Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1

[Driftless]

Not factory made (to my knowledge), but there existed a number of iterations of home-brewed half-track Model T's . Within that subset, a common version was to replace the front wheels with skis and add a free-wheeling axle and set of wheels, with a simple track-link set up to ride over the rear tire and wheel combo. The purpose was to improve performance over snow or ice.

Could something like that have been worked up for 1916 Mexico trek (or earlier) for the Army? Leave the front wheels as from the factory, or swap in small tractor tires for increased floatation over sand and/or mud?

Possible, but how plausible with sufficient budget and an sponsor?

*Edit*
Photo from the collection of the Model T Ford Forum:

The 1916 "Rat Patrol"

 

[McPherson]

I think you need some of the administrative changes in place first to make an earlier arrival of a professional army with first-rate equipment possible.

A. Woodrow Wilson is the chief p.o.s who has to go.

To get 300k Regulars in uniform by 1916-ish, Wilson can't be President. He actively hamstrung most efforts at modernization, planning, and preparation. Then, whoever else is President appoints either Henry Stimson, or brings back Elihu Root as Secretary of War.

B. Root is State Department by then. Stimson is the blood and enemy guts trailing on the ground guy.

Send General Hugh Scott (Army Chief of Staff) on an earlier diplomatic junket. He did some useful things, but the whole expansion, modernization, etc of the Army was probably out of his league.

C. He was not the mind set for anything but a "political junket".

Promote General Tasker Bliss to Chief of Staff earlier, and bring in Peyton March( or someone like him) as his "junk yard dog" to wrestle the independent fiefdoms of the various Army Bureaus under the Aegis of the Chief of Staff.

D. Yes.

Keep John Pershing in Mexico or give him an administrative job in the US. Somebody else needs to be the top General for the field force - which will become the new and improved AEF.

E. Hard to say who that should be.

Send more observers to France and Germany (if you can - in 1914). Officers with open minds and creative thinkers, capable of seeing what works and what does not (which in 1914-15 was a lot). But absolutely dispell the Pershing notion that every American soldier with a rifle and bayonet being an invincible, irresistible force . Pershing also was a firm believer and pressed his sub-commanders hard to disregard training for trench warfare and trench raids, and that maneuver warfare was going to work against entrenched German forces, right off the get-go.

F. If they go in 1914, they learn the wrong lessons. If they are sent to the Russo Japanese War on both sides of the bullet stream, they will come back with three lessons learned...

1. Maxims are not quite what they are cracked up to be. This "Hotchkiss" needs a good hard look. Lighten her up and make her a portable machine gun.
2. Barbed wire + machine guns =s need for some mechanical way to get attacking infantry through barbed wire and machine guns.
3. Mortars kill a LOT. Might want to go from field rifles to howitzers and build a man portable type to go with the man portable machine gun.
4. Infantry are not pack mules. They have to travel light with good load carrying gear that allows them to fight as well as RUN. More on this in a bit.

I'm trying to think of an incident that would scare the US enough to have Wilson lose in 1914 and cause an earlier "Preparedness Movement" and support for finally modernized and expanding the Army.

5. Caranza and Villa have a blowup in 1912 and Taft has to answer a full scale border war.

It would be too late for Wilson but I was vaguely considering a "Remember the Rainbow" sort of incident where a German cruiser or AMC early in the war in 1914 is raiding the Canadian Pacific Coast. In the process the ship ends up getting badly lost and the navigator completely screws up meaning the commander thinks the ship is in the wrong position. So they start shelling what they think is a town in British Columbia but is in reality in Washington state. Not many die and it doesn't immediately lead to war but it does scare the shit out of the American public causing Congress to pass a Army/Navy expansion bill.

6. Or Morocco. Blow that up, 1905, 1908 or 1911 and Uncle will have a hard case of HATE Germany as a motivator. The earlier, the better, because it might mean Uncle gets the notion that allying with France might be a good idea.

