Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:19:45.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle for the Nation: The First Centralist-Federalist Conflict in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Jaime E. Rodríguez O.
Jaime E. Rodríguez O.*
Affiliation:
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Mexico achieved its independence in September 1821, few imagined that the country would soon become a republic, much less a federal republic. The autonomists, the members of the national elite who gained power at independence, opted for a constitutional monarchy. They initially favored establishing an empire with the Spanish king or a member of the royal family as sovereign. When Spain rejected their proposal, and faced with “popular” demands, the country's political leaders reluctantly accepted a native, Agustín de Iturbide, as Mexico's first emperor. The new monarch, a former royalist commander, had gained immense popularity when he turned against the Spanish colonial regime and proclaimed independence under the Plan of Iguala.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , July 1992 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* An earlier version of this essay was presented at the VIII Conference of Mexican and North American Historians held in San Diego, California on October 18–21, 1990. Research for this article was made possible by a grant from the University of California, Irvine Academic Senate Committee on Research, the University of California President's Fellowship in the Humanities, and a Fulbright Research Fellowship. I am grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation for an opportunity to expand and revise this work at Villa Serbelloni, its Study and Conference Center, in Bellagio, Italy. I also thank Linda A. Rodríguez, William F. Sater, Virginia Guedea, and Kathryn L. Roberts for suggestions for improving this article.

1 Rodríguez O, Jaime E.. “From Royal Subject to Republican Citizen: The Role of the Autonomists in the Independence of Mexico,” in Rodríguez O, Jaime E., ed., The Independence of Mexico and the Creation of the New Nation (Los Angeles, 1989), 19–43.Google Scholar Alamán, Lucas, Historia de Méjico desde los primeros movimientos que prepararon su Independencia en el año de 1808 hasta la época presente, 5 vols. (Mexico, 1985), 5, 358–411,Google Scholar 466–488.

2 On the Provincial Deputations, consult Benson, Nettie Lee, La Diputación Provincial y el federalismo mexicano (Mexico, 1955).Google Scholar

3 Although scholars, such as Anna, Timothy, The Mexican Empire of Iturbide (Lincoln, 1990)Google Scholar, continue to attribute the Plan of Iguala solely to Iturbide and others, like Codinach, Guadalupe Jiménez, México en 1821: Dominique de Pradt y el Plan de Iguala (Mexico, 1982)Google Scholar, vainly seek foreign influences, it is evident that the idea of establishing autonomous monarchies within the Spanish Empire is much older. The Spanish imperial crisis of 1808 and the constitutional system that emerged in 1812 introduced the notion of constitutional monarchy, but the main outlines of the earlier concept continued to be accepted. New Spain’s elite had clearly reached a consensus on the question by 1821; that is why I have chosen to call it “their Plan of Iguala.” On that question see, for example, Benson, Nettie Lee, “Iturbide y los planes de independencia,” Historia Mexicana, 2:3 (enero-marzo 1953), 439–446.Google Scholar

4 Jaime E. Rodríguez O., “The Struggle for Dominance: The Legislature versus the Executive in Early Mexico,” paper presented at the conference on “The Mexican Wars of Independence, the Empire, and the Early Republic” held at the University of Calgary on April 4–5, 1991. On the elections to the First Constituent Congress, see Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 394–406;Google Scholar Barragán, José Barragán, Introducción al federalismo (Mexico, 1978), 11–20;Google Scholar and Anna, Timothy E., “The Iturbide Interregnum,” in Rodríguez, , ed., The Independence of Mexico, 193–195.Google Scholar

5 The members of the First Constituent Congress are conveniently listed in Valle’s, Lucina Moreno, Catàlogo de la Colección Lafragua (Mexico, 1975), 894–895.Google Scholar

6 Rodríguez, , “The Struggle for Dominance.” The conflict over the nature of sovereignty is clearly reflected in Diario de las sesiones de la Soberana Junta Provisional Gubernativa del Imperio Mexicano (Mexico, 1821), 6–7, 17–19Google Scholar; and the Actas del Congreso Constituyente Mexicano, 3 vols. (Mexico, 1823). Barragán Barragán provides a sympathetic analysis of the various legislative bodies during the 1821–1824 period in his Introducción al federalismo, while Anna presents the pro-Iturbide view in The Mexican Empire of Iturbide.

