I'm doing some reading on the Mexican Revolution, since I didn't learn much about it in school. One character that's sticking out in my mind, more than anyone, is US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson. As far as I understand it, Wilson acted against direct orders from the President in order to collaborate with a to-be military dictator to overthrow and murder a democratically elected President, feeding lies to Taft in the White House the whole time. Which, on paper, is totally despicable but, in practice, is totally despicable. The book I'm reading is more pop-history than academic-history (I think it describes Wilson as "deranged" at one point, which is hardly unbiased), so I'm coming here to see if I've been given the correct picture.

• How did a guy like Henry Lane Wilson ascend to an office as important as ambassador to Mexico?

• What did Wilson have against Madero and his government in the first place? Madero mostly kept the same Porforista cronies around and didn't pursue any radical domestic reforms or foreign policy agendas, so why was Wilson so against him? Did Madero spit in his coffee?

• If Wilson's actions were in pursuit of American business interests, were there any specific businesses or individuals that he had in mind? Was this a tit-for-tat deal, or just some generalized capitalist zeal?

• What sort of relationship did he have with General Huerta? The book I'm reading describes them as "drinking buddies", but again I'm not sure how true-to-life the book I'm reading may be. Was he similarly friendly with other actors in the coup d'etat?

• How instrumental was Wilson in the coup's success? Had he remained neutral as ordered, would it have been a success?

• How were Wilson's actions received by the American and Mexican press, respectively? Was he lionized, demonized, ignored?

• How did Wilson manage to get off the hook? Aside from Woodrow Wilson dismissing him from his ambassadorship, he seems to have bounced back fine instead of being, y'know, tried for insubordination and treason.

I seriously hate this guy (I particularly hate him saying that Madero's assassination was somehow the fault of Madero's wife, smug bastard), to the degree that I'm not sure if I'm being led astray by biased source material. Thanks in advance for any answers!