Mexico.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 17, 1913:
    It is safe to go contrary to general public opinion only when general public opinion is wrong. In refusing to recognize the Huerta Government in Mexico the Wilson Administration has gone contrary to what we believe to be public opinion in this country; it has certainly acted in a spirit contrary to that which Americans in Mexico believe would have been wise, and refusal to recognize Huerta has displeased the native Mexicans. It is now evident that some of the European Powers have become apprehensive of the consequences of the policy which President Wilson and Secretary Bryan have thus far pursued. Confronted by the evidences of a growing hostility toward Americans in the City of Mexico and of some disquietude in European capitals, the President, it appears, has decided to re-examine his position. The time for that was at an earlier date. One who is in disagreement with the majority view has great need of making sure that he is right. The President and the Secretary of State have appeared to be very confident that they were right. But now President Wilson has summoned Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson to Washington to report at first hand upon the state of affairs in Mexico. This step seems to have been taken in consequence of inquiries or representations made from one or more European foreign offices. It is encouraging, to be sure, that something has been done, but action may have come too late.
    It has been felt here, and believed in Mexico, that the prompt recognition of Huerta would have given him such authority, strength, credit, and stability that he would have been much, better able to cope with the elements of insurrection and disturbance in the republic. Great Britain, Japan, Brazil, and China have recognized Huerta. Recognition by us would have been more potent than that of any more distant nation. The American public has had no direct knowledge of the grounds upon which President Wilson withheld recognition. The conjecture has run that one reason was the assassination of Madero, and it has been intimated, but so far as we know without any authority, that it was feared in Washington that Huerta was doomed to speedy overthrow. The first of these assigned reasons is quite inadequate, since recognition takes account of the fact that a Government is established, not of the methods that have brought it into power. The second reason might possibly have some force now, but it could have had none at all — quite the contrary — if at an earlier day recognition would have fortified Huerta against his rivals in rebellion. The fullest allowance must be made for the possibility that the Administration has knowledge of the Mexican situation which it has not communicated to the American public. But in the existing state of information here our attitude toward Huerta seems to have been a mistake.
    It is inevitable in situations of this nature that the Monroe Doctrine should be brought into the discussion. The Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do with the matter. We are not, specifically because of that doctrine, called upon either to take action in Mexico or to oppose action by any European Government seeking to protect its nationals and their property. It is because there are many Americans in Mexico whose lives might be endangered by disorders, it is because of the large American property interests which would be similarly endangered, that we have reason to take thought about protective measures across the border. It is because, having these important interests, we are nearest to the scene that European Powers would reasonably look to us, should the occasion arise, to take measures for assuring the safety of life and property in Mexico. The problem is difficult: it might become very troublesome. For that, reason it was incumbent upon us to use foresight and sound judgment, to the end that trouble may be averted. The belief prevails that the recognition of Huerta some time ago would have better served that end. Perhaps that is a mistaken opinion. The President should know, and Mr. Bryan should know.
    The reception accorded by Mr. Bryan to Americans having property interests at stake in Mexico some time ago was not reassuring. These gentlemen were so far convinced that the Secretary of State had the wrong point of view that they took their case to the President, but seemingly without satisfactory results. The policy of inaction was not changed. Now it would seem that a change, if not actually contemplated, is at least possible. Nobody is so well informed concerning conditions in Mexico as Ambassador Wilson. He has been faithful, he has shown energy and ceaseless industry, and his influence has been of the highest value for the protection of American interests. Attacks have been made upon him, but they came from the meanest sources, and they can be ignored. He comes now to advise the Administration of actual conditions in Mexico. It is to be hoped that his statements and his advice will be of service in enabling the Administration to act wisely and promptly. It is plain that we are advancing toward a critical stage in our relations with Mexico, even if we have not already reached it. If delay has been unwise, it may be possible that we can make amends now by recognition of Huerta. He is, in fact, the President of Mexico. Other nations have not found it necessary to take account of other circumstances, since the fact is in such cases usually the controlling one. But public anxiety will be allayed If some policy other than that of entire inaction is adopted, some policy that will tend to the preservation of order in Mexico. The way to keep out of trouble is not to get into it.