Mexico without Santa Anna

I would like to hear more about the idea that without Santa Anna, we could see more conflict between conservatives and liberals. How did the political spectrum separate out in post-Independence Mexico? By this I mean what broad policies would mark one as either on the left or right of the Mexican political spectrum?

Iturbide's quick abdication always puzzled me. The man set everything up so that he could seize power, turns on the Spanish, makes deals with the rebels, then he gives up power in short order, as soon as the first resistance to his rule appears. I would guess that his overthrow was a blow to the conservatives, but would his continued defense of his regime benefit them? I would think that the longer Iturbide fights for his regime, the more conservatism in Mexico is associated with monarchism (or imperialism I suppose would be a more exact title). If the liberals vs conservatives spectrum was couched in terms of republicanism vs monarchism, then perhaps the Texas Revolt is part of a larger Republican war against the Mexican Empire, and American intervention could be justified as "defending the liberty of the Mexican people" or something. I'm thinking that the United States would try to run Mexico more from the inside, versus the OTL strategy of just slicing off the tasty, unpopulated bits.

But would that Monarchy/Republic debate be that different from the simple Conservative/Liberal of OTL? Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding was that Texas revolted precisely because there was a dictatorship under Santa Anna, and that revolt wasn't different at first from all the liberal ones that paved central Mexico and the Yucatan at the same time. Yet the Texas case became unique because it actually succeeded, and it happened to have a good deal of American inmigrants. But at first the Texans wanted to be part of Mexico, and they were on the verge of defeat till Santa Anna's almost ASB defeat and capture at San Jacinto.

By the way, there is also another reason to think that an Empire of Mexico surviving would make more difficult Santa Anna's rise. Many Mexican monarchists fled to Cuba after Iturbide's abdication. In 1829 they convinced the Spanish that the Mexicans would receive them with open arms and they launched the Barradas Expedition that landed in Tampico that year. Yet the expedition fell sick of yellow fer as soon as it landed a foot on Mexican soil, and an oportunistic Santa Anna defeated it with a much smaller force. After that he was widely regarded as a hero and he styled himself "Savior of the Motherland".
 
True, but if he died in 1838, there may not have been cause for Texas independence. Of course the westward expansion of the US and ultimate conflict with Mexico is probably only a matter of time.
As Texas had been an independent nation for two years when Santa Anna lost his leg his dying in 1838 would have had zero effect on the Texas Revolution.
 
To best achieve a Mexican superpower (or great power at least) you need to get rid of Santa Anna, IMO.

His policies drove Mexico into bankrupcy and his virtual dictatorship caused California, Rio Grande, Texas, and Yucatan to declare independence, two of which later became part of the US, and we all know what happened next.

So get rid of Santa Anna and for good measure a couple of his other liberal minions, and Iturbide won't resign and flee. If he's smart and reforms Mexico, then the economic troubles won't be nearly as bad.
 
To best achieve a Mexican superpower (or great power at least) you need to get rid of Santa Anna, IMO.

His policies drove Mexico into bankrupcy and his virtual dictatorship caused California, Rio Grande, Texas, and Yucatan to declare independence, two of which later became part of the US, and we all know what happened next.

So get rid of Santa Anna and for good measure a couple of his other liberal minions, and Iturbide won't resign and flee. If he's smart and reforms Mexico, then the economic troubles won't be nearly as bad.

I don't think so. Iturbide was about as egotistical as Santa Anna and wasn't very smart where it came to establishing support either. He'll just end up overthrown a few years later.
 
If [Iturbide] is smart and reforms Mexico, then the economic troubles won't be nearly as bad.

Iturbide allowed the Spanish elite to depart with the value of their land in hard currency. Since the elite held title to most of the best land, they quickly depleted the treasury of the new Mexican state.

That's not typical of a smart man as far as economic matters go. He also believed in the Divine Right of Kings and attempted to rule as he commanded, which very quickly annoyed everyone else.
 
I would like to hear more about the idea that without Santa Anna, we could see more conflict between conservatives and liberals. How did the political spectrum separate out in post-Independence Mexico? By this I mean what broad policies would mark one as either on the left or right of the Mexican political spectrum?

Well, remember that the original Mexican War of Independence was started out by a poor parish priest. That should have been a wake-up call regarding the Bourbon reforms. What the Hapsburgs chose not to do regarding New Spain, the Bourbons did, and that created a snowball effect. Remember that New Spain was one of the areas in the Spanish Empire in the Americas where the full force of Spanish policies were implemented - i.e. the class/caste system, encomienda, et cetera. Thus, in addition to Spain bringing over the Inquisition and the Index Liborum Prohibitorium (which IIRC had a lot of liberal-leaning stuff, like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlet on there), pretty much ensured that the Catholic Church - and the Spanish government - would have virtually all influence. That somehow these "disestablishmentarian" documents made their way in New Spain always intrigued me. Remember, too, that in the end it was conservatives, not liberals, that eventually gave Mexico its independence.

Pretty much, 19th century Mexico (and even into the Mexican Revolution in 1910-1917) had a history of political violence between conservatives and liberals, and I would expect it to happen in TTL - maybe even more so than in OTL. Back then, if you were liberal, you would've wanted a US-style federal government, strict separation of church and state (that is, French-style laïcité), free trade, et cetera. If you were conservative, you wanted the Catholic Church to retain an influence on society, a centralized state, and (more or less) something that would resemble the old order under New Spain. The 1824 Constitution would not have helped because it was (IMO) a badly-done compromise between liberals and conservatives. There was no middle.

Iturbide's quick abdication always puzzled me. The man set everything up so that he could seize power, turns on the Spanish, makes deals with the rebels, then he gives up power in short order, as soon as the first resistance to his rule appears. I would guess that his overthrow was a blow to the conservatives, but would his continued defense of his regime benefit them? I would think that the longer Iturbide fights for his regime, the more conservatism in Mexico is associated with monarchism.

That is describing OTL, as I already mentioned. With Iturbide, what he wanted was to have a "Mexican Empire", more or less, and that fell apart. Pretty much, he wanted only himself to govern Mexico. Now I don't think that conservatism would be associated with monarchism in TTL, but as in OTL a centralized state would.

] If the liberals vs conservatives spectrum was couched in terms of republicanism vs monarchism, then perhaps the Texas Revolt is part of a larger Republican war against the Mexican Empire, and American intervention could be justified as "defending the liberty of the Mexican people" or something. I'm thinking that the United States would try to run Mexico more from the inside, versus the OTL strategy of just slicing off the tasty, unpopulated bits.

But then you'd have to find a way for the US to leave without taking any Mexican territory, which in the context of "manifest destiny" would be hard to pull off - even near-ASB.
 
I was thinking about this . . . and thought of an old idea I had about Aaron Burr, my favorite VP. His wife lives, keeps him grounded, and he is Jefferson's loyal VP for 8 years. Then he runs in 1808 in his own right, and wins. Expansionism is the name of Burr's game, and when Mexico starts revolting after Spain falls to Napoleon, Burr decides to intervene in Spanish America. In the name of "American Republicanism" and with some Mexican exiles, Burr sends an American army to help liberate the people of Mexico.

American involvement in Mexico's politics results in Mexican Independence much earlier, and the treaty with Mexico recognizes some American claims to Mexican territory, say draw a line from the current Mexico-California border east, until you run into Arkansas or Louisiana. The Mexicans get a very pro-Liberal constitution, since I think that Americans would probably end up backing the Liberals in the Liberal-Conservative divide. The Liberals anti-clergy, pro- free trade, and that kind of government would be readily excepted by the British in addition to the Americans, so the only two countries whose foreign policy objectives really matter in the debate would be satisfied. In addition to this, the American intervention in Mexico would probably end up keeping most of the conservatives (who were mostly pro-Spanish to begin with) aligned with Spain.

With American involvement in Mexico, and the resulting pro-Liberal Constitution, then Central America be kept within Mexico, and with America fighting the Spanish Cuba is always a neat prize. So with a super Mexico to the north, and Bolivar's Gran Columbia survives (hands look like propellers at this point), perhaps the Americas are ruled by the "Three Republics." The examples of the Mexican and American constitution really influence Bolivar, and he decides to emulate them, plus the added threat/ example from the north makes the Gran Columbians think that maybe sticking together is a good idea.

Happy Western Hempisphere!
 
What happens in 1829 when the Spanish return.
The Mexican people had been so long free from the Spanish rule that they looked on a return of their old masters as impossible, until, in the summer of 1829, General Barradas landed at Tampico in command of an army of four thousand Spanish veterans. Santa Anna was not then at Vera Cruz, but in Mexico in charge of his bureau; he was no sooner informed of the landing of Barradas, than with seven hundred men in open boats he crossed the Bahia and landed at Tuspan, avoiding the Spanish vessels most dexterously in his hazardous voyage of seventy miles across the gulf. From Tuspan in canoes or perogues he crossed the lagoon of Jamaihua, and landed within three leagues of Tampico, which was then occupied by Barradas's forces, the general having gone on an expedition into the interior with three thousand men, and left one thousand to garrison the city. Santa Anna resolved on an immediate attack at daylight the next morning, August 1st, 1829, and after a contest of four hours the town capitulated. Scarcely had this occurred than General Barradas reappeared. Santa Anna was impeded from retreat by the river which intervened between him and the city, and it was evident nothing could save him but one of those stratagems which have so often decided the fate of armies, and which the mind of Santa Anna seems so peculiarly qualified for conceiving. By means of his agents he contrived to persuade Barradas that he was at the head of an overwhelming force; and the Spaniard, instead of an attack, entered into negotiations, with the understanding that while they were progressing, Santa Anna should retire into his own quarters. Santa Anna of course consented, and, with drums beating and banners waving, crossed the river and returned in safety. When Barradas learned how he had been duped, his mortification was extreme, but the mistake could not be remedied. The effect of this ruse was such that the Mexican army was not attacked until Santa Anna had been reinforced, and the Spaniard saw it would then be vain. Every night the Spaniard was attacked by his persevering foe; and on the 11th of September a vigorous assault was made on the fort at the bar, which forced the Spanish general into a capitulation, by which he laid down his arms and soon after sailed with the remnant of his force, twenty-two hundred men, to Havana. This was the last effort of Spain against Mexico, a convulsive effort which was near success in consequence of the wildness which had animated it, and against which it was impossible to provide.
 
What happens in 1829 when the Spanish return.

Even if the Spanish had success initially, they wouldn't have been able to exercise control over the whole country, and probably would have been chased out of the country again, ala the French 25 years later. The Spanish during the 19th century lurched from one crisis to another, and even if the Spanish succeeded in pacifying the country in 1829, the First Carlist War breaks out 4 years later, which would probably lead to a fall of the Spaniards' Mexican administration.

However, perhaps the Spaniards are able to rally the support of Mexico's conservatives and build a successful (by the standard of the day) regime in Mexico. When the Infante Carlos loses in Spain, perhaps he goes to Mexico, where his conservative politics and Bourbon blood make him an excellent candidate for the Mexican throne?
 
Top