Skip to content

Madero speaks!

28 February 2013

Here’s why Don Pancho didn’t survive… he honestly believed that the only reason for a Revolution was to overthrow Porfirio Diáz (“su único enemigo, que es el dictador”) and never understood the need for a thorough re-construction of the social compact.

maderoI know there are those who want to believe that — absent Huerta’s counter-revolution — the democratically elected Madero would have paved the way for a gradual “modernization”, but it is wishful thinking (and if we’re engaging in “what ifs”, then we need to assume that the U.S. oriented Maderos would have left the neo-colonial economic system of the late 19th century largely intact).

Huerta DID stage a counter-revolution (with a healthy assist from U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson) and there were a number of uprisings even against the Madero regime (Orozco in the North and Zapata in the south, to name two) that indicated the revolution was more than use a matter of replacing one leader with another, and tweaking the political system.

For better or worse, the Mexico that was yanked into modernity through ten years of fighting and infighting, was waiting for more than a transfer of power, and high-pitched, high-sounding rhetoric.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. 1 March 2013 5:30 am

    1. There were always those that believed that all of those in the government of Mexico were corrupt so they all had to be removed. 2. There were always those that wanted to make money in the the new government so they said all in the old government of Mexico were corrupt so they had to be removed. 3. You choose the why and believe whatever you want.

    • 1 March 2013 11:43 am

      Huh? What did “corruption” — or the perception thereof — have to do with the anti.Porfirian uprisings? Of course, there were people hoping to make some money off the Revolution (I’ve never heard of a war without war profiteers yet) and the Maderos were an extremely wealthy family, with Francisco having his own ideas on how the economy should be run (basically, the same old, same old but with better working conditions and more elections). It’s not my “choice” as to what to believe, but what the records show. Have you bothered to read any Mexican historians, or even U.S. histories of Mexico?

      • 1 March 2013 7:52 pm

        To hell with you and historians- each person had his own reasons- your ideas are not what theirs are. The historians say things to make money-they are as bad as corrupt politicians because they poison people’s minds.

Leave a Reply to richmx2 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: