In Santa Anna’s memoirs, he recalls multiple uprisings and changes in power, such as Bustamante’s failures and Paredes’ rebellion. Although written as a neutral viewpoint, it is apparent that Santa Anna has built his career on taking advantage of such opportunities, and justifying his actions by claiming to “sacrifice [himself] to the public good”1. This is evident by the fact that while Santa Anna was in and around positions of power, chaos still ensued in Mexico, with constant revolts and a perpetual state of distress, pointing to poor leadership and decision making, and thus the conclusion that he was never elected based on his skills, but for his charismatic, bold personality. Santa Anna’s memoirs paint the picture of a hero, answering the call of duty for his country, but, by examining the context and biases of his writings, it is apparent that he more resembles an opportunist who may have had his own interests at highest …show more content…
History is often shaped by those who wish to stand up and make a change, with America being no different. Antonio López de Santa Anna and Simón Bolívar were two uniquely driven individuals, who, despite having differing visions and journeys to power, greatly impacted and essentially created the Central and South America of the modern day. It simply goes to show that history bears no bias between the morally correct and the morally