Francisco Madero was “the titular head of a revolutionary movement tenuously and temporarily held together by the common goal of overthrowing” the Mexican dictator, President Porfirio Diaz (Gonzales, p 74). He had given the proposed change of the Presidency significant thought, as outlined in a book he published entitled “The Presidential Succession of 1910.” There were numerous differences in terms of the priorities held by regional supporters of the revolution that had rallied to his side. First, and not least of which was Madero’s accommodation with the bureaucracy of former President Diaz by changing department heads but leaving the regime intact, codified under the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez.
Madero understood that he needed the bureaucrats’ support to govern, performing essential services expected of the government. Second, President Diaz had fallen out of favor with the United States over foreign policy issues, not on matters of land reform. Prevention of further US meddling required that President Madero prioritize US commercial interests ahead of issues associated with the lower classes. The most significant of which was the promised return of land illegally acquired by estates during the era of President Diaz, codified in Article III of the Plan of
San Luis Potosi:
— Having been exploited by the laws regarding “idle lands”, numerous small landowners (mostly the indigenous people) have been dispossessed of their land in accord with this government and the rulings of the courts. It is in the interest of justice to restore these lands to the original owners, and as such anyone who has acquired land by immoral and illegal means must return it to the original owners…
Signed, General in Chief Emiliano Zapata; Generals Eufemio Zapata, Francisco Mendoza, Jesús Morales, Jesús Navarro, Otilio E. Montaño, José Trinidad Ruiz, Próculo Capistrán; Colonels Felipe Vaquero, Cesáreo Burgos, Quintín González, Pedro Salazar, Simón Rojas, Emigdio Marmolejo, José Campos, Pioquinto Galis, Felipe Tijera, Rafael Sánchez, José Pérez, Santiago Aguilar, Margarito Martínez, Feliciano Domínguez, Manuel Vergara, Cruz Salazar, Lauro Sánchez, Amador Salazar, Lorenzo Vázquez, Catarino Perdomo, Jesús Sánchez, Domingo Romero, Zacarías Torres, Bonifacio García, Daniel Andrade, Ponciano Domínguez, Jesús Capistrán; Captains Daniel Mantilla, José M. Carrillo, Francisco Alarcón, Severiano Gutiérrez and more signatures follow. [This] is a true copy taken from the original. Camp in the Mountains of Puebla, December 11, 1911. Signed, General in Chief Emiliano Zapata.
would have to wait for case-by-case adjudications through the courts. In so doing, President Madero insulted all the signatories of the Plan of San Luis Potosi, preferring to assuage the concerns of his family patriarch Evaristo Madero and other men of business. As such, “Francisco Madero behaved more like a political reformer than a social revolutionary … his commitment to political stability and administrative efficiency revealed his desire to only tinker with the system rather than to overthrow it.” (Gonzales, p74). Consequently, selected allies immediately set out to destabilize his administration.
Madero apparently thought that graft would retain the loyalty of displeased former partners. This backfired when Emiliano rejected a “Good Ranch” if he would concur with Madero’s decision to allow the courts to decide the land reform issue. Zapata and others were aware of instances where the courts simply rubber-stamped former President Diaz’ wishes on a variety of matters, so he would announce his Plan of Ayala,
and together with Pancho Villa would launch a counter revolution to achieve their ends which would pit them against Madero, his successor, President Huerta, and later compatriots and who called themselves the Constitutionalists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Ik-paY2Q0
The early period of the revolution was significant in that it laid the ground for a decade of violent warfare rather than a quick resolution of the problems faced by the people. It would be a very bloody affair which would setback the economy at least three decades. The hopes of many would be dashed as they and their families would suffer the great pain and cost of open warfare.
