Civil War: The Mexican Revolution

Words: 453
Pages: 2

On the other hand, Mexico did not have the same fortune, as Mexico’s political hemisphere was plagued with instability in transitioning from one government to the next. As a result of the “political instability and foreign invasion [it] deterred foreign investment, risk-taking, and innovation. Most available capital left with its Spanish owners following [Mexico’s] independence” (Growth 1996). With the remaining capital that many wealthy Mexicans had at this point invested it in tangible, secure property, which deterred economic production as little capital was invested in the nation’s development. Arguably this is reason that the United States was able to industrialize before Mexico, which only furthered the United States’ economic position. …show more content…
Following their independence, Mexico had three various political leaders within 3 years of its inception. By 1876, Jose Diaz assumed the Presidency, he was later removed in 1910 but was able to bring political and economic stability to Mexico for an extended period of time. With this fortune, foreign investment began flowing back into the Mexican economy driving economic development and growth. It wasn’t until 1910 that the political unrest broke out into the Mexican Revolution. The civil war would not end until around 1920, following a string of political oustings, with Mexican General Alvaro Obregon assuming office (History 2017).
The impacts of the Mexican Revolution were severe and devastating. Many agricultural workers abandoned their fields to either flee or join the revolution. This meant that many of the staple crops, such as cotton, coffee, and sugarcane, went unharvested. Plantation owners lost a significant amount of cattle as rival militias aimed to cripple the enemy’s wealth anyway possible. It took years for Mexico to recover its economic stability, seeing significant improvements by the mid-1930s (Growth