Major Causes of the revolution in Mexico.
Based on John Tutino, From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico
The Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) was caused by a variety of factors. It is impossible to place the blame on one single event or person because of the complexity of the Mexican people. One thing is for sure, if people are deprived of food and water, they will find a way to obtain enough to survive. History proves that in desperate times people will take matters into their own hands. When a countries leadership wavers, and conditions become poor enough that people are starving, they will respond negatively. It seems that any time the Mexicans lose the ability to grow their own maize they become discontent. Mexicans staple crop is maize, which is then ground into flour to make a large variety of food. Tutinos' study of Mexico links the revolution to many factors as well as compares and contrasts the events of 1910 to the revolts led by Hidalgo in 1810. The failures of the Diaz Regime, economic trouble, poor crop yields, failure of the elite to unify to put down the rebellion, and lack of a natural order of succession, led to the Mexican Revolution and each affected various sectors of Mexico differently. The Mexican Revolution changed the face of Mexico for ever.
Porfirio Díaz was the leader of Mexico for over 35 years. Although the tactics in which he employed to stay in power so long were unsavory, he made significant social and economic changes in Mexico. He was able to pacify the people by doing just enough to keep them from rebelling, and completely transformed their economic system. According to Tutino, Díaz failed by trying to change Mexico to the gold standard. Díaz changed Mexico by redistribution of land and was able to make Mexico a player in the global economy. During his reign the people in Mexico had food and water and minimal self-sufficiency. Why did the country erupt in Revolution in 1910? Was Díaz really too blame? Tutino suggested that while Díaz was not the best leader, at least the areas in the south that had erupted with economic growth due to his changes never joined the Revolution. Díaz did neglect fixing the counties problems and just pacified groups that were upset.
Diaz gradually consolidated his power by first legitimizing consecutive re-election in 1887 to the Constitution of 1867 and then removing all restriction on future re-election to public office which gave him legal endorsement to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seven re-election until 1910 (98).
The leadership in South America compared to the leadership in Mexico was quite different. But in some areas, where they were compared were very similar. In both places, a Revolution had begun. Starting with how they are both similar, Mexico and South America both wanted independence. They wanted to be free from the old fashioned ways of life, to start fresh and bring in new ideas to their people. In South America, their head leadership consisted of so very popular men named Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin. These men were both wealthy, Simon was a Venezuela Creole, which is a Spaniard born in Latin America, and Jose was a great liberator, or a person who sets people free from imprisonment. In some ways these two men worked together to gain their independence but then again not at all. In 1811, Simon had gained its independence from Spain. A major struggle, that was only the beginning. Simon suffered from many defeats and was exiled twice. But he never gave up hope. In a turning point, Simon led over 20,000 soldiers into Columbia and took a victory from the Spanish Bogota. By 1821 he had won Venezuelan independence. From here he marched into South Ecuador where he met Jose. Simon’s ways of gaining independence was only the beginning of South Americas revolution.
The Mexican revolution was an extremely bloody conflict between the people of Mexico and the presidents they had to live under.
Mexico declared its independence from Spain in Sept, 16, 1810, and for the next 100 years what followed was a period of political instability of rule under monarchies, federal republics and dictatorships. Finally in 1910, a revolt on the autocracy under Porfirio Diaz led to the start of the M...
Beginning in 1845 and ending in 1850 a series of events took place that would come to be known as the Mexican war and the Texas Revolution. This paper will give an overview on not only the events that occurred (battles, treaties, negotiations, ect.) But also the politics and reasoning behind it all. This was a war that involved America and Mexico fighting over Texas. That was the base for the entire ordeal. This series of events contained some of the most dramatic war strategy that has ever been implemented.
There was a huge revolution in the country of Mexico that started in the year 1910, led by Porfirio Diaz, the president of Mexico in 1910. In the 1860’s Diaz was important to Mexican politics and then was elected president in 1877. Diaz said that he would only be president for one year and then would resign, but after four years he was re-elected as the President of Mexico. Porfirio Diaz and the Mexican revolution had a huge impact on the country of Mexico that is still felt in some places today.
