¹ New YorkTimes, 03 11, 1916.Google Scholar

² General Scott, Hugh L., Chief of Staff, ‘Memorandum for the Adjutant General’, 03 10, 1916, 9.20 p.m. Washington D.C.: U.S. National Archives (USNA), Record Group 94 (RG), Adjutant General's Office (AGO), # 2377632, underlining Scott's;Google Scholar Adjutant General to Frederick, Funston, 03 10, 1916, received 11.59 p.m., Washington D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress (USLC), Papers of General John J. Pershing, box 372.Google Scholar

³ Some of the writers who note the discrepancy but do not resolve it are: Clendenen, Clarence C., The United States and Pancho Villa (Ithaca, 1961), pp. 251–3Google Scholar and his Blood on the Border (London, 1969), pp. 213–15,Google Scholar and especially ‘The Punitive Expedition of 1916: A Re-Evaluation’, Arizona and the West, III (Winter, 1961), pp. 311–20;Google ScholarJohnson, Robert B., ‘The Punitive Expedition: A Military, Diplomatic and Political History of Pershing's Chase after Pancho Villa, 1916–17’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964), pp. 87–104;Google ScholarEdward Haley, P., Revolution and Intervention: The Diplomacy of Taft and Wilson with Mexico, 1910–1917 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), pp. 187–9;Google ScholarDonald, Smythe, Guerrilla Warrior (New York, 1973), pp. 270–80.Google ScholarVandiver, Frank E., Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing (College Station, Texas, 1977), Vol. II, p. 605,Google Scholar cites a telegram from the Adjutant General to Pershing of March 11, 1916 saying that Pershing was ‘… to capture Villa and his bandits…’ and on p. 668 cites Pershing's manuscript memoirs in which the general wrote, ‘We had not captured Villa, to be sure, as we hoped to do, but when active pursuit stopped we had broken up and scattered his band, which was our original mission.’ Not surprisingly then, some general histories tend to be cagey about Pershing's objective and the significance of his mission. See Leopold, Richard W., The Growth of American Foreign Policy: A History (New York, 1962), pp. 318–22;Google ScholarAlexander, De Conde, A History of American Foreign Policy, 3rd ed. (New York, 1978), Vol. I, pp. 392–3.Google ScholarHaldeen, Braddy, Pershing's Mission in Mexico (El Paso, 1966), p. 8ff. cites the original War Department order about dispersal and evaluates the expedition on those terms. But he makes no mention of the public statement regarding capture.Google Scholar

⁴ For the U.S. see, Armin Rappaport, A History of American Diplomacy (New York, 1975), p. 236;Google ScholarJohnson, , ‘The Punitive Expedition’, pp. 105ff.;Google Scholar the Clendenen material cited in note. For Mexico, see José, Vasconcelos, Breve historia de Méexico (seg. ed.) (México, 1937), pp. 563–4;Google ScholarCumberland, Charles C., Mexican Revolution: The Constitutionalist Years (Austin, 1972), p. 324, note 13Google ScholarLeon, Wolff, ‘Black Jack's Mexican Goose Chase’, American Heritage, 13 (06 1962), pp. 22–7, 100–106;Google ScholarBerta, Ulloa, ‘La lucha armada, 1911–1920’, in Historia general de México (Daniel Cosĺo Villegas (coordinator)), Vol. IV (México, 1976), p. 84;Google ScholarMeyer, Michael C. and William, Sherman, The Course of Mexican History (New York, 1979), pp. 540–1, especbally photograph caption p. 541.Google Scholar

⁵ Robert, Freeman Smith, The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico (Chicago, 1972), pp. 48–51,Google Scholar suggests Wilson had broader aims than Villa but still attributes Villa's capture as the expedition's primary goal. Tate, Michael L., ‘Pershing's Punitive Expedition: Pursuer of Bandits or Presidential Panacea?’, The Americas, 32 (07, 1975), pp. 46–71,CrossRefGoogle Scholar sees Wilson using the troops to protect numerous groups below the border. Gilderhus, Mark T., Diplomacy and Revolution: U.S.–Mexican Relations under Wilson and Carranza (Tucson, 1977), pp. 21–52Google Scholar alludes to issues greater than Villa but does not develop them. Charles, H. Harris III and Sadler, Louis R., ‘The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican–United States War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 58 (08, 1978), pp. 381–408 focus on the summer war threat but do not examine the relation of U.S. policy toward Villa and the Plan as part of the same strategy.Google Scholar

