1 / 21

Mexican Revolution (1910-40)

Mexican Revolution (1910-40). Radicals v Reformers Thin line? Periodisation: Armed Phase (1910-20) Reform Phase (1920-40) Today: Armed Phase. Why the Mexican Revolution?. Paper 2 – Causes and Effects of War Armed Phase of the Revolution (1910-20) Paper 3 – Syllabus Item #10

faye
Download Presentation

Mexican Revolution (1910-40)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mexican Revolution (1910-40) • Radicals v Reformers • Thin line? • Periodisation: • Armed Phase (1910-20) • Reform Phase (1920-40) • Today: Armed Phase

  2. Why the Mexican Revolution? • Paper 2 – Causes and Effects of War • Armed Phase of the Revolution (1910-20) • Paper 3 – Syllabus Item #10 • “The Mexican Revolution, 1910 to 1940 • Causes and course of the revolution • Aims and roles of the leaders, including Zapata and Villa • The Constitution of 1917 • Effects: immediate and long-term; political, social, economic and cultural • Role of the USA”

  3. Historiography: How has the Revolution been studied before? • Orthodox View (ca. 1930-late 1960s): • Revolution was a mass, unanimous uprising; peasant v. small number of exploiters • Regime of the 1920s was a populist, nationalist regime • Despite emphasis on peasant movement, mostly Top-Down • Myth of the Revolution – supported by the government, 1930  • Notable purveyors of this view: Frank Tannenbaum, Robert E. Quirk, Charles Cumberland

  4. Historiography (cont’d) • Revisionist View (1968-1970s): • There really was no revolution – it was just a political ‘shuffle’ of elites or just a ‘great rebellion’ • Just a change from one dictator (Diaz) to another (Calles/Cardenas) • As revision develops, studies moved away from Top-Down and focused on the social movements (e.g. Jean Meyer’s La Cristiada) • Development of the Microhistory (e.g. Paul Friedrich’s Agrarian Revolution in a Mexican Village and *Luiz Gonzalez’s San Jose de Gracia*) • Notable purveyors of this view: Ramon Ruiz, Jean Meyer

  5. Historiography (cont’d) • Post-revisionist view (1980s-now) • Synthesis of the orthodox and revisionist views • Revolution was first and foremost a social movement • Regional perspective is key; generalisation must be carefully constructed • Continued debate over top-down (e.g. E Krauze) v bottom-up (regional microhistorians) • Notable purveyors of this perspective: Alan Knight, Linda Hall, John Womack, DA Brading

  6. Historiography (cont’d) • Top-Down v Bottom-up • Who was more influential: the leaders or the masses? • Cannot understand the revolution looking only at the leaders – it was a social revolution • Yet can still learn a lot about the revolution from the careers of the leaders – especially leaders such as Zapata, Obregon, Cardenas • We will be looking at these leaders

  7. Radicals/Revolutionaries v. Reformers • IB likes to make this distinction • What is a Radical/Revolutionary? • Can be divided into 2 groups: • Agraristas – groups led to revolt due primarily to agrarian grievances. Thus, main goal was agrarian reform (e.g. Zapata) • Serranos – groups led to revolt due to threats to way of life, varied based on region. Main goals included autonomy, political control, cultural independence (e.g. Pancho Villa) • Both groups have common ground: they entered into revolution due to expansion under the Porfiriato

  8. Radicals/Revolutionaries v. Reformers (cont) • What is a Reformer? • Working through governmental or legal institutions to bring about change • After the Armed Revolution, succession of Presidents who attempted to institutionalise the revolution through reforms • Types of reforms depended on the President – e.g. Obregon – political; Calles – cultural; Cardenas – socio-economic • Can a Reformer be a Radical? Are all Revolutionaries Radical?

  9. Map of Mexico - Regionalisation

  10. ‘Revolutionary’ Leaders: Francisco I. Madero Pascual Orozco (?) Emiliano Zapata Pancho Villa Venustiano Carranza Alvaro Obregon Counter-Revolutionaries: Victoriano Huerta Felix Diaz Bernardo Reyes Pascual Orozco (?) Timeline 1908 – Publication of La Sucesion Presidencial and the Creelman Interview 1910 – Madero arrested, publication of Plan de San Luis Potosi, armed revolution begins with uprisings in North 1911 – Diaz resigns and flees to France, Madero elected, Plan de Ayala published 1913 – Decena Tragica, Huertista coup 1914 – Huerta overthrown, Convention of Aguascalientes 1915 – Villa defeated at Celaya, Carranza sets up government from Vera Cruz 1917 – Constitution published, Obregon resigns 1919 – Obregon announces candidacy, Zapata killed in Morelos 1920 – Obregon leads quick coup, Carranza flees but is found and killed Armed Phase (1910-20)

  11. Francisco I. Madero • From a wealthy hacendado family in Laguna (Coahuila) • Wrote La Sucesion Presidencial en 1910 in 1908, arguing that the corruption of the government must be stopped by the election of a new VP • Authored Plan de San Luis Potosi, which called for the overthrow of Diaz and very moderate land reform • ‘Led’ armed revolution until signing of Treaty of Ciudad Juarez in 1911 • Elected as president after the interim regime of de la Barra • He was short, had a squeaky voice and believed in mysticism “The Mexican does not want bread, he wants the liberty to earn bread.”

