Early+Stages+of+the+Mexican+Revolution

The leaders of the Mexican revolution all had different ideas as to how the nation should be and how change (or the lack thereof) should be created and enforced. The individual leaders ranged from conservatives to reformers to revolutionaries. This was evidenced by their relative desire to reform Mexican society and their ability to do so.

Francisco Madero

Francisco Madero was undoubtedly an agent of change in Mexican politics and a key figure in the initiation of the Mexican revolution; however, Madero cannot be classified as either a true revolutionary or a true reformer. Madero did not intend to dramatically overthrow a corrupt government and begin anew as a revolutionary would. He did not promote or create major social or political changes to truly reform Mexico. Rather Madero was a very moderate politician who unleashed the radical forces of revolution mistakenly as he tried to work within the status quo.

Madero was an aristocrat from one of the richest families in Mexico. Madero returned to Mexico from Europe with new political views and became aware of the great poverty and suffering caused by Diaz’s failing government. He worked to make change starting first with his own hacienda, increasing wages, improving living conditions and building schools (Creed). He got involved with politics in 1904 first in his province of Coahuila. After Diaz mentioned true democracy in the Creelman interview, Madero wrote Sucesion Presidencial de 1910 in which he attacked the dictatorship, though it did not condemn Diaz personally. Madero then ran for the presidency aided by the anti-reelectionist press, and intellectuals. However Madero had little chance of a fair election; during his run Madero and his supporters were arrested, violence broke out and the dictatorship elected itself. (Stoops) Madero was allowed to flee to Texas. There he wrote the Plan of San Luis Potosi which declared the election void, Madero provisional president, and promised moderate political reforms. The Plan also hinted at land reforms and more radical change that Madero never planned to implement. This part of the plan did cuase Madero to gain the support of Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata, Pascual Orozco and other revolutionaries. He was then able to lead a successful revolution against Daiz (Keen 283). Once in office Madero showed little ambition for the change and reform that his revolutionary supporter hoped he would champion. Madero limited his own ability to make change when he placed Francisco de la Barra as provisional president (Creed). De la Barra created a conservative cabinet and effectively eliminated the momentum of Madero’s movement. This caused the revolutionaries to turn against Madero and many citizens to distrust the new government. Madero himself did little to mitigate this worry as he did not want radical reform and did not pursue moderate reform with the urgency the revolutionaries believed necessary. This factors combined to make the Madero presidency ineffective and unsatisfactory (Stoops). As the revolutionary groups moved to full rebellion Madero leaned more upon his Chief of the Armed Forces, Victoriano Huerta who would soon led a coup that ended in the murder of Madero. Madero’s presidency was doomed from the day he issued the Plan of San Luis Potosi. When he did this he made promises his own beliefs would not allow him to keep and gained the support of men who could not accept merely moderate change. Even if de la Barra had not paralyzed Madero’s reform, there would not have been a happy ending for the new president. Ultimately Madero rejected the revolution and was could not make claim to the title of reformer. Madero may have wanted change but he did not want true political or social reform. He wanted a higher standard of living and a better society and yet remained unwilling to make the radical change necessary for prosperity for all Mexicans.

Victoriano Huerta

There can be little doubt in anyone’s mind that Victoriano Huerta was neither a revolutionary nor reformer. Huerta had been a top general of Diaz before his fall and never let go of the ideology of his regime. Huerta ran against Madero in the election of 1910, but always the opportunist Huerta integrated himself into the new Madero government. As the revolutionary armies moved against Madero, Huerta was trusted increasingly as Madero depended upon him to hold them back (Creed). Huerta had in no way signed onto Madero’s plans and moved against him the first opportunity he got. By 1913 Huerta had a coup in motion. Conspiring with Felix Diaz and U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, Huerta set off the Decena Tragica, ten days of brutal violence that ended with Madero’s imprisonment. When Madero was killed “attempting to escape” it was clear that Huerta was behind it (Minster). Huerta’s brutality only increased during his term. The Huerta dictatorship moved to return Mexico to the policies of Diaz. Huerta created a government friendly to the aristocracy, church and foreign investors, and allowed patronage and nepotism to flourish. Initially Huerta tried to placate the masses by continuing Madero’s labor policies, but he quickly abandoned this and eventually shut down the Casa del Obrero Mundial. Huerta took the hard line against his opposition, demanding submission and threatening disappearance (Keen 287). There was no lack of opposition to Huerta; Zapata, Villa and Obregon were united in wanting Villa out of office. Huerta faced constant attacks in different regions from the revolutionaries. The greatest of these was the Battle of Zacatacas in which Villas forced won a great victory, killing 6,000 federal soldiers (Minister). Huerta’s regime also had problems with international relations. The U.S. had refused to recognize Huerta’s rule and later pressured Britain and Germany to distance themselves from the dictator. This led to the U.S. invasion of Veracruz in 1914. Huerta could see that his regime could not last as he failed to hold back the revolutionaries or appease the U.S. and fled to Europe on July 15, 1914 (Keen, 290). Huerta was the antithesis of the revolution. He forced the country back to the antiquated policies of Diaz and completely rejected the reforms of Madero and the revolutionaries.

Venustiano Carranza

Carranza was the most conservative of the rebel leaders that supported Madero in his struggle for the presidency and ran Huerta out of office. He was unwilling to make radical changes to Mexican society, but still became a great reformer of Mexico. Though Carranza cannot be labeled a true revolutionary in the same way as Zapata and Villa, he reformed Mexico and greatly shaped its history.

The signing of the Plan of Guadalupe. Click for source. Though Carranza had opposed Diaz, he was fairly cautious during Madero’s try for the presidency and supported him while safe in Texas. After Madero took power, Carranza governed the province of Coahuila. When Huerta became president with a coup, Carranza refused to recognize him and began a revolt (Creed). Carranza then wrote the Plan of Guadalupe which was first and foremost a constitutionalist document that denounced Huerta. However it also contained some promises of social reform such as improved conditions for the poor, stronger ejidos and the right to work (Keen 288). Carranza named himself the First Chief of the Constitutionalist movement and united the other revolutionaries in a struggle to remove Huerta. After the fall of Huerta the revolutionary leaders fought amongst themselves for the presidency. After fleeing to Veracruz and defeating Villa’s army at Celaya, in 1915 Carranza was the undisputed president (Williamson). The first major act of the Carranza presidency was to convene a constitutional convention. The Constitution of 1917 turned out to be the most liberal and influential document in modern Mexican history with drastic reform in the areas of labor, land and the role of the church. However Carranza cannot be credited with it as he had supported only moderate political reform in the constitution. A group of radicals had seized control of the convention and shaped the document (Keen 293). Though Carranza was not responsible for the reformist constitution of 1917 he moved for significant change in other areas. He strongly believed in national unity, economic development and basic freedoms. How successful he was in each of these areas is debatable but it is certain that Carranza empowered the average citizen and was connected to the needs of the peasantry. He improved the standard of living and education increasing school attendance 20% (Layfield). Carranza was opposed to U.S. involvement in Mexican affairs which made the relations between the two countries extremely tense. Tensions peaked when U.S. general Pershing crossed the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa, an incident that led Mexico and the U.S. to the brink of war (Creed). Later in his rule, Carranza became more conservative and slowed his social reforms. When his term ended in 1920 Carranza planned to have his hand-picked successor elected. But, Obregon revolted successfully and Carranza was assassinated on May 21, 1920. Carranza was not radical enough to be accepted by the other dominate leader of his time but overall he was a successful reformer who created real progress for many of the Mexicans that had been left behind.