The Tariff Negotiator

And the tariffs are on pause.  Why?  Because both Mexico and Canada have agreed to Trump's demands on border security.  Access to the US economy is like one of Willy Wonka's golden tickets and Trump leveraged that golden ticket to get our neighbors on board with his new border policies.  Though there was a blip of resistance with claims of counter tariffs, that was nothing more than face-saving bluster.  As pointed out in an earlier blog, the US accounts for a huge portion of Canada and Mexico's economies whereas they are just a sliver of ours.  They were kittens meowing at a lion.

To guarantee follow through on these promises, Trump has only paused the tariffs.  Let's not have those agreements where we live up to our end while the other side doesn't.

It is funny that so much was made of Trump's tariff threat after he had used it so successfully against Colombia.  Will there be as much shock and dismay when next he rolls out his tariff tactic?  Probably.

On Threat of Tariff

President Trump warned that he would levy tariffs, and he has done just that.  Colombia refused to accept repatriated Colombians.  Have a tariff.  Canada and Mexico aren't securing their borders with the US.  Tariff.  China is still enabling the Fentanyl trade.  Tariff.

Though Trump has claimed that these countries would be paying into the US treasury with these tariffs, that is looking at the tariff backwards.  If Canada was selling widgets in the US for $10, but now they are $12.50 thanks to the tariff, who is paying the extra $2.50?  Well, the customer.  That would be the American who chose to buy the Canadian widget despite the price increase.  So, does this just make the tariff self-defeating?  No.  Widget buyers in American will now be more likely to buy American widgets or maybe Italian or German widgets, which are now cheaper than the Canadian widget.  Overall, the number of widgets - and other products - that Canada sells in the US will drop.  The higher the tariff goes, the greater the fall in sales of Canadian goods.

Let's look at the big picture.  Canada exports approximately $500 billion in goods to the USA, while the US sends about $450 billion to Canada.  Now, that $500 billion accounts for almost one quarter of the Canadian economy.  By contrast, the $450 billion is only 2% of the US economy.  Who has leverage here?  A trade war between the US and Canada will be devastating for one and barely an inconvenience to the other.

How about Mexico?  Mexico exports $493 billion to the US while importing only $362 billion from the US.  That means 35% of the Mexican economy counts on US trade while less than 2% of the US economy depends on exports to Mexico.  Which party should be more eager to prevent an interruption in the status quo?

Many countries have based their economies on selling to the US, because the US is the biggest economy.  Being on the receiving end of a trade war with the US will be a heavy blow to their economies.  The tariff is not meant to be implemented long term.  It is a negotiation tool that encourages our trade partners to implement our preferred policies.

Dueling Eagles: Reinterpreting the US-Mexican War

This book is a collection of essays that were presented at the 150-year anniversary of the Mexican-American War.  The essays are authored by both American and Mexican academics on a variety of topics.

1. Richard Francaviglia offers a view of the war from a geographic and cartographic perspective.  The war took place in mountain highlands, lush valleys, parched deserts, marshy coastlands, and vast prairies.  The battlefields were determined by the geography.  This is one of the less interesting essays, since every war has geography that impacts how it is fought.

2. Sam Haynes expanded on England's role in the war.  Though English diplomats had sought to keep Texas as an independent country to hem in the growing American power, it did not plan to enter the war on Mexico's side.  Of course, neither Mexico nor America believed that England would stand on the sidelines.  Mexico hoped for British support in money and equipment to aid them against the Americans and the Americans - still full of indignation about the War of 1812 - expected England might do exactly that.  The antics of Captain Charles Elliot, veteran of the First Opium War (1839-1842), only added to the American concerns and the Mexican hopes.  False views on what England would do certainly influenced the war.

3. Josefina Zoraida Vazquez notes that the US benefited from the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars that followed upon its independence.  Thanks to Europe's preoccupation with European affairs, the United States was able to grow and prosper without much interference.  By contrast, Mexico became independent in 1821, well after Europe had settled into a new normal.  England, France, and Spain all had interests in Mexico and the Mexican government was in constant turmoil.  Polk's complaints about unpaid debts were overblown and did not provide sufficient basis for his actions.  The base cause of the war was America's Manifest Destiny motto, a desire for expansion.  Dysfunctional but land rich Mexico was an easy target.

