Douglas P. Larsen and Dr. Shawn W. Miller, History
The full material of this study was written in a 26 page Honors Thesis. The results are summarized below.
In the summer of 1912 several hundred Mormon colonists fled their homes in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua. They feared for their lives as retreating Orozquista bands moved through the region. Despite revolutionary activities since 1910, the Mormon colonies had enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence until the defeated troops of Pascual Orozco began returning to their homelands. This sudden change in circumstances raises the question of why the Mormons were forced to leave. A stream of Americans had left Mexico since the beginning of the Revolution. However, such a large body of people had not left en masse before. Many writers have argued that this crisis was created because of the cultural isolation and economic rifts which existed between the American colonists and the natives of the land. However, these theories have neglected to consider the military and diplomatic context. While cultural and economic factors contributed to the Mormons’ flight, the Orozquistas led by Jose Inez Salazar provoked the exodus as a desperate attempt to prolong their revolution by drawing the United States into the conflict. They hoped to force the United States to defend its citizens by a military intervention that would discredit the Madero government and unite the masses in their favor. Jose Inez Salazar’s objective was American intervention.
Testimonies of eye witnesses and consular reports provide the primary evidence that Inez Salazar was trying to provoke U. S. intervention. Junius Romney, the principal religious leader of the colonies gave several quotes from Inez Salazar in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs that was investigating American grievances in the Mexican Revolution. Romney reported:
He told me that the people of the United States were the ones that were killing them off by taking sides with Madero. He said they were supposed to be neutral, but that they had taken sides with Madero, and because of their attitude and because of his being unable in consequence to get ammunition the United States were killing them off without taking any risks; and he said that he intended to force the issue. to [sic] force the United States to get out and fight, because they could not kill them any worse than they were doing. . . .(1)
In a later discussion of the exodus with Romney, Inez Salazar stated, “It is probable that the exit of so many people will bring about intervention anyhow, and that is what we want.” (2) Inez Salazar used intervention to justify his actions against the Mormons. He stated, “We cannot permit Americans to have arms in our territory, because intervention is now an established fact.”(3)
Inez Salazar tried to force intervention because the Orozquista Revolution had failed militarily. The revolutionary army was nothing more than roving bands of guerillas that were extremely low on ammunition. The Orozquistas could not import arms and munitions from the United States because of an arms embargo established by President William Howard Taft. In these circumstances the only option that Inez Salazar could probably see was to force the United States to become involved directly in the conflict. If the reigning government of Mexico authorized U. S. troops to enter Mexican soil then it would be discredited in the eyes of the people and the Orozquistas would be able to gain support. However, this attempt failed and the United States did not respond to the Orozquista actions.
This study adds to the understanding of why the Mormons were forced to leave Mexico in 1912, and clarifies the dynamics of the ending phases of the Orozco Revolution. The Mormon exodus was the desperate attempt of a failed revolution to draw attention to itself and cause disorder among its enemies.
References
- Testimony of Junius Romney, in Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, 66th Cong., 2nd sess., 1 December 1919–5 June 1920, 2581. Emphasis added.
- Ibid., 2584
- Ibid., 2582