My family owns a ranch in south Texas, within 100 miles of the Mexican border. Recently, it occurred to me that I knew very little about Mexican history. I knew that it was previously inhabited by the Aztecs, who were conquered by the Spanish conquistadores. I knew that at some point in the 19th century, the Mexican’s won independence. I knew of the Alamo and Texas independence. I knew about the Mexican-American War and the Gadsden Purchase. I knew of the short reign of Maximillian. That’s about it.

When I read that Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna had served as President of Mexico on six different occasions, it seemed like a biography on his life would serve to go a long way toward educating myself on 19th century Mexican history. In that respect, the book was a success.

In his introduction, the author points out that Santa Anna is a reviled figure in Mexican history. He sets out his intention to write a revisionist history, in effect attempting to rehabilitate his image. I was put off by this approach and felt that taking such a pre-conceived stance would generate a hagiography. I’ve got to say, if this is a hagiography, Santa Anna must have been a pretty miserable human being.

What Santa Anna was, more than anything, was a political chameleon. He tailored his political views and actions to whatever appeared to be the most popular stance for the time. He was by turns, a monarchist, a republican, a federalist and a supporter of strong centralized government, all depending upon which view led to the easiest access to power.

He was a key figure in the Mexican War for independence in the 1820s. On numerous instances, he led troops into battle on behalf of the Mexican Republic, losing his leg in one instance. However, he also lost the Texas War, ceded the territory known as the Gadsden Purchase and ultimately supported the reign of Maximillian, this final step being the event that led to his current poor reputation among Mexican historians.

Throughout his eventful and very flexible political career, Santa Anna served as President, or dictator on at least six different occasions. Each time, he spent little time in the capital, preferring instead to turn over operation of the government to others while he stayed on his ranches near Veracruz, his power base.

A review of post-independence Mexican political history is depressing in the extreme, not just in hindsight, but in the view of many during the 19th century, including Santa Anna. Virtually every government during the period served for only a short time before being overthrown in civil war. It was this never ending succession of short political regimes that convinced Santa Anna that the Mexican people were incapable of governing themselves and that a monarchy was the only solution, leading to the short, disastrous reign of Maximillian, and the current poor reputation of Santa Anna.

The author is probably correct that Santa Anna is undeserving of complete scorn and should be viewed in the context of the period in which he operated. It cannot be argued however, that Santa Anna was not an opportunist, with few firm political principles. If the federalists were in power, he led the opposition to overthrow them. Later, when the centralists were in power, he led the federalists. The same for republican and monarchist regimes. He was always available, with the help of his Veracruz power base to oust whatever regime was in power at the time.

I can endorse this book as a good overview of Mexican history from roughly 1820-1870. In that regard, it served my purposes nicely. ( )