I've been doing some reading on these topics recently, and I have a few questions for you guys.
To start with, I've started reading The View From Chapultepec by Cecil Robinson, and, while I've only worked my way through the introduction so far, I have found the book to be very interesting. It presents the Mexican American War from the point of view of the Mexican people, and the general view of the Mexican people, at least the intellectuals, is that this war, and the culture that the criollos established with their grasping for wealth, prestige and power early in the formation of the Mexican state.
It also places Santa Anna as a "personification and caricature" of the criollo era. Apparently, he is blamed for much of the problems with Mexico, and even with the loss of the war. It seems, however, that he was, although cruel, vain, and greedy, a very competent general, able to raise several armies fairly quickly, and also seeming to have lost his battle with Zachary Taylor because he thought that he was losing, and so retreated, allowing Taylor to win by default, and losing his battle with Winfield Scott because of political intrigue, in that a Mexican general who was a political opponent of his refused to move his troops into the position that Santa Anna requested. All in all, he seems like one of the more fascinating people that I have read about.
So, in light of all of this, my questions are:
Do you think that the Mexican American War, and the messy political state of Mexico's political independence still has wide ranging impact on Mexico?
How much of Santa Anna's reputation, in your opinion, is propaganda, and how much is true?
I will readily admit that I am just now starting to study this matter, and so welcome any corrections of view that you may have.
Although I do not claim to be an expert on contemporary (meaning post-conquest) Mexican history, I think I may be able to help you with some of your inquiries. I wouldn’t solely blame Santa Anna for the debacle of the war on the Mexican side. The 19th century was a very chaotic time for Mexico, full of coup d’etats (levantamientos) political fragmentation, insularism towards the capital (Mexico City) merge with vivid regionalism, and wide socioeconomic chaos (it is sometimes called “el siglo del desmadre”). This is not to say that USA was a cohesive entity. However, as argue by Lee Benson and also by Velasco Marquez, westward expansion played a significant role in bringing together its various factions. This is something that Mexico lacked, a clear unity under a specific ideology. In fact, there was more partidismo (loyalty towards a political faction) than nationalism. This is clearly exemplified in the figure of Paredes who, while Zachary Taylor was already threatening the border, marched his army to Mexico city to take control of the government. Another example of this is that in May of 1847, while Winfield Scott was in Puebla ready to start the invasion of Mexico City, the Mexican congress was debating whether to restore federalism. Another situation that weaken a Mexican defense was the profound regionalism inherited from la Colonia. The states denied help to the federal government to raise an army, based on the idea that it was better to secure state territories that Mexican territory. In fact, the governor of Zacatecas was of the idea of not only declare independence from Mexico, but to join the USA. In other words, there was no Mexican nation, but rather a loose connection of States that share common histories.