Emblem of Mexico1, the vision, hovering above the discovery, resting within the symbol of state.

The eagle and the snake are eye to eye in battle, but the eagle is in control, and the snake knows death is at hand. The eagle is golden; and it is perched upon a cactus. The cactus is a prickly pear and is growing on an island. The island is in the middle of a lake. The scene was first observed in a vison. It was related to others, and discussed among the elders. It was passed from the elders to the children, and discussed among the community. Years later, as the tribe journeyed South in search of a new home, they came upon a lake high in the mountains of central Mexico. In the midst of the lake was an island. And one looking, and, seeing, pointed and called to the others. And they looked, and they saw. On the island, in the middle of the lake, stood a prickly cactus. And upon that cactus perched a golden eagle clutching a snake. And the people knew that they were home.

Modern Mexico was founded in prophetic vision. For millennia, the isthmus of the Americas, from Panama the lesser to Mexico the greater, shaped, as it was, like a cornucopia, poured forth of itself, riches, of fruit and wildlife, game and livestock, minerals and metals and gem stones, for the pleasure and prosperity of her peoples.2 What is now known as Mexico and central America, was a rich and luxuriant land.3

it was a golden eagle that flew, back and forth in search, or sent by providence to find a homeland and to guide the people to their home forever. like the dove that guided noah of old.

For centuries her people lived as other people did, loving and trading, fighting and squabbling, intermarrying and warring, raising children and burying children, becoming older and burying elders.

The Olmecs fashioned their marvels of stone and jade three thousand years ago and left the landscape dotted with stone helmeted heads, many weighing over 100,000 LBS, and many almost perfectly spherical. The Olmecs establish large cities of San Lorenzo and La Venta. Stone ball courts with public bleachers were constructed throughout the land. Then the Teotihuacan arose and added their pyramids to the growing constellation of such structures throughout the world. The people passed on but left their pyramids for our marveling.

From the descendants of the Olmecs arose several peoples, among whom were the Zapotec. They dwelt in valleys and plains and mountains but their capital city was built in the heights. Mount Altaban was a great construction high up upon a mountain with steep sides all around. Its walls and towers and terraces were visible from many angles and for many miles. It was both highly defensible, easily visible and very difficult to build, The Zapotecs became known in time as the people of the clouds. They are one of very few peoples with an origin story that does not include a migration. They referred to themselves as The People. They seemed to have believed that they were the original people, that they arose from the earth or perhaps came from the clouds.

The Toltec Empire

then the Toltec Empire dominates much of central Mexico leaving their architecture are a friezes

The Aztecs appeared in 1325, but nobody called them Aztecs, nor would they have recognized that name. They called themselves the the Mexica and were known by others as the Chamexica, plain forerunners of the current tittle of the country. They founded the great city of Tenochtitlan, later called Aztec by von Humboldt. It is the Mexica who responded to the vision and founded the City that would become the greatest city of the Americas for centuries and one of the greatest cities in the world in our day.

Deeds became stories and stories became tales, and tales were passed from mother to son and father to daughter and became legends, and legends became the property of us all. And in time writing was invented by those who buy and sell, to keep the buyers honest they said, and then to keep the sellers honest, and then the story tellers learned to write, and the written words outlasted the spoken words, and the spoken words were forgotten by many, but not by all, and the spoken words contained the soul and the eyes of those who spoke them, and the laughter, the anger and the tears, as dramatic punctuations adding depths of nuance rarely if every carried in writing.

Then came the colonizers with technologies not seen before in the land. And with their horses and iron, they brought a new religion. Mere bravery and strength were inadequate before these invaders. Cities fell, societies splintered and rituals were extinguished, but not the spirit. They were perhaps superior in technology but perhaps not in spirit.

They lusted after our gold. They deceived and fought. They killed and pillaged, and in their blood lust their war lust, they left little undamaged, unsoiled, unruined for our children. Indeed, the old era is passing away. And it has been done unto us as we have done unto others. But something was different. For in that act of faith, the thing being done was not being done unto others, but done unto god, this giving to god would not go unrecompensed. The karma was spiritual and uninterfered with by the machinations of the world.

