The eighteen months of Iturbide's rule is one of the most fascinating periods in Mexico's history, for it was then that leaders of the new society had to face the challenge of creating a government and forging a nation out of a vast territory that was until then a colony of Spain.
Timothy E. Anna, 19901
The Plan of Iguala and the Treaty of Cordoba laid the groundwork for Mexico’s first government, which was largely copied from the Spanish model. These documents provided for a Sovereign Provisional Junta, which functioned until the election of a Congress, and for a Council of Regency, which served as an executive body. At its first session, the Junta chose five men to serve on the Council of Regency and named Iturbide as its president. For the next eight months, Iturbide ruled the country as president of the Regency.2
In accordance with the Treaty of Cordoba and the Plan of Iguala, elections were held for a unicameral Congress, which first met in February 1822. As had been the case with the Cortes, three-tier elections selected Congressional representatives. Common citizens only voted for electors, who then chose another elector at the district level. Electors chosen at the district level then met to choose a representative to Congress. Those establishing these rules assumed that members of local elites would be chosen in the first round of voting and that these electors would keep power in the hands of the elite. This permitted the enfranchisement of the masses without their empowerment.3
On the night of May 18, 1822, a Mexico City army garrison declared Iturbide to be emperor of Mexico. Mass demonstrations in the streets supported Iturbide’s ascension to the throne. That night, Iturbide declined to accept the Crown. The next day, the sixty-two highest ranking military officers in the capital called on Congress to proclaim Iturbide as emperor.4
On May 19, Congress met in special session to consider proclaiming Iturbide emperor. As Iturbide made his way to the session through crowds in the streets, celebrants unhitched his horses and pulled his carriage to the Congressional hearings.5
That same day, under pressure from the mobs and the military, Congress declared Iturbide as emperor of Mexico. For a short period, Congress and the new emperor enjoyed a political honeymoon. On May 23, Congress bestowed Iturbide with the title “Agustin, by Divine Providence and by the Congress of the Nation, the First Constitutional Emperor of Mexico.” Congress even added the date of Iturbide’s election, May 19, to the list of national holidays, along with the emperor’s birthday and those of his children.6
Congress’s embracing of Iturbide reflected the prevailing national mood. Liberal historian Lorenzo de Zavala reported that support for Iturbide becoming emperor came from “the clergy, the miserable nobility of the country, the army in its greater part, and the common people who saw in that chief nothing more than the liberator of their country.” As has been repeatedly noted since, that constituted the majority of Mexico’s population.7
The honeymoon between Congress and Iturbide was short-lived. In its haste to proclaim Iturbide emperor, Congress did not specify what powers he would be delegated. Apparently its members had assumed that the restrictions placed on the Spanish monarch by the 1812 Spanish constitution would also apply to Iturbide. Congress declared Iturbide had no veto power over its legislation, while Iturbide claimed he did. Similarly, a dispute arose when both Congress and Iturbide claimed the power to appoint supreme court justices. There soon emerged what has been termed a crisis of “dual sovereignty,” with both Congress and Iturbide claiming ultimate power.8
Congress had assumed Iturbide would serve as a constitutional monarch. However, after his coronation, Mexico’s new emperor proved incapable of restraint and plunged into partisan politics. He became one of the first Latin American military dictators and soon began closing critical newspapers and jailing their writers and dissenting legislators.9
Eight months after its convening, Congress had made no progress at writing a constitution nor had it devised a way to finance the newly independent government. Since Iturbide considered Congress obstinate, unrepresentative of the national will, and incapable of directing the nation, on October 31, 1822, he simply dissolved it, threatening the use of military force if its members did not accept his decree. Iturbide described his motivation for dissolving Congress: “Being responsible for perfecting the work that I began and which the nation by its general vote confided in me, I cannot permit [Congress] to ruin [this work.]”10
After the abolition of Congress, a semblance of normalcy settled over Mexico. Iturbide observed, “At this period, the empire was tranquil, the government was actively engaged in consolidating the public prosperity, and our interior grievances were removed.”11
During 1822, Iturbide received many letters accusing Brigadier Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the commander of the port of Veracruz, of insubordination, unjust acts, and embezzlement of regimental funds. In response, Iturbide summoned Santa Anna to Jalapa, located between Mexico City and the port of Veracruz, and personally informed him that he had been relieved of his command. Iturbide felt he had resolved the matter, not realizing that he had come up against the all-time political survivor of Mexican history.12
Before news of his having been relieved of command arrived in Veracruz, the twenty-eight-year-old Santa Anna raced back to the port and launched a rebellion. On December 6, 1822, he issued a verbose, poorly organized political declaration known as the Plan of Veracruz, which called for restoring the dissolved Congress. Santa Anna’s plan was so muddled that the Iturbide government published it in Mexico City in an attempt to discredit him.13
