Mexican Revolution: Summary, Causes, Stages

The Mexican Revolution was a reaction to the profound contradictions of the Porfiriato, the prolonged and authoritarian regime of Porfirio Díaz. The immediate causes of the revolutionary outbreak included discontent over Díaz’s fraudulent re-elections and growing social tensions, which led to the emergence of opponents. Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Pascual Orozco, Victoriano Huerta, Pancho Villa, Venustiano Carranza, and Álvaro Obregón each had their own project for the country. The conflict between these factions only ended with the promulgation of the Constitution of 1917, a pioneering text that enshrined essential social rights. However, realizing its ideals took time, culminating in the government of Lázaro Cárdenas starting in 1934.

Summary

• The long rule of Porfirio Díaz, known as the Porfiriato, brought modernization but also repression and social inequality.
• The Mexican Revolution was caused by Díaz’s fraudulent re-elections and the profound social transformations his government implemented.
• Francisco Madero led the initial uprising against Díaz, calling for “effective suffrage” through the Plan of San Luis Potosí.
• After Díaz’s resignation, Madero’s government faced opposition from leaders like Emiliano Zapata and Pascual Orozco for not meeting popular demands.
• Victoriano Huerta betrayed and assassinated Madero, establishing a dictatorship that united various revolutionary factions against him.
• Leaders like Pancho Villa with his División del Norte (Northern Division) and Venustiano Carranza with the Constitutionalist Army fought against Huerta.
• The Convention of Aguascalientes divided the revolutionaries between Constitutionalists (Carranza) and Conventionists (Villa and Zapata).
• Carranza promulgated the Constitution of 1917, a modern document that established a single presidential term, the secularity of the state, agrarian reform, and labor rights.
• However, the implementation of constitutional ideals was gradual, culminating in the government of Lázaro Cárdenas, who carried out a profound agrarian reform and nationalized oil.
• The Mexican Revolution transformed Mexico’s social and political structure, although some problems, such as the agrarian issue, persisted.

Background to the Revolution: The Porfiriato (1876-1910)

In 1876, Porfirio Díaz assumed the presidency of Mexico, a position he held until 1911. Although formally other leaders occupied the presidential seat, they all functioned as a semblance of power alternation. Díaz’s figure was deeply controversial, as his long government combined notable achievements with significant setbacks in national life.

On the political and economic front, the Porfirian regime brought the long-awaited stability to the Mexican population, ending decades of internal and external conflicts. Liberal reforms aimed at modernizing the country were promoted, extensive railway networks were built, and urbanization—especially in Mexico City—experienced unprecedented growth. Simultaneously, industrial development and export agriculture were encouraged, significant investments were made in education, and the presence of capital from the United States was strengthened.

However, the consolidation of a dictatorship characterized by a strong and highly interventionist state led to intense political repression and exacerbated social tensions. Land concentration transformed plots previously belonging to rural communities (the “pueblos”) into large estates (latifundios), forcing numerous peasants to migrate to cities. Likewise, the absence of protective labor laws resulted in the exploitation of urban labor and a marked increase in social inequality.

Porfirio Díaz enjoyed broad popular support—he was not merely a caudillo or a colonel in the traditional Latin American style. He had the people’s trust and the support of the so-called científicos, a circle of technicians and intellectuals who promoted modernization. His authority was based on loyalty pacts with various national elites, although it did not include all power groups.

Immediate Causes of the Revolution and the 1910 Election

Over time, several factors undermined Porfirio Díaz’s government and led to the Mexican Revolution:

• Fraudulent re-elections: Díaz’s prolonged stay in the presidency through successive re-elections, based on electoral fraud, generated profound discontent.
• Social transformations: The regime was unable to adapt to an increasingly heterogeneous and modernizing society, with nearly fourteen million inhabitants. Paradoxically, many of the transformations driven by the Porfiriato were the same ones that triggered its own crisis.
• Repression of the labor movement: The harshness with which the government dealt with labor demands exacerbated social tension. In 1906, the Cananea strike erupted in Sonora when miners protested against differentiated labor regimes that favored American workers. The following year, the Río Blanco revolt shook the textile industry in Veracruz, with workers demanding better conditions and fair wages. These protests highlighted the growing social crisis undermining the regime’s legitimacy.
• The rise of anarchism: The anarchist brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magón, exiled in the United States to escape repression, founded the newspaper La Regeneración. Clandestinely, its editions entered the country and were distributed among striking workers, spreading radical ideas and encouraging criticism of the established order.
• The actions of Francisco Madero: From the landowning oligarchy of Coahuila, Madero spoke out against Díaz’s re-elections. Despite his local influence, his democratic demands excluded him from the Porfiriato’s favors, consolidating him as the main opposition figure.