New communities grew as babies were born and grew and new towns grew and some were abandoned. But ever present were these monuments of an older order, of an era where the present system was not what it was, where other lords ruled over us. These are ancient landmarks, signposts of an older era, not to an older era, but from an older era, showing the present is not all there is, the present is passing too, as the older passed, show shall the present, which seems presently so forever shall pass too, and only that which is worthy, truly worthy, shall abide the ages.

From South America in that time, the land has been overrun by armies, The land has been devastated by wars, by colonialism by hurricanes by this by that, yet endures upon a foundation deeper and stronger than any of those.

It is also a land of pyramids and aqueducts, ancient stoneworks which have endured the test of time more than any modern works are expected to. Like other near-equatorial peoples encircling the globe, these builders of old were students of the sky, experts in observational astronomy , masters of the movements of celestial bodies. the foundations of their pyramids are deep and remain to this day.



About a quarter century before the year 1800, the USA initiated a demand for independence. And by a quarter century after the same year, 1800, essentially all of the western hemisphere was liberated from Europe’s dominion. There can be little doubt, that, that half century, straddling the year 1800, was the appointed time of independence, for the Americas, from Europe. The philosophers, of the European colonizers, had laid the foundations for a new world order, in their writings which became known collectively as the Enlightenment. There were readers, students and believers, on both sides of the Atlantic; but it fell to the colonized to claim independence, rather than the colonizers to grant it. And, as is so often the case, powerful interests and financial interests resisted, and the matter would not be settled without violence. There was war. And, so, the offspring of the old order came forth, born fighting, like the chick breaking forth from the shell, the butterfly from the cocoon. First it was England whose grip was pried from the 13 little states in the North. Then it was France forced to acknowledge the independence of Haiti. And then it was Spain’s turn; the oldest of the era’s colonizers, the claimant of the vastest land holdings of all.

And in time, the old order of government was abandoned by all the Europeans, who sought to implement the new order, pioneered West of the Atlantic. And so it was, as the proverb of old, a little child shall lead them into the future.


Heroes arose when Mexico needed them.5 There was Josefa, whose faith outlasted an empire and deposed an emperor. There was Jose Maria, the muleteer, who warred in hope, who carried the struggling revolution when it stumbled, and introduced it to President Monroe and the world, and who died in its service. There was Hidalgo whose love and humility were so authentic, so persuasive, a generation followed him into independence. At the last, an exhausted Spain acknowledged the truth of Mexico’s independence, and relented. It was 1821.

Many heroes had passed to their reward. The loudest man standing was Iturbide.

6 7 8


Iturbide had fought against the revolution before he fought for it. He had had Morelos executed prior to becoming a champion of Morelos’ cause. Iturbide, who had wriggled free, again and again, from charges of financial improprieties, as he generalled Spain’s war against the revolutionaries, saw his way to wealth and luxury at last, as the war was drawing to a close. He switched sides.

“Harsh, your words”, one might say. For Iturbide, all might have been overlooked, all might have been forgiven and forgotten, had he conducted the next 12 to 24 months differently. But as the wise of old said, “the leopard cannot change his spots”; almost as soon as he could, Iturbide decked himself in splendor, in the face of a desperate people and a new born babe of a country.

The First Empire of Mexico, it was called; and Iturbide was the Emperor. It’s territory included all of present day Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. But in two years, Guatemala and the others seceded, and Iturbide was driven from office. The divide was generally between the traditionalists and the reformers.

The providential circumstance of Iturbide rise to power invites comparison with George Washington. Both were commanders in chief of revolutionary armies when independence arrived; and both became the first political heads of state of newly birthed countries. Such opportunity and such responsibility for two individuals! What would be done with it? What would history record?

There was a blessing in the northern neighbors having a unifying politically unambitious figure such as George Washington, heroic in war, successful in war, unassuming as president, and laying aside power after two popularly elected terms when he could easily have had it longer. Those eight years of unanimity gave precious time for the society to coalesce, recover from the battles and feel a pride of unity as a new nation. 

