The Early Years of the Mexican Revolution
Francisco I. Madero proposed nothing less than revolution in his 1910 Plan of San Louis Potosi. He called on the people to rise up and rebel against the Porfirian regime and to institute democratic elections in Mexico. Yet Madero’s plan, when viewed through the lens of history, made propositions that naturally conflicted with one another. Land reform for the poor and dispossessed was proposed alongside a promise to honor all contracts with foreign companies and countries. The seeds of revolution may have been planted in the Plan of San Louis Potosi, but with them were sewn weeds of division.
Born into wealth, Francisco I. Madero was one of the new breed of men who were politically motivated, had the wealth for upwards mobility, and yet due to the Porfirian era were locked out of the political process (Gonzales, 2002). The decades long reign of Porfirio Diaz had created a geriatric political body that saw little change. The senate was filled with old men who could thank Diaz for their perpetual positions and the military was a reflection of the senate. This political stagnation meant that men who were looking to advance in politics had little room to maneuver. Such was the case of Francisco I. Madero. Madero’s motivation was for the ability to influence the course of politics, something his family had been shut out of by Diaz (Gonzales, 2002). Madero was not seeking to change the system entirely, this would become apparent after he came into power as he largely kept the Porfirian officials and laws in place. He simply wanted the system to become democratic and allow for new blood to enter into, and influence, the course of politics.
The Plan of Ayala written by Emiliano Zapata (1911) became a rallying cry for the poor and dispossessed. This document differed from Madero’s plan in that it focused on land reform and the reallocation of water and timber rights that had been stripped from villages and the poor throughout the Porfirian era. When Madero came into power it was thought that he would return the land to the people. Instead, Madero surrounded himself with former officials that were loyal to Diaz and did little to help those that Zapata represented (Gonzales, 2002). Rather than side with Zapata and the other revolutionaries, Madero consistently stood with former members of the Porfirian regime. Presumably this was to court favor with both sides and to walk a middle line, but for Emiliano Zapata this was a stab in the back. Madero had promised revolution and change, but all that the poor and landless saw was the same dictator with a different face.
The Mexican Revolution had begun but due to the actions of Madero it certainly was not finished. While the middle and upper classes were seeking entry into the political theater, the lower classes wanted to regain the land with which they could eek out a living with. When Madero came into power he left so much of the Porfirian system in place, and showed so much leniency to former supporters of Diaz, that he practically ensured a counterrevolution would occur. Due to the fact that the lower classes were being ignored, as can be seen in the writings and actions of Emeliano Zapata, a revolution to the counterrevolution would surely come about as well. Instead of securing peace and prosperity for Mexico, Francisco I. Madero brought about a brutal tug-of-war between competing factions that would see the country seethe with violence for years to come.
References
Gonzales, Michael J. The Mexican Revolution 1910–1940, University of New Mexico Press, 2002
Madero, Francisco. Plan de San Luis de Potosi, 1910
Zapata, Emiliano. Plan de Ayala, 1911
