Mexican Revolutions the Principal Causes

Mexican Revolutions

The principal causes of the Maderista revolution of 1910 included dissatisfaction with the President Porfirio Diaz's dictatorship, the unequal distribution of wealth, and widespread injustice. (Gaceto Consular). Not only did the majority of people lack financial resources, they also lacked any means to exercise political power. (Gaceto Consular). In addition, Diaz's government accepted the involvement of the United States in Mexico's political affairs, despite the power differential between Mexico and the United States, and despite the protests of its citizens.

In short, the class issues that plagued Mexico and turned many of its peasants into de-facto slaves were at the root of the revolution.

To truly understand how class helped contribute to the Maderista Revolution, one must understand the political environment of pre-revolutionary Mexico. President Diaz was a dictator, but his dictatorship contained some of the trappings of democracy. For example, Diaz made a public announcement that Mexico was ready for democracy. (Gaceto Consular). This announcement created an expectation of a democratic government, which aligned with the expectations of community-level leaders, who wanted to participate in Mexico's political life. (Gaceto Consular). However, despite the fact that the Mexican Constitution provided for a democracy, the reality in Mexico was far from democratic. The unequal distribution of wealth meant that Diaz and his supports could use their "political and economic resources to stay in power indefinitely." (Gaceto Consular).

Francisco Madero was one of the leaders who believed that the people should have a voice in Mexican politics. Madero was forced to flee to the United States because of persecution by Diaz and his supporters. However, even from the United States, Madero was able to encourage the revolution. He issued the Plan of San Luis, which was "a manifesto which declared that the elections had been a fraud and that he would not recognize Porfirio Diaz as the legitimate President of the Republic." (Secor). The manifesto reinforced one of the basic causes of the revolution, which is that the people felt that they had no voice in Mexican politics, by calling for universal voting rights. Furthermore, Madero emphasized the economic class issues at the root of the revolution, because Diaz's government had confiscated land from the Mexican peasants, and Madero promised to return that land. (Gaceto Consular).

In fact, the promised agrarian reforms were substantial because of the historic abuses during Diaz's reign. Diaz's reign was marked by dramatic economic disparities between the upper and lower classes. These economic disparities were not solely a natural part of the economy. Instead, the class differences were the result of manipulation and theft on the part of the upper class, and were highly linked to the mineral trade in Mexico. Those in power, who were members of the economic upper class, used their power to strip land from the peasant class, which led to a dramatic change in the importance of economic class. While these peasants had traditionally been farmers, they had also traditionally been landowners. However, after the lands were consolidated into larger plantations, the peasants lost the economic safety of ownership. It would be a mistake to look at this change as simply an economic one.

On the contrary, the peasants went from landowners to something like sharecroppers. Because they did not own the land, if they were to continue living as agrarian workers, they did so at the leisure of the landowners. The result was that the peasants lost their personal autonomy; they could not even leave the plantations without becoming criminals because they owed debts to the landowners.

In addition to providing motive for the revolution, the fact that peasants who fled for the plantations contributed to the revolution in a substantial way. Peasants who fled were guilty of a crime and subject to being returned to the plantation. As a result, many of them fled north of Mexico into San Diego. The gathering of Mexican immigrants there provided a fertile planning ground for the revolution. Madera, himself, went to live in the San Diego area, and it was there that he planned the initial stages of the revolution. Therefore, the pre-revolutionary agrarian scenario contributed to the revolution in two significant ways: it gave the peasants a reason to desire revolution and also created a scenario in which a substantial number of dissatisfied peasants would be in a central location, outside of Diaz's control, to plot a revolution without fear of capture.

In addition, there were some changes in Mexican society prior to the revolution which made the revolution possible. "Mexico experienced a productive restructuring in the thirty years before the 1910 revolution, which consolidated its northern frontier- a critical area in view of the U.S. expansion- and defined its incorporation into the world market." (Camin and Meyer, 2). In addition, Mexico's economy became an international economy just prior to the revolution. First, Mexico's vast mineral resources were exported worldwide. In addition, Mexican agricultural products, like hemp, sugar, and cotton were grown for export to other countries, primarily the United States. The mineral and agricultural production led to the development of factories, which employed people who had previously been strictly agrarian. However, many of these interests were not under Mexican control, but were controlled by foreign interests, which was very reminiscent of colonialism.