Iturbide was the opposite, having fought against independence and then for independence, negotiating independence and declaring himself emperor attempting to enlist and being spurned by Josefa, the mother of independence, in two years he was thrust from power, Mexico had had no honeymoon period, period

The united states too was rent with division between conservative and liberal aspirations upon the end of his term. Yet the United States moved forward, albeit with terrific struggles, but for two centuries it moved forward from success to success, although with many failing between. whereas Mexico has generally had more predominant struggles and less high profile successes. one difference is in the two first politicians. Washington sought equanimity, was averse to the limelight, and sought not wealth and fame and power. Respected by all, he purchased for the fledgling country gurgling with all the liberal verses conservative fears and hopes and animosities and kindness that dwell in the hearts of humanity, but they remained at bay for eight years. Eight years, about as long as the war had lasted. Eight years which seems small now but it is long when people are worried and fearful. And for eight years people found stability and little to fear from their new fangled government.

Whereas Iturbide sought conspicuously pomp. The selection of the title emporer tells pretty much exactly what his aspirations were. In two years countries revolted, Josefa revolted and many more revolted. He was a disunifying presence and destabilizing 2 years fueling the fears of all sides.

I only request the present day supporters of Iturbide to satisfactorily explain just one thing as far as this author is concerned. If Iturbide was so good and public spirited, why did Josefa spurn his invitation to join his court? It’s been reported that Josefa saw his government as a betrayal of the spirit of the revolution. To me this is more consistent than any other interpretation I have heard as yet.

It was a challenging tumultuous era. The old was passing away rapidly; too rapidly for some, not rapidly enough for others. A new order was at hand, but it was untried and unproven. There were calculations by many how to best be prepared for the new. There was hope; and there was fear; much optimism and a lot of pessimism.

The earliest segmentations of the populace in new-born Mexico, were between retainers and reformers; that is, those wishing to retain and those wishing to reform, various portions of, the older order. The place of the Catholic Church in the society was a prominent remnant of the old order, and an early issue of debate. Many sought the separation of Church and State, as proposed by the Enlightenment, and, as adopted by the United States, their brother to the North. It was not necessarily that they were anti-religion, but they had memories of the Spanish Inquisition, and thought it proper to restrict the powers of the state to enforce religious doctrine. Others wished to retain the status of the Catholic Church as the national religion of the new country. For these it may not have been necessarily that they thought the Catholic version of religion to be the one and only true version, but that the prominence of that Church for centuries in the country had established an orderliness in society. The removal of the authority of the church was feared to be a movement away from order. This might be considered the Law and Order issue of that Day; the first Law and Order issue of our era.

Whatever one says about the centuries of Spain’s control in America, one must admit there was order.  Order came from force, upon which Spain held a monopoly, for a time. That force was legalized, and then order, came from Law. Law and Order. Law’s may have been unjust, and the order unequal, but after three hundred years of such order, the minds of many had grown quite accustomed to the state of affairs, the status quo. The literature of the enlightenment and the revolutions in US and Haiti inspired the minds of some and the hopes of more, the revolution in France horrified others and the conquest of Spain frightened many more. Change much needed in our view for Central America, was more received than sought.  Hidalgo lit the match no doubt, but the war was a disorganized affair lacking significant political leadership. And what emerged was ununified. 

Many had little to lose by the removal of the old political, social and religious system. They were already poor, and already lower class, and they had learned there was little opportunity for a better life in the old order. Many others had much to lose by changes in the system. They were fairly well off and felt secure and thought there were opportunities for improvement. It’s possible that the large majority recognized a moral need for change, but some feared not so much the change as the rapidity of change. Land reform was one thing, but immediate confiscation and redistribution was another. Change parsed out over a generation, or at least a couple of decades would provide time for adjustments, and the avoidance of ruin. Rapid change might mean ruin.

Under Monarchy, one’s neighbor was apolitical, as voiceless as one’s self, mutually suffering under the government of a distant monarch. All were subject to the monarch and all could complain about the monarch and find sympathy and agreement with a neighbor. But with the new order, a Republic, came a vote. One’s self and one’s neighbor were empowered, had a voice in government, and thereby became political; and they began to look at themselves, and their neighbors, differently.

It was then that many people found that their inner feelings were more different from their neighbor’s than they would have thought. Everyone had hopes and fears, but but the specific hopes and specific fears could vary widely from person to person. Whereas we all hoped for food and comfort in the future, hopes and fears differed, more than they would have thought, from their neighbors hopes and fears. Many found themselves eager for change and their neighbors reluctant to change, while others found themselves reluctant for change and their neighbors hankering for change. And with the new system, they had power to affect the outcome of change or not change. And thus, individuals, who’d long enjoyed immunity from the responsibility of government, were put to the test. It was then they discovered surprising new challenges in that old adage, love thy neighbor as thyself. Some passed the test, at least for a time, and others struggled.

