Mexican Dictator Porfirio Diaz

Mexico suffered ten years of war, suffering, and turmoil. Mexican leaders during 1910-1920 were unable to hold the country together and a revolution consumed the nation. The Mexican people grew tired of political greed, lack of support, and unequal treatment. Several leaders such as President Diaz would prove to be a man of one interest, himself. Others would quickly rise against him and attempt to claim the presidency. General Huerta and Francisco

Judas at the Jockey Club written by William H. Beezley provides an accurate description of a struggling and developing Mexico while during the rule of president Porfirio Diaz up until 1910. Being divided into three sections such as Sport & Recreation (elite class), Rocks & Rawhide in Rural Society (lower class) and the title itself Judas at the Jockey Club. Beezley covers the changing class of Mexico through the view of sports and leisure activities. I believe Porfirio Diaz allowed the social tensions to occur causing Mexicans to separate from unity even though destruction and chaos reigned much of Mexico before him. During the presidency of Porfirio Diaz its often remembered as a period of oppression and social degradation of freedoms in Mexico. Diaz has also been associated with the general decline of quality of life of an average Mexican and the decline of social welfare institutions. Diaz was a liberal whose sole goal was to modernize Mexico and put a stop to any ethnic uncivilized actions. Mexico during that time was in a crossroads of two very different cultures: the industrial and the traditional.

The economic and political systems was not part of something they all came into an agreement for many years. Some of the challenges that happened was the laws over the church power and and land ownership. Benito Juarez was a assimilated Indian, took office, making changes for Indians. Over the the time the nationalist produced a strategy that came from both the Spanish and Indian traditions. This helped build the growth of nationalism. Everyone was getting along because there were threats from outsiders that made them become closer. What they did since they didn’t want war, they created borderlands, inviting non-Mexicans to join them. The reason why Mexican wanted to this was because they wanted more white people to offset the Indian influence and others just wanted a new society modeled. A lot changes and experimentation with nationalism occurred, some people didn’t agree and stood against it but other wanted to change things and wanted something new. There was always arguments because the nationalism programs wanted to grant citizenship to all the people that were in the Mexican territory. Overall this process of trying out nationalism was a disaster, Mexican leaders rushed into making new programs but they didn’t take in consideration peoples choices.

As an American in the late 1800's, owning a farm was not too uncommon, especially if that farm was located in Mexico. At this time, though, Mexico was in the Porfirian Era (1876-1911). In this certain era, Mexico was being encountered by two very different cultures at the same time: the industrial, and the traditional. These distinctively separate cultures impacting Mexico made it as what can be described as "backwards" in a sense, as Mexico was practically regressing as the world around it was moving on to bigger and better things. Mexico was so behind that "many had concluded that Mexico had yet to advance beyond chipped rocks as utensils." (p.67). Mexico at this time had locked itself in

Olsson, Tore C. Sharecroppers and Campesinos: The American South, Mexico, and the Transnational Politics of Land Reform in the Radical 1930s. The Journal of Southern History Volume LXXXI, No. 3, August 2015.

The bourgeoisie, the Mexican middle class, thought of this was unfair for the farming class and protested against the country’s dictator, Porfirio Diaz. Diaz had made some positive contributions to Mexico, such as allowing for a greater educated class and encouraged new economic opportunities. However, Diaz also had most of the wealthy and land controlled by a tyranny that he favored and not caring for the farmers who are doing most of the work to keep the country from starving. So northern landowner and crusading leader, Francisco Madero, supported the bourgeoisie because he wanted more even distribution of opportunity and lessen military and make the Constitution republic. Not only this, but Madero felt that Diaz was a weak leader and broke his promise of improving the land. He had called the Mexican people to have an armed revolt against Diaz. Unfortunately, about 900,000 people lost their lives in the span of the two decades of rebellion. Diaz was replaced by General Victoriano Huerta and had Diaz executed and declared for the Spanish Civil War to be over. This caused the Catholic Church to gain more power and privilege because Huerta abolished the Republican measures that determined the Church’s spiritual and social roles.Huerta became the dictator, but was overthrown by Venustiano Carranza in 1914. Afterwards in 1917, Carranza

José de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori, the 29th president of Mexico, opened Mexico to foreign investors and companies who exploited Mexico’s resources such as land, copper, gold, silver, water, and cheap labor for corporate gain. This caused economic instability in the way that Mexico placed power in the hands of large corporations and Mexican politicians.

