The Fall Of Madero.

New York Times 100 years ago today, February 11, 1913:
    The fresh outbreak in Mexico, the beginning of a new revolution the end of which no man can see, seems likely to accomplish the overthrow of Madero and the utter defeat of his weak and vain policies. No political adventurer ever entered into power under more promising auspices than he. He had, to be sure, no previous record of administrative achievement, but that was better, on the whole, than having a bad record. Perhaps because he had seemed to his compatriots before the Autumn of 1910 so weak, vain, and visionary the boldness, courage, and practicability he unexpectedly revealed in the revolution he headed were more impressive. He was elected to the Presidency by the votes of the people, and when he took office a newly awakened nation, educated by Porfirio Diaz to a comprehension of the advantages of freedom, which he had nevertheless denied to them, reposed in Madero strong hope and perfect confidence.
    From the beginning, however, his administration has failed to pacify the contending factions, to develop the country's resources, to improve its financial condition, to protect its commerce and industry. It may be, as is so often said, that a large majority of the Mexican people are still unfit for any large measure of self-government, but that has assuredly not been proved by the failure of Maderos' administration, in which failure has been inherent. While Madero has made a show of opposing the rebels in the north, he has been almost openly in sympathy with that murderous brigand, Zapata. He has distributed profitable offices with a lavish hand among the members of the Madero family, many of whom used to affect to despise him. With Ernesto Madero as Secretary of the Treasury the country has been all but bankrupt.
    The police have become demoralized, while the defection of the army is no longer a matter of argument. The civil courts are quite as corrupt as they ever have been, while the President, whose entire term of office has been marked by squabbles with Ministers, Senators, and Deputies, has assuredly failed to secure the respect or esteem of the people. Whatever new miseries unhappy Mexico must endure, she is undoubtedly well rid of Madero.
    In spite of the ill-effects of the political disaster upon Mexican trade and finance, there is comfort in the assurance telegraphed by Gen. Felix Diaz to The New York Times that complete protection will be given to all foreign residents. With Gen. Diaz in power Americans in Mexico would feel confident of protection. But Diaz is not the only factor in the present uprising, there are Gens. Trevino and Huerta to be considered, and even if so cautious and shrewd a statesman as Mr. Francisco de la Barra is made provisional President, there will inevitably be a great deal of confusion.
    In the circumstances, the outlook seems dubious. The reign of outlawry and anarchy cannot continue much longer. European countries whose citizens have business in Mexico will, in view of the Monroe Doctrine, look to the United States for protection and relief. The expressed determination of President Taft not to intervene unless intervention is absolutely necessary is commendable. We may be confident that no rash action will be taken in the remaining three weeks of Mr. Taft's Administration, or under his successor. But we must remember that Mexico today is in precisely the same political position it was sixty years ago, that it is, in fact, in the way of becoming a dangerous anachronism in the modern world.