Societies naturally fractured upon this line of hope and fear. On the one side were those for change and on the the other, those against change. ProChange ConChange. ProChange ConChange. And very often, the specific issue was not the main issue at all. Those with an adequate degree of comfort in the status quo were often reluctant to change because of the potential for ensuing discomfort. Those with an inadequate degree of comfort in the status quo welcomed change, even with its potential for discomfort, with the belief and hope that any change could hardly be for the worse. And this became the seedbed of the two general movements that have spread with the vote across the world, and are with us to this day.

And so immediately began the clashes between the supporters and the opposers of change.  Which continued and continued and then international intrusions occurred taking advantage of the weakness  of a disunified Mexico, which further weakened the young country, yet exacerbating the poverty and stratification  of the society into the monied and the poor. and it wasn’t always so much that one opposed change so much as one opposed the pace of change., and depending on the issue, normally the voter was presented with a binary choice, yes or no, up or down, , yay or nay, pro or con, liberal or conservative. but very many people are neither. very many people re for good for others. few wish evil for others. Generally people are manipulated into decisions which bring evil upon others.

Liberalism and Conservativism   

Liberales was the adopted name of the party in favor of change at the Cadiz assembly in Spain in 1810. They were in favor of constitutional monarchy. Such circumscription upon the stablished divine right of kings would be a significant change. Many others favored retaining the long standing Spanish tradition of absolute monarchy. These were called Serviles.9 The Liberales party prevailed, and the Spanish Constitution of 1812 established a constitutional monarchy. Many of the delegates were from colonies with ambitions for independence, and there and then, the idea of liberation came to be linked with the party of the Liberales.

Change was sweeping through Europe in the 19th century. With the retreat of absolute monarchies in favor of representative governments, debate became a constant feature in society, even as the issues evolved from decade to decade and then by generations. The liberals and conservatives labels began to be heard in British politics in the early1800s. In 1830s England, the debate became between those who wished to change or reform certain aspects of the government, and those who wished to conserve what they considered to be the best portions of the British way of life. Much of the resistance to change was founded in the recent horrors of the French Revolution, a fear still fresh in the minds of that generation.

It was the Whig party pushed through The Reform Act of 1832, and thereby becoming known as the party associated with reform, and then, liberals. The Act was in some ways regressive by today’s standard, but it represented change in the present. Among the reforms were changes in the way districts were represented and expansion of eligible voters. The Tory party became associated with those, while supporting bad things, wished to conserve “the good” in the British way of life. The term conservative began o be applied to them.10 This suggests that the reluctance change was not necessarily a permanent aversion to change, but only temporary. The memory of the French Revolution with all of its suddenness and ferocity, horrors and irrationality, was as yet in the memories of those still living. In other words, a resistance to to rapid radical change, such as was exhibited in the French Revolution, lurked in the hearts of many.

And so the prochange conchange debate continued between those ready for change and those reluctant to change and the quarrel was replayed again and again in the emerging western states as they found themselves headless, governments decapitated from a monarchy, and no one with a universally acknowledged divine claim at the helm.

The pro-change con-change quarrel remained constant, even as the issues changed. evolved, up to and becoming a part of the dividing lines of the Mexican Civil War, 1910 to 1920, in which a million Mexican citizens perished.  Which of our differences are this important? I admit that some are, but i suspect that the vast majority aren’t.

Iturbide declares himself Emperor of Spain and Central America  it could be argued that Iturbide was the anti-Washington, and his installation was close to the worst thing that could happen to the war-weary Mexico and its central american neighbors.  Whereas Washington was the faithful hero of independence, Iturbide was the side witching last man standing in a conflict in which an exhausted Spain at last retreated from a hemisphere.  The conclusion of the one was a clear victory with a political acknowledgement from England of the independence of United States (but war of 1812).  The conclusion of the other was from exhaustion with an inconclusive conclusion for a little later, 1821-1829 Spain was at war again with Mexico to regain its colony.  The title of emperor combined two of the worst elements of the past, the anti-catholic napoleon and the monarchy.  It’s not known the  imact ofjosefa’s refusual tojoi is court, but by this time ,one of the few continuity since tel grito doloers,she was the moral center of the dream, and her refusal to join her court, denied him  that extra measure of legitimacy he sought.