7 On the role of the military, see Archer, Christon I., 
“La Causa Buena’: The Counterinsurgency Army of New Spain and the Ten Years War,” in Rodríguez, , ed., The Independence of Mexico, 85–108;Google Scholar his “Militarism, Praetorianism, or Protection of Interests?: Changing Attitudes in the Royalist Army of New Spain, 1810–1821,” paper presented at the University of California, Los Angeles on April 26, 1989 [A shortened version of that essay appeared in “The Royalist Army of New Spain, 1810–1821: Militarism, Praetorianism, or Protection of Interests?,” Armed Forces & Society, 17:1 (Fall 1990), 99–116.]; and his “The Militarization of Mexican Politics: The Role of the Army, 1815–1821,” in Virginia Guedea and Rodríguez O., Jaime E., eds., Five Centuries of Mexican History/Mexico en el medio milenio (Mexico, forthcoming).Google Scholar

8 Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 755–759.Google Scholar

9 Benson, Nettie Lee, “The Plan of Casa Mata,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XXV (February 1945), 45–56;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 709–711.Google Scholar

10 José Morán, Marqués de Vivanco to Secretario de Relaciones Interiores, Mexico, April 23, 1823, Archivo General de la Nación (hereafter cited as AGN): Gobernación, Leg. 25, exp. 12 (62). Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 85.Google Scholar de Puebla, Junta, Acta de la Junta de Puebla sobre la reinstalación del Congreso Mexicano (Puebla, 1823).Google Scholar

11 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 167–198.Google Scholar

12 Carlos María de Bustamante’s views are clearly set forth in his diary. In referring to a meeting with the representatives of the provinces on April 4, 1823, he declared: “Esta es una facción de demagogos, que pretenden colocar a gran porción de clérigos y serviles [monarquistas] en la Legislatura que se prometen formar, pues saben que en la actual no tienen lugar sus desatinadas pretenciones. Ellos se explican con el furor de unos energúmenos, y desoyen toda razon que les muestra su temeridad. Tenemos en sólo estos hombres el gérmen de una espantosa revolución que el Congreso podrá cortar en su orígen, desengañando a las Provincias sorprendidas con buenos escritos, y abriendo una lid literaria en que triunfe la razón. Esta América va a ser un teatro de discordias excitadas por el Clero y Corporaciones aristócratas.” de Bustamante, Carlos María, Diario histórico de México (April 4, 1823), 3 tomos (Mexico, 1980–1982)Google Scholar, tomo 1, vol. 1, 216.

13 México. Constituyente, Congreso, Diario de las sesiones del Congreso Constituyente de México, 4 vols. (Mexico, 1823)Google Scholar, IV, 15, 20. (Hereafter cited as Diario del Congreso Constituyente).

14 Ibid., IV, 66–68. Rodríguez O, Jaime E., “La Constitución de 1824 y la formación del Estado mexicano,” Historia mexicana, 40:3 (enero-marzo 1991), 507–535.Google Scholar

15 The role of military leaders in local politics may be gleaned from reports of the localities. See, for example, the reports in AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 9, Caja 12 & Caja 13; and Gobernación, Legajo 1578, exp. 1.

16 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 151.Google Scholar

17 Contending groups often used portable presses to issue their publications immediately. See also Rodríguez, , “La Constitución de 1824,” 515–518.Google Scholar

18 See, for example, the reports of Ayuntamientos and provincial bodies in: AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 43; and Rodríguez, , “La Constitución de 1824,” 517–520.Google Scholar

19 The official documents of the new Mérida government were reprinted in Aguila mexicana, May 14, 1823; May 16, 1823; June 11, 1823; and June 21, 1823. See also “Junta Gubernativa de Mérida to Secretary of Relations,” July 12, 1823, AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 43, exp. 54; and Zanolli Fabila, Betty Luisa, “Liberalismo y monopolio: Orígenes del federalismo en las tierras del Mayab,” 2 vols. (Tesis de Licenciatura, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1989), 1, 158–176.Google Scholar

20 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 93–124;Google Scholar and Macune, Charles W., El Estado de México y la Federación Mexicana (Mexico, 1978), 15–18.Google Scholar

21 I am grateful to Virginia Guedea for information on the nature of political groups during the Independence, particularly the role of formal bodies, like the college of lawyers, the Ayuntamiento, and church organizations, in serving as vehicles for informal political coalitions. (Personal communication, December 5, 1990.) The politics in Mexico City during the early 1820s appear very similar to those of the Independence studied by Guedea, ; see her En busca de un gobierno alterno: los Guadalupes de México (Mexico, 1992).Google Scholar