The perception of history is often crafted by the information given and the information available, however, almost too often the facts accessible are warped by the viewpoints of others before they can be properly assessed. Differing outlooks thus explicate the controversial nature of historical events and why the motives and conclusions behind certain occurrences are called into question. The Mexican American war as many American historians would call it ushers a contrary tone in Mexico as their own historians would claim the “war” as United States invasion; the difference in referral is based on the different perceptions of the conflict. In the American viewpoint, the Mexican American War was driven by economic, social and political pressures to bolster United States territories, through the annexation of Texas. In the converse, it could be argued that Mexico did not declare a formal war against the United States but rather was interested in defending their country’s territorial integrity and resisting United State’s invasion. In a Mexican viewpoint then, the war was not a result of arrogance but a consequence of defending Mexican territory from United States invasion. Nonetheless the aftermath of the war produced immense repercussions, furthering American exceptionalism, slavery, and disregard for international borders prompting the inquiry of not only the unjust methods applied but the unjustified results.

The aftermath of the Mexican American warManifest Destiney, the annexation of Texas, and the actions of President John Polk are all factors leading up to the Mexican-american war. It is known that the annexation of Texas was what pushed Mexico leaders over the edge. In 1836 Texas gained independence from Mexico, after becoming an American State the relationship between Mexico and the U.S quickly came to an end. Polk not only had his eyes on Texas but also on California and New Mexico. Polk won the support of the american people by declaring he would complete Americas Manifest Destiny, to reach the West coast. Mexico denied Polk’s offer to buy these lands, leading America to send troops onto disputed territory. April 25, 1846 Mexican troops killed american soldiers on the disputed land, marking the beginning of the war, this was the battle of Palo Alto. The Mexican-American war had a major impact on both Mexico and U.S history. This essay will discuss the political, social, and economical effects between Mexico and the U.S after the Mexican American war.

In this book, Timothy J. Henderson examines the origins, outcomes, and modern-day consequences of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). A Glorious Defeat is organized around two central questions: why did Mexico go to war with the United States in 1846 and why did the war go so badly for Mexico? Henderson does provide the answers to these questions, based on the reader having some knowledge of the expansionist history that the US partook in with its southern neighbors, but who are “far less certain why Mexico went to war with the United States” (xviii).

The Mexican Revolution began as a protest against the dictatorship and policies of Porfirio Díaz. He ran a 34 year dictatorship and his policies favored the wealthy families that monopolized economic and political power in Mexico. There were very few wealthy Mexicans and they were typically the politicians of cities, landowners, and foreign investors. Diaz suppressed the press and all the worker strikes that asked for better wages and better treatment. In the state of Veracruz, textile workers rioted in January 1907 at the huge Río Blanco factory which was at the time the largest in the world, protesting against their unfair

Diaz used this philosophy to make reasons for his policies. Diaz kept his old slogan "liberty, order, progress", but, the word liberty was removed from the slogan. Another slogan "few politics, much administration” also became common and popular. Foreign firms began to invest in Mexico because it became more structurally and economically stable. These investments gave Diaz the money he needed to construct highways, railroads, telegraph lines, and new industries. The city of Veracruz used the money to create oil fields, and elsewhere the mining industry was brought back. Mexico, fifty years before was seen as a third-world nation, became the standard for developing countries because of its high tech industry and technology. Although these were all big steps for Mexico's economy, in the end it was responsible for the bringing down of Diaz. (Encarta 98, www.eh.net.htm)

Porfirio Diaz was the president of Mexico when the Revolution broke out. He was elected in 1877, and although he swore to step down in 1880, he continued to be reelected until 1910. He claimed that he was justified in this because he brought stability to Mexico. However, this was hardly the case. Diaz's regime aimed to industrialize Mexico, and foreign investors such as the United States and Britain

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.

At the start of the 19th century, just a few years prior to the end of the Spanish-American War, Latin America was left with a poor economy and in debt. The United States believed that they could help Latin America, while helping themselves out at the same time. The “Dollar Diplomacy” was introduced in 1904 by the United Sates and went into place in 1909. It was used mostly during presidency William Howard Taft’s from 1910 to 1913