La Revolucion: The Mexican Revolution

With Madero’s efforts he was able to become president but was assassinated by a team put together by Victoriano Huerta. “Two Mexico’s” was addressed when the Revolution was sparked and taken control by Venustiano Carranza part of the constitutionalist army and Emiliano Zapata which whom will be under credited for their efforts in the future. They took Huerta out of power in 1914.

The Mexicans didn't like the economic policies of Porfirio Diaz, the unequal distribution of land, and the economic inequality. Their causes for a revolution were to overthrow the Diaz dictatorship and have a constitution to give rights to the people and limit the government. In their results, they gained separation of the church and the state, government ownership of the subsoil, and lastly, the right of labor to organize and strike and many other aspirations The three revolutions were all similar in wanting to overthrow or limit the government giving more power to the people, all of them had high taxes with no say in them and little/no individual rights. All three wanted to create a constitution and limit the government. Finally, in their results, they gained independence from the government, limited the government, and became sovereign countries.

This is largely due to the fact that Diaz gave away the country's wealth to buy the loyalty of some, by gifts of haciendas (large estates), concessions or cash. Under his leadership, the gap between the rich and the poor grew undoubtedly larger due to his disregard of democratic principles and the common folk, and his acute determination to keep his dictatorship by any means possible. One of the most renowned opposition leaders of Diaz at the time was the European-educated Francisco Madero. Madero led a series of strikes in resistance to Diaz across the country and eventually ran against him in the election for presidency in 1911. Although Madero had a significant number of votes, Diaz had him imprisoned because he felt the people of Mexico were not ready for democracy, and feared the loss of his own presidency. Madero was not released until after the election so that votes could be tabulated in favour of Diaz. When released from prison, Madero continued to fight against his former adversary. Madero led the first phase of the armed revolution which resulted in Diaz's defeat and to his own presidency reign until 1913. It was during this time that many of the folk heroes of the Revolution emerged, including Francisco "Pancho" Villa of the North, and Emiliano Zapata of the South. In 1913 Madero was assassinated by A Mexican general by the name of Victoriano Huerta. Victoriano and his federal army was defeated in a coalition of armies led by Alvara Obregon, who took

The Mexican Revolution brought multiple parties and movements out of the woodwork. In John Womack’s Zapata and the Mexican Revolution, a story of one state’s drive for agrarian reform and its people’s evolving mission was told, with Emiliano Zapata as a pivotal leader. The dynamics of the revolution, however, reach deeper than Womack’s account portrays. While Womack documents the revolutionary path of the Zapatistas from the southern state of Morelos, the story of Pancho Villa, an arguably parallel character fighting for states in the North against the repressive powers of General Victoriano Huerta, reads more as a subplot. The writings of Samuel Brunk, Ana Maria Alonso, and Mariano Azuela shed light on the less simplistic dynamics of

The goals of the Mexican, French, and the United States of America are similar and different in many different ways. One of the ways they are similar is that they all revolted against their mother country. One way that the French and Mexican revolutions are different is that the French revolted because of an unstable government and the Mexicans revolted because of overworking of the slaves. The American and French revolutions are similar are that they both wanted freedom from being ruled by a king, but one difference is that the American Revolution didn’t have the reign of terror.

One can see this by looking at France. Even after going through the Reign of Terror, the nation still ceased to successfully change their government. The revolution wasn’t completely over until after Napoleon took reign. Although it was considered to be over, the country was still uneasy after the death of Napoleon. The Latin American Revolution was resolved clearer. They had successfully won independence from Spain. This is how these revolutions differ. How is it that France is so unsuccessful compared to the Latin American Revolution which had similar causes? To answer this, the style of the revolutions must be analyzed. The French Revolution wanted to change the style of government, while the Latin American Revolution was more focused towards gaining independence from a government. This proposes the question of why is it easier to create a new government than to change an old one. The revolutions truly are the same scenario played out in different

For example, the Cuban Revolution and the leader Che Guevara were also mentioned in the film when the police were searching the house. Due to the poster that was presented in the boy’s bedroom they started to look into the rooms and search better if they didn’t have the poster thus leading to the death of the family. Before the demonstration in October they had some in July and August causing some concern for US investors. All over the world in Japan, France, Cuba revolutions were taking place making it a perfect opportunity for the students to create their own and rebel against the government. In addition to the economic oppression that was surrounding Mexico’s poor they thought that the governments reaction confirmed their accusations of government oppression.

