As a native-born Texan, Texas history has been taught to me at an early age. It is a required subject at several points during school. It is also a major part of Texas’ culture.
One part of the Texas Revolution has always puzzled me. Why did Santa Ana himself go to Texas? He was the head of the Mexican government. Why did he go thousands of miles from Mexico City to put down a rebellion? Wasn’t he worried that people in the capitol would take advantage of his absence? I would worry that, while I was galavanting around in Texas, my enemies would take over Mexico City and I wouldn’t be permitted to return. So, why didn’t Santa Ana send his army into Texas led by someone loyal to him. Clearly, he needed to address the situation in Texas, but why did he personally go?
In the Texas Capitol Building, there is a very large painting of Santa Ana surrendering to Sam Houston. In the picture Santa Ana is dressed in a private’s uniform, because he had hoped to escape capture. This has always struck me as a rather low point for Santa Ana that he could have avoided had he stayed home. Some underling could have given the surrender, should one have been needed.
One reason is good PR - a leader should lead. I think in the US it was sometime after the war of 1812 that it was determined that the President shouldn’t command in the field.
A second reason might be a lack of competent generals.
Even if you have competent generals, if you fear a coup it is probably best not to send the vast majority of the army off with a different general.
Yeah, a victorious general returning at the head of a blooded army is probably not want you want if you fear a coup. Regardless of this though, coups and counter-coups occurred regularly in Mexico at this time. Santa Ana himself was president an astonishing eleven times over a period of a bit over twenty years.
It just seems odd to me to have the head of state leading the charge. Maybe it wasn’t so odd in the early nineteenth century. Today, we didn’t send Bush to Iraq, or Nixon to Vietnam, or Roosevelt to the Pacific. They send trusted generals off to do the fighting.
Maybe we would have a lot fewer (and shorter) wars if the “leaders” who start them had to remain in the field as long as the soldiers fighting them.
George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, led the forces sent to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. When he got closer to the actual “rebellion” and was able to accurately assess the situation, he sent the army on without him to perform the actual capture of the ringleaders, but it is quite possible that if he had found Western Pennsylvania in general rebellion, he might have led/accompanied the forces, himself.
Contemporary accounts of Santa Anna report that he often referred to himself as “The Napoleon Of The West.” Plainly, he thought quite a bit of himself and his generaling, thank you very much.
It could be argued that sacrificing half his army in order to wipe out fewer than two hundred diehards in a fortified position that was miles out of his way and of no real strategic importance was a bad tactical move, and indicative of some incompetence on the part of a tactician…
…but contemporary reports indicate that Santa Anna pretty much thought he was dealing with undisciplined rabble with no military training, little or no artillery, and no real chain of command. It’s a safe bet that he figured he could clean their clocks personally, grab all the glory for himself, cement his reputation both as a brilliant military leader and statesman and Guy You Don’t Wanna Mess With, and then meander home, having personally eradicated American colonial ambitions in Texas.
The fact that I, an American, am writing this as I sit practically near enough to the Alamo to throw rocks at it, would seem indicative, again, of no little incompetence on Santa Anna’s part, as well as a considerable failure of military intelligence regarding the situation.
There is a lesson here for career politicians who would seek military adventure for fun and profit, yes?
Probably not. In addition to the good point that was made about Washington, remember that at the time there were still many people alive who remembered Napoleon. As mentioned, Santa Anna modelled himself on Napoleon, who certainly didn’t leave it up to underlings to do the generalling.
I’ve read (in passing, I can’t cite, sorry, maybe I’m wrong) that there aren’t any real clear records of the quantities that Santa Anna lost, and that the most accurate data that is available indicates that it wasn’t very many of his troops.
Not that I care – as I always tell my (Mexican) wife: that’s something between the independant Republic of Texas and Mexico.
On the plus side, she does say that aside from losing Mexico, Santa Anna’s popularly regarded as “that bastard that sold out Mexico.”
After losing the Mexican-American War which cost Mexico a vast amount of territory, he was responsible for selling the land known as the Gadsen Purchase. Shortly after, he was unseated for the last time. I believe he never even was able to return to Mexico, spending the rest of his life in exile.
Sort of weird to be undone by something like the Gadsden Purchase, but it did show how the importance of that land was viewed by each side.
Most likely most Americans in 1853 didn’t know much about a far off land and would likely never set foot in it.
But to Mexico, Santa Anna was selling out even more of their country. Although the territory was a fraction compared to the cession of land in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
