Pablo Noyola February 22, 2016 Comparison of the Mexican War of Independence and the Mexican Revolution Hutson 1st Period Comparative Revolutions Research Paper
Noyola 1 Though these two revolutions took place in different centuries of history, the Mexican War of Independence and the Mexican Revolution both had similarities and differences. However, in what ways were the movements ideologies similar and different, and what were the consequences of these ideologies? Both the War of Independence and the Revolution had liberal ideologies that failed to unite all of the Mexican social classes that came in response to unfair pre-existing governments. In contrast, the leaders of the War of Independence were of the upper class and the clergy, inspired by the Enlightenment and other revolutions of the time, whereas the Revolution leaders were poor rural farmers enraged by the dictator of Mexico at the time. Also, the War of Independence and failed to maintain its revolutionary ideologies going forward, resulting in many short-lived, unsuccessful regimes. On the other hand, the Revolution led to the creation of a political party that ruled Mexico with relative stability for over the next half century. It is important to look at both of these monumental uprisings to understand the history of Mexico as an independent nation and to understand the actions of its people moving into the future. It is impossible to truly understand any social movement without a knowledge of the motivation for it. In the early part of the 1800s, the European Age of Enlightenment was in full swing, and thinkers questioned everything, from the existence of a divine being to the justification of monarchy and political oppression. Such ideals diffused from Europe to the Americas, where American colonists professed their unalienable rights in their Declaration of Independence from Britain. Soon, their ally France was swept in turmoil as it faced a revolution of its own, likewise inspired by Enlightenment thought. These movements had a profound effect on thought in colonial Mexico. As the gem of the Spanish Empire, Mexico was treasured by the Spanish crown. However, these radical Enlightenment sentiments managed to take root in 1 Mexico as well. The educated criollo class of colony-born white Mexicans began to question 2 why they were viewed as inferiors to the European born peninsulares, and others soon followed by questioning the colonial system itself. Mexicans looked to the north to the newly formed United States, once regarded as much less valuable than their native Mexico, and saw a country that had overcame a European empire. This radical new wave of thought played a key role in the development of independence. Similarly, in the early 1900s, Mexicans looked north and saw a modern global leader in the U.S., and they saw the dictatorship under Porfirio Díaz under which they lived. Four decades of dictatorship failed the people, which was highlighted when Díaz refused to step down after losing a reelection bid for term eight. The poor commoners felt 3 insulted and exploited, and they demanded radical change. Thus, both movements were inspired by foreign events and successes, especially the success of the U.S.. When the Mexican people began to question establishment, they sought to reform their society. However, an ideology cannot exist without an idealist: a steadfast believer in his or her ideals and beliefs. Both movements were led by such people. The War of Independence was led first by Father Miguel Hidalgo, a Catholic priest. An educated, liberal man, Hidalgo not only questioned the order of society but sought to take matters into his own hands, by giving the 1 Michael C. Williams, William L. Sherman, and Susan M. Deeds, The Course of Mexican History (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007): 250 2 Williams, Sherman, Deeds, Mexican History, 250 3 Ibid, 430
Noyola 2 4 famed Grito de Dolores, widely regarded as the start of the independence movement. After his death, fellow Catholic priest José M. Morelos took up the leadership of the movement. Morelos 5 had very similar beliefs to Hidalgo, and led the movement until his death. The next leader was Augustín de Iturbide, a rich leader who sought to use independence as a platform from which to 6 seize power. These three leaders were all of a upper class upbringing, which sharply contrasts with the poverty of the Revolution s leaders: Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and Álvaro Obregón. These men were poor rural farmers, hit the hardest by Díaz s regime and policy of modernization. Each of these men led factions at the same time, which were uncoordinated but with similar goals, unlike how the independence movement leaders replaced each other only after one s death. The lower class upbringing of these men caused their revolutionary ideologies to also be fueled by hatred for their squalid conditions, whereas the independence movement leaders were never oppressed in the same way. This allowed the independence leaders to be influenced by Enlightenment and theological texts, whereas the Revolution leaders were inspired by their poverty and the exploitation the faces due to the Díaz regime. These leaders all attempted to transfer their ideologies to the people, with unifying factors that succeeded or failed to various extents. A major factor that caused the Enlightenment ideas to pass onto the people during the independence movement was instability and turmoil in Spain. King Ferdinand VII, the Spanish monarch, was disliked by his subjects and considered to be an 7 inept king. His neglect of Mexico led to corruption of the Viceroy of New Spain. Eventually, he 8 was deposed by Joseph Bonaparte, which left Spain and Mexico without a legitimate ruler. This power vacuum gave the leaders, especially Morelos, who was essential in gaining criollo support a voice where they were able to speak out about the Enlightenment and the Spanish mistreatment of the lower classes. However, not everyone was for independence, as the peninsulares at the top of the hierarchy had little to gain through independence. No such power vacuum existed for the revolution s leaders, as Díaz was an oppressive dictator. Feigning democracy, he rigged elections to win seven terms over four decades. However, popular resentment boiled over as he refused to 9 step down after losing the 1910 election to Francisco Madero. The poor felt oppressed and the indigenous peoples felt that they were the victims of racist policies, leading to a decade of nationwide revolution. However, the leaders never were able to organize a concerted effort, leading to a war waged by a multitude of factions that quarreled with each other as well as their 10 common enemy, Díaz. This caused the war to be drawn out and bloody. Thus, while the people were unified in thought, they were not unified in action. However, the factionalism led to the rise of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or the PRI, which created a more stable Mexico that Iturbide s attempted empire, and only further divided the people. In both movements, the leaders struggled to gain the support of the top social classes. While Morelos helped to win over some criollos, many of the socially elite people of New Spain felt Spanish rather than Mexican. They had little to gain from the liberal Enlightenment ideology. Iturbide, an elite, only joined the cause 4 Vincent P. O Hara, The Unintended Revolution, Quarterly Journal of Military History (January-February 2009): 62 5 O Hara, The Unintended Revolution, 62 6 Ibid, 63 7 Eric Van Young, The Other Rebellion (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001): 8. 