The War Room

Santa Ana's response to the suppression of rebellion in Tejas by foreigners would have some justification. His subsequent murder of unarmed prisoners such as at Goliad should have brought him to trial for war crimes against any humanity. Some sort of accountability would have been justified in my opinion. History has shown that those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them. The subsequent Mexican War led by Santa Ana proves the point. No one should give a despot tyrant a second chance!

From: John Bryant
Date: 12/14/99

If Houston had allowed Santa Anna's execution, a new president/dictator would have arisen in Mexico many hundreds of miles away and not under the control of the foundling government in Texas. By keeping Santa Anna alive, many concessions were made by him that would not have been possible if Texas had been dealing with another person in power who was also giving orders to the armies present in Texas.

General Filisola followed Santa Anna's orders and withdrew the Mexican troops from Texas, a move for which he was accused of being a coward. If Santa Anna had been dead, technically Filisola would have been in charge of all the armies on Texas soil. Would he have withdrawn without orders? That's open to debate, but because Santa Anna was alive, Filisola followed orders and the Republic of Texas got the chance it needed. I can well understand sentiment being high for El Presidente's death but the right choice was made in assuring his survival.

Before deciding [Santa Anna's fate], however, Houston called a council. Under no other circumstances would the Texans have treated with him and done aught but order Santa Anna to be shot by the quarter-guard for his slaughter of Fanning's men, but the certainty that Filasola, an accomplished Italian in the Mexican service, was marching towards them at the head of a force more numerous than theirs induced deliberation. It was determined, consequently that the president and the captured army should be released and permitted to return to Mexico.

Santa Anna was permitted to visit Washington city, and was sent home in a man-of-war at the expense of the people of the United States. It need not be said that Mexico violated every promise made to Houston, under the plea that Santa Anna was in duress, and therefore not competent to act. It is a matter of surprise that the Texans did not shoot Santa Anna, and it cannot be denied they would have been justified in doing so. They acted, however, more humanely, and thus giving him his life.

There is a story told by an interesting French writer in relation to this circumstance, which is altogether too epigrammatic to be true. While the council of war discussed the disposition to be made of the captive president, an old man rose and said:

"We are at war with Mexico, and it is our duty to do all we can to injure her. Santa Anna has for a number of years tyrannized over his country, and nearly ruined it. Let us release him, he will return thither and in a few years Mexico will be too feeble to give us any trouble."

--From Mexico and Her Military Chieftains by Fay Robinson, published 1847.

Nota bene: After release Santa Anna became President and Dictator of Mexico 7 times more over 40 more years, with periodic exile of total 20 years.....ca. 1874 an old forgotten man with a wooden leg hobbled down the steps of Mexico's holiest shrine after being allowed to kiss the image of Our Lady Of Guadalupe, ills rapidly increased, total blindness set in and then complete senility.....El Presidente died penniless on June the 21st, 1876 at age 84.

His capture was the only thing that prevented the Mexican Army from finishing [their] campaign. Another commander, like Urrea or Filisola probably wouldn't have let up on the Americans until they were completely run out of the territory. As for the orders to execute the prisoners, I think it was a poor choice but not necessarily one that was that unusual for the times. During the Napoleonic Wars, the French and their Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Prussian enemies often showed no mercy toward each other. As far as the Alamo defenders, it had been a long standing principle of warfare that if a fortress had to be taken by storm, that their would be little mercy shown to the defenders. One could argue that Goliad was a different issue and I would agree, however, most of the "Texan" forces were not even residents of Texas and their sole purpose in being there was to take Texas from Mexico. I think a more prudent choice would have been to imprison their captives and possibly try them for piracy or insurrection in a Mexican court. Santa Anna would have certainly been better off in the long run.

No. He was the President of the Mexican Republic who assumed emergency powers to resolve an intrastate (ie . Coahila-Tejas) conflict and was empowered by the Mexican Congress to preserve the Republic at any cost. Given the same situation of a rebellous American state, the U. S. would also sent troops to preserve the Republic.

I believe Santa Anna should have been tried for crimes against humanity, and if found guilty, put to death.