After Iturbide there was

The next generation was governed under the strong hand of a strong central government led by the generals of the civil war up into ww2. In that war, Mexico, repairing relations with the US fought alongside their American brethren in the Pacific theater.    

As much of the world has been dominated by US policy since then, so has Mexico been greatly  influenced  drawn in mostly willingly and

under the surface unwillingly into the gravitational influences


The first century of mexican independence was dominated by strife between liberals and conservatives

The issues on both sides evolved over time as they do

conservatives were generally associated with the following ideas

The liberals were generally associated with the following ideas

Mexico had emerged from a divine right monarchy, with a class strata cemented in law and enforced by a military. With independence, the monarchy had disappeared, but a monarchical frame of mind remained in the minds of many. Mental constructs are not easily deconstructed. Long established habits are not rapidly disestablished.

Liberals generally leaned towards Enlightenment concept adopted by the United States of the separation of church and state. Others wished to retain the presence and prominece of that chrch in the society.

One reason was religious but another was order, and by order, the idea is maintenance of order, and by maintenance of order, one can easily amalgamate this idea of order with the status quo.  The status quo order shuts some people out and is easy for others, hard for some and easy for others.  Disorder includes crimes which are universally acknowledged as crimes ad which nobody wants, crimes which are defined as crimes by the status quo and which constitute the status quo, including violations of class norms, violations of property rights, economic strictures such as learning a trade which is not acceptable for your class, learning to read or even voting in elections.  It is illegal for indios to vote and it is illegal to commit murder.  Both of these illegal acts are subsumed under the term law and order, and the term excites emotions in both the gentry and the indios, but nether are in favor of murder, but some wish to vote.  Liberals wanted to end class stratification, slavery and catholic church dominance and wanted democracy.

Conservatism favored existing systems and hierarchies worried chaos would ensue should these structures be eliminated.  The battles were fought largely between the elites

Liberal  and conservative

11 12

To find fault with the past demonstrates no significant talent. Faults are evident before for everyone’s eyes. Voices without and conscience within often quickly agree upon the faults of the past. But the future is different. The future is yet unwritten, and therefore unjudged. There are as many views of the future as their are people. Whereas a criticism of the past is acknowledged by conscience and history, the critics of the envisioned future find no such support. To one, a course proposed, opens up the best possible future, a veritable paradise on earth. To another, the very same course, is filled of pitfalls, problems, traps and ambushes. Dangers lurk at every crossroads; and the journey is to be avoided all at cost. With the future, it is easier to find fear than fault. Whereas with the past, it is often easier to find fault than fear. Those with roots in the future find fault in the past and want change. Those with roots in the past find fear in the future and wish the past would linger just a little longer. Unestablished youth tends to be liberal. It is a well know adage in political circles that people become more conservative as they grow older. This is not difficult to understand.

Mexican revolution 1910-1920, the revolution often seen in an isolated incident was enmeshed, entangled with imperial interests of Europe and (US)  and thus can be seen as a part, a chapter in the conflagration that consumed the world in the second decade of the bloody 20th century.

The Mexican revolution was a culmination of resistance or reaction to the porofioti which dominated Mexico government for 35 years, since 1876.  The economy grew and investments abounded and the wealth stratification intensified and elements of the people reacted.

The initial strife resulted from the election that came into dispute.  Portofino won fraudulently it is said and this led to that which led to the other thing and war lasted just short of 10 full years costing 1million lives

‘early in the independence period of mexico’s history, even the day used to mark independence would be based on one’s politicalstanc.  Conservtives favored septembe 27 for celebration, when Iturbide entered Mexico City, but liberals preferred 16 september to celebrate Hidalgo’s call for rebellion against spain.  Wikipedia

Clashe between liberal and conservatives dominated politics

Santa anna a nationalist asserted dominance over Texas which spurred that secession from Mexico in 1835.  Battle of san jacinto 1836, Texas defeats santa anna, who recognizes Texas independence.