Manganese alloy Steel body armor, unleash Bashford Dean in 1914
View attachment 646535
Armor with full kit and No. 5 Helmet
View attachment 646536 armor with Brit Brodie Helmet
Armor was under 15 pounds, and allowed full mobility. Proof from most fragments and pistol bullets, and rifle and MG fire at a distance

Tanker Boots

Load bearing pack, with PALS/MOLLE in Canvas

MCI rations, but more selection

Panzerfaust 150, but no HEAT, just a TNT warhead.
This was a reloadable version of the weapon, with a longer range

6mm Lee Navy for Rifle, and Winchester 1907 for Carbine, in .351SL
Lewis in 6mm for LMG
Smith and Wesson Revolver, in 351SL. Its pretty much a hot 357 magnum. Uses moon clips and has a ported barrel .
38 Special rounds may also be used, as well as 38 Colt Short and 38 Long

7.. The armor was binding. it restricted the ability to run and shoot.
8. The best rocket possible in that era is little better than a Hale and Goddard knew it. He planned for a tube and bipod affair with a mortar like effect. It would have been nothing like a bazooka.
9. I would settle for German style trench boots and puttees.
10. Mexican American War rucksack. KISS. Scott knew what he was doing.
11. Lee Rifle 1895 is a ramp straight pull rifle with multiple JAM features. Nix to that horror show. Mauser or Carcano bolt action.
12. Winchester 1907 is complex, expensive and FRAGILE. Not trooper suitable.
13. Browning High Power or 1911. F--- revolvers. 9 mm is acceptable, 11.43 mm is preferred.
14. For rifle / mg commonality, 7.5 to 7.92 mm because the same !@# !@#$ed bullet line has to serve ground and air.

Rocketeer has a carbine so he can carry reloads. It's long enough range, leave the sleeve on.

15. Nope. See 8; for why.

Manufacturing of light alloy cases isn't quite there yet in WWI for an earlier Blooper

16. 1932 is the earliest for a bazooka.

Organization
*denotes changed weapon

• 1 Squad Leader, Sergeant , armed with M1907 Carbine, or choice of Rifle​

• 3× Fire Teams of:​

• Team ABLE​

• 1× Fire Team Leader, Corporal , armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle​

• 1× Automatic Gunner, PFC , armed with M1913 Lewis Automatic Rifle​

• 1× Assistant Gunner, Private, armed with M1907 Carbine, and ammo Ruck​

• 1× Rocketeer, Private/PFC, armed with M1907 Carbine and *M1914 Launcher and three reloads​

• Team BAKER​

• 1x Fire Team Leader, Corporal , armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle​

• 1x Rifleman, Private, armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle​

• 1x Rifleman, Private, armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle​

• 1x Marksman, PFC, armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle with scope​

• Team CHARLIE​

• 1x Fire Team Leader, Corporal , armed with *M1895A1 Lee Rifle​

• 1× Automatic Gunner, PFC , armed with M1913 Lewis Automatic Rifle​

• 1× Assistant Gunner, Private, armed with M1907 Carbine, and ammo Ruck​

• 1× Rocketeer, Private/PFC, armed with M1907 Carbine and *M1914 Launcher and three reloads​

17. See 1-12.

Is this supposed to be the ideal or an accurate description of their current organization. Why the 1895 Lee's? Is that just a matter of not enough 1903s? And why have both Lewis and 1895 Colt machine guns in the same unit? Seems like the different machine don't offer enough advantage to have twice as many spare part supplies. Why both Lee's and M1907s? Is it simply a matter of not enough 1903s or M1907s?

18.Use Hotchkiss until Browning gets the short recoil Browning to work. Also insist on metallic belts to cure the Maxim problem and go with a rapid change barrel from the start.

Is this supposed to be for the marines (Which would explain the old USN Lee rifles).

19. Marines figured out the Lee. That is why they ditched it.

So is this an ideal or an accurate description of what the unit structure is actually like (Basically a small poorly armed and organized army going through a significant expansion while also enduring a brutal war in Mexico with the Mexican War hitting mid to early reform meaning that everything chaotic. And the mixture of rifles and calibers is a simple matter of the US army not having much of anything before the attempted expansion and industry taking time to build all the basic equipment (like 1903 Springfields) and M1919 air cooled machine guns that the army desperately needs or Mexico.

