Talk:Agustín de Iturbide
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Agustín de Iturbide appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 November 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know||
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on October 31, 2012, October 31, 2013, and October 31, 2014.|
umm so what was his greatest accomplishment?
He was the first leader of a sovereign Mexican government. Its hard to overestimate the significance of that. How different is he than who Washington would have been in U.S. history had he acceded to the demands of many around him to have proclaimed himself a monarch (other than Washington didn't start the Revolution by being on George III's side and then switching)?
I totally agree with you, he was just a lucky enough person who was there at the right place, at the right time. Agustin de Iturbide's descendants have no constitutional claim on Mexico whatsoever, they are the descendants of a commoner who crowned himself Emperor, but did not even last a year in this position. The site of the Imperial House of Mexico is very distorted.
Commoner birth is less important than some sort of following. If such a following exists in signifigant number it should be mentioned. After all Napoleon's descendent succeeded him and thus his line was very important despite not being royal or of French aristocracy.
- I would agree, but you are ignoring that two of his descendents were adopted by Maximilian of Habsurg and given the title Princes of Mexico.
A King for a Day sires a perpetual royal family. OK, he was named emperor on the street by some soldiers. He was emperor for a few months. What is pathetic is that his descendants still claim to be blue-blooded. There are still some around in the U. S. and Australia devoting their lives to let others know they are princes and princesses. I think that's quite pathetic. A king for a day makes a perpetual "royal" family. Pathetic. More even so that no one in Mexico knows about this family. Just remember *THAT* Mexico included California, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and more -- [[User:|User:]] 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
--- Iturbide is the analog of what Washington was to the U.S. He wasn't "lucky to be there", he was the sole author of the Mexican Independence, as the Insurgents had no means to achieve it anymore. He is the true father of the nation and he gave the country the name of México and it's banner. His legacy lives on the Mexican colors, the nation's name and the fact that it is an independent nation. I'd advise you to please read about a subject (and consult more than children's elementary history book) before commenting on such matters. Also, his descendants are merely that, his descendants. They have made their life, each and every one of them independently to whatever claim they could have to a Mexican throne. I don't see how it is fit of you to slander them. Questioning Iturbide's importance to México is the same as questioning Washington's importance to the U.S.A: Without them, the countries would simply not exist, at least who we know them. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the succession box is appropriate, at least as currently, and think we'd be better off without it. Certainly he was neither immediately preceeded nor succeeded by anyone else with the title of "Emperor of Mexico". I suppose we could have some sort of "leaders of Mexico" listing; perhaps being preceeded by the Viceroys? -- Infrogmation 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- The userbox as it is right now is in line with current practice where we list the leaders consecutively and make a note if the title changed with the successor. I was in fact thinking of adding the last Viceroy to this userbox too, it's a good idea. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose chaning the title of the page to either "Agustin I of Mexico" or, using the English translation, "Augustus I of Mexico". Seeing as he was a monarch, no matter short of a period, the title should be changed to reflect his official final title. Hell, Louis XVII of France reigned for only a couple years, and that was as a child, but his page uses his official title. Iturbide was sworn in as Emperor in an official ceremony. He has as much legitimacy as any other monarchs to have the page title changed to reflect this. -Alex, 188.8.131.52 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC).
The guy is best known as "Iturbide," not "Agustín I," and naming conventions should not be a suicide pact. This is how he is best known, he was emperor for only a couple of months, and here he should stay. john k (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Either Both Accents or Neither
As there is an accent on the “i” in his first name, shouldn’t there also be one on the “u” in his family name: Agustín de Itúrbide? (Compare the article on his grandson, Salvador de Itúrbide.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The name Iturbide is stressed on the second "i", not on the "u"; that is the usage in Mexico. Therefore, we never write an accent mark on the word. Agustín, on the other hand, does have the stress on the "i", so we do write the accent mark there. Greetings. Cheval Fou 12 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay, an article I started in 2002 just got featured on the front page as a new article! LOL. Thanks to all who've improved it in the years since! Happily, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Castizo where it should read Mestizo
In the sentence below, "castizo" should be turned into "mestizo".
"... the union of a castizo (one with 1/4 Amerindian ancestry) ...."
Also, perhaps we need a reference for the definition of "mestizo". It's not clear that mestizo must be 1/4th Amerindian as opposed to 1/2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Some changes needed
This article is good but I feel that it could mention data often overlooked about Iturbide. History's compromise is to the truth. Iturbide is the one and only father of Mexican Independence. He, and only he spearheaded the movement which (after 11 years of unsuccessful, bloody war) was largely peaceful and bloodless. Only he realized the importance of uniting royalists and insurgent interests. For decades, the interest of the reining government in Mexico led to him being discredited as an arch-villain comparable to the devil himself in official history books, but the historical documents and data from that time point to another conclusion. Stick with me, I provide source at the end. I wholeheartedly urge you to let me add these to the page. I only wish for the memory of our nation's father to be well-represented, and I know that english wikipedia is by far more consulted and truthful.
These are the additions or corrections I propose to make to this article:
- The plan of Iguala didn't promise equality to "all of Spanish blood, whether born in Spain or in the Americas". It promised equality and abandonment of the complicated caste system. There would be no criollos, mestizos, mulatos and what not, there would only be Mexicans. I quote:
"12 º. Todos los habitantes de la nueva España, sin distinción alguna de Europeos, Africanos, ni Indios, son Ciudadanos de esta Monarquía con opción a todo empleo, según su mérito y virtudes."