Iturbide ordered General Jose Antonio Echavarri, the commander of troops in the states of Veracruz, Puebla, and Oaxaca, to capture the port of Veracruz, which Santa Anna continued to control. Rather than attacking Santa Anna, who had better artillery and whose troops had higher morale than his own, Echavarri issued the Plan of Casa Mata, which called for the election of a new Congress, with one deputy for each 100,000 population. By basing representation on population he sought to eliminate the overrepresentation Mexico’s sparsely populated north had enjoyed in the initial Congress. Echavarri apparently assumed that a new Congress, with each member representing the same number of people, would restore confidence in government. Significantly, both plans, rather than calling for Iturbide’s removal, only sought to limit his power.14
The Plan of Casa Mata struck a chord with a wide range of provincial and regional interest groups that had been asking why, if power was transferred from Spain to Mexico City, it should not be transferred from Mexico City to regional centers such as Veracruz and Durango. Article 10 of the Plan of Casa Mata played to these interests by declaring that until the election of a new Congress, the provincial deputations would administer the country.15
The Plan of Casa Mata rapidly attracted followers, just as the Plan of Iguala had two years earlier. After issuing his Plan, Echavarri joined forces with Santa Anna. Many regional commanders
Supported the Plan because it decentralized the army command, facilitating the advancement of junior officers. The Plan not only challenged Iturbide’s absolutism, but represented a major power shift from the old colonial center of power, Mexico City, to the provinces.16
The conflicting demands on Iturbide complicated his response. Some sought the restoration of the dissolved Congress; others demanded that a new Congress be elected. The emperor decided not to fight the rebels. His war record clearly indicates his decision did not result from cowardice. Perhaps his decision reflected his fear of anarchy, of plunging the nation into civil war.17
On March 19, 1823, Iturbide submitted his abdication. Even though none of the forces opposing him had demanded his removal, when faced with the choice of compromise or abdication, Iturbide chose the latter. Iturbide fell from grace so rapidly and so completely because he had forgotten where independence had come from and what had caused it. He turned his back on the provinces and threatened provincial autonomy, especially by dissolving Congress, which represented the interests of the provincial elites. His scornful treatment of former insurgents ensured they would not rally to his defense.18
With Iturbide’s abdication, the question of how to organize the nation still remained unanswered. Historian Nettie Lee Benson wrote, “By the middle of March, 1823, Mexico, instead of being a united country, was broken into virtually autonomous provinces.” The Plan of Casa Mata not only effectively destroyed the central government but it created a power vacuum that would not soon be filled. None of the leaders who followed Iturbide had the degree of public support that he himself had enjoyed.19
After his abdication, Iturbide sailed to exile in Italy. He soon tired of inaction there and moved to England, where he received letters from Mexico urging him to return. When news arrived that several of Mexico’s states had proclaimed themselves sovereign, Iturbide saw this as the prelude to the balkanization of Mexico. As a result, he decided to return to assist in uniting his country. He left a letter with British Foreign Secretary George Canning declaring that, on the invitation of several groups, he was returning to help consolidate an effective government. He specifically disavowed any intention of reestablishing his empire.20
On July 14, 1824, Iturbide landed at Soto la Marina on Mexico’s northeast coast. Unknown to him, two weeks before he left England, the Mexican government had decreed that if Iturbide as much as set foot on Mexican soil, he should be subject to the death penalty. Such a measure attempted to prevent Iturbide from enacting a Napoleonic return from Elba to reclaim the Mexican throne.
Authorities took Iturbide into custody and transferred him to Padilla, where the Tamaulipas legislature met. Adhering to strict legality, the legislature declared the law clearly indicated that Iturbide should be executed merely for having returned to Mexico. He was not even accused of any other offense.21
Iturbide was executed by firing squad and buried in Padilla’s roofless parish church. He underwent partial posthumous rehabilitation in 1838 when his remains were taken to Mexico City and buried in a chapel. His epitaph read:
Agustin de Iturbide,
Author of Mexican Independence.
Compatriot, weep for him.
Passerby, admire him.
This monument guards the ashes of a hero.
His soul rests in the bosom of God.22
Mexicans remember Iturbide more for his faults than for his contribution to their independence. His household expenses were nearly five times those of the viceroys. His dissolving Congress not only indicated disdain for democracy but provided a concrete issue for his enemies to rally around.
He compounded the new government’s financial problems by lowering taxes to increase his popularity. Finally, Iturbide failed to accommodate the newly empowered provincial elites.23
Iturbide faced many grave problems, such as financing his government, that would stymie Mexico’s leaders until the latter part of the century. During the period that Iturbide led Mexico, members of the elite, the only Mexicans with liquid capital, were loath to support the government financially. None of the governments in succeeding years managed their finances more effectively, but at the time this could not be foreseen. After Santa Anna challenged him, the provincial elite, which correctly perceived the Plan of Casa Mata as their key to empowerment, overwhelmed Iturbide’s support among senior army officers, high clergy, the colonial nobility, and Mexico City plutocrats.24
World History
