StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Their are two main points to this thread...

1-Could have Antonio López de Santa Anna been victorious in conquering Texas?
2-If this was the case, how would have history unfolded?

Zor

Santa Anna was born to lose, but I doubt anyone could have put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Spanish and Mexican governments invited Europeans and Americans to colonize Texas. The reason has to do with the main difference between the way Spain colonized the areas they conquered, and the way others (esp the English) did it. Spanish colonists wanted to make a killing, then go back to Spain rich. English colonists might have wanted to do that, but there were no Aztec or Inca cities filled with precious metals, so they had to stay long term and few, if any ever went home. This left the Spanish colonies without a functioning middle class of independent farmers and tradesmen. So Spain and later Mexico tried to rectify that by inviting such people to Texas, California and other Spanish holdings.

At first things went just fine, until the depression that hit in the 1830s. At that point, large numbers of desperate Americans, with nothing but bad soil and bad debts (or other legal problems) poured into Texas. The Mexican government accommodated them at first (even allowing slavery) but later tried to make them covert to the Catholic faith. Andrew Jackson seized on this and used the colonists as a fifth column (arming them) to try to grab Texas. Large numbers of Mexicans living in Texas despised Santa Anna as a tyrant and gladly joined the "Anglos". So by the time Santa Anna led his army into Texas, the only way he could have won would have been to drive the colonists out. The problem was, at that point there were far too many of them and they were far too well armed.

I'm almost certain that there was no way in hell Santa Anna could have pulled it off, but I also doubt that a competent leader could have done it. Odds are, I think it would have played out more or less the same with more and more gringos moving into the West and reaching a point where they no longer make any effort to assimilate and eventually they'd merge with the U.S.

A couple of things. First, whereas Andrew Jackson did indeed want to annex Texas, there's no evidence whatever that he had any direct role in precipitating the revolt. The approximate cause of the Texans' decision to pursue independence was Santa Anna's assumption of power and his revocation of the constitution, which signaled his intention to rule as a dictator from the center. Among other things, this meant that he was likely to make the Texan settlers abide by the terms that they agreed to when they immigrated--giving up their slaves, converting to Catholicism, etc. So they decided to fight.

So it's true that Texas was in revolt and little could have changed that, but it's also important to remember that Texas had tiny resources compared to Santa Anna. In fact the Texan victory is directly attributable to one battle, San Jacinto, which they only won because of Santa Anna's feckless leadership in dividing his forces and then allowing his main force to be ambushed and routed. Had Santa Anna kept his forces together and pressed Houston to battle, he would have heavily outnumbered the Texans and probably defeated them, allowing him to capture the rebel government and put an end to the organized revolt. Given the likelihood that he would have executed everybody he got his hands on and then ruled the province brutally, immigration to Texas would have stalled and relations with the US gone very sour. Almost certainly a later American government (like Polk) would have taken Texas off of Mexico anyway, but it wouldn't be the same Texas.

There might not be any direct evidence Jackson fomented the uprising, but he was hell bent on grabbing Texas and Sam Houston was his Mini-Me. Jackson wasn't alone. American expansionists had a hard-on for grabbing Texas as far back as Aaron Burr, even claiming the territory was part of the Louisiana Purchase. Jackson had already tried to get Texas from Mexico before the uprising. He might not have gone on record inciting the revolt, but he certainly allowed weapons and volunteers to flood in. The result: With the exception of artillery, the Texians had better weapons (rifles >>>>>>> smoothbores) than the Mexicans and in any event, the Mexican Army's big guns were seldom used effectively in the field during the rebellion or the Mexican War a decade later.

The Texians had other advantages. Santa Anna's well-earned reputation for brutality being one of them. After the massacres at the Alamo and Goliad and his "no prisoners" policy (which he was stupid enough to announce in public), France and Britain declared a hands-off position, effectively giving the Texians and their American supporters a free hand. Santa Anna had to put down revolts in other regions of Mexico, and also found his army being harried by Comanches (another group he pissed off) while marching them through Texas. On top of all that, his army was hit by a blizzard. In central Texas.


A competent Generalissimo might not have been so quick to bust the chops of the colonists. He might not have made it a point to torture and kill so many people and brag about it (Thanks for the warning General!). He might have also left a small unit behind to starve out the Alamo rather than wasting time with the bulk of his army surrounding a "fortress" that resembles a Taco Bell in size and design. Santa Anna was such a fuckup that there are probably dozens of things any amateur could have done better, as DeLa Peña's diary shows.

Someone smarter and less arrogant than Santa Anna might have pulled off what you describe, but such a person wasn't in charge.

Elfdart wrote: Someone smarter and less arrogant than Santa Anna might have pulled off what you describe, but such a person wasn't in charge.

Indeed, Santa Anna was extremely lacking in military and political skills. Had a competent general been in charge, it might have gone otherwise. However, that pretty much would have needed a whole different historical backdrop, starting a few decades earlier, perhaps even more, down to the esprit of Mexico. Meaning: had Mexico not been torn apart by internecine war lasting for decades under no stable, lasting government; had the not been selfish and guided by political gain (some Mexican generals didn't even provide backup or relief forces for other Mexican generals of rivalling factions in actual combat), it would have gone quite differently, As Mexico's own Luis González de Alba eloquently puts it: "historians told us that this was a war fought between the big and the small. That much is true, but actually, it was a small yet belligerant and determined David, against the southern Goliath, big and clumsy, Catholic and prayer-prone. The former relying on gun production, the latter on the Virgin of Guadalupe".

So, in such conditions, and just looking at the sheer potential manpower, resources and territory, it would have been quite feasible for the Mexican army not only to win that one war, but to march all the way to Washington and occupy it, had they deemed it necessary (to address the OP, in a way, because Santa Anna should be out of the question for this to work).

Nevertheless, as I mentioned before (and as with all Alternate History should bear in mind), it would have required Mexico to be very different in its very essence, as things that happen in history are direct effect of their causes -things that happen before that, which in turn are brought about by the other things that happen before them, inexorably. So, as some say, things happen the only way they can.

Nowadays, though, with Mexico ranking 12th in territory (nominal, National Geographic states that it's so mountanious that if its total surface were to be flattened it would cover all of Asia) and 12th at GDP (purchasing power parity) as of January 1st, 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook, I think such preocupations aren't significantly hindering said country's development.