20. I'm looking at this mess from a Spanish American war has gone horribly wrong perspective and the answers are 3 inch trench mortars, potato masher Ketchum grenades, and Americanized Spanish Mauser rifles and a "fixed" Colt potato digger. Navy goes Hotchkiss and Carcano with box magazines.

Without the accident of the full blown war with Mexico I wonder how the reforms would have proceeded. Within a handful of years would their have been a much larger US army that's heavily armed with future inspired weaponry and used Hermes related tactics, strategy, and organization? Something that could have easily torn through the Mexicans TL defenses like they were tissue paper.

21. You get the Pershing circus, with a different date and more American KIAs.

No M1903, the M1895 Lee Rifle is updated to A1, for rebarrel and change in propellant for longer barrel life. It's power is at the top end of what today is an intermediate cartridge.

22. Neither the propellant or the metallurgy is there.

Lewis is adopted as squad automatic, rather than being spiked OTL in 1913. Also in 6mm Lee.

23. Lewis is complex, expensive and unreliable at the time compared to the Colt / Browning and the Hotchkiss.

Gen Crozier had an unfortunate accident in this TL in 1901, returning from the Boxer Rebellion.

24. He was not a complete idiot. Just corrupt and stupid when he failed to listen to Lawrence Benet on the Benet Mercie.

M1907 is the Winchester semi-auto carbine, for smaller size, and faster rate of fire. Its really the first modern PCC, if you want to call something that fired a cartridge equal to the 357 Maximum as a Pistol Caliber. It's nearly got the power of a 30-30.

25. See 12. .

The M1914 Launcher is a Panzerfaust 150, used a black powder charge to propel the TNT warhead, and is reloadable. Used for shorter ranges

26. See 8. again.

The Colt Potato Digger is in Company support weapon platoons, along with Mortars, and a 37mm Pom Pom.
The Colt is mostly in 6mm now, and with QD barrels.
It fills the role of a MMG and HMG, the latter having indirect sighting gear and high angle elevation for creating beaten zones at distance, and a water cooling jacket, allowed by a conversion to a gas piston design.
All use disintegrating links for the belts.

27. One machine gun for all that binds in the infantry platoon, that is the Marlin Browning with the RCG. Hotchkiss is for the heavy weapons platoon and for airplanes until the Browning short recoil retires both.

The killing horses thing, IMHO, is a carryover from the US Cavalry's 19th Century mindset. In the early 1900s when we're picking a new rifle cartridge, US forces hadn't faced horse cavalry, to speak of, since the late 1870s. Was there even any opposing Cavalry in the Span-Am War, Boxer Rebellion, or the Philippine-Ammerican War? The badly outnumbered Spanish had shot up US infantry quite well in the Santiago Campaign with 7 x57mm ammo. (The horse-centered Pancho Villa Expedition was 1916 mostly)

28. Spanish American war and the Filipino American War had lots of Americans shooting UPHILL at Spaniards and Illustrados. They desired a rifle that could carry bullets up a hill. Hence 1000 meter downrange carry. Where this horses nonsense came from is still something I am trying to actually historically justify. I see it in the British literature, but official American records seem to suggest it was not what prompted the requirement.

29. The Americans used cavalry as dragoons in the Philippine Islands. That was where they cursed the Krag carbine as lacking carry down-range.

The top US generals were mostly West Point men, who were taught American Civil War tactics at the Academy and had largely served on what not-long-ago frontier forts. Between tight budgets and advancement primarily by seniority over merit, forward-thinking was not really encouraged. The Span-Am War should have been, and was to some extent, a wake-up call, but not all lessons were learned.

30. Hunh? US civil war tactics had nothing to do with US operations during the Spanish American War. The American army used open order skirmish lines and western frontier anti-Apache style small unit tactics to dig the Spaniards out of their blockhouses. The fighting in the Philippine Islands, very much resembled New Mexico Native American warfare.

Even the Army's tactical play-books from 1911, 1914, and 1917 preached open formations on the attack to avoid getting shot to pieces. So, what does the Army do in their first battles in France? Charge across no man's land in nice linear rows and gets shot up. Still, a lot of old thinking in the top leadership.