The Mexican Revolution began November 20th, 1910. It is disputable that it extended up to two decades and seized more than 900,000 lives. This revolution, however, also ended dictatorship in Mexico and restored the rights of farm workers, or peons, and its citizens. Revolutions are often started because a large group of individuals want to see a change. These beings decided to be the change that they wanted to see and risked many things, including their lives. Francisco “Pancho” Villa and Emiliano Zapata are the main revolutionaries remembered. These figures of the revolution took on the responsibility that came with the title. Their main goal was to regain the rights the people deserved. The peons believed that they deserved the land that they labored on. These workers rose up in a vehement conflict against those opposing and oppressing them. The United States was also significantly affected by this war because anybody who did not want to fight left the country and migrated north. While the end of the revolution may be considered to be in the year of 1917 with the draft of a new constitution, the fighting did not culminate until the 1930’s.
One of the factors that led to the Mexican independence is the socio-political conditions of the native Mexicans after being invaded by Spain. After the fall of Tenochtitlan, and for the three hundred years that followed, indigenous
...l liberties, supreme monarch rule, and ultimately a poor quality of life. In the end, the political factor responsible for the revolution was the people's discontent with Tsar Nicholas II and the way he ruled, socially the factor responsible for revolution was the people's desire for basic civil liberties which had not been granted by the monarch rulers, and economically the people wished to improve the quality of their life, working conditions, and job output.
In 1821, Mexico won its independence back from Spain but that wasn’t the end of their fight. Many countries have continued to struggle after engaging in war, whether they win or lose, and Mexico was no different. Recovery was challenging, they face many political challenges, and struggled to secure a suitable leader. It was also difficult for them to populate and protect borders of the northern area they acquired when winning their independence. Populating these areas was made even more difficult by the constant conflict and fighting they engaged in with the Native Americans. Not only that, but the central government and the poorer frontier communities clashed when it came to theirs ideals and they struggled to communicate and work
As mentioned previously war time creates hardships and sometimes those hardships are difficult to recover from. The outcome of the Mexican Revolution included millions of peasants being killed. Marentes describes peasants as hard-working, highly skilled agricultural labors. With the loss of so many peasants the harvest became scarce and many were lacking work. The Mexican government was unable to replenish resources and improve the way of life in Mexico causing ...
The Russian and Mexican revolution’s differed in the ideas they adopted but they were similar in the way they met their goals and started their uprisings. The Russian revolution was made with the goal to create an egalitarian government that was based off of Karl Marx’s socialism principles. In short, t...
The main causes of the revolution were the corrupt way in which the country was run, the large role the US played in the running of Cuba and the poor treatment & conditions the lower class Cubans lived with. The leader before the revolution was a man named Fulgencio Batista, who came into power via a coup. He suspended the Constitution, effectively establishing a dictatorship, and increased the Cuban dependency on the US. Batista allowed the US to build casinos, reaping the profits from the casinos and from the growing drug trade. He ignored crimes, allowing many drug dealers to continue under the condition that he got a share of the profits. He, a select group of friends, and businessmen from the US, grew richer and richer while the lower class of Cuba were poor and suffering. The people of Cuba saw this corruption and resented it, causing a gaping rift between leader and people.
The history of political instability in Mexico and its need for revolution is very complex and dates back to the colonization of Mexico by the Spaniards in the 1500s. However, many aspects of the social situation of Mexico when the Revolution broke out can be attributed to the thirty-year dictatorship of President Porfrio Diaz, prior to 1911. The Revolution began in November of 1910 in an effort to overthrow the Diaz dictatorship. Under the Diaz presidency, a small minority of people, primarily relatives and friends, were in ...
Throughout history, countless uprisings have occurred. Historians classify any forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system as a revolution. The success or failure of a revolution is directly related to the revolution’s causes and courses. The French Revolution was more successful than the Nicaraguan Revolution, because the Nicaraguan Revolution left the country in social and financial ruin, foreign powers had much greater interference, and it precipitated a period of political unrest with multiple leadership changes.