  12. Maderismo as a government • Lasted until Madero’s overthrow and murder in 1913… • What did he do? • Oversaw the fairest election Mexico had ever seen • Allowed for the development of political parties (e.g. Partido Nacional Catolico) • Defended the freedom of press (to his own detriment – not even his wife was spared!) • Supported the labour movements with the establishment of the Department of Labour (abandonment of liberal laissez faire?)

  13. Maderismo as a government (cont) • Why did it fail? • Continued influence of Porfirian elites/the Right • Heavy political debt to the army • Abandonment of Liberal ideology in favour of forced order • Disillusionment of revolutionaries • Miscalculation of the Right – loose alliance of landowners, ex-Porfirian intellectuals, officer corps of the federal army Verdict: Reformer (primarily political)

  14. Emiliano Zapata • Began as the leader of the Defensive Commission of Anenecuilco • Began a revolutionary movement in Morelos in 1910, with the main goal of land reform • Published the Plan de Ayala in 1911 after Madero refused to initiate radical land reforms and after the actions of the federal army • Became leader of a complex network of revolutionaries that helped to overthrow Huerta in 1913 • Allied with Villa in 1914 and the Zapatista intellectuals became prominent in the Conventionalist government • Continued fighting against the Carrancista government until death in 1919 • Was renowned for his horse-training skills “Where there were Zapatistas, there were guarantees.”

  15. Zapatismo • Existed as a separate revolutionary movement from 1911-20 • What did it want? • Land Reform – it wanted to redistribute the lands that had been taken away from the campesinos of Morelos • Protection of Indian communities – wanted to prevent the expansion of centralised power and culture • Protection of rights based on the ideals of ‘Liberalism’ (see Constitution of 1857) • Did NOT want to rule the whole of Mexico – the Zapatistas felt out of place during their occupation of Mexico City

  16. Zapatismo (cont) • What did it do? • Oversaw the expropriation of several haciendas, while attempting to maintain the hacienda model. Miguel Palafox (secretary until 1917) was the minister of agriculture in the Conventionalist government • Gave unifying ideology to the numerous revolutionary movements of Central and Southern Mexico (especially in Guerrero, Puebla, Morelos and Tlaxcala), which contributed to the downfall of Huerta • Continued a guerilla war that tore apart Morelos • Constructed alliance with Obregon and other revolutionaries in 1919/20 that led to the downfall of Carranza • Was a collective, social, agrarian movement influenced by the agrarian cycle Verdict: Radical

  17. Alvaro Obregon • Small ranchero from Sonora who eventually built up a chickpea empire • Entered the revolution in 1913 after Huertista coup • Fought as Constitutionalist under Carranza • Attended 1914 Convention • Defeated Pancho Villa at Celaya in 1915 • Became Secretary of War in Carranza administration in 1915 • Retired to farm in 1917 (though had his eye on the Presidency) • Ran for President in 1919 • Led quick military coup against Carranza in 1920 • Elected President, 1920 • Obsessed with death (acc. Krauze), invented a chickpea picking machine, lost arm in battle (was subsequently preserved like a pickle and displayed) “I had so many brothers and sisters that when we had Gruyere cheese, only the holes were left for me!”

  18. What can Obregon’s career tell us about the Constitutionalist and Sonoran Revolutions? • During the Armed Phase, Obregon gained much popularity and garnered support for the Constitutionalists (nominally led by Venustiano Carranza, as established by the Plan de Guadalupe) • Worked under the government of Carranza until 1917 – due to legitimacy? • Though he fought under someone else, he retained a great deal of independence (reflection of Sonoran independence?) • Created a much more professional army – with regular wages, better training, and more discipline (reflection of Sonoran values?)

  19. What can Obregon’s career tell us about the Constitutionalist and Sonoran Revolutions? (cont) • Was a key player in the Constitutional Congress in Querretaro in 1916/17. Used his political and military influence to push through several reforms (e.g. Articles 3 and 130 and Article 27) • Was able to harness the power of the rising labour movements (e.g. Red Battalions), which was especially important in 1920 with the support of Luis Morones, and the indigenous populations (e.g. the Yaquis) • These groups would become essential to the presidencies of the 1920s and ‘30s • Established the Sonoran Dynasty in 1920 – culmination of what Jean Meyer calls an ‘invasion’ from the North” and emphasises the importance of institutions Verdict: Radical, for now…

  20. So…What can we conclude? • Although Madero called for a revolution, he himself was more a reformer – preferred to wait until order was restored before attempting any major changes • Zapatismo was a radical, proactive movement – in the sense of land reform – but also was largely a responsive, regional movement • Obregonismo had a profound impact on the course of the revolution. It was radical in its support of certain clauses in the 1917 Constitution. But it was also moderate in its dependence on institutions… • So, in the Armed Phase, both radicals and reformers played important roles. The radicals, however, probably were more influential to this phase overall…

  21. TOMORROW… Reform phase (1920-40)

More Related