Mexican Revolution In-Class Essay

question

“By the end of the 1920s the original objectives of the Mexican Revolution had been abandoned.” To what extent do you agree with this judgment? Note three specific objectives and cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key leadership.
answer

Labor Reform- 1917 Constitution promised 8 hour work days & min-wage but went ignored until Cardenas. Land Reform- Carranza returned land after being elected in 1915. Obregon allocated some lands to peasants but not much. Government Reforms- Under Calles pretty much everything was controlled by him with him being the Jefe Maximo. Madero ignored the reforms advocated for by Zapata
question

How successful were both moderates and radicals in achieving their aims in the Mexican Revolution by the end of the 1920s? Note three specific objectives and cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key leadership.
answer

Zapata died before his goal was achieved, elaborate plan on the part of Carranza. Villa controlled Chihuahua and implemented his reforms however it did not last past his deaths Madero the National Agrarian Commission and Department of Labor to Carranza was a moderate and Historian Alex Saragoza from U.C. Berkley claims that while Carranza his aim was merely to fulfill his own political objectives…
question

Examine the major stages of the Mexican Revolution (1910-40) and explain the programs of three of the most important leaders. Cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key actions.
answer

Land and Bread revolution Pancho Villa, Believed in land rights -Katz, implemented reforms on his own land / Villa return land to the people. Private ownership, bank reforms, education reforms Zapata destroy haciendas and return the property to the peasants edjido system Bourgeois revolution = middle class revolution Madero uninterested in land reform/social change -Ruz, just wanted power (reelection platform forgotten) Calles- Income tax, crack down on churches, jefe maximo, Founding of PRI True social revolution Cardenas land reform, oil nationalization (oil industries miscalculated) -Ruz
question

Analyze the political causes of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Note three specific causes and cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key leadership.
answer

Porfirio’s Wealth gap Mestizos began to feel abandon by uptake in Cientifico David Thompson Plan La San Luis Potosi directly said that judges and governors were controlled by Diaz ruining democracy. Also outraged by unfair elections and Diaz having a second term
question

Compare and contrast the aims of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution (1910-1923). Cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key actions.
answer

Villa individual Zapata edjidos Villa bank and education reform Zapata decentralization Villa in effect became the ruler of a Hacienda Zapata never achieved anything
question

In what ways, and for what reasons, did United States intervention influence the course of the Mexican Revolution between 1910 and 1920? Cite clear, specific historic support for each, specifically noting key actions.
answer

Ousting of Huerta/ Tampico Incident Funding of Anti-Huerta forces Pershing Expedition The Pancho Villa Expedition—now known officially in the United States as the Mexican Expedition[4] but originally referred to as the “Punitive Expedition, U.S. Army”[1]—was a military operation conducted by the United States Army against the paramilitary forces of Mexican revolutionary Francisco “Pancho” Villa from March 14, 1916, to February 7, 1917, during the Mexican Revolution 1910-1920. The expedition was launched in retaliation for Villa’s attack on the town of Columbus, New Mexico, and was the most remembered event of the Border War. The declared objective of the expedition by the Wilson administration was the capture of Villa.[5] Despite successfully locating and defeating the main body of Villa’s command, responsible for the raid on Columbus, U.S. forces were unable to prevent Villa’s escape and so the main objective of the U.S. incursion was not achieved.
question

The Mexican Revolution has often been stated to be about land, the influence of the church, class division, the Mexican economy, and access to political positions of influence. Choose three of these factors and compare and contrast how these factors were dealt with by two of the following leaders with a focus on who do you feel was the most successful in each area: Benito Juarez, Porfirio Diaz, Emiliano Zapata, Francisco Madero, Victoriano Huerta, Venustiano Carranza, Alvaro Obregon
answer

question

Compare and contrast the aims of Francisco Madero and Venustiano Carranza during the Mexican Revolution.
answer