The definitive crisis of the Porfiriato erupted in 1910. Francisco Madero, backed by the petty bourgeoisie, ran as an opposition candidate for the presidency. Shortly after the campaign began, he was arrested on charges of inciting the population to take up arms.

Despite the irregularities, election day proceeded “normally,” and thanks to the powerful state apparatus, the dictator once again claimed victory. After briefly being at the disposal of justice, Madero obtained conditional release and fled to the United States. In Texas, he drafted the historic Plan of San Luis Potosí in October 1910, calling on the Mexican people to rise up on November 20 of that same year to achieve “effective suffrage” that was genuinely free.

In early February 1911, Madero returned to the country ready to lead the revolutionary movement. Three months later, pressure and fighting forced Porfirio Díaz to sign the Treaty of Ciudad Juárez. In May 1911, Díaz resigned from the presidency. He then left for France, where he would die years later.

Finally, in October 1911, a provisional government organized indirect elections that brought Francisco Madero to the presidency of Mexico, crowning his fight for democracy after decades of authoritarianism.

Madero versus Zapata and Orozco (1911-1913)

Francisco Madero’s government sought to restore peace and political normalcy in Mexico, a climate that would especially benefit the industrial bourgeoisie. To this end, it favored protectionist measures to support national production, a decision criticized by the United States.

Despite his good intentions, Madero did not enact necessary labor laws to improve workers’ conditions. Nor did he address the demands of the peasants with due urgency, who continued to fight for access to land and profound agrarian reforms.

These actions left several groups that had supported him during the revolutionary uprising dissatisfied. For them, simply establishing a democratic republic was not enough. Thus, they began to oppose the premature closure of the revolutionary process, demanding the continuation of the social and economic transformations that had driven the insurgency.

In the Central-Southern region of Mexico, the indigenous and peasant leader Emiliano Zapata rose up against Madero’s government in late 1911. On November 25 of that year, he proclaimed the Plan of Ayala and began organizing the Liberation Army of the South.

The Plan of Ayala was a manifesto in which Zapata denounced Francisco Madero’s betrayal of the peasants’ hopes, urging them to take up arms against him. The text was written with the collaboration of Otilio Montaño, a rural school teacher inspired by the ideas spread by the anarchist newspaper La Regeneración. A group of peasants close to Zapata also participated in its drafting, although some historians question the extent of this contribution. Once completed, the document was reproduced in newspapers throughout Mexico and read in the “pueblos” of the Central-South to rally support for the cause.

The Liberation Army of the South was largely composed of peasants. It also had a small leading elite, and Zapata ensured that this elite remained alongside the peasants. His intention was to prevent generals from forming a separate class and thus guarantee a truly popular organization. The Army had to combine armed struggle with subsistence agriculture; otherwise, its soldiers would starve. For the Zapatistas, restoring the administrative autonomy of the “pueblos” was essential: only then could they freely decide on land distribution. Their military corps embodied the aspirations of an “old rural Mexico,” that of the “pueblos” marginalized by the Porfiriato’s reforms. Therefore, it had both a revolutionary and a restorative character.

In Northern Mexico, strong resistance against Madero emerged, led by Pascual Orozco, who rebelled against what he considered a failure to fulfill revolutionary promises and demanded more profound changes. To stop this movement, Madero appointed General Victoriano Huerta, a Porfirian military officer who demonstrated effective pacification capabilities in the region. However, his battlefield success granted him growing power and fueled his own political ambitions.

On February 9, 1913, the Pact of the Citadel, also known as the Pact of the U.S. Embassy, was signed. In it, U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson allied with conservative and ex-Porfirian generals to overthrow Madero during the “Ten Tragic Days” (Decena Trágica) and install Huerta as president. Once in power, Huerta abandoned all semblance of legality: he ordered the summary execution of both Madero and former Vice President José María Pino Suárez. Thus, a brutal betrayal was consummated against the movement that had originally elevated him.

Huerta versus Pancho Villa and Carranza (1913-1914)

Although Victoriano Huerta came to power with U.S. backing, he soon lost Washington’s support after Woodrow Wilson became president. In 1914, the Tampico Affair erupted. U.S. Marines landed in the Mexican port of Veracruz to prevent German arms destined for Huerta’s regime from arriving. When detained by Mexican forces, the U.S. military used this as a pretext to invade and occupy the port. This intervention drew criticism even from groups fighting Huerta, as they saw it as a continuation of imperialist practices common during the Porfiriato. The incident severely damaged bilateral relations between Mexico and the United States, with repercussions that lasted beyond the Mexican Revolution itself.