Foreign investment increased from 110 million pesos in 1884 to 3,400 million in 1910. A third of that injection of funds fueled the largest technological revolution of Porifirian Mexico: the construction of almost thirteen thousand miles of railroad tracks. (Camin and Meyer, 2). The railroad made vast journeys possible, and also provided a means for communication regarding the conditions on relatively isolated plantations.

II. It is almost impossible to conclusively state why Victoriano Huerta decided to extinguish the Maderista Revolution, because Huerta did not ever explain his reasons for doing so. Therefore, any explanation of his actions rely on the individual interpretation of historic events, which have given rise to several different, sometimes competing, explanations for Huerta's behavior. Sympathetic people may suggest that Huerta had Mexico's best interests at heart, and extinguished the revolution because he was not confident that Madero had the ability to lead a successful revolution, or that he did not believe that Madero could successfully lead post-revolution Mexico. However, the revolution was progressing in an extremely successful manner, so those reasons seem unlikely, and even the effects of time have not created strong sympathies for Huerta's actions. Those who are unsympathetic to Huerta believe that his motives were personal, and that he extinguished the revolution and ended Madero's life to seize glory and power for himself. However, it may not be fair to judge Huerta's goals by the regime that he established after seizing power; the sheer amount of conflict faced by Huerta's government almost insured that he would have to rule like a despot in order to retain any type of order and control in the Mexican government. Therefore, the most reasonable explanation of Huerta's behavior would probably combine his possible personal, professional, and patriotic goals to determine what motivated him to end the Maderista Revolution.

Huerta's image is that of a Machiavellian schemer, who was willing to do anything and everything to seize power. Such a negative view of Huerta may seem uncharitable, but aligns with Huerta's personal image, which is that of a murderous alcoholic. That image is false, or at least incomplete, because it does not take into account Huerta's other significant qualities. While Huerta was an alcoholic, he was not a brute, and, while his military prowess may have landed him with the ultimate responsibility for many deaths, it is unquestionable that had he been a less brilliant strategist, many more would have died. In fact, Huerta was:

An able and competent professional soldier, he excelled in astronomy and mathematics at the Military College and was also skilled as an engineer, cartographer, surveyor, and railroad specialist. He studied Napoleon's campaigns and some of his own were models of planning and execution. Huerta's abilities were recognized by some of his worst enemies. (Tuck).

To understand Huerta's anti-Madero motives, it is important to understand Huerta's background. First, it is important to note that, unlike Madero and the other revolutionaries, Huerta did not have a negative view of Diaz. On the contrary, Huerta "greatly admired

Porfirio Diaz, another Indian who had succeeded in the outside world. When Diaz was overthrown, Huerta commanded the honor guard that accompanied him into exile. On bidding farewell to the old dictator, Huerta was moved to tears." (Tuck). Therefore, it was clear that Huerta's beliefs about leadership would be more closely aligned with a dictatorship than a democracy.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that Madero's government was suffering as the result of internal strife before Huerta ever sought to extinguish the revolution. Pascual Orozco had been one of Madero's chief lieutenants, but rebelled against Madero when Madero refused to make Orozco the governor of Chihuahua. (Tuck). This rebellion was significant and would probably have been victorious because of its incredible financial backing. In fact, it was this rebellion that led Madero to turn to Huerta for assistance. Huerta was very successful in helping Madero defeat Orozco's rebellion, eventually driving Orozco into the United States. However, Madero did not show the type of respect or appreciation that Huerta was expecting for his victory. On the contrary, Madero asked Huerta to account for campaign money. It was this slight that inspired Huerta to work against Madero.

