Francisco Madero’s ascent to power was initially hailed as a triumph for democratic ideals in Mexico, yet his presidency proved to be short-lived and fraught with challenges, ultimately failing to deliver the transformative changes many had hoped for during the Mexican Revolution. From the outset, the Madero regime struggled to maintain stability and satisfy the diverse factions that had contributed to Porfirio Díaz’s downfall. Madero, while a sincere advocate for constitutional government, lacked the political pragmatism and perhaps the revolutionary zeal to enact the deep-seated economic reforms demanded by the populace. This deficiency quickly disillusioned many of his followers and set the stage for further conflict within the unfolding Mexican Revolution.
Disillusionment and Rising Opposition
A key factor in the Madero regime’s instability was its failure to address the pressing issue of land reform. Peasant and labour groups, who had formed the backbone of the revolutionary movement, now found themselves largely ignored. The most prominent example of this disillusionment was Emiliano Zapata. The agrarian revolutionary leader from the south had expected Madero to prioritize the immediate return of land to the Indigenous communities who had been dispossessed under previous regimes. Madero’s reluctance to take swift action on land redistribution led Zapata to openly revolt against the new government, further igniting the flames of the Mexican Revolution.
Similarly, Pascual Orozco, who had initially supported Madero’s rise to power and played a crucial role in military victories against Díaz, also turned against the president. Orozco, representing northern interests and advocating for more rapid and radical changes, grew impatient with what he perceived as the slow pace of reform under Madero. His dissatisfaction culminated in a significant revolutionary movement in the north, adding another layer of complexity and violence to the already turbulent Mexican Revolution landscape.
American Interference and the Overthrow of Madero
External pressures also played a critical role in undermining Madero’s fragile government. Henry Lane Wilson, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, became a vocal critic and opponent of the Madero administration. The United States government, increasingly concerned about the potential disruption to American business interests in Mexico caused by the ongoing civil unrest and what they saw as Madero’s lenient approach to rebel groups, began to actively work against him. The fear of prolonged instability emanating from the Mexican Revolution heavily influenced US policy.
The situation reached a boiling point when Félix Díaz, nephew of the former dictator, launched another rebellion in Mexico City. Federal troops, under the command of Victoriano Huerta, were tasked with suppressing this revolt. However, during the intense fighting in Mexico City known as “La Decena Trágica” (The Ten Tragic Days), Huerta secretly conspired with Díaz and Ambassador Wilson. In a blatant act of betrayal, Huerta met with Díaz in Wilson’s office and signed the “Pact of the Embassy” on February 18, 1913. This agreement formalized their plot to oust Madero and install Huerta as president.
The day after signing the Pact, Huerta seized the presidency, arresting Madero and Vice President José María Pino Suárez. Tragically, both Madero and Pino Suárez were assassinated a few days later, while purportedly being transferred between prisons. It is widely believed that Huerta ordered their execution, marking a brutal end to Madero’s brief and ill-fated attempt to guide Mexico through the early stages of the Mexican Revolution. His demise ushered in a new, more violent phase of the revolution under Huerta’s dictatorial rule.