Domestically, Huerta’s government represented a clear restoration of the Porfiriato’s structures and privileges. Economic measures favorable to the bourgeoisie were adopted, reinstating the same figures who had held power during Porfirio Díaz’s long dictatorship. This regression reinforced the sense of betrayal among revolutionaries and the popular classes.

Faced with this authoritarian regression, opposition forces reached a consensus: the revolutionary struggle should now focus on overthrowing Huerta. This new objective united different movements, including the emergence of labor organizations. These institutions consolidated the alliance between workers, peasants, and political leaders determined to continue the social transformation initiated after the end of the Porfiriato.

In northern Mexico, in the state of Chihuahua, the charismatic figure of Francisco “Pancho” Villa emerged, a natural leader who organized and commanded the impressive División del Norte (Northern Division) Army. Many of his men came from the so-called “military colonies,” settlements created to mark the border with the United States and repel Apache attacks. There, settlers received plots of land to cultivate and alternated farming with military life, although their meager incomes and land reforms that reduced their holdings often pushed them into banditry and looting. For these wandering peasants, agrarian reform became a crucial demand.

But the División del Norte was not only made up of ex-settlers: it also included hacienda peons, workshop and factory workers, miners, and railwaymen. The heterogeneity of the soldiers led by Pancho Villa reflected the profound modernizations driven by the Porfiriato, especially in the northern region, where industrial growth and the expansion of the railway network had transformed traditional ways of life.

The diversity of origins and motivations, however, came at a cost: the División del Norte was notoriously more violent and less disciplined than other revolutionary contingents. It was sometimes difficult to maintain cohesion, and Villa even promised wages to some groups of men simply to ensure they would fight. However, a shortage of funds prevented offering equal pay to everyone.

Even so, the División del Norte became a symbol of the Mexican Revolution. It was a powerful and popular force, committed to old peasant demands and, at the same time, a product of the social and economic transformations that had shaken the country during the long Porfirian government.

Also in northern Mexico, in Coahuila, a new figure emerged against Huerta’s regime: Venustiano Carranza. He came from a traditional landowning family and represented the large hacendados (estate owners) of the north. They found no representation with either Porfirio Díaz or Huerta. Unlike other leaders, Carranza had consolidated economic and social power. However, he shared the desire for an authentic Republic.

Carranza’s purpose was clear: to take up arms to draft a new constitution and restore democratic order in Mexico. For this, he had the strategic support of Álvaro Obregón, a brilliant military leader who headed the reorganization of revolutionary forces. Together they formed the Constitutionalist Army, decisive in the campaign that culminated in Huerta’s fall on August 14, 1914, sealing the triumph of those fighting for a Mexico governed by the rule of law.

Carranza versus Pancho Villa and Zapata (1914-1917)

With Victoriano Huerta’s defeat, the Convention of Aguascalientes was convened between October and November 1914, aiming to define Mexico’s political course after years of conflict. Venustiano Carranza arrived at the meeting expecting recognition as President of the Republic, a reward for having led the defeat of the usurper. However, his aspiration was rejected by Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. Ultimately, Eulalio Gutiérrez was named interim president: a consensus figure with little political relevance and, therefore, little authority.

The Convention led to the division of the revolutionaries into two clearly distinct factions:

• The Constitutionalists, loyal to Venustiano Carranza and Álvaro Obregón, organized under the banner of re-establishing legal order and building a government based on civil authority. Their discourse revolved around the need for a new constitution that would enshrine social rights and limit the excessive power of military caudillos.
• The Conventionists, led by Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, advocated for a more radical and decentralized program. For them, the revolution should be consolidated in rural communities and through land distribution to peasants. The alliance between the two caudillos was based more on a pact of convenience than on a complete alignment of objectives: they shared a rejection of Carranza but held different visions for Mexico’s political and social future.

In an attempt to seal a definitive alliance, Zapata and Pancho Villa marched together on Mexico City. They entered the presidential palace and, in a symbolic gesture, posed for the camera sitting in the presidential chair. However, as soon as this action was completed, both decided to return to their home territories. To this day, it is unclear why they did not stay in the capital to seize power or consolidate the agreement sought in Aguascalientes.

While Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa kept their distance, Venustiano Carranza forged alliances and political maneuvers to secure absolute control of Mexico. His strategy focused on neutralizing these rival leaders while cultivating support in various sectors.

