Before the Second Revolution: Who Owned the Land in Mexico?
The year is 1910. Consider this: everything — every acre of fertile valley land, every mill, every village road — belongs to someone else. Not the plot you till, not the hut you sleep in, not even the mule you use to plow. You wake up before dawn, work until sunset, and at the end of the day, you own nothing. But you're a peasant farmer in the Mexican countryside — let's say in the state of Morelos, where the sugar cane stretches to the horizon. And that someone else probably lives in Mexico City, or maybe in Paris, and you've never seen their face.
This wasn't a coincidence. It was by design.
If you've ever wondered how the Mexican Revolution exploded the way it did — why thousands of peasants took up arms demanding "Tierra y Libertad" (Land and Freedom) — you need to understand who owned the land before 1910. But the answer isn't complicated, but it is essential. And honestly, it's the part that most surface-level history lessons gloss over.
Not obvious, but once you see it — you'll see it everywhere Most people skip this — try not to..
So let's get into it.
What Was Happening in Mexico Before the Revolution?
First, some context. In real terms, the "first revolution" was the War of Independence from Spain (1810-1821). When people say "the second revolution" in Mexico, they're referring to the Mexican Revolution — the massive civil war that started in 1910 and reshaped the country for a decade. But for our purposes, what matters is what Mexico looked like in the decades right before 1910.
That period is called the Porfiriato — the 34-year rule of President Porfirio Díaz, who held power from 1876 to 1911 (with one brief gap in 1880-1884). Díaz ran Mexico with an iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove. Which means he brought foreign investment, built railways, modernized cities, and kept the peace. The slogan was orden y progreso — order and progress.
But progress for whom?
Here's the thing: under Díaz, Mexico experienced real economic growth. And exports increased. But the wealth didn't trickle down. Railways connected the country. So mines opened. It pooled at the top, in the hands of a small elite, while the vast majority of Mexicans — especially indigenous communities and rural peasants — got poorer and more trapped Simple as that..
This changes depending on context. Keep that in mind.
Land ownership became the symbol and the engine of this inequality And that's really what it comes down to..
Who Owned the Land? The Big Players
Before the revolution, land in Mexico was controlled by four main groups. Understanding each one is key to understanding why the revolution happened — and why land reform became its beating heart.
The Hacienda Owners: Mexican Oligarchs
The most visible landholders were the hacendados — the owners of massive estates called haciendas. These weren't family farms. Now, we're talking about properties that covered tens of thousands of acres, sometimes hundreds of thousands. A single hacienda could be larger than some European countries The details matter here..
Honestly, this part trips people up more than it should.
Some of these families had old money, dating back to the colonial era. Others were newer beneficiaries of Díaz's system — entrepreneurs, military officers, and political insiders who received land grants or bought up property cheaply as the government pushed indigenous communities off their ancestral lands Not complicated — just consistent..
Easier said than done, but still worth knowing.
The most famous (or infamous) example is the Terrazas family in Chihuahua. They accumulated an empire of ranchland so vast it became almost a state within a state. But they weren't alone. Across Mexico — in Morelos, Puebla, Jalisco, Sonora — a small class of families controlled the agricultural heart of the nation Simple, but easy to overlook..
These hacendados didn't just own land. That's why they often owned the stores where workers bought supplies, the housing where workers lived, even the churches where workers prayed. It was a system of total dependency.
The Catholic Church
The Church had been the largest landowner in Mexico since the colonial period. That's why bishops, monasteries, and religious orders held enormous properties — fincas, ranchos, urban buildings — across the country. In many places, the Church was the biggest landowner in town.
This changed dramatically in the 1850s with the Ley Lerdo (1856), a law that forced the Church to sell its non-religious properties. The idea was to break the Church's economic power and encourage a class of small landowners. Many Church lands were bought up cheaply by wealthy elites — the same hacendados who were already consolidating power. So the Church lost its direct ownership, but the land didn't go to peasants. On top of that, in practice, it didn't quite work out that way. It went to a different kind of landlord.
Still, the Church remained influential, and it held onto significant property even after the Ley Lerdo. The relationship between the Church, the state, and landowners would become one of the contentious issues of the revolution But it adds up..
Foreign Investors: Americans, Europeans, and the "Golden Age" of Exploitation
This is where it gets politically charged — and it's why the land question wasn't just about Mexican inequality, but about foreign exploitation too.
During the Porfiriato, Díaz actively courted foreign investment. Some of this was legitimate business. Here's the thing — american, British, French, and Spanish companies bought up land, built mines, and set up operations across Mexico. Some of it was deeply exploitative.
American companies acquired huge tracts in the north — mining operations in Sonora, cattle ranches in Texas border regions, rubber plantations in Chiapas. But british investors controlled significant portions of the mining and railway industries. Spanish merchants and landowners had a strong presence, especially in commerce and agriculture.
For many Mexicans, this felt like a double betrayal. And not only were their own elites taking their land, but foreigners were too. The slogan "Mexico for Mexicans" would become a revolutionary cry, and resentment toward foreign landholders was a real undercurrent — even if the revolution's land reform would later be complicated by the need to keep foreign investment flowing Small thing, real impact..
