Blog post #2
What were the key reasons for the Constitutionalist victory over the Conventionists?
Some of the reasons for the Constitutionalist victory over the Conventionists was that Carranza began the movement and was able to make progress. During Obregón’s reign he was loved by many of the people as Gonzales mentions (2002). Nonetheless some of the key reasons for the victory over the Conventionists as stated by Wasserman is, “(1) they had the best general, Obregón, who adapted to modern warfare the most adeptly; (2) they had the most resources, controlling customs at the major port of Veracruz, which allowed them to purchase arms and munitions; (3) their opposition, Zapata and Villa, were unable or unwilling to coordinate their military operations; and (4) Carranza was flexible enough to win over both organized labor (in 1914) and just enough of the rebels in the villages (through his Agrarian Law of 1915; Document 26) to tip the balance of popular support in his favor.” (Wasserman, 2012, p. 12). With the Constitutionalists we see that “Carranza had Zapata killed” (p. 12). Later Pancho Villa was killed. With both leaders out of the way, this was a plus for the Constitutionalists as these leaders were no longer a threat to them directly (Gonzales, 2002).
In what ways did factionalism still plague the Constitutionalist coalition during and after the negotiations that resulted in the Constitution of 1917?
Wasserman mentions that some of the reasons factionalism still plagued the Constitutionalist coalition during and after the negotiations that resulted in the Constitution of 1917 was, “the formal changes seemed precarious. The new elections were as corrupt as those in the past. Politics was often violent, with contesting factions frequently employing force of arms to obtain control of local and state governments. Murder was a common tactic for eliminating the opposition. The revolutionaries wrote a constitution that instituted radical changes in the position of the Catholic Church, the role of government in education, the rights of private property owners, and the conditions for working people. But the central authorities more often than not had neither the will nor the power to carry out the constitution’s provisions.” (2012, p. 22). In other words, each group had deafferent interests and motives. The basic agreement was that change was needed; however, in achieving this, there were differences in opinion. As everyone has opinions, in this case it did affect how change was carried out. For example, as seen above, there were dramatic changes with the Catholic Church, and in politics, as well as other changes. Another example is how Carranza and Obregón were different. Gonzales mentions that Obregón killed Carranza (Gonzales, 2002). Later, from the revolt of the Catholic Church, Obregón was murdered (Gonzales, 2002).
How was Alvaro Obregón able to successfully consolidate power in the early 1920s?
Alvaro Obregón was able to successfully consolidate power in the early 1920’s by forming alliances with various groups, and by making promises and seeing them through. He also wanted sought peace with the workers. Gonzales states, “Obregón also secured the loyality of high-ranking federal army officers through generous financial rewards…President Obregón also consolidated his regime by forging political alliances with organized labor. (2002, pp. 185–186). Through these alliances and pacts, in a way it almost seems as if Obregón’s motives were to please everyone, through giving many what they wanted. Perhaps if others got land, and workers were treated fairly, they would be happy as it seems they did from Gonzales book (2002).
Would you argue that the Revolution had come to a close with his administration? Why or why not?
I believe the Revolution had come to a close with Obregón’s administration as things were finally seeming to go better. Gonzales even mentions how when Obregón was murdered, there were many that loved the president and finally there was not only improvement; however, there was also a fair election (2002). I think with a Revolution, things such as the Cristero Revolt are aftereffects simply because the Catholic Church probably thought that they were being forced away from the control they once had (Gonzales, 2002).
References
Gonzales, M. J. (2002). The Mexican Revolution, 1910–1940. Univ. Of New Mexico Pr.
Wasserman, M. (2012). The Mexican Revolution. Macmillan Higher Education.