Carranza succeeded in defeating both Villa and Zapata. First, he sent Álvaro Obregón to confront Pancho Villa in the Battles of Celaya. There, the discipline and superior weaponry of Obregón’s Constitutionalist Army inflicted a crushing defeat on the División del Norte. The so-called “Celaya massacre” marked the beginning of the end of Villa’s military influence. Likewise, after a brief truce, Carranza used Pablo González’s troops to confront the Liberation Army of the South. This army, lacking professional training, lacked the cohesion and discipline needed to fight. Consequently, it quickly and brutally succumbed to the Constitutionalist forces.

To win rural support, Carranza promulgated an Agrarian Law in 1915. However, by delegating to his generals the authority to demarcate lands for reform, he favored the transformation of these same military chiefs into large landowners, partly betraying peasant expectations. In the urban sphere, he promised the creation of labor laws.

The Constitution of 1917 and the End of the Revolution

In 1916, Venustiano Carranza had enough political strength to convene a Constituent Congress. The Constitution of 1917 was born from that meeting. It replaced the one from 1857, drafted in the context of the Porfiriato’s liberal reforms. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 represented, for its time, a notable advancement, as it implemented profound transformations:

• Single presidential term: The Constitution established a strong and centralized state, but at the same time limited power by imposing a single six-year presidential term with no possibility of re-election. This measure sought to prevent the perpetuation of the same ruler in office.
• Secularity of the State: The text enshrined a fully secular state, eliminating any clerical influence in public affairs. Education became free, compulsory, and secular. Furthermore, the Church even lost its legal personality, which was a radical step in the separation between civil institutions and religious authority.
• State ownership of subsoil resources: It was declared that all minerals, oil, and other riches of the Mexican subsoil would belong to the Mexican State. This curbed the privileges of foreign companies and laid the groundwork for national exploitation of these strategic resources.
• Agrarian reform through ejidos: Land distribution was channeled through ejidos, plots granted by the State for the usufruct of families represented by their heads of household. Although they did not involve the restitution of communal lands in the Zapatista manner, these peasant nuclei guaranteed formal access to land for thousands of rural families.
• Labor rights: For the first time in Mexican history, labor guarantees were included in a constitution. For example, minimum wage, limitations on child and female labor, legalization of unions, and the right to strike. These provisions offered protection and recognition to workers throughout the country.

The promulgation of this Constitution is usually considered the institutional outcome of the Mexican Revolution. Its text remains in force today, although it has been amended numerous times over the years. However, its promulgation did not mean an immediate end to social struggles or political violence in Mexico. In 1919, Emiliano Zapata was assassinated, and in 1920, Carranza fell victim to a plot organized by Álvaro Obregón. After Carranza’s death, his former ally assumed power.

The Implementation of the 1917 Constitution

Gradually, the ideals of the 1917 Constitution were put into practice. However, the implementation of social measures took longer than expected.

Obregón’s government attempted to forge a Mexican civic identity through culture and education. Institutions such as the Department of Fine Arts were created, and investments were made in building rural schools and training teachers. At the same time, Obregón was the main promoter of Muralism, an artistic movement intended to show the people the achievements of the Mexican Revolution through large frescoes in public spaces. On the other hand, Obregón maintained a closer relationship with industrialists and the military than with the peasants. In 1923, Pancho Villa’s death in an ambush had a demobilizing effect on his former followers. However, Villa’s death was perceived more as a regional event than a national one.

In 1924, with Álvaro Obregón’s political backing, Plutarco Elías Calles assumed the presidency of Mexico. His administration (1924–1928) continued the process of state centralization, reinforcing executive power and crushing any opposition. Under his command, the government became more authoritarian, resorting to surveillance, censorship, and occasionally, armed force to maintain order. One of Calles’s most controversial acts was the promulgation of the so-called Calles Law in 1926. It subordinated the Catholic Church to state control and severely restricted freedom of worship. Although anticlericalism was already enshrined in the 1917 Constitution, this law brought it into drastic effect. The reaction was swift: Catholic faithful took up arms in the Cristero War (1926–1929), a civil conflict marked by bloody confrontations. Amidst this climate of violence, a Catholic extremist assassinated Álvaro Obregón, who was a candidate to return to the presidency.

Calles’s power extended beyond his six-year term and gave rise to the period known as the “Maximato” (1928–1934), during which he acted as the “Jefe Máximo” (Maximum Chief) of the Revolution despite not formally holding the presidency. The three presidents who succeeded him—Emilio Portes Gil, Pascual Ortiz Rubio, and Abelardo Rodríguez—governed under his tutelage and ideas. Thus, peasant demands continued to be relegated to a secondary plane.