8 Van Young, The Other Rebellion, 8 9 Williams, Sherman, Deeds, Mexican History, 430 10 Alan Knight, The Mexican Revolution, Counter-revolution and Reconstruction (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, n.d.): 5
Noyola 3 when it became evident to him that he could enhance his status. Similarly, the Revolution was waged mainly by the poor. Again, the rich business owners had good opportunities to expand their businesses and make more revenue under Díaz. Radical change and a decade of bloodshed would only hinder their personal and professional goals. Ironically, this approach only contributed to the lengthening of these movements, resulting in more loss of life and in a decrease of post-movement stability, which did not help anybody. As has been mentioned previously, the failures of the pre-movement governments reinforced the movements ideologies. The people of both eras felt that their governments had 11 failed them, with neglect, corruption, incompetence, oppression, and authoritarianism. While the pre-movement governments did do some good, such as Díaz s modernization policies, the people felt victimized and that revolutionary movements were necessary for the good of the 12 country. The leaders were not able to meet all of their goals in the creation of the new governments, as they typically reverted into what authority preceded them. Iturbide s empire, an attempted replication of Spain s, and the PRI, a party rather than individual who held power longer than it should have, are two examples of how the pre-war governments were reflected in the post-war governments. Additionally, these examples illustrate how the revolutionary ideologies were lost in the process of shaping a new government. However, it is impossible to evaluate the success of the movements without looking at if their ideologies lasted into the post-revolutionary periods. After independence, Iturbide did indeed seize control and created the First Mexican Empire, which was a failure, and lasted a 13 mere two years, as Iturbide failed to maintain the ideologies of Enlightenment and power to the people that had gotten him in power, preferring to imitate Spain s monarchy for himself. This was eloquently stated in the nationalistic and optimistic tone of the Declaration of Independence 14 his empire issued. This led to instability, from Santa Anna s loss of half of Mexico s territory to the U.S. to the French Intervention periods. Many leaders and constitutions failed to implement the revolution s ideologies, and little modernization or improvements to peasant life was done. Likewise, the Revolution failed as well to implement its ideologies, leading to the creation of the PRI party. Though the PRI created stability and modernization, it failed to 15 provide the democracy desired at the beginning of the Revolution. Large scale poverty and a wealth gap existed, and the government continued to be dominated by the upper class. Though no dictator emerged, the PRI for years was the only party that held power, contrary to the 16 Revolution s founding ideology. Neither movement was able to springboard its ideologies into the future, which led to Mexico s slow growth and status as developing nation today. Furthermore, the instability created by the independence movements and its subsequent short-lived governments created an opportunity for Díaz to insert himself as a dictator in Mexico. Both movements, despite their unifying factors, failed to utilize their ideologies to unite the people and cause long-term stability. The movements both were in response to unfair governments, but they both only created more governmental issues. However, while the 11 Williams, Sherman, Deeds, Mexican History, 433 12 Ibid, 433 13 Ibid, 271 14 Juan José Esposa de los Monteros, Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire, (Mexico City: 1821) 15 Joel B. Pouwels, Novels of about the Twentieth Century Mexican Presidential Succession During Four Crisis Periods, Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (July 2002): 215 16 Pouwels, Mexican Presidential Succession, 215
Noyola 4 independence movement was led by Enlightenment-inspired clergymen, the Revolution was led by angry peasants incensed by the Díaz regime. Though their initial ideologies were noble, the leaders struggled to unite the people, and thus the product of the movements failed to provide much long term benefit for Mexico and contributed to Mexico s struggles going forwards. This failure has plagued Mexico s development to this day, and is a major reason Mexico lags behind places such as Western Europe or the U.S., despite its many valuable resources.
Noyola 5 Bibliography: Meyer, Michael C., William L. Sherman, and Susan M. Deeds. The Course of Mexican History. 8th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pouwels, Joel B. "Novels about the Twentieth Century Mexican Presidential succession during four crisis periods." Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 27, no. 54 (July 2002): 215. O'Hara, Vincent P. "The Unintended Revolution: Mexico's War of Independence started out as a coup and ended--thanks to a charismatic priest--with the Creation of a Nation." MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, January/February 2009, 62. Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution: Counter-revolution and reconstruction. Vol. 2. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, n.d. Accessed January 27, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s-yevkcbp6sc&oi=fnd&pg=pr9&dq=mexica nm+revolution&ots=4pxrvka78p&sig=cptagnmyax2wvcuv1pii7brrm1g#v=onepage&q= mexican%20revolution&f=false. Van Young, Eric. The Other Rebellion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. Esposa de los Monteros, Juan José. "Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire." Reading, National Palace, Mexico City, Mexico, September 28, 1821.