"Your favorite post-independence Mexican Head of state" Topic

This refers to Mexican heads of states/heads of goverment in the post 1821 period. It also refers to internationally recognized governments (thus tears for Villistas and Maximilianistas). I list the more well known ones, but feel to offer suggestions.

1) Agustín de Iturbide, Emperor
2)Antonio López de Santa Anna, President
3) Benito Juarez, President
4)Porfirio Diaz, President
5)Fransesco Madero, President
6)Victoriano Huerta, Dictator
7) Venustiano Carranza, President
8)Adolfo De La Huerta, President
9)Alvaro Obregon, President
10) Another (please note)
11) None of them
12) His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, Protector of Mexico
13) I have no idea who these people are
14) Who cares?
15) The devil take your questions!

For me it is between 3) and 7)

I knew exactly two names on the list (2&3). I've lived in Texas my whole life and know almost none of the history of Mexico. I think I need to find a nice overview of Mexican history since the Spanish invasion.

3 reason being, this gal at work saw on the calendar that his Birtday was such and such date. She went and bought s cake the color of the Mecican flag and we celebrated his birthday.

El Chapo?

Viva Juarez!

Juarez, though I have a soft spot for Obregon, who lost his arm to artillery during the Revolution. And not that far back his family name had been spelled O'Brian.

Diaz and Huerta? No dictators for me, please.

I do like Diaz' quote, "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the US".

Obregon I guess since we are asked about heads of state.

My favorite in the Revolution though would be Emiliano Zapata, champion of the peasantry who did not try and enrich himself during this period.

Well,best for Mexico might well be Juarez. Best for wargamers would have to be Santa Anna.

It must be said, though, that Norton I was probably better for the average Mexican than most of their rulers. Is there any chance someone from a collateral line--for I believe His Majesty was childless--could ascend to the Silicon Throne of California following Calexit?

I have great hopes for Calexit.

Juarez with Madero a distant second.

Juarez.

Never heard of any of 'em except Santa Anna. And I've only heard of him because John Wayne and Richard Widmark kept talking about the feller…

I'm with KTravlos. If for no other reason, you should like Carranza because of his extraordinary facial hair: link

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, Protector of Mexico

Juarez.

Scared me,Robert. I thought Norton I had shuffled off this mortal coil while I wasn't watching. He's still with us, Said to have two children by his first wife. Perhaps not heirs.

Calexit, eh?

3) Benito Juarez, President

I do not have any favorite Mexican president as I just do not have the personal involvement to become attached If you talk about interesting characters then Dias is the guy. He hung in for 27 years Note i am not praising or condemning him just saying he had a noteworthy career.

He should be remembered if only for the statement he made which goes ""Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States." as others have said here

This is the Emperor Norton I was thinking of

link

Is there another?

Benito Juarez, for the win!

TVAG

Alvaro Obregon, President

Emperor Maximillian I. The only one who cared at all about the ordinary people of Mexico.

Emperor Maximillian I. The only one who cared at all about the ordinary people of Mexico.

You're kidding right? When on Earth did Maximillian care more about the Mexican People than Benito Juarez did? True he extended several of the reforms, that existed before the French took over Mexico, reforms however that had been started by Juarez, the legitimate President of Mexico.

Yeah. I like Maximilian, but he was not an elected president, or had the legitimacy of Iturbide. Many of the reforms he extended were as Jowday points out done by Juarez, and in the end the important land reform was consummated by Carranza, and the presidents that followed him.

Not kidding at all. Unlike politicians, royalty already have enough cash not to bother about robbing the poor and feathering their own nests. Being an elected president does not provide more legitimacy than a monarchy. The truth is that we don't know what Maximilian would have achieved, but he would not have been a dictator like Diaz.

3.

The idea that Maximilian had cash of his own is quite frankly ridiculous.

1) Franz-Joseph was very opposed to the whole enterprise and did not permit Hapsburg state funds to be expended in it.

2) Maximilian thus had to rely on private support, from aristocrats who made most of their money from current or past taxes of serfs.

3) His main financial backers were mainly Napoleon III, and Leopold I. Napoleon III had no money of his own. The money he used was French state money, raised by taxation. Leopold I had some money of his own, itself the results of several centuries of taxes.

4) Maximilian was forced to rely on the conservative clique around Miramon, who all made their money by exploiting the peasants. Sure they did not tax them like a state, they just took the goods like feudal overlords.

5)And when Napoleon III pulled the plug, Maximilian pretty much ran out of money.

" Being an elected president does not provide more legitimacy than a monarchy."

It does in a country were the constitutions says the head of state is an elected president. Until Maximilian won, he was a usurper. Once he won he could change the constitution and take the mantle of legitimacy.But until that point he was an usurper.

Indeed everything in Mexican history points to a Maximilian regime imposed by force, either ending in his death or flight in a coup by the conservatives (if he pursued Juarista policies), or essentially a porfiriato style regime.

I fear you are letting your political prejudices get the better of you.

Excuse me Robert, I thought you were talking of the Norton of Norton Utilities. That silicon throne reference threw me.

Santa Anna.

What about Pena-Neto? He became my favorite when he told my president to go to hell when asked to pay for that stupid wall

Know a bit about 2), heard of 3), and 5) sounded vaguely familiar. Not heard of 6) and 8), but did recognise the name as a food brand. Slightly confused about how many of them "cared more for the Mexican people than any of the others".

Emperor Norton I sounds an absolute hoot, with exactly the level of weird but charming eccentricity befitting the only Englishman in the list.

Overall, more 13) than 14), but only because I like quirky history, not because I like, or dislike, Mexico.

The Next One

Plutarco Elias Calles – a man who richly deserves a much greater degree of notoriety.

B

Note though that Norton was Emperor of the United States, not Mexico. He was merely "Protector of Mexico" (and a darn good bridge designer!) As for Maximilian, there are several versions – the well-meaning one in "Juarez", the wily pompous sneak in "Vera Cruz", or the unseen but implicitly tyrannical villain in "Major Dundee" (and a passable designer of palace guard uniforms)He also tried to gain a semblance of legitimacy by adopting Iturbide's grandson. And Norton was Emperor from 1859 to 1880 while Maximilian was Emperor from 1864 to 1867. Perhaps Norton was trying to "protect" Mexico from a rival Emperor?