Mr. Wilson’s opponents were, generally speaking, the commercial classes in the community, whose environment and training led them to demand a foreign policy similar to that of other great powers, a financial imperialism which is the logical counterpart in foreign affairs of the commercial exploitation of domestic national resources and domestic labour.  These were the classes which combated the growth of democracy at home, in national and state politics.  From their point of view—­not that of the larger vision—­they were consistent.  On the other hand, the nation grasped the fact that to have one brand of democracy at home and another for dealing with foreign nations was not only illogical but, in the long run, would be suicidal to the Republic.  And the people at large were committed to democratic progress at home.  They were struggling for it.

One of the most important issues of the American liberal movement early in this century had been that for the conservation of what remains of our natural resources of coal and metals and oil and timber and waterpower for the benefit of all the people, on the theory that these are the property of the people.  But if the natural resources of this country belong to the people of the United States, those of Mexico belong to the people of Mexico.  It makes no difference how “lazy,” ignorant, and indifferent to their own interests the Mexicans at present may be.  And even more important in these liberal campaigns was the issue of the conservation of human resources—­men and women and children who are forced by necessity to labour.  These must be protected in health, given economic freedom and a just reward for their toil.  The American democracy, committed to the principle of the conservation of domestic natural and human resources, could not without detriment to itself persist in a foreign policy that ignored them.  For many years our own government had permitted the squandering of these resources by adventurous capitalists; and gradually, as we became a rich industrial nation, these capitalists sought profitable investments for their increasing surplus in foreign lands.  Their manner of acquiring “concessions” in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they had seized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own people—­our own mines and timber lands which our government held in trust.  Sometimes these American “concessions” have been valid in law though the law itself violated a democratic principle; more often corrupt officials winked at violations of the law, enabling capitalists to absorb bogus claims.

The various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreign capitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, and pocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale.  Their control of the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule, for instance, depended upon the “President’s” ability to maintain his dictatorship—­a precarious guarantee to the titles he had given.  Hence the premium on revolutions.  There was always the incentive to the upstart political and military buccaneer to overthrow the dictator and gain possession of the spoils, to sell new doubtful concessions and levy new tribute on the capitalists holding claims from a former tyrant.