It was literally one of the less stable periods, specifically because of him. He lost half of Mexico's territory ffs.
Q: Why was Santa Anna wildly popular to everyone in Mexico especially the peasantry and poor people?
- Thread starter Slime_blob
- Start date
It was literally one of the less stable periods, specifically because of him. He lost half of Mexico's territory ffs.
He was basically the only person charismatic enough to be in power, he was basically a President who is seen neither a Liberal nor Conservative, a compromise one. He also did many accomplishments like universal free public education, where people credit Juarez instead of him, first railroads in Mexico, his most notable is his military carreer in the Mexican American War which he fought against the odds, His army comprising of mainly poorly trained, armed, equipped and supplied conscripts and a few volunteers. Against a well trained, armed equiped and supplied American army and the several coups and rebellions which happened in the middle of the war he needs to supress.
The "Age of Santa Anna" is characterized by poor conditions for economic growth and development. 1821 to the early 1850s
Mexico is basically ravaged and destroyed during the Independence wars and did not recover due to instability and infighting and other factors, Santa Anna and others basically cannot cope with these challenges. Diaz's Porfiriato is basically a result as now Liberals now have full control over Mexico as there are less infighting and instability and opposition from the conservatives
It was not Santa Anna who sold that teritory he was in Puebla fighting, meanwhile those people in Mexico city signed the peace. Basically Gomez Fariaz begged him to return, take command of the army, and drive the Americans away believing that he is the only one who can basically do the job right, as the other officers are basically either to radical or reactionary and too old or to inexperienced. It was him chosen so that the Mexicans would have a united front.
He orchestrated the Gadsden purchase due to pressure from the Mr Gadsden who antagonized him and threatened war, basically another half of Mexico getting invaded by US troops if he did not sign in. Have other people be sent and Santa Anna would not even bother signing that treaty and would rather ignore that guy.
He was President ELEVEN times, only one of those did he serve more than a year. I’m only two of them did he last longer than six months. That isn’t stability.
Only in the last time he decided to stay in power, he basically went and went out of power voluntarily as soon as he can.
He was in Puebla getting his ass kicked, and then was replaced. Remember, he lost at Huamantla, basically trashing what was left of Mexico’s regular army, and got fired. Which makes sense; if your “bestest greatest general” is incapable of winning a single victory against the enemy, and is burning away what forces you have left, and failed to defend the capital, you fire him.
Mexico city campaign was a failure due to the lack of cooperation of the Mexicans as Santa Anna was basically trying to make a coordinated defense of the capitol meanwhile the other officers and Generals basically ignored his orders and lead their men to disaster instead of following the plan. Buenna vista was lost because congress begged him to return to Mexico city to supress a revolt and coup orchestrated by the Radical Liberals. he was about to win
Last edited:
Santa Anna withdrew from Buena Vista because his army was exhausted, out of food, and about to collapse. Hmm...where have we heard that happening to Santa Anna's army before...?
And this was a battle where he outnumbered the Americans THREE to ONE. Not being able to win such an engagement, no matter what reason gets claimed, is a sign of incompetence, not bad luck.
Given the almost open sabotage of Scott's campaign by the Polk administration, it seems unfathomable that the Mexican Army wasn't able to win. The Taylor campaign further north, less so, as at least there the Americans had a real supply line and a steady stream of reinforcement. Not so around Mexico City.
As for Santa Anna's popularity, I suppose he suppressed many rebellions, if not all of them, and was active in the Pastry War. But frankly I question if his popularity wasn't overstated, it was never a long tenure for him and he wasn't popular with the liberals or the reactionaries.
I have to agree with wvc215 here, Santa Anna's multiple reigns were by no means "stable". Santa Anna would act as a stabilizing factor when he assumed the presidency as a compromise candidate. But just as often he would serve as a destabilizing factor when he assumed the presidency by force.
On one hand, he kept Mexico together by force preventing the secession of the Rio Grande Republic, Yucatan, and Walker's incursion into Sonora. On the other hand, the separatist movements began in response to his rule. He was also unable to keep Texas. So he wasn't 100% successful in this regard.
Finally, after the Mexican-American War, and before Santa Anna's 11th Presidency (the only one that lasted over a year). Mexico did enjoy a brief respite of stability. Jose Joaquin Herrera, a moderate, was elected President and served a full term from 1848 - 1851. He was the first President to do so since Guadalupe Victoria. Herrera was succeeded by Mariano Arista, who almost served a full term (1851 - 1853) before he was forced to resign by the coup that brought Santa Anna back to power.
If we eliminate Santa Anna's last Presidency, it is likely Arista will finish his term. Granted, Arista was no saint and his hotheadedness would likely cause some trouble. Thus we have no way of knowing how long this calm would last. However, the events that led to the Ayutla Revolution, the Second Mexican Empire, and the Reform War would be butterflied away.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
To emphasize that point, Santa Anna's career wouldn't have been possible without Napoléon's (failed) takeover of the Spanish Empire, which enabled Spain's colonies to rebel in the first place. Without Napoléon trying to place his brother on the Spanish throne, Mexican independence would have been avoided or at least significantly delayed. With Mexican independence happening much later and in a pretty different way, Santa Anna's career would also be altered in a quite meaningful way. After all, the crown in Madrid won't stand for 11 presidencies of señor Santa Anna.
Arista would most likely get overthrown like iotl as he is too much of a radical to many conservatives If we avoid Santa Anna, best case scenario is that a moderate conservative candidate takes his place.