4. Richard Bruce Winders details the mutiny at Buena Vista.  A North Carolina volunteer regiment was camped near the site of the recent Battle of Buena Vista.  Colonel Paine, the commander of the regiment, was not impressed with his troops' conduct and proposed some punishments to bring them up to the standards & discipline of a regular army regiment.  This did not go over well.  Mutiny followed.  Was it that these volunteers didn't think they should be treated the same as regulars?  Or was it that the Colonel was a Whig while most of the soldiers were Democrats?  Indeed, though the standard procedure for volunteer regiments was to have the men vote for the Colonel, Lt. Colonel, and Major, in the case of the North Carolina Volunteer Regiment, the governor of North Carolina - a Whig - selected the officers.  The kindling for mutiny had been placed before the regiment left the state.  To make matters worse, President Polk - a Democrat - sided with the mutineers!

This is only a sample of the essays, all of them interesting and worthwhile.  Very good book and recommended for those interested in the Mexican-American War.

Wars within War

The Mexican-American War was not just one war.  The Mexican government was not popular with much of Mexico and was in a constant state of rebellion.  With the invasion of the Americans, the Mexican government was forced to reallocate its army to resist.  However, that left many of the independent-minded states with an opportunity to rebel.  Many regions declined to provide either money or troops to resist the Americans and there was little the central government could do to force them.  The Mayan population of the Yucatan Peninsula used the war to declare independence and to fight the forces of the central government.  When the American forces routed the Mexican Army at Cerro Gordo (April 1847), the government created the Light Corps to take up the fight.  The Light Corps were granted charters for particular regions where they could attack the Americans, specifically to disrupt supply lines.  They were tremendously effective, but often attacked Mexicans as well as Americans.  When a peace treaty was finally signed, the American troops were soon engaged in putting down rebels against the central government, thus taking over for the army they had destroyed.

Here is a terrific book that details an aspect of the war that is usually glossed over in other works.  Indeed, how is it that history books detail the Battle of San Pasqual - which saw perhaps 150 US Dragoons vs. 75 Californio Lancers - but does not detail Brigadier General Franklin Pierce's column of 2500 troops having multiple clashes with upwards of 1400 Light Corps guerrillas?  The US sought to minimize the guerrilla war, which it was not winning, and thus didn't keep track of these engagements.  Levinson posits that as many as 2800 soldiers died in the guerrilla war but were not classified as such.

A relatively short but excellently researched and highly informative book.  Recommended.

Shoot the Sun Down (1978)

The story opens with some background.  It is 1836 and the area around Santa Fe is dominated by Navajo and Apache, who are killing each other as well as settlers.  The towns in the area are dominated by corrupt Mexican soldiers.  However, Americans are proving to be successful traders.  It so happens that three groups arrive in Santa Fe.  There is the captain (Bo Brundin) and his woman (Margot Kidder).  She puts on the airs of a lady while he claims to be a former ship's captain who now hopes to earn money by trading with the Indians.  There is scalphunter (Geoffrey Lewis) and his three underlings: Angel, Conquistador, and Delaware.  He claims to hunt buffalo, but is really - as his name exposes - a scalp hunter.  The Mexican government pays for Indian scalps and he's eager to collect.  Lastly, Mr. Rainbow (Christopher Walken) is on his way to Texas to join the revolution.  Unusually, he is armed with a revolver, which is a new invention at the time.

As the principal characters interact, motivations are exposed.  Most importantly, the captain has a treasure map and a nugget of gold to go with it.  Scalphunter wants to steal the gold for himself.  The woman is not the lady she pretends to be.  Mr. Rainbow is a deserter because he got tired of slaughtering Indians for the army.  This explains why he saved a Navajo (A Martinez) from a well-deserved beating by a bunch of men he was cheating at dice.  From Santa Fe, the principals soon find themselves at an abandoned village where they must work together against marauding Apache.

Regarding the setting, it gets some things right and others wrong.