31. That is ALL Pershing and that idiot, Hunter Liggett. In France.

 

[McPherson]

Funston was there at Celaya, I believe. He would have seen first hand just the meat-grinder you describe. On the flip side, Pershing had been an observer on the Japanese side at Port Arthur, so he should have known better. He would have seen another meat-grinder as well.

Wood is possible, kind of by default, IF Wilson is not President. Wood was tightly linked to key Republicans like TR and Lodge, so there's that political strike against him. To be fair, Pershing while not overtly partisan beforehand, did some artful sucking-up to Wilson in early 1917, and Pershing's father-in-law was a Senator, so that didn't hurt.

Have we not discussed Pershing before and concluded he was a fantasist?

 

[McPherson]

For rifle and hand grenades in WW1, wasn't the US using mostly French or British made? Is that something that could have been done as a home-grown version?

Ketchum modified into a potato masher.

 

[McPherson]

The Lees are fine guns, I always wondered why straight pulls were not more popular?

The cyclic motion jerks the barrel off sight picture and the soldier tires rapidly from the heavier pull and push as opposed to the bolt action as the Austrians reported in WWI.

 

[Driftless]

Hunh? US civil war tactics had nothing to do with US operations during the Spanish American War.

The tactical studies cirruculum at West Point till after WW1 was based on the US Civil War battles. Practical open formation tactics - as listed in the manuals, weren't always observed. That was very hit-or-miss in application. i.e. in several of the initial battles the US Army fought in France, they went over the top in nice linear roles and got shot to pieces in the process. The objectives were sometimes achieved, so those tactical fiascoes got accepted as the cost of lessons-learned. That format was connected to Pershing's open warfare doctrine, or "let's pretend the Germans aren't sitting in layers of trenches with extensive barbed wire in front, and plenty of machine guns and artillery". The Open Warfare idea was workable, only after you got well past the first several miles of entrenchments.

 

[McPherson]

*Pay attention to the Native American and other cultural means of preserving food without refrigeration as well as testing the existing/proposed rations on the officers in charge of their development

That is a good one. No tinned beef scandals please.

Regarding the idea someone brought up earlier about a M-79 style high/low grenade launcher for WW1, would the technology at the time permit the arming system 40mm grenades use, ie the grenade doesn’t arm until it has gone through a certain number of revolutions/travelled a certain distance?

If not, wouldn’t impact fused grenades be extremely dangerous in a launcher like that?

Considering how hard it was to develop the K-gun in WWI, I question this possibility before the late 1930s.

 

[McPherson]

IF the Root Reforms get more traction in this universe, and there's a more cohesive Chief of Staff administration of the Army, one of the central functions is going to be contingency war planning (more than what was historically done in the "aughts" and early 10's). What's up first on their list of areas to consider? Mexico, the Philippines, Hawaii (and other Pacific protectorates) certainly. Canada? probably. The Caribbean and Central America maybe, though that's more likely in the Navy and Marines baliwick. Europe? Probably pretty far down the list. Would it be a serious effort, or more of a "what do we do if" series of conversations in the Officers Club?

The results of those plans would have an impact on what tools are needed, and vice-versa, the limitations of what tools could be obtained impacts plans.

1. Philippine islands and Japan.
2. Mexico.
3. Cuba.
4. Columbia.
5. Japan in China.
6. Great Britain as part of a naval and trade war. Goodbye Canada.
7. Germany, not sure where, but Germany for sure.
8. Brazil.
9. Argentina.
10. Russia.

 

[McPherson]

The tactical studies cirruculum at West Point till after WW1 was based on the US Civil War battles. Practical open formation tactics - as listed in the manuals, weren't always observed. That was very hit-or-miss in application. i.e. in several of the initial battles the US Army fought in France, they went over the top in nice linear roles and got shot to pieces in the process. The objectives were sometimes achieved, so those tactical fiascoes got accepted as the cost of lessons-learned. That format was connected to Pershing's open warfare doctrine, or "let's pretend the Germans aren't sitting in layers of trenches with extensive barbed wire in front, and plenty of machine guns and artillery". The Open Warfare idea was workable, only after you got well past the first several miles of entrenchments.

