against the Catholic Church. The same Ovey had remarked to Dean Peacock of the Episcopal Cathedral in Mexico his defense of the Mexican Government. The reply of Peacock was that, after having had a long experience with the Mexican Government, “they were the worst pack of liars I had ever met.” Sheffield to Kellogg, Jan. 28, 1927. DCR, NAW, 812.404/755. Also, Weddell to Sheffield, Jan. 21, 1927. 812.404/750.
48 Sheffield to Kellogg, April 30, 1927, DCR, NAW, 812.404/785-795. The circular issued by CROM was dated April 23, 1927.
49 Harry L. Walsh (consul, Nuevo Laredo) to Sheffield, Apr. 25, 1927. PR, NAW, 840.4.
50 Circular of Archbishop Ruiz, Nov. 14, 1929: enclosure in Herschel V. Johnson (1st Seer., Mexico), to Secretary of State, June 25, 1929. PR, NAW, 840.4.
51 This matter is covered very completely in Elizabeth Ann Rice, Sister M., The Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Mexico, as Affected by the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929 (Washington, D. C., 1959), pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
52 Nicolson, Harold G., Dwight Morrow (New York, 1935), p. 319.Google Scholar
53 Morrow to Kellogg, Nov. 22, 1927. DCR, NAW, 812.404/841. Also, Nov. 25, 1927. PR, NAW, 840.4.
54 Lane to Seer. Olds, Dec. 13, 1927, DCR, NAW, 812.404/845-3/4; and Sheffield to Kellogg, Apr. 26, 1927, PR, NAW, 840.4, no. 4021.
55 Adelaide Shiel (N. Y.) to Pres. Coolidge, Dec. 9, 1927. DCR, NAW, 812.404/845-1/8. Miss Shiel’s letter recalled “the precedent established for diplomatic action during the administration of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt at the time of the Jewish pogroms in Russia and so effectively carried out by our ambassador. Also, cf. America, Dec. 17, 1927. On Dec. 14, 1927, Arthur Bliss Lane denied any “muzzling ”of the press by the Department of State.
56 Herald Tribune, Feb. 9, 1928. Memo, PR, NAW, Feb. 13, 1928, 840.4. Also, Memo of Morrow re Mexico (Rublee) cf. Morrow to J.P. Cotton, Sept. 16, 1930. PR, NAW, 840.4.
57 Morrow to Kellogg, Mar. 13, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/872.
58 Morrow to Kellogg, Apr. 16, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/878.
59 Kellogg to Morrow, May 9, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/882 a & b (telegrams, no. 123, 124). Morrow to Kellogg, May 17, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/884.885.
60 Rublee Memorandum, PR, NAW, 840.4. An article appeared in the New York World, on July 10, 1928, in which the League for the Defense of Religious Liberty (a faction of Catholics in armed conflict with the Calles Government) urged Pius XI not to conclude a truce with Calles and opposed the discussions with him by Archbishop Ruiz. Father Burke, in discussing this with Mr. Lane, said that the League was not recognized at the Vatican, because it had supported an armed revolt. Arthur Bliss Lane to Morrow, July 12, 1928. 812.404/894A. A thorough study of the differences of episcopate and the League is: Alberto M. Carreño, El Arzobispo de Mexico Pascual Diaz y el Conflicto Religioso (Mexico, 1943).
61 Letter from State to Legarde, July 12, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/894 B.
62 Morrow to Kellogg, July 30, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/895-2/9. José Toral was sentenced to death on Nov. 9, 1928; and executed on Feb. 9, 1929. He was described as a “fanatical Catholic.”
63 This information is presented in Schlarman, J. J. H. L., Mexico: A Land of Volcanoes (Milwaukee, 1950), pp. 516–517 Google Scholar. Also, Seer. Kellogg to Pres. Coolidge, DCR, NAW, 812.00/29232 a.
64 Fayette J. Flexer to Seer., Feb. 12, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/859. Flexer further noted that “it is reported that the State’s educational authorities have not only forbidden religious instruction but have gone so far as to use the school system as a means to instruct children to disbelieve all religious teaching.”