22 Diario del Congreso Constituyente, IV, 48 [sic in error for 84]–122. Unfortunately, the records of the Supremo Poder Executivo provide little information about the decision making process; see Supremo Poder Executivo, “Resoluciones del Supremo Poder Executivo desde el lx de Abril de 1823 en que fue instalado,” AGN; Colección José López Portillo. The activities of the Diputación Provincial of Mexico, then housed in Mexico City, are more enlightening with regards to the nature politics at that time; see Mexico. Diputación Provincial, “Actas de la Diputación Provincial de México,” IV, f. 136v. & passim, Archivo de la Cámara de Díputados del Estado de México, Toluca. Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 759–760.Google Scholar

23 Alamán’s, Lucas views are clearly presented in his Historia de Méjico, 5, 755–805.Google Scholar

24 “Dictamen de la Comisión especial de convocatoria para un nuevo congreso,” Mexico, April 12, 1823, AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 54, exp. 9; Diario del Congreso Constituyente, IV, 137 & passim; “Representación de los comisionados de las provincias al soberano congreso,” in Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 321–323;Google Scholar Farías, Valentín Gómez, Voto particular del Sr. … como individuo de la comisión especial nombrada por el soberano congreso para examinar la question si debe o no convocar un nuevo congreso (Mexico, 1823);Google Scholar “A proposito del voto del Lic. Carlos María de Bustamante,” in Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 233–334.Google Scholar

25 “Representación de los comisionados de las provincias.” The signatories were: Martín García, Michoacán; Tomás Vargas & Victor Rafael Márquez, San Luis Potosí; Anastasio Ochoa, Querétaro; Prisciliano Sánchez & Juan Cayetano Portugal, Guadalajara; Francisco de Arrieta & Santos Vélez, Zacatecas; Juan Ignacio Godoy, Guanajuato; and Vicente Manero Embides, Oaxaca.

26 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 126.Google Scholar

27 See, for example, Puebla. Diputación Provincial, Representación que la … dirige al soberano congreso pidiendo se sirva a expedir nueva convocatoria (Puebla, 1823); Guadalajara. Junta Provincial, Disolución del congreso mexicano por el voto de los pueblos (Mexico, 1823); Querétaro. Ayuntamiento Constitucional, Contestación que dio … ala excma. Diputación Provincial manifeslatando su opinión sobre nueva convocatoria (Querétaro, 1823).

28 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 131–140.Google Scholar

29 “Resolución de la provincia de Guadalajara, y sucesos ocurridos en la misma,” Aguila mexicana, May 22, 1823; Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 259–261.Google Scholar

30 See the extensive documentation in “El Capital Gral. de la Provincia de Guadalajara, pidiendo se establesca el sistema de República Federal,” AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 47, exp. 24.

31 “Resoluciónes del Supremo Poder Executivo,” Diario del Congreso Constituyente, IV, 379–478; de Diputados, Cámara, Historia Parlamentaria, 2 vols. (Mexico, 1983), 1,Google Scholar 11–102; Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 760–765.Google Scholar

32 Diario del Congreso Constituyente, IV, 323–478.

33 “Manifiesto del Supremo Poder Executivo a la Nación,” May 16, 1823, AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 54, exp. 9. Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 130–131;Google Scholar Historia Parlamentaria, I, 12–27. The Plan is reproduced in Calvillo, Manuel, ed., La República Federal Mexicana, 8 vols. (Mexico, n.d.),Google Scholar II, 131–218.

34 Cited in Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 131.Google Scholar

35 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 254–261.Google Scholar I have relied extensively on Bustamante’s Diario for these events. It reflects what he believed at the time since the diaries were never intended for publication. Unfortunately, José María Bocanegra, Lorenzo de Zavala, and Lucas Alamán, as well as Carlos María de Bustamante, who were active participants in the government at the time, have little to say in their histories about these issues. The “Resoluciones del Supremo Poder Executivo” shed little light on those questions. In addition, the minutes of those special meetings do not appear in the normal sources, such as Mateos, Juan A., ed., Historia parlamentaria de los Congresos Mexicanos de 1821–1857, 25 vols. (Mexico, 1877–1912), 2;Google Scholar Aguila mexicana; Historia Parlamentaria, I; or in the Sesiones Secretas of the Historia parlamentaria, 2 vols., edited by Luis Muro (Mexico, 1982–84), I. It is as though there was a general agreement to eliminate these events from the national record.

36 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 258–261;Google Scholar Historia parlamentaria, I, 18–27.

37 “Acta de Oaxaca,” Aguila mexicana, June 23, 1823.

38 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 130–140.Google Scholar See also the documents published in the Aguila mexicana during May and June, 1823.

39 “Junta de Celaya de los Diputados de las Diputaciones Provinciales de Valladolid, Querétaro, Guanajuato y S. Luis Potosí,” AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 47, exp. 28.