• The Patterson Revolver was first available for sale in late 1836.  Mr. Rainbow is indeed carrying around a Patterson, which impressed me.  However, the gun only fired 5 shots though it is shown firing 6.  Also, it was a single-action revolver, meaning the hammer needed to be manually cocked before you can pull the trigger.  Therefore, his opening gunfight with the trio of bandits was incorrect.
• Mr. Rainbow claims to be coming from San Francisco.  There is no San Francisco in 1836.  It was called Yerba Buena.  However, he may mean San Francisco Bay.
• California was also in rebellion during this time, but that came to nothing.  Mr. Rainbow is therefore accurate in this observation.
• Jefferson Davis was never a captain.  He resigned from the US Army in 1835 as a First Lieutenant.  During the Mexican-American War, he raised a volunteer regiment - the Mississippi Rifles - and was its colonel.
• Indentured servitude was still legal, though it had largely been replaced by slavery in North America.
• One of scalphunter's goons called Mr. Rainbow a Gringo.  The term has not yet been invented.  It was coined during the Mexican-American War (1846-48).
• Scalphunter's goons are playing rock-paper-scissors.  This is a Japanese game that didn't migrate to the West until the 20th Century.
• Sunbearer is using a modern bow rather than an authentic Navajo bow.
• The Mexican government really did offer bounties for Indian scalps.
• The Golden Wheel of Montezuma would be immovable with the people on hand.  It looked to be at least 4 feet in diameter and at least 6 inches thick.  If it were pure gold, it would weigh 15 tons or so.  That rope they used to lower it onto the wagon was laughable.
• The Journey of Death - a noted stretch of desert in New Mexico - appears in the film.  While the characters are passing through, they are said to be within 3 days of Santa Fe.  Socorro - the nearest point of the Journey - is 140 miles from Santa Fe.  A wagon might go 25 miles in a day.
• Mr. Rainbow states he is going to Fort Alamo in Texas, painting the impression that he will be one of the defenders who dies there.  It is 700 miles from Santa Fe to San Antonio.  He cannot arrive in time for the Battle of the Alamo.  Besides, his gun was unavailable during the battle (Feb-Mar 1836).  This may just be a case that his news is old and he will arrive long after the Texas Revolution has been won.

There is plenty of potential in the story, but it is poorly handled.  There is a lot of talk, but not so much action.  This is a slow-moving western.  Though most of the cast is fine, Christopher Walken was a strange choice.  He doesn't have that hard-as-nails loner quality to him.  He looks much too boyish for a man who has seen too much killing.

Mediocre.

Cinco de Mayo

Why do we celebrate the 5th of May?  It is a pro-Mexican holiday, and many think it has something to do with their version of July 4th.  Nope.  Mexican Independence Day is September 16th.  So why Cinco de Mayo?  In 1861, President Benito Juarez imposed a moratorium on loan-interest payments.  Mexico had a long history of not repaying loans, which had triggered foreign interventions previously.  In the wake of the moratorium, England, Spain, and France occupied Veracruz.  Mexico managed to satisfied both Spain and England, but France launched an invasion and imposed Emperor Maximilian as ruler.  This French adventure in Mexico lasted from 1861 to 1867.  No, it did not end on May 5, 1867, but that was a good guess.

On May 5th, 1862, French forces attacked the city of Puebla.  Despite the French having a superior force in both arms and training, the Mexican forces held the town and inflicted serious losses on the French.  This victory was great for Mexican morale.  However, the French returned and captured Puebla the following year.  By June 1863, they captured Mexico City.  Cinco de Mayo celebrates an early victory in a conflict that would drag on for another 5 years.

Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo is more popular in the United States than in Mexico.  It is a cultural celebration in much the same way as St. Patrick's Day for Irish heritage.

Journal of Francis Collins: An Artillery Officer in the Mexican War

Francis Collins (1820-1882) graduated West Point in 1845 and was assigned to the 4th Regiment of Artillery.  In 1846, war was declared.  Second Lieutenant Collins was assigned recruiting duty in North Carolina before eventually being deployed to the theater.  Not until November did he find himself in a camp on the Texas-side of the Rio Grande.  This did not last long.  The navy reported that Mexican forces had withdrawn from Tampico; on the 23rd of November, Collins found himself as part of an occupying force.  For three months, Collins remained in Tampico, which became the collection site for Major General Winfield Scott's invasion force.  At the end of February, the army embarked on transports and sailed to Vera Cruz.  He participated in the siege and capture of Vera Cruz.  As soon as the city was captured, he was part of the vanguard under Brigadier General David Twiggs, marching inland.  The battles of Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churubusco, Molino del Rey, and Mexico City followed.  Though a war journal, much of it deals with waiting.  After Cerro Gordo, he spent two months in Xalapa before advancing to Puebla where he spent another month.  He spent two months in Mexico City, and almost five months posted at Toluca.  In May of 1848, the US Army withdrew from Toluca and began the long march back to Vera Cruz.  It was not until mid-July that the 4th Artillery was embarked and sailing for home.