Mexican American war resulted in ceding new Mexico and upper californiaand recognition oftexas inscorporation into us

1855 santa anna ousted

Civil war  between liberals and conservatives brings in liberal leader benito juarez zapotec 1861

France occupies Mexico city drawing on support of conservatives, maxilian von Hapsburg installed,  threat of war from Prussia compels France withdrawal


1876-1910 libera; caudillo pofino diaz controls successive government instituting modernization

1910 ish – 1920 ish Mexican revolution and pancho villa and Zapata.  1 million died

1920s thru 1940s strong centralgov ledby former genears

1940s repaired relationswith us

1823iturbide removed and replaced by santa anna who declares a republic

A veru interesting podcasy would be world history or continental history by centuries


Spain tries to retake spain

France tries to take spain

Mexican American war


1861 Benito Juarez, a Zapotec Indian , suspends debt payments, Spain and Britain and France intervene to protect their investments,  Spain and Britain withdraw but France takes Mexico city.  Napoleon 3 installs Maximilian on throne of a Mexican empire.  US pressure on France to withdraw and after 6 or so years military leaves, Maximilian executed and Juarez returns, but dies in 1872

1877 portofiro diaz gets power, urges foreign investment and mexcico’s economy thrives benefitting mainly the rich

1910 mexican revolution led by madero promising democracy, federalism,agrarian reform and worker’s rights

1917 neutral throughout the war although enticed by Germany

Germany tries to enlist spain

1940 mexico declares war on Japan and flies in philipines with US

Mexico joins the UNN

Post war years industrialand economic growth



It’s said that no one expected it. Like a whirlwind out of the desert came the violence. In the morning, the sky was clear; and then, in the distance, some vegetation was seen bending with an invisible wind. Flames lit small, intended small, anticipated to remain small, were whipped by sudden devil winds into a towering inferno. And by afternoon a conflagration was upon the country. The fuel of that fire was a disputed election.

The dominant part for a generation, portinfina, the leader said he would not seek reelection. Upon this news, many contenders emerged, including a wealthy landowner named Madero. In the time leading up to the election, Madero garnered much popular support and the leader who had said he would not run, decided to run and then jailed Madero.  The election was held with madero in jail, and Porifiero won, bt many believd the election to have been rigged in his favor.

Madero called for revolt in 1910, his Plan of San Luis Potosi.  November 1910 armed conflict began led by madero, Orozco and Pancho Villa.  They had support from the peasentry, organized labor and potions of the middleclass.  Orozco captured Ciudad Juarez in may 1911.  The treaty included theouster of Diaz

And the schedule for newelcetions in the fall.  Advisros warnedmadero against leaving peoplefromthe previous administration in power since they were defeated in armedconflict.  Madero ignored them. And in 1911 there was a free and fait vote and madero won.    He did not make revolutionary changed. 

Once in power, madero’s opponent

In 1913 a coup was staged  with support of the US ambassador, am.The Ten Tragic Days, forced to resign and assasninate.

Huerta comes topower,a counter revolutionary,moved by own interest and thiseo f his supporters

1914,Huerta forcedout by revultionary coalition led by a wealthy landowner,and army led by brilliant generals panchoVilla and Carranza.

Zapata resists

Huerta resigns in 1914, forced out by coalition of f=wealthy landowner and civilian Carranza,  alvaroand Pancho Villa

Winners meet to discu ss politicalpower.  A spit erupts in civil war.  Cvilla allied with Zapata   and obregion allies with carrazaa

Villa and Zapata were defeated

1 to 1.5 million died

1917 constitutional  convention


started on Mexican revolution yesterday.  Madero, martyr of mexico, a significant figure.

And then foregin influences and wars reinforced need for strong central giverment  and portofilio controlled increasingy as dictator,  then came madero  born intowealth living in wealth and wanted something beautiful for his country and people,and the revolution started and he cameintopower and did not reform rapidly enough and was assanitated.  But his was a template for the future.  After the revolution generals ruleduntilww2. 

