Q: Why was Santa Anna wildly popular to everyone in Mexico especially the peasantry and poor people?

[Slime_blob]

As the title says, I've been wondering on on how he raised armies and money so fast with basically out of nothing where he rapidly raised and equipped an an army during the Mexican American War. And why Mexicans especially the peasantry followed and loved him so much during his tenure, until he left office. And every single time Mexico needs a President both the Liberals and Conservatives begged him to take the Presidency, which he did and left as soon as he can or when he is ousted.

So why is he popular to everyone and why most Mexicans in his time seem to like him

 

[jycee]

It is one of the biggest mysteries in Mexican history, from what I understand it boils down to a few things:
- He had the army on his side; he was "one of the boys" and was liked and respected by most (keyword "most") officers. So when the need arose the army would rally behind him, this gave him a leg up against any politician since he could easily stage a military coup.
- He was able to keep the army politically "neutral" while personally flip-flopping between liberal and conservative factions. So he always appeared to be a good compromise candidate. Santa Ana also abandoned the Presidency as soon as he could so it is likely most saw his appointment as a "temporary" measure to stabilize the country between elections. And with the exception of his last tenure, this mostly was true.
- He was king in Veracruz. Even when he wasn't President, Santa Ana had a strong grip over his native land. From his estate, in Xalapa, he had control over Mexico's main port to the outside world and the national highway leading to the capital.
- Finally, he was able to foment a patriotic image around him as a hero of the War of Independence, the ousting of Agustin de Iturbide, and the defender of Veracruz against the French. I reckon that for most of the peasantry Texas was too far away and not really an issue, meanwhile, the French in Veracruz seemed like a much more dire threat. And Santa Ana "sacrificed" his leg for the motherland!

 

[Slime_blob]

It is one of the biggest mysteries in Mexican history, from what I understand it boils down to a few things:
- He had the army on his side; he was "one of the boys" and was liked and respected by most (keyword "most") officers. So when the need arose the army would rally behind him, this gave him a leg up against any politician since he could easily stage a military coup.
- He was able to keep the army politically "neutral" while personally flip-flopping between liberal and conservative factions. So he always appeared to be a good compromise candidate. Santa Ana also abandoned the Presidency as soon as he could so it is likely most saw his appointment as a "temporary" measure to stabilize the country between elections. And with the exception of his last tenure, this mostly was true.
- He was king in Veracruz. Even when he wasn't President, Santa Ana had a strong grip over his native land. From his estate, in Xalapa, he had control over Mexico's main port to the outside world and the national highway leading to the capital.
- Finally, he was able to foment a patriotic image around him as a hero of the War of Independence, the ousting of Agustin de Iturbide, and the defender of Veracruz against the French. I reckon that for most of the peasantry Texas was too far away and not really an issue, meanwhile, the French in Veracruz seemed like a much more dire threat. And Santa Ana "sacrificed" his leg for the motherland!

Assuming that Santa Anna doesnt return to Mexico during the Mexican American War the Mexican Government will have a harder time raising army and money for the war effort compared to otl?

 

[Wendell]

Basically Bonapartism.

 

[jycee]

Assuming that Santa Anna doesnt return to Mexico during the Mexican American War the Mexican Government will have a harder time raising army and money for the war effort compared to otl?

Not necessarily; Santa Ana returned once the war was already well underway. However, there was a lot of infighting and mistrust between the higher-ranking officers and there was really no one to fill in the void. Urrea (perhaps the most capable) was too old and past his prime; Arista was too young and hotheaded (I think he is the most likely to take Santa Ana's mantle); Canalizo was too political and generally disliked; Yanez held little power/influence outside Guadalajara.

Despite everything above, Santa Ana was still terrible at coordinating and delegating hence his terrible performance in most battles. During the war, he kept running back and forth between both fronts. Without him, it is likely both fronts will run more efficiently.

Basically Bonapartism.

With many flaws.

 

[Socrates]

With many flaws.

So, Bonapartism.

 

[marktaha]

What would Mexico have been like without him?

 

[Aghasverov]

What would Mexico have been like without him?

You really like releasing swarms of butterflies, don't you?
For almost a half-century, Santa Ana was the dominant figure in Mexico, whether he was in office at the time (or even residing in the country at the time ). A Mexico with no Santa Ana would truly be anybody's guess....