Towards the year 1820, desire for independence within Mexico decreased, as there was an inner conflict between the peninsulares, creoles, and the lower classes, as the aspirations of the lower castes would reduce the political and economic power of those classes (Keen 169; Huck 51). But then there was a new leader of the independence movement: Agustin de Iturbide. Instead of continuing the legacies of Morelos and Hidalgo, he changed sides, fighting only for the independence of Spain (Huck 53-54) His conservative plan, the Plan of Iguala, consisted of creating a constitutional monarchy, establishing Roman Catholicism as the official religion of Mexico, and giving equality to only peninsulares and creoles (Kirkwood). Despite establishing independence, the Plan of Iguala created a long line of dictators, only to make

The book is a non-fiction book written by, Alan Knight and was Published on May 5, 1980.The Mexican Revolution began in 1910, it began as a movement of a middle-class protest against the long standing dictatorship of Porfirio DIaz. In 1876, Diaz, an Indian general in the Mexican Army, took control of the nation and continued to be elected until 1910, he also had held power in 1876-1911. From 1884 to 1911, he was an unofficial ruler from 1880 to 1884, he was a respected political leader. In 1908, DIaz had an interview with an United States journalist James Creelman, and Diaz told James that would be ready for free elections in 1910, so in 1910, Diaz promised the people that he was going to let there be free elections. Porfirio Diaz was born

     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.

Different groups had very different goals for what the Mexican revolution would accomplish. The rural peasants and indigenous people wanted the land to be taken out of the hands of the aristocracy or the elite and have the land be evenly divided between the rural towns. They wanted the territory of their ancestors back because it had been stripped from them during the regime of Porfirio Diaz. They also wanted to be taken out of poverty and to have farming available to them again so that they could sustain their lives and work for their living. Therefore, because the peasants were suffering under the regime of Diaz, they wholeheartedly supported the revolution and everything that came with it. The Roman Catholic Church,

Mexico was building up to its revolution long before activists like Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata. From 1840 to 1910; Mexico went from a war-torn and newly freed nation to a nation on the brink of civil war. How did it get there? Through a series of wars, leaders, and policies, which proved causation politically, socially, and economically to the Mexican Revolution.

There were an abundance of social, political, and economical factors that led to the Mexican Revolution. Socially, there was a great displacement in the treatment between the elite and rich classes and the poor classes. Politically, what once started out as a Republic, after they had won their independence, had transitioned into a tyrannical dictatorship. Economically, Mexico was over dependent on loans from foreign nations such as France, Spain, England, and The United State of America.

“More than by force do they dominate us, by deception” were the words of Latin American revolution leader, Simon Bolivar. The Latin American revolution was a fight for independence from Spain, their mother country. In the colonies people were divided into different social groups. Beginning with the higher-classes the different classes were Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, Mulattos, Indians and lastly slaves. The Creoles, American-born Spaniards, led this revolution for three reasons: desire of political control, to provide protection for their economic interests, and their fear towards social unrest.

The Mexican Revolution began in 1910, when after decades of authoritarian rule, the Mexican leader, Porfirio Díaz, was challenged by Francisco I. Madero. Díaz was both the official and unofficial ruler of Mexico from 1876 to 1911. During the Porfiriato, Díaz managed to modernise the country through the development of mines, plantations, railways and telegraph lines. While these developments brought great economic prosperity for Mexico, the quality of life of the peasants was greatly diminished. The Ley Lerdo law, passed in 1856, meant that land that had previously been communal and owned by the state could now be sold to the government to haciendados, and peasants who had once worked the land were now treated almost as slaves by the large estate owners. This strict hierarchical class system ensured that resentment formed between the peasants and the middle classes. Elections in the country were also corrupt, with Díaz fixing the election of 1910, and often asking his self-appointed cabinet to amend the Constitution to allow him to do so. Despite the economic prosperity of the Porfiriato, the social *unrest* throughout the country was too great – people began to call for the deposition of Díaz as ruler. Several different groups were involved in the fight for social reformation, but the most notable are known as the ‘Big Four’. These four warlords were Emiliano Zapata and the Zapatistas, Pancho Villa and the Villistas, Venustiano Carranza and his Constitutionalist Army