It was not until Lázaro Cárdenas ascended to the presidency in 1934 that the social ideals of the 1917 Constitution found their full realization. Cárdenas distinguished himself as a progressive general committed to the Mexican Revolution. He came to power in an international context marked by the rise of Vargas’s laborism (“trabalhismo“) in Brazil, which reinforced his conviction of an active state protective of workers. He inaugurated “Cardenismo”: a personalist regime that sought to reconcile the interests of various social sectors. To this end, he acted on multiple fronts:

• Military strengthening: He reinforced the role of the military as a pillar of stability, integrating them into his political project and rewarding them with institutional support.
• Guarantee of workers’ rights: He promoted labor laws and recognized unionism, ensuring the protection of urban workers and the right to organize and strike.
• Ambitious agrarian reform: He distributed land to thousands of peasants through ejidos, endowing them with agricultural properties and materializing the constitutional article that enshrined rural social justice.
• Promotion of nationalist industrialization: He collaborated with entrepreneurs under a mixed economy model, promoting key industries and paving the way for the oil expropriation in 1938.
• Socialist education: He made massive investments in schools, promoting secular education oriented towards social justice. Additionally, he created technical institutions to train professionals for national development—for example, the National Museum of History, the National Polytechnic Institute, and the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH).

Lázaro Cárdenas managed to turn the social principles enshrined in the 1917 Constitution into reality, consolidating a project of national transformation. Under the impetus of “Cardenismo,” his government not only implemented revolutionary promises but also laid the foundations for a modern state committed to collective well-being.

The Legacy of the Mexican Revolution

For a long time, the Mexican Revolution was interpreted as a success of the people against Porfirian oppression. This vision, however, became nuanced as governments consolidated that did not fulfill all the social expectations arising from the 1917 Constitution. Thus, the Revolution ceased to be understood as a monolithic movement and was revealed as a plural and complex phenomenon. Within it, different groups—peasants, workers, regional elites, and intellectuals—promoted different projects for Mexico’s future.

Women, for example, also played a fundamental role in the Mexican Revolution, accompanying battalions and providing logistical and emotional support to combatants. Known as “soldaderas,” they not only carried weapons or supplies but were also nurses, cooks, and sometimes even combatants alongside men. They demonstrated courage and determination on all fronts of the struggle.

On the other hand, the participation of urban workers in the Mexican Revolution was more complex than classical Marxist theory suggests. Although they did not take up arms on a large scale, their multiple strikes and union movements played a crucial role in defining the country’s labor rights. During the early decades of the 20th century, workers in factories, mines, and railways began to organize into guilds and confederations, such as the Regional Confederation of Mexican Workers (CROM). In these, they demanded better wages, shorter workdays, and safety conditions. These protests, often harshly repressed, contributed to the 1917 Constitution including labor rights. Thus, worker activism was not manifested on battlefields but did achieve tangible progress in social laws.

Despite the revolutionary changes, some continuities with the Porfiriato persisted. Capitalism remained Mexico’s economic foundation. Furthermore, the exaltation of national identity through indigenous roots, which had already gained strength before Porfirio Díaz, continued to be a cultural pillar of the country. The agrarian question, the axis of peasant protest, was also not fully resolved. Although many “ejidos” were established, the lack of land and the demand for political autonomy for the “pueblos” led to the emergence of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in 1994. The EZLN continues to demand justice for Mexican rural communities to this day.

In any case, the truth is that the Mexican Revolution profoundly disrupted Mexico’s social and political fabric and projected its influence beyond its borders. Domestically, it reconfigured power relations, enshrined social rights in the 1917 Constitution, fostered a renewed national identity, and forever changed land and labor structures. At the same time, its international impact was notable. The press, both illustrated and photographic, spread vivid images of the conflict worldwide, capturing the attention of distant audiences. Simultaneously, Hollywood turned its gaze to the key leaders and episodes of the Mexican Revolution, leading to films that transformed that uprising into an international paradigm of 20th-century social struggles.

Conclusion

The Mexican Revolution was a transformative period that arose from the profound inequalities and lack of democracy of the Porfiriato, triggering a prolonged armed and social struggle with multiple actors and agendas. From Madero’s initial call to Carranza’s consolidation of power and the promulgation of the 1917 Constitution, the conflict redefined Mexico’s political, agrarian, and labor structure. The subsequent implementation of constitutional ideals, especially during Lázaro Cárdenas’s government, marked the materialization of many revolutionary aspirations. However, the movement’s legacy remains a subject of debate and reinterpretation, highlighting both its profound changes and the continuities and pending challenges. The Mexican Revolution not only radically altered the course of Mexican history but also projected itself as a benchmark for social struggles internationally.