1 Summary of Discussion, Conference on the Status of Latin American Studies in the United States, February 9 and 10, 1961, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, sponsored by the University of California at Los Angeles, and by the Council on Higher Education in the American Republics (CHEAR).

2 A notable exception would be the Inter-American program centered at the University of Florida which maintains a good undergraduate and graduate Latin American program, sponsors the Annual Conference on the Caribbean—the one held in December, 1961, dealt with the Central American area—publishes a monographic series, and houses the new multi-lingual Journal of Inter-American Studies.

3 Since writing this observation I noticed a similar appraisal by Frank Knapp in his review of the historical literature of nineteenth and twentieth century Mexico in the 1960 issue of the Handbook of Latin American Studies: “In choice of subject matter, there appears to be a preference among historians to retrace old steps already well travelled without adding new facts or interpretation, and a concomitant reluctance to explore the many rich fields open for pioneer research in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

4 Although this attitude can be understood for commercial publishers, it is less appropriate for university presses that often receive financial assistance for scholarly publications. This attitude is evident in correspondence with the University of North Carolina Press when it rejected a specialized study on the grounds that although “excellent in concept and execution” it was “quite narrow in scope and, while it undoubtedly contains information about its subject which is not elsewhere available, it does not, I am afraid, have that wider significance that we must now look for. . . . You see that what the readers want is a widened scope.” Howard R. Webber to Naylor, Chapel Hill, October 9, 1961. A similar attitude exists on the part of Duke University Press: “Our own experience with several titles in a similar vein has proved that the market for such books is a limited one at best.” Ashbel G. Brice to Naylor, Durham, August 18, 1961. Yet the said study, “British Commercial Relations with Central America, 1821–1851,” would seem from the forthcoming discussion to be of the type that most scholars in the field are advocating.

5 Potash, Robert A., “Historiography of Mexico Since 1821,” HAHR, XL (August, 1960), 383–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Griffith, William J., “The Historiography of Central America Since 1830,” HAHR, XL (November, 1960), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Daniel Cosío Villegas of the Colegio de Mexico would take exception to the above generalizations. He believes that the study made by his group on the period of the Restored Republic and the Diaz era, 1867–1910, and their present investigation of the contemporary period 1911–1950 goes a long way toward filling this gap. He indicates, furthermore, that there are many works, albeit partisan, already done in these areas. He admits, however, that numerous specific studies remain to be written. I expect all of us would agree that the Cosío volumes constitute a major and monumental contribution to Mexican history, both in the quality of scholarship applied and in the broad scope of the undertaking. But even the Cosío volumes, substantial as they are, are not definitive in the sense that they contain exhaustive analysis of the topics treated. Potash, while strongly commending the Cosío study, points out, for example, that the volumes rest heavily on contemporary newspapers and public documents, and that there are bodies of archival material in manuscript form that could not be employed because of their uncatalogued, disordered state. These materials, Potash believes, could provide the basis for interesting studies in the field of administrative and economic history which might alter to some extent the views presented in the Cosío series.

7 The following, some with slight reservations, concur with Cline’s generalization on modern Mexico: Charles Cumberland, Charles Hale, C. Harvey Gardiner, Alfred Jackson Hanna, Paul Murray, David Pletcher, Robert Potash, Stanley Stein, Alfred Tischendorf, Stanley Ross, A.W. Bork, David Waddell, and R.A. Humphreys. Franklin D. Parker and Gordon Kenyon concur absolutely with Griffith’s statement.

8 HAHR, XLI (August, 1961), 424–434.

9 Daniel Cosío Villegas (ed.), Historia moderna de México. La república restaurada. Tomo II, La vida económica by Francisco R. Calderón (Mexico, 1955). Potash remarks that this well-documented volume has the distinction of being the first comprehensive study of the economic life of a significant period of Mexican history, and that another volume is projected in this series to carry the economic study through the Porfiran era.

10 Cumberland claims that he has been through all the available documentation in the Archivo de Historia in Defensa Nacional, the Archivo Nacional, and the National Archives dealing with the Church-State conflict in the early twentieth century without finding the kind of evidence he would like to have to substantiate some of the charges made by both sides. This evidence, he suspects, will be hard to come by since he cannot exactly picture the Church archives being thrown open to a historian trying to determine whether anti-clericalism was justified.