 

[Wendell]

What would Mexico have been like without him?

Guatemala.

 

[Slime_blob]

Not necessarily; Santa Ana returned once the war was already well underway. However, there was a lot of infighting and mistrust between the higher-ranking officers and there was really no one to fill in the void. Urrea (perhaps the most capable) was too old and past his prime; Arista was too young and hotheaded (I think he is the most likely to take Santa Ana's mantle); Canalizo was too political and generally disliked; Yanez held little power/influence outside Guadalajara.

Despite everything above, Santa Ana was still terrible at coordinating and delegating hence his terrible performance in most battles. During the war, he kept running back and forth between both fronts. Without him, it is likely both fronts will run more efficiently.

The infighting doomed much of their struggle like in Buena Vista where he was about to win he returned to Mexico city just to supress a revolt and coup in the middle of the war as congress begged him to return. In the Mexico city campaign, there was alot of infighting where the generals under santa anna ignored his orders to have a coordinated defense of the capitol which resulted into the defeat

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Basically Bonapartism.

With many flaws.

So, Bonapartism.

At least Bonaparte actually won battles and wars.

 

[Socrates]

At least Bonaparte actually won battles and wars.

As I tell my French friends, it's not the heats that count. It's the final.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

As I tell my French friends, it's not the heats that count. It's the final.

I'm not a Bonapartist (anymore), but I'm pretty sure Napoléon had a more positive impact overall on France than Santa Anna had on Mexico.

Never underestimate the "Masses de granite" and the lasting impact he had on Europe, even though he was defeated in the end.

 

[Socrates]

I'm not a Bonapartist (anymore), but I'm pretty sure Napoléon had a more positive impact overall on France than Santa Anna had on Mexico.

Never underestimate the "Masses de granite" and the lasting impact he had on Europe, even though he was defeated in the end.

I don't know enough about Santa Anna but I think the case for Napoleon is overstated. Many of the institutions he founded would have been done by others, but without the endless wars leading to a lot of dead Frenchmen and the loss of the Rhine border.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I don't know enough about Santa Anna but I think the case for Napoleon is overstated. Many of the institutions he founded would have been done by others, but without the endless wars leading to a lot of dead Frenchmen and the loss of the Rhine border.

While I agree with you that Napoléon's impact has been overstated, I just can't overlook the fact that he and his armies were victorious in an impressive number of battles and wars, and that he was a very capable statesman who managed to stay in power for fifteen years in a very tormented era.

Compare that to Santa Anna, and, well, ... I'm sorry, but it's impossible to claim that both men "played in the same league".

 

[Wendell]

At least Bonaparte actually won battles and wars.

Napoleon lost in the end.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Napoleon lost in the end.

I'm not a Bonapartist (anymore), but I'm pretty sure Napoléon had a more positive impact overall on France than Santa Anna had on Mexico.

Never underestimate the "Masses de granite" and the lasting impact he had on Europe, even though he was defeated in the end.

While I agree with you that Napoléon's impact has been overstated, I just can't overlook the fact that he and his armies were victorious in an impressive number of battles and wars, and that he was a very capable statesman who managed to stay in power for fifteen years in a very tormented era.

Compare that to Santa Anna, and, well, ... I'm sorry, but it's impossible to claim that both men "played in the same league".

You're welcome.

 

[LNSS]

He was not popular with the people at all. He was popular with the army (dominated by conservative elements until the 1860s), which is different. Mexico was not a democracy so the people had no say on who was or wasn't president.

 

[Wendell]

You're welcome.

This supposes that Santa Anna failed completely and has no enduring legacy in Mexico or its environs. Is that strictly true though? Do we get the Porfiriato without Santa Anna?

 

[Slime_blob]

He was not popular with the people at all. He was popular with the army (dominated by conservative elements until the 1860s), which is different. Mexico was not a democracy so the people had no say on who was or wasn't president.

Santa Anna's multiple reigns as President was the only time Mexico had real stability before the Porfiriato. And if he isnt popular to the people how did he even manage to raise huge amounts of men for the army and the money and materiel needed for the MA war from basically out of nothing.