Though similar to the journal of Albert Brackett, Collins was a professional soldier with different attitudes.  Where Brackett viewed it as a grand adventure, Collins sees bad logistics and poor command, especially among the volunteers.  He complains of training volunteers while idling at Perote Castle.  He often found himself assigned as an adjutant general - like a chief of staff - to volunteer generals who had little idea what they were supposed to do.  Many of the volunteer officers "play gentlemen" but could not effectively command.  He also made note of the numerous fortifications that had been erected by the Mexicans but then abandoned.  Several choke points along the main road from Vera Cruz to Mexico City had been prepared for a defensive line and then left.  He frequently is surprised that the Mexican Army did not oppose the American advance, especially the landings on the beach near Vera Cruz.  His strongest complaints are reserved for the withdrawal of troops at the end of the war.  Many soldiers were left standing on the beaches of Vera Cruz where yellow fever was rife.  Indeed, 40% of the men on his transport had yellow fever during the voyage home and he himself nearly died of it upon return to Virginia.  If the transports were not ready to receive men, then the troops should have been left to wait in the safe zone of Xalapa.

Brackett had followed Collin's inland march and, interestingly, observed many of the same things.  Both were fascinated by the pyramid at Cholula, remarked on the snow-capped mountains and the lush valleys, and how the local people appreciated the law & order that American occupation brought.  This last is unusual, as it has been reported in many accounts.  Is this a case of locals stating what they think the conquerors want to hear or their true opinion?  Did multiple American memoirs falsely proclaim that they had brought order to a lawless land?  Though American soldiers surely plundered, the policy of General Scott was to pay full price for goods from the local population; he had enough trouble facing the Mexican Army that he didn't need a hostile populace as well.

Most of the entries are brief recaps of the events for the day and only occasionally extend to commentary or description.  Not for everyone, but rewarding for those interested in the Mexican-American War.

Lying with Statistics

Living here in Texas, I was kind of surprised when I saw this story that claimed Mexico was the 2nd deadliest conflict in the world last year.  What?  Really?  I read the story and it struck me that there was no discussion of the relative sizes of the countries being discussed.  The population of Syria is around 17 million while the population of Mexico is around 120 million.  Therefore, with 7 times the population, Mexico has seen less than half as many deaths.  One out of every 340 Syrians was killed last year vs. one out of every 5,200 Mexicans.  Rounding out the list, Afghanistan was the second deadliest with 1 in 2,100 killed, followed by Iraq with 1 in 2,500, and finally Yemen with 1 in 3,600.  Of course, St. Louis saw 1 out of 1,667 citizens killed in 2015, making that city deadlier than all of these countries except Syria.  See, I can use statistics too.

 

Someone started looking at absolute number of people killed rather than the ratio of people killed to population and decided on a shocking headline.  Not to minimize the large number of deaths that surround the drug cartels in Mexico, but it isn't in the same league with these Middle Eastern war zones.

Too Much News

So much is happening in so short a period of time that I would have to be a fulltime blogger to get even close to commenting on all of it.  However, here are some thoughts on recent developments:

1. Senate Committee rule change: It has long been practice that members of both party need to be present for a vote on a nominee.  The Democrats have used this rule to prevent votes by not being present.  This was used to the extreme by Wisconsin Democrats trying to thwart Governor Walker's reforms, which included them fleeing the state!  Committee Chairman Hatch altered the rules to allow for a vote with those present.  I suspect the purpose of the rule was to prevent the majority from meeting secretly to move nominees and bills out of committee and intentional absence was not an expected tactic.  Such childish antics explain the low approval ratings of Congress and government.

