Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Victoriano Huerta, betrayed and had Madero killed after the initial objective of the revolution had been reached (deposing DÃaz). He basically kicked off what became almost two decades of misery and infighting that ended up in the creation of the PRI.
Santa Anna, by taking awful decisions in the war with Texas, ended up having to cede 1/2 of Mexico's territory to the USA
Gustavo DÃaz Ordaz and Luis EcheverrÃa, who had students and dissidents killed
Victoriano Huerta, betrayed and had Madero killed after the initial objective of the revolution had been reached (deposing DÃaz). He basically kicked off what became almost two decades of misery and infighting that ended up in the creation of the PRI.
Not to mention his doomed scheme to align with Germany to conquer the USA in World War I!
Any leader that causes a revolution is a bad leader. For me Porfirio Diaz did a lot more harm than good.
General Porfirio Diaz is often judged with contemporary eyes, in my book he did what was necessary in order to put the country back on track. He was by no means perfect, he was human after all, but Mexico during his term as president/dictator experienced for once since 1810 ''Order and Progress'' -his motto- and growth. Some argue that most of the wealth back then wa sin the hands of so few, but isn't that the case nowadays as well?
Next time I go to Paris, I'd do my best to stop by his grave and leave a flower on it.
Last edited by Aztecgoddess; 12-15-2015 at 10:10 AM..
Reason: EPN moment
Most since the Revolution just imposed the dictates of their party's controlling factions to the benefit of their cronies. That's really not doing much. Besides most Mexicans make the same mistake as just about everyone else in the democratic world. They assume good economic conditions for me = good President which just isn't a good way to judge them.
General Porfirio Diaz is often judged with contemporary eyes, in my book he did what was necessary in order to put the country back on track. He was by no means perfect, he was human after all, but Mexico during his term as president/dictator experienced for once since 1810 ''Order and Progress'' -his motto- and growth. Some argue that most of the wealth back then wa sin the hands of so few, but isn't that the case nowadays as well?
Next time I go to Paris, I'd do my best to stop by his grave and leave a flower on it.
Sincerely for the 35 years he was in power did Little, progress based on enslaving your fellow citizens?
I do not understand how anyone can admire a satrap, a dictator who killed millions of Mexicans then lose the war and went as usual with much of the treasure of the country to live like a king in France.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
