It is not clear that the Taft administration [1909-1913]—or the U. S. interests it sought to represent—stood to gain from the ouster of Diaz, or that they rejoiced at his fall.
Alan Knight, 199853
In the early twentieth century, Diaz attempted to balance U. S. and European investment to prevent Mexico from becoming too dependent on its northern neighbor. Also, for historical reasons, Mexican politicians did not want to appear to be dominated by American interests. In 1902, the Austrian ambassador to Mexico observed, “The Mexican government has now formally taken a position against the trusts formed with American capital.” Loans were placed with European banks, and the British-owned El Aguila Oil Company was favored over its American competitors. This search for European investment indicates that Diaz’s action was not motivated by opposition to foreign capital per se.54
At the turn of the century, the United States did not have separate polices for each Latin American nation. President Taft, like Roosevelt, sought to maintain existing markets and find new outlets for U. S. capital and goods. The U. S. government saw its role as protecting private American entrepreneurs threatened by local political crisis. In the United States, this appeared to be a very even-handed approach. To Latin American countries, the United States appeared to be overwhelming them, often earning itself the “imperialist” label.55
By 1909, events were forcing the United States to formulate a separate Mexico policy. In October 1909, aware of rumblings of discontent, President William Howard Taft sought to bolster Diaz’s stature by meeting with him in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, the first visit to Mexico by an incumbent U. S. president. Taft wrote his wife that Diaz:
Is very anxious to strengthen himself with his own people by a picturesque performance in which we show our friendship for him and his government, and I am glad to aid him in that matter for the reason that we have two billions of American capital in Mexico that will be greatly endangered if Diaz were to die and his government go to pieces.
Taft also commented on Diaz, “I can only hope and pray that his demise does not come until I am out of office.”56
In 1910, after Madero fled to the United States, the U. S. government was noticeably lukewarm in the application of U. S. neutrality laws to Madero’s supporters. However, little evidence indicates that the U. S. desired Diaz’s removal. The tension resulting from Diaz’s pro-European tilt and foreign-policy independence notwithstanding, the U. S. delegation to Mexico’s 1910 centennial celebration declared: “Just as Rome had its Augustus, England its Elizabeth and Victoria, Mexico had Porfirio Diaz. All is well in Mexico. Under Porfirio Diaz, a nation has been created.”57
World History