⁶ Friedrich, Katz, ‘Pancho Villa and the Attack on Columbus, New Mexico’, American Historical Review, 88 (02, 1978), pp. 101–30.Google Scholar See also my comments on the article and Katz's, reply, American Historical Review, 84 (02, 1979), pp. 304–7.Google Scholar

⁷ The rich and often unexpected sources of the U.S. National Archives described in my ‘The Plan of San Diego: War and Diplomacy on the Texas Border, 1915–1916’, Arizona and the West, 14 (Spring, 1972), p. 6, note 1,Google Scholar have been substantially augmented by acquisition of the records of the Bureau of Investigation in 1977. Housed in RG 65, the intelligence reports in file # 232–84 pertain to the Plan of San Diego. In Mexico, the continued declassification of documents in the Archivo de Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (ASRE) provides now the appropriate complement to the U.S. State Department records, and the opening of the Archivo de Venustiano Carranza (AVC), at CONDUMEX, has proven essential for the Mexican national perspective. On the latter, see Richmond, Douglas W., ‘The Venustiano Carranza Archive’, HAHR, 56 (05, 1976), pp. 290–4. For the local archival materials in both countries see sources first cited in notes 11 and 13 below.Google Scholar

⁸ Sandos, James A., ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States, 1915–1917: the Impact of Conflict in the Texas–Tamaulipas Frontier upon the Emergence of Revolutionary Government in Mexico’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1978), pp. 145–78.Google Scholar

⁹ Adjutant General to Chief Clerk, War Department, November 4, 1915, AGO, # 2338954.

¹⁰ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 258–90.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘∣A los Pueblos Opri∣s de América∣’, Mexico, Archivo de Samuel Espinosa de los Monteros, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Another example of the original broadside is in Mexico, Archivo General del Estado de Nuevo León (AGNL), Concluidos 1916, caja 1. An English language translation of an earlier version is in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, S. Doe. 285 (66th Cong., 2nd sess., 1920), Vol. 1, pp. 1205–7.Google Scholar

¹² ‘A Nuestros Compatriotas los Mexicanos en Texas’, reproduced in Sandos, ‘The Plan of San Diego’, opposite p. 9.

¹³ Texas State Archives, Texas State Legislature, ‘Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House in the Investigation of the State Ranger Force, Jan. 31, 1919’, III vols., passim. Ranger activity led to the coining of the term ‘rangering’ to describe rough and summary treatment. See San, Antonio, Light, 09 10, 1915.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Documents cited in Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, p. 298 note 57.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Brownsville, , Herald, 11 1, 1915;Google ScholarSan, Antonio, Express, 11 1, 1915.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Richmond, Douglas W., ‘The First Chief and Revolutionary Mexico: The Presidency of Venustiano Carranza, 1915–1920’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1976), pp. 201–2.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Memorandum’, José Arrendondo to Venustiano Carranza, August 16, 1915, AVC, carpeta 90, doc. 10199.

¹⁸ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 201–11, 275–304;Google ScholarRichmond, , ‘The First Chief and Revolutionary Mexico’, pp. 198–200.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Maurio, Uribe to Venustiano, Carranza, 06 8, 1915, AVC, carpeta 41, doc. 4506.Google Scholar

²⁰ Sandos, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

²¹ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 277–9.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., pp. 282–7. Harris, and Sadler, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, p. 389, call Nafarrate a ‘scapegoat’.Google Scholar

²³ Compare ‘Consideration and Outline of Policies’, July 11, 1915 and ‘The Conference in Regard to Mexico’, October 10, 1915, USLC, Papers of Robert Lansing, Memoranda File, box 2.

²⁴ Bureau of Investigation, # 232–84.