65 H. C. Wood to Seer., Mar 5, 1928. 812.404/871. Also, Apr. 21, 1928. 812.404/881. The personal opinion of Mr. Wood was: “It seems pretty clear that ‘ freedom of worship ’ is temporarily suppressed in, this Catholic land. …”
66 Enclosure of copy of articles: sent by Redmond F. Kernan to Seer. Kellogg and Pres. Coolidge, June 6, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.404/890. The article summarized the other constitutional restrictions and the repressive measures of the Decree-law of Calles, July 3, 1926. He charged the government with having killed more than 50 priests in a year, after a mock courtmartial, or no trial; that the crime of the priests was fulfilling a priestly mission, and that “forged confessions were not unusual.”
67 This statement was cited by Seer. Kellogg in a communication to the President, July 27, 1928. DCR, NAW, 812.00/29232 a.
68 Morrow to U. S. Embassy (Paris), Sept. 19, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. no. 259.
69 Morrow to J. Reuben Clark, Nov. 8, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 296.
70 Kellogg to Morrow, Nov. 16, 1928. PR, NAW, 84014, Tel. no. 299.
71 Morrow to Kellogg, Nov. 20, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 302.
72 Morrow to Kellogg, Nov. 23, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 307.
73 Clark to Morrow, Nov. 23, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4. Tel. 309.
74 Morrow to Kellogg, Dec. 4, 1928. PR, NAW, 840.4. Tel. 314. Morrow was away from his Mexican post from Dec. 4, 1928 to Feb. 3, 1929, both for a vacation and in order to attend the Pan American Arbitration Conference.
75 Rublee Memorandum, Morrow to Cotton, Sept. 16, 1930. PR, NAW, 840.4. A strongly worded article on “Religious Rebels in Mexico ” appeared in the May 11, 1929 issue of America, in which the Editor stated that the Cristeros had been operating in 10 states since January, 1927, and had been confused with the Escobar Revolt and with bandits who had used the Cristero cry of “Viva Cristo Rey.” The Editor stated that the Cristero revolt could not succeed, because “the United States would throw all its resources on the side of Calles, as soon as their movement proved alarming, and hinder them from having any success.”
76 Clark to Morrow, April 20, 1929. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 312.
77 Morrow to Stimson, May 9, 1929. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 242. The Archbishop’s press release was on May 3; that of Portes Gil on May 8.
78 Morrow to Clark, May 11, 1929. PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 243.
79 Rublee Memorandum.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid. Also, Morrow to Stimson, June 13, 1929, PR, NAW, 840.4, Tel. 264.
82 Ibid. Behind all of the President’s actions was the prominent figure of General Calles. Morrow presented the “draft letter “of the government to Calles for his approval, before showing it to Portes Gil. And he informed the President that he had Calles’ approval.
83 Ibid. The word laic means a solution in accord with Mexican law.
84 Herschel V. Johnson (1st Seer., U. S. Embassy in Mexico) to Seer., June 25, 1929. PR, NAW, 840.4.
85 Ibid.
86 J. R. Clark to Seer., Mar. 5, 1930. DCR, NAW, 812.404/1043. In the beginning of this letter Burke reflected upon the Constitution of 1917: “No one questions the fact that the provisions of the Constitution drawn up at Querétaro were purposely drawn to destroy the Catholic Church in Mexico. … Ex-President Calles not only admitted this, but himself asserted it when I interviewed him at San Juan Ulua. …”
87 Ibid.
88 Clark to Seer. Stimson, Dec. 31, 1931. DCR, NAW, 812.404/1108, 1109, Tel. 411, 412. This confidant of the Ambassador thought it a mistake for the church to go to extremes as it would merely lead to “the replacement of himself and other moderate members of the Cabinet by radical members.”
89 Clark to Seer., Jan. 26, 1932. DCR, NAW, 812.404/1124.
90 Sheffield to Undersecr. Olds, April 11, 1927. DCR, NAW, 124.126 Stolen Papers/88. His preference was with “the old regime Mexicans … (who) are people of refinement, education, and social charm.” He found difficult social relations with the majority of the government officials: “with the exception of Mme. Saenz and Mme. Pani, none of the wives of the Cabinet is known socially or appears in public. On the other hand several members of the Cabinet appear publicly at bull-fights and at the theatre with their mistresses. Social contact with such people on the part of Mrs. Sheffield and the wives of my staff is naturally difficult.” He, moreover, criticized the “era of corruption (that) has set in. … Claims are being compromised and settlement promised if the payment of large sums of money to heads of departments is made. The men in government have grown rich. …”
91 Confer footnote, no. 1.
