Have you heard the story of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
The victory of the Constitionalists over the Conventionists ultimately came down to one deciding question. That question was: Who could be friends longest? The Mexican Revolution was chock full of self-important, privileged men who believed they were entitled to the role of El Presidente de Mexico. Those who could outlast their opponents, could grab hold of the anillo de bronce, and lead the country. As is widely known, the Mexican Revolution was hardly revolutionary, in fact, each man who strived for the ultimate political power in the country fashioned their reign after the man whom they just battled to excommunicate. Each man except for two. Emilio Zapata and Pancho Villa were cut from a different cloth one could say, or at the very least came from significantly different regions of Mexico. Villa’s frontera roots ran deep, as was the same with Zapata’s hinterland roots. But those deep roots ultimately deeply rooted their fate as potential leaders of Mexico. You see, these two men were considered pseudo-idealists, initially fighting for the respective cause. Initially, because as renown scholar Michael J. Gonzalez (2002) and documentarian Mark Wasserman (2012) so fervently illuminate, both factions slowly slipped into banditry as the revolution persisted. But back to that brass ring and the battle of the ‘-ists’. The question posed centered on lasting friendships. We can see throughout the revolution that friendships between the semi-elitist Constitutionalists were stronger, most likely as result of the threat of losing that privilege (Darth Plagueis the Wise anyone?), while the more idealistic frontera-hinterland alliance could not find a way to permanently bond.
Factionalism wrought havoc during the negotiations of the 1917 Constitution. According to scholar Michael J. Gonzalez (2002), the factionalism centered mostly on the regulation of church and state. Articles 130 of the new constitution focused heavily on church regulation. In addition to a religious reign-in, land rights were also discussed and codified. However, Zapata wanted more. The personal divide between Zapata and Carranza grew at an alarming rate, as Zapata pushed land reform. Zapata’s push was undermined by the passage of Article 27 which focused solely on land reforms, and as this article now firmly a part of the constitution, Zapata lost support. As Zapata came to the realization that this factionalism would ultimately cause his death, Carranza was one step ahead. As soon as Zapata reached out the olive branch, Carranza’s entourage gunned him down.
Obregon seemed to be the best choice for Mexico. The country had been torn apart by revolution, factionalism, and rebellion. Mexico had to move forward to survive. Obregon was the person that could steer the ship through the uncharted seas of reconstruction. According to Gonzalez (2002), Obregon was secular in nature, understood the plight of Mexican laborers, and comprehended the delicate balance of placating the old guard while moving forward with much needed reform. He was the man for the job, but this also meant the end of Pancho Villa’s existence. According to Obregon, progress and Pancho were NOT two p’s in a pod. This left Obregon with only one more challenge: How to pay the bills? This was a no brainer. The world needs oil, most notably an ever-expanding, ever-industrializing USA. It just so happens that the USA shares a border with Mexico. Mexico has oil + USA wants oil = bills paid.