40 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 263–264;Google Scholar Historia parlamentaria, I, 52–56; Aguila mexicana, June 3, 1823.

41 On this confusing episode, see “Sobre ocurrencias en S. Luís Potosí ocasionadas del Plan del Brigadier D. Antonio Santanna,” AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 58, exp. 1.

42 “Acta de la Junta de Celaya,” Aguila mexicana, July 12, 1823.

43 Antonio López de Santa Anna to Secretary of Relations, San Luis Potosí, July 1, 1823, AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 58, exp. 1.

44 Bocanegra, José María, Memorias para la historia de México independiente, 1822–1846, 3 vols. (Mexico, 1986), I, 221–224.Google Scholar

45 “Oficio de los Sres. Comisionados,” Celaya, July 12, 1823, AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 47, exp. 28.

46 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 254–59.Google Scholar

47 “Contestación entre el Señor Herrera y el Gobierno de Guadalajara,” in Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 1, 327–329.Google Scholar Cotner, Thomas Ewing, The Military and Political Career of José Joaquín de Herrera, 1792–1854 (Austin, 1949), 60.Google Scholar

48 “Nueva contestación del Gobierno de la Provincia de Guadalajara, sobre la convocatoria para el Congreso que debe constituir a la Nación,” AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 47, exp. 27. Bocanegra, , Memorias para la historia de México, 1, 225.Google Scholar Carlos María de Bustamante also expressed concern; he wrote in his diary: “Ha salido hoy en su totalidad, la expedición para San Luis Potosí; plegué a Dios no termine en Guadalajara.” Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 2, 9.Google Scholar

49 Nicolás Bravo, “Manifiesto al pueblo de México,” AGN: Gobernación, Sin Sección, Caja 48, exp. 9.

50 The state leaders of Jalisco and Zacatecas ordered the proceedings of the meetings in Lagos published immediately in their portable press so that all the country would be informed of their attempts to keep the peace while retaining their sovereignty. See Estado de Xalisco, Sesiones celebradas en la Villa de Lagos por los Sres. Comisionados del Exmo Sr. D. Nicolás Bravo General en Geje de la División de Operaciones del Ejército libertador con los de las Exmas. Diputaciones Provinciales de los Estados libres de Xalisco y Zacatecas para aclarar las equivocaciones que pudieron padecerse por el Gobierno Supremo de México y los particulares de ambos Estados en su pronunciamiento por su actual sistema de República Federada y disposiciones consiguientes. Imprimese de órden del Exmo. Sr. Gobernador D. Luis Quintanar para que la Nación se entere de la buena fé y honor con que han procedido las Comisiones en el arduo asunto que motivó sus discusiones, no teniendo presente para ellas mas objeto que el bien general de la Nación y el particular de los referidos Estados de Xalisco y Zacatecas (Lagos, 1823).

51 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 2, 31.Google Scholar

52 Bustamante, , Diario histórico, tomo 1, vol. 2, 39–40.Google Scholar

53 Benson, , La Diputación Provincial, 141–208.Google Scholar

54 Rodríguez, , “La Constitución de 1824,” 520–530. See also Acta Constitutiva de la Federación: Crónicas (Mexico, 1974).Google Scholar

55 Although the Viceroyalty of New Spain included in its general jurisdiction Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guatemala–the provinces of Central America, I have not included those regions in this discussion because they never really considered themselves part of New Spain/Mexico. Only the Audiencia of Guatemala achieved independence in 1821 and joined the Mexican Empire. The Central American provinces, however, had always possessed a separate identity. After Iturbide’s abdication, they decided to form their own country. The Mexican Congress accepted their decision and the two regions separated peacefully. See: Benson, Nettie Lee and Berry, Charles R., “The Central American Delegation to the First Constituent Congress of Mexico, 1822–1823,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 49:4 (November 1969), 679–702;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rodríguez, Mario, The Cádiz Experiment in Central America, 1808–1826 (Berkeley, 1978), 147–237.Google Scholar

56 Although several provinces of Mexico declared independence and established their own governments, they did not intend to separate from the rest of the country. They were simply asserting their right to home rule. The Central American provinces seceded, of course. But they are not included in this analysis for the reasons cited above.

57 Alamán, , Historia de Méjico, 5, 812.Google Scholar

58 I have considered the reasons for the “failure” to consolidate the new nation in some of my other works, see, for example, Rodríguez O., Jaime E., Down from Colonialism: Mexico’s Nineteenth-Century Crisis (Los Angeles, 1983);Google Scholar and my “ de la Primera República, La historiografía,” in Memorias del simposio de historiografía mexicanista (Mexico, 1990), 147–159.Google Scholar