11 A beginning has been made with Holleran, Mary, Church and State in Guatemala (New York, 1949)Google Scholar. Although not meant to be definitive, this well-documented study presents the main problems of Church-State relations during the administrations of Morazan, Carrera, and Barrios.

12 Tischendorf, Alfred P., Great Britain and Mexico in the Era of Porfirio Díaz (Duke University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. Pletcher, David is the author of the prize-winning study of Rails, Mines, and Progress: Seven American Promoters in Mexico, 1867–1911 (Ithaca, 1958)Google Scholar. His book is a major contribution to the study of the role of foreign entrepreneurs in late nineteenth-century Mexico.

13 Pletcher reports that in recent years he has been moving from Latin American history into U. S. foreign relations. Walter Scholes is another, formerly working on foreign influences in Mexico in the 1850’s and 1860’s, who has shifted his interest to American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Tischendorf writes that although he became interested in British activities in Mexico some time ago, his interests are now in countries other than Mexico. Currently, he is enmeshed in Argentine and Colombian bibliography.

14 With the exception of passing references in the Isthmian canal studies, and the somewhat dated works of Chester Lloyd Jones of United States interests in Central America, the question of the role of foreign enterprise has been neglected. Brief economic surveys like Solórzano, Valentín, Historia de la evolución económica de Guatemala (Mexico, 1947)Google Scholar barely touch the subject, and pioneer studies have been generally limited to works like Griffith, William J., Santo Tomas: Anhelado emporio de comercio en el Atlántico (Guatemala, 1959)Google Scholar; the article by Robert A. Naylor on “The Mahogany Trade as a Factor in British Expansion in the Bay of Honduras” and the latter’s investigation of “British Commercial Relations With Central America, 1821–1851,” both of which remain unpublished. Although the United Fruit Company has long been a popular target of writers, no penetrating historical analyses have yet appeared.

15 Schneider, Ronald M., Communism in Guatemala, 1944–1954 (New York, 1958)Google Scholar is regarded as a major and exemplary study, whereas the brief article by Bernstein, Harry, “Marxismo en Mexico, 1917–1925,” Historia Mexicana (abril-junio, 1958), pp. 497–516 Google Scholar, is a mere introduction, of interest partly because the author points out the difficulty of securing source material.

16 Potash, Robert A., El banco de avío de México. El formento de la industria, 1821–1846 (Mexico, 1959)Google Scholar.

17 Cosío, Daniel Villegas (ed.), Historia moderna de México. La república restaurada. Tomo III, La vida social by González, Luís (Mexico, 1956)Google Scholar; and Historia moderna de México. El Porfiriato. Tomo IV, La vida social by Navarro, Moisés González (Mexico, 1957)Google Scholar.

18 Navarro, M. González, “Mexico independiente,” Métodos y resultados de la politica indigenista en México (Mexico, 1954)Google Scholar.

19 He refers specifically to Oscar Lewis’ successful effort to give his study of Tepoztlan historical depth. Lewis, Oscar, Life in a Mexican Village. Tepoztlan Restudied (Urbana, III., 1951)Google Scholar.

20 Karnes, Thomas, The Failure of Union: Central America, 1824–1960 (Chapel Hill, 1961)Google Scholar; Chamorro, Pedro Joaquín, Historia de la Federación de la América Central, 1823–1840 (Madrid, 1951)Google Scholar; Cruz, Pedro Tobar, Los montañeses (Guatemala, 1958)Google Scholar. The latter study, although displaying a Liberal bias, does a reasonable job, based on extensive use of materials in the Archivo Nacional and the Biblioteca Nacional, with the Galvez reforms, 1831–1840, and the Carrera upheaval. In Mexican history a good introduction and background to a study of nineteenth century federalism is Benson, Nettie Lee, La diputación provincial y el federalismo mexicano (Mexico, 1955)Google Scholar, and a well-documented, lucid analysis of factional politics is Scholes, Walter V., Mexican Politics During the Juarez Regime, 1855–1812 (Colombia, 1957)Google Scholar.