 

2. Neil Gorsuch nomination: It is always best to have justices who understand that it is up to the legislature to write law, not the courts.  Far too many subjects are decided by courts writing laws and framing it as existing rights.  That he was unanimously approved for his current position in 2006 is good maneuvering by the Trump Administration.  It used to be that nominations were not so contentious, because the court wasn't nearly as important as it has become.  Antonin Scalia was approved 98 to 0 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg won with 96 to 3.  Gorsuch will be lucky if he gets 60 in favor.  If courts would refrain from legislating, we could return to the ho-hum confirmation process.  Yeah, that's not going to happen.

 

3. Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary: Though she is out of committee, two Republican Senators have stated their intention to vote against.  A party line vote would give her a 50-50 split which VP Pence would presumably decide in DeVos's favor.  As someone who would like to abolish the Department of Education, I am mostly indifferent to who is in charge.  When did the Constitution get amended to expand federal authority to education?  In any case, US education has been static - at best - since the creation of the department, demonstrating how useless it is.

 

4. Barack Obama speaks: Not even two weeks and Obama feels the need to offer his opinion.  I'm not sure George W Bush ever said anything in opposition to Obama though Obama spent most of his first term blaming Bush for the state of everything.  Even so, Bush remained silent and allowed the new president to take the world stage.  Some ex-presidents have class.

 

5. Military Action against Mexico: Apparently Trump had a phone conversation with Pena Nieto and suggested that he deal with the cartels or perhaps the US military might.  Wow, that escalated fast.  The US has intervened militarily in Mexico in the past.  When Pancho Villa raided into the US, President Wilson dispatched a Punitive Expedition led by General Pershing.  Wilson also occupied Vera Cruz.  It is extremely unlikely that US forces actually march into Mexico but hinting at the possibility could certainly prompt Mexico to crackdown.  Bullying or smart diplomacy?

 

6. Frenetic Trump: That may not be the right adjective but it certainly seems appropriate to an outside observer.  There is something new always happening.  No one would accuse Trump of being 'low energy.'  In a way, his tactics so far remind me of a military campaign.  Shock and awe is surely what Washington is feeling.  This high-speed activity is not how things are normally done.  However, that may be the point.  The opposition is off-balance.  Heck, even the allies are off-balance.  It remains to be seen how successful this strategy will be.  Did he use this technique in the many deals he has struck over the years?

 

7. Berkeley Riot: The self-described 'Dangerous Faggot' was scheduled to speak at Berkeley but protests turned to a riot.  Do these students not realize that this sort of 'tolerance' of opposing views is part of the reason Trump was elected?  Each time one of these protests make the news, more people wonder what Milo is saying to incite it.  Curious, they look on YouTube.  This is how I became aware of Milo and now he is a rising star with a huge book deal and multiplying appearances.  It reminds me of how every time Obama would call for reasonable gun legislation, gun sales would sky rocket.  Counter-productive.

 

I wonder how much has happened while I've been blogging.

The Border Wall Tariff

President Trump has floated the idea of a 20% tariff on Mexican imports, the proceeds would then reimburse the cost of the wall.  Sound policy?  No.  Tariffs typically harm the consumers in the country imposing the tariff.  Why?  Let us suppose that Pittsburg Manufacturing Group (PMG) in Pennsylvania makes widgets for $10 each.  The primary competitor to PMG is Frabrica Baratija de Coahuila (FBC) in Saltillo, Mexico.  They also produce widgets for $10.  Now impose a 20% tax on the FBC widgets.  Obviously, the price of an FBC widget in the US will rise to $12 and PMG will start to dominate the market.  However, PMG will also be able to raise the price of their widgets without fear of being undercut by FBC.  Thanks to the tariff, Americans will pay more for their widgets.  Wait, who is paying for the wall again?

Tariffs are a protectionist tax policy that imposes a barrier to trade.  It can improve the profits of those businesses protected but at the expense of the consumer.

 

Of course, this might just be Trump doing the equivalent of saber-rattling on trade.  Such a tariff could devastate the Mexican economy.  Let's suppose the wall will cost a gazillion dollars but Mexico earns $10 gazillion in trade with the US.  Just paying for the wall would be cheaper than the proposed tariff.  But even in this rosy scenario, American consumers are paying for the wall via the purchases made from Mexican manufacturers.  Mexico paying for the wall will be a case of accounting legerdemain, much like how your employer 'matches' your contribution to Social Security and Hollywood mega blockbusters barely breakeven.