The regime of Porfirio Diaz extended 31 years closing the 1800s and reaching to1910 when he announced he would not seek office.   It amounted to a dictatorship, increasingly so with each decade.  Upon this announcement, many sought office.  And in those days, Madero stood up.  A wealthy landowner he had an idea for the people.  Born into wealth, learning the business and becoming successful in his own right, he financed his own campaign and spoke to the people of his vision for the country.  Many responded and Diaz became alarmed and, while yet in power, announced he’d changed his mind and would stand for election, threw Madero into prison, and in what the main references decry as a rigged election, extended his regime into the 2nd decade of the 20th century.

Foreign intrigue swirled around the events in Mexico as the revolution developed and ensued.       

The 1917 enactment of the Mexican constitution


the Mexican revolution is the first of the social revolutions of the 20th century.

The independence war benefitted many criollos,Spanish americans. By 1910 themajority of Mexicans were mestizos,half indigenous,half Spanish blooeded, thesemestizos rose up ,themexican revolution

The belief, or feeling, that wealthy land owners were continuing the old ways of Spanish colonial rule.  , encomienda.  The modern system would should benefit the laborers more directly, that is those who worked the land, actually extracting its wealth, should benefit.

Pancho villa from the north, andzapata from the south led the revolution.  Their slogans continue to this day”land and Freedom” and “The land is for those who work it”

Madero wrote Plan of San Luis Potosi embraced by rebels across the country.  He called for an uprising stating nomvemger20, 1911 to restore the constitution of 1857.   He wished to abolish unlimited presidential terms and establish a democratic republic. 


Francisco Indalecio Madero, grandson in a family of fortune, educated in Europe and United States, was expected to carry on the business and enhance the family position. His interests are reported to have included curiosities of the era including spiritism, vegetarianism, and homeopathic medicines.  His depth of education and his care for people were evident, and, in time, he became convinced that the challenges of Mexican peasant class came from a lack of democracy. When Porinorio Diaz, effectively and increasingly a dictator for three decades, announced he would not seek reelection, Madero realized the time for the peasant had arrived. Madero published his….. and founded the antireelectionist center of Mexico. The people responded heartily to Madero’s message, and Porfiorin, seeing the people’s response, had Madero arrested and imprisoned, announced he would stand for reelection. In a widely decried rigged election, Porrinio reclaimed power yet again for yet another term. In the months following the election, Madero escaped from prison, fled to the United States, and there wrote The PLAN OF SAN LUIS POTOSI, his call for Mexicans to rise up against the illegitimate regime. “…A stirring condemnation of the tyranny of the Porfiriato and a call to arms.”

It took 20 years,1920to 1940torecover the economic devastation of the revolution

It brought to birth a new political elite that ruled mexico until the presidential election of 2000

Britannica follows:

30 years of dictatorship ended and a constitutional republic took its place

Following his imprisonment and call for revolt, Madero’s revolt failed but kindled hope

Pancho villa and Zapata did his and that and diaz resigned and madero was declared president


Resulted in end of 30 year dictatorship and establishment of constitutional republic 

Porfirio diaz dictatorship favored wealthy landowners and industrialists

1908 diaz says he welcomes democracy andwasambivalent re another term, franciscomadero emerges as leader of antireelectionists and beomes candidate.    Diazarrests him and jails him nd declares himself winner after mockelection. 

Madero released and publishes plan de sanluis potosi calling for revolt.

Panchovilla  and zapatamobolize .

Diazforced to resign.

Madero faltered from the start  Zapata turned against himbecause of his failing torapidlyimplement change turning land over toindians  Orozco turned on madero, anf then the US too for economicreasons.

The ten tragic days, madero deposed and assassinated, signed off by US ambassador “pact of the Embassy”  and Huerta installed in presidency.

Huerta’s “drunken and despotic rule”  resiatd by pancho villa and uneasily alliedwith Carranza.  Huerta forced to resign and Carranza declares himself president  over pancho villa’s objections.   Conflict ensues.  

Gitierez elected interim president,and panchovilla retains support of Zapata and guitierez. 

Pancho villa routed in bloody battle and he and zapats lose ground, villa blaming loss on Woodrow wilson’s support of Carranza, and launchin vendetta against americans in mexicoand us border towns. 

The killings by ancho villa prompt Woodrow Wilson to order general Pershing to pursue Villa, futile. 