21 Ross states that there has been considerable material made more readily available by the publications in Mexico resulting from the centennial celebration of the Constitution of 1857. He urges, however, that a study of liberalism will necessitate that a real effort be made to preserve and organize the mass of nineteenth-century documentation housed in the Casa Amarillo in Mexico.

22 Hutchinson, C. A., “Valentín Gómez Farias and the Secret Pact of New Orleans,” HAHR, XXXVI (1956), 471–489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, affords an introduction to his subject, and Bernstein’s, Harry Modern and Contemporary Latin America (New York, 1952)Google Scholar is indicative of the high quality work of this author. Zea, Leopoldo, Del liberalismo a la revolución en la educación mexicana (Mexico, 1956)Google Scholar offers a sound analysis of the intellectual and political development surrounding the clash of liberal and conservative ideas in the nineteenth century. Heroles, Jesús Reyes, El liberalismo mexicano; 2 vols. (Mexico, 1957–1958)Google Scholar is considered by Potash as the most impressive study of nineteenth century liberal ideology in Mexico, but Hale charges that the work is too concerned with discrediting conservatism. Potash has some interesting comments on studies of Mexican liberalism in his bibliographical article. Supra, note 5.

23 Hale was working on such an exploratory venture last summer with José María Luis Mora. Although the area is vague, difficult to pinpoint, and involving a familiarity with much European writing, he reported before his departure that the project should prove definitely worthwhile.

24 Fred Rippy, J., The United States and Mexico (New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Callahan, J.M., American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932)Google Scholar. Stanley Ross urges that in the area of United States-Mexican relations historians of both countries make a more conscientious effort to utilize documents and other sources from across the border.

25 In his bibliographical article, however, he cites what he considers some solid studies on Mexican relations with other countries during the independence and intervention period. Cosio’s latest volume, furthermore, treats in great detail Mexican relations with Central America, especially Guatemala, during the Porfirian era. He also discusses the increasing availability of additional materials in the field of diplomatic history.

26 Alfred J. Hanna and his wife have been pursuing this topic for fifteen years. He writes that their search has been confined primarily to the Foreign Office Archives of Mexico, the Maximilian Papers left in Mexico by the Emperor (papers which were lost but re-located by them over a two-year period), the excellent collection of newspapers of the period, and some published documents compiled by Mexicans. In analyzing the impact of foreign influences on Mexico they have worked on the valuable Mexican materials in the archives of France, England, the United States, and have had access to materials in the Austrian archives. They have examined less important materials in the archives of Colombia and Venezuela, as well as other materials bearing on the subject, such as the Seward Papers at the University of Rochester, the Henry S. Sanford Papers at Florida, and special collections at Harvard, Yale, the New York Historical Society Library, and the Bigelow Papers in the New York Public Library. Robert A. Naylor has combed the pertinent volumes of García, Genaro, Documentos inéditos o muy raros para la historia de Mexico (Mexico, 1905-1911)Google Scholar in an effort to unravel the role of the Mexican exiles in initiating the Maximilian enterprise. See his thesis done for the University of Western Ontario, “Preludes to Two Mexican Empires” (1952).

27 Simpson is of the opinion that Roeder’s “Juarez misses the boat, Beal’s Diaz is undiluted journalism, and Ross’ Madero tries to build up a hero where no hero is discernible.” Cumberland declares that none of the Santa Anna biographies fill the bill, prinicpally in that they portray him too much apart from his milieu and consequently explain neither the central figure nor Mexico. He adds that the Diaz biographies are worse. Being more familiar with Roeder, Ralph, Juarez and His Mexico; 2 vols. (Mexico, 1947)Google Scholar, I inquired about its reception because although very illuminating it makes absolutely no reference to source material and no citation even of direct quotations—a practice that is not limited in the Latin American field to Roeder’s study. Simpson dismissed it as being too long by half, too windy, and too allusive. Cumberland argues that in spite of the lack of citations, it appeared to be a work of considerable stature although one could quarrel with some of his interpretations. Why Roeder failed to cite his sources is a mystery to Cumberland. Hanna knew Roeder when he was in Mexico writing the biography. Hanna has the impression that the research was exhaustive but believes that it was extremely unfortunate that the work was not documented. Potash claims that whatever the deficiencies in scholarly apparatus and in overwriting, it is still an impressive piece of work as far as it goes. He admits that “it slights the Intervention from the Republican side” but thinks that the void is partially filled by the studies of Scholes and Knapp. Gardiner is of the opinion that Roeder’s study put Scholes out of business in that it was good enough to discourage another study. Unfortunately, the “magnificent amateurs” like Roeder will never do their work to the complete satisfaction of the scholars, Gardiner argues, but so many scholars do their work in such stodgy fashion as to invite the activity of the amateurs. Ross states that Roeder’s biography of Juarez is the best available, certainly in English and probably in Spanish also, although he did rely very heavily on the contemporary press, and the first volume is vastly superior to the second.