Translated by me as: "12º. All the inhabitants of New Spain, without making any distinction between Europeans, Africans or Indians (understood here as native americans or native mexicans), are citizens of this monarchy, capable of choosing any job, in accordance to their merits and virtues".
This, taken from a transcript of the Plan of Iguala, published here: http://guerrero.gob.mx/articulos/plan-de-iguala/
- The adoption of a kingdom or empire by the Plan of Iguala cannot be interpreted as a negative, because at the time this was the norm and the Mexican people did not know any other form of government, as a people and as a whole. Not only that, but it was through assuring a Mexican kingdom that Iturbide was able to bring the royalists (by then, the most powerful army since the Insurgency was very weak) into his cause.
- In the matter of the Congress, it was true that it was handpicked by Iturbide and that he chose people he considered friends and allies. However, the very fact of Iturbide's fate serves to prove that this congress turned on Iturbide almost the very moment it was instated. Amongst them he began to be called "the dictator" or "the tyrant" and they opposed most of Iturbide's motions. Remember that the Mexican Empire was a Constitutional Empire, and not an absolute one. Iturbide didn't give himself a large yearly salary, it was appointed to him by the congress upon his being named Emperor. This is largely irrelevant because the nation was bankrupt from the beginning and the salary was never given to him. He in fact asked for his first payment to be given to the Mexican state and used for the betterment of society, which, again, was largely irrelevant.
- The Cadiz Constitution was never going to be implemented in the new Mexican nation. This is obvious: the members of the church and the royalists were against a constitution that would greatly diminish the powers of the King. This is why the royalists began to take an interest in the notion of Independence from Spain (but still as a monarchy) in the first place. From the beginning, it was agreed that having achieved Independence, the new nation would adhere to how things were managed before the Cadiz Constitution.
- Iturbide did NOT place the crown upon his own head. It was placed upon his head by don Rafael Mangino y Mendívil, who was the president of the Congress. The false accusation that the article makes is hardly objective, and obtuse, since there is a painting of the crowning featured in the article itself where Iturbide is being crowned, and not placing the crown upon his head.
- Iturbide presented his resignation as emperor of his own will. The congress did not accept it, on the basis that Iturbide's naming as Emperor was illegitimate, because at the time when the congress voted him Emperor, they felt threatened by the masses claiming Iturbide was such. This was all done despite one deputy claiming that he voted of his own free will and never felt threatened. Also, it is often ignore that, upon the congress dismissing the emperor, the plan of Iguala and the Treaty of Córdoba, it was also dismissing it's own power, which came from the emperor and thus, had no legal right to do anything. This was acknowledged and dismissed by the Congress.
- In his way to exile, Iturbide was escorted very harshly by former friend and insurgent Nicolás Bravo. Congress determined that he should be led through hidden roads, because they did not want public demonstrations by the people, hailing him as Emperor.
- Though he was awarded a pension, such was never received because of how he was seen by the Congress. He struggled financially throughout all of his exile, despite claims by Servando Teresa de Mier in congress, that Iturbide had stolen from Mexico and taken to Europe a great deal of money.
- Iturbide was unaware of the new law which named him a traitor in whichever moment he placed a foot on Mexican soil, for it was approved when he was on his way by sea. The legitimacy of this law was disputed as it went against all known precepts of the law (making a law that referred to a particular case, instead of issuing a general law which could then be applied to a particular case.)
- Iturbide can be considered the first Mexican caudillo to have political power, however, ever since he worked for the cause of Independence, he became a rather pacifist person. People loved him, so yes, he was popular, but, in power, he never threatened opposition with violent retaliation. He sent armies against armed rebels, yes, but not only is this understandable but also irrelevant, as the commanders of said armies kept turning on Iturbide and joining Santa Anna. To say he was a dictator, and a violent one at that, does him a grave injustice and falls upon the "strong partisan slant" against Iturbide that the article itself already mentions. Like Díaz, he to chose to exile himself from the country instead of taking arms and leading a bloody defense of his empire.
A clarification on this point is also needed. A caudillo is a military leader who gains political power, and not necessarily a dictator.
- The Aftermath of Iturbide's execution should be discussed as well. It was very badly received amongst the citizens of Mexico, even by people who had rebelled against Iturbide, and the act itself was condemned or deemed illegal by many. If authorized, I will provide quotes on the matter.
These points are all taken from Armando Fuentes Aguirre's book: "La Otra Historia de México: Hidalgo e Iturbide. La Gloria y el Olvido". Fuentes Aguirre, known in México as "Catón" is a very well respected and acclaimed journalist. His series: "La Otra Historia de México", comprises 4 books, ranging from the Mexican war for Independence to the Porfiriato, and it has been critically acclaimed. The author himself quotes testimonies of the day, diaries, transcripts of official documents, letters and newspaper articles, personal correspondence, etc.
In the section "Dissolution of Congress", it is stated that Guadalupe Bocanegra was one of the leaders who oppossed Iturbide in 1822. However, that seems impossible, given that she was executed in 1817. Perhaps the author meant Jose María Bocanegra instead? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)