The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake.
Indigenous Communities: The True Owners Who Lost Everything
Here's what most people miss: before the Porfiriato, indigenous communities still held significant communal lands — ejidos and other collectively owned properties. These weren't private farms, but they were land that belonged to the community, not to a hacendado.
Under Díaz, that changed dramatically. Now, the government pushed to "modernize" agriculture, which meant converting communal lands into private property that could be bought and sold. In practice, this meant indigenous communities were swindled, pressured, or outright forced to sell their land — often for pennies — to large landowners or foreign investors Simple as that..
The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake.
This wasn't subtle. But it was systematic. Government policies, biased courts, and armed enforcers all worked together to strip indigenous communities of their land. The result was a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest Mexicans to the richest — and it created the pool of landless peasants who would become the revolutionary foot soldiers.
This is where a lot of people lose the thread And that's really what it comes down to..
Why It Matters: The Connection to Revolution
So why does any of this matter? Because the Mexican Revolution wasn't primarily about politics or ideology at first. It was about land.
When Emiliano Zapata raised his army in Morelos in 1911, his demand was simple and radical: Tierra y Libertad. Worth adding: land and freedom. Now, he wasn't asking for a new president or a new constitution. He was asking for the land that had been stolen from his people — and from millions like them — to be returned Turns out it matters..
And when Francisco I. Madero wrote his famous Plan de San Luis Potosí in 1910, calling for Díaz to step down, the promise of land reform was central to his appeal. The peasants who joined the revolution — first against Díaz, then against each other, then against the old order — were fighting because they had nothing, and the people who had everything had gotten it by taking everything from them Not complicated — just consistent..
The concentration of land ownership wasn't just an economic problem. It was the foundation of a social order that kept most Mexicans in poverty, in debt, and in dependency. Because of that, the hacienda system created a class of peones — agricultural workers who were technically "free" but practically tied to the land they worked. In real terms, they couldn't leave. They couldn't start their own farms. They were trapped.
This is why the revolution's land reform — even when it was implemented unevenly, even when it was betrayed or corrupted — mattered so much. It was an attempt to undo centuries of theft.
Common Mistakes and What People Get Wrong
A few things worth clarifying, because there's a lot of confusion about this topic:
Mistake #1: Thinking the Church owned all the land before the revolution. The Ley Lerdo already broke up Church lands decades before 1910. By the time of the revolution, the Church was still influential but no longer the dominant landowner. The hacendados and foreign investors had taken that role.
Mistake #2: Thinking it was only foreigners. Yes, foreign investment was huge, and yes, it was exploitative. But the primary beneficiaries of land concentration were Mexican elites. The Terrazas, the Gallasteguis, the Azuara — these were Mexican families. The revolution was as much about class conflict within Mexico as it was about foreign exploitation Worth knowing..
Mistake #3: Thinking land reform happened quickly after the revolution. It didn't. The Constitution of 1917 included strong land reform provisions, but implementation was slow, contested, and often reversed. The ejido system (communal land ownership) was created, but it would be decades before meaningful redistribution happened — and even then, it was incomplete Worth knowing..
The Short Version
If you take away one thing from all this, it's this: before the Mexican Revolution, land in Mexico was owned by a tiny elite — Mexican hacendados, the Catholic Church (to a lesser extent), foreign investors, and the state — while the vast majority of Mexicans, especially indigenous communities and rural peasants, owned nothing. Now, this wasn't an accident. It was the result of deliberate policies under the Porfiriato that concentrated wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.
It sounds simple, but the gap is usually here.
And that inequality is exactly what the revolution was fighting to undo That's the part that actually makes a difference..
FAQ
Who owned most of the land in Mexico before the 1910 revolution?
The largest landholders were Mexican hacendados — wealthy families who owned massive haciendas (estates). The Catholic Church, foreign investors, and the state also held significant land, but private Mexican elites controlled the majority of agricultural land Not complicated — just consistent..
What was the hacienda system?
The hacienda system was a landownership model where large estates were owned by wealthy families or investors, and agricultural workers (called peones) worked the land but owned nothing. Workers were often in debt to their employers and practically tied to the property.
Did indigenous people own land before the revolution?
Some indigenous communities held communal lands, but under the Porfiriato, these lands were systematically taken through laws that forced "modernization" and privatization. Communities were often swindled or forced to sell to large landowners.
Why was land ownership so unequal?
Policies under President Porfirio Díaz favored economic modernization and foreign investment, but without protections for small farmers or indigenous communities. Land was concentrated in the hands of elites through both legal mechanisms and coercion.
What happened to the land after the revolution?
The Mexican Constitution of 1917 included land reform provisions, and the ejido system (communal land ownership) was created. Still, redistribution was slow and uneven, and land inequality remained a persistent issue throughout the 20th century But it adds up..
The land question didn't end with the revolution. But understanding who owned the land before 1910 — and how they got it — is the key to understanding why the revolution happened at all. It's not just history. It's the foundation of modern Mexico Worth keeping that in mind. That alone is useful..