For op-art purposes, Driftless. How to mass and maneuver on rivers and use the railroads, how to handle attack and defense of army scale logistics. There was nothing kept as lessons learned about how to assault fortified field expedient defensive positions except commander to the front to recon the avenue of approach, read the ground and formulate a maneuver plan and that was ACTUALLY Spanish American War lessons learned. Which we both know is not what was taught to the Doughboys when they got to France. It was up and at them at the trot and get in there with the bayonet. That is strictly on the idiot, Pershing, and his cult of the rifle. The more practical AEF types, including glory hog Douglas MacArthur, got rid of that nonsense real quick. They fought French 1917 style.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

5. Caranza and Villa have a blowup in 1912 and Taft has to answer a full scale border war.

Carranza was in 1912 just governor of Coahuila and Villa a loyal general to the Madero administration, no room for a blow up between the two. The happening event of 1912 was Pascual Orozco's revolt against Madero which was foiled by Villa and Victoriano Huerta. Maybe the Orozquistas play the Villista role several years early? Apparently there was some anti-American sentiment among them and they scared the Mormon colonies into fleeing back to the USA.

11. Lee Rifle 1895 is a ramp straight pull rifle with multiple JAM features. Nix to that horror show. Mauser or Carcano bolt action.

If there was one terrible American ordnance decision I could change it'd be the idea of adopting the Krag over the Mauser. Preferably we'd pick the Spanish 7mm Mauser cartridge to go with it, although I'm not 100% sure that was being evaluated at the time since it was made the same year as the trials IIRC.

 

[McPherson]

Carranza was in 1912 just governor of Coahuila and Villa a loyal general to the Madero administration, no room for a blow up between the two. The happening event of 1912 was Pascual Orozco's revolt against Madero which was foiled by Villa and Victoriano Huerta. Maybe the Orozquistas play the Villista role several years early? Apparently there was some anti-American sentiment among them and they scared the Mormon colonies into fleeing back to the USA.

That will work out better. As long as Columbus, New Mexico is annihilated, as Pancho Villa originally intended, to ignite that US / Mexico border war. Remember, Wilson was using USG hired American railroads to ship Carranza's troops through Texas to get at Villa? Stupid racist bastard, Wilson, just has no redeeming actions to him. None. So we need Wilson earlier.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

That will work out better. As long as Columbus, New Mexico is annihilated, as Pancho Villa originally intended, to ignite that US / Mexico border war. Remember, Wilson was using USG hired American railroads to ship Carranza's troops through Texas to get at Villa? Stupid racist bastard, Wilson, just has no redeeming actions to him. None. So we need Wilson earlier.

I wouldn't criticize Wilson for that one, supporting the Carranza government made much more sense than supporting the already losing Villista bandits and supporting nobody would just leave Mexico an unstable neighbor. Besides, even before Columbus Villa was attacking American citizens and property just because he was upset. The real problematic Wilson here wasn't Woodrow but rather Henry Lane Wilson, no relation. HL Wilson was Taft's ambassador to Mexico and in 1913, a month before Woodrow Wilson's inauguration, helped arrange the coup that overthrew Madero and saw him murdered. In fact President Wilson reacted appropriately, refusing to recognize the Huerta regime (at least until Huerta promised an election he wouldn't run in) and replacing Ambassador Wilson.

In any case, unlike Villa in 1916 I can't think of a specific reason Orozco would be mad enough at the US to arrange an attack on them. In fact he took refuge in Los Angeles after his defeat. His men might've harbored anti-American sentiment but they'd hardly raze Columbus on their own. And it's an open question whether Madero would take issue with a punitive expedition against anti-Madero rebels the way Carranza did against the Villa Expedition. Unless Madero doesn't do anything and it's either Villa or Huerta who escalates things in such a way that the USA is dragged in.

EDIT: I'd argue that without something as terrible as the American occupation of Veracruz poisoning US-Mexican relations, it's more likely the Mexican government wouldn't take a hard stance against the US striking back at some Mexican rebels just across the American border.