Carranza in power again presided over the writing on the Mexican constitution in 1917

Conferring dictatorial powers on president, gave govt right to confiscate land from wealthy landowners, guaranteed workers rights, limits rights of catholic church

Carranza killed fleeing capital 1920





The Mexican Revolution and the United States in the Collections of theLibrary of Congress [/efn_note]


Rooted in 1800 to 1910, its givernments ranging fromempiretotyes of republics, centralist or federal

Four invasions by foreign powersoccured during the century,spain (1829) France (1838) United States (1846-1848) an alliance of Spain and France and Great Britain (1862).  It becamea federalrepublic “governed almost completely from mexico city with a capitalist economy heavily influenced by foreigners.”

Zaptista wantedland reform.  When ,adero insistedon democracy first and did no immediately do land reform,zapits revolted against madero

‘many places in the United States fond themselves involved in the zmexican Revolution.”  “That fact is typicalof such struggles.”


Written in san Antonio Texas

Madero’s reasons for rebellion

“…A stirring condemnation of the tyranny of the Porfiriato and a call to arms.”

18 “a masterpiece of 19th century economic and political liberalism, but it failed to address the two largest problems in Mexico – agrarian reform and labor rights.”  [/efn_note It won public acceptance because it presented a leader who could make Mexico when of the best nations in the world.


A cattle rustler in 1910 joined the anti-reelctionist partyof madero

After assassination of madero,he gathered an army of men descended from the military colonists ettledi n northern mexiso to fight Indian wars beginning in the 1800s

He controlled state of chihuahua fromlate 1913 -1915,taking controloh huge landownings and demanding sums frommine owners.  He took careofthe widowsand chidren reolving toredistribute thelans when war ceased

Allied w Zapata from the alliance destinedto be shortlived,villabeing fromnorth and zapatafromsouth

1915villalost 3major battlesagainst 1916vila back in 1920 villa agreed toamnesty and retirement.

In 1923 he was assaniated to keep him from rebelling w Huerta against Obregon.

MEXICAN REVOLUTION from dictatorship to republic, from economic this to that, from social this tothat

Constitution of 1917 which provided for separation of church and state, various details of land reform, and labor rights and other.  Limits tolenght of presidency following porfino diaz .  eventual (1929) for mation of the Institutional Revolutionary Party wich held power of 71 years uninterrupted till 2000 uder different names  center-centerright  a “camouflaged dictatorship”

Causes: poverty, political instability 

Madero sought political reform while retaining the existing socio-economic structure.   Othes wanted socio- economic reform, eliminating casts and land reform.  Madero ousted porfino diaz and did not move rapidlyon the reforms others sought,wasassasinated,  panchi villa and zapateco then led the revolution.


  1. Attribution: By Alex Covarrubias based on the arms by Juan Gabino. – Own work based on: Mexico coat of arms.png, Public Domain,
  2. Mexico is considered by scientists as one of the original cradles of civilization
  3. Maize was first domesticated and cultivated here. wikipedia Maize
  4. Mexico has at least 64 ethnolinguistic groups, each with stories to tell. For a broad survey, see Telling the Entire Story of Mexico’s Indigenous People – Indigenous Mexico
  5. “Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it.” And, what is Hogwarts, but the universe in which we live?
  6. Olmec 1200BC-400BC, Mexico Timeline
  7. Zapotec People of the clouds
  8. The Toltecs “flourished from 900 AD to1150 AD” 10 Facts about the Ancient Toltecs
  9. serfs, servile
  10. …the Tories later underwent a fundamental transformation under the influence of Robert Peel, who was an industrialist rather than a landowner. Peel in his 1834 Tamworth Manifesto outlined a new conservative philosophy of reforming ills while conserving the good. The subsequent Peel administrations have been labelled Conservative rather than Tory, but the older term remains in use.” wikipedia Tories
  11. “These two terms recur throughout the political history of the 19th century in all parts of the world influenced by European thought.  In a time of profound change they draw a contrast between those who agitate for reform (particularly for democracy and a reduction in the privileges of church, royalty and landed aristocracy) and those who are inclined to protect existing values of society against  what they see as a destructive and corrosive influence.  “ liberal and conservative
  12. The constitution “defined Spanish and Spanish american liberalism for the early19th century.”  rejected by Ferdinand in 1814 when he returned to power.
  15.     Mexican
  16.     Mexican Revolution 
  17. library of congress