²⁵ Hager, William H., ‘The Plan of San Diego: Unrest on the Texas Border in 1915’, Arizona and the West, 5 (Winter, 1963), pp. 327–36;Google ScholarCumberland, Charles C., ‘Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1915’, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 57 (01, 1954), pp. 285–311;Google ScholarSandos, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, pp. 17–22;Google ScholarHarris, and Sadler, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, pp. 388–9;Google ScholarRichmond, Douglas W., ‘Se repite la guerra de Texas: Chicano Insurrection and the Mexican Revolution’ (Paper presented at the meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Pittsburgh, 1979), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar An expanded version is forthcoming in Aztlán. See also his ‘Venustiano Carranza’, in George, Wolfskill and Douglas, Richmond (eds.), Essays on the Mexican Revolution: Revisionist Views of the Leaders (Austin, 1979), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

²⁶ Brownsville, Herald, 11 11, 1915.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid.,11 1, 1915.

²⁸ Ibid., 10 29, 1915.

²⁹ San, Antonio, Express, 11 24, 1915;Google ScholarSan, Antonio, La Prensa, 11 24, 25, 1915.Google Scholar

³⁰ Venustiano Carranza to Governor of the State of Nuevo León, undated but with margin note that the Governor had so ordered his troops on February 1, 1916, and response dated February 3, 1916, AGNL, Concluidos 1916, caja 1. The officer arrested was Maurilio Rodríguez against whom the U.S. Chief of Staff complained to Lansing in December. See Sandos, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, p. 20 n. 36.Google Scholar

³¹ Juan, Gómez-Quiñones, ‘Plan de San Diego Reviewed’, Aztlán, 1 (Spring, 1970), pp. 124–30.Google Scholar

³² My ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 145–76, 232–57, 358–85 discusses the issues and evidence in detail. I conclude that the honorary German consuls acted as freelances and not as part of a scheme directed from Berlin. I also discuss the Plan's tenuous connections to Victoriano Huerta. Robert F. Smith has written, ‘By attributing so much power and influence to Carranza and his government, U.S. officials interpreted all anti-American pronouncements and acts against foreign interests by local and state officials as part of a uniform, centrally directed plot.’ Smith concludes that such interpretations were false. See the United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, pp. 86ff.

³³ Report of agent Rogers, J. B., 02 5, 1916, USNA, RG 43, Records of the American and Mexican Joint Commission, 1916, Gray-Lane files, # 11. Hereafter Gray-Lane files.Google Scholar

³⁴ For example, J. B. Rogers to Albert S. Burleson, August 30, 1915, USLC, Papers of Albert S. Burleson. Rogers' letters to Gregory are here.

³⁵ See my ‘German Involvement in Northern Mexico, 1915–1916: A New Look at the Columbus Raid’,Google ScholarHAHR, L (02, 1970), pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

³⁶ Crockett, J. O. to General, Francisco Villa, 12 13, 1915, University of Texas, Latin American Collection, Ferrocarril Nor-Oeste de México (FNOM) [Mexico Northwestern Railway Company].Google Scholar

³⁷ Secretary of War to Secretary of State January 6, 1916 and reply January 12, 1916 cited in Alan, Gerlach, ‘Conditions Along the Border, 1915: The Plan de San Diego’, New Mexico Historical Review 43 (07, 1968), p. 204.Google Scholar

³⁸ Sandos, , ‘German Involvement in Northern Mexico’, pp. 77–81.Google Scholar

³⁹ Bruce White, E., ‘The Muddied Waters of Columbus, New Mexico’, The Americas, 32 (07, 1975), pp. 72–91, and note 6 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Scott, Hugh L., Some Memories of a Soldier (New York, 1928), pp. 519–21,Google Scholar claimed that his ‘correction’ of the record was the first publicly made. Frank, Tompkins, Chasing Villa: The Story behind the Story of Pershing's Expedition into Mexico (Harrisburg, Pa., 1934), pp. 70–2.Google Scholar

⁴¹ War Department to Frederick Funston, March 13, 1916, USNA, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Microcopy M 274, r 51, 812.00/17457.