 

[McPherson]

I wouldn't criticize Wilson for that one, supporting the Carranza government made much more sense than supporting the already losing Villista bandits and supporting nobody would just leave Mexico an unstable neighbor. Besides, even before Columbus Villa was attacking American citizens and property just because he was upset. The real problematic Wilson here wasn't Woodrow but rather Henry Lane Wilson, no relation. HL Wilson was Taft's ambassador to Mexico and in 1913, a month before Woodrow Wilson's inauguration, helped arrange the coup that overthrew Madero and saw him murdered. In fact President Wilson reacted appropriately, refusing to recognize the Huerta regime (at least until Huerta promised an election he wouldn't run in) and replacing Ambassador Wilson.

In any case, unlike Villa in 1916 I can't think of a specific reason Orozco would be mad enough at the US to arrange an attack on them. In fact he took refuge in Los Angeles after his defeat. His men might've harbored anti-American sentiment but they'd hardly raze Columbus on their own. And it's an open question whether Madero would take issue with a punitive expedition against anti-Madero rebels the way Carranza did against the Villa Expedition. Unless Madero doesn't do anything and it's either Villa or Huerta who escalates things in such a way that the USA is dragged in.

Let's look at that one.

“Avoid the Use of the Word Intervention”: Wilson and Lansing on the U.S. Invasion of Mexico​

In 1916, Francisco Villa, leader of the peasant uprisings in northern Mexico, raided Columbus, New Mexico, in an attempt to expose Mexican government collaboration with the United States. President Woodrow Wilson responded by ordering an invasion of Mexico. Five years after the beginning of the Mexican Revolution, which was characterized by hope for social change as well as death, hunger, and violence, many Mexicans did not welcome further involvement by the U.S. In the following correspondence, Secretary of State Robert Lansing and President Wilson described the need to carefully frame the invasion as a defense of U.S. borders rather than interference in the Mexican Revolution. The resulting invasion, led by General John Pershing, was a total fiasco. It failed to locate Villa and increased anti-U.S. sentiment and Mexican nationalist resolve.

---

From Robert Lansing, with Enclosure

Personal and Confidential:

Washington June 21, 1916.

My dear Mr. President:

As there appears to be an increasing probability that the Mexican situation may develop into a state of war I desire to make a suggestion for your consideration. It seems to me that we should avoid the use of the word “Intervention” and deny that any invasion of Mexico is for the sake of intervention.

There are several reasons why this appears to me expedient:

First. We have all along denied any purpose to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico and the St. Louis platform declares against it. Intervention conveys the idea of such interference.

Second. Intervention would be humiliating to many Mexicans whose pride and sense of national honor would not resent severe terms of peace in case of being defeated in a war.

Third. American intervention in Mexico is extremely distasteful to all Latin America and might have a very bad effect upon our Pan-American program.

Fourth. Intervention, which suggests a definite purpose to “clean up” the country, would bind us to certain accomplishments which circumstances might make extremely difficult or inadvisable, and, on the other hand, it would impose conditions which might be found to be serious restraints upon us as the situation develops.

Fifth. Intervention also implies that the war would be made primarily in the interest of the Mexican people, while the fact is it would be a war forced on us by the Mexican Government, and, if we term it intervention, we will have considerable difficulty in explaining why we had not intervened before but waited until attacked.

It seems to me that the real attitude is that the de facto Government having attacked our forces engaged in a rightful enterprise or invaded our borders (as the case may be) we had no recourse but to defend ourselves and to do so it has become necessary to prevent future attacks by forcing the Mexican Government to perform its obligations. That is, it is simply a state of international war without purpose on our part other than to end the conditions which menace our national peace and the safety of our citizens, and that it is not intervention with all that that word implies.

I offer the foregoing suggestion, because I feel that we should have constantly in view the attitude we intend to take if worse comes to worse, so that we may regulate our present policy and future correspondence with Mexico and other American Republics with that attitude.

In case this suggestion meets with your approval I further suggest that we send to each diplomatic representative of a Latin American Republic in Washington a communication stating briefly our attitude and denying any intention to intervene. I enclose a draft of such a note. If this is to be done at all, it seems to me that it should be done at once, otherwise we will lose the chief benefit, namely, a right understanding by Latin America at the very outset.

Faithfully yours, Robert Lansing

TLS (SDR, RG 59, 812.00/l8533A, DNA).

Enclosure

****

Sir:

June 21, 1916.