Candidates should focus on and analyse the aims of both leaders and avoid a narrative of the Mexican Revolution. The question does not demand a discussion about the achievement of their aims, but if this is the approach accept it providing that it is not the core of the answer. For “compare” Both were committed to destroy Diaz’s regime; both made promises of agrarian reform but neither saw distribution of land as the key issue since they believed that only large landholders would permit Mexican agriculture to modernize; both spoke about social issues and workers’ rights, and both promised democracy but interpreted it as a democracy of the elite; both believed in capitalism; both addressed more political issues than social concerns; both were political moderates and wanted reform rather than a real revolution. For “contrast” Although both were nationalists, Carranza was more outspoken about Mexico’s rights and sovereignty. Madero was an idealist – his democracy was an instrument of social control by the elite that would promote the acceptance of capitalism through the granting of limited political and social reforms to the masses, with a stress on education. His political aims were for free and honest elections, municipal autonomy, improvement of the “material, intellectual, and moral condition” of workers, the need to curb drinking and gambling, and he saw free public education as crucial for social ills. He called for electoral reforms and his key idea was “effective suffrage and no re-election”. Carranza was a pragmatist – his goal was political and economic stabilization. He supported constitutional democracy, headed by a strong leader, and while he accepted that the people had to be considered, he did not see them as able to participate in the government. He initiated the process that led to the Constitution of 1917; however he refused to implement the more radical provisions of the document.
question

Assess the successes and failures of the Plutarco Elias Calles presidency.
answer

Candidates may have different perceptions as to success and failure. Accept different views if they are supported by evidence and persuasive arguments and examples. Calles’ goal was to rebuild the economy. He established the Bank of Mexico and several financial institutions. He developed a highway system and public education system, established health programmes and made labour more powerful. His agrarian reform was limited, but still greater than any of his predecessors. He institutionalized the revolution and established the principle of no re-election as the cornerstone of the political system. He founded the National Revolutionary Party (PNR) and although he did not present himself as a candidate, he established the “Maximato” – a system by which he remained the strongman of Mexico, ruling through token presidents. Candidates may see the “Maximato” as a failure and the PNR as a success or as a failure. There are, however, two clear failures in his attempts to implement the Constitution of 1917. Calles’ presidency was overshadowed by the massive insurrection of the Catholic peasantry known as the War ofthe Cristeros. The rebellion was the result of his effort to enforce the separation of Church and State in education. He conceded to the Church. The second was to implement Article 27 (subsoil and oil leases) which brought him up against the United States. After some mediation, war was averted and the law was rewritten allowing some concessions to the US, but reaffirming national ownership of subsoil. If only successes orfailures are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].
question

“Lazaro Cardenas’ rule (1934-1940) renewed the ideals of the Mexican Revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
answer

● Cardenas elected in 1934 ○ Was his “own man” (from Taming of the Revolution) ○ Term from 1934-1940 ● No?? If the ideals were deeply agrarian → LAND REFORM ○ When peasants were upset about the ‘revolutionary’ goals of their rulers not being fulfilled, cardenas stepped in to FULFILL INITIAL IDEALS ○ Presided over distribution of 44 million acres of land to landless Mexicans (wayyy more like twice as much distributed by all his predecessors combined) ○ Allowed for support services so distributing land would be successful ■ Individual peasants and families got land too ○ Prevented subsistence farming culture of the past → lessened possibility for food supply and export markets ■ LABOR REFORM ○ Land distributed to ejido system → more schools, hospitals, financing ■ SOCIAL REFORM ○ Initial euphoria → over 800,000 recipients’ dreams came truee ● BUT agricultural production fell & the financial services by the government were not enough ○ Low productivity & disorganization ● Renewed ideals by reorganizing party structure → partido de la revolucion mexicana ○ Built around separate functional groups (agricultural/peasant, labor, military, ‘popular’/middle class) ○ Borrowed from corporatism
question

To what extent were social factors the main cause of the outbreak of the revolution in Mexico in 1910?
answer

People were tired of uneven growth Poor were getting poorer and rich richer Land was routinely taken leading to leaders like Zapata rising, breakup of edjidos
question

For what reasons, and in what ways, were Mexican revolutionary leaders supported by foreign powers, especially the United States, between 1910 and 1922?
answer

Huerta was supported by Europe as he was seen as capable of protecting foreign interests Henry Lane Wilson saw him as a powerful ally capable of keeping control in Mexico and protecting American interests Backed Madero’s Government because he promised to bring democracy in Mexico. Provided him with funding and placed embargos on his opponents in order to promote Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy Under Moral Diplomacy Wilson called Huerta a government of Butchers and funded Villa and Zapata Supported Carranza

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member