⁴² Secretary of State to Eliseo Arredondo, Carranza's representative, March 13, 1916, U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1916–1916 (Washington D.C., 1926), p. 489.Google Scholar Hereafter Foreign Relations 1916, Link, Arthur S., Wilson: Confusion and Crises, 1915–1916 (New Jersey, 1964), p. 212, n. 71, incorrectly states that the message to Funston paraphrased that to Arredondo.Google Scholar

⁴³ Robert, Lansing, ‘Memorandum of a Conversation with Mr. Arredondo’, 03 9, 1916,4 p.m., M 274, r 51, 812.00/17510–1/2.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See the Vandiver citation in note 3 above.

⁴⁵ Eliseo, Arredondo to Cándido, Aguilar, Foreign Relations Minister, 04 8, 1916,Google ScholarDocumentos historicos de la Revolución Mexicana (DHRM), (Isidro, Fabela (ed.)) Vol. XII (México D.F., 1967), pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Diaries of William Ord Ryan and Joseph C. King, both of the 7th Cavalry, March, 1916, Stanford University, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

⁴⁷ Rodney, George B., As a Cavalryman Remembers (Caidwell, Idaho, 1944), pp. 257–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Interview with Major Josó Orozco, Parlier, California, December 1, 1966, who witnessed Villa's wound. For details on Orozco see my ‘German Involvement in Northern Mexico’, p. 71, n. 3. The incident was confirmed by Villa's personal secretary, Dario Silva; see Zachary Cobb to Frank L. Polk, Counselor, U.S. State Department, December 29, 1916, M 274, r 58, 812.00/20254. This version of Villa's wound stands at odds with nearly every other account which alleges that the incident occurred later near Guerrero in a clash with Constitutionalists. For example, see Clendenen, , Blood on the Border, p. 234.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The archive of the Mexico Northwestern Railway (FNOM), cited in note 36, shows that Carranza permitted Pershing to send supplies to his troops in Mexico provided he used civilian consignees.

⁵⁰ Engagements most conveniently summarized in Braddy, , Pershing's Mission in Mexico, pp. 43–5.Google Scholar

⁵¹ ‘Encuentros de las tropas constitucionales con fuerzas villistas en la época de la expedición punitiva,’ in Alvaro Obregón to Venustiano Carranza, May 4, 1916, cited in Alberto, Salinas Carranza, La expedición punitiva (seg. ed., México, D.F., 1937), pp. 421–3.Google Scholar

⁵² Tompkins, , Chasing Villa, pp. 128–41;Google ScholarSalinas, Carranza, La expedición punitiva, pp. 153–71;Google ScholarBraddy, , Pershing's Mission in Mexico, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar

⁵³ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 351–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See note 51 above.

⁵⁵ ‘Annual Report of the Southern Department, 1916’, AGO; Constitutionalist confidential agent report, Del, Rio, Texas, 05 13, 1916, ASRE, L–E–801R, legajo VII;Google ScholarFlores Tijerina, C. to Venustiano, Carranza, 05 10, 1916, AVC, carpeta 77, doc. 8458.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hugh, Scott and Frederick, Funston to Secretary of War, 05 8, 1916, M 274, r 53, 812.00/18125.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ New York Times, 05 10, 1916.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Link, , Wilson: Confusion and Crises, pp. 283–99.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Pablo, González, El centinela fiel del constitucionalismo (Saltillo, México, 1971), passim.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 141–53, 159–60.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Harris, and Sadler, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, pp. 395–8.Google Scholar

⁶² John, Womack, Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (New York, 1968), pp. 251–5.Google Scholar