I enclose for your information a copy of this Government’s note of June 20th to the Secretary of Foreign Relations of the de facto Government of Mexico on the subject of the presence ofAmerican troops in Mexican territory. This communication states clearly the critical relations existing between this Government and the de facto Government of Mexico and the causes which have led up to the present situation.

Should this situation eventuate into hostilities, which this Government would deeply regret and will use every honorable effort to avoid, I take this opportunity to inform you that this Government would have for its object not intervention in Mexican affairs, with all the regrettable consequences which might result from such a policy, but the defense of American territory from further invasion by bands of armed Mexicans, protection of American citizens and property along the boundary from outrages committed by such bandits, and the prevention of future depredations, by force of arms against the marauders infesting this region and against a Government which is encouraging and aiding them in their activities. Hostilities, in short, would be simply a state of international war without purpose on the part of the United States other than to end the conditions which menace our national peace and the safety of our citizens.

T MS (SDR, RG 59, 8I2.00/I8533A, DNA).

*****

To Robert Lansing

The White House. 21 June, 1916.

My dear Mr. Secretary,

I agree to all of this. I was myself about to say something to you to the same effect, though I had not thought of making an occasion of the sending of copies of our note to Mexico to the Latin American representatives but had thought to wait until hostilities were actually forced upon us. As I write this “extras” of the evening paper are being cried on the Avenue which, if true, mean that hostilities have begun. At any rate, my doubt upon that point (the time for the notification you suggest) is so slight that I beg that you will carry out the plan you suggest at once.

Faithfully Yours, W. W.

Source: Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981), 275–277.

See Also:The United States and the Mexican Revolution: "A Danger for All Latin American Countries," Letters from Venustiano Carranza
John Reed's "What About Mexico?": The United States and the Mexican Revolution

There is no dispute that Taft and his ambassador wanted Madera out and Huerta in. There is also no dispute that Wilson, who could have cut a deal and calmed things down, went out of his way to make them worse. (^^^).

As for that horse thief, Orozco, if he thought a border war with the US would line his pockets and gain him power, he was all for it. That backstabber and opportunist was hunted down and killed by Texas Rangers..

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

There is no dispute that Taft and his ambassador wanted Madera out and Huerta in. There is also no dispute that Wilson, who could have cut a deal and calmed things down, went out of his way to make them worse. (^^^).

Oh I'm not arguing the actual Villa Expedition wasn't a fiasco on several levels and an overall bad move, I'm just saying that the inciting incident was all on Villa being petulant and there was nothing wrong with Wilson supporting the Constitutionalist government of Carranza as they had both power and legitimacy and were the best option for a stable Mexico going forward. In fact it's rather telling that Carranza himself opposed the Villa Expedition, which eventually led to at least one battle between US and Mexican Army troops, which as per my edit might've had roots in the egregious American invasion of Veracruz in 1914. Ironically the Veracruz occupation was ostensibly in support of Carranza since it was a direct response to an attempt at circumventing the arms embargo against Huerta, but all it really accomplished was to rile up Mexican nationalists on both sides.

 

[McPherson]

Oh I'm not arguing the actual Villa Expedition wasn't a fiasco on several levels and an overall bad move, I'm just saying that the inciting incident was all on Villa being petulant and there was nothing wrong with Wilson supporting the Constitutionalist government of Carranza as they had both power and legitimacy and were the best option for a stable Mexico going forward. In fact it's rather telling that Carranza himself opposed the Villa Expedition, which eventually led to at least one battle between US and Mexican Army troops, which as per my edit might've had roots in the egregious American invasion of Veracruz in 1914. Ironically the Veracruz occupation was ostensibly in support of Carranza since it was a direct response to an attempt at circumventing the arms embargo against Huerta, but all it really accomplished was to rile up Mexican nationalists on both sides.

At least we both agree that; "teach them good government" was little different than "Underneath the starry flag, civilize them with a Krag," Same garbage, different administrations with Wilson just being incompetent as well as a racist bigot. Man; I hate racist imperialists clown club buffoons masquerading as "moralists". They were protecting American oil interests, same as Taft.