Of course, that slight alone would probably not have been sufficient to inspire Huerta's betrayal. Instead, one must look at the context of the perceived insult. First, Huerta was known to be suspicious of others, and might even have been characterized as looking for an insult. In addition, Huerta's was engaged to defeat one of Madero's former supporters in battle. Therefore, it is very likely that Huerta felt as if he would be treated in the same manner as Orozco. As a result, he may have struck against Madero as a way of securing his place in Mexican politics, because of a fear or suspicion that Madero did not intend to reward him for his service. If that was Huerta's reason, then it was probably based in reality, because Madero failed to reward Orozco in the manner Orozco believed he deserved

Additionally, one must keep in mind that Huerta honored and respected Diaz as a leader, and was not a revolutionary leader in the same manner as Madero. Huerta was not inspiring his countrymen to revolt against Diaz or otherwise involved in any type of grass-roots revolutionary campaign. On the contrary, Huerta was a soldier who seemed to respect men whom he perceived were similar to himself, such as Diaz. Madero was not one of those men. Madero was a non-drinking Spanish aristocrat who was occasionally described as "fussy." Huerta was a hard-drinking, brawling Indian, who brought himself up from poverty through hard work and persistent. The personal differences between Huerta and Madero may have seemed insurmountable to Huerta, and he may have genuinely believed that Madero, the Spanish aristocrat, simply could not represent the interests of common Mexicans in the same manner that Huerta, who was a Native American Mexican and who had personal experience with those hardships, would be able to do.

Contributing to the betrayal is the fact that Huerta had a significant amount of support among Madero's enemies. Given that Huerta was such a brilliant military strategist, it is probably safe to conclude that he would not have acted against Madero if he was not reasonably certain of a successful military outcome. Of course, Huerta had the support of Felix Diaz, the nephew of Porfirio Diaz. He also had support from a United States ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, whose termination Madero had sought. Huerta's most significant supporter may have been Orozco, who had a personal grudge against Madero, and the insight into Madero's personality that would have made a coup possible.

Finally, it cannot be overlooked that Madero was a severe alcoholic. For many alcoholics, the disease brings along suspicion and a desire to fight. Like a drunkard in the bars, looking to be slighted, Huerta may have been completely supportive of Madero when he first began working for him, but insulted when he failed to advance in Madero's regime. While it is incredibly well-documented that Huerta was an alcoholic, it is not documented how he felt about his drinking. Unfortunately, his extinguishing of the Maderista Revolution may have been nothing more than the self-destructive action of an addict, who wanted to blame his failure to advance upon someone else, rather than being introspective and asking himself why Madero may have wanted an accounting of the campaign. Speculation leads one to wonder if the accounting was because the campaign's finances were mismanaged due to Huerta's chronic alcoholism. Alcoholics are notorious for refusing to accept personal responsibility for their actions and for blaming others for the consequences of drinking. Given Huerta's personal history, it seems very possible, if somewhat unlikely, that the end of the Maderista Revolution was due to a drunk's dissatisfaction with an unfavorable job report.

III. The Mexican Revolution began as a Revolution for the lower classes, which was largely led by members of the upper class, such as Madero. Later, it transformed into a Revolution led largely by indigenous Mexicans, working on behalf of themselves and their countrymen, pitted against those who were perceived as aristocrats, who were of Spanish descent. However, not all Mexicans fit neatly into one of those two groups. On the contrary, there was a third group of people, known as the Constitutionalists, who were somewhere in the middle of those two groups, at least in terms of public perception, though they were actually more elitist than either of the competing factions. Not surprisingly, this faction was composed largely of the middle-class, which was a middle class in several different ways. Members of the middle class were frequently of mixed heritage, which meant that they enjoyed some of the privileges of European descent during nineteenth century Mexico, but they were also of indigenous descent, which made them subject to some degree of prejudice. In addition, they were also in the middle economically. Though the middle class was not subjected to the same type of quasi-slavery plantation system as the peasants, they did not reap the same type of financial benefits from Mexico's industrial and agricultural gains as the aristocracy. In short, the Constitutionalists were in a situation where they were comfortable enough to understand that they deserved equal rights, but not necessarily desperate enough to call for a reapportioning of real and personal property.

The primary goal of the Constitutionalists was to secure a constitutional form of government for Mexico. The first proponents of this type of government were Mexican liberals, many who lived in exile in the United States. Not surprisingly, given the eventual success of the Constitutionalists, the first successful revolutionary, Madero, was aligned with their interests. Like other Constitutionalist leaders, Madero was an intellectual who sought reform in Mexico, based on his perceptions that the peasant class was being grossly mistreated, and not based on the mistreatment of his own class. Initially, most of the liberals, who eventually became known as the Constitutionalists, spoke of ideals, such as freedom and democracy. It was the Constitutionalists who called for the revolution, and people from all classes and races answered that call.