The Contradictions of Madero
Francisco Madero was a well educated man from a wealthy family. Madero knew getting into the revolution wouldn’t be easy and in my opinion, had to know he would have to make concessions on what he promised to his constituents. Madero was convinced that a lack of Democracy was what was holding back the lower-classes of Mexico. He did not think this of the middle and upper class, which means he couldn’t have been totally against the policies President Diaz had in place and as it turns out this was true. Madero wanted political reform that would keep the social and economic structure intact. The lower classes did not want the social and economic structure left in place. They had dreams of equality for all Mexican citizens. To most of the lower classes, equality meant land reform. This would allow them to get there land back, farm it, and be able to feed the people of Mexico. Zapata was the one wo truly had this kind of reform in mind and not Madero. By Madero leaving the social and economic structure of Diaz in place, he would continue to feed the middle and upper classes. If you had a textile mill or a hacienda you were good to go under Madero. As Gonzales says in Chapter two of the Mexican Revolution “ Francisco Madero behaved more like a political reformer than a social revolutionary.” Well said!
The biggest mistake Madero made with the lower class was going back on his word of giving back lands that had been unjustly taken from them in the first place. In the eyes of the lower class, this already made him a traitor and painted him in the same light as Diaz. Zapata and Orozco the folk heroes of the revolution. This automatically created trust issues with the lower classes because Madero had already gone back on his word. I think Madero failed to realize the power of the revolution itself and the lower class had numbers on their side. The lower class wanted him out immediately and readily took part in getting him out. The former land owners took up with Zapata who was fighting for their land and their rights in court. Zapata issued the Plan of Ayala, which supported Orozco as president and focused on the land reform the peasants sought after. The plan had the support of the states of Guerrero, Tlaxcala, Puebla, some of Mexico City, and Morelos. In short, the plan had the backing of the people of Mexico.
The Plan of Ayala was the beginning of the counterrevolution. The plan united the lower class of Mexico’s citizens and kept the revolution alive. The Counterrevolution of united rebels fighting against Madero and his broken promises allowed for the revolution to move into its next phase of a military state. Madero’s reliance on his own federal troops to protect his presidency would prove to be his final downfall. Madero sent General Huerta to put down a rebellion in Mexico City, and General Huerta did so, but in the process he hijacked the presidency from Madero. This hijacking is considered counterrevolution, but in reality it kept the whole revolution going. All of these counterrevolutions kept the revolution itself moving forward into the next phase. Now, this militant state of General Huerta was a bit of a step backwards because Huerta was backed by the Porfirian society that backed President Diaz. However, in the whole aspect of things it kept the whole revolution moving forward. It is like the saying I have heard since I was a kid, sometimes you have to take a step back and look around to keep moving forward.