⁶³ Alfredo, Ricaut to Venustiano, Carranza, 02 1, 1916, ASRE, Topográfico 16–7–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Rodgers, James L. to Cándido, Aguilar, 05 23, 25, and 06 6, 22, 1916,Google ScholarIbid., Topográfico 16–19–155. Silliman, John R. to Secretary of State, 06 22, 6 p.m.,Google ScholarForeign Relations 1916, p. 574.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Harris, and Sadler, , ‘The Plan of San Diego’, pp. 398–9;Google ScholarSandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 326–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Frederick, Funston to Adjutant, General, 06 18, 1976, 2.20 and 5.51 p.m., AGO, # 2212358.Google ScholarGeneral, James Parker, The Old Army: Memories, 1872–1918 (Philadelphia, 1929), pp. 424–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ ‘Action Between Troops C and K, 10th Cavalry, and Troops of the De Facto Government of Mexico, Carrizal, Mexico, June 21, 1916’, AGO, # 2377632; for the Mexican version see, DHRM, XII, pp. 9–116.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ John, Pershing to Frederick, Funston, 06 22, 1916, USNA, RG 120, ‘Southern Department Telegrams'; ‘Memorandum for the Chief of Staff’, 06 22, 1916, Wilson Papers, r 80, series 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Robert, Lansing to Eliseo, Arredondo, 06 20, 1916,Google ScholarForeign Relations 1916, pp. 580–92.Google Scholar Wilson read and approved the note before it was sent, Desk, Diary, 06 18, 1916, Lansing Papers.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Eliseo, Arredondo to Robert, Lansing, 06 24, 1916,Google ScholarForeign Relations 1916, p. 595.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Robert, Lansing to James, Rodgers, 06 25, 1916,Google ScholarIbid.

⁷² Link, , Wilson: Confusions and Crises, pp. 307–4.Google Scholar

⁷³ ‘To the Congress’, June 1916, Wilson Papers, r 479, series 7, sub-series B.

⁷⁴ Sandos, , ‘The Mexican Revolution and the United States’, pp. 356–8, 372–4.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 372. Richmond, , ‘Venustiano Carranza’, p. 63.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Link, , Wilson: Confusions and Crises, p. 312.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid., pp. 315–16.

⁷⁸ ‘Speech to New York Press Club’, 06 30, 1916, Wilson Papers, series 7, subseries A.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The most convenient summary of the Joint Commission is in U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917 (Washington, 1928), pp. 916–38.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Gray–Lane files, numbered documents # 2, 11, 16, 17, 19, and lettered documents F, H, and J.

⁸¹ Juan, Barragan, ‘La brillante campaña del General Murguié en Chihuahua’, México, D.F., El Universal, 11 10, 16, 24, 1955.Google Scholar

⁸² ‘Weekly Report of Border Conditions’, # 172–85, AGO # 2212358 and 188–202ff., USNA, RG 393, Records of U.S. Army Continental Commands, 1821–1920. Various reports, Bureau of Investigation, # 232–84.

⁸³ Link, Arthur S., Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916–1917 (Princeton, New Jersey, 1965), p. 335.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For a discussion of the conflicting casualty returns see, U.S. Department of the Army, Office of Military History, Thomas, Robert S. and Allen, Inez V., The Mexican Punitive Expedition under Brigadier General John J. Pershing, 1916–1917 (Washington, D.C., 1954), ch. v.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Priestley, Herbert I., The Mexican Nation, A History (New York, 1923), p. 434 is the earliest source for the figure.Google Scholar Others who use it, with or without attribution, are Wolff, , ‘Black Jack's Mexican Goose Chase’, pp. 100–6;Google ScholarBraddy, , Pershing's Mission in Mexico, p. 66; Tate, ‘Pershing's Punitive Expedition’, p. 70.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ ‘Expenditures on Account of Border Protection and the Mexican Expedition from June 18, 1916 to November 30, 1916’, Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, February 3, 1917, AGO, # 2377632. The exact figure given is $172,839,352.84.

⁸⁷ U.S. War Department, War Department Annual Reports, 1917 (Washington, D.C., 1918), Vol. 1, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Link, , Wilson: Confusions and Crises, pp. 288–90, n. 38;Google ScholarAlvaro, Obregón to Venustiano, Carranza, 06 27, 1916,Google Scholar in Salinas, Carranza, La expedición punitiva, pp. 407–20.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Gordon Levin, N. Jr, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics (New York, 1968), pp. 123–55.Google Scholar For a criticism of this view and a review of the limitations of recent interpretations, see Ambrosius, Lloyd E., ‘The Orthodoxy of Revisionism: Woodrow Wilson and the New Left’, Diplomatic History, 1 (Summer, 1977), pp. 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁰ See, for example, ‘La persecución de Villa’, and ‘Corrido del teniente coronel’, Daniel, Moreno (ed.), Batallas de la Revolución y sus corridos (México, D.F., 1978), pp. 162–3, 166–8.Google Scholar