28 Ross, Stanley R., Francisco I. Madero, Apostle of Mexican Democracy (New York, 1955)Google Scholar. An interesting study encompassing a broader area with a somewhat novelistic and interpretative approach is Vasconcelos, Jose, Don Evaristo Madero, Biografía de un patricio (Mexico, 1958)Google Scholar. Further examples of what can be accomplished in the field of biography were indicated by Gardiner’s references to the as yet unpublished studies by Hutchinson of Gómez Farias and Bernstein of Matías Romero, and by Cumberland’s references to Corner, Thomas E., The Military and Political Career of Jose Joaquin de Herrera, 1792–1854 (Austin, 1949)Google Scholar, and Knapp, Frank, The Life of Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, 1823–1899 (Austin, 1951)Google Scholar.

29 Gordon Kenyon comments that certainly Morazan begs for an analytical biographer. “Rafael Carrera, the Son of God, Perpetual President of Guatemala, etc.” needs careful examination. Justo Rufino Barrios is another. Kenyon’s grandfather served as a colonel under Barrios during an attempt to control a cholera outbreak, and Kenyon recalls some interesting comments he made. Encouraging efforts at filling the biographical void occur with Vela, David, Barrundia ante el espejo de su tiempo; 2 vols. (Guatemala, 1956–1957)Google Scholar. This well-documented analysis of the political role, theories, and writings of the liberal statesman José Francisco Barrundia is relatively thorough and balanced.

30 These include the creation of basic bibliographical guides through the Seminar on Contemporary Mexican History at El Colegio de Mexico. In the process of publication are a three-volume critical guide to books and pamphlets prepared by Luís González y Gonzalez and associates, and Ross’ three volumes on historical materials contained in the press and periodical sources. Analyses have been prepared also of the documentary collections in the Secretariats of National Defense and Foreign Relations. Also worthy of mention is the publication of documentary, broadside and other sources by Manuel Gonzalez Ramirez of the Patronato de la Historia de Sonora. In addition to the publication of various materials as a result of the centennial celebration of the Constitution of 1857, a wealth of new materials has been published in connection with the recent fiftieth anniversary of the Mexican Revolution. This and the effort of various agencies of the Mexican government to obtain and preserve basic documentary materials should facilitate the task of the scholar, although much still remains to be done to prevent considerable material from becoming fragmented and lost. The gradual availability of Diaz’ personal papers, now approaching thirty volumes, Ross believes should open up a substantial amount of materials on administrative procedures as well as political events and social and economic conditions. A useful bibliographical tool is scheduled to appear with the projected eight-volume detailed cataloguing of travel literature in modern Latin America under the editorship of C. Harvey Gardiner. The massive, analytical appendices and indices in this series are intended to help the researcher in a wide variety of fields. Gardiner is preparing the volume on Mexico, and Franklin D. Parker, currently in Peru, will do the volume on Central America. Present plans call for publication of the first two volumes in 1962–1963. Thereafter it is hoped that the project can be completed at the rate of two volumes a year.

31 O’Gorman’s provocative views have been expressed in his Crisis y porvenir de la cienci histórica (México, 1947). His most recent book, The Invention of America (Bloomington, Ind., 1961), expresses his views more effectively because instead of simply preaching and criticizing, he has attempted to write a historical work according to those views.