 

[McPherson]

It would have been improved. I can see a lengthened version with a gun-house or turret fitted to it. It needs a wider track and a better ditching tail too.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

At least we both agree that; "teach them good government" was little different than "Underneath the starry flag, civilize them with a Krag," Same garbage, different administrations with Wilson just being incompetent as well as a racist bigot. Man; I hate racist imperialists clown club buffoons masquerading as "moralists". They were protecting American oil interests, same as Taft.

I still think Wilson deserves at least a tiny bit of credit here, if he were purely acting in his own interests it would've been more expedient to back the Huerta regime, as several European powers did and American business interests wanted him to do, the anti-Huertistas all promised some measure of social and land reforms that would hurt foreign businesses which owned much of Mexico. Instead Wilson seems to have stuck to a genuine support of liberal democracy in opposing him. Granted, maybe he was just displaying a bit of foresight, Huerta was extravagantly tyrannical (to the degree of a cartoon villain) and utterly lacking in popular support, relying purely on the military which was composed largely of unwilling recruits. But given his obvious lack of understanding of the social climate, this foresight would be very uncharacteristic of him.

EDIT: And as I mentioned, he at least wasn't as overtly sinister and arrogant as HL Wilson, who not only helped arrange the coup that put Huerta in power but justified it by characterizing the (somewhat milquetoast) moderate Madero as a crazed radical and praised Huerta for consulting him, a foreign ambassador, about policy decisions.

 

[McPherson]

Wilson seems to have stuck to a genuine support of liberal democracy in opposing him...

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you do not do it for your own, then you cannot claim it for others. Wilson was not a "liberal" and he did not support "liberal democracy". He was an Unreconstructed Confederate and a fascist before anyone ever invented the term.

This is going off topic, but Wilson's gross incompetence, malfeasance and stupidity as well as his racist bastardry which severely damages the US postal system, the American navy and American army, to bring it firmly back to topic, is such an overriding Wilson rat bastard characteristic, that it has to be system addressed, politically, so that the American army has a snowball's chance in hell to do better than it RTL did in 1917-18. Wilson has to be caught early enough in the system for his mistakes to do him in and has to leave the political stage so that the Rooseveltians can fix in four years what he screws up in two in time for WWI to work at all with Woodrow Wilson lessons learned. I mean this is what happens to WWII America. Wilson's screwups are what FDR uses as his blueprint for what not to do.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you do not do it for your own, then you cannot claim it for others. Wilson was not a "liberal" and he did not support "liberal democracy". He was an Unreconstructed Confederate and a fascist before anyone ever invented the term.

I'm not a Wilson supporter, and in this instance I suppose I mean liberal in the classical term and not as a catch-all to any progressive ideals. In this instance though, it was the Colorado governor who bears responsibility for the massacre, the conflict between the strikers and the National Guard and their mercenaries ended with federal troops disarming both sides, on Wilson's orders. I'm definitely no fan of Wilson, I'd agree he was a terrible president, but I don't think it's right to suggest he bears the blame for literally everything during his administration or to read motives that aren't there in every decision. He was unquestionably an arrogant, incompetent racist with a poor record on worker's rights, but also believed in establishing world peace and spreading the influence of democracies.

 

[McPherson]

I'm not a Wilson supporter, and in this instance I suppose I mean liberal in the classical term and not as a catch-all to any progressive ideals. In this instance though, it was the Colorado governor who bears responsibility for the massacre, the conflict between the strikers and the National Guard and their mercenaries ended with federal troops disarming both sides, on Wilson's orders. I'm definitely no fan of Wilson, I'd agree he was a terrible president, but I don't think it's right to suggest he bears the blame for literally everything during his administration or to read motives that aren't there in every decision. He was unquestionably an arrogant, incompetent racist with a poor record on worker's rights, but also believed in establishing world peace and spreading the influence of democracies.

Federal troops could have intervened earlier. Federal legal machinery (14th Amendment) existed to cool-down the situation. Wilson did nothing. Credit Congress with finally fixing that mess.

Industrial relations : final report and testimony submitted to Congress by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by the act of August 23, 1912 : United States. Commission on Industrial Relations : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Inter

RLIN

archive.org

That was TAFT, BTW who started that ball rolling. Rooseveltian. Mind you not a good man by today's standards, but he was in there swinging and trying before Wilson ever came in to !@#$ things up.